Oscar Volley: Is Best Supporting Actress a Done Deal?
Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:00PM Team Experience is discussing each Oscar category as we head into the precursors. Here's Ben Miller and Cláudio Alves to talk Best Supporting Actress...
So far, Da'Vine Joy Randolph has won EVERYTHING.
BEN: Alright Cláudio, my Portuguese pal...let's dive into BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS.
It's a funny year when it comes to the supporting ladies, because we actually seem to be pretty devoid of any category fraud in the main contenders. With Lily Gladstone and Carey Mulligan in their correct categories, this race feels wide open. Here's my big question: why does this happen every year with actresses and never with actors? I'm glad they are striving to get it correct, but "people" also argue that Gladstone would be walking away with this category if she was still placed here.
Do you think Gladstone or Mulligan would win if they were here, and do you think they should be? I am of the opinion they should both be leads, though I think Gladstone would be undeniable if she was thusly categorized...
CLÁUDIO: In my mind, they're both leads, and I'm happy they're correctly categorized. Even if it costs Gladstone an easy win, her placement in Lead feels right when a Supporting victory could sour like so many examples in Oscar history, when actors fraud their way into categories meant to honor those in the periphery of protagonists, at the margins of a given screen story. Moreover, Gladstone would not necessarily steamroll her way to gold - she lost the LAFCA trophy despite her work being considered a Supporting Performance.
Is Julianne Moore supporting or lead in MAY DECEMBER?With all that said, I don't think the race lacks in leads passing for supporting players. Jodie Foster feels like NYAD's anchor, taking over the movie for the many swimming sequences when Bening is reduced to a body in motion. Sandra Hüller is as much a lead in The Zone of Interest as Christian Friedel, and I've heard similar grumblings about Juliette Binoche in The Taste of Things. And then there's Julianne Moore in May December, a film orbiting three gravitational pulls, each seemingly acting in a different movie. To me, her Gracie and Charles Melton's Joe command a big part of the narrative and are at the center of Haynes' tonal gamesmanship, as much if not more than Natalie Portman's Elizabeth. Screentime isn't everything.
BEN: All this being said, most of the contenders are pretty clearly Supporting, so that's a nice change of pace. We could argue about the semantics of lead/supporting in ensembles, but there isn't a Tatum O'Neal or Alicia Vikander situation where the supporting performance is CLEARLY a lead. We at least have that going for us.
Before we dive into talking about the top-line contenders in the Supporting Actress race, what are some of your favorite performances that you know won't sniff the Oscar conversation? My first I have to mention is Teyonah Parris in They Cloned Tyrone.
Teyonah Parris is always a joy to watch.
That film was a surprise delight and I'm glad I went out of my way to watch it. Parris is consistently hilarious, resourceful, and sexy as hell. In fact, if I had a vote, she would be my number two vote. My other big one is Adele Exarchopoulos in Ira Sach's Passages. Her character is one that we don't get to learn as much about as we do the central male couple, but her twisting allegiances and moral gray areas are nothing less than fascinating. I could talk about that performance for a while.
What about you?
CLÁUDIO: Oh dear, I have so many worth mentioning that I don't know where to start. There's that sharp Sigourney Weaver turn in Master Gardener, all jagged edges and glamorous cruelties. Hong Chau is spot-on as a type of woman you know even if you don't in Showing Up, while Pom Klementieff is having the time of her life as an evil henchwoman in the latest Mission: Impossible. Moving away from American cinema, I loved Kerrie Hayes's butch tenderness in Blue Jean and found myself fascinated with Pahoa Mahagafanau in Pacifiction. Isabelle Huppert is a hoot and a half in The Crime is Mine, Sarwat Gilani delivers sisterhood and heartbreak in Joyland, and Paula Beer has never been better than in Afire. After years of not understanding what others saw in the German actress, I finally get it.
Scarlett Johansson would make a great Oscar nominee for ASTEROID CITY.
I'm unsure if I should add Scarlett Johansson to the list. Her Janet Leigh-esque movie star is one of Asteroid City's melancholic highlights, a performance perfectly calibrated between presentational artifice and deep feeling. The scenes she shares with Jason Schwartzman are among the year's best, yet they don't seem to have moved any awards voters. Hope is everlasting, especially when you're a previous nominee like she is. Even so, her chances feel almost as small as all those other actresses I just named.
BEN: I want to talk about how this category is shaping up and how it was originally devised. Back in the early Oscar years, this was a category meant to highlight the actors and actresses who were not the highly billed, bankable stars. This was an opportunity to promote those smaller character actors who rise above the rest and become great in the company of movie stars. These days, it's turned into "movie stars who aren't in the film that much."
Look at some of these contenders today. Rosamund Pike, Emily Blunt, Penélope Cruz, Julianne Moore, Taraji P. Henson, Jodie Foster, Viola Davis, Juliette Binoche, Rachel McAdams. These are HUGE stars. I'm not saying these women are undeserving because they are significantly famous, but it seems to go against what the spirit of the category was created for. This is a category where someone like Erika Alexander would show up and it would FEEL right. Even America Ferrera, though not a big film actress, has an Emmy.
Is Jodie Foster too big a star for this category?
CLÁUDIO: I guess, in that sense, Da'Vine Joy Randolph's sweep of the precursors shows an attempt to return to the category's original values. Though she's been gaining accolades since the early 2010s, the performer has built her career primarily on supporting roles, with star parts still out of reach. From Oda Mae Brown on Broadway to The Holdovers' Mary Lamb, she shines from the margins, sometimes stealing entire productions from under the protagonist's feet. A victory for her feels symbolically correct.
However, beyond fitting a model of modern-day character actressing, I'm not sure I'm that happy about Randolph's utter dominance over the critics' awards. Apart from the Gotham and the Alaska Film Critics awards, she has won every single prize under the sun. It's the kind of consensus pick we seldom see nowadays, thanks to the plurality cum overabundance of awards. One would then presume hers is an undeniable achievement. Yet, I don't see it as such and feel somewhat stunned by how much love she has garnered from voters everywhere.
BEN: The weirdest thing about it is her perceived lack of frontrunner status. People keep talking about some categories like Best Director and Best Actor like the race is already over. If the precursors are any indication, Randolph should be able to walk to a win. Like you said, she is DOMINATING the precursors. I too like a bit of variety when it comes to precursor season, but I'm also fine with Randolph being the beneficiary. Regardless, I don't see everyone jumping to the "She's a lock to win" conclusion. It's always silly to predict wins before the nominations, but that's the human nature of film prognostication.
That being said, there does seem to be a clear hierarchy in this race. The frontrunner (Randolph), two near locks (Danielle Brooks & Emily Blunt), and a host of other contenders for the last two spots. Any combo of Jodie Foster, America Ferrera, Rosamund Pike, Taraji P. Henson, Julianne Moore, Rachel McAdams, or Sandra Hüller wouldn't surprise me. Do you similarly see the race standing in the same way as of today?
Penélope Cruz could enter the five-timers club with FERRARI.
CLÁUDIO: I would add Penélope Cruz to that list of names. She's Ferrari's MVP through and through, an Oscar darling, and the camera perceives her as a lead of equal importance to Driver whenever it catches her. Textually, I think hers is a supporting role, but that sort of star treatment leaves a lasting impression. Furthermore, she justifies the attention and regales the camera with a beautiful turn. Initially, I was afraid that the performance would be a greatest hits celebration from Cruz, with many notes recalling her Oscar-winning work for Allen and her similarly-accented Nine temptress. However, she finds ways to surprise, culminating in a fantastic final scene. There's something so interesting about watching actors project intelligence, silent thought processes, and careful negotiations within their gaze.
That same admiration is behind my love for Viola Davis in Air, a work that feels like an Oscar candidate on paper while, in reality, it seems to have lost all steam. Unlike many critics, I didn't care for Affleck's flick as a whole, but it'd be a worthy Supporting Actress contender, honoring a thespian who complicates the material at every turn, insinuating dimensions the remaining project can't quite grasp. Sadly, unless the guilds go gaga for Air, I'm not sure she's in the conversation.
BEN: Cruz is a good name to include. Ferrari's reception has really been all over the place, and I don't know how to feel about it. It seems like the type of film that gets Cruz and a Sound nomination, if that. Kind of in the same boat as Jodie Foster. The actresses themselves are not the problem, it's the overall reception to their films.
Rachel McAdams is the season's most beloved dark horse.
Rachel McAdams is the name I am the most curious about. That film came out before the summer hit, and everyone singled out McAdams. I think it's probably her best work (and my favorite supporting performance of the year). At the time, most pundits assumed it was way too early and she couldn't hold on, but she is getting way more critics nominations than I was anticipating. So far, she's picked up 12 nominations from critics, including an LAFCA win (shared with Randolph). This is not a situation where someone is coming out of nowhere. She has critical support. But, I think she needs a SAG nomination to make some real headway. She's the dark horse I am pulling for.
Let's get down to it...what are your predicted five and give me a dark horse.
CLÁUDIO: As of this moment, my predictions are...
Da'Vine Joy Randolph, THE HOLDOVERS (locked as locked can be)
Danielle Brooks, THE COLOR PURPLE (her reviews are glowing)
Emily Blunt, OPPENHEIMER (it's her time, I guess)
America Ferrera, BARBIE (people sure love that monologue)
Taraji P. Henson, THE COLOR PURPLE (the most vulnerable of the lot)
Alternative: Jodie Foster, NYAD (great reviews, the industry's love, and some afterglow from her 2020 awards run will help, but will it be enough?)
My most beloved dark horse is the same as yours, and I agree that McAdams has never been better than in this Judy Blume adaptation. It's a remarkably gentle and multi-dimensional portrayal, full of behavioral details that sketch the picture of a life extending beyond the narrative frame. If pressed for a different answer, I'll go with Cara Jade Myers, who comes into Killers of the Flower Moon like a force of nature, confronts you with a complicated woman, and beckons your mind to linger long after she's gone. She could get in, Marina de Tavira-style.
What's your final five?
Taraji P. Henson could repeat the awards journey of Margaret Avery in 1985.
BEN: I too have the same five as you. We haven't talked much about Ferrera, but that monologue alone should get her in.
I don't know why Henson is on shaky ground, but it wouldn't surprise me if she misses all together. Foster seems like the obvious sixth place
CLÁUDIO: While I'm not as fond of the monologue - it's the clunkiest part of Barbie for me - Ferrera gets a lot out of it. If she doesn't make the thing work, at least she tries. Very much an "Anne Hathaway in Interstellar" situation where I felt like I was watching a performer wrangle with their script, fighting tooth and nail to get a real feeling out of the belabored monologue without jeopardizing the sincerity underpinning it all. It's bound to impress voters, whatever the case.
Any final thoughts? I just wanted to say it was a pleasure to discuss Supporting Actress with you.
BEN: My final thoughts are: you are a delightful man. That was awesome, bud!
RELATED READING:
- Other Oscar Volleys – Makeup, Editing, Production Design, Costumes, Adapted Screenplay, Original Song & International Film
- Nathaniel’s Oscar Charts
- Team Experience Predictions – From Picture to Screenplay
Reader Comments (21)
Where the fuck is Patti LuPone? 350 critics groups crammed with gays and no one can throw her a nom.
This race still feels up in the air, which is nice. While all the other acting races have 6-7 true contenders, you could make a case for 10 women here.
Sadly, I think we're past the time when we get lone nominees from a film, which could affect Cruz, Foster and McAdams. And that's why I think Julianne Moore will get in, especially because Henson doesn't seem to be appearing anywhere.
I think we are due surprises outside of Randolph.
I too wish more people had remembered Sigourney who is certainly better than half of these frontrunners but it's a forgotten film and the Academy have been doing Weaver wrong for over 30 years.
Blunt is in the right project in the right role a Kirsten Dunst Power of the Dog nomination though Dunst was much better in her film than Blunt is in Oppenheimer,she has been way better in other films but i'm pleased for her finally.
Foster she is the one i'm most rooting for she made the 2nd half of Nyad watchable when it forgot it was an Annette Bening vehicle,the 6th spot was her last placing in 2020 and I hope it's industry goodwill that pulls her in in 2023 a la Nick Nolte for Warrior.
Cruz I haven't seen buzz is dying if it ever started but they do love her and it's packed with clips
Henson/Brookes Is anyone that excited by the acting in TCP,i've not seen that many reviews which single Henson out,when there's 2 nominees the critics normally like both equally and only Brookes seems to be getting best in show but I feel a major snub coming.
Moore for me is supporting and Charles Melton completely steals the scenes he shares with her and Portman for me was better,her usual solid self but I was left with lots of questions about the performance.
Huller I am convinced she's gets in for supporting rather than Lead,the one person who doesn't get any of the 3 big nods Globes Critics SAG who surprises cos her film is overperforms.
Ferrara she acts the hell out of the monologue and that's my problem the badly written tone deaf monologue,I suspect she's in at the expense of Jodie.
McAdams seeing this on Saturday but she's not an actress I normally warm too and she's never wowed me despite her 20 yr career.
Davis forgotten I feel despite wiping the floor with everyone in her late phone calls scenes.
Mulligan I don't see how anyone could watch Maestro and believe she's supporting,would make a nice his and her overdue wins as both she and Cooper are stellar though her less so than him who's my pic for Best Actor.
You two did NOT just fail to mention Patti LuPone and Parker Posey. SMH.
As much as I would love an American Ferrera nomination in theory, that role hasn't have much going on outside of the infamous monologue. I would be shocked to see her nominated, but it's definitely possible.
I fear Penelope's awards journey halted when the Globes failed to nominate her, unless SAG revives her.
Perhaps this category has some surprises up its sleeve.
I am bewildered by Randolph's steamrolling as well, but it also makes sense. She's a great actress getting her flowers in one of the movies of the year. It's a way to reward the film, and check boxes at the same time. I don't think it's the type of performance that should be taking home everything, but I do think she's on her way to the Oscar at this point.
I hope the only person nominated for May December is Charles Melton.
Jodie Foster has more steam this time around than a couple of years ago, she's definitely in the running for a comeback nod.
I don't see the Academy going head over heels for The Color Purple, so Taraji will definitely need a SAG nod after missing at the Globes and Critic's Choice. But can definitely see her and Danielle Brooks nominated there.
It'll be interesting to see the SAG nods, that's for sure.
Went to see The Holdovers. I thought that Randolph was fine, but to me, her role lacked two important scenes. (Spoiler alert). I kept waiting for the trauma of losing her son in Vietnam to really hit her and go full force. It came close at the Christmas party scene when she didn’t want the music changed. She closed her eyes, perhaps a bit tipsy, and something was affecting her. I just wish she could’ve had a confrontation with someone and those emotions bust out. Secondly-the character is religious. I wish that she would’ve had a spat with Paul G. over the existence of God. He gives her a book of meditating for Christmas. He states that he meditates and is an atheist. She just rolls her eyes. Seems like that was the missed opportunity for her to articulate her religious views (on such a holy day). Perhaps if he turned to a high power (who she must believe her son is with), his life might be something better. Just seems like the role would’ve been greater if she wasn’t merely a TV companion.
I'm rooting for America Ferrera to get that Best Supporting Nod as it's more than just the monologue but also the scene during the car chase.
Randolph was quite good, but I agree with TOM: there's not a verbal exposure of her inner grief, a confrontation, which would probably bound her better with the audience (me included) - I still consider it a writing issue and I think she elevated the material given to her (a common problem with Alexander Payne's leading/supporting ladies).
As for Emily Blunt... it's ironic how she will get nominated for a "nothing role" that reduces her to the supportive wife with a drinking problem and one very good scene, when she was right there in DEVIL WEARS PRADA, YOUNG VICTORIA, A QUIET PLACE or MARY POPPINS RETURNS. It proves you only need an Oscar baity vehicle, not an outstanding performnace.
As for Johansson, as Cláudio mentioned, she would make a terrific nominee! She's in perfect sync with Anderson's vision and she's the star of the most memorable scenes of the film - since ASTEROID CITY had a Summer release and SAG tend to be kind to earlier released titles, maybe she nabs a SAG nom (she was a key figure in SAG strike as one of the top earners who went to the negotiations) and maybe she makes BAFTA shortlist (the Brits have always loved her),
A note for Ferrera: she had a great monologue, but I would call an Oscar nomination a over-reward... still, I believe the AMPAS will embrace the BARBIE train and she will be this year's Jamie Lee Curtis
Seeing McAdams being nominated for ARE YOU THERE, GOD? IT'S ME, MARGARET, would fill me with joy!
I will be so disappointed if America Ferrera gets in. I just don't think she is that good in Barbie (or anything really...) and the monologue was SO clunky.
I am not buying two get in from Color Purple. Henson is out. In general, I just don't feel the buzz is there for the film. Kind of expecting that box office won't be all that great either. Not feeling the "hype" so far.
I think Julianne gets in for May December, and very deservedly.
Randolph is awesome in Holdovers, so not upset she is the frontrunner. But I agree the hesitation to call her a lock to win makes it feel like someone else could quickly start coming for her trophy with a guild or other televised award.
My prediction right now...
Randolph
Brooks
Blunt
Moore
Foster OR Huller
As @Mr Ripley79 mentioned already, I could also totally see Huller getting nominated here for ZOI and not in best actress for Anatomy. Would be a way for the Academy to reward her while not taking up a slot in the very competitive best actress race. We shall see...
I haven’t seen “The Holdovers” yet, but every time I see Da’Vine Joy Randolph, I say “Oh, her! I LOVE her!” I love her in everything she does, so this nomination seems reasonable.
Otherwise, I like:
Hong Chau. It would be so refreshing and satisfying if this wonderful actress got nominated for a part where she plays a happy successful artist, rather than the service person parts that seem to be offered to poc.
Rachel McAdams. Way more overdue than Emily Blunt, if that’s the argument used. And for a better performance with a better role than Blunt’s frustrated wife -> alcoholic wife -> bitter wife.
Sigourney Weaver. A master artist in “The Master Gardener”. With top level artists, you can’t take in everything right away. Weaver has so many layers, some subtle, and some so brazen you can’t believe she’s doing that. The performance keeps reverberating in your mind, as you realize to your horror, what different things mean. She’s chilling.
America Ferrera. When I saw “Barbie” for the second time, I realized that Ferrera had a much bigger part than I remembered. Outside of the monologue, she provides the real world framework that is necessary for the narrative pivot and for Barbie to evolve. She does this seamlessly, and is warm, vital, optimistic, troubled, and loving.
The monologue is the icing on the cake, a “hey look here! An excellent artist is at work!”
To appreciate Ferrera’s skill, look at Will Farrell and think of what the movie would have been like if all the real world characters acted like him. The movie wouldn’t have worked, it would have been a dud.
Enjoyed the volley, but have to take polite issue with one comment: "Screentime isn't everything."
In categorizing lead and supporting performances, it is. It's not lead or supporting vibe, it's who is in more of the movie. Oscar of course has gotten this wrong many times in the past, but if we're changing the definition, then none of it makes sense. (And the antiquated premise of citing lesser-known stars doesn't fit nowadays either.)
Paranoid Android -- I appreciate your politeness, but must disagree with what you say.
Notions of primary and secondary characters predate cinema and matters of screentime. It's been a way of considering narratives on stage and literature for a long time before cinema existed. Hell, in college I still studied theatrical concepts related to this from Greek Antiquity.
Theme, framing, storytelling codes and conventions, narrative structure and other factors can be as important, if not more, than the recorded amount of time someone is visible to the audience.
Obviously Randolph is in - after that I feel like Julianne is in second. People are watching the movie, and her and Melton will kind of pull each other along.
Plus, Blunt, Brooks and Foster each feel vulnerable due to unexciting role for Blunt, and unbuzzy movie for the other two
Beyond Randolph and Moore, I feel like there will be some kind of mild surprise, like Ferrera or McAdams or (goddess willing) Pike.
Da'Vine Joy Randolph is fine in The Holdovers, but I truly don't get the love for her or the movie for that matter. There are plenty of movies just like it.
America Ferrera being in the conversation is hilarious to me.
Julianne Moore, yes to everything she did in May December.
Blunt, one of the few good things about Oppenheimer.
Foster...LOL no.
I haven't seen Color Purple yet, but I doubt any of them can top or even match Margaret Avery.
McAdams is solid and sweet. Nowhere near an Oscar-worthy performance.
Who I think will be nominated:
Foster
McAdams
Moore
Pike
Randolph
Next in line? Blunt.
Who I want to see nominated:
The same.
Who I can't accept: Ferrera. Is it serious? How? Why? No. Never!
About supporting/leading, I completely agree with Claudio.
"Screentime isn't everything."
Why people don't understand this?
Food for thought:
https://www.screentimecentral.com/post/_nyad
I want Pike to be in this set so badly, so I'll wish that into my current prediction: Randolph, Brooks, Blunt, Foster, and Pike. Although you could sub in Ferrera, Moore, or McAdams for one or both of those final 2 slots - only Randolph, Brooks, and Blunt seem like certainties at this point.
Btw, while she wouldn't make my top 5, I'm glad McGill mentioned Hong Chau. It's not only that she seems to make everything she's in better, it feels like half the time she ends up being the best thing in the film. She's an extraordinary talent.
Blunt is such a good actress and gave a lot of terrific performances that in my opinion is a pity that she will get her first nomination for Oppenheimer. The movie is great, she shines and give unquiquenes to the character as usual, but I don't think that the role has any award-material for how is written
What a difference the campaign trail makes! I’m all for Taraji P. Henson after her latest interview. She’s an actress that I’ve always liked, but I haven’t been that interested in “The Color Purple” (still not interested in seeing it actually).
But Taraji was low balled in salary for this movie? She’s the biggest name in it.
With the hoopla of Steven Spielberg and Oprah Winfrey as producers, both of whom are considerably “well to do”, you’d think their bountiful umbrella would extend to paying their actresses a fair wage.
Kind've wish that Lily Gladstone was in the Supporting category, then for me, that category would be a Done Deal. Viewing her in that capacity, she is stellar. Seeing her placed in Lead makes it feel like people are 'forced' to vote for her. Narrative over everything.
If America Ferrera gets nominated, I'll blow a gasket. There is nothing at all award-worthy about her performance in Barbie -- she's perfectly fine, and that's it. A nomination for it would be nearly as upsetting as seeing My Big Fat Greek Wedding nominated for its screenplay.