Steve Carell
Age: 52
Film: Foxcatcher
Role: John du Pont, mentally disturbed multimillionaire who hopes to win his mother’s approval and the nation’s admiration by turning his property, Foxcatcher Farm, into the premiere training facility for the U.S. Olympic wrestling team. While trying to make his dream a reality, du Pont becomes close to two skilled wrestlers, Mark Schultz and his other brother Dave. This association ends up being catastrophic for everyone involved. (This film is based on real events.)
Nomination History:
This is Carell’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
Here’s the thing about Steve Carell. He can make anything funny. Anything. So I think watching Carell in this role opened a lot of people’s eyes to the fact that he’s also capable of not making things funny, a genuine epiphany for many.
The widespread surprise at this discovery is a bit frustrating to me, I must admit. Comedy is tricky, and usually performers gifted at improv are pretty gifted in general. Also, Carell has pulled off serious, dramatic roles before—in surprise Oscar darling Little Miss Sunshine (not funny playing a suicidal Proust scholar) and in last summer’s highly under-acclaimed gem The Way Way Back (not funny playing an emotionally abusive jerk).
The big difference this time around is that John du Pont is not some run-of-the-mill jackass or depressed scholar. He is a total raving lunatic, about the most conspicuously abnormal oddball that anyone could ever possibly imagine. In stark contrast, both Channing Tatum’s brooding Mark Schultz and Mark Ruffalo’s quiet, mild-mannered Dave seem like totally typical guys anybody might encounter anywhere. What are they even doing in the same story with this unnerving weirdo?
Du Pont is not one of those “but he seemed so quiet, so normal” kind of guys. Even on paper, he seems decidedly odd. He suffers from schizophrenia. He has no testicles (according to Mark Schultz). He’s tormented by the need to please his disapproving mother. He seems to be gay but possibly unaware of that fact himself. He thinks he’s remarkable when in fact, he can do almost nothing. Even his physical appearance is kind of bizarre, not merely because of his unattractive features but mainly because of his odd mannerisms and carriage.
Frankly in person he’s even weirder than he seems on paper. I have personally known several people with major mental illness who were nowhere near as weird as this guy. The same goes for people confused about their sexuality and people with injuries and disabilities and people with difficult mothers. It’s like du Pont is weird on top of all these factors more than he’s weird because of them.
Now here’s the thing. To play a character so relentlessly strange without making him seem the slightest bit comical has got to be a tremendous challenge, particularly for a comedian used to bringing out the humor in any material. Something is “funny” about Carell’s du Pont for sure, but not funny haha, never funny haha.
There’s this one brilliant scene where Carell jogs around the perimeter of the training gym. He looks like an absolute freak. But it isn’t funny at all. It’s just unsettling and kind of pathetic. To non-verbally establish such oddness in a character without making him humorous at all is really quite a feat, and I’m happy that Carell is getting this recognition from the Academy. He’s been doing brilliant work for years.
Why He Might Not Win
If you ask me, this movie is not very sensitive in its portrayal of John du Pont. Basically Foxcatcher presents du Pont as an uglier, richer version of Norman Bates. (He even has a stuffed bird collection.) He practically becomes a cinematic cliché. The implication that his primary motivation is the rejection he feels from his domineering, withholding mother (displeased by his latent homosexuality) seems like such lazy movie theater psychology. It’s that annoying kind of too familiar, pop-Freudian psychology that is bound to rankle those who have actually studied Freud.
I think a more direct explanation of du Pont’s behavior might make more sense. How about this? He’s an untreated paranoid schizophrenic who has unlimited wealth, is surrounded by enablers, and habitually uses tons of cocaine. In real life, du Pont’s behavior was definitely baffling, and I feel like director Bennett Miller is falling back on familiar Hollywood stereotypes a bit too much as he brings this strange story to the screen.
So I definitely have some problems with the way the movie characterizes du Pont. I mean, have I ever met du Pont in person? No. But you can bet I’ve seen Psycho, and there were many moments during Foxcatcher when I felt that I was seeing it again.
None of this is Carell’s fault, of course. And to be honest, it probably will not be a factor in whether he wins or loses.
That said, I don’t think anybody honestly expects Steve Carell to win this year. I’m sure Carell himself is not expecting it. Every other actor in the category has a better shot at walking away with the Oscar than Carell. If it isn’t frontrunner Redmayne or Golden Globe winner Keaton, the Oscar will surely by stolen by either Sherlock Holmes or Rocket the trigger-happy Raccoon.
But I’m very pleased to see Steve Carell nominated. He’s a great talent and by all appearances a genuinely nice person. I look forward to his future work.
Bradley Cooper
Age: 40
Film: American Sniper
Role: Chris Kyle, a patriotic American from Texas raised to believe that the strong have a moral obligation to protect the weak from the evil. Dissatisfied with life as a cowboy, Kyle joins the military, motivated by a genuine desire to serve his country. After training as a sniper, he quickly accumulates more confirmed kills than any other sniper in US history, making him a legend in his own time. But after four tours of duty, the legend has seen many friends die in battle, and his life at home with his wife and two children is falling apart because he’s never there. Finally after one last meaningful kill, Kyle makes the decision to come home to Texas where he is soon murdered by another combat veteran whom he was attempting to help. (This film is based on real events.)
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actor Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook (2012).
Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actor Oscar for American Hustle (2013).
Why He Should Win
This is definitely Bradley Cooper’s finest performance, and I say that as someone who loved his spookily accurate portrayal of bipolar disorder in Silver Linings Playbook.
Cooper is obviously very popular with his peers. He’s been nominated three years in a row. If you don’t follow the Oscars, let me help you out by explaining that three consecutive nominations is certainly not the norm (not even for Meryl Streep whose usual pattern is to skip a year every so often.) Every other actor in this category this year is nominated for the first time.
Considering that Cooper’s part in American Hustle last year was far from the standout performance in the film, these incessant Oscar nods surely reflect a tremendous personal popularity. I’ve never met him, but from a distance, he seems like a nice guy, personable, charming, and modest in interviews. And when you’re trying to win an Oscar, let’s face it, that old “it’s all just a big popularity contest” cliché is pretty much the truth.
Now that I’ve finally seen Cooper’s strong performance for myself, I’m convinced that he’s a pretty solid bet to sneak in there and win this thing as a last minute dark horse. If I had to put money on it, of course, I’d play it safe and bet on Redmayne (hoping against my own interests that Keaton would somehow pull it out). But you must keep in mind that I’m very poor. When money is off the table, I’m much more likely to go out on a limb and pick Cooper for the win.
He completely disappears into Chris Kyle. I think he does a particularly good job with the Texan accent. It’s thick, but some Texans do have a thick accent. This is a big deal to me because I’m from Texas, and trust me, most of the time, movies get the accent not only wrong but egregiously wrong. (The film Charlie Wilson’s War always sticks in my mind because Tom Hanks apparently thinks Texans sound like Civil War era Riverboat captains from Mississippi, and meanwhile his co-star Julia Roberts spoke exactly like she was from Georgia (which she is). And yet this film was fairly well received and even got some awards attention. It’s really hard not to watch something like that and think, Seriously? Have any of y’all ever even been to Texas?) Granted, Texas is a huge place with many diverse regions and accents, but I have lived all over this state, and I’m not convinced that anybody in the entire world actually speaks like Tom Hanks did in Charlie Wilson’s War. And I find that odd because Hanks is a great actor. In the past, I always got the sense that Hollywood didn’t even try to portray Texans accurately, but apparently times are changing.
Cooper inhabits Kyle so completely that you forget you’re watching Bradley Cooper and just get sucked into the story. He really bulked up for the role, I’ve heard by eating eight thousand calories a day (a number that seems unreal to me unless you’re constantly nipping over to the Cheesecake Factory for “coffee” (i.e. cheesecake), or you subsist on a diet of Bloomin’ Onions washed down with a tankard of movie theater butter. I assume that Cooper did substantial weight training and targeted exercise along with this obscene caloric increase. That’s a lot of work, and it paid off. He looks like a completely different person.
Cooper has a lot of powerful scenes, but my favorite aspect of his performance is the way he alternates between his home and work personas. It’s so odd. At home, he walks around like he’s in shell shock (no doubt for good reason), but when he’s actually in the war zone, he always seems so chatty and relaxed. I particularly like the moment with the dog at the party. He looks so amazingly disoriented here—but only after the reactions of others have provided the cues he needs to realize that his actions are inappropriate. The moment gives us tremendous insight into Kyle’s character, and Cooper plays it perfectly.
Why He Might Not Win
He’s not the frontrunner, and although the film has proven wildly popular with movie audiences, it has also generated a ridiculous amount of controversy and backlash.
My gut tells me that American Sniper’s controversial reputation is more likely to help Cooper’s chances than hurt them by keeping the film perpetually in the spotlight. I mean, the real controversy here is less the content of the film itself than the fact that our nation is insanely divided politically, and half of the people are disgusted by the idiotic ideology which they purport the other half espouses. (So in other words, all of the people are gradually becoming totally incapable of basic civility.)
(Seriously, after seeing the film, I am convinced that most of the controversy is created by the media just for ratings. It’s more like ludicrous, inflammatory strawman arguments in heated dialogue with each other than anything the film itself is actually generating. (“Liberals spit on heroes.” “Conservatives are racist murderers who enjoy killing foreign children for sport.”) I am not convinced that anybody is actually saying the things that each side insists the other side is saying about them. I think it’s all a ratings game designed to agitate those who cannot find the remote control.)
Honestly I think all the publicity will only help the film, but despite its late surge of popularity, I doubt Cooper will be able to get more votes than Redmayne or Keaton. We’ll see, though.
Benedict Cumberbatch
Age: 38
Film: The Imitation Game
Role: Alan Turing, British mathematician/code-breaker/computer pioneer who did top secret work for the British government during World War II, trying to create a machine to crack the ENIGMA codes used by the Nazis. Though a genius, Turing is prickly and socially awkward (perhaps on the autism spectrum). Getting the rest of his team to cooperate with his vision for a code-breaking machine isn’t easy, and he later runs into further trouble with the authorities once police happen to discover that he is homosexual. (This film is based on real events. Noticing a trend?)
Nomination History:
This is Cumberbatch’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
I’m not sure that Cumberbatch should win, to be honest, though I’m a fan. He’s an incredibly charismatic actor, though, doing excellent work, and the nomination is well deserved.
His Alan Turing appears to have Aspergers, and I actually love the deft way Cumberbatch plays that. Though we quickly see that Turing is not neurotypical, his unique personality is far more prominent than his autism-spectrum traits. So often actors playing any kind of medically based difference disappear into the illness, making the medical issue the driving force of the person’s entire life, eclipsing individualism and distracting from the progression of the movie’s plot.
Cumberbatch’s Turing may be different from other people, but at the point when we meet him, he’s surprisingly comfortable in his own skin. Yes, he’s socially awkward, but he’s also brilliant, resourceful, loyal, and surprisingly courageous. And to be fair, he’s much less prickly when interacting with people who are not trying to insult or subvert him. Cumberbatch makes Turing a compelling, interesting guy, a protagonist that we can root for despite his general social awkwardness and flashes of disdainful temper.
What I love best about Cumberbatch’s work in The Imitation Game is his intensity. He’s absolutely marvelous in his “interrogation” scenes with the cop. All we see is a close-up of his face. Basically he’s just sitting there talking. Yet he brings such tremendous, compelling intensity to this moment that it’s easily the high point of the movie. Watching it, I thought, Now there’s an actor!
He’s not suffering from a degenerative disease. He’s not insane. He’s not suffering from PTSD. He’s not having a mental breakdown. He’s just sitting there looking at his interlocutor and speaking coherently. Bringing such power to quiet, “ordinary” moments like this is the mark of a great actor.
So on second thought, maybe Cumberbatch should win, after all. Though not the most obvious choice this year, he would certainly be a worthy victor.
Why He Might Not Win
Brace yourselves for disappointment, Cumberbitches, because I doubt very much this is Benedict’s year.
If the thought of him losing is too depressing for you to bear, though, I will add this bit of consolation. Cumberbatch does have a realistic shot at walking away with the Oscar. The Imitation Game seems to be genuinely well liked by most, and who in the world doesn’t love Benedict Cumberbatch at this moment? (Well, to be honest, probably the people who are sick to death of him since he’s so overexposed.)
But to win, Cumberbatch will have to go through Michael Keaton and Eddie Redmayne. One of them is a veteran star (never previously even nominated) making a career comeback (and giving lovely acceptance speeches). The other is portraying an insanely recognizable public figure gradually becoming more and more disabled because of ALS over the course of multiple decades.
(No matter how you slice it, Turing is not as difficult to play as Hawking. And some people have even suggested that Cumberbatch’s portrayal makes him seem a bit too similar to Sherlock.)
And if overcoming two terrific competitors and his own shadow isn’t daunting enough, Cumberbatch must also contend with a surprise sniper in the Best Actor ranks. He also may have shot himself in the foot recently with his well-intentioned but nevertheless offensive use of the phrase “coloured people.” (I presume he said it with the British spelling.)
The media’s determination to make a huge scandal out of an honest mistake, though, seems a bit cruel to me. I mean, in context, Cumberbatch was actually advocating for more colorblind casting in mainstream films. He was praising black actors and speaking out against racism. Yes “coloured people” is horrifically un-PC, and in 2015 every American should instinctively know not to use such an offensive, inflammatory phrase. Then again, Cumberbatch is not American. He is British, and the phrase may not be as unacceptable there. (I don’t know.) After all, you wouldn’t expect an Englishman to use the phrase “African American” to refer to his fellow Brits because that would make no sense. Don’t misunderstand, Cumberbatch definitely made a mistake, but to his credit, he owned up to it, made no excuses, and apologized immediately, a pretty classy way to handle the situation.
I do think that most people will forgive Cumberbatch for an honest (if stupid) mistake. Nevertheless, I doubt very much that Benedict Cumberbatch is going to win the Best Actor Oscar this year. There’s just too much competition to make a victory by Cumberbatch likely. (Then again, I won’t say that it couldn’t happen. He does have a better chance than Steve Carell.)
Michael Keaton
Age: 63
Film: Birdman
Role: Riggan Thomson, former has-been Hollywood action star desperately attempting to reinvent himself by producing, directing, and starring in a play that he has written on Broadway. As Riggan scrambles to prepare for the play’s opening, he must contend with difficult actors, a hostile theater critic, his frustrated girlfriend, his recovering addict daughter, and—most inconveniently of all—his alter ego Birdman, the voice of the comic action hero he once famously played, now a persistent and meddling voice inside his head. (This film is not based on real events.)
Nomination History:
This is Keaton’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
I hope Keaton does win. I see no reason not to be up front about that. He’s a great actor who has been away from starring roles for so long, and now he has this magnificent part in an unforgettable film. It really feels like his time.
What’s so great about Keaton’s performance as Riggan Thomson? Well, I mean, everything! Without Keaton’s central performance, there wouldn’t be much of a movie. Edward Norton and Emma Stone are tremendously compelling in their own right, but neither one of them is living out a story as compelling and complete as Riggan’s.
Performing scenes that are comic and tragic at the same time is a tremendously tricky business. Comedy is hard enough to pull off on its own. You must have the timing, and many people just don’t. But consider this. In Birdman, Keaton is playing a character trying to perform a drama. But he’s losing control of his own play, and much of what keeps happening all around him strikes the movie audience as comedy. So Keaton must perform a drama for the (sometimes imagined) theater audience while at the same time (and with the same dialogue) performing a comedy for us, the movie audience. And while Keaton as Riggan is giving this complicated performance, he is also filled with inner turmoil (which he must communicate to us but attempt to hide from the rest of the cast and the theater audience) and basically having an escalating mental breakdown.
That is not an easy part, and that Keaton makes it look almost effortless (sometimes even fun) is a powerful testament to his prowess as an actor.
Every scene he’s in is phenomenal. It’s impossible to single out just one. But I particularly like his impassioned rant/plea to his daughter as well as the sensational moment when he tells Norton’s character that crazy story about his childhood.
Why He Might Not Win
The biggest threat to a victory by Keaton is Eddie Redmayne’s much lauded turn as Stephen Hawking. Redmayne definitely has the edge when it comes to degree of difficulty—or at least, most people will probably assume so. And he recently won Best Actor at the SAGs which ought to make him the obvious frontrunner (except that Keaton also won a SAG with the Birdman ensemble, so that muddles things a bit).
I personally suspect that there may be something slightly easier about playing someone with a conspicuous disability. (In high school, I felt I gave my best performance as the stuttering Mary McGregor in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. The stutter gives you something to latch onto when building the character.) Portraying someone with ALS would be challenging, but what’s called for there is a kind of meticulous precision. The performance must be carefully crafted, but if you get all the physical detail correct, then much of your work is done.
Now granted, what makes Redmayne so good is that he goes beyond simply showing Hawking’s disability and somehow manages to convey the characters charm and personality to the audience, often with little more than facial twitches at his disposal.
Keaton’s performance is marvelous and (if you ask me) has just as high a degree of difficulty as Redmayne’s. (Doing justice to Riggan Thomson is not easy either.)
I do think Keaton still has a great shot at winning Best Actor. But SAG winner Redmayne is a very real threat. The Academy has a well-deserved reputation of being enamored of performances involving dramatic illness or disability. Now obviously not every cliché about the Academy’s crazy biases is true. (I mean, it’s not like they give out Oscars for playing a Nazi who never learned to read!)
Hmm.
Keaton is still a potential winner, but his position would be more secure if Redmayne were playing Isaac Newton instead of Stephen Hawking.
Eddie Redmayne
Age: 33
Film: The Theory of Everything
Role: Stephen Hawking, renowned English cosmologist, famous for his groundbreaking scientific work and his decades long battle with ALS, and less well known for being the first husband of Jane Wilde, a professor of Spanish literature, choir enthusiast, and mother of three. (This film is based on real events.)
Nomination History:
This is Redmayne’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win
Redmayne’s performance is the one excellent aspect of The Theory of Everything. (I’m aware that others feel differently, but the movie seems only average to me. It’s not a bad film, just overrated, in my opinion.)
But though the film failed to wow me, I was impressed by Redmayne’s portrayal of Hawking. In fact, he’s so good at depicting even the subtlest symptoms of ALS that for the first third of the movie, I completely forgot that the actor himself wasn’t actually suffering from ALS. There didn’t seem to be any pretense detectable in his work. I was aware that he was acting, pretending to be Stephen Hawking, and I was consciously critiquing his performance. But on some level, my brain failed to realize that the progressing disease was all just a part of the act. So I have to say that Redmayne’s depiction of ALS is extremely well done (a staggering achievement since the scenes were not filmed in chronological order).
What’s truly remarkable about Redmayne’s performance is the way he’s able to show us Hawking’s personality. In an unexpected and baffling twist, Hawking actually becomes far more charming and likable as the disease progresses. Late in the film, we’re able to see his charisma and appeal, so that when he still manages to turn someone’s head and inspire love in an advanced stage of illness, we totally get what she sees in him, and we’re not at all surprised.
If Redmayne does win the Best Actor Oscar, it will be totally deserved. His performance is excellent.
Why He Might Not Win
The biggest strike against Redmayne is Michael Keaton. The career comeback of an emotionally grateful, once beloved superstar is a powerfully compelling narrative that’s going to be pretty difficult to overcome. I know Redmayne won the SAG, but that award is given by a very different voting body. (You’ll notice that the Academy failed to nominate Jennifer Aniston.) It’s very possible that some of the Hollywood elite may have a soft spot for ol’ Mr. Mom.
Yes, Redmayne is doing wonderful work. I don’t think anybody questions that (not even me and I didn’t particularly like the film). But he’s still relatively young to win in this category, and by Hollywood standards, he’s practically a newcomer.
When it comes to Best Actor at the Academy Awards, being young does hurt. This particular Oscar usually goes to an actor who is at least middle aged and more often than not already an established star. Now, possibly it helps Redmayne that his well-received work in the Oscar nominated Les Misérables made Academy voters aware of him (if they didn’t already know him from My Week with Marilyn). Redmayne is fortunate in that the few films he has done (in this country) have gotten Oscar attention. But by Academy standards, he’s still quite the whippersnapper and not exactly the kind of guy who’s on a first name basis with everyone in Hollywood.
(In my opinion, that’s probably what hurt David Oyelowo most. Yes, he’s been in a lot of films, but he hasn’t had noticeable parts in big American movies until really recently. People just don’t know him as well. I am definitely not saying that the Academy isn’t racist—nobody sane would say that!—but in Oyelowo’s case, the fact that he’s a relative newcomer and Hollywood outsider is no small strike against him either. The Academy—like any other exclusive body—has its distinct idiosyncrasies and a fair amount of baffling prejudices. It’s hard to believe there isn’t class prejudice going on in the exclusion of Timothy Spall, for instance. They almost always shortchange Jake Gyllenhaal, and they’re biased against comedy, which has got to be why Ralph Fiennes’s brilliant performance as Gustav H. didn’t make the cut. I wish we could see the voting results, though. The thing is, if the guys who were left out came in sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, it’s hard to fault the Academy too much. There are, after all, only five slots available.)
Back to Redmayne—his youth hurts in another way, too. Because he is so young, he will no doubt have ample opportunities to win an Oscar in the future. He has already demonstrated extraordinary versatility. I’m sure he’ll only continue to grow as an actor. Keaton, on the other hand—he’s been away from the spotlight for over twenty years. What if he does that King Kong prequel and that Beetlejuice sequel and then disappears off the face of the earth again? Give it to him now while you’ve got him, Academy. That’s what I say.
So Redmayne’s youth combined with Keaton’s moving comeback story are two huge factors working against the young Brit’s Oscar win. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he manages to overcome these obstacles and walk away with the Best Actor Oscar, anyway. He would deserve it for sure. In my heart of hearts, I’m still hoping that Keaton will emerge victorious, but Redmayne is (technically) the frontrunner and even people who didn’t like The Theory of Everything (like me) can’t in good conscious argue that his fantastic performance is not deserving of the award. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens on Oscar night. I personally am pretty excited.