Final Predictions: Best Actor & Best Actress
Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 6:07PM Other than the shorts, which we'll get to this weekend, we're all finished with our final Oscar predictions. Though we're at the top two most discussed categories, I regret to inform that this will surely be anti-climactic since I'm sticking with previous predictions in both cases. But here's why...
BEST ACTOR
It is with heavy heart that we acknowledge that Bradley Cooper (A Star is Born) doesn't even appear to be running second in the Best Actor race, and currently behind both Christian Bale (Vice) and Rami Malek (Bohemian Rhapsody) despite giving the most soulful and even most technically impressive performance of this trio, all while directing himself and guiding a mostly non-professional actress to major heights through both intimate screen partnering and direction. We can't fathom why that's not appealing enough for a win but apparently it would have only worked if Jackson Maine had been a real life figure because voters are still more impressed with actors who pretend to be other famous people than actors who create fully believable human beings from scratch through skill and imagination. 'But who's complaining,' he trails off while very much still complaining. Nevertheless those three are mortal locks. There's a fourth lock we believe though some feel otherwise. Viggo Mortensen has been the sole nominee of his film both times he's been up for Best Actor, so anyone thinking that he's vulnerable for a major Best Picture threat, which Green Book is, like it or not, should probably think again. That leaves just one spot open which would have easily gone to Mahershala Ali, also from Green Book if the film had been campaigned as it should have without trying to game the system.
Nevertheless there is one spot open. Though John David Washington has been doing well in the precursors for his subtle reactive performance in BlacKkKlansman, those aren't the kind of roles that generally lead you to a nomination. Instead we're sticking by our original gut instinct that Ethan Hawke is going to receive his third acting nomination for a much showier role as an alcoholic dying priest in First Reformed. He's utterly dominated the critics awards and if there had been a significant campaign he'd never have missed for this career best work. If he does miss, it's only from the lack of a campaign. Still, isn't it weird that only six men seem remotely possible? Ben Foster, Ryan Gosling, Willem Dafoe, John C Reilly, Joaquin Phoenix, Lucas Hedges, and Robert Redford all received fine reviews this year and at least one notal precursor nomination each but none of them seem to have managed any traction.
BEST ACTRESS
Best Actress is the same story at first and then goes off the rails! You've got four locks: Glenn Close, Olivia Colman, Lady Gaga, and Melissa McCarthy, and one open spot. But here's where the stories diverge. Best Actor has only two possible outcomes but there are still SEVERAL possibilities in Best Actress. Emily Blunt has the head start and the statistical advantage having been honored at every televised precursor thus far for Mary Poppins Returns. But, if she's vulnerable, which most people (including me) feel she is, it's because of the nature of the role -- Julie Andrews win, while delicious, was always the most atypical of Oscar wins in this category -- and the anti-climactic reception of the film (which was meant to be a Best Picture nominee and a blockbuster rather than just an Oscar player and a big hit.) If Blunt falls, the possibilities for a surprise ending to the Best Actress nomination race feel endless. Or endless in the way an Oscar race can feel endless i.e. there being several imaginable outcomes instead of just two or three.
Yalitza Aparacio might make it to represent Roma and Alfonso Cuarón has been working hard to consistently position her as the heart of the film, often discussing her rather than his own triumph, in his acceptance speeches. Nicole Kidman might make it for Destroyer because she always works for it, is in a good career moment, and voters love a woman who deglams. Toni Collette might make it because there's true passion for her performance even if that passion is completely niche. Viola Davis might make it for Widows, and if she does BAFTA will look prescient, indicating that she's a big enough star now that, like Meryl, she might be able to nab a nomination out of thin air from her own prestige in an otherwise underperforming film. Elsie Fisher might even make it because Eighth Grade has been a steady presence in the precursors, even for the young writer/director Bo Burnham (who recently nabbed a DGA nomination for first feature). That's SIX women fighting for one spot. In short something surprising could happen! And that list does not even include our personal lost cause darling Carey Mulligan or Globe nominee Rosamund Pike, or European Film Award best actress winner Joanna Kulig from Cold War (a film that was surging around voting week) or Support the Girls' Regina Hall (a critical cause but for a tiny film voters aren't likely to have seen, given that $129,000 gross -- from our knowledge no film has ever received an acting nomination for a gross that low unless the film was a qualifying release or came out just before voting). That many viable options for voters means, we think, that Blunt won't have as much trouble keeping her spot as she otherwise would have. Unless there's concentrated love for one rival that we weren't able to see in the precursors, she'll nab the spot. Yalitza Aparacio is in the best position to knock Blunt out on the strength of her film but Aparacio has been there all season as an obvious way to love on the film and hasn't received any nominations or prizes of note for it. We think she would have by now if that were going to happen. (Yes, yes, she made that Critics Choice list but they allowed seven nominess this year so it doesn't mean much).
Reader Comments (87)
Freddie Mercury minicry? Lol, go 'ed Rami!
I think you mean mimicry Greg!
When I say 0%, I mean there's no way Ali would be a favorite over Mortenson. Maybe it'd be a crazy surprise, as those happen, but Viggo Mortensen would be favored.
Also, I don't see how he'd get in easily. Besides Hawke, and then Dafoe/Washington behind, I don't think you get 5 near locks in the category.
I desperately want Ryan Gosling in as Best Actor. But if they'll snub him for Lars and the Real Girl, Blue Valentine (especially), Drive, Ides of March, ad nauseam, they'll do it this year, too. But I'll predict him anyway. At this point, I'm hoping for a First Man resurrection, so while I'm hoping for the impossible, why not for the surprise that would gladden me the most?
I think Marina de Tavira is the MVP of Roma. Just my $0.02. I wish it was her getting the buzz instead of Yalitza, who is great, but not the MVP.
Me -- i dont know where people are getting this notion that Viggo would be more of an Oscar favorite. This year is proving the opposite as ALI is coasting to wins and Viggo will be just a "thanks for playing" nomination. But I stand by my belief that they both would have made it in.
Nathaniel;
Yeah but Ali is in the supporting category. If Viggo were there he'd be cleaning up.
They could get in, but Ali wouldn't be perceived as a lock. I mean, where was this buzz two months ago, or even a month ago? I think people are getting caught up since he won the Globe, and Bale beat Mortensen to Best Actor.
I also think that you're speaking a little from the perspective of someone who doesn't like Ali's performance and is looking at things pessimistically.
Regarding Cooper's performance, I agree that it's great. To be fair though, not everyone considers his character to be from scratch, given the story's history. Even so I think he'll get a surprise best actor win at the Oscars. Unless Malek wins SAG, then it's over. But I think Bale and Malek can split some Oscar votes.
I think Cooper's acting performance is the best thing about ASIB and hope he gets the win. But it seems his often dialed-back performance has been overshadowed by Lady Gaga's vocal acrobatics.
I'm sorry but I just cannot IMAGINE people thinking that Rami fucking Malek gave a better performance in Bohemian Rhapsody than Bradley Cooper in A Star is Born. It would be a travesty on par with Grace Kelly besting Judy Garland. Really crossing my fingers that the industry rewards Bradley come Oscar night...
I love Emily Blunt but I found her oddly blank, affected, and doing a weird accent in Topsy Poppins Returns. The nom will not be for the work but for the past snubs (which are The Devil Wears Prada, Edge of Tomorrow, Sicario in my book). Still think she makes it in based on perceived "It's Time to Finally Nominate Her" momentum. Praying for Toni or Viola.
If Maharsela ‘willingily wanted’ to be put in the Supporting category-what happened to days days when actors Wanted to be considered Leads (Anne Baxter refusing Supporting for AAEve-which she would’ve walked away with). Now it’s pure greed-Line George Clooney knowing he wouldn’t win Lead for Syriana-so he Frauded himself at the expense of other just so he could win. Voters don’t seem to mind-they vote for their favorite person, not the logistics of major screen time.
Maybe I'm naive, but I wouldn't be surprised if Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz were more willing to into supporting in order to give Olivia Colman a better chance to win her first Oscar. Maybe not. But we always seem to assume the worst about people in their motivations, don't we?
Rami fucking Malek is a little insulting. At least insult the performance itself, no? In the words of Jake LaMotta, "it defeats its own purpose".
George Clooney is in an ensemble in Syriana. Like Del Toro in Traffic (tho SAG thought differently).
Ali saw an easy route in supporting. Colman wanted to go lead and so the other two probably did think let her make a run, plus it's better for them and the movie in total.
Me: As Nathanial mentions repeatedly (thank you!), there is a reason why you rarely see two leads of the same gender being nominated. BECAUSE STUDIOS GAME THE SYSTEM. Can you imagine if Midnight Cowboy had been campaigned today. Or Amadeus, Terms of Endearment, All About Eve, Network, Judgement at Nuremberg, The Dresser, Sleuth....
NONE would have received two lead noms today – thereby in every case denying a real supporting actor or actress of a nomination and likely a win.
Thelma & Louise is the last film with two lead nominees and you better believe the studio would campaign one of the actresses in supporting if it came out now. And why not. They'd just say, "Well, it worked for Carol, it worked for The Favourite..."
I am still scratching my head as to why Davis was willing to go for supporting for Fences ... sometimes the lure of winning the Oscar trumps the category fraud issues.
Yalitza hasn't been nominated for one major award other than BFCA, which nominates everyone. Her biggest critics' award was from Oklahoma. She's lost practically all the "best newcomer" awards to Elsie Fisher. If McCarthy, Gaga, Colman or even Close were in this position, everyone would say they were out.
She's also a non-professional actress who's been reluctant to say she wants to continue acting, and I doubt the actors' branch will want to nominate her for that reason.
JG;
I think Hoffman would go supporting for Midnight Cowboy (not sure what his fame status was with The Graduate being only two years old).
Network a definite. May add The Shawshank Redemption to that (tho maybe it was a surprise nominee), and I guess maybe Freeman would be shafted into supporting?
Thelma & Louise tho...that I think would be the exception to all this, especially given its ethos about women and friendship.
Viola Davis isn't crazy category fraud, at all. I was going to say this earlier but now want to respond to Rami
Rami; The film, like the play (I've read it twice), is mainly Troy's story.
She may very well be a lead, but there's at least an argument to be made for her being supporting, as there can be no question that Denzel's is the main character.
Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl) is still the worst case of category fraud I have ever witnessed at the Oscars. She was in every frame of that movie, and the story centered around her feelings being compromised for her husband’s “transformation”. She’s even in the opening shot. Granted it’s a great performance. But it was like she won Lead Actress, Part 2 vs supporting. She belonged in lead- and thus she could’ve bumped out the horrible nod for Jennifer Lawrence in Joy.
Hailee Steinfeld was pretty egregious IMO, JasonMovieGuy
Instead of trying to prop up a Best Popular Film award, the Academy REALLY needs to put in place new regulations and rules about what constitutes a supporting performance. With Ali, Stone, Weisz, Blunt, and Chalamet all likely to receive nominations, it’s gotten to a boiling point. Seriously, it needs to stop.
I still haven’t seen The Danish Girl, but everything I’ve heard about Vikander is that she was indisputably the lead. Rooney Mara, Christoph Waltz (Django), Jamie Foxx, HAILEE STEINFELD (seriously, she’s in every scene of that film. The narrative is HER story, not Jeff Bridges’). It’s ridiculous.
At the very least, there needs to be a larger contingent of the Academy who puts their foot down. I’m thinking of the Kate Winslet and Keisha Castle-Hughes nominations, when they rejected their laughable supporting campaigns.
Ali and Viggo are co-stars; neither one is a supporting actor
They might nominate Aparicio to have a Latina in the mix
Will say it again: I think Waltz in Django Unchained is totally different from all of those. He's always subservient to Foxx and, more importantly, *****spoiler***** the movie goes on another half hour without him. ******end spoiler*****
Not sure I would agree with the Oscars on him, but it's not crazy. I'd like to watch it again.
I think what the Oscars have to do is allow the studios to campaign people wherever, but establish early on what THEIR body will or won't allow.
And some who blur the lines can be put wherever, and counted, but reject people like Ali in Green Book, Stone and Weisz (who are both ahead of Colman, while Colman is the only one I think you could argue zupporting), Jamie Foxx in Collateral, Ethan Hawke in Training Day.
@Bruno: I could see Gaga totally getting snubbed for two reasons.
1. Nobody has praised her performance for being a PERFORMANCE. It's more or less that she plays herself, wears no makeup, sings well, and is a famous public figure. But does she have a WOW moment? Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls (2006, long forgotten by many millennials today) had a WOW moment with her showstopper song. She couldn't act at all beyond that, and her acting career was pretty much over after that minus a few here and there. But she won because she had one of the most talked about scenes of the year. Even the critics went for her. Gaga doesn't have that. If anything, she's losing steam to Cooper. She lost the Globe which was widely expected to go to her (though I was one of the few at my big screening that said Close would win. And was hated for it for the rest of the night). So is she really that good, or is this just Gaga enthusiasm? She's not an actress at all. Muppets doesn't count. She's charming in the movie, and she will win the Song Oscar. Isn't that enough?
2. The movie itself could fold in the likes of My Fair Lady (1964), where the leading lady - Audrey Hepburn - was snubbed by the academy even though the rest of the main cast was recognized. True, this was because of Jack Warner punishment (not letting Julie Andrews get the role she originated on Broadway). And Hepburn didn't do her own signing. She was dubbed by the infamous and reliable Marni Nixon. HOWEVER. Deborah Kerr was ALSO dubbed by Marni Nixon in the King and I (1956) and was nominated. So what does that say? Rex Harrison was given the Oscar for best actor, unfairly as I think Hepburn was marvelous. But back to the comparison- it could be that A Star is Born is honored without it's actual star. The hype for Lady Gaga has been a rollercoaster, and Best Actress is really a bloodbath. I am thisclose to booting Gaga from a nomination, and putting back McCarthy- who is defiantly better in her role, and is a previous acting nominee for a comedy (not hard to do).
@evangelina - great point. Hailee Steinfeld was an embarrassment to be put there, but the focus I remember was still on Jeff Bridges being on a roll after winning for Crazy/Heart. Alicia Vikander also won the Oscar. It's amazing many people don't remember her in this film. They do remember Ex Machina, which I was not a fan of. But truly, watch The Danish Girl. She is marvelous. I was happy she won, but I would have given her the Leading Oscar over Brie Larson in Room (whom I think benefited from the storyline more then her acting; and was outshined by the young boy).
I also want to go back to my PopCorn Actress theory. That if you're deemed a Movie Star who is known to earn big money for your films, you won't get nominated unless your movie makes solid money. Example- Julia Roberts this year. Ben is Back was a complete flop. Had it made at least $40 MIL, I think she would have had a shot. Her nominations have been for successes (Pretty Woman, Steel Magnolias, Erin Brockovich). Closer (2004) was another film that was deemed a flop, and it was arguably her best work to date. And from my favorite director (Mike Nichols). I think August: Osage County, her fourth nod- benefited from being an ensemble cast that was hyped to the max by Weinstein and the Streep angle. So that could be the lone exception. But Ben is Back made $3 million. Ouch. If the role had been played by say, Laura Linney or Holly Hunter- I could see them getting in. It just depends really. But I get the sense that every person has a stature in Hollywood- star or artist. It could be my own crazy ideas, so correct me if I'm wrong. Just how I see things.
Again forgive the long posts- I have been so busy with my other job that I don't have time to come on awards sites anymore as much. And am so grateful Nathaniel, Sasha and Goldderby are still around for me to chat with the community. It's very dear to me.
I should have said regarding McCarthy- Comedy is HARD to get nominated for.
@JasonMovieGuy: re: Gaga those are all great arguments (and ones I agree with), however I think that manifests itself in her not winning. I think the enthusiasm to nominate her will remain high.
I wonder if Steinfeld had got in the Lead category, who would have slipped into Supporting. Mila Kunis. Lesley Manville. Barbara Hershey. Miranda Richardson!? Genuinely keeps me up at night.
They'd have to call in the Army for support if Gaga got snubbed.
@Bruno: Oh I know it. At this time of the days leading up to the nominations, I don't know about you- but I am all over the place. Switching predictions left and right, reading Goldderby Experts, Editors and Top 24s- looking for patterns. Listening to podcasts. It becomes a frenzy of brain overdrive and in reality, it is better to bet ONE upset per category vs a bunch. Unfortunately I am always the one who does the latter, simply because I like taking risks and big leaps. Last year, I paid little attention to award season and got most of my winners right come Oscar night (as I remember many did). But perhaps because I wasn't as invested as this year.
Remember 2003? So many surprise/inspiring nominees I remember, including -
Fernando Meirelles- City of God (Best Director, Original Screenplay)
Keisha Castle-Hughes - Whale Rider (Best Actress)
Samantha Morton - In America (Best Actress)
Djimon Hounsou - In America (Best Supporting Actor)
Shohreh Aghdashloo - House of Sand & Fog (Best Supporting Actress; critics favorite)
Marcia Gay Harden - Mystic River (Best Supporting Actress)
<I>Seabiscuit - Best Picture- over the likes of <I>Cold Mountain</I> which I had expected.
Dirty Pretty Things and Barbarian Invasions in Screenplay too, but I was younger then and didn't pay as much attention to the details of alternates. I remember Nathaniel had to calm me down when Nicole Kidman missed a nod for Cold Mountain, and I was then reminded that we can't always have our favorite make the cut. (And rewatching Cold Mountain today, only Jude Law truly holds up well for me- as well as the horrific story over all).
What's strange about 2003, is despite all the curveball nominations- the winners were pretty standard (Lord of the Rings swept, Charlize Theron, Renee Zellweger and Tim Robbins won. And it was a battle for Best Actor, with Depp taking the SAG after Murray and Penn won the Globes--- with Penn winning at the end).
I know there will be upsets this year, I just can't pinpoint which ONES.
Supporting Actress is REALLY stumping me. I can't choose who to drop out of the 7 women I feel are in contention. I feel it will be broader support for the performance that gets the girls in those 5 slots, and it might just be matter of too many great roles and only 5 spaces. Thank God the Oscars aren't doing what the Grammys and Emmys are- with these 7-10 nominees per category. It makes it so much less exclusive.
My mind is going back to these <I>Favourite</I> gals. Are they both cemented in? In such a competitively fierce clutch of hands? Margot Robbie, Emily Blunt and Regina King all spell PASSION nominee to me. They will get in number one slots because the voters want them as their horse. I feel no passion for Amy Adams. Is she the snub? And even so, that still leaves us with the Claire Foy situation. Foy seems poised, but no SAG nod- and she's in a movie that isn't going to be a Best Actor nominee (Gosling should be there if she is). Could be a best pic nominee, but where else does it land? Techs only? No writing, directing? Seems bizarre she's been singled out. Like Quinlan in Apollo 13. The supporting wife of Tom Hanks (who wasn't nominated), in a film that was a best picture contender.
Then back to the Favourties. Most single Weisz out. In less competitive years, yes- supporting actress is renown for having two ladies in the same category (2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011). Funny, Amy Adams is there twice too. But that's eight (8) times since 2000 this has happened. So roughly 40%? I just don't know.
I just don't know.
It all changes Monday night. For now its-
1. King
2. Robbie
3. Weisz
4. Stone
5. Blunt
Hey there was ”category fraud” already 1937 - only the 2nd year for the supporting categories. So its seems like thats how the academy wants it. Maybe we just should get over it...
Please anyone but Viola Davis! She's undeserving. Let Toni, Nicole or Blunt nab the nomination.
I'm trying hard not to spend as much time this year because I'm very invested in the Best Actress race. I really really want Glenn to get that gold finally. I consider the performances by Close, Collette, and Colman all to be top-of-their-game entries from 3 of our very finest actresses. Hard to choose between them, but Close has the overdue factor. I just had to stop reading everything about the race, especially when Glenn erasure started occurring and everyone seemed to be giving Gaga the award for being in such a huge hit. I'm glad at least that part seems to be over with.
As for supporting actress, I feel like it's King (winner), Adams, Robbie, Weisz and Stone. They snubbed Adams a few times recently so I think not this time. Foy could easily be in over Robbie, though as good as she was, I felt like Foy overdid her Americana a bit. I guess what will be will be, I'm not that excited about most in this category due to category fraud or subpar performances.
I think Viggo did a great job. That is a real actor's performance. Rami lip synched? Why is he even in the conversation? He is so annoying, constantly promoting himself. Bradley is closeted and kind of aloof. Ryan Gosling is also kind of aloof but underrated, like Paul Newman was.
There shouldn't be another Me here.
Leave!
Joking, btw
Gaga is not playing herself. Ally is not who this artist is. When she gets her Oscar nomination, it will be deserved for her revelatory work. She holds her own with Cooper as he gives his best ever performance. And never once while watching Star do the ghosts of Garland and Streisand emerge. If that’s not worth a nomination I don’t know what is.