Timothée Chalamet
Age: 22
Film: Call Me By Your Name
Role: Elio, the teen son of academics living on a villa in Italy in the early 1980s who is continually surprised and transformed as he falls in love for the first time with Oliver, his father’s American grad student research assistant for the summer.
Nomination History: This is Chalamet’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win:
Best Actor is always an incredibly crowded category because, obviously, the most good parts every year are written for leading men. Since I knew the Academy could ultimately honor only five performances, I started early trying to guess which buzzed about leading man would get the axe.
“Maybe Timothée Chalamet will shock everyone and miss,” I conjectured, “because he is so young.”
Then I saw the performance.
Call Me By Your Name is an excellent film, and it works only because of Chalamet’s incredibly strong and captivating turn as Elio. He dominates almost every scene and carries the entire movie.
Here’s how good Chalamet is. Even though I liked co-star Armie Hammer’s performance, the character of Oliver grated on my nerves. I could never lose myself in the romance, never root for them to make it because I just think Elio deserves so much better than someone who wants to whisper his own name again and again in the dark. Even though Oliver clearly does have genuine feelings for him, he’s so much older and more experienced than Elio. The film keeps stressing that Elio is so wise beyond his years. Well yes, he’s exceptionally well educated and very clever, but he’s still a boy on the verge of becoming a man. Oliver has been a man for some time, and he’s just so much more experienced at reading people, so much more in control of his own feelings. He’s twenty-four, and he moves into Elio’s house and follows him around relentlessly, talking to him and touching him until Elio finally “makes the first move.” I don’t think Oliver’s actually a predator. I just think he’s a selfish coward, and I don’t like him. In the end, a character wisely suggests that Oliver would likely say Elio is the better man and vice versa. But I see absolutely no evidence that Oliver is even half the man Elio is. So honestly, I had trouble experiencing the film as some sublime romance because I think Elio can do a lot better. Find a guy who calls you by your own name, Elio. That’s probably the wrong way to view the movie, but that’s how I feel.
But even though the romance didn’t really work for me, I still loved the film, and that’s entirely because I felt deeply invested in Elio. Chalamet plays him so perfectly. Watching him grow up and fall deeply in love for the first time over the course of a summer is such a pleasure. Even though I didn’t fall for Oliver, I believe that Elio did, thanks to the purity and sincerity of Chalamet’s performance. And whether experienced directly or vicariously, the power of first love is so intoxicating.
The way I watch it, Call Me By Your Name is a simple story of a young man finding himself, but the whole thing is riveting because Chalamet carries the movie with his exciting mix of talent and charisma. As I watched, I felt Elio’s story was my own, which is odd because if you start listing out facts about it, we have very little in common. Lady Bird had that affect on me, too.
It’s so exciting when a new star comes on the scene (or in a peach, as the case may be). And after watching this film, his supporting performance in Lady Bird, and a bunch of clips from interviews with Chalamet, I am positive he’s going to be a big star. I mean like fellow nominees Denzel Washington, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Gary Oldman big. I mean big like Tom Hanks (who missed this year but is the epitome of a big movie star).
As himself, Chalamet has so much amazing energy, such personality! And in his work, he shows such versatility. In Lady Bird and Call Me By Your Name alone his characters are so different that it’s hard to believe they’re played by the same actor.
Obviously director Luca Guadagnino has great faith in Chalamet’s ability to hold our interest since he forces us to stare at his face for the entire duration of the credits. I think it’s a testimony to the strength of Chalamet’s performance that the audience wants to stay there with him. In my theater, not one single person left while Elio’s expressive face was still on the screen.
Why He Might Not Win:
Let’s be real. Unless eliminated by scandal (which I will discuss in a moment), Gary Oldman is going to win, and everybody knows it. As is the case with Best Actress, everyone nominated in this category deserves to win. Actually, although not nominated, Tom Hanks and the ambiguously disgraced James Franco would be deserving winners as well, though I think the five performances that did make the cut are marginally stronger.
In the event of an upset (which this year would be truly shocking), I still think Chalamet has the least chance of winning. He’s only twenty-two, and performers that young almost never win Best Actor. (Even whippersnapper Adrien Brody was at the other end of his 20s, closing in on 30 back when he won for The Pianist in 2003.)
If you ask me, Timothée Chalamet is least likely to win. If voters were to deny Oldman, why would they give it to this newcomer when they could award acting giants like Daniel Day-Lewis (who says he’s retiring…again) or Denzel Washington (who arguably is giving the best performance this year)?
Even Get Out‘s Daniel Kaluuya (the other twenty-something nominee) has a better chance of winning because he’s starring in the cool, popular movie that has something smart to say about a key social issue affecting all Americans right now.
This year, for Chalamet, the nomination is the award, but I do expect him to become a huge star in the very near future.
Daniel Day-Lewis
Age: 60
Film: Phantom Thread
Role: Reynolds Woodcock, a temperamental genius of the 1950s who from his London studio designs gowns for the world’s elite but suddenly finds himself falling in love with someone who continually challenges his rules, pushes his boundaries, [spoilers] his [spoilers], and unravels his tightly sewn universe.
Nomination History:
Won the Best Actor Oscar in 1990 for My Left Foot (1989), in 2008 for There Will Be Blood (2007), and in 2013 for Lincoln (2012).
Previously nominated for Best Actor for In the Name of the Father (1993) and Gangs of New York (2002).
Why He Should Win:
I fail to be wowed by Daniel Day-Lewis nearly as often as I fail to connect with Paul Thomas Anderson’s work, but I loved this performance and the film.
Though idiosyncratic, frustrating, and odd, Reynolds is nevertheless a consistent, believable, and often surprisingly charming character. I tend to like Day-Lewis better when he’s playing soft-spoken characters. Here he almost seems to be channeling a Rebecca-era Sir Laurence Olivier. Maybe it’s the film’s upperclass 1950s London setting. (Rebecca came out in 1940, but Olivier remained Olivier all his life.) Maybe it’s that the film is so evocative of Rebecca (and, surely, this is deliberate). Beyond making us think of Olivier, Reynolds Woodcock seems every inch a temperamental, genius high end fashion designer to London’s social elite. And yet, he’s so much more than that.
He’s so natural, so convincing in his interactions with his ever-present sister Cyril, that “old so-and-so.” Not just that oft repeated nickname, but the authentic way Day-Lewis delivers it so endeared me to the character and the film. It sounds ridiculous to say that a nickname is my favorite part of a film, but that’s the truth. Once I heard Reynolds address his older sister this way, I knew I would like the film. Every time he calls her that, he conjures up ideas of Christopher Robin naming Winnie the Pooh, or John and Michael protesting that Wendy must not leave the nursery. I feel like the nickname takes us back in time and helps us to understand the true natures of both the Woodcock siblings and their relationship.
Reynolds may at times be demanding, exacting, irrational, or in the words of love interest Alma “too picky,” but he’s also honest, fragile, and in his quiet moments, truly vulnerable. We get the sense that he isn’t difficult for the sake of causing drama. He genuinely has special needs, unresolved traumas, and amazing gifts. He requires others to make concessions to him if they desire to live and work around him, and he’s perfectly up front about all of this.
In the end, even though I could never date Reynolds Woodcock (and I would certainly never cook asparagus for him), I fell in love with him right along with Alma. He may not be a great husband (for me) (or most people) (or anyone), but he’s a fantastic character. On some level, I wish I had created him. In certain ways, I even identify with him. And when Day-Lewis is playing Reynolds, I believe that he is Reynolds. I forget all about Daniel Plainview and Bill the Butcher and Abraham Lincoln and so forth…
I think that Day-Lewis should get bonus points for making Reynolds Woodcock’s meltdowns look incredibly authentic. He reminds me of Bradley Cooper looking for that wedding video or Dustin Hoffman when he doesn’t get to watch Whapner or me when people in the room try to ask me questions while I’m on the phone. In the space of an instant, Reynolds goes straight from drawing room comedy to Wolf of Wallstreet.
This is probably my favorite performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, which is not surprising when you realize that I don’t like many of his other performances. (In an odd twist, I should perhaps mention that I’m not crazy about the way Olivier plays Maxim de Winter in Rebecca. But I guess there’s just no pleasing me, is there? Maybe like Alma always says, I’m “too picky” myself. (And she’d be up the creek with me because I don’t like her signature dish.)
Why He Might Not Win:
I hope voters don’t get hoodwinked into giving Daniel Day-Lewis a fourth Best Actor Oscar just because he says he’s retiring.
I so don’t believe him. He’ll be back, and when he does come back, that would be a better time to give him the fourth Oscar (though that would still kind of annoy me).
To be clear, though, I don’t think Daniel Day-Lewis is lying just to trick people into voting for him. I think it’s more the case that he’s a very emotional man, given to bouts of depression that he can’t see past, and that he’s retiring forever right now. The distinction there is probably not clear to him in his present mood, but it should be clear to everyone else, I hope.
Though he’s giving a lovely performance in Phantom Thread, if voters for some insane reason decide to award Day-Lewis his fourth Oscar before giving Gary Oldman his first, I will be consumed by a blinding rage, followed by a deep despair. And when you ask me why I am weeping, I will be too sad to articulate the reason for my grief. I’ll have to stop writing movie reviews and go off somewhere and make shoes, I guess.
(Please note, though, that while I do believe Day-Lewis will change his mind about retiring, I’m not condemning his moodiness. I’m bipolar myself and do believe he has to do what’s best for his health and peace of mind.)
I really don’t expect Day-Lewis to win this year. Gary Oldman looks like a lock. Then again, look how quickly James Franco and Aziz Ansari fell from grace. If scandal takes out Gary Oldman, then Day-Lewis does have a real chance to win. Otherwise, I believe the Oscar will go to Winston Churchill.
Daniel Kaluuya
Age: 28
Film: Get Out
Role: Chris Washington, a gifted young photographer who happens to be black who spends the weekend with his girlfriend who happens to be white and her family who happen to be creepy and their servants who happen to be creepier and the family’s friends who happen to be creepiest of all, and then you won’t believe what happens next.
Nomination History: This is Kaluuya’s first nomination.
Why He Should Win:
I just watched Get Out again this Saturday to show it to the rest of my family, so I’ve had the privilege and luxury of seeing Kaluuya twice now.
I always liked his performance, but I became much more impressed after watching a clip from Variety‘s actors-on-actors series of Kaluuya and Chalamet interviewing each other. At the risk of sounding stupid, I’ll confess that when I first watched Get Out (at home at night a couple of months ago) I had no idea that Kaluuya was from London. Observing his actual accent and mannerisms made me realize how much of his performance in Get Out is calculated artifice. The first time I watched, I had no idea. Everything he does as Chris looks so natural. He communicates to us exactly who the character is almost right away, seemingly effortlessly, but obviously that first impression of mine was false.
I’ve read and watched tons of interviews with both Kaluuya and writer/director Jordan Peele by now. Apparently Peele was so impressed by the way Kaluuya performed a certain key crying scene so consistently in his audition. I, too, was impressed by what I thought of as Kaluuya’s cold crying the first time I watched the film. That’s a very showy move, and not just anyone can pull it off. (Certainly, I can’t do it.) But as I watched the film a second time, I began to pick up on more of the compelling nuances of Kaluuya’s performance.
Yes, he does the amazing trance weeping, but he also does a whole lot more than that. You just don’t notice right away because he’s doing it so well that it looks natural.
If you ask me, the greatest testimony to the power of his performance is the way that he wins the total sympathy of the entire audience by the end of the film. That’s not exactly easy to do because a lot of us are white, and we’re watching a movie that continually points out our shortcomings. Quite possibly, it may hurt a few feelings. And yet Kaluuya’s performance (in conjunction with Peele’s direction and screenplay) is so powerful and compelling that by the end of the movie not only do we fully sympathize with him, but, in fact, he’s basically the only character we do identify with and care about. Unless there is something deeply wrong with you (like the kind of empathy defect that makes people serial killers), at the end of that movie, you’re screaming desperately at the screen, “Get out! Get out! Get out of there! Just kill everyone! Get out!” and you’re gasping to others watching with you, “Oh my gosh, I hope he gets out!”
It is not always easy to get even the most well meaning white person to sympathize so completely with an African American protagonist, especially if that African American protagonist is a male who becomes violent. Some people resist. Others really try (maybe a little too hard) but don’t quite get it. But Kaluuya makes us genuinely see things from Chris’s point of view if only for a short time.
Aside from the cold crying (trance weeping?), I think Kaluuya is strongest when he reacts with politeness but increasing unease to all the seemingly well meaning guests at the party.
Why He Might Not Win:
If anyone but Gary Oldman wins on Oscar night, I do believe Daniel Kaluuya may be the best (and really the only) choice.
Now hear me out.
Even though I personally loved Denzel Washington’s superb turn as Roman J. Israel, I believe that Gary Oldman will deservedly win for his once-in-a-lifetime work as Churchill. If somehow Gary Oldman does not get his first Oscar, won’t that just be unspeakably sad? Sad not just for Oldman, I mean. Sad for everyone.
Unless, of course, Kaluuya is the one who wins instead. A win for Daniel Kaluuya would be so exciting! Everyone would be shocked. Fans of Get Out would incredulously rejoice. People who aren’t really into the Oscars would be like, “Wait! I saw that movie! He was really good in it!”
It would just be super exciting and surprising in a good and positive way. (And it would make some people so mad, too. That would also be satisfying on some level.)
Now that said, I should probably also say that 1) Oldman is going to win 2) I actually believe that Kaluuya gives the least deserving performance of the actors in this category.
But like I said, they’re all deserving. I just mean that if you have to pit actors in totally different kinds of roles against each other, I’d rank them 1) Washington & Oldman 3) Day-Lewis 4) Chalamet and 5) Kaluuya, Hanks, Franco.
In my opinion, though Kaluuya is very good, Washington is simply better. (He’s honestly my favorite this year, so I’ve been using him as the control.)
Part of this is that Kaluuya’s role showcases his talent only in certain, limited ways, and I haven’t really seen much of his other work. Yes, he’s amazing at crying on command, but is that all he can do? I’d just like to see more, which I’m sure I will soon. I’m dying of excitement for Black Panther, and I recently learned he’ll be in that.
So while a Daniel Kaluuya win is something I could really cheer for, I’m basically 97 percent sure that Oldman is going to win that Oscar.
Gary Oldman
Age: 59
Film: Darkest Hour
Role: Winston Churchill as he wins the dubious honor of being made Prime Minister in May of 1940 just as Hitler and his German armies seem prepared to conquer Europe, invade England, and destroy the British way of life forever.
Nomination History:
Previously Nominated for Best Actor for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011).
Why He Should Win:
Gary Oldman chomped so many cigars for this role that he got nicotine poisoning. Take a moment to let that sink in. To become Winston Churchill, Oldman needed make-up, a fat suit, and the chameleon-like talent he has brought to every role for virtually unacknowledged decades.
After seeing the film, my nine-year-old daughter wisely observed, “I think it’s harder for Gary Oldman than for some people because he’s playing a real person. And lot’s of people know Winston Churchill.”
Lots of people know him, and some very fine actors have already played him before.
How do you take such a famous and widely known man and make him your own?
Oldman succeeds marvelously. He doesn’t just go the easy route of wearing the clothes and blustering around with the cigar. He puts everything he has into the role, revealing Churchill to us as if the character had been created just for him. We see the familiar blustery orator but also the tormented, vacillating, mumbling man with feet of clay, distrusted by many and given to depression.
I was most impressed with Oldman’s fiery bluster about the folly of negotiating with a tiger, followed moments later by a broken, haunted, defensive, distraught reaction when confronted about his past mistakes at Gallipoli.
He makes an amazing and memorable Winston Churchill, and for that he most definitely deserved his Oscar nomination.
What guarantees him the win? That’s a little more complicated. He does give an incredibly strong and moving performance. Until I saw Oldman (last), Denzel Washington’s performance was my favorite of the year. I now think of them as tied (both amazing, so different), and nobody else even comes close to their level of excellence this year.
That’s just my opinion. But here’s an opinion that so many people share that it feels like a fact. Gary Oldman has been wowing us with high profile, mind-blowing performances since the late 80s. He’s incredibly versatile, often disappearing into his roles so completely that I didn’t even know for sure what he actually looked like until he finally got his first Oscar nomination in 2012 and starting doing a little press.
And now here’s a fact. This man–the man who gave us Beethoven and Dracula and Lee Harvey Oswald and Arthur Dimmesdale and Zorg and Mason Verger and Sirius Black and Jim Gordon and the guy President Harrison Ford wanted to get off his plane and countless others–this man has never won an Oscar.
So this is his year. Barring force majeure, Gary Oldman will win Best Actor for his stirring portrayal of Winston Churchill. He’s been winning all the precursor awards. He’s going to win this one, too. And I’m going to cheer for him.
Why He Might Not Win:
At this point, the only person who can beat Gary Oldman is Gary Oldman. And it’s not impossible that he will.
Hollywood is already having strong regrets about awarding that Oscar to Casey Affleck, now mired in scandal (and then mired in scandal, too, if we’re being honest about it).
I really like Gary Oldman, so I hesitate to mention this, but I’m sure other people have and will continue to do so more persistently in the coming days. He’s got some pretty nasty skeletons in his closet that might leap out and snatch that Oscar away.
One of his ex-wives accused him of all kinds of abuse like beating her with a telephone. But then again, he accused her of making up lies and being a junkie. And drug addicts do lie, as do people going through a divorce, as do people who don’t want to be punished for beating their wives with telephones. So that’s all very murky. It pains me even to mention it. But it’s not like these things are secrets known only to me.
More problematic is that interview he gave to Playboy back in 2014. I remember reading excerpts from it all over the internet at the time and thinking, “Shhhhhh! Are you crazy?” Maybe they drugged him or beat him senseless with a telephone to get him to say these ridiculous things. (Not to make light of domestic violence. If he really did beat his ex-wife with a telephone, that’s terrible, but so are the things he said in that interview!)
I won’t repeat it all here. There’s no point. I’m sure you can find the piece online if you’re interested. Let’s just say these remarks were ill-advised at best. They made him seem 1) racist 2) crazy? 3) imprudent 4) like a fan of Mel Gibson.
That last part is forgivable enough. Mel Gibson has done some very solid work over the years. (He was surprisingly great as Hamlet!) But really, though potentially taken out of context, his remarks were kind of awful. I think ultimately what he said is more of a problem than what he might have done because usually society gets more incensed about embarrassing gaffes than about women being beaten with telephones.
Now that interview was four years ago. Ordinarily that kind of thing would blow over. But in the present climate, I could easily see these scandalous words and alleged actions of his coming back to haunt him.
At least Oldman gets along with his present wife, though. I know because he always lovingly mentions her in his sweet and charming acceptance speeches. That’s got to count in his favor.
Of course, the other slight problem is Winston Churchill himself. True he wasn’t as racist as Adolf Hitler, but that leaves a lot of wiggle room for problematic attitudes and behaviors, and the movie chooses to lionize him rather than expose and explore any of those.
Maybe none of these potential scandals will matter. I just pray that if they do, the Academy rewards the deserving Denzel Washington and not the talented-but-too-lauded Daniel Day-Lewis. Daniel Kaluuya would be an exciting alternative, too. Or Tom Hanks as a write-in vote! (Tommy Wiseau as a write-in vote? That would really be a thrill!)
Denzel Washington
Age: 63
Film: Roman J. Israel, Esq.
Role: Roman J. Israel, the savant-like assistant to highly respected defense attorney William Henry Jackson who has long championed civil rights but now lies on his deathbed leaving the brilliant but socially challenged Roman to navigate the dark and complex world of present day Los Angeles on his own.
Nomination History:
Won Best Actor Oscar in 2002 for Training Day (2001).
Won Best Supporting Actor Oscar in 1990 for Glory (1989).
Previously nominated for Best Actor for Malcolm X (1992), The Hurricane (1999), Flight (2012), and Fences (2016).
Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Cry Freedom (1987).
Previously nominated as a producer for Best Picture for Fences (2016).
Why He Should Win:
Candidly, I think that Denzel Washington is giving the best performance by a lead actor this year. Well, I mean, maybe he’s tied with Gary Oldman. The two performances are so different that it’s difficult for me to judge. But until I saw Oldman (right at the end), Washington’s superb turn as Roman J. Israel was the yardstick I was using to measure all the other likely lead actor nominees.
Actually, every time somebody suggests that this wacky nomination came out of the blue or assumes that Washington only sneaked into this category because of James Franco’s trouble using protective sheaths properly, I want to scream. These suggestions just infuriate me.
To everyone saying that Washington’s inclusion in the category is some kind of freak accident–have you seen his performance?
I always assume that the people generating that kind of annoying chatter haven’t seen his performance because the instant I actually watched Roman J. Israel, I knew for sure that Washington was getting nominated. I never once wavered. When Oscar nominations were announced, and Washington’s name was read, I exclaimed to my husband, “I knew it!” You don’t need a crystal ball. You just need to watch Roman J. Israel, Esq.
To everyone who says that Washington is in because scandal forced Franco out–are you sure? What if we think of it this way instead? SAG voters hadn’t seen Phantom Thread. Once they did, they obviously wanted to nominate Daniel Day-Lewis. Who does the Academy seem more likely to nominate, James Franco or the only man with three Best Actor Oscars who has just announced that this will be his final film? Maybe Washington was never on the chopping block. If voters were just trying to replace Franco, Hanks could have taken his place just as easily, and The Post is way more high profile than Roman J. Israel, Esq.
Anyway.
Sorry for that rant. Obviously I’m not privy to the true secrets of the nomination process, but it’s just a pet peeve of mine when people start blathering about “crazy nominations out of left field” when they haven’t actually seen the performances or films they’re running off at the mouth about.
What makes Washington so great as Israel? It’s kind of like the reverse of one of Oldman’s strengths. Everyone knows Winston Churchill. And Adolf Hitler. Nobody wanted to see a swastika flying over Buckingham Palace (except Nazis). When you play Churchill, you tap into all this cultural currency or historical heft or patriotic fervor or whatever you want to call it. When you play Roman J. Israel, everybody says, “Who?” If they’re really on their toes, you might get a, “What’s with the name? Is this an allegory?” But the point is, Washington has to make captivating a lead character that no one cares about, that no one has even heard of.
And then what happens? Not much. In Churchill’s story, he rallies the British to save their country from the Nazis. Meanwhile, Roman J. Israel has a crisis of conscience and makes a personal discovery.
Basically, we get two hours of an awkward (perhaps autistic) lawyer facing poverty and obscurity, tempted by the world, the flesh, and the devil, and making some tricky decisions. Not every great man is famous, but it’s up to Washington to convince us that Roman’s quiet little story is worth our notice.
Roman J. Israel, Esq. is an intense character study. There’s not a lot of action, and most of what happens is an interior struggle within Roman. It is exciting only because Washington makes it riveting with the strength of his amazing performance.
In one scene, Roman and Carmen Ejogo’s character encounter a homeless man who appears to be dead. This may be the most amazing moment I saw in any movie in 2017.
Washington is brilliant in this role. It’s his best work in years, maybe even his best performance ever. (I know that sounds crazy, but I’m not kidding. It’s really good!) I don’t expect Washington to win the Oscar because of Oldman’s momentum, but that nomination certainly wasn’t some random fluke. He’s a powerhouse.
Why He Might Not Win:
As I’ve said for times in a row now, I’m pretty positive that Gary Oldman is winning. If he doesn’t win, I’ll be so sad for him. Even if he doesn’t win because he gets accused of being a wife beating racist, I’ll still be sad for him. He’s a great actor, and giving interviews is tricky. Words can get twisted so easily. Oldman has had such an amazing career and so little recognition up to this point. Truly, Gary Oldman deserves the Oscar.
But if Oldman doesn’t win–and well-timed character assassination seems like the only way he could lose at this point–then Denzel Washington winning would be a just outcome because he’s giving the best performance of the year.
Even if no scandal unseats Oldman, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that Washington could beat him. Yes, the movie isn’t all that buzzy, but Denzel Washington is very popular. (Of course, popularity hasn’t helped Tom Hanks much lately.) Many people think Washington should have won last year for Fences, and I do think it would be criminally unjust to give Day-Lewis a fourth Oscar before awarding Washington his third.
Oldman’s probably winning, though. It seems like a pretty sure thing.