The Actresses of 2019
Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 10:36PM 
This year’s nominees for best actress do not offer much variety. Not in scope and type of role, not in diversity, not in film genre, and certainly not in quality of film. Only two of the five nominated films - Little Women and Marriage Story - have been recognized by the Academy for best picture, and the same two were the only ones to receive a metacritic average above 70. So how did we end up here when there other options that would’ve made the category stronger? Let’s take a look at what the film year offered...
Film Festivals
The major North American festivals offered up plentiful choices. Clemency premiered at Sundance in January. It won the grand jury prize and yet the press coverage for its staggering lead performance by Alfre Woodard was negligible. Many in the press ignored the film in their coverage of the festival, and Woodard was not mentioned as a viable best actress candidate at all. Another breakout at the festival was The Farewell and its lead performance by Awkwafina. She received more press coverage, particularly when the film was released over the summer.
Yet despite these early seen performances, two spots in all prognostication sites were saved for Saoirse Ronan as Jo Marsh in Little Women, and for Charlize Theron as Megan Kelly in Bombshell. Two December releases that unspooled 11 months after The Farewell and Clemency. They both started screening early so let’s say 9 months. Why save those spots? I understand prognosticating is about what people think will happen. But there are critically lauded and seen performances, can’t you talk about them too? You can claim that the distributors, particularly Neon with Clemency, did not support the films as much as they could. But Clemency was available for critics and awards voters by screener, screenings and at a few fall film festivals including TIFF and Mill Valley.
September brought Renee Zellweger in Judy at Telluride but the buzz there was at least based on critics and pundits actually seeing the performance. Toronto offered Cynthia Erivo as Harriet though the reviews were subdued -- it was only when the movie became a box office hit that she became a near-certainty.
Critics Awards
Critics loved Lupita Nyong'o in Us and Mary Kay Place in Diane. Yet for various reasons - genre, size of movie, distributor - neither were taken seriously in most awards coverage. More perplexing is that Nyong’o was in a bonafide box office smash that was released in March and that everyone had plenty of time to see and reflect upon. Still Nyong’o never cracked the top spot in any coverage of best actress candidates.
Perhaps most disappointing in all of this is that the shortlist has little range as far as the roles themselves. These are all positive sympathetic portrayals. Most of them have no edges and are not dealing with complex emotional character arcs. Erivo is commanding and forceful and obviously Harriet Tubman is an iconic American but the film does not give her many notes to play. Megyn Kelly’s dilemma in Bombshell is about making a decision whether or not to testify against Roger Ailes, and the film fails to provide any stakes that make that decision monumental. Nor does the screenplay tackle Kelly’s known anti-Black controversies and her long tenure profiting from working at the divisive Fox News, preventig Theron from digging deeper beyond surface level makeup and voice approximation.
Judy is really about sad Judy Garland at the end of her life. I was moved by Zellweger’s performance but again it’s a very sympathetic part that asks the audience to feel sorry for the character. Jo Marsh is a beloved and well known character but is too familiar despite Greta Gerwig’s modern update of the material. Ronan sells the thesis at the heart of the film with gutso, though, and that's how she secured her nomination. It didn't hurt that she's a name they are familiar with.
Scarlett Johansson has the most complex role within the shortlist as she plays someone who’s still figuring out who they are while being in a nasty divorce fight. Otherwise to find intricate and nuanced character work we have to look outside the of the nominated performances. Nyongo’ plays two complex parts; a family matriarch trying to protect her family and her doppleganger from another dimension who maybe a sociopath... or is she? Woodard is an alcoholic in a midlife marriage crisis who has to deal with being a death administering authority. Yet they were both ignored. Another great performance this year was Julia Stockler in Invisible Life. She plays somebody sensual and sexual, who is not afraid to follow their heart and be alienating and not that sympathetic while having innate goodness. Adèle Haenel in Portrait of a Lady on Fire should’ve been considered on the strength of that close-up ending alone where the depth of feeling she shows is nearly unparalleled.
There were other strong performances - see also Elisabeth Moss in Her Smell and Jodie Turner Smith in Queen & Slim - yet Oscar only looked towards the familiar: Oscar nominees or winners and the type of films they like have always liked to reward. It was an opportunity wasted.
With Sundance starting up again to usher in a new film year, here's to hoping the Academy does better next season.
Reader Comments (44)
I'm just here to sing the song of Julianne Moore in GLORIA BELL. Alas.
The pundits know the innate nature of industry voters. They go for the obvious unless they're passionate about one or two outliers. Breaking the cycle would require less people to participate in the voting process not more. Maybe if Academy members couldn't all vote every season things would be a little different. Maybe more niche leaning or they could go super safe. Safer than they already are. I feel for Alfre but the Academy has screwed her over before (Passion Fish). I'm sure Tomei took her spot. And since they hate Spike Lee -- especially back then -- she was a no go for Crooklyn.
I don't think the fault entirely falls on prognosticators OR the season's shortened timeline (which is the other issue people have raised). Jennifer Lopez, for instance, was a lock with most from the moment the movie premiered. It wasn't until much later that the realities of getting the Academy to watch and/or respect a movie with that subject matter made her nomination seem to be on less solid ground. Everybody apart from the Academy it would seem took her, that performance and that nomination seriously. I don't think websites saying Lupita was a lock for US would at all change the fact that she was in a horror movie in which she was the only viable nomination possibility. Just because people say something enough doesn't mean the Academy is going to change its prejudices. Critics stumped for her in awards, she was on the circuit and her film has been out for nearly a year and was a huge hit. I honestly don't know what more could be done other than pushing the negatives of BOMBSHELL off a cliff.
Likewise THE FAREWELL which has been in release for more than half of the year and made money and Akwafina was in all the right places (she won awards, she was on talkshows and roundtables and magazine covers and I assume parties) and yet they still didn't nominate it anywhere. I don't believe that the majority of Academy voters are sitting around for 9 months of the year not watching anything and only have Nov-Jan to cram. I doubt an extra couple of weeks wouldn't have helped many - although I do think Neon should have been smarter and seen the possibilities for PORTRAIT OF A LADY ON FIRE in at least director, screenplay and cinematography and released it earlier. Here, perhaps, both prognosticators (who all seemed to coalesce around Gerwig) and the timeline AND the industry itself all formed a perfect circle of venn diagrams to mean it was never going to happen. Likewise Alfre Woodard in CLEMENCY, which should have been a THE WIFE style release. I can't think of many people who would choose to watch a death row drama on Christmas.
Unfortunately it is the Academy voters who are the lone constant in all of these issues.
Alfre was the only performance on Tomei’s level in 1992. Great points made by /3rtful
Megyn Kelly not Megan Kelly
Jo March not Jo Marsh
Elisabeth Moss not Elizabeth Moss
Adele Haenel not Adele Hanael
A few nits here, not sure I agree with the premise..
Alfre Woodard: Would've been much more in the conversation with an earlier release date, simple as that. Just because screeners were available and it played a few festivals doesn't mean the larger awards world has seen it.
Saiorse Ronan: While many predicted her in the end, she was definitely on the "bubble" and not in a "saved" spot. I'd say only Theron, Zellweger, and Johansson were locks. The final two slots were a tossup among Ronan/Nyongo/Awkwafina/Erivo.
I generally don't think it's a surprise that most of the snubs cited here were in tiny/indie/foreign films that were never very likely to score no matter how terrific the performances were. (I'm a film junkie in a major city who saw 80+ movies this year and I still haven't come across Clemency, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, and Invisible Life. I bet most in the Academy haven't either.)
I haven't seen every performance mentioned here, but I've seen the ones that earned Oscar nominations. The performance that most sticks in my mind is Saoirse for Jo March.
I was impressed by all of the layers of emotion, and the depth of the role. I think Zellweger is doing a showy role but I think Ronan is being underestimated. It reminds me of Amy Adams in Arrival.
Later on people will be surprised it didn't get the acclaim it deserved. (IMHO)
Some love should have gone to Florence Pugh, too, revelatory in Midsommar
The Oscar lineup is so weak. Of those in serious contention, I was hoping Lupita Nyong’o could’ve made it ther
I think my own nominees would be (alphabetical)...
Adèle Haenel, PORTRAIT OF A LADY ON FIRE
Mary Kay Place, DIANE
Julia Stokler, INVISIBLE LIFE
Alfre Woodard, CLEMENCY
Zhao Tao, ASH IS PUREST WHITE
The root problem as I see it: if you're a studio/distributor, it's a slam dunk to promote a Theron or a Zellweger for the nomination, and even the win. Those are famous actresses playing IRL sad white ladies, and those roles get nominations. So those are the movies get the time and money invested into them.
Jennifer Lopez and Lupita and Awkwafina missing this year isn't exactly going to encourage the studios to spend on outside the box contenders starring POC. Next year's Clemency isn't getting picked up by a bigger distributor. Maybe not even next year's Farewell.
So of course Clemency and Portrait of a Lady and Her Smell were doomed. But it isn't fair to blame that solely on their low profile. Their low profile is the result of an Academy that's into issues movies by Jay Roach and Adam Mackay.
Imagine this: a Saorsie Ronan movie debuts in late November. It is a wide release film about hot button social issues. It grosses $43 million domestic and has a 75 on Metacritic. That movie gets pushed like crazy for awards, right? Because those are Queen and Slim's stats, and that movie was DOA.
I am just happy that Scarlett Johansson is getting her damn due with double Oscar nom this year. I hope she wins for MS though.
It's 1994 all over again. Very disappointing lineup.
I enjoy the Oscars. I love the discussions before and after.
The pleasure I take does not blind me to the fact that the award was created in an effort to boost box office receipts. A Best Picture Oscar in today's market can add an average of $14 million to a film still in theaters after victory.
These actresses were nominated as a marketing tool for the corporations who produced their films. If she is victorious, Scarlett Johansson will be the sixth Oscar winning actress in the cast of Avengers: Endgame. The prizes add a sheen of credibility to a genre that is lacking.
For me, the Best Actress nominees would be Erivo, Haenel, Nyong'o, Place, Woodard and Zellweger. (I can count. I picked six, anyway.)
I am happy that two of my choices made the list. I am hopeful that enough discussion occurs in other venues that people will seek out and see the snubbed performances. They are stellar.
And it'd be easier to forgive this disappointing line-up if the winner wasn't the inevitability of Zelweger. At least Hilary Swank had a Best Picture nominee and eventual winner for her second. It seems like a genuine fuck-up on their behalf that the studios could muster up more for a Ronan or Johansson win considering one is a four-time nominee in a BP nominee and the other is a two-time nominee also in a BP nominee. Instead it's going to go to the woman who already has a statue for a movie that people don't even seem to like all that much. It's baffling. What were Netflix doing putting all their eggs in Drivers basket when they new best actor was so stacked? We may never know...
Yeah, the inevitability of Zellweger winning for such an obvious and mediocre performance really weighs this category down.
Does anyone proofread or edit on this site? Nearly every post is riddled with errors...
If she is victorious, Scarlett Johansson will be the sixth Oscar winning actress in the cast of Avengers: Endgame.
@James: That took a few minutes to put together: Brie Larson, Lupita Nyong’o, Gwyneth Paltrow, Tilda Swinton, Marisa Tomei. ScarJo would actually be the seventh, if you count Natalie Portman.
I'm in the minority that does not see this lineup as weak. Every contender has an angle they could theoretically win for. And nobody writing passionately about Zellweger's comeback is so hateful. You want these white boys like McConaughey, Affleck (Ben), Cooper to rep these major awards because you're hot for them. But an actress who was for over a decade a has been joke and whose movie should have also been a punchline did the unthinkable and made herself a juggernaut contender from performance alone! And you're saying it's embarrassing? Whatever said Streep.
Where is Diane Keaton in Poms (2019)?
Someone who I was rooting for who got career best reviews was Sienna Miller in American Woman,I didn't see a mention anywhere except her on the last rung of possible candidates.
I do think Theron is doing more than surface.
Johansson seems to fade away in Marriage Story as Driver takes over.
I don't think Ronan needed this nom but again she's strong in it.
Zellweger is my pick out of the 5 not that I think she is that transformative as Judy.
Erivo is solid but standard.
I think it's a pretty good category this year, with Johansson, Theron, and Ronan all in my top 5.
Renee and Erivo are both good and it's obvious why they made it in with Oscar.
What 3rtful said!
Fingers crossed for a Johansson upset win! I refuse 4 acting sweeps... Maybe it's wishful thinking
I should have won.
I'm echoing a point Glenn Dunks made. For much of the year, there was nothing I particularly wanted to see at local "art cinemas." I would have loved it if Clemency had come out earlier in the year. Ditto for Portrait of a Lady. I think they both would have found broader audiences, and I'm fairly sure Alfre Woodard would have secured a nomination. (Yes, I know this strategy didn't work for The Farewell or Awkwafina -- but I actually thought that movie was a storytelling mess and her performance dreary and amateurish.) Why do studios wait for the last minute with films that are completed, particularly when grownups are looking for alternatives to superhero movies and so little is available?
I agree that it’s almost never “a weak year for actresses”. People just aren’t looking hard and wide enough.
There have been some wonderful performances from actresses this year.
I would like to add a note of appreciation for two highly successful and difficult performances, Daisy Ridley in Star Wars and Brie Larson in Captain Marvel.
Ridley anchored a trilogy and created a great film heroine. She remained resolute in keeping her character real, no matter what the circumstances.
Larsen succeeded where it was expected she would fail, in the first Marvel female lead. Her Captain surprised, delighted, and vindicated how appealing and “just right” this character could be.
Heroines, both.
One thing people aren't mentioning is Oscar's rabid love in Best Actress (and Best Actor, not as much in the supporting categories) for biopic and similarly iconic roles. Judy Garland, Harriet Tubman, Megyn Kelly and arguably Jo March all fit into this category. Scarlett had to be overdue and give a monstrously perfect performance (and have another fun supporting role also get nominated) to snag just a nom here. And she should be the clear winner.
I agree with 3rtful. Renee's acting in Judy is both technically astonishing but also immediate and freshly in the moment. It's an extraordinarily thought-out performance, carrying a burden nobody else in the category has in terms of expectations, and she kills it. It would be exciting to have someone running against her to give her a run for the money, but of these five, nobody has the role. harriet is a shockingly terrible movie, far far worse than judy, and erivo is unable to make harriet tubman un-boring. yes, alfre should be in there, without question, as should elisabeth moss, but their movies were tiny and, like it or not, nobody saw them.
PREACH /3rtful! Maybe an article examining this clear bias? JK too much self examination. Plus Zellweger is the most vulnerable of the acting categories, so y'all must be extra bored with this years results being sewn up so easily!
Fuck off Joan Castleman.
Also, if you want to know who "took" Lupita's spot, look at Ronan. Zellweger, Erivo, Theron and Johansson were locked up for ages. Twitter and every major publication fomented Little Women's sacred underdog narrative while ballots were out and the actors' branch took heed.
There are people who will pretend a Best Picture nomination, two acting nominations and likely Greta Gerwig's first Oscar win (for writing) is a sad or pitiful haul for LW because it missed the Best Director lineup—in a very crowded year.
It's almost like Little Women was never an underdog (A hit Columbia Pictures period piece starring Meryl Streep, released on Christmas, adapted from a beloved novel by a beloved filmmaker) in the first place. But that narrative certainly hustled Lupita, Awkwafina, Woodward, etc. out of the fifth Best Actress spot. Progress!
Sasha Stone is posting on rival awards sites under the pseudonym "JF".
Um no mention of Octavia in MA?
Are the four acting awards locked up? Obviously. If there is a shocking upset it'll be in Supporting Actress with ScarJo winning for JoJo Rabbit.
@Cliff yes. Lol.
There's Lupita.......
.
.
.
.
.
...and then there's everybody else.
I read the articles in Variety and NBC.com about (male) Academy voters who simply wouldn't go to Academy screenings of both Queen & Slim and Little Women because they weren't interested. Ronan and Gerwig are big enough names to get a recognition vote, I guess. If you can't deign to go and see movies about women, I can see how you'd rely on recognition and/or reputation when you vote uninformed.
There was a point in September after Telluride and Toronto when it felt like Best Actress would probably be Renee Zellweger, Cynthia Erivo, Awkwafina, Scarlett Johansson and Lupita Nyong'o.
In retrospect, this was a pretty good list!
This was before BOMBSHELL screened and no one was sure who the lead was and the buzz around LITTLE WOMEN was mixed and singling out Florence Pugh for praise. And CLEMENCY was considered doomed because of its release date.
I'll probably benefit from a rewatch, but as it stands right now, I fail to understand the fuss over Ronan in Little Women. To me, she was fine, but I am the least excited by her being in this lineup. Something about this being yet another nomination for her (over many alternative options from actresses of color) irks me, as it reeks of the sort of safe default voting that Lawrence enjoyed through her Joy nomination (the very sort that Streep still enjoys).
Woodard's devastating work really should have made a bigger splash on the circuit than it did, and I'm baffled that the folks at Neon thought it was a good call to save a prison/death row drama for the week of Christmas...surely it was not impossible to release it sooner? Reminds me of how Annapurna saved Destroyer until Christmas day (though Annapurna is its own can of worms altogether).
Genre bias is not the reason Lupita wasn't nominated; after all, this is the same Academy that awarded a film centered on a (white) comic book character the year's most nominations, it's lead actor the frontrunner for the win. The goal post is always moved when it comes to actors of color. But if Lupita had played Harriet Tubman, chances are she'd probably win. It isn't all that ironic that in the same actress lineup we have biopics on an abolitionist freedom fighter and a white supremacist (even though the film refuses to go there).
Thank you for this analysis. Despite diversity the Academy is still too easily swayed by who they think are the nominees. I will defend Ronan but Lupita is a very talented actress who should be more recognized and cast by the industry.
I wouldn’t have minded seeing Ana de Armas (Knives Out) and Florence Pugh (Midsommar) in the best actress race alongside Renée, Lupita, and Scarlet. Theron would be a close 6th. In that group I would probably have to settle with a 4 way tie...but probably give it to Scarlet.
I think we need to stop saying things like "the Academy has screwed [Alfre] over before" when it's clear that the "screwing" started when she didn't gain any traction with the precursors. The two biggest voting blocks in the Academy are: younger people who are too busy to see most of the films that come out--remember when Academy member Tom Hanks admitted to David Letterman that he hadn't seen AS GOOD AS IT GETS after the nominations had come out, nominations that he had presumably voted on? Prior to that, when Letterman asks him what he thought of Jack Nicholson potentially winning, he said: "you can't go wrong voting for Jack." This is how they think. (Later, when Letterman said something along the lines of "how could you not have seen it?" he said, and this is a paraphrase: "Do you know how busy I am. When I have free time, all I get to do is go to the dentist. That's my free time." The second kind of voter is the retired, elderly voter. They have plenty of time, but there are still far more screeners than waking hours in the day. They watch the films that got film critics awards. The snubbing of Woodard is on far more than the Academy. It's on the major critics groups and precursor awards bodies.
I do find it interesting that Roman and Pugh got in here when the SAGs completely ignored LITTLE WOMEN.