Javier Bardem
Age: 52 (but 53 by March 27th)
Film: Being the Ricardos
Role: Desi Arnaz, the real person behind not only Ricky Ricardo but many of the creative decisions on I Love Lucy. Desi does love Lucy, but she’s not entirely sure that he’s being faithful to her.
Nomination History:
Won Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 2008 for No Country for Old Men (2007).
Previously nominated for Best Actor in 2011 for Biutiful (2010) and in 2001 for Before Night Falls (2000).
Why He Should Win
The genius of Aaron Sorkin not wanting imitations from his cast becomes clear to me as I reflect on Javier Bardem’s portrayal of Desi Arnaz in Being the Ricardos. Throughout the film, Desi and others express frustration that he does not get credit for his intellectual contributions to the show. He’s appreciated as an actor, but not for all the work he does behind the scenes. I will confess that the only time I think of Desi Arnaz is when I’m thinking of Ricky Ricardo. It’s not that I intentionally refuse to take Arnaz seriously. It’s that I only call him to mind at all when I am thinking of the (very amusing) Ricky on I Love Lucy. So maybe I’m one of the people guilty of not taking Desi seriously enough.
But who in the world would not take Javier Bardem seriously? If you don’t take him seriously, he’ll shoot you with a cattle gun! He’ll send you a sinister email suggesting that you, “Think on your sins.” Obviously Bardem himself would not behave that way. But he’s an Oscar winner and one of the most celebrated actors in Spain. Bardem is always taken seriously. Why have him do an imitation of the Desi Arnaz we think we know? The audience will surely see the serious side of Desi more readily when offered a respected, celebrated actor of Bardem’s caliber bringing him to life for us.
As shown in this film, Desi is nothing short of a genius who saves the show and Lucy’s career with his quick thinking near the end of the film. Nobody whose introduction to I Love Lucy was this movie would not respect the hard work, intellect, and busy savvy of Desi Arnaz.
And Bardem is good in the role. He sings. He plays the drums. He shows us many different sides of Desi Arnaz. I love his vulnerability with Lucy (both when he is falling in love with her and when he is trying and failing to explain himself at the end) in contrast with his almost vicious savagery when he is feels that Jess Oppenheimer (Tony Hale) is patronizing him.
Why He Might Not Win
Desi Arnaz was Cuban. Javier Bardem is Spanish. He’s not even Latin American. He’s Spanish. He’s no more Cuban than I am. This caused quite a debacle a few months ago, and the more Bardem and Sorkin kept addressing it, the worse and worse it got. This is the kind of scandal that used to get magnified beyond belief the closer the Oscars got, but as far as I can tell, the furor has died down. About a month has passed since I’ve heard anything about this at all. So does it matter? I’m sure it matters to Latinx actors and activists who want to see more (and more accurate) representation of themselves in film. But does it matter to this Oscar race?
My guess is no. Bardem is already nominated (so backlash didn’t keep him from getting nominated), and I highly doubt he will win the Oscar (so there’s really no need to campaign against him). In fact, every other actor in this category seems more likely to win. I can imagine any of them—Will Smith, Benedict Cumberbatch, Andrew Garfield, Denzel Washington—up there giving an acceptance speech. I don’t think it’s happening for Javier Bardem this year because of competition within the category, not because of any outside scandal. Being neither Cuban nor Spanish (nor a casting director), I have nothing useful to add to a conversation about representative casting in Being the Ricardos. After all the initial furor, not mentioning the issue at all seemed remiss, but I’ve mentioned it now.
The other thing that might hurt Bardem is that Kidman’s performance seems more special, in part because she’s the one playing Lucille Ball whose legacy (fairly or not) has largely eclipsed the significant contributions of her one-time husband and creative collaborator. Being the Ricardos does correct any misunderstandings we may have been harboring about the integral role Desi played in the success of I Love Lucy. But the film still focuses more on Lucy than on Desi. I can imagine Kidman winning Best Actress. Until I saw Jessica Chastain win at the SAGs just now, I thought Kidman would win Best Actress. I’m delighted beyond words that Chastain won. I truly did not expect it, and I loved her as Tammy Faye. Based on strength of performance, Chastain deserves to win the Oscar. And if she does triumph over Kidman at the Oscars, I have trouble imagining the Academy rewarding Bardem but not his co-star (who gives the more conspicuous performance in their film). On the other hand, if Kidman is the one who wins the Oscar, Bardem’s chances do not improve. I simply cannot believe that Being the Ricardos would win both Best Actor and Best Actress when it’s not even nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, or Best Editing. Wouldn’t that be strange? It won’t happen.
Besides Will Smith is probably going to win the Oscar (even though I want Andrew Garfield to win).
Benedict Cumberbatch
Age: 45
Film: The Power of the Dog
Role: Phil Burbank, the no-nonsense Montana rancher who is rough around the edges and devoted to his work. Both respected and feared by the men who work for him, Phil often neglects to bathe or change clothes, sometimes enjoys plucking at a banjo, never wears gloves, and usually speaks in cowboy parlance with little regard for grammar. Despite his quirks, Phil seems like a consistent, straight forward character until we learn that he studied classics at Yale. What? What is Phil’s game? And why does he dedicate himself to the relentless psychological torture of his brother George’s new wife Rose and her sensitive son Peter?
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actor in 2015 for The Imitation Game (2014).
Why He Should Win
Phil Burbank is such an odd character. In some ways, I find him deeply sympathetic. One of my favorite aspects of The Power of the Dog is that by the end of the movie, you almost feel sorry for Phil. (At least, I did). The thing is, I’m with him to a point. I can understand that he feels he must conceal who he is, that he handles this by becoming someone else, by painstakingly constructing an elaborately detailed identity that others will respect. (I assume he does this, in part, as a way to honor his beloved mentor, Bronco Henry. It has to be that because it’s the 1920s, and Phil is not trapped where he is. He’s wealthy. He could move to Paris. He’s not without options.)
Phil has found a way to be true to himself while simultaneously existing in a world with strict rules of conduct and self-presentation. I’m sympathetic to all that. I get where he’s coming from and what he’s going through. Incessantly performing the idiosyncratic identity he’s created for himself must be a strain in some ways. But why must he go out of his way to be sadistically cruel? I do see why he resents (and fears and is eager to imagine the worst of) Rose. But his response to her is excessive. He seems too old to behave that way. It would be easier to forgive that kind of lashing out in someone Peter’s age. Phil’s bizarrely cruel behavior makes it hard for the audience to embrace the character even when he is vulnerable and in danger. Experiencing suffering is not an excuse to inflict suffering on others, after all.
I had a strange experience with The Power of the Dog. On a first watch, I initially found Phil repulsive, then terrifying. Late in the film, however, I began to soften toward him. His intense desire for closeness with Peter confused me. (I don’t mean in narrative terms (although his precise motivations for first deciding to mentor Peter remain a bit murky). I mean that I would have bursts of emotion when I realized how lonely and sad Phil was and how much he wanted the comfort of someone who could love him. That’s what confused me, my ability to empathize with (and feel increasingly afraid for) this deeply unpleasant person. Even if we ascribe the best of intentions to Phil late in the movie, he’s still predatory. I find his precise motivations hard to ascertain mid movie. Obviously he can’t stand Rose and wants to turn her son against her if possible, but is he doing this to help Peter (in his misguided way) or with some sinister intent toward him? I’m not so much concerned with the question of Phil trying to seduce Peter. The real question is, by behaving that way, is he trying to help or harm Peter? Is he pretending to befriend him or befriending him? Watching closely, I have to think that Phil is often operating without full awareness of his own motivations.
At the end of the movie, I felt so sympathetic to Phil (although I still found him untrustworthy and actively dangerous) that when I read the book, I immediately adopted a much less hostile view of the character (which is funny because he harms Rose’s family even more in the book).
Benedict Cumberbatch is the right sort of actor to play a role like this. He’s quite adept at playing charismatic yet prickly characters (like his “high functioning sociopath” version of Sherlock Holmes). In fact, Phil’s cruelty is so extreme (because it is completely unprovoked) that the audience might not be able to sympathize with or pity him to any degree without someone like Cumberbatch (who oozes charisma under any circumstances) in the part.
In his conversation with Peter (loaded with foreshadowing) about “getting off on the wrong foot”, Cumberbatch makes Phil almost creepy, menacing. For me, Phil’s precise motivations at this point in the relationship remain unclear. As Phil and Peter appear in more and more scenes together, Cumberbatch reveals Phil’s (perhaps changing) feelings more and more clearly. Finally, in that last intense rope-making scene, Cumberbatch shows us Phil’s vulnerability. (I kept thinking, “What if something horrible happens?” but I wasn’t completely sure which of the two characters in the scene I was more concerned about. If something horrible didn’t happen to one, it was sure to happen to the other.)
Why He Might Not Win
He could win. Benedict Cumberbatch could win the Oscar. I waited to finish this write-up until I watched the SAGs because there’s complete overlap in the Best Actor category (in terms of nominees) between the SAGs and the Oscars this year. I wanted to see if someone like Cumberbatch (or maybe even Washington) might prevail at the SAG, throwing what everyone has been assuming about Will Smith’s frontrunner status into question. The Power of the Dog seems destined to win a lot of Oscars (though notably none of the three actors nominated for SAG awards won any). Though Cumberbatch plays an unsympathetic character (who is even more disturbing in the moments when we do like him or feel for him), he is giving one of the strongest performances of his career. He could win Best Actor. It is possible.
But now that the SAG has given the Actor to Will Smith (and none of the nominated performers from The Power of the Dog won in their categories), it’s hard for me to believe that Cumberbatch will prevail at the Oscars. My guess is that Smith will win the Oscar, too. Cumberbatch isn’t doing anything wrong. (I’m personally not thrilled with his accent, but I think the character is deliberately doing an affected accent, so I’ll overlook that.) His performance is good. This just isn’t his year.
Andrew Garfield
Age: 38
Film: tick, tick…BOOM!
Role: Jonathan Larson, the musical genius who devotes his twenties to creating a Broadway show called Superbia that he can never quite get off the ground. Jonathan is passionate about his work. In his mind, he’s always in a musical. Sadly, aortic dissection takes his life before he can see the full success of his most popular show Rent.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actor in 2017 for Hacksaw Ridge (2016).
Why He Should Win
I want Andrew Garfield to win Best Actor just because I like his performance so much (which is strange because I found the movie stressful and depressing, only because I have a family history of aortic dissection and didn’t realize Jonathan Larson died of that.)
Garfield’s Jonathan Larson walks around everywhere through his ordinary, daily life as if he is always, constantly performing a musical. Originally tick, tick…BOOM! was a one man show, and Garfield leaves the audience with the impression that Larson pretty much is a one man show. No matter where he goes or what he does, he’s never not the lead in a musical that he’s creating all around him. The writer in me loves that we get to see a creator of worlds in action. The musical theatre fan just thrills at the sounds of Garfield’s melodious voice. He sings out every one of his lines in a way that almost reminds me of Robert Preston in The Music Man (not in pitch but in style). The performance is satisfying to watch on many levels. Who wouldn’t love being shown around New York by the creator of Rent? It’s kind of like the exclusive city tour Owen Wilson gets in Midnight in Paris.
Though it stressed me out, I also loved seeing the frustration Larson experiences living as a creative person in a commercially driven world. Both my husband and I strongly related to the way Garfield plays the scene in which Jonathan attempts to flourish in a focus group. If you’ve ever avoided the corporate world (or wished that you could but discovered you prefer eating to starving), this scene will probably speak to you the same way it did to us. Relatable in a different way is the song “Therapy” that he performs with a fictionalized version of his girlfriend.
Also, not only does Garfield sing and play piano in tick, tick…BOOM!, but he even learned to sing and play piano for tick, tick…BOOM!
Watching this movie made me love Andrew Garfield which I did not notice until he showed up in Spider-Man and I realized he’d gone from being one of the lesser incarnations of the character (perhaps behind even Miles Morales from Into the Spider-Verse and the Peter from that amazing video game my family loves) to being my new favorite Spider-Man of all time. (I really like him in that movie, too.)
Why He Might Not Win
A win for Garfield feels monumentally unlikely to me. I want him to win, but that means nothing. I wanted Jessica Chastain to win and doubted she would. Then she did win at the SAGs. But this is a little different. I wanted Chastain to win based on the comparative strength of her performance. Garfield is good, but is he the best in the category this year? Is he better than, say, Will Smith? I’m not sure. Plus Smith has been a huge star for years and never won an Oscar yet. King Richard lets him showcase his talent for comedy along with his dramatic acting chops, sometimes in the same scene. Even if Smith doesn’t win, there’s still the matter of getting past Benedict Cumberbatch in a film likely to win Best Director and/or Best Picture and Denzel Washington doing Shakespeare and having sword fights at the behest of witch(es). Even Javier Bardem as Desi Arnaz is formidable competition given how well received his co-star Nicole Kidman’s performance in that film has been. I can imagine Garfield winning Best Actor this year, but I have such a vivid imagination. In my heart, I know I’m just pretending when I imagine that. If Garfield does win, though, I think various Broadway stars should walk up on stage with him all singing the song “Sunday” together like they do in the film.
Will Smith
Age: 53
Film: King Richard
Role: Richard Williams, the larger-than-life, driven, eccentric father of tennis legends Venus and Serena Williams. Before the birth of his youngest two daughters, Richard comes up with an elaborate plan to craft them into two of the greatest tennis players the world has ever seen. Logically this shouldn’t work. But it does.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actor in 2007 for The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) and in 2002 for Ali (2001).
Why He Should Win
As I was reading over my review of King Richard just now, I realized to my surprise, “I forgot to read Will Smith’s shocking memoir!” It’s worse than that! I forgot Will Smith even wrote a shocking memoir! And the various news apps on my phone used to send me scandalous click-baity headlines about it every ten seconds, too! That was just a few of months ago! I was reading all about it on the way to Thanksgiving at my sister’s house! Oh well.
Whether Smith’s memoir is profound or off-the-wall (and I’ll only find out if I read it), he does give an Oscar-worthy performance in King Richard. This is undeniably one of the strongest performances of his career.
On a first watch, I was blown away by the moment when Richard takes his gun and appears to be seeking revenge on Roc, the man who just attacked him. Then fate intervenes. I love the way Smith plays that moment. Richard comes dangerously close to making a catastrophic, life-altering bad choice, and Smith so well conveys the profundity of the shock that shakes him back to his senses.
On a second watch, I just couldn’t get over the tennis metaphor giving shape to the film. (The original screenplay is deservingly nominated as well.) Watching the deft back-and-forth Smith and Best Supporting Actress nominee Aunjanue Ellis create as a marital dynamic is enthralling. Watching and listening to her assessment of him helped to highlight some nice nuances of Smith’s performance because all of the traits Brandy calls out about Richard near the end of the film are easier to spot from the beginning on a second watch. And frequently when he displays one of these traits, she highlights it with a well-timed gaze or a subtle comment. They play off each other perfectly in their scenes together.
Smith doesn’t always need Ellis to reveal Richard, though. In one scene, Richard repeatedly interrupts one of Venus’s early professional tennis lessons, persistently advising her to keep her stance open despite the coach’s insistence that he wants her to do something else. At first, Richard’s interruptions seem vaguely comical. As they persist, he begins to seem arrogant, unreasonable, even annoying. We see clearly the negative side of his larger-than-life personality and insatiable drive to promote the success of his children. (Smith is very good at showing us this side of Richard.) But then, when he finally quiets down a bit and sits to watch, his face clouds with such anxiety, insecurity mixed with fear. Yes, there’s some resentment, but Smith shows us how much Richard’s bravado is driven by his desire not to be powerless. He tries to take control of situations fast because he fears if someone else takes control, his contributions will no longer be valued. In this particular moment, Smith shows us Richard’s charm, irritating over-confidence, and the lack of confidence he is attempting to mask all at once. This is one of Smith’s showiest performances, and simultaneously one of the most subtle of his career. That winning combination is likely to get him his Oscar.
Why He Might Not Win
Right now, I expect that Smith will win, especially since he just won at the SAG awards. With so many events postponed or sidelined for various reasons, it’s hard not to latch onto the SAG results and look to them for guidance.
Still, even though I think of Smith as the frontrunner at this moment, a win for him is far from a foregone conclusion. This category is full of veteran actors, many of them outright movie stars. (Honestly, they’re all stars, but I think Andrew Garfield is a bit of an outlier despite his fine performances in high profile films and his past (and present) as Spider-Man.) Everyone in this category has been nominated before. Javier Bardem has won an Oscar, and Denzel Washington has won two.
Back when King Richard came out, I remember multiple people expressing disappointment that the story of two of the world’s greatest female athletes had somehow become centered on a man. Should a movie about Venus and Serena Williams focus on their father instead of putting them front and center? I don’t have an answer to that question. I don’t blame Will Smith for taking the part, of course. Richard is a wonderful character to play. This is the type of part that wins people Oscars, and despite his long stardom, Smith has never won an Oscar. Of course he wants one! If I were him, I’d want to play Richard Williams, too.
Still, there will never be an answer to that question (i.e. Why is the star of the biopic of two phenomenally gifted female athletes a man?) that will satisfy everyone asking. Whether you find that issue problematic or not, it remains inherent in the premise of the film. Does it matter that the man in question is the girls’ father? To me, it does. I would be much less receptive to a film about Venus and Serena that focused on their manager or a fan or an opponent. Their father did raise them both. That’s something.) (And Smith—as he noted in his speech—was joined at the SAG awards by Venus and Isha Williams. There could not be a more visible indicator that the family approves of he movie. Clearly Venus Williams does want her story told in this way. Sitting next to Will Smith at the awards show and smiling and clapping during his acceptance speech is a pretty enthusiastic show of support.)
Of course, not all of Richard’s children are thrilled with the project. Back when the film came out, Richard’s oldest daughter made it known that he completely abandoned her and her four siblings, treating them almost as if they didn’t exist. Sometimes stuff like this matters in an Oscar race. I feel like it won’t this year simply because A) So far, the usual contrived controversies don’t seem to be coming into play and B) Everybody in general is disaffected about everything right now. Our nation seems collectively burnt out because of the continuing (though evolving) pandemic. So how can one person’s complaints matter that much? C) Venus Williams is turning up in person to support the movie. Typically the public is not too concerned with what an extremely famous person’s disaffected, non-famous relative is saying. When the famous person speaks or appears, that is the person they listen to. Besides, the movie doesn’t cover up any of Richard’s flaws. If anything, it often highlights them. (Ellis’s character lambasts Richard about his other, abandoned children in a showcased scene late in the film.)
I don’t think Will Smith will lose his chance at this Oscar because of any scandal related to the real Richard Williams. For me what hurts him far more is that I was unexpectedly blown away by the power of his co-star’s performance. If you ask me, Aujanue Ellis (playing Venus and Serena’s mother) is just as good as Will Smith in this movie if not better. But having a talented co-star shouldn’t keep Will Smith from winning Best Actor and it probably won’t. He won the SAG, and he will probably go on to win the Oscar, too.
Denzel Washington
Age: 67
Film: The Tragedy of Macbeth
Role: Macbeth, the familiar protagonist of one of Shakespeare’s great tragedies whose habit of murdering for self-advancement does not do wonders for his popularity. Encouraged by his supportive (but not particularly grounding) wife, Macbeth screws his courage to the sticking place, murders Duncan (his royal houseguest), and proceeds to kill everyone else of woman born in Scotland in his effort to rise to and keep power. But (despite a flirtation with the supernatural), Macbeth can’t kill all the ugly gossip about him and is eventually killed himself by a man who was never born.
Nomination History:
Won the Best Actor Oscar in 2002 for Training Day (2001).
Won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 1990 for Glory (1989).
Previously a nominated producer for Best Picture in 2017 for Fences (2016).
Previously nominated for Best Actor in 2018 for Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017), in 2017 for Fences (2016), in 2013 for Flight (2012), in 2000 for The Hurricane (1999), and in 1993 for Malcolm X (1992).
Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actor in 1988 for Cry Freedom (1987).
Why He Should Win
If you’re going to perform Shakespeare, you should know what your lines mean. This seems like a small (and obvious) thing, but I’ve seen a lot of productions in which the actors convey the emotions that the characters are feeling but do not seem to know the meanings of the actual words they are saying. Maybe it’s because I come at it from a literature background, but my strong sense is that Shakespeare performances (well any performances) work one million times better if the actor understands not just the what the character is trying to say with a line, but what he is actually saying, the meanings the words themselves convey. I’ve seen so many performances (even on screen) in which the actors seem to be playing the A, B, C game (I mean the one where you perform a scene by reciting the alphabet back and forth as a warm-up in drama class. And even that game works better if actors pretend they know what the “words” mean and punctuate certain letters accordingly).
This seems like such a dumb, basic thing to mention when talking about an actor of Washington’s caliber nominated for an award as prestigious as an Oscar, but simple or not, it is a big deal. He delivers his lines well. He also makes some intriguing choices in his line delivery, usually choices that emphasize for the audience that it is, in fact, Denzel Washington playing the part.
I like Joel Coen’s The Tragedy of Macbeth. I like Macbeth, anyway. It’s a great way to lure people to Shakespeare because 1) It’s short (since what we have is probably the touring copy) 2) It’s so atmospheric. (I’m just as obsessed with witches as King James, honestly, though I’m probably way more sympathetic to them.) 3) It’s so quotable. If you listed all the works of literature (and movies) that steal lines from Macbeth for their titles, you could probably piece together most of the play! (It’s just fun to quote. My daughter was born by emergency c-section at twenty-five weeks, so when she was a baby, I used to amuse myself by proclaiming, “Penelope was from her mother’s womb untimely ripped!”)
If you’re going to nominate one of the performances, Washington’s stands out most. I’m a big fan of Frances McDormand, but on a first watch, I prefer Washington’s Macbeth to her Lady Macbeth. (When I revisit the film, of course, I may feel differently.) (Kathryn Hunter as the witches is really compelling, too, but it’s hard for me not to think of the most interesting part of that performance as Joel Coen’s choice to present the weird sisters that way.)
I’m surprised Washington hasn’t done more Shakespeare adaptations on screen. (People who loved him in Much Ado About Nothing have had to wait almost thirty years for this! Good grief!)
The sheer novelty of a star of Washington’s stature playing a character as familiar as Macbeth makes the performance Oscar-worthy. He delivers a given line well, so that even an audience unfamiliar with Shakespeare knows just what he means. He also says the line as Denzel Washington playing Macbeth. He’s the only actor in the world who can bring that particular quality to the role. Through the years, there have been many Macbeths, but there is only one Denzel Washington.
Why He Might Not Win
Re-doing something so familiar is a double-edged sword. I’ve seen Macbeth so many times. Half the time, I’m not even seeking it out. It’s weirdly easy to happen upon Macbeth performances. My husband and I ended up at one when we were dating that featured a surprise musical number by Lady Macbeth after she was dead. (This was his introduction to Macbeth, which was fun.) My favorite was an Actors From the London Stage performance I saw at UT which delighted me because they played the banquet scene for comedy, and it was so funny.
Though Washington’s is the performance that stands out, what impressed me most in this production was not any of the performances. The Tragedy of Macbeth is also nominated for both Cinematography and Production Design, and its visual aspects are what stick in my brain as I think back over the film.
Admittedly, there is a part of me that wants Denzel Washington to win this Oscar just because I know he can do it. I’ve seen him do it before. Back in 2002, a lot of people expected Russell Crowe (who had just won Best Actor the year before for Gladiator) to win again for his performance in A Beautiful Mind. He didn’t, though. Denzel Washington won instead. And I was thrilled! Thrilled! It would be cool to see Washington pull off another shocking upset because he is a great actor. His actual performance is not my favorite in the category this year, but his body of work is pretty hard to top, so if it turns out that—surprise!—Denzel Washington wins a third Oscar, I wouldn’t be at all upset by that result.
If you forced me to bet real money, though, I’d go with the safe choice of Will Smith.