Polishing the Oscar: The 'Should Win' vs. 'Will Win' Dialogue, Part 1

It's the most wonderful time of the year. Already. We're not even two whole months in, and we're at the year's most wonderful time. Imagine. Yes. It's the time — the shorter-than-usual time, since up until recently we didn't even know if the damn thing would EVEN HAPPEN — when we argue about who's should and who's gonna, win Oscars.

Longtime Premiere readers may recall the just-beginning — indeed, perhaps too inchoate to be termed a— tradition of having myself weigh in on the "who SHOULD win" side, while former colleague Anne Thompson consulted her crystal ball and inside dope and predicted who WOULD win. I was well suited for "should," as I've never actually won an Oscar pool in my life. In any case, for this year's edition, Thompson's current position at Variety enjoins her from weighing in, so she's out. In her stead I've enlisted my pal Arion Berger. Arion's a one-time film critic for the L.A. Weekly and Washington City Paper and currently the Arts Editor at the Washington Post Express. She writes frequently about the moving pictures (she's one of the contributors to my book A Galaxy Not So Far Away: Writers and Artists on 25 Years of 'Star Wars') and she's won an unspecified number of Oscar pools.

Here's how it's gonna work — every day between now and Friday, Arion and I are going to square off on the major categories —  Supporting, Screenplay, Acting, Director, Picture.

Today's categories: Supporting Actor and Actress. Read on, and put in your two cents in comments.

Glenn Kenny on Who Should Win:

The only reason I feel a little bit bad about my "should win" pick is Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, playing, as you no doubt know, Ford. Affleck's acting career started inauspiciously enough; in the likes of Drowning Mona and 200 Cigarettes he came off as one of those weedy quasi-indie kids who chain-smoke and attitudinize through their roles, as if that'll do. He got into more depth in the nevertheless half-baked Lonesome Jim, and he's funny in the Ocean's movies, but he really showed us some new, complicated stuff in Jesse James, which posits Ford as a fan-turned assassin. Affleck took his newfound chops to Gone Baby Gone, his older brother Ben's earnest but uneven directorial debut. In any case, 2007 was a revelatory year as far as this kid was concerned, whereas Tom Wilkinson and Phillip Seymour Hoffman were just being their reliably excellent selves in Michael Clayton and Charlie Wilson's War, respectively. Hal Holbrook was wonderful in a role director Sean Penn had originally envisioned for Marlon Brando, in Into the Wild. But I think the film's conception of the relationship between his Ron Franz and Emile Hirsch's Chris McCandless is on the sentimentalized side. The fact that Holbrook is the oldest male performer to be nominated for an Oscar (turned 83 yesterday, in fact) makes him a sentimental favorite in another way. But I still insist the Oscar belongs to the guy most handicappers are still saying is going to get it, Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men. His villain Anton Chigurh is not only a technical tour-de-force — it does what it's supposed to do! That is, as far as I could tell, the temperature in the theater would go down about five degrees (F.) every time Bardem showed up, and the was able to establish his character's chilling quality within just a few seconds of his introduction. It's already a classic portrayal.

As for actress, well, on the one hand I'd love to see Tilda Swinton win, because she'd be sure to give a provocative, eloquent acceptance speech and because, well, she's Tilda Swinton. Is her corporate villain in Michael Clayton a misogynist stereotype, as some quarters suggest? It's very clearly an angry performance — it's interesting to see Swinton try to get into the nooks and crannies of a character she so clearly reviles. In other words, it's possibly too weird a performance to warrant an award. Saorise Ronan did a swell bad seed as the young tattler in Atonement, but the movie itself lacks a particular impact. That's also the case apropos American Gangster. The movie was almost shockingly limp, and Ruby Dee's stalwart performance in it is no better, and no worse, than anything she's ever done before. Hey, Academy! Where were you for Do The Right Thing? (Like Holbrook, Dee is 83, but she's not the oldest female performer nominated for an Oscar — that was then-87-year-old Gloria Stuart for 97's Titanic. Ms. Stuart is still with us, incidentally, God bless her.) Amy Ryan's uncanny interpretation of a nasty Boston Southie in Gone Baby Gone was spot on. But (and I hate to break out the television comparisons, and I swear this'll be the first and last time) it wasn't too much different from something you'd see on an especially first-rate episode of Law and Order. Which leaves Cate Blanchett for her Dylan-inspired Jude Quinn in Todd Haynes' I'm Not There. On first viewing she kind of underwhelmed me; I thought she mimicked Don't Look Back Dylan pretty well, but I didn't see much beyond that. On second viewing, the trope of having a woman play this male rock enigma began making more sense, as I saw Blanchett create a character that was in fact epicene rather than sexually ambiguous; and this peculiar quality made Jude's struggle with being the object of everybody else's desire a lot more interesting than it had been. It's a performance of Wildean wit and, yes, indignation.

Arion Berger on Who Will Win: 

The most wonderful time of the year? Oh, wonderful, indeed. It's the time of year when we engage in an endless circular argument toggling among 1) the fact that the Oscars don’t matter, 2) who should have received a nomination and 3) who among the nominees should win. The trouble with the Oscars isn't that they don't matter; it's that the fact of winning renders debate inert. Where my sell-by date as one of the 10,000 industry prognosticators is fast approaching, the "should-win" lists live on as sources of discourse among cinephiles. We just go sloping off to the basement with our coveted Oscar pool trophy clutched in our sweaty fists to watch "Buffy" on DVD. Thanks, Glenn. But actually, this is the fun part. Because in the end, the Oscars "matter" in the sense that someone will win the damn things, and taste, discernment and a vast knowledge of the cinema gets you nowhere on Monday morning. Let's start with a set of assumptions: This is a weird year for nominees; a fair amount of horse-trading will take place; and box-office performance plays a part. I won't be talking about the quality of the performances, screenplays or directors because they don’t … well, you know. So, lotta thespians born to clutch a Best Supporting trophy are up for prizes this year, the mightiest of whom is Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who jumped up a caste by winning Best Actor for Capote in 2005. That puts him in an odd position – Academy voters don't like to demote people. (I know there are no small parts, etc. — Hoffman is actually proof of this — but some awards are bigger than others.) Hal Holbrook is the sentimental favorite for a film nobody saw, and Casey Affleck wins most improved, and the Samuel Johnson (Paraphrased) Award: One is not surprised that it is done at all; but that it is done well. Casey can take his new cred to another ceremony, but not this one. Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton)? Don't be funny. It's Javier Bardem for the win. And the haircut. And, yes, the shoulda.

Two strong, foreign, extremely pale contenders for lifetime Best Supporting trophies vie for the gold in the distaff category: Cate Blanchett has one already (for The Aviator); Tilda Swinton has none. While it's time for Blanchett to be queened, Academy-wise (which, heh, more on that later), Swinton's predilection for indie projects and her unearthly good looks kept her off the mainstream radar until she usurped rulership of Narnia. She is decidedly an odd duck, but I think misogynist roles are not a deterrent here, and neither is a weird performance. The sentimental choice here is Ruby Dee in American Gangster, hilariously trumpeted on the marquee of my local Cinema 'N' Drafthouse, which never has enough letters, as American Gagster, but there won’t be enough votes in her favor. As for Amy Ryan Adams, none of the three them will win until Hollywood stops punishing all things Affleck for perceived sins against J-Lo. Oh, kidding. Best Supporting Actress is a prime spot for the "Who?" vote  (see also, the pre-pubescent, below), but against so much muscle, no one is going to give a statue to Ryan until they figure out she's not Amy Adams. Then they'll give it to Adams. And while the BSA slot traditionally thanks heaven for little girls, Saoirse Ronan is a non-starter — I think everyone is heartily sick of Atonement, with its beautiful costumes and chilly good taste. That leaves Blanchett for a cross-dressing role in a long phantasmagorical sonata on the life of a famously freaky folkie directed by one of Hollywood's few out players versus Swinton playing a human being, for once, in a muscular legal thriller. Which is to say, it’s weird roles that give insiders the wiggens. Swinton for the win.

SCORECARD

Best Supporting Actor

Kenny and Berger agree: Javier Bardem SHOULD and WILL win.

Best Supporting Actress

Kenny: Cate Blanchett SHOULD win.

Berger: Tilda Swinton WILL win.

Comments

[bill]

Not that you'll care, but I thought "Gone, Baby, Gone" was fantastic, and horribly underrated.

[Josh]

There's apparently a coding problem with Arion Berger's entry, or perhaps she's just equivocating a lot?????

As for Swinton's part in Michael Clayton, I don't think it's misogynistic. I think she's a full-fleshed human being-type lady woman, wholly believable, and not particularly happy with what she does. On the other hand, I do find Oscar winner Rachel Weisz's role in the odious Definitely, Maybe to be misogynistic. So it's not like I'm blind to such things.

"Nobody saw" either movie. Blanchett has the showier, showiest role though, and will win it. They were both excellent.

[Arion Berger]

Uh, depending on your browser, I either have lots????? of questions???? or thewords arell smushedtogether. Good times.

Anyway, I find the fact that Rachel Wiesz won an Oscar to be odious. The BSA category is the repository of all kinds of weirdness.

[Phil]

I would love to see Casey Affleck win an Oscar for 'Jesse James', it's a stunning performance, but sadly it's not going to happen (by the way, how on earth can that role be described as a "supporting" performance?).

Still, I'll be happy to see Bardem collect the award; and the same goes for the Supporting Actress category - I'm rooting for Swinton, but I won't complain at all if Blanchett takes the prize. There are a lot of genuinely strong acting performances in contention this year.

[Joel]

After seeing Michael Clayton, I told my wife that Tom Wilkinson was so bad in that movie that he was a shoo-in for the Oscar. His performance just seemed like an abstract exercise in playing crazy, without any specific character to ground his lunacy. And Tony Gilroy's opening monologue ruined the performance from minute one.

[Glenn Kenny]

The weird coding problem that made us both look kind of messed up on some browsers has been—I believe—fixed. Sorry to all whose blog-reading experience was compromised by it...

[oakling]

That is one terrifying LOLpic at the top!

[Brandon]

-If Tilda Swinton wins I will literally jump up in the air and scream "Yes".
-Was Ruby Dee in the film longer than Beatrice Straight was in NETWORK (or at least Judi Dench in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE)? Hopefully, the SAG Award was a pity prize.
-I never thought about the Law & Order type comparison with Amy Ryan. That makes me seriously want to re-evaluate the film.
-Only cute or lovable kids win. Ronan's was neither.
-BSA definitely has a history of giving it to the weird role.....Blanchett is the only one that could really be considered 'that', since there's no comedienne.

Oh, and Bardem Schmardem. All the way.
Though I'd prefer Affleck, since TAOJJBTCRF was the best movie of the year (and it has the most ridiculous initialism ever!).

[cadavra]

The real "should" was Imelda Staunton for her amazing turn as the pink-clad villainess in HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, but everyone knows you don't get nominated for Harry Potter movies.

[Michael]

Everybody is talking about Julie Christie will win, but I'm sorry. Marion Cotillard should win for La Vie en Rose. I have seen this movie 4 times and she gives the performances of the ages.