Huh, I don't think I saw this. I think I would've rated her chances more promisingly had I known this. It's pretty classic nomination fodder but not as deserving of conversation as Paul Walter Hauser or Sam Rockwell, who is certainly more deserving of a nomination for this film than his impersonation in Vice.dws1982 wrote
So apparently Kathy Bates is listed in the Lead Actress category for the SAG Awards, which matters because SAG voters do not get to choose category placements, unlike Oscar voters. I have no idea if the size of her role is borderline Lead/Support, or if she's genuinely supporting and this was just a mistake on WB's part. I know their FYC ads have promoted her as a Supporting Actress.
This film is underrated. It's far from perfect but it deserved better than to be vilified on the basis of one stupid character (Olivia Wilde/Kathy Scruggs) and for being such a historic box office failure. It's an odd film with a lot of circling points of focus that Eastwood doesn't totally bring together. I'm not convinced he's the right filmmaker for the job. Paul Walter Hauser is excellent. Daniel is right. Had Jonah Hill or a more famous actor been cast, it would've been distracting. Hauser brings the opposite of movie stardom to this role and certainly should've been in the conversation for Best Actor. Clint Eastwood does well when he is following him. Together they paint a portrait of a man with so pure a love of country (and law enforcement) that others find him hard to take seriously and dismiss him as "fitting the profile." But he's also a source of comedy who lives in his own world, and Sam Rockwell finds it exhausting to deal with because he's such an odd character. Clint Eastwood has spent the last decade details portraits of everyday heroism and Paul Walter Hauser's Richard Jewell is an unusual one and a memorable one.
Less successful is Clint Eastwood's work with the FBI or the news media because it's just so broad. It's supposed to feel like out-of-control vultures circling this man almost out of habit. I suspect the film's original attached director, Paul Greengrass, would've done a better job of making this a more successfully paranoid spectacle. As for the film's anti-establishment politics (anti-media, anti-FBI), it's hard to think of how a fair and balanced film about Richard Jewell really plays out. Between this and a de-fanged one, I'm fine with this one. Did Kathy Scruggs deserve better than Olivia Wilde's outlandish reporter? Sure, probably. She's not good but this is easily the most memorable Olivia Wilde performance I can think of. Jon Hamm fares just as bad to be honest. I really enjoy how he subverts his movie star handsomeness but this character is loathsome.
Not totally successful. Tt's stretched out at 2+ hours and there isn't much of a story to tell the more it goes along, but it's interesting in Clint Eastwood's canon and worth seeing for Hauser's performance.
BTW: I thought I saw a major continuity flaw at 01:16:00 when Sam Rockwell goes from not wearing a hat to wearing a hat in the middle of a scene. But upon closer inspection, he puts the hat on in the reflection of the mirror. Not when the camera is trained on him. Which makes it feel like a continuity flaw when it is not. Oh, that Sam Rockwell and his hats.