My complicated feelings toward Frances McDormand's third win
Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 12:15PM
please welcome new contributor Timothy Lyons
she likes to work
Frances McDormand’s performance in Nomadland was my favourite of the year. Full stop. Both the film itself and McDormand’s work as Fern blew me away with their deceptive simplicity quietly revealing hidden depths of feeling. Why oh why then did I feel such a crushing sense of disappointment when McDormand took her third Best Actress trophy at this year’s Oscars?
I consider myself a proponent of the notion that “the Academy Awards should be about the work and not the narrative”. For example, Glenn Close rightfully lost this year to a superior performance despite receiving her 8th nomination and feeling grossly overdue for the gold. Her narrative was an easy one to get on board with - “Just give Glenn the gold already”, but instead the Academy awarded Youn Yuh-jung for her breakout work in Minari. Perhaps a different narrative did play a part in Youn’s victory but it was deserved wholly for the performance nonetheless.
I could say the same about McDormand’s win, but it just doesn’t sit the same.
Carey Mulligan photographed by Gavin Batty. IMG SRC
Maybe it’s the sense of anticlimax? It does feel like kind of a letdown that for how electric and exciting the uncertainty of the Best Actress category felt going in, the winner was the one that was everyone’s default pick before awards season officially began. A win for ANY of the other nominees definitely would have felt more exciting for it’s audacity (Mulligan), historic significance (Davis and Day) or wild unexpectedness (Kirby). But I agreed with the winner!?! Why should I feel this way?
Perhaps it’s the feeling of overkill? Each of the other nominees (in an unusually strong field) would have won their first Lead Actress trophy had their names been called - voters could have easily spread the wealth by going with someone new. Instead, they gave the award to McDormand, who already had two wins under her belt. But what would I have done if I was a voting member of the Academy looking at my ballot?
Viola Davis for Vanity Fair shot by Quil Lemons
I would probably think about how McDormand’s first Oscar should have gone to Emily Watson despite my loving both Fargo and Marge Gunderson. I would then think about how her second Oscar should have gone to Saoirse Ronan despite my appreciation for Mildred Hayes in spite of the overrated movie that surrounded her (Three Billboards…). Finally, I would put my vote down for ‘Fern’ because she’s the one who in my honest opinion deserves to win based on performance alone. If then Carey Mulligan was announced as the winner I would applaud with genuine joy despite my disagreeing with the outcome - “Fran has enough”.
But then again, maybe I wouldn’t vote for Fran/Fern. If nothing else, my disappointment has shown me how easy it is to get caught up in the narrative: “Fran has enough, why not throw this one to the undervalued Carey? Or to the always superb but yet-to-take-a-lead-gong Viola?” Could I completely take my feelings towards the people behind the performances and their career trajectories out of the equation?
Academy voters are real people with (I presume) a lot of the same doubts and quandaries as I have and; being in the industry, differing feelings towards the people behind the performances. This very human element is what has made and will keep making the Academy a flawed and broken machine. Maybe voters genuinely thought McDormand deserved every one of her wins based on performance alone. Maybe they just like the woman herself. Maybe (on this occasion at least) it was just a matter of heavy vote splitting and the vast majority of votes did go elsewhere. The Oscars don’t exist in a vacuum - there is so much at play.
Whatever the reason, I should applaud the win but; because I can’t go back in time and prevent the first two wins, I can’t shake the sense that the glory should have been shared and I can’t help the deflation; it just feels a little… meh. Maybe I’m alone here (it’s all opinion after all) and my ramblings make no sense but I feel like any lifelong Oscar obsessive is no stranger to the complexity of feeling that comes with the territory - we love the game, treasure the triumphs, and equally love to grumble when things don’t go our way.
This feeling of grumbling when it actually does is definitely new. In that respect it’s nice to know the journey of compulsively following awards season still has a few surprises up its sleeve. On to the 94th Academy Awards!
Reader Comments (76)
Endorsing an inferior performance to win over a stronger one does not correct a past injustice, it just creates a new one.
Vote for the work, not the narrative.
If deserving means the best in five, then her third win is totally deserving. I can't say the same for the previous two wins, though the Fargo win is also great, but second best in that year.
Denzel Washington will join McDormand soon enough in the three or more club.
Glenn Close zero Oscars
Vanessa Redgrave and Tilda Swinton one apiece in supporting
The Oscars aren't about anything substantial nor tangible most of the time. So everything spread out on paper seems a bit strange under the scrutiny of who has the chops and the filmography?
I feel similarly. The performance is totally worthy, but she was somehow also the most anticlimactic choice in the category this year. Nice write-up. #firstworldproblems
McDormand 3 nominations in Lead, 3 wins.
What kind of legend. Also, her filmography, while not extensive shows quality and compromise for the team while helping from time to time new voices.
Anyway, reading some comments on twitter from Streep fans having a stroke after this has been the cherry of the cake.
Frances McDormand's first Oscar should have gone to Brenda Blethyn - and I will forever say she is a the top of the list for nominees who should have won!
She was the best. The performance speaks itself...
I feel ya, even though I wanted Mulligan to win. I loved McDormand's performance, I just wish it weren't her third win.
One silver lining: I have absolutely no fear that McDormand will suffer the so-called Oscar curse. (Or is that only a thing with supporting actresses?) She will keep working and has the clout to make her own opportunities regardless of what Hollywood offers her.
I was rooting for Carey to win her first Oscar, or Viola to make history as the first black actress with a second Oscar (esp considering she probably should've won over Meryl in 2012) -- although I'm not a fan of making things about identity politics as it takes away from the performer and reduces them to a statistic.
WITH THAT SAID,
Since it was a wide open race, I was very content with the outcome. Nomadland was one of the most beautiful films I've seen in a long time and Frances blew me away with her subtlety. I really felt Fern's slow but steady journey through grief.
It was a deserved win.
What sours it for me is Three Billboards... that movie was kind of a mess (especially tonally) and a second win for that movie was simply not necessary. Saoirse should've won for Lady Bird (along with Laurie Metcalf, but I digress). Even Sally Hawkins winning for The Shape of Water would've felt worthier.
It's not even begrudging her three wins, it's just unfortunate when one doesn't feel up to par (haven't see Fargo yet, so can't comment on that). See also: Iron Lady.
Glenn Close still does not have an Oscar
I like Frances McDormand a lot but she doesn't impress me as an actress with great range. No one does put upon grouchiness better than she does, but aren't three Oscars for that schtick maybe a bit too much? I'm semi-joking but it does feel that way a bit.
I am one of the few people who thinks that Hilary Swank deserved both her Oscars but talk about an even more limited range. I can hardly imagine her doing effortless comedy for example, just the way I can't see Frances pulling off naive or loveable a la Amy Adams or Renee Zellwegger.
BUT the Oscars are all about timing, the competition, the quality of the film you're in, and a lot of luck. And oh my Frances McDormand is awfully lucky.
This was the first year I think ever where the five nominees for Best Actress were exactly the nominees I would have chosen, and all would have been worthy winners. Unlike the above posters, I 100% was behind her Three Billboards win, but never quite understood the raves for her performance in Fargo (or for the movie itself, for that matter) -- I would have gone with Kristin Scott Thomas there.
Nonetheless, I see the author's point here while I loved Nomadland, and loved her in it, her win was less momentous than any of the other nominees' wins would have been...
But still worth celebrating.
While wholly deserving, I also agree this felt anticlimatic. Besides Timothy's points, I also think that her succint, almost non-speech contributed to this. When she won for 3 Billboards she gave such a barnburner of a speech that, however you felt about the victory, it felt exciting. I assume that the change here was partly due to some modesty but also the fact that she'd JUST accepted best picture. Possibly another minor consequence of the category shake-up.
I’ll admit that I didn’t love Nomadland, but that the best part of it was McDormand. I don’t think this was as difficult got her as other roles, but she really helped elevate every beat of the film. There’s a naturalism that was impressive. I’ll wholly own too that I was a big fan of her performance in three billboard, where she worked through grief a bit differently.
I was really hoping for Viola. She went big and I though her performance paid off, especially because she never sacrificed shading in Ma Rainey. She was show, but with so much depth. I hope she’ll be back in this category. I thought she was better than McDormand in a tough year (with Kirby’s incredible work right behind her).
I was disappointed but there’s something about Frances, even giving a 20 second speech, that’s charming. It just feels odd that she has more lead Oscars than Meryl and Jngrid Bergman at this point. I suspect, more than anything, this win kicks off the inevitable March towards Streep’s 4th win.
This category disgusts me. It always goes to white actresses and at this point I’m over it. This is the second time Viola won the SAG award only to lose the Oscar to a white actress who already had 2 Oscars on her mantle.
Marge Gunderson is the antithesis of "put upon grouchiness." The character's intelligence is underestimated by the men around her because she is so good-natured. And Fran isn't grouchy, either. She makes friends easily for an introvert and she doesn't complain about her circumstandes - she actually seems to feel fairly blessed, despite the toll economic downsizing took on her.
I understand that not everyone appreciates the same actresses. But I feel that a lot of these arguments that McDormand plays the same characters repeatedly boil down to the fact that, unlike almost every other actress who is equally famous, she doesn't try to be glamorous, and therefore, all the unglamorous women she plays must be similar.
Cue the “so you’re saying people should only win Oscars because of their race?!” and other responses defending the fact only white actresses win this category..
I feel nothing but joy for the fact that the best performance actually won.
@ jules
Astutely put.
One thing that I don't get, though, is this idea that one person is always the best. Mike M states "vote the performance, not the narrative" and that objectively makes sense. But often enough the categories contain two or more achievements that I really wholeheartedly embrace. At that point, yeah, things like narrative, career, film etc are going to weigh in.
I wouldn't have voted for McDormand for Fargo (Watson, who I do think towered above the field) and wouldn't have nominated her for Three Billboards. For that reason, it's hard for me to get that enthusiastic about her win, even though the performance and film merit it.
Winning an Academy Award should be the same as winning a Gold Olympic at the Olympics. The Best should win. Athletes train to be the best and the Gold shouldn't be rewarded on narratives. (Lose the race, Michael Phelps, because so-and-so doesn't have a Gold medal). I'm sure that Another Round was selected as Best Int. Film because it was the best-doubt that voters knew about the Director's daughter dying in a car crash. Even if they did, it that a reason to select a film? Did The Oprah Winfrey Show win 16-20 Emmy Awards in a row because her show was the best of the bunch? If Frances McDormand gave the best performance-reward her!
Glenn Close does not have an Oscar. SHAME
@Dave, I though she did her own version of clueless well in Burn After Reading. She and Brad were perfect together. I also think her performance in Miss Pettigrew Luves for a Day is a real winner and requires her to hit different beats than she usually does.
I also think she plays against grouchiness in both Wonderboys and Almost Famous. In particular, the Almost Famous role is filled with a lot of heart and warmth as she reveals more of the character.
While I don’t think she has any interest in doing a romantic comedy, I’d love to see what magic she could work with Tom Hanks in a romantic comedy ala Last Chance Harvey.
jules -- i wholeheartedly agree with this. I think her characterizations are quite different from character to character. Not that she has no repeated mannerisms or choices (*all* famous actors we see a lot have them, including "the chameleons") but she really does do great character work. Loved her in this movie so much.
I've long been a Frances detractor believing up till Nomadland she deserved only 1 of her nominations for Almost Famous,1996 is too stacked a category for her to win that year.
Nathaniel in 2005 coined the phrase "Never underestimate the power of Frances McDormand" after she beat out Gong Li,Maria Bello,Scarlett Johannsson,Shirley MacLaine and Thandie Newton to a supporting nod For North Country a film not many people liked.
So after that surprise her winning here didn't surprise me but she did not need an Oscar in 2017 when Ronan was creating what felt like a character to be discussed for years to come..
I mean, I run a "No Duplicate Winners" alternate history of the Oscars, where I imagine that film history otherwise changes not at all and you can't even be nominated if you've won. And if you're wondering? Yes, I imagine posthumous wins would become basically MANDATORY under this rule set, if, essentially, for ruthless reasons ("if it means we can...not...remove a living actor from circulation, OF COURSE we're taking it") more than sentimental ones ("he died, and I feel terrible".)
I'm not sure why acting awards need to also include merit based on race.
If a voter thought that Viola gave the best performance, they should vote for her.
If a voter thought that Vanessa Kirby gave the best performance, they should vote for her.
Awards need to be based on merit, not on race.
Chadwick Boseman should not have been the supposed "frontrunner" because he died of cancer and because he was Black, but it should have been because he gave the best performance. Did he do that? Not in my eyes, but in the eyes of enough people to nominate him.
I'm surprised both by this post and by some of the comments. I thought her performance in Fargo was perfection. She never overplayed it and her character always felt vibrantly alive and real. I think it's a lot more difficult to play a character that doesn't have huge dramatic scenes and yet anchors the enitre movie. As for Three Billboards, I thoroughly loved the movie and thought she was phenomenal in it.
I have not watched Nomadland yet, so I can't speak on that, although I will say that Viola Davis was by far the major performance to watch in her movie. I would have loved to see her win. She nailed the constant tension between being pushed down and insisting on your worth.
I would also have loved to see Chadwick win, but I wasn't a huge fan of his performance. It felt very uneven (and I blame that on the writing more than anything; the character felt more like a message than a person). I just would have liked him to win the Oscar because he was such an amazing inspiration to people everywhere.
For me, it was a smidge disappointing that McDormand was so succinct (and seemingly blasé) while accepting her third Best Actress Oscar. Nevermind that her and Hopkins' wins both unraveled at breakneck speed.
You might blame it on the fact that she'd just made a perfectly fine speech / howled while accepting her prize for Best Picture minutes prior, and might not have had much else to add. Though, for what it's worth, I revisited her Tonys speech from 2011 and the difference is night and day; she seemed genuinely touched accepting her Tony. So as Best Actress enthusiasts who invest far too much obsessive energy into the category, I think we all want to see the eventual winner serve us some excited (and long winded!) dramatics on stage.
Viola or Carey would've set completely different tones with their speeches, but I'm not too bothered by Fran's win as I preferred her out of the three. And, in a strange way, it's kind of fascinating seeing the Academy frequently reward an actress who apparently doesn't give AF about them - very Katharine Hepburn energy and ... I'm here for it.
One silver lining: I have absolutely no fear that McDormand will suffer the so-called Oscar curse. (Or is that only a thing with supporting actresses?) She will keep working and has the clout to make her own opportunities regardless of what Hollywood offers her.
Mathew Eng wrote a write-up about how McDormand sort of vanished after her initial best actress win for Frago. She's a character actress and an actor's actor so she doesn't need Hollywood and the leverage of being married to a member of an auteur duo where the industry lines up to participate in their eccentric ensembles also helps.
Supporting Actress wins usually go to one time nominees. And these people can be chalked up to award season wonders. People who just happened to happen. Hollywood doesn't care to build careers around folks they have no natural investment in just because they won the Oscar. This should be understood more.
I like to pretend her second win was for Mrs. Pettigrew and then everything else feels okay.
Glenn Close has 0 Oscars for Best Actress but Frances McDormand has 3?
I think the Academy (or a small plurality of voters) just likes the idea that the Katherine Hepburn of our time is a plainspoken midwesterner who's more likely to take a crap in a bucket on screen than carry a bouquet of calla lilies in memory of someone who has died. I get the appeal. Look for a fourth win in another ten years.
Totally with you. I rewatched Nomadland yesterday, and it’s even better a second time. There’s no denying that watching Fran/Fern feels simultaneously like watching a master actor at work AND going so deeply into naturalism that you forget she’s acting at all. She’s wonderful, the performance is wonderful. I’m glad she is so beloved and celebrated and yet I’m bummed that she won.
I am in both the “performance above all else” and the “spread the wealth if there are multiple worthy winners” camps. To give her a third while Davis and Mulligan are right there will brilliant performances and no lead trophies (or no trophies at all) just seems... uninspired. That doesn’t take away from how truly inspired Fran is in this role, but it seems unnecessary to shower her with more awards so soon after her last one (which definitely should have been Ronan’s).
I have zero problems with her win. Made me very happy.
"Awards need to be based on merit, not on race."
I agree, and do not care for the argument that Viola Davis or Andra Day should have won due to the historic significance of having a second black Best Actress. If you think they should have won based on their work, make that argument. For instance; I think Gabourey Sidibe was easily the best of the 2009 actress nominees, and Alfre Woodard wiped the floor with all of Oscar's 2019 actress contenders.
It does a disservice to the performer when you treat them as a standard bearer as opposed to an individual, and provides ammunition to those who cynically attribute the success of people of color to affirmative action. Black actresses are fully capable of meriting wins based on the quality of *the work* alone.
Many people thought Andra Day gave a great performance as Billie Holiday, despite how weak the film may have been. But sure, accuse anyone who thinks she deserved to win of only being motivated by race.
“Black actresses are fully capable of meriting wins based on the quality of *the work* alone.”
The Academy clearly doesn’t think so. Not in the Best Actress category at least. If Viola Davis had gone leading for Fences she probably would’ve lost to Emma Stone.
White is definitely not Viola's color. And I am in the field of those who believe that Frances's first Oscar should be Blethyn's.
No one really needs three Oscars, but I don't blame or dislike Frances for winning thrice. She is basically always good if not terrific in her work. And I think there's a lot of range in her characterizations, Oscar-winning or not. She doesn't strike me as an attention hog who can't cheer for others' victories.
I probably would have voted for Carey, but I don't begrudge Frances the win. Nor would I have begrudged a Viola win, for many of the same reasons.
Some years I don't even like the winning performance (or the other nominees), let alone love it. This year wasn't even close to a year like that. So I can't be too upset.
From this category, I only saw Nomadland and Promising Young Woman, and I'm okay with McDormand winning over Mulligan, even though I would have preferred the opposite outcome.
People may be frustrated with this win in part because it feels extraneous, and that feeling is only reinforced by her when she accepts. She has an allergy to glamour and the spotlight, and gives off the vibe that she doesn't care about winning when it comes to her own category. Had any other nominee won, you would have seen a rush of emotion and appreciation for what would have been a life-changing (and in the case of Davis or Day, historic) moment.
The best thing that happened to McDormand's chances was the huge split among major precursor awards. Had she steamrolled the season and been forced to deliver acceptance speeches over the past couple of months, voters may have experienced some fatigue, making an upset more likely.
Nomadland felt like a career capper to me. Little things in the film reminded me of her past work. Examples: she's back in the Dakotas, she urinates by a fence that looks a lot like where the Fargo money was buried, and you even hear the phrase "north country" being used. But then I look at her upcoming projects: a completed Wes Anderson movie, Macbeth with Joel Coen and Denzel Washington in post-production, and an announced Sarah Polley movie. Sounds like she's far from done with Oscar. Never underestimate her, right?
I love Fargo and I thought Three Billboards was nonsense, but she was good in it. In Nomadland, though, I thought she did something really interesting. She was so quiet, so reactive, and allowed the non-professionals like Swankie to really shine. I can't even begin to imagine an actor like Streep in the film, just quietly responding to the people and places around her. A big part of the reason Nomadland works is because of the genius of her performance.
I was surprised she won though, mostly because the film's award narrative seemed mostly centered on Zhao. I have to assume the fact that this woman in her 60s found this project, brought it to the right people, and brought it beautifully to life, gained her some votes in the Actress category.
I just don't see people voting for Emma Stone for LA LA LAND if Viola Davis's performance for FENCES had been there in the same category. I remember at the time thinking Davis had made a real mistake. It turned out to be a soft year in the Best Actress category and I see her easily winning it. But I'm really not about to second guess her. The success of these performers isn't just their own. They have a whole "team" that either does well or doesn't do well when the star's fortunes rise or fall. They're not only making a decision that will affect how much money they end up making at the end of the decade, they're making a decision that will financially affect their manager and agent, and, more indirectly, a bunch of other employees--personal assistants and so on. The pressure must be enormous.
Someone who would call McDormand's performance in FARGO "put upon grouchiness" is someone who hasn't seen one of the best films of all time, or read about it, or...seen clips of it? Yikes dot yikes. Delete your account lol.
@Volvagia
It's a fascinating idea, isn't it? I don't think I'd want AMPAS to function that way, but as an egalitarian exercise, it's really fun. Especially if you allow yourselves fake hindsight/foresight.
Well said, Nathaniel.
Frances McDormand - 3 lead OSCARS. That`s 2 more than all of the black actresses combined in 92 years of OSCARS. I Don`t Mind Her Win but... Sure it should be about the work not the narrative nor race, But Is It ?
I have so many issues with the movie Fences. I hated everything about it. It felt so stiff and staged. The performances didn't resonate with me. I'm really waiting for Viola Davis to give a performance that will wow me. I think her best role so far was in Windows.
Meanwhile, Alfre Woodard most certainly should have wiped the floor with everyone last year. She was sensational.
Bitches at the Academy are just cruel to Glenn at this point.
Again I need to say:
Viola is the only actress with 2 lead actress wins at SAG that has yet to win a lead Oscar. This would only lead to more injustice down the road.
If Margot Robbie had played Cassie, she would have easily won. Carey just does not have the same level of name recognition and the Hollywood ingenue factor that led easy wins for JLaw and Emma Stone.
Meryl robbed Viola, not Frances.
Does anyone really think it's about the BEST performance or that such a thing actually exists? I mean, I realize that's what the award is called, but, as many winners have noted in their acceptance speeches over the years, acting is not a competition and comparing performances in terms of better and best is mildly offensive and borderline idiotic. (On the other hand, it's easy to discuss bad and worst performances...)
That said, people vote based on a) how a performance made them feel, b) if they want to honor the film, c) any number of political considerations and d) what they think about the performer, independent of the nominated performance. Clearly, this year a), b) and d) worked in McDormand's favor. She wasn't the best of the five. (And as I said elsewhere, vote siphoning/splitting was real this year: "Fern" was neither a legendary Black singer nor a traumatized young blonde American played by a Brit.)
And, yes, the win was anti-climactic.