Troy Kotsur
Age: 53
Film: CODA
Role: Frank Rossi, the loving (and somewhat eccentric) father, fishing boat captain (and, on occasion, rap enthusiast) who struggles with the reality that his daughter Ruby wants to leave the family business to study a subject he doesn’t understand—choral music. Frank loves his daughter and wants to support her when she needs him, but he needs her, too. She’s the only hearing member of the family and, often, the only hearing person on the fishing boat. How can he let her go?
Nomination History:
This is Kotsur’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
While chatting about Best Picture nominees, I was just describing CODA to a friend and said that I love how it uses deafness to show that sometimes adolescents and their parents live in different worlds and want to listen to each other but metaphorically can’t hear each other’s music. In this case, not only is that true, but the parents also literally can’t hear their daughter’s music. (I realized, “That’s a great way to put it! I should write that down!”)
CODA stands for Child of Deaf Adults. In musical terms, coda is also the final passage of a piece of music that brings it to a close. Both meanings are relevant in this heart-warming story about a high school senior (Emilia Jones), the only hearing member of her family of four, who suddenly receives encouragement to develop her talent for choral singing and finds it taking her places her family cannot follow.
The movie works so well in part because everyone in late adolescence goes on a journey like this. We prepare to build a distinct adult identity/life, and the transition isn’t always easy on us or our parents or on us.
But despite the universality of the story’s themes, CODA is also so effective because it is grounded in particulars. (Everyone grows up. Fewer people work with their deaf parents on a fishing boat.) Because deaf actors play the deaf characters, the story speaks on the subject with an authenticity that cannot be achieved in any other way.
Kotsur is so memorable as Ruby’s father Frank because 1) He is deaf and so can easily convey a deaf experience and 2) He creates a character who is so much more than his deafness (as we are all much more than any single characteristic). Frank is often hilarious in a way that is relatable to anyone who has an “embarrassing” father. We all died laughing when Frank gives his daughter’s male friend an agonizing (for her) sex talk that is hilariously easy to understand even without captioning. (Even my thirteen-year-old daughter got it loud and clear and turned beet red.) Frank also brings passion and intensity to his moments as a hardworking fisherman frustrated by inept bureaucracy (another relatable aspect of the character. Who likes inept bureaucracy?). And when Frank does find a way to “listen” to Ruby sing, it’s one of the most moving moments in the film. (And the awareness that their literal dilemma is also a metaphor for all parents trying to hear the heart songs of their about-to-be-adult children makes the moment even more beautiful.)
Though Emilia Jones herself is wonderful as Ruby, Kotsur is the clear standout of the film. Frank is larger-than-life, consistently entertaining, and (even when eye-catchingly kooky) almost heart-breakingly relatable. It’s easy to imagine the Academy rewarding him for this performance (as they already have with the nomination).
Why He Might Not Win
Kotsur could win. I like his chances, personally. Marlee Matlin (who won Best Actress in 1987 for Children of a Lesser God) plays Kotsur’s wife in this film. If I were voting, seeing her on screen would make me think, “It’s been a while since a deaf actor has won an Oscar, and this is such a worthy project.”
CODA is a heart-warming movie that’s both easy and pleasurable to watch. Ordinarily films that heart-warming, uplifting, and pleasant do not get Oscar nominations. The sheer novelty of intensely positive emotions upswelling in voters’ hearts at the ending of an Oscar film might help Kotsur’s chances.
On the other hand, CODA’s feel-good vibe and happy ending might work against it. If the family were not deaf, there is no way this movie would get any Oscar nominations. (Coming-of-age movies this feel-good are not what the Academy usually goes for. The only reason this family is allowed to have such a happy ending and remain in the Academy’s good graces is that they are also deaf. That makes a strong statement that deafness is not some horrible affliction that must lead to a derailed life of tragedy and misery, but is, in fact, just another way of being.) Still, CODA is awfully upbeat for an Oscar film, and voters might prefer the more unnerving, ambiguous turn of Kodi Smit-McPhee in The Power of the Dog.
I, personally, do not have strong feelings about this category the way I do about some others simply because I’d be thrilled to see the Oscar go to Kotsur, Hinds, Simmons, or Smit-McPhee based on strength of performance. Plus, the romantic/trivia enthusiast in me would also be pleased to see Jesse Plemons win in the event that Kirsten Dunst wins along with him. So there are low emotional stakes in this category for me. As far as I’m concerned, no matter who wins here, big round of applause from me (as long as a victory for Plemons is accompanied by a victory for Dunst).
Ciarán Hinds
Age: 69
Film: Belfast
Role: Pop, the loving grandfather whose scenes I can never watch without being overwhelmed by tears and tender memories of my own grandfather and the scattered bits of wisdom he left for me to spend my life deciphering. Pop has lived in Belfast all his life, and he has no desire to leave the city behind, but he can’t stay much longer.
Nomination History:
This is Hinds’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
Hinds gives by far my favorite performance in Belfast. For me, he was the only one who completely disappeared into his character. (I was watching with an eye on future Oscar nominations, so I was carefully evaluating each actor. Before long though, I noticed that I was watching Caitríone Balfe, Jamie Dornan, Judi Dench, and Pop.) (This is not meant as an insult to the other three. Surely most viewers would focus on enjoying the story rather than dissecting its elements.)
I was a bit surprised to realize that this is the first time Hinds has been nominated. My mother really liked him in that Jane Eyre opposite Samantha Morton and in a number of other British productions. I even (inadvertently) convinced her to watch The Woman in Black after praising his performance in that film. (She was a bit annoyed after she watched it, saying, “I didn’t think it was that good.” I replied, “I didn’t say it was that good!” He’s good, though. He really leans into the melodrama of the gothic horror.)
His character in Belfast reminded me of my own grandpa because Pop’s dynamic with Buddy evoked a deep emotional response. When the two are seated at the table during a chat in the hospital, I love the way Pop offers Buddy (Jude Hill) such sound and reassuring advice, giving the child all the comfort that he can. Yet Hinds also lets the audience see Pop’s own emotions and concerns in his face (though he is dialing them back when addressing Buddy). I also love the way he plays the scene in the hospital bed with plenty of wise looks and finger twitching, and his low-key delivery of, “I’m going nowhere you won’t find me,” underscores the brilliance of the line. There’s lovely authenticity, too, in his scene in the window with Judi Dench (which I’ll talk more about when I’m focusing on her performance because she’s brilliant there. The two of them make me miss my grandparents terribly! My mom always used to say, “Judi Dench reminds me of my mother. Oh I miss her!” I miss her, too! And now I miss my mother! Hinds and Dench are the best part of the movie, as far as I’m concerned, and I’m glad they’re both nominated.)
Pop’s math advice is also terribly amusing and heart-warming. (He does remind me of my grandpa.) The dialogue here is also wonderful. When Pop suggests that Buddy improve his chances of higher math scores by making his handwriting messier, the child protests that there’s only one right answer, and Pop says sagely, “If that were true, son, people wouldn’t be blowing themselves up all over this town.”
I felt like I was being vague, so I’m now rewatching just the parts I mentioned with Ciarán Hinds, searching for evidence to explain why I love these moments. This has totally backfired. Now I am just sobbing all over my face missing my grandpa and still completely unable to articulate why in words that do justice to the feeling and the man. Kenneth Branagh’s words are simply better than mine. Skipping to my favorite moments again, I see how Buddy ages as the story progresses and life’s realities begin to make an impact on him. Pop asks him what he wants during the math homework and later at the hospital. Buddy’s perspective has changed so much between these two encounters, and both Jude Hill and (especially) Ciarán Hinds play these moments so beautifully. Just give that man an Oscar! Don’t even worry about why he deserves it. He does. I promise.
I hope I can eventually achieve through my own writing what Kenneth Branagh does here. And it takes the right actor to make these moments work on screen. If the whole thing were up to me, I would give this Oscar to Ciarán Hinds. Right now.
Why He Might Not Win
I think Ciarán Hinds could win. He’s a skilled veteran actor who has never won before. He made a bigger impression on me than anyone else in the film. His co-star Jamie Dornan isn’t nominated in the same category where he might siphon votes. A win for Hinds would be a way to honor Belfast. (It could win Best Picture, but I remain skeptical. It has a more likely chance to win in screenplay, but I’m not so sure of that either. I would find it surprising if Jane Campion doesn’t win Best Director.)
When I first saw Belfast months ago, I wrote in my review, “Hinds gives my favorite performance of the film. If just one person gets an acting nomination, I hope it’s him.” Now he’s nominated (and Judi Dench is, too. I didn’t find her nomination all that shocking either. I mean, yes, more people were talking about Caitríona Balfe, but the Academy loves nominating Judi Dench. She got nominated for Mrs. Henderson Presents. I’m surprised she didn’t get nominated for Cats!) (I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with nominating her for Mrs. Henderson Presents. She has one scene that unlocks new dimensions of the character for the audience. Plus, I love her. I would be fine with nominating her for those Tik-Toks her grandson makes!)
The only reason that Hinds might not win is that the performances of Troy Kotsur and Kodi Smit-McPhee are likely more popular. One of those two probably will win the Oscar. But I see no reason to count Hinds out. He’s the type who often wins Best Supporting Actor, a veteran who has never won before in a touching role. When I watched, Pop reminded me so much of my own grandfather. I’m not the only person who has a grandfather! Surely Academy members have grandfathers, too! Most of them are grandfathers!
Belfast is a touching, sentimental, charming movie, and Hinds’s character epitomizes all that’s touching, sentimental, and charming in it. People who really love the film might vote for him. I like Kotsur and Smit-McPhee’s chances better, but their better chances are the only reason I see that Hinds wouldn’t win.
Jesse Plemons
Age: 33
Film: The Power of the Dog
Role: George Burbank whose vocation is winding the clock, watching over the ranch, and looking out for his brother. George is lonely, very lonely. Then he meets Rose.
Nomination History:
This is Plemons’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
Some people were shocked when Jesse Plemons’s name was called in this category. I wasn’t shocked until I started doing this write-up and discovered his age. Jesse Plemons is only thirty-three?! I feel like he’s been a well-known actor for about seventy years! My older son was in elementary school when we saw Battleship, and now he’s in college!
Awareness of Plemons’ age has me re-evaluating the strength of his performance. I know that George is Phil’s younger brother, but Benedict Cumberbatch is forty-five. In the role, Plemons seems two or three years younger, not twelve! Meanwhile George’s new son Peter is played by an actor only six years his junior. I’m familiar with the concept of acting, but George Burbank seems older than thirty-three to me. Plemons consistently gives him the stoic gravitas of a slightly older man. (I suppose it should have occurred to me that Plemons couldn’t have aged ten years since I’m Thinking of Ending Things in 2020.) There is a certain physicality to his performance of George that is easy to underappreciate because instead of making him athletic or remarkable, Plemons hunkers down and creates a character who is slow, dedicated, methodical, consistent. A conscientious clock winder, George is like the metronome of the family and of the film. When he’s not there, the rhythm of the household suffers (to put it mildly).
Though I expect The Power of the Dog to win either Best Picture or Best Director (possibly both), I will confess that Plemons gives the principal performance I find least exciting. I’ll also note, however, that his performance seems much better after I listen to Kirsten Dunst describe it in interviews. (So maybe Dunst should get a special Oscar for Best Interviews.) What makes me happy about this nomination is seeing the real-life couple honored together. Not only is Plemons by her side as Dunst finally gets her first Oscar nomination, but he gets one of his own to match. Their real-life love is captured on screen, and they get quite a nice reward for their troubles. Her performance is exceptional, and he’s a part of that, too.
Plemons never makes a false move as George. (If he did, he wouldn’t be George.) He does treat us to many soulful gazes and tersely-expressed sentiments, charged with welled up, profound emotion.
Why He Might Not Win
At first, I thought, “I knew a nomination for Plemons was possible, but why did the Academy pick him when other choices are so much more exciting?”
Compared to the other principal characters in this story (all three of whom are also nominated), George is so boring. He’s a normal character who is not particularly tortured and apparently has no dark secrets. (I guess no one “apparently” has dark secrets, but my poor use of language aside, George in this film does not appear to be hiding anything. Since I’ve read the book, I can say with greater confidence that George is not, in fact, hiding anything. He’s the sort of person you’d be pleased to know in real life because he’s kind, polite, courteous, helpful, winds the clock, pays the bills on time, bathes.)
Candidly, I get mad at myself for not being interested in George because George has something in common with my own husband. He loves his wife, no matter how difficult she thinks she is. (Framed in that way, I’m really relieved that we don’t live with Phil Burbank. I have trouble enough without Benedict Cumberbatch terrorizing me with passive-aggressive banjo solos!)
I’ve been asking myself, “Sarah, why do you like the other performances in this movie so much more?” Then it finally hit me. One of the many great things about The Power of the Dog is that the characters behave in ways that are so unsettling, and yet they’re all bizarrely sympathetic. Especially after reading the book, I find it disturbingly easy to relate to aspects of Phil, Rose, and Peter. I also noticed that my sympathies would shift as the film progressed. I was never completely sure of anyone’s intentions. I had trouble sorting victims from villains. Characters’ core behavior never changed, and yet, my perception of those characters would change. This is clearly deliberate. It’s what Jane Campion wants, and it must work because of nuances in the performances (aided by visual and aural cues from cinematography, sound, editing). The only character who didn’t seem to change was George. The thing is, George must remain constant (because constancy is his character). But having a constant, steady character around prevents the feelings of terror and confusion that arise in the audience. So instead of changing, George leaves.
In my initial review, I wrote, “Jesse Plemons plays George, the character who frustrates me most in the entire movie because he is never home! (George really needs to come home!)” (In the movie, he goes away so often that I began to wonder if he was, in fact, getting tired of Rose. But in the book, we know that he loves her. This reminds me so much of my husband, this attitude of, “You don’t know what I think! Don’t you understand????? I love you! I love you so much!!!!!” ) It’s not Plemons’s fault that George has to stay constant and leave. That’s the character.
The fact is, George is used (and developed) differently from the other characters, but he is still integral to the success of the film, and Plemons plays him well. As I was watching all kinds of interviews with the cast, I noticed that every single person highly praised Plemons. Oscar voters probably watched those same interviews. You wouldn’t even have to see the movie to come away with the idea that Plemons deserves a nomination. Just talk to Kirsten Dunst for five minutes, and she’ll explain his genius in the role.
If you were going to vote for just one Supporting Actor from The Power of the Dog, though, I don’t see how you wouldn’t be enticed by the more unusual character of Peter and vote for Kodi Smit-McPhee even if you’d rather spend the afternoon (or the rest of your life) with George.
J.K. Simmons
Age: 67 years
Film: Being the Ricardos
Role: William Frawley, the somewhat irascible, highly dedicated actor best known to audiences as Fred Mertz on I Love Lucy. Cantankerous though he may be, Bill clearly loves Lucy as much as anyone else. He’s a loyal friend and reliable co-worker who gives Lucy the best advice he has and clearly cares tremendously despite his sometimes contrary demeanor and ingrained habit of bickering theatrically with Vivian Vance.
Nomination History:
Won Best Actor Oscar in 2015 for Whiplash (2014).
Why He Should Win
Whiplash was my favorite Oscar film of 2014, and I love J.K. Simmons, so I was thrilled to see him nominated. I’m not sure he’s thoroughly inhabiting William Frawley so much as simply delivering well written lines perfectly. Then again, that seems like a strange criticism, “You call that an actor?! He’s just delivering his lines in an engaging way that helps his scene partners and allows the audience to connect emotionally to the story! If that’s what you call an actor…”
I don’t know enough about William Frawley to tell if I’m seeing a good imitation. I know him only from I Love Lucy and Miracle on 34th Street. I have no idea what Frawley was like in life. I don’t even know what his real-life speaking voice sounded like. (He didn’t come on TV and play Password with Betty White at my house like Lucille Ball did sometimes!)
Simmons is fantastic at delivering Sorkin’s dialogue, though. He’s so good. This is a biopic of Lucille Ball, and yet many of the movie’s biggest laughs come courtesy of Simmons (like during that early table read when he’s preoccupied with the suggested Communism of the kid on Make Room for Daddy). He’s also integral in some of the most touching, dramatic moments of the story (like when he meets Lucy for a drink and a heartfelt talk). Plus he skillfully interjects comedy into the touching moments and somehow makes them even more touching (such as when he blunders late into the off-stage conversation near the very end of the film).
This isn’t necessarily a film about I Love Lucy since it focuses far more on Lucy and Desi than on William Frawley and Vivian Vance. Both J.K. Simmons and Nina Arianda (playing Vance) are nevertheless fantastic and enhance the film a great deal. (Too bad Arianda couldn’t get a nomination, too! I also really liked her in Stan & Ollie! She’s slowly carving out a niche as a supporting character in dramatic biopics of comedians.) Simmons has the showier part, though, because his lines are often so funny. They’re written by Aaron Sorkin and delivered by J.K. Simmons!
Why He Might Not Win
Being the Ricardos is an odd film in some ways. The entire point of the project seems to be honoring the legacy of Lucille Ball (and Desi Arnaz), and yet writer/director Aaron Sorkin did not find “imitating” or looking like these well-known figures important. Of course, I think of the tense conversation in which Madelyn Pugh (Alia Shawkat) says she’s been trying to make Lucy smarter, and Lucille Ball bristles and gives her thoughts on comedy writing. Perhaps because the characters of Lucy and Ricky are so familiar and deeply engrained in audience’s minds, the best way to present Lucy and Desi as real, fully-rounded people is to separate them from that TV image as much as possible (including through physical looks).
I decided to listen to Aaron Sorkin on this point and knock off my wild speculation. So I’ve now watched an hour of Sorkin interviews, and my conclusion is that his ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to his newsletter. (Seriously, I regret now that his screenplay isn’t nominated. What he says about writing really speaks to me. “You don’t want to sacrifice truth in order to be accurate.” I agree!) After listening to Sorkin describe his process in a series of interviews, I’m beginning to regret seriously that he isn’t nominated for his screenplay. But the lack of nominations for this film in categories like screenplay, director, and picture, and the fact that Simmons’s nomination came as a mild surprise to many people does suggest to me that he won’t be winning this one.
How do I put this? I love the actor, love the character, love the dialogue, but I don’t see anything in this performance that J.K. Simmons couldn’t have done in another film or that another actor couldn’t have delivered in this one. (Well, no that last part is not entirely true. It helps to be J.K. Simmons.)
Like I did with Belfast, I decided once again to rewatch the Simmons scenes I particularly liked, so I could write about them in greater detail. Instead, I came away thinking, “Wow, Nicole Kidman should win Best Actress! I think I should read a biography of Lucille Ball!” (I’ve been meaning to do that, anyway.)
J.K. Simmons is perfect for this part (but that may be partially because he plays it exactly like you’d expect J.K. Simmons would). I don’t see why this performance needs Oscar recognition. If Simmons does win, however, I’ll be thrilled. He’s my favorite actor in this category. The movie is very watchable. The character is extremely sympathetic. And Simmons is fantastic at delivering Sorkin’s dialogue. So if he does somehow pull off a win, that is absolutely fine with me. In fact, to some degree, I’d prefer him to win. I just think he won’t.
Kodi Smit-McPhee
Age: 25
Film: The Power of the Dog
Role: Peter Gordon, the sensitive son of Rose who unabashedly enjoys crafting paper flowers, dreams big, and always takes slow, methodical steps in pursuit of his goals. Peter is odd, and some people do tease him and call him a “sissy,” especially Phil Burbank, the sadistic and complicated brother of his mother’s kind new husband George. As Peter learned from his father, a key part of success in life lies in removing obstacles. Phil Burbank sees a number of obstacles hindering Peter’s success. But Peter sets his focus on one in particular, something that Phil fails to notice.
Nomination History:
This is Smit-McPhee’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
I really like Kodi Smit-McPhee. I remember him from his days in Let Me In and ParaNorman, and I love it when talented child actors grow and improve. (That’s why I’d love to see Kirsten Dunst win an Oscar, though I’d also love to see Ariana DeBose or Aunjanue Ellis win in that category. I’m getting ahead of myself! I’ll save these thoughts for Best Supporting Actress!)
I love the physicality of Smit-McPhee’s performance, his posture, gait, the way he holds his body, the way he thrums his comb, his well-directed gazes, his rage hula hooping. Also notable to me are the moments when Peter becomes uncomfortable. The audience becomes uncomfortable during some of the tense scenes between Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Peter, but during most of these moments, Peter himself is calm and controlled. We see emotion from him only when he regards his mother or recalls his father. There is clearly some emotion in his final conversation with Phil. But what does it mean? It’s easy to misread Peter on an initial watch of the film. Even someone watching him extremely closely (studying and brooding over his every move) might misread him. Playing a character like that is quite difficult.
It’s a tricky role because the audience may read Peter in one way and project all kinds of stuff onto him, and for the movie to work, Smit-McPhee’s performance has to support that kind of mistaken (or, more accurately, incomplete) reading of Peter. The ending of this film feels almost like a twist, but Peter has not been trying to deceive the movie audience. He’s hiding in plain sight.
Every choice Smit-McPhee makes as Peter is so deliberate and rehearsed—(It’s almost like he’s read a script and worked with a director!)—yet looks natural and instinctual, as if he just is Peter Gordon, doing what Peter would do. The movie would probably still work with a less thoughtful actor in the role, but it would be terribly unbalanced given the skill and nuance of Benedict Cumberbatch’s turn as Phil. The Power of the Dog needs a strong Peter, and it has one. The character is so critical to the impression the film makes on the audience that honoring the actor playing him with an Oscar seems like a natural move.
Why He Might Not Win
Jesse Plemons is also nominated for the same film in the same category. Still, I can’t see how those drawn to Smit-McPhee would be on the fence and vote for Plemons instead. Even though the two supporting actors appear in the same film, they are not at all giving the same type of performance. Perhaps they are giving the same caliber of performance, but Smit-McPhee plays by far the more captivating, arresting, eye-catching, brain-scrambling character. I can’t see how anyone drawn to that performance would vote for Plemons instead or see the two as equally tempting choices, even though both performances are integral to the success of The Power of the Dog. I don’t think Smit-McPhee has to worry much about being nominated in the same category as his co-star.
Frankly, I think Smit-McPhee is going to win. All of the performances in The Power of the Dog are excellent. But Benedict Cumberbatch is in a category with Will Smith, and Kirsten Dunst has to contend with both Ariana DeBose and Aunjanue Ellis. The easiest way to acknowledge the high caliber acting of The Power of the Dog is to vote for Kodi Smit-McPhee. I realize, though that 1) The Oscars are not decided by jury, and 2) The Power of the Dog is very likely to be honored in other big categories (like Best Picture and Best Director), so even if the Oscars were decided by jury, there’s no pressing need to honor any of the actors to ensure that the film isn’t overlooked. The film is not going to be overlooked.
Troy Kotsur is also very likely to win this Oscar. (If you ask me, Hinds has a decent shot at winning here, too.) When it comes to Smit-McPhee, I don’t see any aspects of the performance itself that would keep him from winning. But that certainly doesn’t mean he will win. The Oscars are still over a month away. Anything could happen!