Best Actress Predictions and that Michelle Williams kerfuffle
Friday, September 23, 2022 at 5:00PM by Nathaniel R
As you have undoubtedly heard by now, Michelle Williams has opted for a Lead Actress campaign for Steven Spielberg's memoir film The Fablemans. This shocked both the armchair and professional pundit community a good percentage of whom had already handed her the Best Supporting Actress statue a week ago. This despite it being a full six months until Oscar night (March 12th) with other movies yet to screen when everyone decided to call it.
Some people are angry because they feel the role is clearly supporting but most seem angry because they thought they had it all figured out already. But opinions vary (like they always do) about what constitutes a leading role versus a supporting one. Consider...
Glad to help! She's in lead because she's a lead, with more screen time than all but one Supporting Actress nominee in the last 20 years, more than half the ACTRESS nominees in the last 20 years, and more than she does in My Week with Marilyn. No one wants category fraud, right?
— Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC) September 22, 2022
Here is where I must get personal and share with you the experience of this great divide. As someone who has observed the Oscar race my whole life and been writing about it for about twenty, i have felt a slow centrifugal drift from the center. I didn't want this to happen! And this is not, I repeat not, because I have lost love or interest in the Oscars. It is also not a loss of interest in the unique and specific art of awards campaigning whether that happens to be silly, sordid, or serious. It is merely that the nature of Punditry has moved further and further away from discussing art and more to just punditry for punditry's sake with art as a tiny possibly irrelevant afterthought, movies as dinner mints. I first noticed this a handful of years ago when people started asking me very early in the year who would win. The question used to be "who do you think will get nominated?" which I was always happy to answer. Those are very different questions with very different mindsets; One is about the conclusion and other about the journey.
It's such a game to people now that nobody even wants to see the movies, preferring to proclaim winners based on trailers (or even film stills). The "locked to win" discussions start earlier and earlier each year and it's really killing the conversation but for, arguably, who can shout the loudest or with the most authority about WHAT WILL BE six months from now. That's SIX MONTHS in which we could be talking about the movies and the performances themselves.
As some of you know there have been financial struggles at TFE HQ so I have not personally been able to hit the out of town festivals this year (NYFF is home base and screenings start Monday - yay!) While I have not yet seen The Fabelmans, my position would remain the same even if I had. Let's see all the movies first (some yet to screen and few in theaters even if they have screened at festivals). Then we can discuss the merits, acting and otherwise. Then we can get to the grand declarations about what will happen (according to our own oft-faulty crystal balls). Until then, by all means, have fun with predicting but why force any stories? Why all the f***ng before the foreplay? The uncertainty, the in-the-moment twists, the building emotional arcs, and the big triumphant payoffs (or losses) are where all the joy and the magic and the drama are, just as with the individual movie themselves.
In short, Stop trying to make Oscar night happen in September (or earlier). It's like reading the last page of a novel well before you've been introduced to all the characters or seen what the plot was about and which themes took hold. With that said, here are the updated predictions for Best Actress. Predictions... not certainties, not desires, not forced narratives. At this writing, September 23rd, I have not seen all the movies yet and neither has anyone else.
Best Actress, Michelle Williams, Punditry, The Fabelmans
Reader Comments (23)
This could also give an extra micro-second of tension on the big night, as Denzel (or whoever The Academy chooses to stand in for Will Smith) reads "And the Oscar goes to... Michelle...
AMPAS snubbed Marilyn Monroe for an Oscar nomination for her wonderful work in Some Like It Hot. The movie star never was recognized by the Academy. Now Ana de Armas may join Michelle Williams with a Best Actress nod for playing the celebrated blonde beauty in a bio pic.
Sad, sad, sad.
Great write-up Nathaniel.
Let’s enjoy the movies.
I saw Women Talking last night. Still thinking about it. So moved by it and can’t imagine just one actress winning the supporting Oscar. What an ensemble of work.
The Academy should take drastic action to put a definitive end to category fraud.
In just a couple of years producers will be subject to inclusion verification by the Academy (percentage of minorities, gender equality, etc.) to determine eligibility). Then why not use this opportunity to establish specific parameters to determine which performances are Lead? (just like the Golden Globes do). Additionally, -with all the streaming and platforms- producers will have to decide whether their film is a TV movie (eligible for Emmys) or a feature film (eligible for Oscars).
We know that producers have to submit their films to AMPAS to compete, detailing cast, release dates, release venues, cast and crew. When detailing the cast, producers should be required to specify which performance are lead. This should be decided depending on amount of screen time, weight of the character on the story, etc. When the Academy reviews the submission it would double check this point and maybe object to the fact that one clearly lead performance has not be submitted as such.
It is not like this is unheard of! I recall that in 1963 an employee of the studio in charge of making the submission listed the whole cast of Cleopatra as Lead, so that Roddy McDowall could not be nominated as Supporting Actor. And he was considered a shoo-in for the win!!!
At present, no matter what the producers put in their “For Your Consideration” ads, Academy members can vote as they please. Let’s remember what happened when producers wanted to pass Kate Winslet as Supporting for The Reader. Voters said “no no”.
Other examples:
LaKeith Stanfield and Daniel Kaluuya both supporting in Judas and the Black Messiah… a film with NO lead performances?
Matt Damon and Christian Bale refused to be split into Lead and Support for Ford v Ferrari. They were both Lead and that was that! Well done.
Viola Davis winning a Lead Tony and a Supporting Oscar for Fences.
Why was Jake Gyllenhaal Supporting and Heath Ledger Lead. At the time, I believe it was Nat that said “whoever is the bottom will be Supporting”.
If the Academy does not do something about this we will continue to have “Supporting” Oscar winners like Davis, Alicia Vikander, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Brad Pitt and Mahershala Ali. Otherwise, when will Denis O’Hare, Catherine Keener, Stanley Tucci, Margo Martindale and Mark Ruffalo ever win a Supporting Oscar?
The Rules as published by AMPAS reads as follows for Special Rules for Acting Awards,
“ 4. The leading role and supporting role categories will be tabulated simultaneously. If any performance should receive votes in both categories, the achievement shall be placed only on the ballot in that category in which, during the tabulation process, it first receives the required number of votes to be nominated. In the event that the performance receives the numbers of voles required to be nominated in both categories simultaneously, the achievement shall be placed only on the ballot in that category in which it receives the greater percentage of the total votes.”
It’s been a while, but there have been cases through the years where performances considered supporting early in the season wound up being nominated as lead under these rules.
1963 Best Actress winner Patricia Neal (Hud) was nominated for supporting actress at the Golden Globes
1974 Best Actress nominee Valerie Perrine (Lenny) won supporting actress prizes at both National Board of Review and New York Film Critics Circle.
1975 Best Actress winner Louise Fletcher (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) won supporting actress at New York Film Critics Circle.
1976 Best Actress nominee Talia Shire (Rocky) won supporting actress prizes at both National Board of Review and New York Film Critics Circle.
1977 Best Actress nominee Geraldine Page (Interiors) was nominated for supporting actress at the Los Angeles Film Critics Association.
Oh, the MichelleGate! The reactions were so embarrassing that afternoon. I knew I would 100% agree with you on this.
I also feel that drift from the race. I blame age and Film Twitter.
Have you read Clayton Davis' article on category fraud? It will horrify you
It's a definite PR move. If this begins some trajectory that has her end up winning over Michelle Yeoh and Cate Blanchett, I will be seriously pissed - because we all know campaigning wins more Oscars than actual performances - or else we would have Oscar Winners Ann Dowd and Simon Rex from last year.
The easy solution to preventing category fraud is for AMPAS to prohibit submitting and manifestly campaigning an actor with a greater share of screen time in Supporting while, at the same time, submitting and manifestly campaigning an actor with a lesser share of screen time in the gender-corresponding Lead category. Any submitted films in violation would invalidate the relevant pair or trio of submitted actors.
Also, AMPAS should establish a screen time analysis committee and place preeminent screen timer Matthew A. Stewart in charge of it.
I will stick with just the performances I've seen. Out of the contenders listed on the Predictions link, my ranking:
1. De Armas, BLONDE
2. Yeoh, EEAAO
3. Davis, WOMAN KING
Still, my fave female performance is one not listed: Anamaria Vartolomei, HAPPENING
Marcos Celesia
Catherine Zeta Jones is Supporting in Chicago. The entire film is told from the point of view of the character Renée Zellweger. Even "All That Jazz" which has Velma in the center there is still a moment where this is seen through Roxie's eyes.
A few months ago we could see how the Oscars ignored a leading performance by Caitríona Balfe and correctly nominated a real supporting performance by Judi Dench in Belfast.
Let's see the movie first, maybe Michelle Williams is correctly Leading.
I think this is part of the foreplay. I'm going to be seeing all these films, and I was excited to see Williams potentially win an Oscar, which seems less likely now. I always get excited for long overdue potential winners that I would have rewarded already. It's September early rumbling wild speculation. I enjoy the festival lead up every year. Some of the punditry gets out of hand, but I do love celebrating my favorites, and I love how this site has always done that. Actressexuals have reason to rejoice: Both female categories feel more competitive than the male ones this year!
Not having seen most of the players yet, I think percent of screen time makes more sense than total time in the film as a barometer. Honestly, we should all just take what brings us joy from the season and try to ignore the rest. (Easier said than done, but I do my best to stick to it.)
I'm not clutching my pearls at this news but I don't know if she is more certain of a win in Lead now or less certain than she was for Supporting,it's all about narratives and Williams and Fraser have the best ones as for supporting it's anyones game now.
Blanchett and Yeoh fans are upset as they'd anointed one of those 2 as the winner but,for me the only win think is fairly solid is Brendan Fraser and he could fall at the last hurdle.
Patricia Neal is Lead in Hud same as McDormand in Fargo or Geraldine in Interiors.
I agree with many people here that some kind of rule is needed,the Kaluuya/Stanfield situation was a step too far into unfair category hogging and by saying a film has no leads when it clearly had 2.
I remember when Samantha Morton who was thought of as supporting popped up in Lead during the messy 2003 Best Actress race and Kesha Castle Hughes also went lead where she should have been but was put into supporting at SAG.
If Mark Harris’s statement about Michelle Williams’s screen time is accurate, I have a feeling the “controversy” will subside once more people actually see the movie and realize that the role is, in fact, big enough to be campaigned as a lead.
But even if somehow it’s still debatable, I personally don’t mind it nearly as much when arguably supporting roles get campaigned as leads rather than the other way around. It’s a lot easier for a lead role to steal a spot from a genuinely supporting role than it is for a smaller role to compete with more clearly lead ones. I frankly think roles like Louise Fletcher in Cuckoo’s Nest and Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs are supporting, but I don’t have much of an issue with them winning in the lead categories because that’s just a testament to how effective their performances are. (Woody Harrelson would evidently disagree with me, as he was vocally upset that Geoffrey Rush was nominated as a lead for Shine because he felt that was a supporting role that end up costing him a win; I don’t think Harrelson would have won regardless, but I guess it’s a fair point.)
And of course, I agree 100% with you about how too many people opt for punditry for punditry’s sake. Once you start treating movies not as works of art but as mere players in the game of awards, you’ve lost sight of movies.
Brava Michelle!
Having not even seen The Fablemans yet, Michelle Williams in Lead, to me, feels like Jessica Lange going Lead for Tootsie. Had that happened-and it wouldn’t since Frances was her stronger role, I suspect that Teri Garr might’ve won.
Does anyone think Emma Thompson will factor into the race for GLTYLG?
Excellent article (rant? Lol), Nathaniel. You’re my favorite film site for several reasons but this being primary - you focus on the art instead of trying to be “right” all year long. That’s boring. The Oscar’s are so easy to predict - it’s not that impressive, pundits. I’d rather hear what YOU feel about a film - not what you think Oscar (whose taste is questionable usually) will feel.
I haven't seen the film, but in ambiguous cases I don't think there's anything wrong with campaigning lead. It's harder for actors with smaller roles to win in the lead category, anyway, so it seems rather noble of her.
-Angelo: I agree, especially since she's a star who might've easily sailed to a win. Feels welcome.
Yeah, the reactions to Michelle's placement have been...odd. I know it's crazy, but I think I'll wait until I actually SEE the movie before deciding if I think it's category fraud or not. I will say that I don't think screen time is always a deciding factor in what makes someone lead or supporting, though.
As for the rest of the race, I'm excited that it seems to be so competitive this year, but I always worry that the Academy will get overwhelmed (or lazy) and fall back on their faves/familiar names when faced with too many options. There are so many movies I'm waiting to see, but I can already think of five amazing performances worthy of nominating and sadly only two (maybe three) of them seem like realistic contenders:
Regina Hall - Honk for Jesus...
Viola Davis - The Woman King
Michelle Yeoh - Everything Everywhere...
Emma Thompson - Leo Grande
Rebecca Hall - Resurrection
I am not sure why the pundits are so upset of this announcement. After years of applauding category frauds, now they are upset that someone campaigns in the category they feel they belong to.
Besides, Michelle Williams has never been announced as supporting actress so technically she never even switched. It's pundits' doing of proclaiming her as supporting actress winner so this feels so comical to me.
I haven't seen the movie but I have no problem Michelle Williams will campaign as lead actress. Even if she is actually supporting, I won't have issue. I have problem when leads fraud themselves as supporting which will give them benefit. In this case, if she is really supporting, there is no benefit so this should be a non issue. Based on reviews I read, her role is borderline and she has a lot of screen time. It's commendable for her to go for lead if the role is borderline lead. I am sure Michelle is aware that it will be more difficult to win in lead but if she doesn't care if she can win or not with this more difficult category, then why should others be?
Good for Michelle for going lead. It's a sign of confidence that reminds me of Olivia Colman deciding to go lead for The Favourite - and that paid off for her.
Regarding your chart, I would move up both Naomi Ackie and Tang Wei. Neither is a sure thing, but both deserve to be in the second row over Ana de Armas (she won't get nominated, there is way too much outrage surrounding Blonde) and Emma Thompson (I don't think she'll even campaign, and the Leo Grande rollout destroyed any chance at Oscars).
The trailer was pretty meh, but I think I Wanna Dance With Somebody could be a big box office hit, since it will be released right before Christmas and has cross-quandrant appeal that will appeal to families. We've also seen plenty of movies released late in the year sneak in with Oscar nominations due to recency bias.
Tang Wei is a lot iffier, particularly given the Academy's antipathy toward Asian actresses, but everyone who sees that film seems to rave about her performance. If Decision to Leave takes off and manages nominations in other major categories, she could be nominated for Best Actress. She's also a classic LAFCA Best Actress pick.
As someone who has seen "The Fabelmans" (but has not been on Twitter to follow the fall-out) I don't see this as a Leading Role beyond screen-time, and I really think screen-time without context is a super dicey way to judge what's lead or not.
Williams is great, but the character is - by design - very illusory and reflected through the eyes of her son. It's a substantial role but it's also one where she only gets the focus in scenes with him, or scenes he observes, and then disappears for the last coda because her arc isn't the arc of the film. But who knows how audiences will actually respond to it.