Oscar Nominations

[Sabin]

It occurs to me that we've been talking about Andrea Riseborough as somehow cheating Viola Davis or Danielle Deadwyler out of an Oscar nomination. Nobody has brought up Michelle Williams as being a culprit. There's a gossipy industry podcast called The Town where apparently it was known that she was going for Best Actress in no small part because being nominated for Best Actress helps with her asking salary price and the roles she is offered. Being nominated for Best Supporting Actress positions her more as a character actor and not a leading lady. But she's clearly supporting in The Fabelmans. Any other actress would be pushed for supporting almost without question.

That's more the definition of industry privilege than Andrea Riseborough, a well-connected but publicly anonymous actor using her connections to get her no-budget indie seen and supported.

[Big Magilla]

The circumstances were different.

Hester Street was a small independent film but 1975 was such a weak year for lead actress that no special effort had to be made to put Carol Kane across. Everyone loved her.

Sally Kirkland's nomination was due to her self-promotion. Her nomination came at the expense of some highly regarded performances including those of Maggie Smith in The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne, Lillian Gish inThe Whales of August, Faye Dunaway in Barfly, and Joanne Woodward in The Glass Menagerie.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
People are acting like the Riseborough thing is absolutely unprecedented, but wasn't the Javier Bardem/Biutiful campaign kind of similar?: a mostly unsung performance highly touted by big stars (Sean Penn and Julia Roberts prominently, as I recall). Of course, Bardem was better known at the time, so it didn't seem quite as startling. But I think it's another example of Sabin's theory of the case: that what helps most in situations like this is having the right friends.

It's not unprecedented. I think the biggest difference between the two films is that Biutiful had a bigger presence on the landscape. It was directed by a Best Picture/Director-nominated international auteur, it had already won Best Actor at the Cannes Film Festival, it had Focus Features behind it, and it already had an audience behind it. To Leslie had an impact that was virtually nonexistence. It showed up on the National Board of Reviews Top Indies List, it picked up a Gotham and Film Independent nomination but so do countless performances every year that don't get nominated.

...that being said, yes, it's the same thing.

Maybe somebody could tell me if the Sally Kirkland/Anna thing is similar. Or the Carol Kane/Hester Street nomination.

[Mister Tee]

The Academy seems to love these extremely masochistic turns, particularly by actresses (*) – from Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves to Halle Berry, Charlize Theron in Monster, Marion Cotillard as Piaf to Kristen Stewart as Ms. Spencer-Windsor. It doesn’t necessarily reflect on the quality of the thespianism involved – Watson was brilliant, Cotillard decent, Theron passable, Stewart misguided and Berry awful. I’d locate de Armas somewhere in the lower bracket of this list.

* There were (male) actors too – Nicolas Cage was richly rewarded for his (highly overrated) turn in Leaving Las Vegas, for example, but they are fewer.

I don't that much disagree with your evaluations of those actresses, but I think far more highly of Cage's performance there (and close to there alone).

Interesting grouping, and I'd add that it's not just the Academy that goes for this; critics can get infatuated with such performances, as well. For many years, I'd heard of the legend of Barbara Loden in Wanda, a performance critics adored. I found it right in that wheelhouse you describe: low-esteem female character (IMDB actually has "Feelings of inadequacy" as a keyword for the film) putting herself into one degrading situation after another.

Honestly, I've been wary of To Leslie for this very reason: it feels like the kind of character-debasing-herself movie I never much like but which often gets huge praise from critics and actors. I hope to be proven wrong when I get around to watching the film.

[Big Magilla]

Riseborough's character in To Leslie is not a masochist. She is a user. To the film's credit and her performance, her character is not sugarcoated.

[Okri]

The Academy seems to love these extremely masochistic turns, particularly by actresses (*) – from Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves to Halle Berry, Charlize Theron in Monster, Marion Cotillard as Piaf to Kristen Stewart as Ms. Spencer-Windsor. It doesn’t necessarily reflect on the quality of the thespianism involved – Watson was brilliant, Cotillard decent, Theron passable, Stewart misguided and Berry awful. I’d locate de Armas somewhere in the lower bracket of this list.

* There were (male) actors too – Nicolas Cage was richly rewarded for his (highly overrated) turn in Leaving Las Vegas, for example, but they are fewer.

Not gonna lie, you had me in the beginning.

[Uri]

People are acting like the Riseborough thing is absolutely unprecedented, but wasn't the Javier Bardem/Biutiful campaign kind of similar?: a mostly unsung performance highly touted by big stars (Sean Penn and Julia Roberts prominently, as I recall). Of course, Bardem was better known at the time, so it didn't seem quite as startling. But I think it's another example of Sabin's theory of the case: that what helps most in situations like this is having the right friends.

Not exactly the same: Javier Bardem is already an Academy favorite. Biutiful was also an Inarittu film contending for Best International Feature at the time and Bardem also had stronger precursor support including a BAFTA nomination. Andrea Riseborough has never been nominated, only has a Chicago Critics and Indie Spirit nominations for a tiny film from a TV director.

I haven't seen Riseborough's film yet, but I guess she had that masochism factor I am talking about on her side too. It sure as hell worked for Bardem with that self-pity fest which was Biutiful.

[Uri]

Also like de Armas, whatever Uri thinks.

Well – my recommendation to skip Blonde had nothing to do with my take on the film nor the performance in its core – it was all about my concern for Magilla’s delicate nerves.

Didn’t fool you, did I? No, I wasn’t impressed with either.

Natalie Wood was rather bad in Splendor in the Grass but she was so sincerely committed people were – ahmm, I wouldn’t say fooled, let’s say - persuaded to think she was actually good. The Academy seems to love these extremely masochistic turns, particularly by actresses (*) – from Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves to Halle Berry, Charlize Theron in Monster, Marion Cotillard as Piaf to Kristen Stewart as Ms. Spencer-Windsor. It doesn’t necessarily reflect on the quality of the thespianism involved – Watson was brilliant, Cotillard decent, Theron passable, Stewart misguided and Berry awful. I’d locate de Armas somewhere in the lower bracket of this list.

* There were (male) actors too – Nicolas Cage was richly rewarded for his (highly overrated) turn in Leaving Las Vegas, for example, but they are fewer.

[Big Magilla]

Just watched To Leslie.

It was better than I expected, but I think Tee's reference to Sally Kirkland's nomination Anna in the predictions thread was an accurate comparison. Riseborough plays a drunk who sobers up, a character we've seen many times in films and TV dramas. The more interesting characters to me were the soft touch motel manager (Marc Maron) who gives her a job and her put upon son (Owen Teague) who forgives her more than once.

Does she deserve an Oscar nomination over Danielle Deadwyler? Hell, no. Over Viola Davis? Maybe, but will it help her career in the long run? Could be. After all, Sally Kirkland is still around. She's sixth billed in the new senior citizens comedy, 80 for Brady, behind Rita Moreno, Sally Field, Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, and Harry Hanlin.

[anonymous1980]

People are acting like the Riseborough thing is absolutely unprecedented, but wasn't the Javier Bardem/Biutiful campaign kind of similar?: a mostly unsung performance highly touted by big stars (Sean Penn and Julia Roberts prominently, as I recall). Of course, Bardem was better known at the time, so it didn't seem quite as startling. But I think it's another example of Sabin's theory of the case: that what helps most in situations like this is having the right friends.

Not exactly the same: Javier Bardem is already an Academy favorite. Biutiful was also an Inarittu film contending for Best International Feature at the time and Bardem also had stronger precursor support including a BAFTA nomination. Andrea Riseborough has never been nominated, only has a Chicago Critics and Indie Spirit nominations for a tiny film from a TV director.

[Mister Tee]

As always, further thoughts upon reflection:

In the performing categories, I mainly dealt with which nominations were surprises, and should have mentioned which ones made me happy. Very happy for Colin Farrell, Bill Nighy and Brendan Gleeson, who all qualify as first-time nominees, but have been prominent quite a long while at this point -- 20-30 years, each -- and are well worthy of career recognition. Hey, same for Jamie Lee Curtis, who came to public attention when I was still in my 20s, and finally gets to go to the Oscars as a nominee.

ON EDIT: How could I not have mentioned Michelle Yeoh? Strictly because her nomination was so certain, I forgot to say how happy I am for her. A few years ago, after Crazy Rich Asians, it seemed she'd be relegated to Dragon Mother roles. Who knew there'd be so much richer a part for her just up ahead?

On the younger end, I have the same feeling about Mescal that danfrank expressed: that this is just the beginning of a fruitful career. As I said when I spoke about the movie, it's more my vivid impression of him from Normal People that propels my enthusiasm for him than this particular performance...and I suspect a lot of voters have the same "we know how good he can be" sense about him, without which he might not have made the list.

Happy for Hong Chau, though I haven't seen The Whale yet -- I still feel like she was robbed for Downsizing, and she was pretty terrific in The Menu, as well.

Also glad for Stephanie Hsu, who I thought was a standout in Everything Everywhere. Also like de Armas, whatever Uri thinks.

And let's hear it for two directors -- Field and McDonagh -- who had films best picture nominated (Field in the only-5 era) but missed under directing, and now get some vindication.

Damn, there are a lot of movies I need to get to between now and March 12th -- partly my fault for evading the blockbusters (I'll eventually shell out for Avatar, but Wakanda Forever can wait for home viewing), but also because there are a lot of singletons (Causeway, To Leslie, Bardo, Empire of Light) or small doubletons (Women Talking, Living); plus I've seen no animateds beyond Pinocchio, only 2 so far of the Internationals, and none of the feature docs. Going to be a busy stretch.

Now that it's out of the race, may I say I never quite got the rallying around Top Gun's cinematography? It's impressive technically, I suppose, but I tend to think of modern cinematography as chiefly a matter of lighting, and I saw nothing along those lines to impress me. Going for the whiz-bang of Maverick felt to me like a throwback to the days when The Towering Inferno won the category, and I'm glad to see it gone.

People are acting like the Riseborough thing is absolutely unprecedented, but wasn't the Javier Bardem/Biutiful campaign kind of similar?: a mostly unsung performance highly touted by big stars (Sean Penn and Julia Roberts prominently, as I recall). Of course, Bardem was better known at the time, so it didn't seem quite as startling. But I think it's another example of Sabin's theory of the case: that what helps most in situations like this is having the right friends.

[Bog]

These type of articles are basically "death to the future Oscars" in my humble opinion...and the SEO here is further disappointment as clicks will abound!!

The immediacy and all hands on deck nature of the interwebs has changed the landscape SO much....hard to fathom anyone making a straight faced argument, 25 years ago...for Air Force One to be amongst the most nominated films because it was a big movie with a HUGE star and made a shit ton of money...or for My Best Friend's Wedding to be HIGHLY involved with a nom morning...as it starred an at the time IT girl and again...made a shit ton of money! Those films were just those films were just those films...and existing outside the sphere of Oscar was its correct place.

As Tee invoked in another thread...the Oscars finding their Peter Principle appears to be something for which Entertainment Weekly yearns.

Entertainment Weekly News: The most shocking snubs and surprises of the 2023 Oscar nominations.

https://ew.com/awards/oscars/2023-oscar ... surprises/

[Sabin]

danfrank wrote
Though I know nothing about and have nothing against Andrea Riseborough, it’s curious to me why, given the number of extremely talented but unrecognized actors out there, why the passionate campaign among Hollywood elite to promote a white actor versus a BIPOC one? Why not give a push for someone like Jeremy Pope? It’s s a rhetorical question, of course.

Not having seen To Leslie, I'm totally qualified to answer. Jk, but seriously, there are elements of this that I find very heartening as well as sort of a bummer.

What I find so heartening about this nomination is that it's a nomination for a truly independent film. This film had no budget nor a distributor capable of really handling this kid of a promotion. And although there were several contenders for Best Actress this year (really, you could fill a respectable slate of ten) much of the enthusiasm for them was either soft or was forgotten by Oscar voting.* To Leslie didn't really exist until Oscar voting. So, the idea that a truly independent film can spring from nowhere, launch a successful Oscar campaign, get a well-liked actor her first real spotlight and nomination for a performance that by all accounts is pretty terrific is a good thing. It'll inspire more independent films to do the same, and inspire more independent films in general. Maybe that's reaching but I'm here for it.

On the other hand, this nomination reminds me a little (just a little) of Wendell Willkie's nomination for the Republican nomination which Alice Longworth joked "sprang from the grassroots of every country club across America." You ask why Riseborough and not Jeremy Pope? Well, what's the difference? The Inspection had A24 behind it. Certainly, if you've got an awards bait film behind you, you want A24 and not... what was it? Momentum? I think you can only run the kind of campaign that To Leslie had if you have connections. Sure, it helps that Andrea Riseborough has been around a bit longer than Jeremy Pope. She went to RADA. He went to AMDA. But the director of To Leslie is married to Mary McCormack who by all accounts called everybody. She called Howard Stern (her Private Parts co-star) and asked him to talk about it, which he did. All of a sudden, To Leslie is on Obama's top ten list. I don't know if Jeremy Pope and Elegance Bratton have those kinds of phone calls they can make.

In making sense of it, I spoke to a friend of mine about the nomination for Women Talking, a film I had written off but when I saw the credits (Plan B, Frances McDormand) I reminded myself "Oh that's right. These are industry awards."

We're going to see a lot of people claiming they can To Leslie a nomination in the future. I think you can only do it if you give a performance and a rolodex that is that good.

[Okri]

The Academy’s push to diversify its membership so as to be more inclusive of BIPOC-focused films and BIPOC actors does not seem to have come to fruition thus far. If the nominations are meant to reflect the American population where white people now make up less than 60% of the population, then white people are still WAY over represented in these nominations. On an international scale it’s even more distorted. If you want to make the argument that it should be solely about quality (I.e., color blind) then why is it that what is perceived as quality is so white/Euro-focused? It’s hard to make the argument that there isn’t institutional racism at work, even if it is completely unconscious. Though I know nothing about and have nothing against Andrea Riseborough, it’s curious to me why, given the number of extremely talented but unrecognized actors out there, why the passionate campaign among Hollywood elite to promote a white actor versus a BIPOC one? Why not give a push for someone like Jeremy Pope? It’s s a rhetorical question, of course.

I disagree, to be honest, but I also don't want to trigger a pile on. Lots to think about, at any rate.

[Eenusch]

If the nominations are meant to reflect the American population...

If this is the goal or mandate than abolish AMPAS and let a government-controlled politburo pick the nominees, Soviet-style.