This was the only real race of the big awards. It distilled itself down to being between Three Billboards and The Shape of Water. My guess is/was Three Billboards just because it seemed like the kind of film that the Academy would reward. I'm editing this after the ceremony (though I didn't publish yet, but whatever) to say that yeah, The Shape of Water won and it was just a very minor surprise to me but it makes sense. The Academy absolutely adored Guillermo del Toro for whatever reason. I know lots of actors and crew people want to work with him because of his passion and because he's a nice dude, so that's probably the most likely reason why.
2017 Best Picture
The Shape of Water
Yep,
this is the film where the mute lady fucks a fish man, so spoiler alert.
And yeah, this one is just as weird as it sounds. Which I feel really
shows just how much love Guillermo del Toro has within the Academy and
the Hollywood community. Reading up on the film and all the actors were
praising the chance to get to work with him with Octavia Spencer saying
she would play a table if he asked her to. So without del Toro being
attached to this film, it's not getting anywhere near the unbelievable
13 Oscar nominations it received. The story hearkens back to the monster
films of the 50s and 60s which is where del Toro got the idea because
he had always wanted to see the monster and the female love interest
actually fall in love. It's a pretty neat idea and it feels like one
that only del Toro could pull off and make into a film that everyone
loves instead of some niche genre movie that gets a midnight run or
something. The film is buoyed by it's incredible acting. It did get
three acting nominations but Michael Stuhlbarg (in three Best Picture
films this year! First since John C. Reilly in 2002) and Michael Shannon
were equally as awesome. The set design and colors are all a pleasure
to look at and a hallmark of del Toro films. The score will probably end
up winning an Oscar, and it's good, just not my favorite of the year.
There's a lot of individual things to really like about this film and
they all come together to create something pretty unique. It does get
weird, so your ability to tolerate the weirdness is what will decide if
this is in the running for the win like it is right now before the
ceremony. The story has been described as magical and fairy tale like
and it certainly dips into the melodramatic with it's nostalgic feel.
There's even an old timey dance number that could, maybe should, feel
out of place but seems to work in the context of the film. I think it's
better going in knowing this is a fantasy film that deals with a sense
of belonging and being wanted that makes for a better watch than
thinking it's pure Oscar bait or something. It's definitely strange but
once you get past that woman-fish man love story, it can be a rewarding
film to enjoy. Absolutely an interesting choice for the Academy to love
so much.
Call Me By Your Name
I will admit I'm writing this a couple days after watching it because I just got burnt out writing so many reviews in such a short amount of time trying to get everything in before the Oscar ceremony. So I'll just get right into it then. This film popped up very early on in the awards season, actually before the awards season, really. It was doing the festival circuit and there were a lot of people calling this a Best Picture contender and singling out Timothee Chalamet and Armie Hammer for awards love. The film (and Chalamet) had a lot of zealous fans on the internet and it just picked up steam from there once the critics at large got to see it as well. Usually a film that gets a lot of hype early on fades by the time the big films start dropping so it was actually nice to see this have the staying power that it did. And that's probably because it's a very well made film with some very great acting and written by the incomparable (and now Oscar winner for this film) James Ivory of the Merchant-Ivory team. There was always a bit of controversy surrounding this film because of its subject matter but when you actually watch it, it feels more like the projections of people who haven't seen it or just want to ding it from the get go. The story is about a 17-year old kid (Chalamet) who is intrigued by his father's new research assistant (Hammer) who is 24-year old grad student, though Hammer looks much older which may contribute to the issue. He's a kid trying to figure himself out and becomes sexually interested with Hammer and it becomes this sort of summer fling in 1983 rural Italy. The controversy was always that it's an adult having a sexual relationship with a child and seducing him to have his way with. But I think if you actually watch the film, you'll see Chalamet is the one who pushes Hammer to mess around because Chalamet wants to explore his sexuality and is interested in Hammer overall. Sure, the subject can be a little unsettling at times but it never feels exploitative or pushing a pro go after kids message or anything absurd like that. It's a little coming of age story where a kid figures out who he is as a person and that includes sexually. He also loses his virginity to a local Italian girl first and they go at it often, so it's not strictly a gay thing. That's why I think if you actually watch it, you see there is something deeper than just an adult and a kid having a romantic relationship. Plus, the consent in Italy then was 14, so this wasn't even illegal. But anyway, I hate to get bogged down with the stupid sex angle. The film looks great, it has great music from Sufjan Stevens who I remember back in like 2004 when he put out Illinoise. He's an indie darling and I liked some of his work way back then so it's weird to think he would be up for an Oscar and should have won over the actual winners. The acting is really good as I said earlier and I would have liked to see more Michael Stuhlbarg love. My issue with the film is that it can be a bit laborious. It's a little too slow paced at first even though that fits Chalamet's character. I was very surprised that I liked this one as much as I did, though. Just from what I heard with the constant praise and then the controversy, I thought it might have been oversold, but it was quite enjoyable and it feels like a film that will eventually make a Sight & Sound film poll in a few more years. I have always wanted more films like this in the Best Picture race than the obvious Oscar bait or some comic book movie.
Darkest Hour
This is the old school, throwback nominee for the year. This film would be at home in most other years because it covers what the old members of the Academy love: a historical biopic of sorts about a British legend from World War II. Just ticks all the boxes that gets the Academy going, or used to anyway. And really, it's pretty standard stuff. We follow Winston Churchill after he is made Prime Minister and has to deal with the war going on and people in power who don't think he's qualified enough to lead. He has to deal with the Dunkirk situation and some people want him to capitulate with Germany to bring about peace. He realizes he has to stand up to the Nazis and fascism and fight for his country. It's entertaining stuff and I'll never tire of watching historical biopics like this, especially about war. Nothing really fancy about the film, it's just a straightforward telling of that bit of history. Gary Oldman will most likely win an Oscar for portraying Churchill but let's agree that the makeup and prosthetics do a lot of the heavy lifting. The visuals are fine and everything is done well, it's just that this is a film where it's really hard to get excited by it. We've seen all of this done before and this one didn't blow me away or anything. There was even a really goofy scene where Churchill goes down into the subway where regular British folk are and asks them what they think and it kinda bolsters him and is just so cheesy and obviously never happened in real life. I feel bad that I can't be effusive in praising this film but it is what it is. It at least makes a good companion piece with Dunkirk this year.
Dunkirk
Wow, this is an intense film! When this film dropped during the summer, it was the first obvious Best Picture player. Once it came out and everyone loved it, it was a no brainer that this would be one of the films to beat come Oscar night. I think if it had come out later, it would have been more of a contender since often times it's about who has the most momentum going in to the voting period. But the film itself is utterly amazing. This is a writer/director who is at the top of his craft and delivers something extraordinarily watchable every time. I love the fact that this film isn't reliant on dialogue. The images and sounds speak for themselves and give us this intense, compelling story without unnecessary exposition or scenes getting in the way. That is this film's greatest strength and achievement, being a high quality film that eschews all the extraneous talking and lets the picture speak for itself. Obviously, that means the sound is incredible and one of the main stars of the film. The sound adds to the realism and adds to the intensity and tension of the film. I like the fact that Nolan also used mostly unknown actors. I fell that allows you to put yourself in their shoes and become more emotionally involved instead of it being a showcase for some famous actor. The big names in this were subdued and that helped add to the film instead of detracting from it's tone. This was the only Best Picture film without an acting nomination and it seems to make sense for Christopher Nolan films. It's more about the spectacle and story than the acting, though that's always usually very good, too. There were some absurd criticisms about the film like the lack of female characters and the lack of minorities. I can understand the lack of minorities being a thing because there were Indians and Black French soldiers, but I'm not sure that would have worked in the story Dunkirk was telling here. The female criticism is just one of the dumbest things I've ever heard and takes it too far. Not every film needs an abundance of female characters especially if they don't serve a purpose other than to placate some terrible critic. Anyway, this is just an all around solid film. I can excuse the lack of gore because the tension and struggle to survive more than makes up for a lack of blood. It's kinda weird how this film wasn't really mentioned much in the immediate lead up to the nominations, because this is probably one of the strongest films of the whole lot. It will certainly be in the running for my vote.
Get Out
I was very excited to see this because it came out without any Oscar hype and just took everyone by surprise. Critics and audiences loved it and it's one of those rare early year releases that factored into the Oscars. It's also a huge accomplishment by a black director and writer, Jordan Peele, the first to go over the $100 million mark for his debut. He's also only the second African-American to get a Best Director nomination in the history of the Oscars, which is quite sad. It's obvious that the new changes of including more minorities and younger Academy members is paying off with some really inspired choices for the different categories, including here for Best Picture. There have only been a handful of horror films ever nominated in this category and here comes a horror film that's about racism that the Academy, and everyone else, just loved. I don't know if this gets nominated a couple years ago, honestly. There are a lot more and better articles out there that dive into the meaning of the film but my interpretation is one of cultural appropriation, marginalization, silencing of blacks, and of course pure racism. This film shows all that in an often humorous but shocking way for the audience. The absurdity of thinking you are hip for using black vernacular or saying you'd vote for Obama a third time without actually trying to connect to the human being you're talking to, instead trying to focus all the attention on you for being woke or cool with minorities is ridiculous. And Peele shows that here, along with white people trying to speak for blacks about what racism is or isn't without letting them explain. You see that all the time with the talking head news programs of old white guys and blonde hair bimbos debating why a black person shouldn't be offended by some nonsense or other. We marginalize and silence the black community by not even allowing them to talk about what they think and feel and then get angry at Black Lives Matter movements as if they're unnecessary. The film gets these topics out in the open and I'm glad this discussion is taking place in part because of films like this one. The film and story itself is pretty great for the first hour and a half or so. The interracial couple meeting the white family is uncomfortable. Daniel Kaluuya does a great job in being the conduit for the audience of trying to figure out what the hell is going on with this weird family. I like the mysterious element of the story because I was engaged the entire time trying to figure out where the story was going. The acting of the others is suitably creepy when needed and Catherine Keener and Bradley Whitford are great in their roles. Even the Sunken Place is done well enough to be outright scary and twisted. My issue with the film is really just the ending. It devolves into a revenge porn fantasy bit that seems more in tune with your average horror film. I wish that Peele would have elevated the ending into something less gratuitous but I guess you have to ask where else could he have gone with the ending? It's satisfying for the audience but I do think it could have been better done. I also think that we are going to look back on this film in 10 years and be amazed and happy that it was included in the Best Picture lineup.
Lady Bird
I have really enjoyed Greta Gerwig's acting and writing in her previous work. She always comes across as likeable and quirky and just seems like an overall good person. While this isn't exactly an autobiographical story about Gerwig, it is based on her experiences growing up and I feel like you can see that in the character of Lady Bird a little bit. What stands out the most about this film is the writing. It's beyond good because it actually depicts a real teenage girl and her mother. The girl isn't some old person's version of what they think a kid is like and isn't a super polished professional writer's version of a teenager, either. Gerwig presents us with a girl who is very much an awkward teenager, albeit very quirky and who thinks she knows everything. Gerwig doesn't cram one liner's or melodramatic scenes down our throat, she lets the story unfold naturally and let's Lady Bird be a young woman on her own terms. Her first romance is kinda cheesy but in the teenagers are stupid and think they are in love after five minutes kind of cheesy. But the romance doesn't feel manufactured and it ends in a believable way. She then moves on to the idiot bad boy type who doesn't really care about her. Though I do wish she would have felt more anger towards him when she ended that one. She also ditches her best friend to try and hang with the cool girl and lies to that girl about where she's from. It's all the basics of a coming of age story but it's just done in a more intelligent way. Things don't feel forced for the sake of the script and not everything works out perfectly. The best part about the film is the mother-daughter relationship. Saoirse Ronan is great but Laurie Metcalf as the mom is brilliant. Their relationship just feels real because Metcalf doesn't try to be a cool mom and isn't some walking cliche, she is just a hard working mother trying to make money for her family and to send her daughter to college. She's a hard ass at times but is also very warm and loving. She may be too critical but to me she was just a realist who addresses issues with truth and saying what she feels. Their relationship is what makes the film work because it is so authentic. Lady Bird still thinks she knows everything but does love her mom and sees the sacrifices she makes even if she may not be as grateful because she can be so self absorbed. Families have their issues and it isn't always so black and white. But the story is heartwarming without having to shove it in our faces or give us musical cues on when to feel sad or happy. I dunno, I just really thought the writing in this film is incredible and while Gerwig getting a Directing nomination is pretty awesome, too, the standout is her writing. This is just a really sweet coming of age film that I would love to see more like this.
Phantom Thread
I'm not entirely unconvinced this isn't actually a very dark comedy. I'm not even trying to be funny by saying that, I legit feel you could call this a comedy. I laughed way too much at what feels like it should be a very serious film. There are a ton of these serious moments where the atmosphere is punctured by the slightest comedic elements, at least to me. It can be in the way Daniel Day-Lewis says fuck off, or in how he bristles at how Vicky Krieps noisily pours tea or scrapes her toast, or in how she talks back to Day-Lewis, or any number of serious moments that seem to actually belie their serious tone. Phantom Thread is indeed an exquisite film. It's beautiful to look at and perfectly composed with a gorgeous, ever present score. The scene composition and production design are top notch and something to be expected in a Paul Thomas Anderson film, especially it being a period piece about a fashion designer. He is a brilliant director and each new film of his is appointment viewing and this one is no different. The whole film is like an American take on a European style film that is perfectly executed. That's my favorite thing about PTA films, is that everything in them is done with such great detail and care that the effort translates to the screen and we get a much more fulfilling film because of the costumes and the mise en scene and music. Everything comes together in his productions to make fantastic film after fantastic film. Even though I doubt this was made to have comedic undertones and it sounds like a big critical complaint from me, it's not. I recognize what he did with the film, I'm just seeing something else that makes the film a little better to me. I mean, Day-Lewis' character is named Reynolds Woodcock! Apparently DDL gave his character that name as a joke and it made PTA bust out laughing really hard so they kept it in the script. That's why it feels like there is a little more to this film than just straightforward drama. For what could possibly be DDL's last performance (though he retired back in the 90s, too), this would be a good one to go out on. He is his usual brilliant self, while Krieps ably goes toe to toe with him and Lesley Manville adds another good performance to the film. I have seen articles talking about this film being about toxic masculinity and all these sort of controversial things and I don't get any of that in this film. Maybe because I'm not actively looking for a reason to dislike it or discredit, I dunno. Hell, even Jennifer Lawrence said she turned it off after three minutes because who wants to watch a guy be a dick to women when this film is far, far from being that. Absurd she would even say that as a respected actress. I say go into it knowing that this is a PTA and DDL film and that it's going to be a master class in filmmaking. This film was also sort of a surprise come nomination day because it came out so late and didn't make many precursor awards at all and then garnered a deserving Best Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actress, Score, and Costume Design nomination. There was thinking that it wouldn't get any Oscar love because it came out so late, but it obviously had some fans and I'm glad it is sitting in this category, especially since they snubbed The Master a few years ago in the same way. I think this is a film that will grow in appreciation and esteem in the years to come and we will look back at it being included as a smart move by the Academy. And I didn't even mention the relationship DDL has with Krieps in this film, which is something so intriguing. The two love each other but have their very wide differences and the two can be at odds until they realize they need each other. Their relationship is truly fascinating stuff not to mention she poisons him so that he becomes sick and needs her to take care of him and only she will allow herself to take care of him as he gets better. And he knows she poisons him and seems to get off on her caring for him because he has some deep seeded mommy issues. Like I said, this is an intriguing film that has a lot more to offer than just fashion designer is a dick to women sometimes. Go watch it for yourself.
The Post
As I have mentioned after watching All The President's Men, I fucking love investigative journalism drama films. That one was a masterpiece and I mentioned how Spotlight, a film that has only grown in how much I love it since I saw it, is just as worthy of the title. This film is also a good candidate for an all day marathon session of investigative journalism on film. I would love to watch all three back to back to back because that is like a literal Oscar dream. I have read and seen tons of articles about how this is lackluster Spielberg and isn't Oscar worthy and all that stuff, but I fully enjoyed this film. The story is great and co-written by the guy who wrote Spotlight! If that's not synergy then I don't know what is. But the story isn't the problem with this film because you can't really screw up a story about The Pentagon Papers and how it came to get published. My beef is that this film has the Spielberg sheen. I don't mean that in any kind of good way. When you watch All the President's Men, you see those fluorescent lights illuminating everything in the newsroom. Compare that to this film and the newsroom has that manufactured, fake sheen of post production tinkering. The newsrooms are the exact same fucking places! Tom Hanks is Ben Bradlee who is played by Jason Robards in the other film. Why does the 1976 film have a better visual style than a flipping Steven Spielberg film?! This one is just bogged down in his slick style. It needs a more realistic showing of the newsroom and offices to actually do anything for me. I don't mean to be pedantic at all but the shadowy, dark nature of the film just doesn't help. There's an abundance of great acting and great scenes but I wish another director had done this film. I get that Spielberg rushed the film because of the parallel with the bullshit Trump administration that only gets worse with each passing day, but as good as this film is, it deserves a director who doesn't see it as mere nostalgia. I actually really like this film because of the will to print the controversial. It's a great history lesson that has great actors and leaves you wanting a less Spielbergian approach. So many wasted performances confirm that it should have been done by someone else. I like the film but it's not a contender this year.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
This is your possible winner, along with The Shape of Water,
and it's been doing well at the precursor awards. There is a lot of
manufactured controversy about this film that always seems to plague
whoever the front runner is and it's equally as stupid. There are those
who think this isn't harsh enough on racists and racism. There are those
who feel it is Crash-like in it's depiction of racism and the
arc that the racist cop has in becoming a redemptive, changed man. It's
all really stupid and I long for when we can stop getting fake upset
about trivial things like this. Hell, even 12 Years a Slave got
accused of not being harsh enough about racism and inequality and all
that! So, let's look at the film as a film and not some profound
statement on race. It's about a woman who is fed up with the police not
investigating her daughter's rape and murder so she pays for three
billboards to call them out. Frances McDormand is that mother and she is
royally pissed off. She's hurting and she wants this act to spur the
police into action to figure out who killed her daughter. The police are
a bunch of incompetent idiots, however, who would rather attack her for
calling them out. It's a small town, so she has to deal with the other
townsfolk not liking her action but she's a tough old broad and doesn't
care what they think. She's angry and she's trying to make things happen
that can help solve her daughter's murder and that includes firebombing
the police station when she gets ultimately fed up. She gets help from
an unlikely source in a fired, racist cop who hated her and had a change
of heart when the Chief, who killed himself, wrote him a letter saying
he could be a great cop if he wants and if he stopped being such an
asshole. That's the kick in the butt he needed to try and be a better
person, which doesn't feel unearned at all. A guy he respects kills
himself but takes the time to write and tell him to stop being such an
idiot and he realizes he needs to change. How is that controversial?
Anyway, the film is by Martin McDonagh who excels at these sort of dark
comedy type films with In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths.
He's going to riff on sensitive subjects and be mostly unapologetic
about it. But it never seems insulting or offensive. I don't know how
anyone could be offended by this film. One of the things I really hated
about his film was Abbie Cornish as Woody Harrelson's wife. Why does she
have a British/Australian accent? I feel like if she couldn't even
attempt a Southern/local accent why bother casting her? It didn't make
sense when everyone else tried an accent but her. If this does end up
winning, I'll be completely fine with it. I don't think there's a film
this year that really makes me rapturous about it winning. If this wins,
awesome! If another film wins, ehhhh okay. I do have a preference for
the couple I would like, The Shape of Water not being in that
group but I guess we will see in a couple hours who wins. I like this
film and think McDonagh is great. The film has great acting throughout
and I really like the score, too. The controversy surrounding it is just
one of those stupid campaign things and doesn't need to be taken
seriously. This is definitely one of the better flicks of the year.
This is a hell of a Best Picture group. I honestly think that in a couple years' time, we will look back on this year and marvel at how right they got it and how amazing some of these choices are in hindsight. There are two clear bottom films in this group and that's Darkest Hour and The Post. Both are the old school Oscar bait films that in the past would have swept up in the Oscars but in today's world look old and antiquated. Not sure the Churchill biopic should have been included at all and The Post would have been better if it wasn't rushed by Spielberg to parallel the current political climate. It would have been better in someone else's hands, really. Then I would have your Oscar winner, The Shape of Water, next. I like the film fine but it just doesn't scream Best Picture winner to me. I think it's fun and has a lot of great elements but it doesn't gel into a complete film, if that makes sense. Nothing against del Toro who is a genius and is incredibly smart and well spoken and passionate about film in general. I saw him on a documentary talking about older directors and he was so passionate about their work and what it meant to him and he broke them down intelligently and was fascinating to listen to him talk about film. But I just don't see a winner there. Then we start getting into the hard part. I think Call Me By Your Name will be one of those films that lands on a Top 500 Best Films Ever type of list that publications put out from time to time. That's how that film feels to me. I enjoyed it a lot more than I anticipated and the acting is really good. Lady Bird is a really wonderful coming of age film with some really great acting. The acting and writing are what elevate the film over the others. It's a strong film that deserves to be here. Get Out is a pretty awesome story in that it actually made it to the Oscars and got a ton of love from everyone. I would love for more films like this to reach the promised land and I think we will going forward, especially after Moonlight winning last year. But as long as long as they are smart, well crafted films and not just because it has black actors or is directed by a minority. Then it just feels like when Selma got in with only a Best Song nomination besides BP. Three Billboards would be next. I thought that this might actually win the whole thing but it seemed to fade at the last moment. I like the characters it creates and it's a very darkly humorous look at what's going on in today's world. Really good stuff. The top two for me is so hard. I like both of these films immensely and I'm sure whichever one I watched most recently would be the one I want to win Best Picture. But both are brilliant and superb films for different reasons but also really the same reasons. One is a war film that is light on dialogue and lets the sights and sounds tell the story, while the other is a character driven look at a couple who thrive on some sadomasochistic feelings and have a very different yet connected relationship. Both are crafted by two dudes at the top of their game when it comes to creating a film. And both encompass much more than just simply directing. They write and help edit and make sure the music fits and that the picture quality is amazing and that the scenes look gorgeous and that the acting is top notch and I could go on and on. I don't know which I want to win more but I do know that I wish Phantom Thread had shown us more about Alma and Cyril and been maybe a bit longer in that regard. And Dunkirk is bloodless which seems like a minor misstep. So I dunno, Dunkirk for now! That might change tomorrow, though. A really great year for Best Picture and I hope 2018 is just as strong!
Oscar Winner: The Shape of Water
My Winner: Dunkirk
Phantom Thread
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Get Out
Lady Bird
Call Me By Your Name
The Shape of Water
The Post
Darkest Hour
Showing posts with label 2017. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2017. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2018
Leading Actor 2017
Yep, you guessed it, this has been decided since the start of the season. Oldman has been the only choice at every turn and it is very much a career achievement award as it is for his film. It's sad that there hasn't been any intrigue at all this year. I long for the year where none of the major awards are decided by Oscar night and remain a mystery up until the envelope is opened. It will never happen but I can dream.
2017 Best Actor
Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
Gary Oldman is going to win the Oscar this year for playing Winston Churchill. Reading that sentence over makes it sound like I'm disgusted or something, but no, Oldman does a fine job as Churchill. It's pretty widely known and accepted that this win is more for his career and not just for playing Churchill here. That's if he wins, of course. Something crazy could happen tomorrow night as I write this the day before the ceremony. I've read a lot of push back on this that the performance isn't good and he shouldn't win because of his troubled past and all that but I'm always about the performance only and I think Oldman is pretty good for what the film is. It's a straightforward historical biopic so really all Oldman has to do is be convincing enough as Churchill and he'd be guaranteed a nomination anyway. The makeup and prosthetics do most of the heavy lifting as Oldman disappears behind it all and is unrecognizable as himself. I'm certainly not a Winston Churchill expert so I don't know if he gets the voice and mannerisms perfect or not, but it's all pretty believable to me. He's intense when needed to be, he's sympathetic when necessary, he's rambunctious at times, he's Winston Churchill. The film doesn't really try to figure out who the man is, it just goes over his accomplishments as we see him deal with his first few weeks as Prime Minister. People doubt his ability to lead effectively and he has to show them that he can. Oldman acquits himself well as the man but doesn't have to do all that much besides become Churchill. We don't really explore the relationship with his wife (which actually seemed like something interesting was there beneath the surface), the new secretary felt like it might become a thing but it doesn't, the meetings with the King aren't as illuminating as maybe they should be for his character, and the fights with Lord Halifax, though satisfying, seem more perfunctory than anything. Another blogger mentioned how the story turns him into another 'movie hero' and I couldn't agree more with that observation. It's the movie version of Churchill that Oldman gets to play and we never get much deeper than that. But Oldman has some great individual scenes where his acting talent is on full display and you realize it is in fact Gary Oldman, the great actor underneath all that makeup. It's good but it feels like one of those performances where you acknowledge it is good and then never really come back to it again. But it will be cool for Oldman to get his Oscar finally, so there's that. But also you know it's not his best work and it's a career award and there was never any actual challenge to his winning and then you wish it was next year already so we can move on.
Timothee Chalamet - Call Me By Your Name
This was one I was really looking forward to finally watching because there was a lot of controversy around the subject of the film and because there were so many people online that were rapturous in their praise for his performance. I think a lot of that had to do with him being a good looking younger dude with some acting chops which those paying attention to Oscar will love, gay or straight. I was worried that he would come off like some entitled, pretty boy, douchebag which is a little like his character in Lady Bird. But that's why I watch the actual films and performances, because Chalamet didn't come off that way at all and is actually a very good actor who has a promising future. The controversy is because Chalamet plays a 17-year old who engages in a sexual relationship with an older man, supposed to be 24, played by Armie Hammer who looks way older than that. But the film is set in Italy in 1983 where consent is considerably lower than 17 and the film doesn't feel too icky or creepy. I think that is people projecting their own issues onto the film and these characters, probably without even seeing it. Chalamet comes from an intelligent, very liberal and academic family. He plays the piano well, reads a lot, hangs with the local girls, and swims. That's his existence until Hammer shows up as a research assistant for Chalamet's father (played wonderfully by Michael Stuhlbarg). It's like a coming of age story because Hammer's presence and his charming demeanor stirs up feelings in Elio and he becomes curious about Hammer and eventually sexually attracted to him. He just seems like a kid who is experimenting and trying to figure out who he is and what he likes in a very welcoming, non-threatening environment. Chalamet is great because he brings a lot of subtlety to the role and a lot internalized machinations. There's time where it's like you can see his mind spinning and thinking about something that catches his eye. There are a lot of moments where Chalamet has to act without saying anything and convey to the audience what Elio is thinking and feeling and without doing so in an obvious, theatrical kind of way. Now, Elio is a bit self absorbed and that can grate usually, but I think it works for his character because he is not quite a loner, but seems to enjoy being on his own or sitting apart from a group in a comfortable way, if that makes sense. He's very self assured and confuses that with his own maturity at times. So it kinda shows that Elio has it in him to be a little different which in turns makes his pursuing of Hammer feel legit. I think Chalamet portrays that independence as well as internalized confusion in a pretty remarkable manner. As dumb as I feel for saying it, Chalamet does exhibit a magnetism with his character and performance. He draws the viewer in to his world even if it's not because you find him attractive or relate to a gay experience or whatever. It's that he's an interesting kid that's more complex than most young characters. At least that's what draws me in. Plus the ending where he is devastated is some fine acting. I may not be part of the zealous crowd of Chalamet fans that was vocal when this first started showing in film festivals, but I do see the talent in him and am excited to see what he does next. I've seen him on some prediction lists for the next Oscars a year away, so I don't think we will have to wait to long for whatever it is.
Daniel Day-Lewis - Phantom Thread
I feel like you could just copy and paste all my previous reviews of Day-Lewis, change the name of the film and character, and be good to go. DDL delivers brilliant performance after brilliant performance and this one is no exception. If this is truly the last time he acts onscreen (remember he did retire back in the 90s, too) then he will have gone out with a performance many would be envious of. We all know how dedicated DDL is to his craft and for this one he apprenticed as a designer under some top names, even designing and making a dress for his wife from scratch. His dedication in preparing for his roles always shines through onscreen because it looks like he knows what he's doing as a designer. He can sell you that when he's looking at a dress in the film, that he is actually actively coming up with ideas and fixes and isn't just doing acting motions. When he smooths out a dress or puts a pin somewhere, it's for a reason, and DDL is able to convey that through his acting. DDL is this great fashion designer. This is also the first time in decades that he uses his real voice and doesn't use an accent. The soft spoken nature of his voice fits the role and the film and it always impressed me when you'd hear his Lincoln or Daniel Plainview and then his real voice. It's soft spoken, intelligent and warm sounding and fits the fashion designer character he has created. And it's always fun to watch DDL add in all his own little mannerisms or looks. Just watch how he adds in those flourishes of say squinting when remembering something or how his face scrunches up when he is annoyed by Vicky Krieps being noisy or how he tilts his head when listening. I think he's the best at adding this little things to his character that feel natural and give off their own personality. It's not just a guy delivering lines and hitting his mark. It's DDL becoming this person with his own personal touches and I love seeing what he will bring to his roles. It also should be stated that because DDL has given so many brilliant performances and iconic characters, it can be hard to judge his current work without comparing to his previous work. It's like he's sometimes competing against himself when he gives a performance like in this film that doesn't feel as impressive because he's not yelling about drinking your milkshake. But what he is able to do in this role is brilliant and we can take for granted how impressive even his quieter roles are. His devotion to his art is something rarely seen and I really hope he isn't done acting because I want to see what other brilliant performances he can give us.
Daniel Kaluuya - Get Out
I was surprised to see Daniel Kaluuya was nominated on the morning the nominations came out. He had been in some precursors, yes, but it never felt like he was a legitimate contender and yet here he is. I think a lot of that has to do with how well Get Out was received by critics and audiences in general, and a large part of that is thanks to Kaluuya. The one thing you notice about him before you even see the film in the promotional material is his big, expressive eyes. He always had a serious face or a terrified, teary look going on with those big eyeballs telling you everything you need to know about the tone of the film. Then when you finally watch his performance, that's what I'd say really sold his nomination were those looks. This guy has mastered the serious scowl and the horrified, desperate look with added tears. I know it sounds weird to talk about, but in a horror film you need the main protagonist to be expressive and allow the audience to feel the story through him/her. That's the strength of Kaluuya's work for me is allowing us to feel terrified and horrified for him about whatever the hell is going on. He's the anchor for all of us and plays the straight man in this film wonderfully. I was unsure going in if I'd like a horror film performance because I typically loathe horror films, but I was pleasantly surprised that Kaluuya didn't fall into the many horror cliches and played the character like a real person in an increasingly fucked up situation. I think with all the craziness going on around him, Kaluuya being the normal constant is almost taken for granted but he has a tough task of not going overboard himself. And not to just say that all he does is act normal in a sea of crazy, Kaluuya does have an emotional moment when talking about when his mom died when he was young and he hits those emotional beats perfectly. That's where you can really see the acting ability and realize this isn't just a typical horror performance. It also makes the brutality and survival of the final scene work even more for Kaluuya because you feel his betrayal by his girlfriend and the burning hatred for the family members. I feel like this performance can be easily underappreciated given that it's a horror film, but I do think it's a very good portrayal overall.
Denzel Washington - Roman J. Israel, Esq.
This was director Dan Gilroy's follow up to Nightcrawler, so I was very interested to see this film especially since he teamed up with Denzel for it. It seems to have gotten slammed a bit as not a good film, but Denzel is very good in a different role for him. While I agree with the latter, the former seems a bit harsh. It's nowhere near as good as his previous film, but it still is pretty engaging. Denzel makes the film, as usual, but I didn't think the film was as terribad as reviewers and Oscar folk made it out to be. Denzel plays an eccentric, quirky lawyer whose partner dies and their clients are sold or given to another big high priced firm. Denzel kinda comes off as maybe being this genius lawyer who can quote the criminal codes by heart and is idealistic in wanting to fight for civil rights and wants to reform plea bargaining but is just too awkward and autistic-like to be the face of a case. He meets a woman attorney working for some non-profit civil rights organization and clearly likes her. He starts off on the wrong foot with the new attorney group headed by Colin Farrell (who I've met!) and is in desperate need of money. He is assigned a case of a kid whose friend kills a store owner and is in jail. He tells Denzel where to find the actual shooter but the kid is killed in jail. Denzel then calls in the anonymous tip to collect a big reward and spends some money. I say all that to emphasize that there are many threads coming off Denzel and all of them feel under cooked even though the film is just over two hours long. This feels like it needs to be way longer to fully flesh out Denzel's character. That's not Denzel's fault, however, as he sort of plays against his usual type (or at least lately anyway). He is almost an autistic character, he's certainly a savant of some kind, and absolutely an idealistic good guy who wants to make sure the people are protected from shitty prosecuting practices. Yeah, Denzel has some affectations that work for the character but some that definitely feel put on like an afterthought. Also, because it is Denzel, he will always have this badass quality to him that just seeps through the performance. Even when playing a weird, quirky lawyer who is a loner and shouldn't be too likable, his charm punches through and his authoritarian demeanor slips in every so often. I like that he goes against type. I want a lot of other actors to do the same to see them stretch themselves acting wise. But Denzel needs this film to go on for another 30-45 minutes to pull the character together and tie up or cut off these loose threads. I like what it did and where it was going but there is just something that feels unfulfilled with the character and therefore the performance. I think Denzel is good and I think the Academy recognize he went against type. I also think they go to the same well too much. But he was coming off Fences and gave a decent performance here and we are in a new era for the Academy so he got in. It's good but I want more from the film and the performance.
A disappointing Best Actor race as it was Oldman all the way for a role that's admittedly not his best. It feels like an uninspiring choice but this is really a nod to his career. The Academy will forever be playing catch up because they don't reward actors when they do give their best work and have to come back years later to reward mediocre work with an Oscar for their career. It's frustrating but has been happening since the start almost. This Best Actor year is weird because I don't really have a favorite. Yeah, I love DDL and his performance is another feather in his cap but I know it's not even his best work. Denzel takes on a different kind of role yet still puts the Denzel spin to it. It's also obviously not his best performance by any means. Then you have two newcomers in Chalamet and Kaluuya who do deliver really wonderful performances that make you want to pay more attention to them in the future. I think it's going to be tough for Kaluuya to find his way back to being nominated unless there are greater black roles or we stop caring about seeing a Kaluuya in a Chalamet type role or a DDL type role or if Denzel stops hogging them all. I hope I'm wrong but this might be his only shot. I do think we'll see Chalamet again because he is what the Academy likes. Being a young, white actor means he's going to get a ton of roles offered to him so as long as he's smart about what he takes, he'll be back. Just real talk. So it's hard to figure out what to do with this category. A win for DDL or Denzel is superfluous and unnecessary. A win for Chalamet or Kaluuya seems premature, though they would be interesting. Oldman really wouldn't be my choice but eh, no one else blows me away. I'd give it to DDL but he doesn't need it. So Oldman it is, just go with the Academy on this and forget about it.
Oscar Winner: Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
My Winner: Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
Timothee Chalamet
Daniel Kaluuya
Daniel Day-Lewis
Denzel Washington
2017 Best Actor
Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
Gary Oldman is going to win the Oscar this year for playing Winston Churchill. Reading that sentence over makes it sound like I'm disgusted or something, but no, Oldman does a fine job as Churchill. It's pretty widely known and accepted that this win is more for his career and not just for playing Churchill here. That's if he wins, of course. Something crazy could happen tomorrow night as I write this the day before the ceremony. I've read a lot of push back on this that the performance isn't good and he shouldn't win because of his troubled past and all that but I'm always about the performance only and I think Oldman is pretty good for what the film is. It's a straightforward historical biopic so really all Oldman has to do is be convincing enough as Churchill and he'd be guaranteed a nomination anyway. The makeup and prosthetics do most of the heavy lifting as Oldman disappears behind it all and is unrecognizable as himself. I'm certainly not a Winston Churchill expert so I don't know if he gets the voice and mannerisms perfect or not, but it's all pretty believable to me. He's intense when needed to be, he's sympathetic when necessary, he's rambunctious at times, he's Winston Churchill. The film doesn't really try to figure out who the man is, it just goes over his accomplishments as we see him deal with his first few weeks as Prime Minister. People doubt his ability to lead effectively and he has to show them that he can. Oldman acquits himself well as the man but doesn't have to do all that much besides become Churchill. We don't really explore the relationship with his wife (which actually seemed like something interesting was there beneath the surface), the new secretary felt like it might become a thing but it doesn't, the meetings with the King aren't as illuminating as maybe they should be for his character, and the fights with Lord Halifax, though satisfying, seem more perfunctory than anything. Another blogger mentioned how the story turns him into another 'movie hero' and I couldn't agree more with that observation. It's the movie version of Churchill that Oldman gets to play and we never get much deeper than that. But Oldman has some great individual scenes where his acting talent is on full display and you realize it is in fact Gary Oldman, the great actor underneath all that makeup. It's good but it feels like one of those performances where you acknowledge it is good and then never really come back to it again. But it will be cool for Oldman to get his Oscar finally, so there's that. But also you know it's not his best work and it's a career award and there was never any actual challenge to his winning and then you wish it was next year already so we can move on.
Timothee Chalamet - Call Me By Your Name
This was one I was really looking forward to finally watching because there was a lot of controversy around the subject of the film and because there were so many people online that were rapturous in their praise for his performance. I think a lot of that had to do with him being a good looking younger dude with some acting chops which those paying attention to Oscar will love, gay or straight. I was worried that he would come off like some entitled, pretty boy, douchebag which is a little like his character in Lady Bird. But that's why I watch the actual films and performances, because Chalamet didn't come off that way at all and is actually a very good actor who has a promising future. The controversy is because Chalamet plays a 17-year old who engages in a sexual relationship with an older man, supposed to be 24, played by Armie Hammer who looks way older than that. But the film is set in Italy in 1983 where consent is considerably lower than 17 and the film doesn't feel too icky or creepy. I think that is people projecting their own issues onto the film and these characters, probably without even seeing it. Chalamet comes from an intelligent, very liberal and academic family. He plays the piano well, reads a lot, hangs with the local girls, and swims. That's his existence until Hammer shows up as a research assistant for Chalamet's father (played wonderfully by Michael Stuhlbarg). It's like a coming of age story because Hammer's presence and his charming demeanor stirs up feelings in Elio and he becomes curious about Hammer and eventually sexually attracted to him. He just seems like a kid who is experimenting and trying to figure out who he is and what he likes in a very welcoming, non-threatening environment. Chalamet is great because he brings a lot of subtlety to the role and a lot internalized machinations. There's time where it's like you can see his mind spinning and thinking about something that catches his eye. There are a lot of moments where Chalamet has to act without saying anything and convey to the audience what Elio is thinking and feeling and without doing so in an obvious, theatrical kind of way. Now, Elio is a bit self absorbed and that can grate usually, but I think it works for his character because he is not quite a loner, but seems to enjoy being on his own or sitting apart from a group in a comfortable way, if that makes sense. He's very self assured and confuses that with his own maturity at times. So it kinda shows that Elio has it in him to be a little different which in turns makes his pursuing of Hammer feel legit. I think Chalamet portrays that independence as well as internalized confusion in a pretty remarkable manner. As dumb as I feel for saying it, Chalamet does exhibit a magnetism with his character and performance. He draws the viewer in to his world even if it's not because you find him attractive or relate to a gay experience or whatever. It's that he's an interesting kid that's more complex than most young characters. At least that's what draws me in. Plus the ending where he is devastated is some fine acting. I may not be part of the zealous crowd of Chalamet fans that was vocal when this first started showing in film festivals, but I do see the talent in him and am excited to see what he does next. I've seen him on some prediction lists for the next Oscars a year away, so I don't think we will have to wait to long for whatever it is.
Daniel Day-Lewis - Phantom Thread
I feel like you could just copy and paste all my previous reviews of Day-Lewis, change the name of the film and character, and be good to go. DDL delivers brilliant performance after brilliant performance and this one is no exception. If this is truly the last time he acts onscreen (remember he did retire back in the 90s, too) then he will have gone out with a performance many would be envious of. We all know how dedicated DDL is to his craft and for this one he apprenticed as a designer under some top names, even designing and making a dress for his wife from scratch. His dedication in preparing for his roles always shines through onscreen because it looks like he knows what he's doing as a designer. He can sell you that when he's looking at a dress in the film, that he is actually actively coming up with ideas and fixes and isn't just doing acting motions. When he smooths out a dress or puts a pin somewhere, it's for a reason, and DDL is able to convey that through his acting. DDL is this great fashion designer. This is also the first time in decades that he uses his real voice and doesn't use an accent. The soft spoken nature of his voice fits the role and the film and it always impressed me when you'd hear his Lincoln or Daniel Plainview and then his real voice. It's soft spoken, intelligent and warm sounding and fits the fashion designer character he has created. And it's always fun to watch DDL add in all his own little mannerisms or looks. Just watch how he adds in those flourishes of say squinting when remembering something or how his face scrunches up when he is annoyed by Vicky Krieps being noisy or how he tilts his head when listening. I think he's the best at adding this little things to his character that feel natural and give off their own personality. It's not just a guy delivering lines and hitting his mark. It's DDL becoming this person with his own personal touches and I love seeing what he will bring to his roles. It also should be stated that because DDL has given so many brilliant performances and iconic characters, it can be hard to judge his current work without comparing to his previous work. It's like he's sometimes competing against himself when he gives a performance like in this film that doesn't feel as impressive because he's not yelling about drinking your milkshake. But what he is able to do in this role is brilliant and we can take for granted how impressive even his quieter roles are. His devotion to his art is something rarely seen and I really hope he isn't done acting because I want to see what other brilliant performances he can give us.
Daniel Kaluuya - Get Out
I was surprised to see Daniel Kaluuya was nominated on the morning the nominations came out. He had been in some precursors, yes, but it never felt like he was a legitimate contender and yet here he is. I think a lot of that has to do with how well Get Out was received by critics and audiences in general, and a large part of that is thanks to Kaluuya. The one thing you notice about him before you even see the film in the promotional material is his big, expressive eyes. He always had a serious face or a terrified, teary look going on with those big eyeballs telling you everything you need to know about the tone of the film. Then when you finally watch his performance, that's what I'd say really sold his nomination were those looks. This guy has mastered the serious scowl and the horrified, desperate look with added tears. I know it sounds weird to talk about, but in a horror film you need the main protagonist to be expressive and allow the audience to feel the story through him/her. That's the strength of Kaluuya's work for me is allowing us to feel terrified and horrified for him about whatever the hell is going on. He's the anchor for all of us and plays the straight man in this film wonderfully. I was unsure going in if I'd like a horror film performance because I typically loathe horror films, but I was pleasantly surprised that Kaluuya didn't fall into the many horror cliches and played the character like a real person in an increasingly fucked up situation. I think with all the craziness going on around him, Kaluuya being the normal constant is almost taken for granted but he has a tough task of not going overboard himself. And not to just say that all he does is act normal in a sea of crazy, Kaluuya does have an emotional moment when talking about when his mom died when he was young and he hits those emotional beats perfectly. That's where you can really see the acting ability and realize this isn't just a typical horror performance. It also makes the brutality and survival of the final scene work even more for Kaluuya because you feel his betrayal by his girlfriend and the burning hatred for the family members. I feel like this performance can be easily underappreciated given that it's a horror film, but I do think it's a very good portrayal overall.
Denzel Washington - Roman J. Israel, Esq.
This was director Dan Gilroy's follow up to Nightcrawler, so I was very interested to see this film especially since he teamed up with Denzel for it. It seems to have gotten slammed a bit as not a good film, but Denzel is very good in a different role for him. While I agree with the latter, the former seems a bit harsh. It's nowhere near as good as his previous film, but it still is pretty engaging. Denzel makes the film, as usual, but I didn't think the film was as terribad as reviewers and Oscar folk made it out to be. Denzel plays an eccentric, quirky lawyer whose partner dies and their clients are sold or given to another big high priced firm. Denzel kinda comes off as maybe being this genius lawyer who can quote the criminal codes by heart and is idealistic in wanting to fight for civil rights and wants to reform plea bargaining but is just too awkward and autistic-like to be the face of a case. He meets a woman attorney working for some non-profit civil rights organization and clearly likes her. He starts off on the wrong foot with the new attorney group headed by Colin Farrell (who I've met!) and is in desperate need of money. He is assigned a case of a kid whose friend kills a store owner and is in jail. He tells Denzel where to find the actual shooter but the kid is killed in jail. Denzel then calls in the anonymous tip to collect a big reward and spends some money. I say all that to emphasize that there are many threads coming off Denzel and all of them feel under cooked even though the film is just over two hours long. This feels like it needs to be way longer to fully flesh out Denzel's character. That's not Denzel's fault, however, as he sort of plays against his usual type (or at least lately anyway). He is almost an autistic character, he's certainly a savant of some kind, and absolutely an idealistic good guy who wants to make sure the people are protected from shitty prosecuting practices. Yeah, Denzel has some affectations that work for the character but some that definitely feel put on like an afterthought. Also, because it is Denzel, he will always have this badass quality to him that just seeps through the performance. Even when playing a weird, quirky lawyer who is a loner and shouldn't be too likable, his charm punches through and his authoritarian demeanor slips in every so often. I like that he goes against type. I want a lot of other actors to do the same to see them stretch themselves acting wise. But Denzel needs this film to go on for another 30-45 minutes to pull the character together and tie up or cut off these loose threads. I like what it did and where it was going but there is just something that feels unfulfilled with the character and therefore the performance. I think Denzel is good and I think the Academy recognize he went against type. I also think they go to the same well too much. But he was coming off Fences and gave a decent performance here and we are in a new era for the Academy so he got in. It's good but I want more from the film and the performance.
A disappointing Best Actor race as it was Oldman all the way for a role that's admittedly not his best. It feels like an uninspiring choice but this is really a nod to his career. The Academy will forever be playing catch up because they don't reward actors when they do give their best work and have to come back years later to reward mediocre work with an Oscar for their career. It's frustrating but has been happening since the start almost. This Best Actor year is weird because I don't really have a favorite. Yeah, I love DDL and his performance is another feather in his cap but I know it's not even his best work. Denzel takes on a different kind of role yet still puts the Denzel spin to it. It's also obviously not his best performance by any means. Then you have two newcomers in Chalamet and Kaluuya who do deliver really wonderful performances that make you want to pay more attention to them in the future. I think it's going to be tough for Kaluuya to find his way back to being nominated unless there are greater black roles or we stop caring about seeing a Kaluuya in a Chalamet type role or a DDL type role or if Denzel stops hogging them all. I hope I'm wrong but this might be his only shot. I do think we'll see Chalamet again because he is what the Academy likes. Being a young, white actor means he's going to get a ton of roles offered to him so as long as he's smart about what he takes, he'll be back. Just real talk. So it's hard to figure out what to do with this category. A win for DDL or Denzel is superfluous and unnecessary. A win for Chalamet or Kaluuya seems premature, though they would be interesting. Oldman really wouldn't be my choice but eh, no one else blows me away. I'd give it to DDL but he doesn't need it. So Oldman it is, just go with the Academy on this and forget about it.
Oscar Winner: Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
My Winner: Gary Oldman - Darkest Hour
Timothee Chalamet
Daniel Kaluuya
Daniel Day-Lewis
Denzel Washington
Leading Actress 2017
It has been McDormand all the way. There really hasn't been any competition once the real award season started. Hawkins was a front runner way back in the early days but she fell quickly to the wayside. Ronan was a possible challenger but for whatever reason, the Academy hasn't rallied around her like they did with Jennifer Lawrence, and Ronan is a million times better as an actress over Lawrence. So, this will be McDormand on Oscar night barring some sort of miracle.
2017 Best Actress
Frances McDormand - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Frances McDormand is on pace to win her second Best Actress Oscar for this role. She has cleaned up every other awards show and if anyone else wins, it will be a huge shock and upset. So I am comfortable in saying she will be your winner. And I feel like she definitely earns it. Whether or not you favor someone else, you can't deny she is very good in this role. She also comes off as being herself. Maybe that's from me seeing her at awards show and she seems to be very serious and not smiling but it seems like no one else but her could pull this role off. Try and think of any other actress who could carry this whole film and give a great performance. I struggle to think of anyone else. She is a mother who is angry, furious, hellbent on getting the police to fully investigate her daughter's rape and murder. You can feel her anger and frustration through the screen and she's probably one of the best actresses at showing those emotions. She just seems perpetually unhappy, even though it is just her character. But she's fed up with the incompetence and doesn't care anymore about not doing things the usual way. She wants answers now and yeah, she'll firebomb a police building in anger to try on spur on some development. If they won't take it serious, she'll make them. That's what McDormand is great at showing us. Her little rants to the news lady, the priest, the cops where she calls everyone out is great because McDormand can make her calling someone a cunt or motherfucker or whatever into not just a laugh, but into a very believable action for a hurting, grieving mother. She does have these sad, emotional moments that really show the depth of her performance and of her character and just how badly she aches and hurts. We see the last time she is with her daughter and she tells her she hopes she gets raped. She is dealing with a lot of guilt and shame and anger at herself for putting her daughter in a position to be abducted, raped, and murdered. She blames herself just as much as she blames the police for being an inept bunch. I mean seriously, I'm trying to figure out who else could display that raw hatred and anger that McDormand does and I'm drawing a blank. The role was written with McDormand in mind as the only real actress who could portray the character and it results in her probably winning her second Oscar. That should tell you just how impressive she is as an actress. This is also a really strong Best Actress win and one that will definitely be remembered when trying to rank the winners.
Sally Hawkins - The Shape of Water
Hawkins was actually the front runner at one point very early in the race. She got glowing reviews out of Venice and then she became the one to beat until the other films came out and then front runner status changed to being just another runner up. This is a pretty difficult role to pull off and I feel like if Hawkins had faltered, the film wouldn't have been as good. We first see her naked and masturbating in the bath before work. Then we learn she's a mute, so she barely speaks in the film and relies on the other actors to translate for her or she signs with subtitles on the screen. And then we see her fuck a fish man. So yeah, pretty tough role for any woman and yet Hawkins does a great job of allowing us to know who Elisa is as a person. She never over emotes, even though it can be hard for her to communicate and she makes it completely believable that she is a mute. I like that she never went overboard in trying to show something or say something. She just repeats herself like anyone else would and stays true to her sort of shy, meek persona. I also like that when she gets mad that she's not being heard, she effectively gets her point across without getting hammy or with it seeming unnatural. My point is that Hawkins gets you to stop focusing on the fact that she can't speak and has to either sign or rely on others to communicate. You start paying attention to her as a person and reading the emotions on her face and body language. You start seeing a woman who is different that wants to be loved and wants to fall in love. Hawkins has great chemistry with all her supporting cast and that's important that she seem like old friends with both Richard Jenkins and Octavia Spencer. Their relationships are already set up and they never feel like characters just thrown together for a story. The most important part, however, is that she has great chemistry with the fish man, which does indeed sound weird to say. But the film hinges on you believing in their romance, because if you don't, it's just a creepy horror film then. But you do, so their relationship feels real and even when they have weird sex, it's still a tender (albeit strange) moment. And of course we see Elisa grow happy and she even stands up to the evil Michael Shannon character. Maybe if this film came out later, Hawkins could have stolen some of the front runner thunder and be the presumptive winner. I think it's a very good performance once you get over the fish man relationship and really fits into the film perfectly. Is it my favorite, though? That remains to be seen yet.
Margot Robbie - I, Tonya
I'm actually a little surprised this didn't make it into the Best Picture category because I feel it is strong enough to be there. Robbie is the only nominee here whose film isn't in the Best Picture race. When I was watching this film, that was my first thought: why isn't this in Best Picture? It seems to tick off a lot of what the Academy would like. My only guess is that it ran a little long? I don't know. What I do know is that Robbie is frigging fantastic as Tonya Harding. She has a really tough role because not only the whole having to skate thing but she portrays Tonya at a couple different times in her life. She first portrays her as a teenager with short hair and braces and she looks and sounds and acts just like a teenage Tonya would. Maybe there is CGI involved there, I dunno, but she looked the part even from the very beginning. But when I was watching, what really struck me was how earnest Robbie was in the role and performance. She went all in. And she really did because she also helped produce the film, which is pretty amazing. This is the case of an actress giving her all to a performance and getting rewarded for it. I think we all knew after The Wolf of Wall Street that Robbie would be a major actress gunning for Oscar nominations, but I don't think we knew she would deliver such an involved performance. She plays the skating Tonya at different times, but the plays the current Tonya who is recounting all of these details for us. So she plays a whole bunch of different Tonya's without missing a beat. I don't know how to fully explain just how impressive Robbie is in this film. Maybe comparing her to the wins of like Marion Cotillard or Helen Mirren in recent times as bellwethers? She fully embodies Tonya and becomes our representation of her. This is simply a really strong performance that came out of nowhere to get nominated because no one was tracking this a couple months ago. One thing about the role is that it's hard to really sympathize with Tonya because you just don't know what is real and what isn't. What involvement with Kerrigan did she have? Should she have had the book thrown at her and been banned from figure skating or no? The scene in which she is in court is really well done by Robbie and she gets you close to tears before you remember she may not be so innocent. This is tremendous work by Robbie and I really hope we see a lot more like this from her in the future because she is an up and coming star.
Saoirse Ronan - Lady Bird
I am a huge fan of Ronan's and feel like she should have beat Brie Larson for the Oscar a couple years ago. I even really liked her first nomination when she was a young girl back in 2007, even though there was some stiff competition there. She's also my only real Hollywood crush and that is mostly because of her acting (and because she's gorgeous, duh). But I do stay impartial despite that and go in to her reviews objectively. I never really have to worry about liking her performances, though, because almost everything I've seen of hers has been good to flat out amazing. This is no different as she plays the titular Lady Bird, a high school girl living in Sacramento who wants to go to college in NYC. She's self absorbed and thinks she knows everything and is a typical teenage girl. She's a little quirky and a little flighty but she's mostly a normal girl dealing with boyfriends and best friends and her mom and her dad and trying to get into a college she wants. What helps make the performance so good is the writing, which is incredible and allows Ronan to create a fully fleshed out character. It's like a real portrayal of a high school girl. It's not all melodramatic hysterics, it's not all super mature and wise girl who is smarter than everyone else, and it's not the teenage girl who is 17 going on 37 cliche. Ronan delivers a real performance that is full of confusion and frustration and happiness and sadness and all the emotions in between. She kinda acts like a brat at times but she also realizes that she's thankful of her loving mother and her best friend. She has her delicate, emotional moments as well as being a pretty level headed girl at times. I like the scene where her mom unexpectedly picks her up from her boyfriend's house after she loses her virginity and then Ronan breaks down because it wasn't what she expected and Metcalf empathizes as only a mother can. It's a beautiful scene in a very sweet and amazing film made great in part because of Ronan's wonderful performance.
Meryl Streep - The Post
Just when I thought I was done, they pull me back in with another Streep nomination! This is number Twenty-One! That's just completely mind blowing and she probably isn't done getting nominated. I wouldn't be surprised to see her win a fourth Oscar in the next ten years. Seriously though, Streep is precious. In this film she plays the owner of The Washington Post. In the beginning of the film she is taking the newspaper public so they can make money since they are cash strapped and not a major player nationally. But then the Pentagon Papers start getting leaked by The New York Times and Nixon and the White House sue them to stop them printing the papers due to national security concerns. The Post reporters are on the scoop and get a hold of more of the papers and Streep has to decide whether to publish or face possible lawsuits. I like Streep here because she gives a real person performance. It doesn't survive on her movie star quality and is more quiet than a lot of her recent performances. She's kind of nervousy and unsure about the direction her paper is going and doesn't seem too confident. But she realizes the gravity of what her reporters and people have worked so hard to uncover and knows that this is a pivotal moment in US history. She rises to the occasion in a way that doesn't seem contrived or made to build her up as a hero because it's Streep. So, it's a typical good Streep performance, the kind we are more than used to and probably take for granted as being just another Streep performance. Yeah, it may rank in the middle of her twenty-one nominations, maybe slightly above average but when you watch her work, you can see how dedicated and amazing she truly is. I do wish that the Academy would go with some other actresses unless Streep delivers something that is amazing by Streep's standards. Give some other women a chance to get nominated. But it does feel like they are trying to get her another Oscar and she deserves it, but it needs to be for something that is worthy and not just another token Streep nomination.
And no surprise here, it's McDormand with her second Oscar. A boring race because it was never going to be anyone else. Streep wasn't going to challenge for giving a typically good Streep performance, though not amazing by her own inflated standards. It was nice to see her acting opposite Tom Hanks and in a Spielberg film. Hawkins was an early frontrunner but that faded quickly and even with the success of her film overall, she just didn't have enough to get over the top. It's a mostly mute role and the other actors do the talking for her so it never fully worked for me. It's possible if you ask me in a couple weeks or months, she might even drop down to last place. Robbie has a lot of passion that is evident in her performance for her character and it was a fun film to watch. It's awesome that she also helped produce it. Maybe in a bad Best Actress year she would have had more of a chance but not with Ronan and McDormand out there. I had a hard time choosing who my winner is, though. On one hand, I love Ronan to death and think her performance has a lot of realism and honesty in it. On the other hand, I like McDormand's take no shit attitude, get justice your own way kind of thing. But McDormand already has one and while this one was fun to watch, there's just something about Ronan. It's possible she may finally get her Oscar next year as she has a big juicy period piece drama about Mary Queen of Scots, I think. And I think she has another that people were looking at as a possibility, so things will be good for Ronan's Oscar chances in the future but she gets my vote today. A decent year that could have been better but of course that means we need better written female roles and a lot more of them. We also need the Academy to stop going to the same few ladies and pick someone else for a change.
Oscar Winner: Frances McDormand - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
My Winner: Saoirse Ronan - Lady Bird
Frances McDormand
Margot Robbie
Sally Hawkins
Meryl Streep
2017 Best Actress
Frances McDormand - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Frances McDormand is on pace to win her second Best Actress Oscar for this role. She has cleaned up every other awards show and if anyone else wins, it will be a huge shock and upset. So I am comfortable in saying she will be your winner. And I feel like she definitely earns it. Whether or not you favor someone else, you can't deny she is very good in this role. She also comes off as being herself. Maybe that's from me seeing her at awards show and she seems to be very serious and not smiling but it seems like no one else but her could pull this role off. Try and think of any other actress who could carry this whole film and give a great performance. I struggle to think of anyone else. She is a mother who is angry, furious, hellbent on getting the police to fully investigate her daughter's rape and murder. You can feel her anger and frustration through the screen and she's probably one of the best actresses at showing those emotions. She just seems perpetually unhappy, even though it is just her character. But she's fed up with the incompetence and doesn't care anymore about not doing things the usual way. She wants answers now and yeah, she'll firebomb a police building in anger to try on spur on some development. If they won't take it serious, she'll make them. That's what McDormand is great at showing us. Her little rants to the news lady, the priest, the cops where she calls everyone out is great because McDormand can make her calling someone a cunt or motherfucker or whatever into not just a laugh, but into a very believable action for a hurting, grieving mother. She does have these sad, emotional moments that really show the depth of her performance and of her character and just how badly she aches and hurts. We see the last time she is with her daughter and she tells her she hopes she gets raped. She is dealing with a lot of guilt and shame and anger at herself for putting her daughter in a position to be abducted, raped, and murdered. She blames herself just as much as she blames the police for being an inept bunch. I mean seriously, I'm trying to figure out who else could display that raw hatred and anger that McDormand does and I'm drawing a blank. The role was written with McDormand in mind as the only real actress who could portray the character and it results in her probably winning her second Oscar. That should tell you just how impressive she is as an actress. This is also a really strong Best Actress win and one that will definitely be remembered when trying to rank the winners.
Sally Hawkins - The Shape of Water
Hawkins was actually the front runner at one point very early in the race. She got glowing reviews out of Venice and then she became the one to beat until the other films came out and then front runner status changed to being just another runner up. This is a pretty difficult role to pull off and I feel like if Hawkins had faltered, the film wouldn't have been as good. We first see her naked and masturbating in the bath before work. Then we learn she's a mute, so she barely speaks in the film and relies on the other actors to translate for her or she signs with subtitles on the screen. And then we see her fuck a fish man. So yeah, pretty tough role for any woman and yet Hawkins does a great job of allowing us to know who Elisa is as a person. She never over emotes, even though it can be hard for her to communicate and she makes it completely believable that she is a mute. I like that she never went overboard in trying to show something or say something. She just repeats herself like anyone else would and stays true to her sort of shy, meek persona. I also like that when she gets mad that she's not being heard, she effectively gets her point across without getting hammy or with it seeming unnatural. My point is that Hawkins gets you to stop focusing on the fact that she can't speak and has to either sign or rely on others to communicate. You start paying attention to her as a person and reading the emotions on her face and body language. You start seeing a woman who is different that wants to be loved and wants to fall in love. Hawkins has great chemistry with all her supporting cast and that's important that she seem like old friends with both Richard Jenkins and Octavia Spencer. Their relationships are already set up and they never feel like characters just thrown together for a story. The most important part, however, is that she has great chemistry with the fish man, which does indeed sound weird to say. But the film hinges on you believing in their romance, because if you don't, it's just a creepy horror film then. But you do, so their relationship feels real and even when they have weird sex, it's still a tender (albeit strange) moment. And of course we see Elisa grow happy and she even stands up to the evil Michael Shannon character. Maybe if this film came out later, Hawkins could have stolen some of the front runner thunder and be the presumptive winner. I think it's a very good performance once you get over the fish man relationship and really fits into the film perfectly. Is it my favorite, though? That remains to be seen yet.
Margot Robbie - I, Tonya
I'm actually a little surprised this didn't make it into the Best Picture category because I feel it is strong enough to be there. Robbie is the only nominee here whose film isn't in the Best Picture race. When I was watching this film, that was my first thought: why isn't this in Best Picture? It seems to tick off a lot of what the Academy would like. My only guess is that it ran a little long? I don't know. What I do know is that Robbie is frigging fantastic as Tonya Harding. She has a really tough role because not only the whole having to skate thing but she portrays Tonya at a couple different times in her life. She first portrays her as a teenager with short hair and braces and she looks and sounds and acts just like a teenage Tonya would. Maybe there is CGI involved there, I dunno, but she looked the part even from the very beginning. But when I was watching, what really struck me was how earnest Robbie was in the role and performance. She went all in. And she really did because she also helped produce the film, which is pretty amazing. This is the case of an actress giving her all to a performance and getting rewarded for it. I think we all knew after The Wolf of Wall Street that Robbie would be a major actress gunning for Oscar nominations, but I don't think we knew she would deliver such an involved performance. She plays the skating Tonya at different times, but the plays the current Tonya who is recounting all of these details for us. So she plays a whole bunch of different Tonya's without missing a beat. I don't know how to fully explain just how impressive Robbie is in this film. Maybe comparing her to the wins of like Marion Cotillard or Helen Mirren in recent times as bellwethers? She fully embodies Tonya and becomes our representation of her. This is simply a really strong performance that came out of nowhere to get nominated because no one was tracking this a couple months ago. One thing about the role is that it's hard to really sympathize with Tonya because you just don't know what is real and what isn't. What involvement with Kerrigan did she have? Should she have had the book thrown at her and been banned from figure skating or no? The scene in which she is in court is really well done by Robbie and she gets you close to tears before you remember she may not be so innocent. This is tremendous work by Robbie and I really hope we see a lot more like this from her in the future because she is an up and coming star.
Saoirse Ronan - Lady Bird
I am a huge fan of Ronan's and feel like she should have beat Brie Larson for the Oscar a couple years ago. I even really liked her first nomination when she was a young girl back in 2007, even though there was some stiff competition there. She's also my only real Hollywood crush and that is mostly because of her acting (and because she's gorgeous, duh). But I do stay impartial despite that and go in to her reviews objectively. I never really have to worry about liking her performances, though, because almost everything I've seen of hers has been good to flat out amazing. This is no different as she plays the titular Lady Bird, a high school girl living in Sacramento who wants to go to college in NYC. She's self absorbed and thinks she knows everything and is a typical teenage girl. She's a little quirky and a little flighty but she's mostly a normal girl dealing with boyfriends and best friends and her mom and her dad and trying to get into a college she wants. What helps make the performance so good is the writing, which is incredible and allows Ronan to create a fully fleshed out character. It's like a real portrayal of a high school girl. It's not all melodramatic hysterics, it's not all super mature and wise girl who is smarter than everyone else, and it's not the teenage girl who is 17 going on 37 cliche. Ronan delivers a real performance that is full of confusion and frustration and happiness and sadness and all the emotions in between. She kinda acts like a brat at times but she also realizes that she's thankful of her loving mother and her best friend. She has her delicate, emotional moments as well as being a pretty level headed girl at times. I like the scene where her mom unexpectedly picks her up from her boyfriend's house after she loses her virginity and then Ronan breaks down because it wasn't what she expected and Metcalf empathizes as only a mother can. It's a beautiful scene in a very sweet and amazing film made great in part because of Ronan's wonderful performance.
Meryl Streep - The Post
Just when I thought I was done, they pull me back in with another Streep nomination! This is number Twenty-One! That's just completely mind blowing and she probably isn't done getting nominated. I wouldn't be surprised to see her win a fourth Oscar in the next ten years. Seriously though, Streep is precious. In this film she plays the owner of The Washington Post. In the beginning of the film she is taking the newspaper public so they can make money since they are cash strapped and not a major player nationally. But then the Pentagon Papers start getting leaked by The New York Times and Nixon and the White House sue them to stop them printing the papers due to national security concerns. The Post reporters are on the scoop and get a hold of more of the papers and Streep has to decide whether to publish or face possible lawsuits. I like Streep here because she gives a real person performance. It doesn't survive on her movie star quality and is more quiet than a lot of her recent performances. She's kind of nervousy and unsure about the direction her paper is going and doesn't seem too confident. But she realizes the gravity of what her reporters and people have worked so hard to uncover and knows that this is a pivotal moment in US history. She rises to the occasion in a way that doesn't seem contrived or made to build her up as a hero because it's Streep. So, it's a typical good Streep performance, the kind we are more than used to and probably take for granted as being just another Streep performance. Yeah, it may rank in the middle of her twenty-one nominations, maybe slightly above average but when you watch her work, you can see how dedicated and amazing she truly is. I do wish that the Academy would go with some other actresses unless Streep delivers something that is amazing by Streep's standards. Give some other women a chance to get nominated. But it does feel like they are trying to get her another Oscar and she deserves it, but it needs to be for something that is worthy and not just another token Streep nomination.
And no surprise here, it's McDormand with her second Oscar. A boring race because it was never going to be anyone else. Streep wasn't going to challenge for giving a typically good Streep performance, though not amazing by her own inflated standards. It was nice to see her acting opposite Tom Hanks and in a Spielberg film. Hawkins was an early frontrunner but that faded quickly and even with the success of her film overall, she just didn't have enough to get over the top. It's a mostly mute role and the other actors do the talking for her so it never fully worked for me. It's possible if you ask me in a couple weeks or months, she might even drop down to last place. Robbie has a lot of passion that is evident in her performance for her character and it was a fun film to watch. It's awesome that she also helped produce it. Maybe in a bad Best Actress year she would have had more of a chance but not with Ronan and McDormand out there. I had a hard time choosing who my winner is, though. On one hand, I love Ronan to death and think her performance has a lot of realism and honesty in it. On the other hand, I like McDormand's take no shit attitude, get justice your own way kind of thing. But McDormand already has one and while this one was fun to watch, there's just something about Ronan. It's possible she may finally get her Oscar next year as she has a big juicy period piece drama about Mary Queen of Scots, I think. And I think she has another that people were looking at as a possibility, so things will be good for Ronan's Oscar chances in the future but she gets my vote today. A decent year that could have been better but of course that means we need better written female roles and a lot more of them. We also need the Academy to stop going to the same few ladies and pick someone else for a change.
Oscar Winner: Frances McDormand - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
My Winner: Saoirse Ronan - Lady Bird
Frances McDormand
Margot Robbie
Sally Hawkins
Meryl Streep
Supporting Actor 2017
Just like with all the other acting categories, this one has been sewn up since the start of awards season. It's been Rockwell every step of the way and I am fine with that. He's such a great actor and deserves an award for sure. I'll have to see if I agree that he's the best of the bunch.
2017 Best Supporting Actor
Sam Rockwell - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
This is mostly likely going to be your winner tonight (yep, writing this a few hours before the show) as Rockwell has nabbed every single award this season. It's about time, too, because it feels like he should have a couple other nominations under his belt already. Moon is a favorite performance of his for me and he's been the best part of really shitty films and the good part of really great films in the past. He's one of those super hard working character actors who can be a supporting player or carry a film all by himself. And he just seems like a pretty good dude, the kind you'd love to hang out with and have a beer. In this film, he plays the racist, asshole deputy who is pretty awful at his job and starts off hating Frances McDormand. He's kind of a bumbling idiot character you can laugh at even though he plays a racist. His character is made to hammer home how incompetent the police force is and why McDormand has to resort to putting up controversial billboards to try and get justice for her daughter. Mind you, this is a Martin McDonagh film and he's known for his very dark comedy, so he's going to make light of some sensitive issues while trying to tell a broader message. There's a lot of people criticizing that a racist character is going to win an Oscar. There's even more people who criticize how absurd and implausible his redemptive character arc is and want to crap all over the film and performance for that reason. Or those who liken the film to Crash as being too convenient about racism and the white guy changing his ways. It's a stupid fucking argument that people should feel ashamed to even think because if that's your takeaway from the film and performance, you need your head examined. Rockwell's redemption is spurned on by a letter from Harrelson's character after he dies telling him that he can be a good cop and that he knows he's better than just a guy who goes and beats people and is a racist turd. Rockwell's character needed to hear that from someone he respects and it sinks in that there is more to being a cop now that he's been fired. He just needed someone to sit him down and tell him he's a fuck up and it took Harrelson's death and him getting fired to do that. The arc doesn't feel implausible and it doesn't feel too convenient that he tries to help McDormand out. Rockwell is very good at the comedic elements of the role but he can still make you kind of hate him too, when he goes and beats up the advertising kid and throws him out a window. He shows himself to be a piece of shit. But his arc is fulfilling because he does realize who he is as a person and tries to change that by getting DNA off the scummy dude in the bar to help the investigation which turns out to not be the guy after all. Rockwell in those moments feels like he has earned our trust as a character and we still know he's probably an idiot who is probably still racist in some ways, but that he has a good heart deep down and it just needs someone to bring it out. I think Rockwell is great and I think he makes a great winner and I hope he keeps giving us great performances.
Willem Dafoe - The Florida Project
I really enjoyed Director Sean Baker's first film, Tangerine, which was about transgender individuals in like LA as we follow their slice of life drama. The big thing about that film was that it was shot entirely on an iPhone (albeit I read somewhere he had special lenses and attachments for it, not just a regular iPhone video) and it looked great. This is his follow up and it follows the same idea of using non-professional actors except for Dafoe (even with some iPhone action for the final scene). This one is about a mother and daughter living in a run down Orlando motel and just kinda follows their slice of life. We watch the kid be a kid and do stupid kid things and we watch the mother struggle to earn a living. If you dislike kids, you will no doubt hate most of this film because the little kids can be pretty annoying as we follow them around. And if you think this is a wildly inaccurate take on a trashy mom and her daughter, you'd be wrong. Living in Florida, I have seen people just like the mom. I've known them from going to a pretty trashy high school myself and the tatted up, weed smoking, scamming and hoeing for money is pretty spot on. Probably just needed more drug use to be really accurate. But anyway, the film is good, but if it weren't for Dafoe being attached, would it have gotten so much love? I don't think so, as he brought in viewers by name recognition alone. And he is terrific in this performance. I think if that was another non-professional actor, the role wouldn't have mattered to the film and we would have gotten a different feeling to the film. He plays the motel manager who has to deal with all the tenants and the broken down things in the hotel and the general run down quality of the place. Dafoe plays him as a fair and caring man who tries to be harsh but gives in easily because he knows the struggle. It's like he's the one honest, good thing about the crappy, run down motel. As much as he's annoyed by the kids, he looks after them like a hawk and protects them when necessary like when he stops the creepy old guy from talking to them. It's a very understated performance that fits the style of the film perfectly. He's not out there taking over scenes or being this overbearing Hollywood presence. He is just a genuinely good guy who struggles to maintain his motel while helping those who are struggling with life who live there when he can. My favorite scene of his was when he was shooing the sandhill cranes out of the parking lot because it felt like an unscripted moment and really spoke to who his character is. He makes a corny joke while talking to them like his tenants and while trying to protect them, I just loved that little scene. Dafoe also presents his character as being both run down by working there and being proud to work there. There are moments you can see him look defeated and sad and you realize there is probably more going on under the surface in his life. Then there are moments where his warmth radiates from the screen like when the girls hide under his desk during a game of hide and seek. It's a real subtle performance that may not look like much, but there is a lot to it and I like it a ton.
Woody Harrelson - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
If Harrelson stuck around for the whole film, I think there's a good chance he gets the win here instead of Rockwell. Harrelson always seems to bring the same energy to his performances and that's not a bad thing at all. You can compare this role to any of his other cop roles, say his True Detective role, and see the similarities. Now, this character is more wholesome than that one, but he's a determined good cop in both. You know what you're getting with Harrelson and even though you already know the beats of his character, he still delivers something worth watching. In this film, he plays Chief Willoughby, the main focus of Frances McDormand's ire of the police. He's a good guy with a nice family who is Chief of Police who happens to be dying of pancreatic cancer, I think. He's kind of in a bind because the billboards target him and he simply has no leads as to who may have raped and murdered McDormand's daughter. He also has to deal with an incompetent, racist police force under him while dealing with his health issue and the pressure of the billboards. But as I said, if Harrelson had more time, there's no doubt he'd be getting the Oscar. He leaves a lasting mark in his short time and he's fun to watch in the role. The film seems a little different without him in it, more dark because he seems like an optimistic force. You always know what you're getting with Harrelson and that is usually a good thing. He brings some realistic humor to the role and the film as he calls out his dumbshit deputies and tries to placate McDormand. He just seems like a guy who has to deal with bullshit all the time and has to cut through all that and uses his sardonic humor to do so. It's a performance that leaves it's mark on the film and you are reminded of him throughout in a good way. He influences Rockwell to become a better cop and person despite his short stay. It's good but Harrelson can't quite compete with his fellow actor's longer performance.
Richard Jenkins - The Shape of Water
I have always enjoyed Richard Jenkins as an actor, he's amazing in Bone Tomahawk along with a ton of other films. He always brings this warmth to his roles that just radiates from the screen and makes you want to have a drink with him and tell him all your issues. In this film, he plays the neighbor and best friend of the mute Sally Hawkins. Jenkins also happens to be a closeted gay man and is a very lonely, dejected individual. He paints ads as a job and when he goes to sell them to his old workplace there seems to be a lot of unexplored character depth in those moments. There was some issue at his work, maybe they found out he was gay or a discreet relationship ended badly, we don't never get to know. This was territory that I wanted the film to explore more because Jenkins makes his character ooze sadness and desperation when going back, but also some resentment and anger. The fact that Jenkins can make me want to see more to his character's story in a little side plot that went nowhere speaks immensely to his talent. I also love that he sits and watches old films and knows all about the actors and their dance routines which hints at his being gay without being so flamboyant. He also has great rapport with Sally Hawkins and spends a lot of his screen time talking with her and translating her signs. And actually, Hawkins doesn't sign much at times because Jenkins knows what she's gonna say or is thinking already because the two are so connected. Jenkins also brings some humor to the role in his droll style, like telling one of the cats it got lucky the fish man didn't eat it. Jenkins just has that dry delivery that adds to his performance and really fleshes him out as a character. The biggest scene of his is him being excited at the diner where he thinks he's made a connection with the waiter and goes for it in saying he wants to get to know him better and touching his hand. The guy immediately reacts harshly and then tells him to leave, but the hopelessness in Jenkins' body language is obvious and you just feel for the guy. Jenkins is just quietly poignant in almost every scene and helps elevate the film overall in a really wonderful performance.
Christopher Plummer - All the Money in the World
This one took forever to actually see because it was in theaters for a little bit and then disappeared and I didn't see any screeners for it, either. By now, everyone should know the story of how Plummer even became involved with the film to begin with. With all the sexual harassment and bad behavior stuff coming to light, Kevin Spacey was one of the first caught up in it for abusing young boys and men and being a general perv for so long. There had been rumors forever about his activities but no one spoke up until now. So Spacey was originally in this role and there was a lot of buzz around his performance where people were slotting him in for a sure fire nomination. He also had a lot of makeup and prosthetics work going on to age him and you can see some of his work in the original trailer. Well, he got bounced from the film (rightfully so) and Plummer quickly stepped in and took over the role, basically saving the film and giving it more positive buzz. It was pretty much sealed from there that Plummer would get nominated as long as he didn't completely bomb as sort of a token of gratitude for saving a film and for taking over a key role after filming was done and then delivering something that was pretty good. I'm not even sure the Golden Globes even saw his performance and they still gave him a nomination there, that's what I mean by he was destined for one almost no matter what. He played the role of J. Paul Getty, the richest man in the world in the 70s, whose grandson is kidnapped for ransom but refuses to give in to the captors demands. Plummer surprisingly has a lot to do in the film. This isn't just a couple short scenes, he is in a good portion of the film and that makes his filling in a couple weeks before the film opened even more impressive. The acting is fine. Plummer is a curmudgeonly old man and plays up the I have money, if anyone else wants money they have to work hard, too idea. He plays a good asshole and really fits the part. I can't imagine a heavily made up Spacey doing anything worthwhile. I do wonder if it didn't have all this controversy, if Plummer would have been nominated. It certainly doesn't feel like it shouldn't be here and that's fine. It definitely makes for a historical Oscar moment that we got to watch unfold almost as it happened. He's not the vote, but it's a good effort.
As expected, Rockwell wins the Oscar and I'd have to agree with their choice. It was really tough to choose between Dafoe who was the only other possible winner, I think. Rockwell gives a strong performance with a nice redemptive arc like he's been doing for years and years. Glad he finally got rewarded. Just wish Dafoe could get his Oscar, too, because he was really great in his film. It's a very subtle performance that elevates the film into something better. Jenkins delivers another great character performance and is one of those really enjoyable actors to watch do his thing. Harrelson has a shorter performance and his could be dropped into any of his other recent films and you wouldn't notice much of a difference. It's good but you've seen it before. Plummer is impressive in that he saved a movie from certain doom and gave a decent enough performance. He was rewarded with a nomination and that's all he deserves. This year was pretty good. There's a couple other guys who could have landed here, too, without decreasing the quality, so that means it was a good year. Though, this category has been consistently great the last few years and I think that's due to more films being seen that might not otherwise have been seen in past years. Lots more indie love lately and smaller films getting their due. I hope that trend continues next year.
Oscar Winner: Sam Rockwell - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
My Winner: Sam Rockwell - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Willem Dafoe
Richard Jenkins
Woody Harrelson
Christopher Plummer
2017 Best Supporting Actor
Sam Rockwell - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
This is mostly likely going to be your winner tonight (yep, writing this a few hours before the show) as Rockwell has nabbed every single award this season. It's about time, too, because it feels like he should have a couple other nominations under his belt already. Moon is a favorite performance of his for me and he's been the best part of really shitty films and the good part of really great films in the past. He's one of those super hard working character actors who can be a supporting player or carry a film all by himself. And he just seems like a pretty good dude, the kind you'd love to hang out with and have a beer. In this film, he plays the racist, asshole deputy who is pretty awful at his job and starts off hating Frances McDormand. He's kind of a bumbling idiot character you can laugh at even though he plays a racist. His character is made to hammer home how incompetent the police force is and why McDormand has to resort to putting up controversial billboards to try and get justice for her daughter. Mind you, this is a Martin McDonagh film and he's known for his very dark comedy, so he's going to make light of some sensitive issues while trying to tell a broader message. There's a lot of people criticizing that a racist character is going to win an Oscar. There's even more people who criticize how absurd and implausible his redemptive character arc is and want to crap all over the film and performance for that reason. Or those who liken the film to Crash as being too convenient about racism and the white guy changing his ways. It's a stupid fucking argument that people should feel ashamed to even think because if that's your takeaway from the film and performance, you need your head examined. Rockwell's redemption is spurned on by a letter from Harrelson's character after he dies telling him that he can be a good cop and that he knows he's better than just a guy who goes and beats people and is a racist turd. Rockwell's character needed to hear that from someone he respects and it sinks in that there is more to being a cop now that he's been fired. He just needed someone to sit him down and tell him he's a fuck up and it took Harrelson's death and him getting fired to do that. The arc doesn't feel implausible and it doesn't feel too convenient that he tries to help McDormand out. Rockwell is very good at the comedic elements of the role but he can still make you kind of hate him too, when he goes and beats up the advertising kid and throws him out a window. He shows himself to be a piece of shit. But his arc is fulfilling because he does realize who he is as a person and tries to change that by getting DNA off the scummy dude in the bar to help the investigation which turns out to not be the guy after all. Rockwell in those moments feels like he has earned our trust as a character and we still know he's probably an idiot who is probably still racist in some ways, but that he has a good heart deep down and it just needs someone to bring it out. I think Rockwell is great and I think he makes a great winner and I hope he keeps giving us great performances.
Willem Dafoe - The Florida Project
I really enjoyed Director Sean Baker's first film, Tangerine, which was about transgender individuals in like LA as we follow their slice of life drama. The big thing about that film was that it was shot entirely on an iPhone (albeit I read somewhere he had special lenses and attachments for it, not just a regular iPhone video) and it looked great. This is his follow up and it follows the same idea of using non-professional actors except for Dafoe (even with some iPhone action for the final scene). This one is about a mother and daughter living in a run down Orlando motel and just kinda follows their slice of life. We watch the kid be a kid and do stupid kid things and we watch the mother struggle to earn a living. If you dislike kids, you will no doubt hate most of this film because the little kids can be pretty annoying as we follow them around. And if you think this is a wildly inaccurate take on a trashy mom and her daughter, you'd be wrong. Living in Florida, I have seen people just like the mom. I've known them from going to a pretty trashy high school myself and the tatted up, weed smoking, scamming and hoeing for money is pretty spot on. Probably just needed more drug use to be really accurate. But anyway, the film is good, but if it weren't for Dafoe being attached, would it have gotten so much love? I don't think so, as he brought in viewers by name recognition alone. And he is terrific in this performance. I think if that was another non-professional actor, the role wouldn't have mattered to the film and we would have gotten a different feeling to the film. He plays the motel manager who has to deal with all the tenants and the broken down things in the hotel and the general run down quality of the place. Dafoe plays him as a fair and caring man who tries to be harsh but gives in easily because he knows the struggle. It's like he's the one honest, good thing about the crappy, run down motel. As much as he's annoyed by the kids, he looks after them like a hawk and protects them when necessary like when he stops the creepy old guy from talking to them. It's a very understated performance that fits the style of the film perfectly. He's not out there taking over scenes or being this overbearing Hollywood presence. He is just a genuinely good guy who struggles to maintain his motel while helping those who are struggling with life who live there when he can. My favorite scene of his was when he was shooing the sandhill cranes out of the parking lot because it felt like an unscripted moment and really spoke to who his character is. He makes a corny joke while talking to them like his tenants and while trying to protect them, I just loved that little scene. Dafoe also presents his character as being both run down by working there and being proud to work there. There are moments you can see him look defeated and sad and you realize there is probably more going on under the surface in his life. Then there are moments where his warmth radiates from the screen like when the girls hide under his desk during a game of hide and seek. It's a real subtle performance that may not look like much, but there is a lot to it and I like it a ton.
Woody Harrelson - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
If Harrelson stuck around for the whole film, I think there's a good chance he gets the win here instead of Rockwell. Harrelson always seems to bring the same energy to his performances and that's not a bad thing at all. You can compare this role to any of his other cop roles, say his True Detective role, and see the similarities. Now, this character is more wholesome than that one, but he's a determined good cop in both. You know what you're getting with Harrelson and even though you already know the beats of his character, he still delivers something worth watching. In this film, he plays Chief Willoughby, the main focus of Frances McDormand's ire of the police. He's a good guy with a nice family who is Chief of Police who happens to be dying of pancreatic cancer, I think. He's kind of in a bind because the billboards target him and he simply has no leads as to who may have raped and murdered McDormand's daughter. He also has to deal with an incompetent, racist police force under him while dealing with his health issue and the pressure of the billboards. But as I said, if Harrelson had more time, there's no doubt he'd be getting the Oscar. He leaves a lasting mark in his short time and he's fun to watch in the role. The film seems a little different without him in it, more dark because he seems like an optimistic force. You always know what you're getting with Harrelson and that is usually a good thing. He brings some realistic humor to the role and the film as he calls out his dumbshit deputies and tries to placate McDormand. He just seems like a guy who has to deal with bullshit all the time and has to cut through all that and uses his sardonic humor to do so. It's a performance that leaves it's mark on the film and you are reminded of him throughout in a good way. He influences Rockwell to become a better cop and person despite his short stay. It's good but Harrelson can't quite compete with his fellow actor's longer performance.
Richard Jenkins - The Shape of Water
I have always enjoyed Richard Jenkins as an actor, he's amazing in Bone Tomahawk along with a ton of other films. He always brings this warmth to his roles that just radiates from the screen and makes you want to have a drink with him and tell him all your issues. In this film, he plays the neighbor and best friend of the mute Sally Hawkins. Jenkins also happens to be a closeted gay man and is a very lonely, dejected individual. He paints ads as a job and when he goes to sell them to his old workplace there seems to be a lot of unexplored character depth in those moments. There was some issue at his work, maybe they found out he was gay or a discreet relationship ended badly, we don't never get to know. This was territory that I wanted the film to explore more because Jenkins makes his character ooze sadness and desperation when going back, but also some resentment and anger. The fact that Jenkins can make me want to see more to his character's story in a little side plot that went nowhere speaks immensely to his talent. I also love that he sits and watches old films and knows all about the actors and their dance routines which hints at his being gay without being so flamboyant. He also has great rapport with Sally Hawkins and spends a lot of his screen time talking with her and translating her signs. And actually, Hawkins doesn't sign much at times because Jenkins knows what she's gonna say or is thinking already because the two are so connected. Jenkins also brings some humor to the role in his droll style, like telling one of the cats it got lucky the fish man didn't eat it. Jenkins just has that dry delivery that adds to his performance and really fleshes him out as a character. The biggest scene of his is him being excited at the diner where he thinks he's made a connection with the waiter and goes for it in saying he wants to get to know him better and touching his hand. The guy immediately reacts harshly and then tells him to leave, but the hopelessness in Jenkins' body language is obvious and you just feel for the guy. Jenkins is just quietly poignant in almost every scene and helps elevate the film overall in a really wonderful performance.
Christopher Plummer - All the Money in the World
This one took forever to actually see because it was in theaters for a little bit and then disappeared and I didn't see any screeners for it, either. By now, everyone should know the story of how Plummer even became involved with the film to begin with. With all the sexual harassment and bad behavior stuff coming to light, Kevin Spacey was one of the first caught up in it for abusing young boys and men and being a general perv for so long. There had been rumors forever about his activities but no one spoke up until now. So Spacey was originally in this role and there was a lot of buzz around his performance where people were slotting him in for a sure fire nomination. He also had a lot of makeup and prosthetics work going on to age him and you can see some of his work in the original trailer. Well, he got bounced from the film (rightfully so) and Plummer quickly stepped in and took over the role, basically saving the film and giving it more positive buzz. It was pretty much sealed from there that Plummer would get nominated as long as he didn't completely bomb as sort of a token of gratitude for saving a film and for taking over a key role after filming was done and then delivering something that was pretty good. I'm not even sure the Golden Globes even saw his performance and they still gave him a nomination there, that's what I mean by he was destined for one almost no matter what. He played the role of J. Paul Getty, the richest man in the world in the 70s, whose grandson is kidnapped for ransom but refuses to give in to the captors demands. Plummer surprisingly has a lot to do in the film. This isn't just a couple short scenes, he is in a good portion of the film and that makes his filling in a couple weeks before the film opened even more impressive. The acting is fine. Plummer is a curmudgeonly old man and plays up the I have money, if anyone else wants money they have to work hard, too idea. He plays a good asshole and really fits the part. I can't imagine a heavily made up Spacey doing anything worthwhile. I do wonder if it didn't have all this controversy, if Plummer would have been nominated. It certainly doesn't feel like it shouldn't be here and that's fine. It definitely makes for a historical Oscar moment that we got to watch unfold almost as it happened. He's not the vote, but it's a good effort.
As expected, Rockwell wins the Oscar and I'd have to agree with their choice. It was really tough to choose between Dafoe who was the only other possible winner, I think. Rockwell gives a strong performance with a nice redemptive arc like he's been doing for years and years. Glad he finally got rewarded. Just wish Dafoe could get his Oscar, too, because he was really great in his film. It's a very subtle performance that elevates the film into something better. Jenkins delivers another great character performance and is one of those really enjoyable actors to watch do his thing. Harrelson has a shorter performance and his could be dropped into any of his other recent films and you wouldn't notice much of a difference. It's good but you've seen it before. Plummer is impressive in that he saved a movie from certain doom and gave a decent enough performance. He was rewarded with a nomination and that's all he deserves. This year was pretty good. There's a couple other guys who could have landed here, too, without decreasing the quality, so that means it was a good year. Though, this category has been consistently great the last few years and I think that's due to more films being seen that might not otherwise have been seen in past years. Lots more indie love lately and smaller films getting their due. I hope that trend continues next year.
Oscar Winner: Sam Rockwell - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
My Winner: Sam Rockwell - Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
Willem Dafoe
Richard Jenkins
Woody Harrelson
Christopher Plummer
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Supporting Actress 2017
Throughout the Awards season, Janney has consistently been the winner and is expected to win the Oscar, too. Just like in some of the other categories, there hasn't been a whole lot of competition and it's made for an almost boring Awards season. It's possible there could be a shocker at the ceremony tomorrow but I doubt it. I'm fine with Janney as a winner because I like her a lot as an actress but I'll have to see if that still holds true after I watch these five ladies.
2017 Best Supporting Actress
Allison Janney - I, Tonya
Well, this is your presumptive winner a couple days before the Oscar ceremony. She has cleaned up the precursors and there is little doubt it will be any different for this one. And it's very easy to see why this has caught so many voters' eyes. Janney plays the mother of disgraced figure skate Tonya Harding. She is an overbearing presence on the film due to her vulgar bullying of her own daughter in hopes it'll push her to be a good competitor. It's funny stuff and I'll watch Janney call someone a cunt every day of the week. I think Janney is the appeal that draws you into the film from the start. We first see her as a mother on the ice with her three year old with a cigarette hanging from her lips demanding the skating coach actually coach her daughter and when she refuses sends little Tonya out to skate anyway. Tells you all you need to know about her parenting skills and who Tonya's mother is as a person and she sure doesn't hide it. It's a flashy, loud performance for sure and one that is meant to get people talking. It was specifically written with Janney in mind which tells you how perfect she is for the role. There is no doubt she will win an Oscar for this and I'm fine with that. I think the voters also love Janney as not only a film actress, but a veteran TV actress who has been in a bunch of well known roles. So I am indeed saying that her past roles are playing a part in her winning because the Academy members feel comfortable with picking her. It makes sense and at least it's for a really great performance. I think if not for Metcalf, I'd have easily wanted Janney to win. It's a fun role, even despite the beating her own kid thing. I struggle to see an arc with Janney, though. She is a terrible mother who pushes her kid past the brink to make her a champion but once she does become a champion she is still an irredeemable twat. She even tries to tape her daughter admitting to kneecapping Nancy Kerrigan, probably for money. It's a good performance but it is a little one note and that's why I'd vote Metcalf. But I'll be happy either way.
Mary J. Blige - Mudbound
These are the kind of films that Netflix needs more of in their selection. I'm not usually a big fan of voice over to explain what characters are doing and thinking but I guess it works out fine in this film. I do like that we get the views from six of the characters as the story switches between their points of view. One of those being Blige's character. She plays the mother of Ronsel who goes off to fight as a tank crew member in WWII. He becomes a sergeant, experiences some freedoms in Europe, and isn't looked down on for being black by the people there. He comes back home to the same terrible racism he left and the story deals with that along side the white family they work for on a farm. It's a heavy film that you know is going to end in tragedy but is very well done. Blige in the mother role is the soft spot of the film. She has a soft, quiet voice and is always calm. She works the fields with her husband, tends to her kids, and also has to help out with the white family's kids when they are sick or when Carey Mulligan is sick. She does this because she is good person and because she knows it's her duty and she can't exactly say no but faces her issues with a noble face. She's just that calm, caring person and Blige does what is necessary for the character. Unfortunately, I don't think Blige is all that special in this performance and doesn't really stand out. In fact, I'd say the acting can feel a little weak and timid which I get could be a choice Blige makes for her calm, quiet character but Florence is also pretty strong and that doesn't always shine through in Blige's acting. So the character works great in the film but Blige doesn't do much to stand out and be rewarded for the performance. I hate to say that but it's the truth. You'll like the character and the acting is good but if Blige's name wasn't attached, I don't think she gets nominated. I do recommend checking the film out on Netflix because it is very good. Oh, and the first time a woman has been nominated for Best Cinematography is for this film.
Lesley Manville - Phantom Thread
At first, I wasn't exactly sure what kind of relationship Manville had with Daniel Day-Lewis in this film. She plays Cyril, who is like the overall manager of the fashion designer and his House of Woodcock production team. I thought that she might have been his wife or lover of some sort who allowed him to have his young ingenue around for inspiration and to take to bed when he wanted and they just had an unusual arrangement. But then it became obvious that she was his sister and that the two had a close relationship where she managed his women in all aspects. My confusion comes from the fact that Cyril is pretty mysterious. Manville plays her character with a reservation from the audience. We don't get to know much about her as she is a distant presence even when close up on the screen. We first see her at breakfast with DDL and one of his ingenues who wants more than to just wait around for him to pay attention to her. Manville matter of factly and politely tells her that maybe she should move on. We then see her as DDL has brought home Vicky Krieps and is dressing her after their first date and she comes in eyeing her up and down and perfectly guessing the scents she has on her before sitting in a corner and writing down her measurements in a business-like manner. Those scenes told me all I needed to know about what her character was all about. She is devoted to serving her brother and to making sure their business thrives. It's like she's a protector of DDL, keeping him focused and ignoring when he lashes out because she's dealt with him so much. There then grows a competition of sorts between her and Krieps as the two wrangle to be DDL's go to woman. I like that Manville imbues her character with this cold, yet calm demeanor silently watching over everything but is also professional and courteous when necessary. I think her performance fits the tone of the film perfectly and while not as flashy as Janney or Metcalf, is still a powerful part of what makes Phantom Thread so entertaining.
Laurie Metcalf - Lady Bird
You might remember her as Roseanne's sister on the TV show, but Metcalf is a pretty serious stage actress, too. She's won a Tony Award and been nominated for others and seems to be a pretty accomplished actress in her own right. Only natural to add an Oscar nomination to that list, and frankly I wish it would be an Oscar win. I was blown away by Metcalf as the mother of Lady Bird in this film. The writing from Greta Gerwig is incredible but Metcalf turns it into something indelible. The crux of the film is the relationship between Saoirse Ronan and Metcalf and it's one of the most authentic and real portrayals of a mother-daughter relationship that I've ever seen on film. I mean that wholeheartedly, too. Metcalf is a huge reason why I feel that way. She portrays her mother character like she's in a documentary. Lady Bird is kind of a self absorbed teenager who thinks she knows everything, a typical teenage girl, and Metcalf holds the line as the mom. By that I mean, she isn't some super hip and cool mom or one that adheres to some cliche of what a mother can be in Hollywood. No, she plays it shockingly accurate. Her mother is a hard ass at times who works double shifts because the father has been laid off and she needs to bring in money for the family and to pay for Lady Bird to go to college. She's at times overly critical of her daughter who does notice that and is part of the source of their frustration with each other. But she's also a mother who is genuinely warm and cares about her family and her daughter. The two have these really intimate moments together like bonding in a car over an audio book or when out dress shopping. But those moments can also be punctured with motherly advice and chastising for not seeing the bigger picture at times. Metcalf emotes this all as if she were talking to her own daughter. I feel like this could really be her in real life because it has that switch from motherly love to mother knows what's best for you and I work hard so you better appreciate it kind of thing. That's what I love about it is that it just feels so real. She's not really an asshole and she does genuinely love her daughter, but you can see her having to be the authority figure and none of it feels manufactured for drama or effect. And there's no big acting. She's not screaming and yelling and crying and all that. It's a normal family dynamic. And it really shows itself in the end scene when she drops Lady Bird off at the airport and won't say goodbye and see her off but then circles around because it hits her how much she'll miss her. That scene is brilliant and Metcalf is the reason why. I wish she would win but she probably won't.
Octavia Spencer - The Shape of Water
I think I said something similar for Spencer last year for her nomination for Hidden Figures that the Academy likes going back to the same well of previous nominees/winners, especially in the Supporting categories. But I feel like this year, Spencer deserved the nomination for playing a cleaning lady at a government facility who is friends with and translates for Sally Hawkins' character. Whereas last year, you could have taken her co-star and had the same result, this year Spencer gives a much stronger performance. Some of that is due in part to the fact that Spencer, as a black woman mind you, gets to speak for Hawkins and gets to speak quite often at that. One of the reasons Spencer said she took the role, besides working for del Toro, is that a black woman and a closeted older gay man got to speak for the main character and weren't just sidekicks or background characters (paraphrasing, of course). And that's notable, because it allows Spencer to act and not just be confined to a stereotypical minority cleaning lady type of role. You can tell the two have been friends for a long time because Spencer can read Hawkins' signs without skipping a beat and she can also read her face and know what she's thinking or going to do. The two have great rapport and Spencer seems more like a friend than a supporting character there to explain what Hawkins is doing. Now, this role is very similar to her other two nominations and I'd love to see Spencer rewarded for doing something different but I know that takes actually getting offered different roles which is the struggle in Hollywood right now. But I very much enjoyed Spencer in this performance as a comforting presence not only for Hawkins but for the viewer, too. I should also note that this ties Spencer with Viola Davis as the most nominated black actress ever with three total nominations and that's a positive we can take away from this.
I feel like the most recent years have been delivering really solid Supporting Actress categories and this one is probably the best of the recent bunch. As I go through the years, there are so many times when this is the worst category and I wish I could throw out most or even all of the performances. Not so with this year as this is a really strong group. The one weak spot being Blige as she just kind of exists in the story as this quiet, but strong character. She's fine but she doesn't really stand out in the film and I hate to say that her being black may be why she was voted in. She has the name recognition factor, too, as an accomplished singer and I think that helped get her in. Spencer does a great job in her role of being the voice for Sally Hawkins' character. It's an enjoyable performance, but also one that Spencer has seemed to give a couple times over now. So I drop her down for that as the three ahead are really wonderful. Manville does a great job of matching the tone of her film and I liked how mysterious she was, even though she is solid in the role. Janney is my runner up because, while she is wildly entertaining, she is pretty one note in her performance and doesn't have any real arc. Sometimes a supporting character doesn't need that but Janney is mostly the same throughout the film and needed something else in the performance to secure a win from me. Metcalf is amazing. She created a character that felt real and that wins with me every time. She gets the nod over Janney because she has depth and really made me say wow. So this is a pretty great group of actresses with no one being bad at all which is what I wish I had more often from this category. A really strong start to 2017.
Oscar Winner: Allison Janney - I, Tonya
My Winner: Laurie Metcalf - Lady Bird
Allison Janney
Lesley Manville
Octavia Spencer
Mary J. Blige
2017 Best Supporting Actress
Allison Janney - I, Tonya
Well, this is your presumptive winner a couple days before the Oscar ceremony. She has cleaned up the precursors and there is little doubt it will be any different for this one. And it's very easy to see why this has caught so many voters' eyes. Janney plays the mother of disgraced figure skate Tonya Harding. She is an overbearing presence on the film due to her vulgar bullying of her own daughter in hopes it'll push her to be a good competitor. It's funny stuff and I'll watch Janney call someone a cunt every day of the week. I think Janney is the appeal that draws you into the film from the start. We first see her as a mother on the ice with her three year old with a cigarette hanging from her lips demanding the skating coach actually coach her daughter and when she refuses sends little Tonya out to skate anyway. Tells you all you need to know about her parenting skills and who Tonya's mother is as a person and she sure doesn't hide it. It's a flashy, loud performance for sure and one that is meant to get people talking. It was specifically written with Janney in mind which tells you how perfect she is for the role. There is no doubt she will win an Oscar for this and I'm fine with that. I think the voters also love Janney as not only a film actress, but a veteran TV actress who has been in a bunch of well known roles. So I am indeed saying that her past roles are playing a part in her winning because the Academy members feel comfortable with picking her. It makes sense and at least it's for a really great performance. I think if not for Metcalf, I'd have easily wanted Janney to win. It's a fun role, even despite the beating her own kid thing. I struggle to see an arc with Janney, though. She is a terrible mother who pushes her kid past the brink to make her a champion but once she does become a champion she is still an irredeemable twat. She even tries to tape her daughter admitting to kneecapping Nancy Kerrigan, probably for money. It's a good performance but it is a little one note and that's why I'd vote Metcalf. But I'll be happy either way.
Mary J. Blige - Mudbound
These are the kind of films that Netflix needs more of in their selection. I'm not usually a big fan of voice over to explain what characters are doing and thinking but I guess it works out fine in this film. I do like that we get the views from six of the characters as the story switches between their points of view. One of those being Blige's character. She plays the mother of Ronsel who goes off to fight as a tank crew member in WWII. He becomes a sergeant, experiences some freedoms in Europe, and isn't looked down on for being black by the people there. He comes back home to the same terrible racism he left and the story deals with that along side the white family they work for on a farm. It's a heavy film that you know is going to end in tragedy but is very well done. Blige in the mother role is the soft spot of the film. She has a soft, quiet voice and is always calm. She works the fields with her husband, tends to her kids, and also has to help out with the white family's kids when they are sick or when Carey Mulligan is sick. She does this because she is good person and because she knows it's her duty and she can't exactly say no but faces her issues with a noble face. She's just that calm, caring person and Blige does what is necessary for the character. Unfortunately, I don't think Blige is all that special in this performance and doesn't really stand out. In fact, I'd say the acting can feel a little weak and timid which I get could be a choice Blige makes for her calm, quiet character but Florence is also pretty strong and that doesn't always shine through in Blige's acting. So the character works great in the film but Blige doesn't do much to stand out and be rewarded for the performance. I hate to say that but it's the truth. You'll like the character and the acting is good but if Blige's name wasn't attached, I don't think she gets nominated. I do recommend checking the film out on Netflix because it is very good. Oh, and the first time a woman has been nominated for Best Cinematography is for this film.
Lesley Manville - Phantom Thread
At first, I wasn't exactly sure what kind of relationship Manville had with Daniel Day-Lewis in this film. She plays Cyril, who is like the overall manager of the fashion designer and his House of Woodcock production team. I thought that she might have been his wife or lover of some sort who allowed him to have his young ingenue around for inspiration and to take to bed when he wanted and they just had an unusual arrangement. But then it became obvious that she was his sister and that the two had a close relationship where she managed his women in all aspects. My confusion comes from the fact that Cyril is pretty mysterious. Manville plays her character with a reservation from the audience. We don't get to know much about her as she is a distant presence even when close up on the screen. We first see her at breakfast with DDL and one of his ingenues who wants more than to just wait around for him to pay attention to her. Manville matter of factly and politely tells her that maybe she should move on. We then see her as DDL has brought home Vicky Krieps and is dressing her after their first date and she comes in eyeing her up and down and perfectly guessing the scents she has on her before sitting in a corner and writing down her measurements in a business-like manner. Those scenes told me all I needed to know about what her character was all about. She is devoted to serving her brother and to making sure their business thrives. It's like she's a protector of DDL, keeping him focused and ignoring when he lashes out because she's dealt with him so much. There then grows a competition of sorts between her and Krieps as the two wrangle to be DDL's go to woman. I like that Manville imbues her character with this cold, yet calm demeanor silently watching over everything but is also professional and courteous when necessary. I think her performance fits the tone of the film perfectly and while not as flashy as Janney or Metcalf, is still a powerful part of what makes Phantom Thread so entertaining.
Laurie Metcalf - Lady Bird
You might remember her as Roseanne's sister on the TV show, but Metcalf is a pretty serious stage actress, too. She's won a Tony Award and been nominated for others and seems to be a pretty accomplished actress in her own right. Only natural to add an Oscar nomination to that list, and frankly I wish it would be an Oscar win. I was blown away by Metcalf as the mother of Lady Bird in this film. The writing from Greta Gerwig is incredible but Metcalf turns it into something indelible. The crux of the film is the relationship between Saoirse Ronan and Metcalf and it's one of the most authentic and real portrayals of a mother-daughter relationship that I've ever seen on film. I mean that wholeheartedly, too. Metcalf is a huge reason why I feel that way. She portrays her mother character like she's in a documentary. Lady Bird is kind of a self absorbed teenager who thinks she knows everything, a typical teenage girl, and Metcalf holds the line as the mom. By that I mean, she isn't some super hip and cool mom or one that adheres to some cliche of what a mother can be in Hollywood. No, she plays it shockingly accurate. Her mother is a hard ass at times who works double shifts because the father has been laid off and she needs to bring in money for the family and to pay for Lady Bird to go to college. She's at times overly critical of her daughter who does notice that and is part of the source of their frustration with each other. But she's also a mother who is genuinely warm and cares about her family and her daughter. The two have these really intimate moments together like bonding in a car over an audio book or when out dress shopping. But those moments can also be punctured with motherly advice and chastising for not seeing the bigger picture at times. Metcalf emotes this all as if she were talking to her own daughter. I feel like this could really be her in real life because it has that switch from motherly love to mother knows what's best for you and I work hard so you better appreciate it kind of thing. That's what I love about it is that it just feels so real. She's not really an asshole and she does genuinely love her daughter, but you can see her having to be the authority figure and none of it feels manufactured for drama or effect. And there's no big acting. She's not screaming and yelling and crying and all that. It's a normal family dynamic. And it really shows itself in the end scene when she drops Lady Bird off at the airport and won't say goodbye and see her off but then circles around because it hits her how much she'll miss her. That scene is brilliant and Metcalf is the reason why. I wish she would win but she probably won't.
Octavia Spencer - The Shape of Water
I think I said something similar for Spencer last year for her nomination for Hidden Figures that the Academy likes going back to the same well of previous nominees/winners, especially in the Supporting categories. But I feel like this year, Spencer deserved the nomination for playing a cleaning lady at a government facility who is friends with and translates for Sally Hawkins' character. Whereas last year, you could have taken her co-star and had the same result, this year Spencer gives a much stronger performance. Some of that is due in part to the fact that Spencer, as a black woman mind you, gets to speak for Hawkins and gets to speak quite often at that. One of the reasons Spencer said she took the role, besides working for del Toro, is that a black woman and a closeted older gay man got to speak for the main character and weren't just sidekicks or background characters (paraphrasing, of course). And that's notable, because it allows Spencer to act and not just be confined to a stereotypical minority cleaning lady type of role. You can tell the two have been friends for a long time because Spencer can read Hawkins' signs without skipping a beat and she can also read her face and know what she's thinking or going to do. The two have great rapport and Spencer seems more like a friend than a supporting character there to explain what Hawkins is doing. Now, this role is very similar to her other two nominations and I'd love to see Spencer rewarded for doing something different but I know that takes actually getting offered different roles which is the struggle in Hollywood right now. But I very much enjoyed Spencer in this performance as a comforting presence not only for Hawkins but for the viewer, too. I should also note that this ties Spencer with Viola Davis as the most nominated black actress ever with three total nominations and that's a positive we can take away from this.
I feel like the most recent years have been delivering really solid Supporting Actress categories and this one is probably the best of the recent bunch. As I go through the years, there are so many times when this is the worst category and I wish I could throw out most or even all of the performances. Not so with this year as this is a really strong group. The one weak spot being Blige as she just kind of exists in the story as this quiet, but strong character. She's fine but she doesn't really stand out in the film and I hate to say that her being black may be why she was voted in. She has the name recognition factor, too, as an accomplished singer and I think that helped get her in. Spencer does a great job in her role of being the voice for Sally Hawkins' character. It's an enjoyable performance, but also one that Spencer has seemed to give a couple times over now. So I drop her down for that as the three ahead are really wonderful. Manville does a great job of matching the tone of her film and I liked how mysterious she was, even though she is solid in the role. Janney is my runner up because, while she is wildly entertaining, she is pretty one note in her performance and doesn't have any real arc. Sometimes a supporting character doesn't need that but Janney is mostly the same throughout the film and needed something else in the performance to secure a win from me. Metcalf is amazing. She created a character that felt real and that wins with me every time. She gets the nod over Janney because she has depth and really made me say wow. So this is a pretty great group of actresses with no one being bad at all which is what I wish I had more often from this category. A really strong start to 2017.
Oscar Winner: Allison Janney - I, Tonya
My Winner: Laurie Metcalf - Lady Bird
Allison Janney
Lesley Manville
Octavia Spencer
Mary J. Blige
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)