Emmy Category Analysis: Supporting Actor in a Limited Series
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 at 5:36PM By Nathaniel R
While Abe and Chris have done a fine job staying objective in their analysis, I must confess upfront that this particular category has me too emotionally invested. In doing so, it's causing anxiety! The future winner, very deserving, feels clear. And yet, is this wishful thinking? There's no precursors to look to assuage the fears that we're making up the "frontrunner" business in our heads. Unlike the Oscars which are preceded by countless precursors aimed (unfortunately) at predicting or influencing the outcome) the Emmys come to us mostly fresh each year... apart from repeating themselves (though that is rarely a problem in the limited series category. Before we get to the punditry and the reason for the anxiety let's recap the nominees...
NOMINEES:
-
Murray Bartlett as "Armond" in The White Lotus
-
Jake Lacy as "Shane Patton" in The White Lotus
-
Will Poulter as "Billy Cutler" in Dopesick
-
Seth Rogen as "Rand Gaulthier" in Pam & Tommy
-
Peter Sarsgaard as "Rick Mountcastle" in Dopesick
-
Michael Stuhlbarg as "Richard Sackler" in Dopesick
-
Steve Zahn as "Mark Mossbacher" in The White Lotus
ANALYSIS:
Murray Bartlett and Jake Lacy at war in "The White Lotus"
Common wisdom and previous awards bodies, though they don't always follow the same calendar or the same category perimeters, suggest that Murray Bartlett is the frontrunner for The White Lotus. At SAG he competed with leading men (no size of role distinction in their category) losing to Michael Keaton in Dopesick. At the Critics Choice Association he won (though they have a different calendar) and he won at the HCA too (with different category perimeters). But the fact that he was cited at all of those shows despite a relative lack of fame indicates his strength. He has so many advantages in the lead up to a win. First, though he stars in an ensemble piece, this is as close to a leading role as you get within this particular category and ample screen time has never hurt anyone when it comes to awards. Second, he's in the frontrunning show and that always ups your chances for gold. Third, and most importantly, he would make a grand and deserving winner for what is frankly an incredible performance. Armond is the kind of wild and meaty role that any actor would dream of landing, but not everyone could have pulled off so exquisitely had they done so. We're still shocked that it went to a performer who we already loved who wasn't exactly a household name. He delivered a masterclass in running with a stroke of good fortune and making the very most you could possibly make of it. He's funny, horny, exasperated and exasperating, complicated, troubled, charismatic, and despite the character's increasingly addled, coked up, and erratic behavior, Bartlett grounds it all in a three dimensional but always entertaining character portrait.
Since he gives the greatest performance in the category by an enormous margin, naturally we worry that he'll somehow lose. But let's discuss the other six nominees quickly, who range from questionable choices to wonderful in their own right. Bartlett's castmastes Jake Lacy and Steve Zahn are the kind of reliably strong actors that are frequently taken for granted because they make it look easy (it's not). We can't begrudge them these nods but they won't be pulling votes from Bartlett's larger and much higher degree of difficulty role.
Seth Rogen kicks off the plot with his discovery of a private videotape in "Pam & Tommy"
Seth Rogen, like Bartlett, is practically a lead. This is both a shock as you begin watching the show and a misfortune for the series given that the titular characters Pam & Tommy are the only reason anyone would be watching the show in the first place. While Rogen has always been a capable actor he can't elevate this extremely pitiable and unlikeable character. Every single scene partner he encounters (but especially Sebastian Stan and Nick Offerman) runs circles around him with more interesting or vivid characterizations.
The always excellent Peter Sargaard also has this problem albeit to a much smaller degree. While he's typically capable in Dopesick, his isn't close to the standout performance; the non-nominated Rosario Dawson as well as Sarsgaard's frequent scene partner, the far less famous John Hoogenakker, would have made worthier nominees from this particular portion of Dopesick's sprawling non-linear narrative. Will Poulter, also from Dopesick, has a more interesting role as a hotshot salesman in moral crisis when he realizes his part in the deeply ruinous Big Pharma long con that's decimating the country. Poulter's scenes with the award-winning Michael Keaton are charged and riveting. It's a worthy nomination for a rising star but it's tough to see him pulling off an upset.
That the seven nominees come from only three shows is example #2749 this season as to why the Emmys need to change their rules. It continues to be idiotic that voters don't have to choose between actors (the whole goddamn point of awards is that you have to name "bests") and can list as many actors as they like. Naturally then the most popular shows dominate no matter how much stronger other performances are in less popular projects that might have been nominated instead had voters had to choose only a certain number of people. It's simply a matter of math. That the category doesn't Gil Birmingham or Sam Worthington from Under the Banner of Heaven, or Naveen Andrews from The Dropout is close to inexcusable given the breadth of the category (seven slots!).
The Emmys frankly terrible voting system reveals itself again here via the final nominee, Michael Stuhlbarg. He was much worthier in his non-nominated defense lawyer role in The Staircase. But since voters were watching Dopesick in droves and weren't that interested in The Staircase, they opted for his broad moustache twirling villan as the most utterly despicable of Big Pharma executives. Given Stuhlbarg's growing reputation, the awards pull of villain roles, the fact that he's been working nonstop for years with everyone, and the general love for Dopesick, he could even surprise for the win.
Will Win: Murray Bartlett - The White Lotus
Should Win: Murray Bartlett - The White Lotus
Spoiler: Michael Stuhlbarg - Dopesick
WHO ARE YOU ROOTING FOR?
MORE ANALYSIS
- Lead Actress - Comedy Series
- Lead Actress - Drama Series
- Lead Actress - Limited or Anthology Series
- Lead Actor - Comedy Series
- Lead Actor - Limited or Anthology Series
- Supporting Actress – Comedy Series
- Supporting Actress – Drama Series
- Supporting Actress – Limited or Anthology Series
- Supporting Actor – Drama Series
Reader Comments (6)
TEST
Stuhlbarg is objectively awful in Dopesick -- every line delivery is cringey. Couldn't tell what he was trying to play -- seething anger? social anxiety? Neurodivergent? Purely a check-the-box nomination for a show with many other great performances.
Murray Bartlett is the clear standout here, and I'm excited for his likely win. Just too bad he won't be in Season 2!
Now I'm terrified with the Stuhlbarg prospect. Thank you very much.
The nomination results in these longform supporting categories really need to motivate a re-examination of the unlimited ballot. As deserving as wins for Bartlett and Coolidge would be, I do now wonder if there may be enough internal vote-siphoning that a dark horse could emerge. I felt so optimistic early in the season with performances like those of Nick Robinson in Maid and Zach Gilford in Midnight Mass, but there just doesn't appear to be room for such performances to break through under these circumstances.
I'm otherwise fond of DOPESICK but truly thought Stuhlbarg gave the worst performance on any program from last season. If anyone upsets Bartlett, I hope it's Poulter.
Just here to say that Will Poulter will be a heavyweight dramatic/comedic actor, AND a movie star.