Patricia Arquette
Age: 46
Film: Boyhood
Role: Olivia, divorced mother of young protagonist Mason and his sister Samantha. Perpetually frustrated by her inability to form a stable, satisfying, lasting romantic relationship, Olivia devotes all her energy to improving her situation so that she’s able to provide a comfortable life for herself and her children. She values education highly, and she’s a devoted mother to Mason and Samantha, always attempting to make their lives better despite some trying misfortunes and definite missteps.
Nomination History:
This is Arquette’s first nomination.
Why She Should Win
Arquette is the frontrunner at the moment, which makes sense. She and Ethan Hawke are the only two career actors prominently featured in Boyhood. (The entire cast is made up of professional actors, but what I mean is, of the four central characters, young Lorelei Linklater and Ellar Coltrane aren’t nearly as seasoned as the actors portraying their parents and may not even continue to act in other projects.)
So it’s no surprise that Arquette and Hawke are the two actors from Boyhood who keep racking up the awards and nominations. And of the two, Arquette has the showier part. She has more emotional moments, more crises, more obstacles that evoke the audience’s empathy/pity.
Olivia is a fairly unusual character. She’s strong, intelligent, motivated, devoted to her kids, and yet she cannot seem to find a suitable life partner. For reasons the movie never chooses to explore, Olivia consistently selects men who are increasingly abusive, insensitive, self-centered, and have a tendency toward alcoholism. Why this keeps happening to her remains unclear. I suppose in a way that’s realistic. People do tend to stick with familiar patterns, and often they never figure out the underlying reasons for their dysfunctional behavior without extensive therapy or at least some distance and reflection.
Since Boyhood is presented to us from Mason’s point of view, Olivia’s behavior remains slightly inexplicable. After all, why would a boy who never ages beyond eighteen have any profound insights into his mother’s psychological issues? Olivia is a huge influence on Mason, of course, but he doesn’t really understand her, and, as a result, neither do we. She’s a bit of an enigma, and refreshingly less of a cinematic cliché than we might expect. (More often in movies, the battered wife turns a blind eye to her husband’s flaws and remains unable to extract herself from his clutches.)
The underwritten/unexplored quality of the character makes Arquette’s work the more impressive. Without any scripted explanations for her unfortunate life choices, she must find a way to make the audience sympathize with and believe in the character. Given an incomplete picture of Olivia to work with, she must somehow make her real and three dimensional for the audience.
And she pulls this off commendably. I just watched Boyhood for the second time the other night (to show the film to the rest of my family before the Oscars), so the performance is fresh in my mind.
The most memorable aspect of Arquette’s Olivia is the way she takes everything in stride and keeps moving forward. She’s just as compelling in the everyday moments as in the dramatic ones because Olivia’s philosophy seems to be that everything is an everyday moment. Whatever happens, that’s just life. You adjust. You move on. It’s just what you do.
Personally, I really like the way Arquette plays Olivia’s reply to Samantha when the girl complains about how unfair it is to start a new school so suddenly and in dirty clothes. That exchange just feels very real to me, and it’s hard not to be pulling for Olivia in those circumstances.
Of course, her most obvious Oscar scene is her showy breakdown at the end when Mason leaves for college. Probably every empty nester can relate to her feelings here. (This scene certainly resonated for my mother who found Olivia the only interesting character in the film.) Her line here, something like, “I thought there would be more,” is probably the greatest insight we ever get into her character. (It still fills inadequate, like the beginning of something instead of the end. But Arquette delivers the line with stirring pathos, and I’m sure a lot of us other mortals can relate to Olivia’s existential distress as she has this crushing revelation.)
To be brutally honest, I think the one factor that elevates Arquette’s performance to Oscar level is her willingness to age twelve years on camera. People talk about “brave” performances all the time, and I often disagree. (For instance, it is really not all that brave to take off all your clothes on camera if you are in great shape and your body looks fantastic. Helen Hunt in The Sessions gave a strong performance, but bravery was really not a factor. If my body looked like that, I would just stop wearing clothes and parade around naked everywhere I went.)
But in Hollywood—land of eternal youth, the always younger starlet, and abundant plastic surgery—letting an audience watch you get over a decade older within a span of two hours honestly is a pretty gutsy thing to do. The thing is, it’s not like Arquette doesn’t age. It’s not like you watch and think, Wow, she barely looks older at all. She ages conspicuously as the story progresses and not particularly well. Now not horribly, don’t get me wrong, but by the end, she certainly looks very much like a typical—if charismatic and well-dressed—forty-something woman. That’s a scary thing to be in Hollywood, especially when people are bound to notice because they’ve watched you growing progressively less and less young over the course of just a few hours. I think the difficulty of the twelve-to-thirteen year commitment probably is (and deserves to be) a factor here.
Arquette has a really good shot at winning the Oscar, and although hers was probably not my favorite supporting performance of the year, I think she would definitely be a deserving recipient.
Why She Might Not Win
The Supporting Actress category is notoriously full of upsets, and Arquette has been out in front winning stuff for quite a while now. It’s quite possible that she’ll lose momentum just when it counts most.
Boyhood has gotten a lot of acclaim, but there are still plenty of vocal people who find it quite underwhelming (pointless even, boring, overrated). If enthusiasm for the film wears off before voting ends, Arquette could easily wind up an also-ran on Oscar night.
I think if someone beats her, it will probably be either the young, popular Emma Stone or the industry favorite Laura Dern (who seems to be best friends with like everyone in Hollywood. Seriously, I’m becoming convinced that there’s no one in the entire industry who doesn’t have at least one warm, positive anecdote about her).
Laura Dern
Age: 47 (48 on February 10)
Film: Wild
Role: Bobbi, the free-spirited, semi-tragic late mother of protagonist Cheryl Strayed. As Cheryl hikes the Pacific Coast Trail looking for redemption and redirection, her memories of Bobbi serve as the catalyst that keeps her going.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actress for Rambling Rose (1991).
Why She Should Win
I was thrilled to hear Laura Dern’s name called. Some people seem to consider her nomination a huge surprise, but I don’t see why. Only four nominees have consistently shown up in precursors, leaving the fifth slot up for grabs in my opinion. And Dern was always a major contender for that available slot. I personally would not have been shocked to see Jessica Chastain, Rene Russo, or even Naomi Watts nominated instead, but I am thrilled about Laura Dern.
I’m not a particular fan (though I’ve always liked her well enough), but for me, Dern was far and away the best thing about the movie Wild, a film I actually liked much more than I had expected.
Reese Witherspoon also gives a good performance (like the movie, better than I expected), but as a character, Cheryl Strayed is a bit frustrating and not always entirely easy to sympathize with. For one thing, since we’re getting multiple flashbacks of the lowest points of a character whose life is in crisis, we are constantly seeing Cheryl at her absolute worst. She’s grieving for her mother, so naturally she’s inclined to remember moments of personal failure when she did not treat her mother as well as she might have.
Of course, this makes her mother look fantastic by comparison. (We rarely form a bad impression of someone by reading the person’s eulogy, after all.) Bobbi has not always made great choices and has definitely not had a great life. But in Cheryl’s memory, she shines so bright, aglow with such vibrancy and joie de vivre. She’s like a cross between a pixie, a flower child, and a saint. No matter how bad things get, she has an irrepressible glow, a beautiful, sweet spirit. She’s not perfect, of course. She made bad choices as a young woman and seems to have issues with alcoholism that persist throughout her life. But somehow her failings only make her more endearing. She’s fragile and tragic and lovely and vulnerable—and always so full of life.
Laura Dern brings her to life so easily, so joyfully that I truly do think the performance is something special. Played by the wrong actress in the wrong way, the character could easily become insufferable instead of charming. Plenty of people have sad rotten lives and yet fail to evoke a sympathetic response from those around them.
I particularly admired the physicality of Dern’s performance, too. She’s playing the role with her entire body. Just the way she moves, the way she walks tells us all a great deal about the woman she is inside—and instantly.
She and Witherspoon have a nice, pointed exchange in the kitchen, but all of their scenes together are good.
Also Dern’s remarkable popularity among her peers has got to count for something. I’m sure it helped her to a nomination, and I can easily imagine a scenario (though, admittedly, not the most likely), in which she could actually win.
Why She Might Not Win
Patricia Arquette is probably going to win.
One drawback to Dern’s role (in terms of Oscar potential) is probably degree of difficulty. It’s not like she had to dramatically alter her appearance, or commit to an insanely long shoot, or learn really difficult lines, or play any kind of outlandish, shocking scene, or do an accent, or learn a foreign language, or play an instrument…
You get the idea.
Bobbi is probably not that difficult to play. The key is, you just have to be right for the part (and Dern definitely is). Now I’m not trying to denigrate her work here. I think the performance is marvelous. And since it works so well, I don’t think it particularly matters how hard it was to make it work. But people don’t always think like I do, and you really never know what Oscar voters are up to. They sometimes have ideas that strike the general film-going public as indefensibly odd.
So I wouldn’t bet on Laura Dern picking up an Oscar this year, but I wouldn’t necessarily count her out either.
Keira Knightley
Age: 29
Film: The Imitation Game
Role: Joan Clarke, the talented female code breaker who works with Alan Turing on the Enigma project in England during World War II. Nearly Turing’s intellectual equal, Joan has the superior social skills and abundant compassion that let her assist Alan in finding allies and support for his project.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actress for Pride & Prejudice (2006).
Why She Should Win
In The Imitation Game, there are two kinds of supporting characters—1) rather stupid, incompetent jerks who are pointedly hostile to the prickly protagonist Alan Turning and 2) Joan Clarke.
Keira Knightley must have a great agent because what a marvelous part she’s been given here! Knightley is always at her best in period pieces, and any competent actress would be at her best when given witty, wonderful lines to deliver and actions to perform that show both her compassion and her cleverness. Joan Clarke is a plum role, and it’s no surprise it’s propelled Knightley to a second Oscar nomination.
I enjoyed watching The Imitation Game, in large part because of Knightley’s charming, engaging turn as the highly sympathetic Joan Clarke. Cumberbatch’s star turn as Alan Turing makes the film special, but it’s Knightley’s pleasant supporting work as the winning Joan that makes it watchable.
For one thing, Joan’s presence makes it possible for us to see a more human, sympathetic side of Alan. Beyond that, Joan just comes across as one swell gal. She’s got all the social skills that Alan lacks plus brains and determination to spare.
She’s a pleasure to watch in all of her scenes and has a very strong moment in a big, ugly confrontation with Alan near the end (though ironically, that’s probably one of the film’s weaker and more contrived scenes).
A lot of people like The Imitation Game, and that sentiment could potentially translate into a Best Supporting Actress win for Keira Knightley.
Why She Might Not Win
I have nothing against Keira Knightley, but I’ve never considered her a great actress. Now she’s a good actress for sure, and in the right part, she can be very good. And she’s lovely and winsome and has charisma and stage presence and is often a genuine pleasure to watch. I’ve enjoyed kicking back and watching Pirates of the Caribbean and Love Actually as much as the next girl. And in Pride and Prejudice, Knightley really did seem to have an excellent handle on the character of Elizabeth Bennett.
So I like Knightley, and I have enjoyed most of her movies, but I don’t think I’ve ever been completely blown away by one of her performances. When she didn’t manage to pull off nominations for her performances in Anna Karenina and Atonement, I did not think it was a gross miscarriage of justice. She’s definitely in her element in period films, but you don’t necessarily need an Oscar just for being a competent period actress.
Now will Knightley win an Oscar at some point in the future? I don’t see why not. She makes the right kinds of films to get noticed and nominated, and I’m certainly not implying for even a minute that she’s a bad actress. So yes, in the right part at the right time, Keira Knightley could most definitely win an Oscar. But I truly don’t believe that it’s going to be happening for her this year.
Knightley is very likable in the role of Joan Clarke, but a lot of the credit for that goes to the screenwriter. The fact is, as written Joan is an overwhelmingly sympathetic character. She’s the only person in the entire movie who kindly offers friendship to the misfit protagonist right from the outset. Throughout the film, Joan continues to be the one friendly face Turing can definitely count on. Not only that, but as presented in this story, Joan is (or is very nearly) Turing’s intellectual equal. She’s also given fabulous lines that make her sound intelligent, compassionate, practical, and witty. So I mean, yes I felt a warm sense of serene satisfaction every time Joan was on screen, but I really think that’s a clear case of the character doing a lot of the actress’s work for her.
In Boyhood, Patricia Arquette seems to be finding the humanity in an underwritten character herself through the performance.
But Knightley has it easy. She’s given a well-developed, sympathetic character to play, and all she has to do is show up, wear the period costume, and deliver her lines.
That said, I found Knightley’s performance more compelling and enjoyable to watch than most of the nominated Best Actress performances. (She’s much better, in my opinion, than Felicity Jones who’s assigned a maddeningly scripted character.)
So while I think Keira Knightley gives one of the least challenging/weaker supporting performances in the category, it’s still a performance that’s very enjoyable to watch, and building enthusiasm for the movie could sweep her in to a surprise victory.
Emma Stone
Age: 26
Film: Birdman
Role: Sam, new adult daughter of tormented protagonist Riggan Thomson. Recently out of rehab, Sam works backstage on her father’s troubled Broadway production perhaps hoping to heal their dysfunctional relationship as she struggles to find herserlf. She’s not quite sure what she wants out of life yet, but she thinks she’ll find the answer in the theatre and is looking all the time.
Nomination History:
This is Stone’s first nomination.
Why She Should Win
Emma Stone is my personal pick for Best Supporting Actress this year. If I got to cast a ballot, I would vote for Stone in a heartbeat, no hesitation. I also think that certain factors (youth/sex appeal, rising star in a meaty dramatic role for the first time/popularity of the film) make her the most likely dark horse to swoop in and steal the award from Patricia Arquette. (And this category is notorious for upsets.)
Here’s why I think so highly of Stone’s performance in Birdman. She’s relatively young. Up to this point, she’s been known for high profile roles in comedies/romantic comedies/summer blockbusters. Yet in Birdman she more than holds her own in intense, dramatic scenes with Edward Norton and Michael Keaton.
Stone is just as good as her two nominated co-stars, and that is really saying something. Of course, sometimes it’s relatively easy to be commanding and impressive in an intense, emotional scene with an intense, seasoned scene partner. That kind of co-star induced brilliance phenomenon could explain away Stone’s fantastic, one-on-one moment with Keaton when the tormented father and daughter take turns delivering primal, impassioned monologues to one another. But great as she is in this scene, Stone does so much more in the rest of the film.
I love her scenes with Edward Norton, particularly their exchanges on the rooftop. Thoroughly inhabiting her character, Stone seems at once self-assured and secretly vulnerable. Watching, I completely believed that she belonged in that world. At no point did she come across as an actress trying her hardest to give an impressive performance. Instead, her work seems effortless, natural. It’s the type of performance I always admire. The material is definitely challenging, but Stone never gives the appearance of someone assiduously trying to act. She simply acts. She’s better than I expected, and if she doesn’t win this year, I would fully expect another nomination in her future. I’ve always liked Emma Stone, but her dramatic abilities are put to the test here like never before, and she passes with flying colors.
Why She Might Not Win
Patricia Arquette has been winning everything so far, and she’s definitely not undeserving.
The very aspects of Stone’s work here that so impress me—she’s young in her first meaty, challenging dramatic role—could actually work against a win for her, too. After all, how do we know she’s capable of repeating this caliber of performance? (Her performance in The Help was good but in no way suggests she’s capable of the work she does here.) And even if she is capable of doing it again, well, she’ll have plenty of time to do it again then because she is so young.
Stone also has the disadvantage of giving the third most impressive performance in her film. (She’s just as good as Keaton and Norton in my opinion, but they have bigger, more substantial parts.) Patricia Arquette, on the other hand, plays most of her scenes opposite two little kids who had never acted before. What pro wouldn’t look fantastically polished under those circumstances? Arquette is also one of just four consistent presences in a film with a near three hour runtime, so sheerly in terms of screentime, Stone just can’t compete.
She’s awfully good, though. I still think it’s possible for her to pull off an upset. Even if she doesn’t, the nomination alone is a huge step forward in her career, and I’m sure she’s genuinely thrilled.
Meryl Streep
Age: 65
Film: Into the Woods
Role: The witch, the character who sends the baker and his wife into the woods on a quest to find the ingredients she needs to free herself from a spell cast by her angry mother. The witch promises that once the spell is broken, she will reverse the curse on the baker’s family, preventing him from fathering children. Everything goes according to plan…at first…
Nomination History:
Won Best Actress Oscar in 1983 for Sophie’s Choice (1982) and 2012 for The Iron Lady (2011).
Won Best Supporting Actress Oscar in 1980 for Kramer vs. Kramer (1979).
Previously nominated for Best Actress for The French Lieutenant’s Woman (1981), Silkwood (1983),Out of Africa (1985), Ironweed (1987), A Cry in the Dark (1988), Postcards from the Edge (1990), The Bridges of Madison County (1995), One True Thing (1998), Music of the Heart (1999), The Devil Wears Prada (2006), Doubt (2008), and Julie and Julia (2009).
Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actress for The Deer Hunter (1978), Adaptation (2002), and August: Osage County (2013).
Why She Should Win
“You’re so nice. You’re not good, you’re not bad, you’re just nice. I’m not good, I’m not nice, I’m just right. I’m the witch! You’re the world!”
Take lyrics like that and let Meryl Streep belt them out in a surprisingly strong, clear singing voice, and you’re pretty much guaranteed Oscar recognition.
I was actually rather stunned by how well Meryl Streep sings Sondheim’s (dauntingly difficult) music. She’s far better than I expected. She’s way better than she has to be. (I mean, come on, let’s face it, when you’re Meryl Streep, you only have to sing passably.)
Combine her singing with some of her fine, intimate moments with Rapunzel (that “I was just trying to be a good mother” bit is so Meryl Streep, both amusing and heart-warmingly sad), and her insanely antic energy level, (and her name), and if you don’t end up with an Oscar nomination, then you must not have sent out the screeners in time, and I don’t think we should put you in charge of that in the future.
The sheer physicality of her performance ought to count for something. The woman is over sixty years old and has more Oscar nominations than anyone else ever. (Three more and she’ll have as many as her nearest female competitors Katharine Hepburn (12) and Bette Davis (10) put together.) At this stage of the game, she certainly doesn’t have to go around jumping up on tables and launching herself out of trees. She could easily rest on her laurels (and still pull off a nomination with her luck! ).
Streep is great as the witch. Both she and Emily Blunt give outstanding performances in Into the Woods. Protagonist or not, the witch is the part for the star, and everybody knows it.
To be honest, if Streep had run in lead, she would probably have taken Marion Cotillard’s spot, and Emily Blunt may have landed here.
Let’s face it, the Oscars love Meryl Streep. She had this nomination all locked up from the moment she donned her cape and sang her first note.
Why She Might Not Win
Meryl Streep could always win. She usually doesn’t, of course. With now nineteen nominations and a comparatively paltry three wins, the odds are definitely against her. But she’s Meryl Streep, and she should never be counted out.
It’s pretty easy to imagine a scenario in which Streep pulls off a surprise victory. Say you’re an Academy member, but you’re not too wowed by any of these performances. (Maybe you haven’t even seen all of them.) You need to finish filling out your ballot, but you’re kind of hungry and in a big hurry to go have dinner. What can you do to end the agony? Vote for Meryl Streep. (If she wins, surely nobody can criticize your choice too harshly. She’s Meryl Streep, you know?)
I’m not suggesting that Streep could not win based on recognition of her excellent performance. The point is, in everyone’s mind, she’s always a deserving winner, and so a win for her is always possible. Combine apathetic votes with enthusiastic ones, and she’s sure to have quite a few.
Now, on the flip side, her reputation could also be a strike against her. Maybe that’s the biggest reason she will not win—Streep fatigue. Then again Streep fatigue was supposedly the reason she wouldn’t get nominated this year, too, and we can see how that worked out.
Perhaps some members of the general public are getting a little tired of Meryl Streep, but from every reasonable indicator I’ve seen, the Academy is not.
Still, I would say that a win for Meryl is unlikely this year. Just about all four of the others have a much better chance. (I’m not completely sure about Keira Knightley. Her performance seems like one of the weaker ones to me, but she might get swept into a win by a late wave of enthusiasm for The Imitation Game.)
Not everybody loved Into the Woods. Some people just don’t like the show. (It isn’t all sunshine and rainbows, after all.) Others think the movie doesn’t do justice to the show. Streep may be great as the witch, but if you could care less about the witch and think the show is awful, then you probably don’t care, no matter how capably she sings.
I like Into the Woods (the show) well enough, and I actually thought the movie adaptation was pretty solid (certainly not the travesty I had feared). I like Meryl Streep, and she blew me away with her singing, particularly her performance of “The Last Midnight.”
But even I didn’t watch and think, Meryl must have the Oscar for this! Anything less would be rank injustice, a cosmic mistake, an affront to awards shows everywhere!
Emily Blunt also sang extremely well, and she’s not even nominated for an Oscar. I highly doubt Meryl Streep will win one this year either. But how much do you want to bet she gets another chance in the near future? And in the less near future? And in the distant future? Let’s be honest. The only Streep fatigue that’s ever going to kick in will be suffered by Meryl herself when she’s 143 years old and still walking that red carpet every year.
Speculate about Streep fatigue all you want, but the originators of that phrase are going to be long dead and moldering in their graves well before the Academy ever stops nominating Meryl Streep. And they don’t care how you feel about it.