Is it finally Blunt's time?
Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 9:00AM 
With Pain Hustlers new on Netflix, Emily Blunt continues to stake her claim in 2023. Indeed, we're heading into an awards season that could end with the British actress becoming, at long last, an Academy Award-nominated thespian. For over a decade, she has persisted as a contender who never makes it to the finish line, stranded with precursor support but no love from AMPAS itself. Hell, when the Almost There series eventually comes back, one could dedicate an entire month, if not more, to Blunt's many failed bids – from The Young Victoria to her SAG-winning turn in A Quiet Place. Keep in mind that The Devil Wears Prada, arguably her most egregious snub, was already covered a while ago.
In any case, hopes are high for Blunt fans, even if few would argue her performance in Oppenheimer represents the height of her talents. Not that it's any sort of meritless hack job…
Remembering her Kitty Oppenheimer, you're struck by Blunt's severity. Though the script makes few concessions for easy sympathy, the actress is even harsher in her approach. We meet the character as she starts an affair with Cillian Murphy's J. Robert Oppenheimer, their chemistry evident to the camera but also unglamorous. There's a selfishness to their union from the onset, exacerbated by the director's perspective and the cast's acting choices. When saddled with the role of mother, for instance, Kitty's discomfort is palpable right away, heightening with each subsequent scene until she's a drunken mess eager to abdicate maternal responsibilities.
It's a sobering vision that contradicts expectations of the clichéd supporting wife in historical biopics. Structurally, that's the part she's assigned, but neither Kitty nor Blunt will allow themselves to go gently into the night of spousal anonymity. She remains prickly throughout, striking against the protagonist's self-conception and martyr complex, way before the picture's de facto antagonist can verbalize it. Even when standing by her husband's side in the Nolan equivalent to a kangaroo court, Blunt makes the most of reactive closeups, culminating in silent shame during one of the film's scant sex scenes.
Yet, as much as one appreciates her deliberate rigidity, sometimes Blunt can overegg a line delivery, an emphasized gesture. When she finally gets a chance to shine, it's an Oscar clip that suffers a tad from how self-aware it remains of its own showcase nature. You applaud the gusto with which she sinks her teeth into the material, even as intellectual and emotional misgivings pile up. At last, beyond the main narrative's scope, the camera reencounters Kitty in old age, with Blunt now sheathed in effects makeup. Again, there's an underlining of brisk and bristliness, but also an attention to visceral detail in how she negotiates an old woman's dentures.
The quotidian discomforts of age are weaponized to make one final point of derision against a man for whom Kitty has lost all respect. It's an excellent place to leave the character and the performance, even if, in retrospect, it all feels a bit minor. Nothing in Oppenheimer reaches the heights of Emily Blunt's best work, whether in comedy or drama. Still, if this is how she gets that pesky Oscar nomination, it'll hardly be a tragedy. Better to see solid work get recognized than some truly awful turn. Oppenheimer mightn't crack Blunt's top ten, but it's no Stanley Tucci in The Lovely Bones kind of deal.
Do you think this is Emily Blunt's time? If so, how are you feeling about her first Oscar nomination coming through Oppenheimer?
Reader Comments (11)
I wouldn't nominate her.
She's well-positioned although playing a suffering housewife was not enough for Balfe (Belfast) and Foy (First Man).
If we get nominations for Johansson, Dunst and Blunt in such quick succession, we'll have nothing left to complain about!
The writing and characterization of the women characters in “Oppenheimer” is laughably awful.
What a disservice to Emily Blunt who has been so great elsewhere, to put this role in the category of “the best she can do”. In the future, people looking at this role as Emily’s “best” would think, huh, she’s nothing special.
It’s an insult to the audience, that these are “good-enough” women’s roles, as if it’s a favour giving actresses any screen time, as women aren’t essential to an “important story”.
It’s an insult to hundreds of hardworking actresses, who are really really good, but never get lead roles. So they invest their supporting roles with insight, verve, intelligence, and originality. Yet the recognition goes to the popular actress with the rotten role in a prestige movie of the year.
You read that voters say they don’t have time to watch a lot of movies, so they only watch 5 or 6 movies, the ones that are called the front runners, and make all their nominations from those few. Please expand your pool. This is your business. Seeing just one movie a week would give you a pool of 50+ to choose from.
@Mike In Canada-AGREED!
I think Blunt is getting nominated for Oppenheimer but I think it’s totally unworthy. I actually think she’s bad, just awkward line readings, nothing remotely original that probably a hundred other actresses could do the exact same way. I can just see this nomination coming a mile away; the type of nomination that is automatically 5th place. I just can’t stand nominations handed out on a platter to someone just because they haven’t ever been nominated for previous work that was also totally unworthy of nominations. Not everyone needs to be an Oscar nominee just because they have a fan base.
@McGrillg-agree with you.
It's sad that she hasn't been nominated yet for all the wonderful performances of her career, so we can be happy if she will not be nominated for a role that any other actress could have done
I agree with McGill. She's a good actress who should've been nominated for something already (I don't know what though-- Prada?) but Oppenheimer's characters, especially the women, do not need to be singled out. She got a stock role, with cliché line readings (asking Oppenheimer to explain theories to her, telling him to get back up when he's down, etc), and then a meaty scene to show that she's just not a Supportive Wife.
And to me she defends the character well enough. You can probably say she's aware of the role she got and is above it, but still. What's the need to choose her if you only have 5 slots for the hundreds of supporting performances each year offers?
I kind of worry that If Blunt gets nominated (and possibly win- there is not frontrunner right now) this might be a "well you finally got a nomination stop complaining internet" a la Patricia Clarkson and she might not get nominated again. But maybe this will be the first of many like Viola Davis.
What is going on with that still from Pain Hustlers up top?
i am mystified that she's even in the conversation. i agree with everyone here...it's average-to-decent work from a wonderful actress stuck with a dumdum role. if she gets nominated, it will be one of those headscratchers twenty years from now during a Smackdown...nobody will be able to make sense of how and why she got in. there are myriad superior choices this year...it would be pretty depressing if she made the slate.
Agree with the Clarkson comment above.. we should've had High Art, Station Agent, Far From Heaven nods!
Blunt was B/B+ in Opp.. it was the writing that let her down. She went from dark and intriguing to hating her kids pretty quickly, no explanation/backstory/motivation.