Barkhad Abdi
Age: 28
Film: Captain Phillips
Role: Abduwali Muse, the Somali fisherman-turned-pirate who leads a hijacking attempt on the American cargo ship Maersk Alabama and takes its captain, Richard Phillips hostage in hopes of securing a huge ransom from the insurance company in the United States. Muse does not expect to keep the millions of dollars he hopes to receive for himself. As he repeatedly stresses, he has “bosses” to answer to and limited options for making a living.
Nomination History:
This is Abdi’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
Back when I first saw Captain Phillips, I thought Hanks had a Best Actor nomination all sewn up. As I watched, I thought, This guy playing the lead pirate is really good, too. Maybe because Hanks is getting so much attention, they’ll nominate Abdi, too.
I never dreamed (early on) that Abdi would be a sure-thing for a supporting nomination while Hanks would be left out completely. (I mean seriously? I think this performance by Hanks is better than his work in both Philadelphia and Forest Gump. It’s probably my favorite Hanks performance ever.)
I’m watching Captain Phillips at home right now, and seeing it for the second time, I’m shaking my head about how Tom Hanks possibly missed an Oscar nomination. He should be nominated this year. At whose expense, I couldn’t tell you. That’s the problem.
All five nominees deserve it, but still it seems criminal that Hanks is not among them. His performance is so strong, so real. Why can’t the Best Actor slot be expanded like picture? I cannot remember a year when everybody threw up their hands and said, “We just can’t find five worthy performances to nominate for Best Actor this year!” There’s no shortage of plum roles for leading men.
Finding ten nominees would be a piece of cake. I’ll give you the other five right now. Tom Hanks, Forest Whitaker, Michael B. Jordan, Joaquin Phoenix, Oscar Isaac. I’ve seen them all. They all deserve it. I promise.
(And it’s not like that would be letting “everybody” in. What about contenders like Robert Redford? And there are others, so many others.) Most Hollywood movies feature a strong male protagonist, and hundreds of movies come out every year. Expanding the category from five to five-to-ten just makes sense. Of course, you’d have to do the same for Best Actress, but that might give studios incentive to greenlight more quality films anchored by women. The possibility of an Oscar win is a huge incentive to take risks on projects that might not make an enormous profit.
Of course, the snub of Hanks is one factor that might work to Abdi’s advantage. I doubt it means that Academy voters didn’t like the film or the lead performance. I think it’s more the case that this is an unusually competitive year, and somebody has to come in sixth. So fans of Captain Phillips upset that Hanks (and Greengrass) missed a nomination can show their love for Captain Phillips by voting for Abdi.
I’m thrilled that Abdi got the nomination. I think he’s amazing (especially considering it’s his first role!). Born in Somalia, Abdi came to the United States with his family at age seven and now lives in Minneapolis where he (and some of his friends) responded to an open casting call. They were cast as a group, so the small brace of pirates he commands in the film are actually his friends in real life.
Everyone mentions constantly that when he was cast, Abdi was a limo driver. That’s true, but he was also interested in acting. (That’s why he auditioned.) He had been trying to break through by making short films and music videos. So it’s not like he thought of himself as a career limo driver who said, “For a lark, today I’ll go read at this group audition!” He was actively trying to break into the industry.
Still for a first performance, his work in Captain Phillips is phenomenal. His physical characterization of Muse is particularly good. That constant, nervous, hand-shaking he does as Muse becomes increasingly agitated is excellent. Something physical like that could look forced or amateurish, but Abdi makes it seem very natural, a part of the character.
Abdi makes Muse so real, so authentic that when he appears on the scene we quickly forget we’re watching Tom Hanks and instead get sucked into the interaction of Captain Phillips and the pirates. (When I say authentic, I mean that his performance seems authentic to me. Not surprisingly, I have no practical, real-world experience with Somali pirates. But Abdi sure seems convincing in the role. And the fact that he’s an unknown, with a captivating, un-Hollywood look works in the film’s favor, as well.)
My favorite aspect of Abdi’s fantastic performance is his character’s increasing “vacillation between forced overconfidence and shaken anxiety” that I mention in my review. Abdi has a tricky part. Muse has to inspire real menace and stress us out, but he also has to be sympathetic, three-dimensional, and semi-tragic. Instead of some clichéd stock villain, as played by Abdi, Muse comes across as a determined (but misguided), desperate young man struggling to succeed and terribly, tragically out of his depth. Every scene he plays opposite Tom Hanks is great. I especially like the, “You’re not a fisherman,” moment near the end of the movie.
Why He Might Not Win
Here’s how I would rank these performances. 1) Jared Leto 2/3) Barkhad Abdi and Michael Fassbender 4) Bradley Cooper 5) Jonah Hill.
As is usually the case, they all deserve nominations, but I see more of a separation in this acting category than the other three when it comes to quality of performance.
Leto has been taking every award so far, so I’d call him the clear frontrunner for the Oscar at this point. Obviously he’s not going to win the BAFTA (because Dallas Buyers Club was completely shut out there) but who cares? That shouldn’t really hurt his Oscar momentum.
So Leto’s the clear frontrunner, but Oscar ballots aren’t due until near the end of February.
Going by merit of performance alone, I’d say Abdi deserves the win almost as much as Leto (almost). Leto’s scarily good. I’ve seen him in so many films, and he’s never been the standout, so it’s hard to know if this particular director finally tapped into his true talent or if the role of Rayon is just perfect for him. (Obviously in real life, Leto is not a transgendered AIDS patient, so don’t think I’m suggesting that he’s just playing himself. All I mean is, sometimes the right role brings out surprising greatness in an actor.)
A conspicuous standout in Dallas Buyers Club, Leto deserves to win the Oscar based on merit. The mere fact that he’s been winning so much, however, is a bit of a double-edged sword.
If (for whatever reason) Leto does not win, could Barkhad Abdi take home the Oscar? I personally find him the second most deserving (but he has only a slight edge over Michael Fassbender who is right there with him).
Abdi gives a brilliant performance, but he’s not a huge star. Fassbender, Jonah Hill, and especially Bradley Cooper have the advantage of far greater name/face recognition and overall star power.
On the other hand, a lot of people really love Captain Phillips and both Tom Hanks and director Paul Greengrass were snubbed. (In this case, the word “snubbed” is misleading, of course. Anyone who follows film knows that some of the deserving actors and directors this year would necessarily fail to be nominated since there simply weren’t enough nominations available to honor every deserving piece of work.)
My point, though, is a win for Abdi is a way to show some love to Captain Phillips. (Adapted Screenplay is another place the Academy could recognize the film, of course. It did win the WGA.)
The fact that this is Abdi’s first film role both helps and hurts his chances. I think that such an intense performance is his first ever definitely helped him secure a nomination. But his lacking filmography might actually hinder his chances of winning. The Academy is often suspicious of actors who have given only one performance. The quality of a perfomer’s entire body of work is a big deal to Oscar voters. And playing Muse in Captain Phillips is Abdi’s entire body of work. He’s great at playing a Somali pirate! Can he play anything else? Oscar voters have no idea.
So it’s not impossible for Abdi to win on Oscar night, but it’s fairly unlikely. To win, he’ll have to overcome the support for Leto, the star power of the other nominees, and the fact that nobody knows if he’s versatile. Those are legitimate (but not insurmountable) obstacles.
Bradley Cooper
Age: 39
Film: American Hustle
Role: Richie DiMaso, the ambitious to a fault young FBI agent who entraps two small time cons and coerces them to participate in an elaborate sting operation in order to secure their own freedom. Young and hungry, DiMaso wants to make a name for himself and goes after the biggest, most high profile offenders he can possibly find—including a crime boss and several senators—even when strongly advised against such risky actions. While mixed up in the case, DiMaso feels an instant attraction to one of the cons, although he has no idea that she’s using a fake name and phony British accent. DiMaso thinks highly of cocaine, romance, and heroism and isn’t as big on things like rules, guidelines, and human decency.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actor for Silver Linings Playbook (2012).
Why He Should Win
Cooper’s a good actor. I had no idea he had talent until I saw him in Silver Linings Playbook last year. His portrayal of a man coming to terms with a new diagnosis of bipolar disorder won me over completely. He was perfect in the part. In fact, he was better than Jennifer Lawrence who won the Oscar for playing Tiffany, his unstable new love interest. (I’m not suggesting that Lawrence didn’t deserve the Oscar. Her performance was remarkable, too. I just think that Cooper’s was even better. He really nailed what’s it’s like to be bipolar.)
In American Hustle Cooper’s performance also makes an impression. This time around, he’s not the star, and writer/director David O. Russell doesn’t give him nearly as much to work with. In fact, of all the characters in American Hustle, I think FBI agent Richie DiMaso is both the most underwritten and the most confusing.
If Russell knows who this guy is supposed to be and what he’s actually up to, I must say, he plays it very close to the chest. Now I’m not saying I don’t understand that DiMaso is an ambitious young agent who wants to make a name for himself by pulling off some major busts. What I mean is, I frequently don’t understand what is motivating DiMaso in a particular scene, and I’m not convinced DiMaso understands either. He seems like one of those people who’s not very given to introspection. All he wants to do is win. Everything else is irrelevant—even what game he’s playing.
DiMaso’s kind of like a guy who’d jump up and yell, “I sunk your battleship!” And then when you ever so gently pointed out you were playing Monopoly, he’d punch you in the face, steal all the Free Parking money, and throw himself out the window screaming, “DO NOT PASS GO! DO NOT COLLECT $200!” (Later—after his mother finished taking all the curlers out of his hair—he’d come crawling back to admit he was wrong and that he’s in love with you, but he’d only consider taking things to the next level if you agreed to talk in a sexy British accent, and he’d make it clear that getting the Free Parking Money back was not on the table.)
I feel like DiMaso’s character can be summed up as follows: occasionally uses cocaine, more corrupt and inept than the criminals, no moral center, really into hot British gingers (but not so much American redheads), wants to be so much cooler than he is. He’s the least developed character in the script. It’s very hard to figure him out. Can anyone actually be so inept and so proud of it? As I watched, I felt he was mainly there as a foil for the other characters, and a device to help the audience feel okay about rooting for “bad guys.”
I think Bradley Cooper brings more to the role than is actually there, and that’s a darn good thing for the film because the character is really underwritten and awkward.
He has fabulous (almost manic) energy, and his increasingly brilliant scenes with Louis C.K. alone are reason enough for an Oscar nomination. Cooper needs to consider working with Louis C.K. again. The two have fabulous chemistry. Their scenes are hilarious.
Why He Might Not Win
Based solely on his performance in this film, Bradley Cooper probably does not deserve the Oscar this year. It’s not anything he’s doing wrong as an actor. I just think the character isn’t as well drawn as all the others in the same film. Plus the four other actors in this category all play more fleshed out, meaty, carefully crafted roles, too. I guess what I’m saying is Bradley Cooper is excellent, but Richie DiMaso is just so-so. (It would be like watching Itzhak Perlman play a plastic violin.)
If Cooper does win, though—say Leto doesn’t for whatever reason, and Cooper’s star power carries the day—I’d be quite happy for him. His performance last year in Silver Linings Playbook was Oscar worthy, and his work in American Hustle is very good, too.
He certainly could take the Oscar. So many people seem to like American Hustle, and Cooper is fast becoming a huge, popular star.
Michael Fassbender
Age: 36
Film: 12 Years a Slave
Role: Edwin Epps, the highly disturbed, frequently intoxicated, and often cruel owner of a cotton plantation in the antebellum South. A man who regards the Bible highly but puts his own strange spin on scripture, Epps deeply admires the virtues and work ethic of his favorite slave, a young woman named Patsey. He expresses this admiration by routinely raping her, frequently tormenting her, occasionally whipping her, and never doing a thing to protect her from the bizarre and arbitrary punishments of his unhinged, jealous, sadistic wife.
Nomination History:
This is Fassbender’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
Who doesn’t love to hate an evil, sadistic, megalomaniacal, slave-abusing plantation owner? Here’s what makes Epps such a great character, though. We don’t just love to hate him. We also hate the way he has to go to such bizarre lengths in order to love himself. It doesn’t make you like the guy any more. (He’s too awful for that.) But it’s impossible not to feel sorry for him. He’s just such a miserable, tormented soul with no ostensible hope of enlightenment. He has to live with himself. If you’ve met him, you know that’s horror enough to drive anyone to drink! (And his charming sweetheart of a wife doesn’t exactly make his situation any easier.)
Twelve Years a Slave is novel and refreshing in several ways. The film has already been widely praised for its pull-no-punches, unflinching examination of the brutal, gruesome, traumatic suffering of African American slaves on a cotton plantation. To avoid shocking or disturbing the audience (or, from a more cynical view, in order to get produced by a major studio), many movies about slavery don’t show the truly barbaric, unpleasant stuff about slave life (which makes it easier for movie goers to continue to pretend that such extreme things never really happened and may not even exist).
It’s refreshing to see a film about slavery that unapologetically acknowledges the brutality and terror slaves endured in the antebellum South.
But there’s another novel angle that the film gives us as well. By now we all (should) know without being told, “You shouldn’t own slaves because it is wrong.” But (mainly through the character of the tormented Edwin Epps) this film goes further, offering also a simple but not oft stated corollary. “You shouldn’t own slaves,” Twelve Years suggests to its audience, “because it is bad for you.”
Before I saw Twelve Years a Slave, I never much thought about the horrible burden of owning other human beings. (Just writing that out makes me giggle. Slavery sure was tough for the owners! That sounds just about right. It’s like the ultimate in white narcissism, suggesting that slavery was all about how much the owners suffered!)
Obviously the slaves suffered the most. There’s no contest. But what I mean is, slavery isn’t just bad because it allows the slaves to become dehumanized and hurt. It’s also bad because it encourages owners to behave viciously, dehumanizing and hurting the slaves they believe they own. Being hurt by moral monsters is horrible. But being the moral monster who does the hurting? I personally would be grief-stricken to learn that a loved one had been raped and murdered by a sociopathic serial killer, but destroyed to learn that a loved one was the sociopathic serial killer who had raped and murdered others with no regrets.
The close look at Epps in Twelve Years strongly suggests that the inverse of the old adage, “Virtue is its own reward,” is also true. Vice is its own punishment. Vicious acts are bad not only for the people victimized, but also for the victimizers themselves.
In some ways, Epps kind of reminds me of Sybil’s mom because, you know, they both “have to do it,” according to them. (Sybil’s mom in the book and movie, that is. I’m aware some doubt has been cast over the credibility of the Sybil case.) Epps is clearly driven to abuse the people in his power. He doesn’t actually seem to enjoy it. He performs these tortures as if enacting some purifying ritual in which he expects to find purgation. (After saying that, I don’t think I need to add that again, like Sybil’s mom, Epps is also insane.)
Watching, I got the impression that Epps is so tortured in part because the morals of his society are at war with his innate conscience. (Atheists may find this line of reasoning less than persuasive, but I still think it’s what the film is getting at. It’s like a thematic continuation of the director’s previous film Shame. Steve McQueen is making an impressive career out of exploring the reasons for and experience of human suffering.) (I’m not implying he’s exploiting human suffering, just saying he’s plumbing its depths to make excellent films, and I’m impressed.)
Epps is doing things that are morally wrong, and he feels terrible. But he has no rational explanation for the bad, guilty feelings since he can find justification for his actions in the norms of his society as well as in common interpretations (of that day) of scripture. Plus his even crazier wife (played by Sarah Paulson) constantly tells him that he’s a failure because he doesn’t deal harshly enough with his slaves. His scripture readings smack of schizophrenia (or at least psychosis). He clearly struggles with ideas of reference. He over-interprets everything, desperate to assign meaning to the elements of his daily life in order to make sense of them.
To me, the message comes through loud and clear. Owning other people isn’t just bad for them. It’s bad for you, too. Will an unpaid workforce increase your productivity and revenue? Yes! Will it also destroy your soul and (possibly) your peace of mind? Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! And that is so not worth it! The opportunity cost is way too high! A human soul is worth so much more than a quick buck.
Epps routinely rapes Patsey. He also routinely humiliates and physically attacks her. Yet when he behaves this way, he believes that he is in the right. (Or at least, he tries to convince himself of his rightness.) Why does he believe that raping and abusing a woman is morally right? Why wouldn’t he? Owning another human being, regarding another person as somehow less than human—those things sure aren’t morally right. And yet the laws and customs Epps follows uphold and defend these behaviors as being right. All his life, Epps has been told by his society that something evil (slavery) is actually good. Of course his moral compass is broken!
While watching Twelve Years a Slave we see how completely Southern society failed the African American slave population. But we can also see that it didn’t do their masters any great favors either. When you’re brought up from childhood being instructed that something evil is good and being educated to ignore any naggings of your conscience, of course, by the time you’re an adult, you can’t clearly tell right from wrong, can justify almost any action, and feel an ever-present sense of torment and dread that you can’t really explain.
I realize what I’m saying sounds a little slippery slopey. But I still think it’s a major point the film is trying to get across. In a society where consensually kissing another man’s white wife is an unspeakable horror but repeatedly raping an African American woman is just fine because she’s your property, just imagine what kind of cognitive dissonance it must take just to stay reasonably sane!
The message is clear. Slavery is bad for everyone. Being a slave is a waking nightmare. Owning people is bad for you.
I think Fassbender’s nuanced performance as the despicable plantation owner drives this point home for the audience, giving the already remarkable film even more depth and meaning. In 2012, Leonardo DiCaprio played a wonderfully evil plantation owner but failed to get an Oscar nomination. (A friend of mine recently pointed out that DiCaprio is very over-the-top in that role. I agree but maintain that few elements of Django Unchained are not over-the-top.) The difference between DiCaprio’s Calvin Candie and Fassbender’s Edwin Epps is that while both are despicable and cruel, Epps is himself tormented, broken, and miserable. Candie is a charming, smarmy, unabashedly racist, gleeful sadist. Epps, on the other hand, while a horrible victimizer is also a victim. He doesn’t just inflict suffering. He inflicts suffering because he is suffering himself. There’s something wonderfully realistic about this (the whole cycle of abuse thing), and it makes sense that Epps was a real man while Candie is a fictional villain.
Fassbender is a marvelous actor who has spectacular intensity and such a cool control of it. What are his best scenes? The chase through the pig pen is great, the whipping, the first dance, the welcoming home of the slaves (particularly the little girl), the talk about the letter, the fight about the soap, the rape scene…
I could go on and on. Fassbender’s fantastic in all his scenes. I was sure he would win the Oscar—until I saw Jared Leto.
Why He Might Not Win
Leto will probably win, but if he doesn’t, I’d prefer to see the Oscar go to Abdi or Fassbender. (I like both Cooper and Hill, but I think Abdi and Fassbender gave more deserving performances this year.) It’s too bad that Fassbender didn’t get an Oscar nomination for Shame. He’s fantastic in everything I’ve ever seen him in, and I’d love to see him rewarded for this third collaboration with Steve McQueen.
I don’t think anybody denies that he gives a great performance, but usually the good one in the good/evil pairing wins the Oscar, so I’m expecting a win for Lupita Nyong’o and not for Michael Fassbender.
Plus Jared Leto is awfully good.
We’ll see what happens, though.
Jonah Hill
Age: 30
Film: The Wolf of Wall Street
Role: Donnie Azoff, chief minion and “best friend” of sociopathic stock broker Jordan Belfort. In The Wolf of Wall Street, Jordan gets rich quick and routinely uses his money to behave in the worst way imaginable. Then his side-kick Donnie Azoff jumps in, and you realize just how limited your imagination is. Azoff takes being obnoxious and despicable to new heights (or perhaps new depths), and Jonah Hill totally commits to the performance.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Moneyball (2011).
Why He Should Win
Jonah Hill should make for-your-consideration TV spots that conclude, “I’m Jonah Hill, and I will do anything on camera.”
I’m not saying that to insult him. Actually I find his willingness to shock and disturb audiences (while not always charming) compelling and a little bit refreshing.
I’m not just talking about what he does in The Wolf of Wall Street. Watch This Is the End. Jonah Hill makes some bold choices. I mean most of those guys are playing over-the-top caricatures of themselves based on their negative qualities/(often undeserved) reputations. But Hill goes pretty far. That stuff with the gun is legitimately shocking to watch simply because people never do that kind of thing on camera anymore. This is a jaded era of shock comedies when crudeness has become common place, but it’s also an era of school massacres and gun safety and awareness of tragic accidents and emphasis on screen media’s accountability when it comes to influencing the behavior of young people. And the Rosemary’s Baby bit later in the movie shows that Hill has absolutely no vanity when it comes to entertaining the audience. He will sacrifice every bit of his own dignity for a laugh.
That’s not a bad thing, not at all. In order to do justice to the obscenely excessive Donnie Azoff, an actor must have no vanity. Donnie is in many ways repulsive. The character is also very useful since he does all the same stuff as lead character Jordan Belfort, but he does not look like Leonardo DiCaprio, and also does not get to show himself to the audience from his own point of view. One almost gets the idea that while Belfort sees himself as the Leonardo DiCaprio type, others who are not high and not him may see him as more as the Jonah Hill’s portrayal of Donnie Azoff type.
Hill really does go all out, throwing himself into the rather repugnant role with wild abandon. That choking scene must have been really rigorous and draining to film. And I’m willing to bet that most high profile actors have too much vanity to agree to put such unapologetic bad behavior on camera. Donnie Azoff is not only blatantly un-PC, but he’s also the unapologetic enemy of taste and manners. He’s basically a variation on that obnoxious friend/sidekick character who shows up in many movies, only he’s the more embarrassing sidekick of someone who is himself morally reprehensible.
In movies, you know how there’s always that one obnoxious friend who’s embarrassing to bring to parties because he openly stares at all the attractive women? Yeah, Donnie’s that guy—except instead of forming a mental picture or grabbing a souvenir (like panties or something) for later, Donnie just unabashedly whips it out and starts openly masturbating. He makes those pantie bandits look like masters of self-restraint and subtlety. His other delightful party tricks include dwarf-tossing and swallowing live goldfish.
Donnie has no self-control, no ability to delay gratification. And he’s frequently self-sabotaging because he can’t seem to stop behaving like a maniac, complicating everything he does by behaving abominably for no apparent reason. One of Hill’s strongest scenes comes when Donnie complicates handing off the suitcase of money apparently for the sheer pleasure of being a huge jackass. Another great moment from Hill comes when Donnie reads the note Jordan slips him at lunch. That’s one of Hill’s rare understated moments in the film.
I can see why Hill’s getting a second Oscar nomination. The character he plays here is so radically different from Peter Brand in Moneyball. I’m baffled that so many people still express surprise at Hill’s career success. How could he be twice nominated already? Why has he become such a big star? Simple. He’s got talent, drive, and connections. (Isn’t that pretty much how every actor becomes successful?)
This is another fine performance for Hill to add to his filmography. I don’t think he’ll actually win the Oscar, but I’ve been wrong before.
Why He Might Not Win
If you got awards just for being a jackass on camera, then Johnny Knoxville would have all the Oscars. (If Hill wins, Knoxville should be so mad. I can imagine him yelling, “What?! I can masturbate and eat goldfish just as well as Jonah Hill. That’s all I did yesterday! Where’s my Oscar?”)
Hill does deserve the nomination because he totally commits to the part. DiCaprio is brilliant, and Hill has to be just as big and loud and objectionable as DiCaprio.
It’s worth mentioning, however, that the role of Jordan Belfort has a much higher degree of difficulty than the role of Donnie Azoff. Hill has to be vile, over-the-top, obscene, obnoxious, vicious, crude, terrible. DiCaprio, on the other hand, has to be vile, over-the-top, obscene, obnoxious, vicious, crude, terrible, and charming.
Though I’m not sure “sympathetic” would be the right word for DiCaprio’s Jordan Belfort, “huge jackass that everyone disdains” (and I cleaned that up a little) perfectly describes Hill’s Donnie Azoff. So if you’re wondering how I can say DiCaprio deserves an Oscar while Hill doesn’t, that’s how. Both roles are demanding and require total commitment, but the lead role has a much greater degree of difficulty.
I’ve always liked Hill and wish him all the best. (Back before I spent most of my time with a preschooler, I watched Superbad all the time. And my husband and I really enjoyed the new spin on 21 Jump Street.) If I were an Academy member, I wouldn’t give him my vote this year simply because so many other performances in the category are more deserving. But it’s not like Jonah Hill is undeserving. He’s just less deserving by comparison.
It’s hard to imagine him winning, though, because DiCaprio still has no Oscar. If Hill wins and DiCaprio doesn’t…that just seems so weird. But it’s unlikely with such a crowded field that both actors from The Wolf of Wall Street will win acting Oscars.
I still expect a win for Leto. If that doesn’t happen, I suppose Hill could sneak in there. Any of them could, really, though to me Hill seems least likely to take home the statuette.
Jared Leto
Age: 42
Film: Dallas Buyers Club
Role: Rayon, a transgender woman and fellow AIDS patient who helps Ron Woodroof to find people who want access to the medicines he’s smuggling in from Mexico and are willing to buy memberships in his club. Without Rayon’s friendship and support, the vitriolic, abrasively homophobic Woodroof would never get anywhere. But Rayon helps him far more than he ever expects. As the two become closer, Woodroof comes to care deeply for Rayon and to overcome many of his ignorant and fearful prejudices. Knowing Rayon helps Woodroof to become a better person.
Nomination History:
This is Leto’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
Jared Leto disappears completely into Rayon, who quickly emerges as the beating heart of Dallas Buyers Club.
I can sum up what makes Leto’s performance so powerful in one phrase, “a woman in a suit.” Though not transgendered himself, Leto immediately shows us (with seeming effortlessness) who Rayon is so completely. He doesn’t introduce us to a man pretending to be a woman. He shows us instead a woman who has stopped pretending to be anything but herself, despite the serious inconvenience of being born with a body that complicated everything.
When we first meet Rayon, we don’t think of her gender. We think, “What an exciting character! This person is overflowing with life and vitality and warmth and humor. Rayon is a spark who’s going to light up this story and give Ron Woodroof someone to learn to care about.”
This is the first time I’ve ever seen a movie about a transgendered character that made the character’s personality (or maybe personhood is a better word) paramount. The movie doesn’t fixate on the fact that Rayon probably grew up as a boy. It just shows us the person Rayon is now. There’s nothing awkward or self-conscious about the way the character is portrayed, and that is highly unusual.
The first time that Rayon’s clothes or manner seem off, the first time we even notice how Rayon is dressed, we feel this radical sense of disconnect and confusion. We’re like, Why is she wearing that? She looks so uncomfortable! This must be so hard for her.
Jared Leto is a man. But Rayon is a woman. And when she goes to the bank to ask for a favor, we don’t see a man who has taken off his costume. We see a woman in a suit. Our understanding of Rayon does not change at all when she stops wearing her usual feminine clothes and dresses in men’s business attire.
When we look at a male actor dressed in men’s clothing and immediately see only a woman looking uncomfortable…
Well, I really think this is the only time (in my experience) that’s ever happened! It’s not like Leto has to sell us on the character. He’s so completely the character, and we’re so attached to the character, that we just see her reality immediately regardless of how she’s dressed.
Jared Leto deserves the Oscar. No other supporting performance this year even comes close.
Why He Might Not
Several years ago, Julie Christie won almost every precursor award for Best Actress for her fantastic portrayal of Alzheimer’s patient Fiona Anderson in Sarah Polley’s beautiful film Away From Her. The wins were deserved. Christie’s performance was great (and the film was amazing). By the time the movie was over, my husband—who had never laid eyes on Julie Christie before—had fallen head over heels in love with her. She was beautiful. The performance was exceptional.
But then when accepting one of her awards—the SAG, I think—Christie concluded her speech with a flippant joke about how if she’d forgotten to thank anyone, she was “still in character.” This glibness was very off-putting. At the Oscars, Marion Cotillard won Best Actress for La Vie en Rose.
Now did Christie’s poor acceptance speech lose her the Oscar? That’s impossible to know. People always point out that Cotillard is young, sexy, and beautiful. (It’s true that young, sexy ingénues often steal Best Supporting Actress, though in Cotillard’s case her youthful radiance might have been a legitimate factor given her radical transformation into the prematurely aged and decrepit Édith Piaf in the film. Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that La Vie en Rose also won Best Make-up that year.)
Christie’s off-putting tone at the podium might have had nothing to do with the outcome of the Oscars. However, when Cotillard won, she glided onto the stage, delirious with genuine surprise, radiant as an angel fresh-arrived from heaven. Though clearly stunned to win, she was the epitome of graciousness, and admitting she was “speechless,” she concluded endearingly, “Thank you life. Thank you love. And uh…it is true there is some angels in this city.” Guess how many glib jokes she made at the expense of (easy target) Édith Piaf? That’s right. None.
Now maybe the speeches don’t sway voters that much, but I still think Julie Christie did it wrong, and Marion Cotillard did it right.
Jared Leto has already taken a lot of flack for screwing up his early acceptance speeches. And I get why people would be upset. Matthew McConaughey is great in Dallas Buyers Club, but the movie succeeds as completely as it does because of Leto’s moving turn as Rayon, the transgender woman who helps McConaughey’s bigoted character to overcome many of his prejudices and fears simply by letting him get to know her as a person. So we hear Leto’s name called and think, “Oh that’s awesome! He won! He deserved to win! He was so moving in the role,” and then he waltzes up on stage and starts cracking jokes about his bubble butt and Brazilian waxes. That was definitely a mistake.
Even I found his attitude off-putting and (frankly) disappointing (because he’s so amazing in the movie, and when you listen to his speech, you’re suddenly wondering if he really understood why people found his work so amazing). But it seems like ever since then Leto has done everything he can to make amends for botching his speech at the Globes. He’s aware—probably due to his ability to Google his own name—that tons of people were irritated by his Globes speech—and he seems to realize now that he kind of messed up. I don’t think he intended to make Rayon’s suffering seem trivial. I think it’s more that the party-centric vibe of the Golden Globes leaked over into his speech. Leto seems like a nice person, though unfortunately, he doesn’t come across as particularly insightful, intelligent, or mature. (I’m not suggesting that he doesn’t possess those qualities. I’m just saying that he doesn’t let us know it if he does.)
Still Leto clearly means well, and at the end of the day, he does give such an amazing performance that the instant you see him, all of the year’s other male supporting performances pale in comparison. I still think he deserves the win, and I hope he gets it. Nevertheless, the tone of his Globes acceptance speech was way off, and I hope he gets that, too. It would be disappointing to think that an actor who legitimately deserves to get the Oscar doesn’t actually get the movie. But honestly I think he may just have been nervous and in party-mode like everybody else in the room.
As of now, I’m still rooting for Jared Leto to win Best Supporting Actor.