Oscar Volley: A deep dive into Best Actor
Monday, March 21, 2022 at 9:00AM Team Experience is discussing the various Oscar categories. Here's Cláudio Alves, Michael Cusumano, and Elisa Giudici to discuss Best Actor.
ELISA GIUDICI: Last year, we thought this Oscar was locked by Chadwick Boseman's intense performance. Yet we were surprised by the outcome, with Anthony Hopkins winning the golden statuette. The Academy was so confident about Boseman’s victory they moved the Best Actor category after Best Picture, the traditional one that closes the ceremony… only to stare at an empty stage, because the winner Anthony Hopkins was at home, sleeping. In 2022, Will Smith is the frontrunner in the Best Actor category. The odds are clearly in his favor…
Yet surprises have happened. What do you think about Smith’s status as the front runner, Cláudio?
CLÁUDIO ALVES: As you mention, it's never good to believe in certainties, especially when trying to predict such fickle things as the Academy's support for any given performance. Even so, it's pretty safe to delcare Smith the likely winner this season. Maybe I'll eat my words later on, but King Richard appears to be the sort of prestigious crowd-pleaser that AMPAS is bound to embrace, and there's no better place to reward it than in Best Actor. Well, there's no easier place, I should say, since I wouldn't vote for Smith out of the five contenders. Indeed, I'd go as far as saying that he's the fourth-best, only marginally edging out Bardem.
This makes me wonder if a good percentage of voting members won't feel the same.
We've seen how apparent sure-fire victories can lead to a false sense of security in the past few years. There's Boseman, obviously, but also Glenn Close. In both cases, they were trumped by showy masterclasses in screen acting, nominees that believed to be their race's runner-up until the moment they won. However, in Smith's case, there's no agreed-upon second-place to surprise and take the gold in the end. I suppose Benedict Cumberbatch would take that spot, but the discourse around his film feels more centered on Jane Campion's directorial achievement and Kodi Smit-McPhee's demon twink excellence. Honestly, Andrew Garfield feels like he has more passionate support behind him, even though the precursors don't reflect that.
Who do you think is ahead in the race between our two British nominees, Michael?
MICHAEL CUSUMANO: As is often the case my predictions are suspiciously close to my personal preferences, but I think I can support my bias with statistics.
Of the nominated men, my personal choice is far and away Cumberbatch. His performance has that elusive quality that I think makes a great Oscar winner: it doesn’t give itself up entirely after one viewing. Phil Burbank could have been a straightforward tough guy with a secret but Cumberbatch and Campion have crafted something altogether more tricky and layered. I’ve seen the film twice and I'm already drawn to watch it again to see if I can suss out more of the internal workings of this toxic, damaged man.
I was not expecting Garfield’s performance to win me over the way it did because I’ve always been immune to the charms of Jonathan Larson and from a distance Boom felt like a hyper-concentrated version of Rent’s most grating elements, but I shouldn’t have underestimated the actor. He and Miranda ground this version of Larson in painfully relatable artistic desperation, and are alert to Larson's irritating qualities - his tunnel-vision, his exhausting self-importance - so a portrait I feared would amount to human jazz hands turned out impressively dimensional.
That said, to me Garfield seems stuck in the middle of the pack with a passionate but limited fanbase. Best Actor wins without a corresponding Picture nominations are rare birds, and tend to come in the form of steamrolling frontrunners (think Forest Whitaker). I’m not even swayed by Tick’s editing nomination, which to my eyes looks like a nod to BOOM's cleverly executed reality-hopping structure rather than a sign of overall support for the movie. Compare that to the deep support for Dog, which showed up in all sorts of places it wasn’t expected, including a nomination for Best Sound which could have easily gone to tick, tick…BOOM.
The nomination total for The Power of the Dog was so impressive I’d be tempted to predict an upset in favor of Mr. Cumberbatch, if I could find any weakness in Smith’s path to a win (I cannot).
Elisa, what do you think about my assertion that Cumberbatch’s is the only performance that rewards repeat viewings? Do you find Oscar-worthy stature in any of the other four nominated performances?
ELISA: I agree 100%, and I think it is a true statement about the movie, too. I have already seen it multiple times and every single rewatch gave me a different understanding of the story. The more I see it, the more my understanding of the story is far from the first viewing. Cumberbatch and other nominated interpreters of Power of the Dog benefit enormously from this layered and unresolved character-building. The only limit here is you have to see it more than once to grasp the level of complexity of the performance given by Cumberbatch. So, if you are bored to death (as some are) by the first view, you’ll probably prefer a more immediate performance. In Tick, Tick… Boom Andrew Garfield is capable of creating an emotional bond with the audience after a couple of scenes. I knew next to nothing about Jonathan Larson, but I cared about him, feeling his frustration, sadness, and desperation as my own.
I still think Cumberbatch has a stronger fanbase this year, but I wonder if the recent rise of popularity of Garfield’s Spider-Man could gain him an expected push. Now that I think about this Marvel contingency, Cumberbatch was in No Way Home, too! However, he was expected to be in it. The appearance of Garfield’s Spider-Man led to a general re-evaluation of his Peter Parker and gave him more exposure as an actor on media. Still, the time an actor could easily win in acting categories without an overall strong film contender behind his back seems long gone (with some notable exceptions).
Now Cláudio, if I recall correctly, you have some strong opinions about Javier Bardem's nomination. I liked his performance in Being the Ricardos because I virtually did not know Desi Arnaz as a star and an actor.
CLÁUDIO: At this point, I have watched The Power of the Dog three times, and I'm sure a fourth is incoming. My experience has been one of growing enrichment, the picture, and its individual elements coming off stronger with each revisit. Indeed, the performances have revealed themselves over time, their choices easier to parse out and appreciate, their merits more evident. If Cumberbatch is the one whose performance has gained the least in re-watch, it's because he left such a strong impression on the first go. But of course, when I saw Campion's picture last night, I was surprised by how open his Phil can be, almost tender, nearly weak. His big outburst towards the end could be played as one-dimensional fury, but Cumberbatch adds other notes. For example, I didn't realize, on a first go, that he spends the entire scene on the verge of tears and how that both complicates the push-and-pull of masculine invulnerability that so defines Phil's whole deal.
Which is to say, I agree with everything you said. Indeed, you've persuaded me that Cumberbatch's fanbase, not to mention his movie's overall Oscar performance, trumps whatever popularity Garfield might have garnered for himself.
As for your last comments, I'm indeed no fan of Javier Bardem's Desi Arnaz. His miscasting includes but also goes beyond a matter of ethnicity. Simply put, his energy and screen presence are all wrong, projecting a muscular toughness and ruddy boaster that feel antithetic to Arnaz's particularities as a performer. I did appreciate Bardem's attempts at lightness and humor, especially when they took form in the background of scenes or the aftermath of big dramatic moments. However, even those flashes of comedy feel critically distinct from the real Arnaz.
Nicole Kidman faces some of the same issues. In her case, I find that the friction between role and actress works in the performance's favor. By casting such a cerebral actress to play a physical comedian, Sorkin has forced his audience to confront the art of making others laugh as a laborious process, full of problem-solving and deep thought. Watching Kidman as Ball mentally work her way through a gag is some of the best material Being the Ricardos has to offer. The imbalance between Bardem and the person he's portraying feels much less purposeful.
Still, I'm open to reading any defense of his performance. I'd love to be convinced of its merits.
MICHAEL: I will take up the challenge of defending Bardem’s performance in Being the Ricardos, even if I share many of the complaints that have been thrown around since the film dropped (Why artificially condense the timespan to one week if you’re going to lard it up with flashbacks?)
I found Bardem’s performance to be the most fully realized element of Being the Ricardos. Not that he convinced me for an instant he was his real-life counterpart . For my money, no cast member comes close to achieving that illusion. But as to the not inconsiderable challenge of playing the character of “Desi Arnaz” as written I can’t say I spotted him stepping a foot wrong.
You can see how high the difficulty is set for Bardem when one of those hacky, unnecessary talking heads introduces with “a more handsome, charismatic man you never met” or words to that effect. And while the actor can't duplicate the particular appeal of the iconic Cuban, he is one of the few performers who can follow that build up and not make it sound like outrageous hyperbole. I’m reminded of Vicky Christina Barcelona where the script called for a man who could plausibly saunter over to Scarlett Johanssen and Rebecca Hall and casually propose a night of wine and love-making, and your casting options were basically Javier Bardem or shut down production.
On top of that incandescent charm, Bardem is required to convincingly portray a savvy strategist, a multi-talented entertainer and an unfaithful but not unloving husband navigating a crumbling marriage. And while it’s easy to imagine another actor playing a more convincing surface Desi, it’s tough to think of one who could integrate all those elements with such style.
What’s more, I think that out of the cast Bardem has the most success managing Sorkin’s dialogue. The baroque curlicues of Sorkin-ese can make even hardened pros sound like they are engaged in the verbal equivalent untangling Christmas tree lights, particularly in a case like this where the writer is not serving up his A game. Bardem has a directness that cuts through the clunkiest of passages. He even makes the wildly contrived, “you checked the wrong box” climax sound like something a human being might actually say.
So, yeah, while I would have no trouble finding five more impressive achievements among 2021’s leading men (Hey there, Nic Cage) I think the nomination is defensible.
Speaking of nominees playing real people we have the case of our frontrunner. I haven’t been able to settle my opinion on Will Smith’s performance since I saw King Richard. Maybe you can help. At first I admired the way that Smith seemed to play a thornier version of the man than the film was prepared to deal with. But the more I sit with it, the less I’m sure Smith isn’t holding back to keep from straying outside the film’s inspirational boundaries.
I’ll open it up to both of you. Is Smith giving a complex performance of a controversial figure or merely suggesting one so far as it doesn’t spoil the feel-good ending? I honestly can’t decide.
ELISA: It is a tough choice for sure. I am inclined to believe that the movie is clearly holding back while Will Smith is not pushing forward, but still giving grey nuances to his character whenever is possible. I see this movie as a missed opportunity to explore in-depth the life of a man and a father as controversial as successful. If there is a fault, it lies in the screenplay. It is almost like the movie forces a positive light even on the ambiguous part of the story, trying to justify his protagonist even before he acts (the "almost murder" scene).
I was way more fascinated by the story left untold, ignored by the movie, and yet lingering there: the isolation the family built around itself, the dangers of any unpredictable yet possible event that can jeopardize the “mission”, the terrible untested path of what would happen if someone should fail to meet exceptional expectations of this father figure. Not to mention what an absolute, what religion is being successful in this way of living. Every misstep or fault on his path was quickly collected and listed by Richard's wife during their final fight. This scene is the highest achievement of Will Smith: he manages to be still credible while the movie around him quickly unfold a whole new side of the character (never to be explored or mentioned again), revealing the failure was not erased but simply ignored, like the pain it procures to other family members.
As for Desi Arnaz, I am not that familiar with Richard Williams. I never saw one of his interviews before seeing the movie, I did not know the story of the family behind William’s sisters and their incredible achievements in tennis. That being said, I found it quite hard to unseen Will Smith in Richard Williams. Is that a fault? Not necessary. I also saw a lot of Javier Bardem in his Desi Arnaz, yet I think he sold me the whole "Ricardo package" better than Smith did with Williams’ one.
From the King of Williams family to the King of Scotland, it is time to talk about Denzel Washington’s Macbeth. My take is: he is good, he has a stunning movie around him, it is Shakespearian and Coenian. He deserves his spot. Yet I wished a less predictable name and more engaging performance took his seat.
CLÁUDIO: Having recently re-watched King Richard and discussed Ellis' work at length, I feel like the limitations of Smith's performance have become more apparent to me. While his costar mines the simplistic script for unspoken complexities, creating a characterization of astonishing depth, the movie's leading man seems reluctant to go deeper than what's on the page. There's a feeling that Smith's settling for the superficial conclusions the picture's presenting, buying into the inspirational tale a bit too much. However, I also feel that this is all the performance's fault.
On a deeper level, Richard Williams is the kind of role that demands an actor whose screen presence lends itself to multifaceted moralities, tonal ambiguities, and bittersweet sentimentality. Unfortunately, Will Smith isn't that type of actor.
Instead, he's an absolute movie star in the Old Hollywood model, one of our last. So much so that it's hard to accept him in thornier biopic roles (Ali excluded). Smith's star quality is founded on innate charisma that manifests in likeability. To put it simply, it's hard not to root for him whenever he appears on-screen. King Richard would benefit if it invited or merely allowed the audience to make their own conclusions on its putative hero. Smith's very presence puts a stop to that, and his interpretation of Richard does little to change that state of affairs.
Regarding Denzel Washington's Macbeth, I agree with your take, Elisa. As a Shakespeare nerd and Coen fan, I had great expectations for the film, not all of which were fulfilled. While I adored the picture's formal rigor, its Expressionistic audiovisual turmoil, and many of the performances, its value as an adaptation felt limited, an unimaginative reading of the play. This is especially true of the central figures, played by Washington and Frances McDormand, two actors far too old for these roles' usual conceptions. In the end, they bring little to the characterizations beyond their aged visages. And even then, this newfangled middle-aged nature wasn't sufficiently explored, fascinating as it was.
Lady Macbeth fares worse than her husband, partly because Washington is an actor better attuned to the theatrical demands of Shakespeare than his costar. Even so, his Scottish usurper is a curiously downplayed creation, full of line readings that circumvent traditional declamation but are also a few steps behind realism. Some of his best moments are counterintuitively performed, like the aftermath of Duncan's death, here played as catatonic stoicism. And yet, I often wanted more fire from him, more mellifluous music and thrashing thunder. In the end, it's a good performance with a concrete point-of-view. I'm just not as wowed as I thought I would be.
Michael, since you so persuasively defended Bardem, could you do the same for Washington?
MICHAEL: Cláudio, It’s difficult to mount a counter-argument when you both just articulated my own feelings about Washington's take on Macbeth better than I’ve been able to since January. I found it, I don’t know, maybe a smidge more successful than you did? Ha! Take that.
Elisa, I will disagree with you in one small regard: I am excited specifically because Denzel Washington is a predictable name popping up. It's always wonderful to see fresh talent rewarded but it can be just as thrilling to find that one of our most reliable movie stars can still deliver at the peak of his powers. The few men above or tied with Washington on the list of all-time most nominated males were wrapping up their Oscar runs at this stage in their careers in swan song titles like About Schmidt or Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Denzel Washington in Macbeth doesn’t give off the vibe of an actor who’s wrapping up anything, and in that context seeing him pick up a ninth nomination in an also-ran, no-chance-of-winning slot is as exciting to me as the question of who wins the trophy. If I could put down some money on him retiring the most nominated man in Oscar history, I would.
I’d start wrapping things up here by asking for everything everyone’s predictions and preferences but I feel like we’re pretty much in agreement here.
Am I wrong? Given the chance would anyone cast a ballot for someone other than Mr. Cumberbatch? Would anyone like to take this opportunity to go out on a limb and envision a scenario where Will Smith isn’t victorious? I am not nearly so bold.
CLÁUDIO: I think none of us are that bold, bringing this Oscar volley to a rare unanimous conclusion. After all this, imagine if Smith loses next Sunday. The shock, the scandal!
What about you, dear reader? What are YOU rooting for and what do you think will win?
RELATED:
Oscar Volleys: Best Animated Feature, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Screenplays, Best Director
Best Actor Oscar Chart
Nathaniel's Medalists
Reader Comments (8)
If there was one single likely challenger (a la Hopkins in The Father or Colman in The Favourite or Streep in Iron Lady), I'd be tempted to bet against Smith.
But the fact that either Cumberbatch or Garfield could conceivable be the challenger makes me feel that neither would pull in enough to topple Smith.
I feel about Cumberbatch the same way I feel about Colman. They're above and beyond their competition and they should be sweeping.
Will Smith will never ever get a better role than King Richard so the race ends here. It's his Erin Brockovich.
Coda: Bardem is better than Kidman.
I never know what to do with this conundrum: I took an intense dislike to the Richard Williams character Will Smith was doing an excellent job of portraying. While I was viewing, I kept wishing for a different movie about Oracene, Venus, and Serena, with Richard out of the picture. But I don't think the filmmakers wanted me to dislike the character. So do I hold that against the actor, the screenwriter, or the director?
I agree with Mike in Canada that Garfield and Cumberbatch will split the alternative-to-Smith vote, making it even more likely Smith will win.
I vote for Garfield here. This was a trapeze artist kind of performance: he just flung himself into this role without a safety net. He totally sold me. Cumberbatch would be the runner-up, but there were points in the film where he was just too actorly -- I didn't always buy him in the role. Bardem's role was the least challenging of the five, and he was fine, but I'd have gone with DiCaprio or Dornan for the fifth slot.
WILL WIN: frontrunner
SHOULD WIN: Garfield
DARK HORSE: none
SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOMINATED: Cage, Rex
This was a great volley btw
Peggy Sue: Nice comparison with Erin Brockovich and that Smith is never gonna get any better roles, but isn't this also true for Cumberbatch and maybe even Garfield? I'm glad that Smith redeemed himself from all the dreck he's been in (I also detest The Pursuit of Happyness) but it still feels unfair in comparison to the other two to win for this. Will Cumberbatch ever get a better chance? He seems to be going in the Ryan Reynolds route with the Doctor Strange character at this point in his career so I'm not sure if he is ever going to do anything close to The Power of the Dog and that makes me very sad.
For me personally outside of Garfield who is my pick I find this a weak set of nominees,I think Rex,Cage or Ali could have replaced 2 if not 3 of the men nominated.
I'm starting to feel I was the only on who liked Frances and disliked everybody else and am not even a big fan of hers.
If Smith won I wouldn't be shocked but I wouldn't be shocked if he loses to Cumberbatch who seems to be his main competion,if Dunst and McPhee are not winning will Cumberbatch benefit.
I'm not generally a big Cumberbatch fan (oh how I wish there was a version of Patrick Melrose that starred someone else), but he's my clear winner out of the 5 nominees (although I assume Oscar will go for Smith). Great work as Phil Burbank.
That said, if Simon Rex had been nominated I might lean toward him.
My first choice would be Benedict Cumberbatch. An iconic unforgettable performance that we will be watching for years to come.
My second choice would be Denzel Washington. I liked that the two leads were older, that decades of being unappreciated and unrewarded festered into murder. I liked that they knew each other so well, they knew what the other was thinking and would say next.
And I had to reassess my misjudgement of Denzel Washington. I never realized he had such range or so many actorly skills. The characteristics of many of the roles he usually plays that make me roll my eyes, were all there in Macbeth, but only a part of Macbeth, and one of the parts that lead to his downfall.
I hadn’t sufficiently recognized that actors can only play the parts they get, and those parts rarely use all their talent and skills.
The other 3 nominees, well, they are playing characters all right, but I doubt those characters are Desi, Jonathan, or Richard.
I agree with Michael, that Bardem was playing a Sorkin character. Desi Arnaz was light, quick, effervescent, with a musician’s sense of multiple rhythms. Bardem is lead footed and heavy handed.
And how could Jonathan Larsen have been so loved if he was another white guy artist thinking his genius allowed him to treat the other people around him like shit? And I don’t think his appearance in Spider-Man was helpful, since the two roles looked so similar. Mopey and self pitying, of the 3 Spidermen, he was obviously the worst.
I thought Cumberbatch profited more from his Spider-Man appearance, as you remembered, oh yeah, he’s an actor, able to create different distinct roles.
Will Smith as Richard: This is fiction. If Smith wins an Oscar for playing a fictionalized version of a real person, well, that is one of the Hollywood traditions.
I watched the Williams sisters, two terrific athletes, play tennis for years and years. The worst was when they had to play each other because it laid bare the unhappiest family dynamics that were hammered home, hour after hour, year after year.
It just made you cringe to watch the unfairness and muted misery of their relentless family dynamic. Especially awful was the family in the stands who were angry when the “wrong” sister won, and their few grudging claps when the camera was on them, compared to their jumping cheers when the “right” sister won.
The publicists for this movie were successful in getting people to use the word “crowd-pleaser” instead of “middle-brow” (which wins no Oscars), even though the movie attracted no crowds.