Sunday in the Link with George
Monday, December 17, 2018 at 3:12PM This link roundup was intended for last night, hence the title. We cannot be bound by time here at TFE
• Jake Gyllenhaal omg he's joined instagram and on his second post he's singing Sondheim with Annaleigh Ashford. L-O-V-E
• Vulture a fun interview with Patrick Wilson on Aquaman and much more
• Talkhouse Bruce LaBruce on underknown Canadian Christmas thriller The Silent Partner
• MNPP Stephan James eight times
• Jezebel Oscar-nominated actress/ sometime director Sondra Locke (The Heart is a Lonely Hunter) has died but the obituaries are all about her turbulent relationship with Clint Eastwood
• THR Netflix is making a Dark Crystal prequel with Taron Egerton, Anya Taylor-Joy, and Nathalie Emmanuel as the lead gelflings
• AV Club more Emmy rule changes around what counts as a TV movie
• Deadline Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan to star in a lesbian romance
• Variety Lumiere award nominations from France (not to be confused with the Césars which are the Oscar equivalent but announce later)
• The New Yorker a convincing pan of The Marvelous Mrs Maisel (and you don't see that every day!) that ends with a recommend list of other 'high-feminine mythmaking' worth checking out
• Polygon talks to Phillipa Boyens about the best moment in Return of the King for its 15th anniversary
Finally...
The IndieWire Critics poll has been released. I continue to be dumbfounded that critics support, nay, EMBRACE, category fraud as if they, too, have no respect for any actor who isn't the lead of a movie. You'd think critics (of all people) would be the check and balance on this sort of anti-art gamemanships. It's dumbfounding because they have nothing to gain by kowtowing to the whims of publicists and the egos of movie stars, rather than voting with integrity. They get access either way. I know as one such critic who everyone knows rejects category fraud wherever I see it. As with SAG, 60% of the Supporting Actress list is leading ladies. If you're wondering why Bradley Cooper missed the Best Actor list please know that for some reason he was left off of the pulldown list during voting. I wrote him in but I imagine a lot of people would not have gone to the trouble, not for any nefarious reason but because he slipped their mind when they did not see him on the list of choices. I do not support these kind of shenanigans! But the winners are Roma, Alfonso Cuarón, Olivia Colman, Ethan Hawke, Rachel Weisz (for best leading supporting actress), and Steven Yeun.
Reader Comments (15)
That Emily Nussbaum piece on Mrs. Maisel is so convincing that I can't watch the show without thinking about it. She's right!
It's dreadful that Cooper wasn't listed in that Indiewire poll, but 34% is an enormous first-place finish for Hawke nonetheless. If he doesn't get an Oscar nod, it will be supremely disappointing.
They should just do away with the supporting categories and rename them Best Performance from a Leading Actor Who Is Older/Younger/In a Movie With Another Actor of the Same Gender/Not as Well Known/Doesn't Have an Aggressive Publicist. It really is ridiculous how supporting character roles are kind of being shunted out of any accolades from both big name critics and even smaller regional critics groups.
Love that Saoirse Ronan keeps getting interesting roles. I hope when she finally gets her Oscar it will be for a worthy performance (ditto Amy Adams). Lady Bird or Brooklyn would have been perfect Oscar wins, truly.
Nathaniel, I know we’re a bit far off, but will you be doing any best of the decade projects next year?
I've thought a Mary Anning biopic was a great idea for a while now, and I didn't even know there was an LGBT angle to her story. (I still think she should turn up in a "Doctor Who" episode as well.)
Unfortunately, I think the only way to discourage greedy leading actors from infiltrating the supporting categories is to give them a less flattering name.
Best Performance by a Character Actor / Actress*
Best Performance in a Limited or Cameo Role (abbreviated as "Best Limited Actor / Actress")
*Not that there is anything unattractive about being a character actor, mind you, but the associations with the term would likely disincentivize the likes of Julia Roberts or Emma Stone from agreeing to the categorization.
Alternately, the Academy could go back to giving supporting winners congratulatory plaques, or not televise the supporting awards.
It would be a shame if it came to that, because every so often you do get a roster of genuine supporting performances deserving of recognition. But those years are far and few between, and the industry and most critics are not doing anything about it.
The best solution I've heard of to the blatant fraud in the acting categories is to expand them using the same rules as for Best Picture. With up to 10 slots there wouldn't be such a scramble for those 5 limited positions. Then maybe the Supporting Categories would have real supporting players.
By the way, the short lists are out and most of the biggies made the cut. So happy Girl didn't and Birds of Passage did. Disappointed but not surprised that I Am Not a Witch and Border got the chop.
I admire that you still find new ways to use the word "Link" after all these years.
Category fraud seems at its worst this year. But the last few years have been pretty bad. If you look at Oscar nomination lists from the decades past, there was never this amount of fraud in the supporting categories. Performances in genuine supporting roles got nominated almost all the time.
The current plethora of category fraud gives the impression that films can only have one leading role - or at least only one leading role in a certain gender. That's nonsense. Meanwhile, as Nathaniel so painstakingly points out - and I wish publicists, actors and above all voters would listen - genuine supporting performances get squeezed out.
I think the Academy is right to leave placement to individual voters. We all try to come up with a workable definition of leading and supporting but there isn't one really. It's common sense. Which unfortunately tends to take a tumble in the face of greed for awards. It's particularly disappointing that critics endorse it.
Amy Sherman-Palladino exhausts me too. I'm with Emily Nussbaum
ken s.: Not up to 10. A flat ten. And allowances for multiple nominations for a single actor. Not one credited nomination for multiple roles, multiple credited nominations for multiple roles. Maybe a flat ten for both lead and supporting?
What would that look like this year? My guess is this:
Actor:
Cooper, Bale, Mortensen, Ali, Hawke, Malek, Chalamet, J.D. Washington, Dafoe, Redford.
Actress:
Close, Gaga, Colman, Stone, Weisz, Blunt, Blunt, McCarthy, Collette, Aparicio.
Supporting Actor:
Grant, Elliot, Driver, Rockwell, Jordan, Hamilton, Yeun, Hornsby, Carell, Kaluuya.
Supporting Actress:
Adams, King, Yeoh, Robbie, Kidman, Foy, Cardellini, Debicki, Seyfried, Spacek.
Fight category fraud! Don't associate or join groups that do! Takes away from credence when being a member doesn't benefit enough to compromise ones principles to such a degree! Groups don't have to be perfect, but continued support of such contrary views to oneself when there's no great sacrifice is a choice. (Just a general statement to any that it applies to)
I still think Bradley and Glenn are winning the Oscars.
Patrick Wilson is great--Loved that interview.
Very happy to see Nussbaum's piece on Mrs. Maisel.
I have already voiced my displeasure here about the series... and it's nice to see that I'm not the only one who can't go along with the show's insulting Jewish stereotypes, utterly fake late-50s Jewish NYC setting, 20-20 hindsight sexual politics, and other sappy bushwa. I've enjoyed shows set in the past that were scrupulous about getting the time right (Mad Men) and shows that were sketchy and stylized but still worked (Masters of Sex)… but I just can't enjoy this one, everything about it just screams BOGUS to me.
The Silent Partner! Christopher Plummer, the scariest villain. (And the creepiest Santa ever).