Maria Bakalova
Age: 24
Film: Borat Subsequent Moviefilm
Role: Tutar Sagdiyev, daughter of the (in)famous Borat, who travels with him to America where he hopes to give her as a gift to Mike Pence but keeps running into obstacles as Covid-19 presents novel challenges to his schemes.
Nomination History:
This is Bakalova’s first nomination.
Why She Could Win:
As Sacha Baron Cohen keeps stressing, Maria Bakalova had to nail most of her scenes on the first take because she was interacting with real people who often did not realize they were being had. (I say “often” because I have to believe that some of them must have realized and gone along with it, anyway.) One of these real people was Rudy Giuliani, and apparently Baron Cohen had to interrupt their interview because Bakalova was on the verge of being had herself. In case you somehow missed the endless media coverage of this event back when the movie released, Giuliani appeared to be preparing to have sex with Bakalova (whom he believed to be a reporter) before Baron Cohen jumped in and intervened. As you might expect, Giuliani denies this, but Baron Cohen says the footage speaks for itself. (I wouldn’t say the movie offers any evidence of criminal misconduct on Giuliani’s part. Bakalova touches him on the thigh in an awfully flirtatious way. It’s not like he just jumps on her and forces her into bed. But the movie does succeed in making a man who prides himself on his brilliant mind look incredibly stupid, far too easily fooled for someone in his position. My question is, how did this footage end up in the finished film without a lawsuit? Giuliani must have signed some kind of release when he agreed to do the interview. He should have read the fine print more carefully. You’d think that the president’s lawyer would know to take such precautions.)
I mention this Giuliani scene in such detail because I’m nearly one-hundred percent sure that’s what got Bakalova this Oscar nomination. Certainly it’s what generated the most publicity (and good will) for the movie. Baron Cohen made a film that showed the right thing at the perfect moment, then released it at a time when nothing much else was out. Bakalova is the breakout star, her character Tutar the most sympathetic (and scene stealing) presence.
Plus, though this isn’t typically what people think of when they hear “Oscar caliber performance,” Baron Cohen makes a good point. Having only one take to get a scene right takes skill and talent. In that way, performing in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm was more like doing theater, with the added challenge that the other actors are all ad-libbing, forcing you to ad-lib as well. And the Bulgarian Bakalova isn’t even performing in her first language, adding to the challenge of thinking up quick replies. Amusingly, when Borat and Tutar talk together in their own language, he’s speaking Hebrew, while she’s speaking Bulgarian. It’s a great joke on the audience since the average English speaker’s ear likely can’t tell the difference. But it creates an added challenge for the actors who are essentially creating a scene without using a common language. (It’s sort of like playing that ABC game in drama class where you create an entire scene together by reciting the alphabet instead of saying words.) Granted, Bakalova and Baron Cohen did have opportunities to rehearse the moments where only the two of them are in conversation together, but that doesn’t diminish the difficulty of having a conversation with someone speaking an entirely different language.
Bakalova does some brilliant improv in this film. And she plays a character who is easy to embrace. That works in her favor, too. Though I like Baron Cohen’s work in general and agree with him about a number of things (probably most things) (possibly everything), I’ve never been a fan of Borat. I find the project of coaxing out the worst in people in order to expose them to public ridicule distasteful and unpleasant to watch. To repay hospitality with treachery, then laugh about it seems not only wrong but much less interesting cinematically than to intend to do such a thing but then become conflicted. (Think of all the great movies where people agree to infiltrate someone’s inner circle as a spy but then begin to feel a connection to the person, like Judas and the Black Messiah just this year.)
Bakalova elevates this film because she is allowed to seem broadly sympathetic and likeable and even to reveal the goodness in at least one person, babysitter Jeanise Jones. So audiences get the pleasure of being able to agree with the points made by Baron Cohen’s cruel comedy while at the same time focusing on Bakalova’s beauty and sweetness and light. It’s not surprising that she’s the breakout star of the film.
Why She Might Not Win:
Do you know how often the Academy recognizes performers for their brilliant improv skills in comedies? Hardly ever. I have no idea why the Academy gives comedians so little acclaim because I personally think comedy is a lot harder to pull off than drama. (The actors can be mediocre in a drama without ruining the whole thing, but if comedy doesn’t work, if it isn’t funny, then it becomes painful and exasperating to watch.)
My point, though, is that even though Maria Bakalova does indeed have brilliant improv skills, she isn’t being recognized for those. She’s being recognized for giving the world an opportunity to laugh at Rudy Giuliani. No matter what anyone says, the issue is not that he planned to have sex with her. (It’s not a crime to consider sex with a flirtatious woman.) The real reason this moment made such a splash is that it makes Giuliani look like such a fool. He was the president’s lawyer, supposed to have a brilliant legal mind, and yet not only does Baron Cohen manage to pull the wool over his eyes (figuratively), he brings him right to the brink of exposing himself on camera (literally). And I have to think that they couldn’t use this footage unless Giuliani had signed some sort of release form at the start of the “interview,” a major lapse in judgment on his part (or a mistake by someone who worked for him).
So, with no offense meant to Bakalova, a huge reason for her nomination is that she helped make a fool out of Donald Trump’s lawyer. If Trump were still president, I think Bakalova would have a much better chance of winning the Oscar. Politically motivated voters would want to keep Bakalova in the spotlight because that would mean keeping Giuliani’s mistake in the spotlight, too.
A further point against her is that Minari’s Yuh-jung Youn just won the SAG, the first industry indicator we have had about the possible Oscar winner in this category. If Youn won the SAG, why not the Oscar, as well? Who would challenge her? Not Jodie Foster who won the Golden Globe. She’s not nominated. Bakalova did win the Critics Choice Award, but the Critics’ choice is no indicator of the Academy’s opinion.
That said, Bakalova still does have a decent chance of winning this Oscar. All of the best parts of Borat Subsequent Moviefilm focus on her (except for that one wonderful conversation with Holocaust survivor Judith Dim Evans). From the movie’s most brazenly obscene, offensive moments (such as the father/daughter dance) to its funniest/most chilling bit (the scene with the doctor), to the most successful infiltration (that ladies’ group meeting), to the one instance of genuinely heart-warming material (when she exposes the goodness in real-life babysitter Jeanise Jones), Bakalova’s Tutar is front and center, stealing scene after scene.
As I mentioned, Bakalova did win the Critics Choice Award. She has a real shot at winning the Oscar, too.
Glenn Close
Age: 74
Film: Hillbilly Elegy
Role: Mamaw, the grandmother who tries to atone for past failings by sacrificing everything she has to make sure that her grandson J.D. has a brighter future than his troubled mother.
Nomination History:
Previously nominated for Best Actress for The Wife (2018), Albert Nobbs (2011), Dangerous Liaisons (1988), Fatal Attraction (1987).
Previously nominated for Best Supporting Actress for The Natural (1984), The Big Chill (1983), The World According to Garp (1982).
Why She Could Win:
No matter how you feel about Hillbilly Elegy, Glenn Close’s performance is good. I’ve heard frequent complaints that she is hamming it up, chewing scenery. People say she’s over-the-top, that nobody is really like that. I’ll concede that Close may be hamming it up a bit, yes, but there are people like that. I promise you there are. I know them myself. My husband said the same thing. And so did my father who grew up in the Missouri Ozarks. If you insist that people like Close’s character don’t exist in real life, then I contend that you haven’t met the right people. (Now whether such people actually live in Ohio and Kentucky, I can’t say, but a hunch tells me they live everywhere. I’m no expert on Appalachia, and if author J.D. Vance is, in fact, misrepresenting culture there, then I can understand the outrage and resentment. But I’ve personally known people eerily similar to Close’s character in Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, and Tennessee. Boy do they ever exist! Vance’s sociological theories may be misguided (and even perhaps harmful), but that doesn’t mean that people like his Mamaw, as he and Close present her, are figments of his imagination.
Close disappears into this character and brings her to life for us. When we see home videos of Vance’s actual grandmother at the end of the film, we realize how much Glenn Close’s Mamaw looks like the real woman. Some of that, of course, is cosmetic, but Close herself provides the energy that makes the transformation work.
I don’t care if she did get nominated for a Razzie for the same performance. (Her fellow actors obviously don’t care, either, or, more likely, they do care and have nominated her to make up for the unfair cruelty of some critics.) I like Close better here than in her recent Oscar-nominated turn in The Wife. In fact, compare her work in The Wife and Albert Nobbs to what she does here. You would never even believe that it’s even the same actress. That’s actually what I like the most about Close’s performance in this film. She doesn’t appear to be saying, “Hello, I’m Glenn Close. Please for the love of God, give me an Oscar.” She’s just serving the story here, letting Mamaw emerge, bringing her to life. (I know a lot of people say just the opposite, but I found the film Hillbilly Elegy a legitimately engrossing and moving human drama and so did my husband, father, and daughter. In fact, after watching it again recently, I like it even more than I did the first time. If pressed, I can find many points to criticize, but Close’s performance is not one of them.)
When this film premiered, critics kept bashing Close and her co-star Amy Adams left and right, accusing them of trying too hard to win an Oscar. That irritates me. How, I ask you, does anyone win an Oscar (or accomplish anything) without trying? Close has given excellent performances for decades. That no one has rewarded her with an Oscar before now is not her fault and is, in fact, completely out of her control. Why criticize her for wanting to be honored with the highest award in her profession and working toward that goal? Plus she has always sought out challenging material and atypical characters. She likes to tell stories that would otherwise go untold. She’s done that her entire career. Perhaps the driving force behind this “Glenn Close must win an Oscar” trend recently isn’t even Glenn Close. How is she doing anything different than what she has always done? I wouldn’t blame her for finally wanting an Oscar already at age seventy-four, but I don’t believe anyone obsessed solely with the idea of winning awards would make a film like Albert Nobbs. And she didn’t accept that part on a whim. She developed the material. (I’ll confess I feel a bit defensive on her behalf. I’m not a fan exactly. I simply think that Close does deserve an Oscar for her body of work, and after reading a good bit about her over the past several years, I don’t come away with the idea that winning awards is her primary motivation for the work she does. This “trying too hard” business makes me imagine Nelson Muntz on The Simpsons saying, “Ha ha! You tried!” There’s something so mean-spirited about describing someone’s work that way.)
Now I get why people don’t like J. D. Vance. And I understand why if you hate Vance and his take on poverty and social betterment, you wouldn’t want to see a movie based on his life story rewarded with an Oscar. But Vance isn’t the one nominated for this Oscar. The person nominated is Glenn Close. And it seems wrong to punish her for giving a good performance. Whatever your thoughts on Vance, there is nothing wrong with Mamaw’s character arc in this film. She tries to overcome mistakes and adversities in her past and make up for her personal failings by being a better grandmother than a mother. By working to “save” J.D., she redeems herself in her own eyes. (She becomes in her own words “a good terminator,” sort of like Arnold’s Terminator, who started out the villain, remember, but became a hero by the time he starred in Mamaw’s favorite sequel.) That’s a solid character arc, and in scene after scene, Close gives us compelling reasons to care about Mamaw and what happens to her. (Does she need redemption for her errant past if her so-called “mistakes” were really misfortunes entirely out of her control? That’s a good question, but not one Mamaw is asking. Perhaps her worldview is imperfect, but she’s not starting up a new religion. She’s just a person, flawed like everyone else, and Close is revealing her to us.)
I maintain that Close’s performance here is actually better than her work in The Wife. The Razzie nomination for the same performance is not really for her. It’s for controversial author J.D. Vance.
Why She Might Not Win:
It’s getting a little bit ridiculous that Glenn Close doesn’t have an Oscar yet. Just give her the Oscar. That’s what I think. This is her eighth nomination! She’s nominated alongside three first-time nominees and one previous winner! Just let her have this win. A loss won’t mean to any of the others what it will mean to her. (And keep in mind that people who make movies vote for these awards. They may think along these lines. SAG-AFTRA might have voted for Yuh-jung Youn, but Academy membership is a bit more selective, and Academy members may be sympathetic to Close at this point in her career.)
She should have won an Oscar a long time ago. She should have won for Fatal Attraction. I saw that film as a child. It terrified me. After we saw it, my mother declared that if she had realized what the movie was like, she wouldn’t have let me watch. Too late! I was nine when we rented the video. It left an impression. Later, when I became obsessed with abnormal psychology in middle school, I read up on borderline personality disorder and revisited Close’s performance as Alex Forrest, revising my opinion of the character and the actress. Although I wouldn’t want to take the Oscar from Cher because like the guy in those old commercials, “I love Moonstruck,” Close really should have won then.
And she might win now. I think her stiffest competition will be Yuh-jung Youn, the grandma from Minari. In fact, Youn’s SAG win makes her the front runner for the moment and the most likely winner. But I still think there’s a case to be made for Close. Would the Academy really let her win for such an “awful” movie? Well, they might not see it as such a disgrace as critics do. It was, after all, directed by Ron Howard. No matter what critics think today, a win for this film won’t look nearly so embarrassing years from now on some list. Glenn Close won her first Oscar co-starring with Amy Adams in a Ron Howard film. And?
To be frank, I don’t think anyone knows for sure who will win Best Supporting Actress this year, so it might as well be Glenn Close.
Olivia Colman
Age: 47
Film: The Father
Role: Anne, the longsuffering daughter of Anthony, a man no longer able to live independently because of his worsening dementia.
Nomination History:
Won Best Actress Oscar in 2019 for The Favorite (2018).
Why She Could Win:
For me, empathizing with Colman’s character in this film was effortless. Superficially, Anne and I have a lot in common. We’re both women in our forties, living with our aging fathers. (The difference, of course, is that my father is in full possession of his faculties and in no way a burden. But I do worry over him because my mother just died.) Colman reminded me, too, of my mother when she was in her early fifties, struggling emotionally to provide my grandma with the round-the-clock care that she needed as her mental and physical health deteriorated with alarming rapidity.
I love the performance and the film. Colman provides the perfect counterpart to Hopkins. I like her non-verbal acting the best, her facial expressions. In the scene when Anthony meets his new carer for the first time, Hopkins dominates with charismatic delivery of spellbinding dialogue, but Colman enhances the scene with her reactions to what he says. She lets us see just how much his cruelty hurts her. We see also her shame, as well as her frustration at being shamed when she knows that she is actually doing the right thing. We see her exhaustion, her disappointment, her love.
Because The Father invites us to experience dementia from the patient’s point of view, Colman is often our only tether to reality (just as she is the only constant for Anthony). We can’t be sure of what her father perceives, but we ourselves can perceive the truths written on Colman’s face. By watching her, we can understand what is really going on. We can learn things about Anthony’s story that he himself doesn’t realize or no longer remembers.
Anyone who has taken care of an elderly relative (or even a younger person struggling with mental illness) can immediately understand exactly what Colman’s character is going through. So often, the actress doesn’t even have to say anything. We can see her pain (and her love for her father) written plainly on her face.
Why She Might Not Win:
If Olivia Colman wins this Oscar, the Academy might as well hire someone to come along with a bow and arrow and pierce Glenn Close right through the heart, then get an extreme close-up of her face while she’s forced to clap and smile politely.
Olivia Colman is a marvelous actress, and by all reports a swell human being. She sounds awesome. I wish I knew her. All her co-stars rave about how funny, personable, warm, and down-to-earth she is. In addition to winning all kinds of awards and accolades for her marvelous acting, she’s happily married with three children, and by all appearances is having a wonderful life. So I mean, there appears to be no urgent reason to vote for her. (She’s not, you know, actively dead or chronically snubbed.) She’s also not giving the finest performance of her entire career. Don’t get me wrong. She’s great here, but she was more conspicuously excellent in her Oscar winning supporting turn in The Favourite for which she won Best Actress back in 2019, thereby crushing Glenn Close’s hopes to win an Oscar at long last (and totally accidentally, by the way. I remember that moment well. Close broke into a glazed-eyed, trance-like, well-rehearsed smile, and Colman seemed alarmed. I actually felt sorrier for Colman who certainly hadn’t intended (or expected) to crush all of Close’s hopes and dreams by winning, an event that was totally out of her control).
Also wouldn’t it seem unjust if Colman won an Oscar for playing Anne while her co-star Anthony Hopkins gave one of the most brilliant and demanding performances of his entire illustrious career and was not similarly rewarded? How can Colman win when Hopkins can’t (because he’s nominated alongside Chadwick Boseman)?
Nevertheless, this category feels way more up for grabs than the others, even with Youn’s SAG victory. Colman certainly could win. The Academy clearly liked The Father a lot. It’s nominated all over the place, an unusually strong showing for a film about an elderly person with dementia. Colman would be deserving of a win based on the strength of her performance, so it’s not outside the realm of possibility.
Smart money is on Youn, though. Of course, Close or Bakalova might swoop in to take the win. I have a much harder time imagining Colman swooping in this year. In fact, although Amanda Seyfried wasn’t nominated at the SAG, I’d guess that even she has a better chance of winning this year than Olivia Colman, for reasons I will explain in a minute.
That said, back in 2019 when Colman was nominated for The Favourite (my favorite Oscar film that year), I didn’t like her chances at all. Lady Gaga (another favorite of mine) had more star power, and Glenn Close had an Oscar coming to her. But then Colman won, and though I was surprised, I couldn’t deny that she deserved it. Hers was the strongest performance nominated in the category (though she wasn’t actually the lead actress). The point is, Colman surprised me by winning in 2019, so she could easily surprise me by winning in 2021, too.
Amanda Seyfried
Age: 35
Film: Mank
Role: Marion Davies, the mistress of publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst who has used his wealth and influence to make her a big star at Metro Goldwyn Mayer. Davies enjoys chatting with the always witty screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz and introduces him to the glamorous life she shares with Hearst at their castle in San Simeon, California. Later, a dramatic falling out with Hearst leads Mankiewicz to write all about him in Citizen Kane.
Nomination History:
This is Seyfried’s first nomination.
Why She Could Win:
I just re-watched Mank, and there’s no denying that Seyfried’s performance is a highlight. I’ve liked Seyfried ever since her breasts could predict the weather (although, embarrassingly, I’ve been pronouncing her name wrong all this time, saying Say-freed instead of Sigh-fred). I’m thrilled to see her get her first Oscar nomination. For some reason, no one seems to have considered her as that type of actress before. I don’t quite understand why. Her performances in Les Misérables and First Reformed alone should have been a clear signal that she takes her craft quite seriously.
Davies is a crucial character in Mank. Without her, it seems unlikely that Herman Mankiewicz would have been hanging around San Simeon with William Randolph Hearst in the first place. Mank is not drawn to wealth and splendor. (At least, he tells himself that he isn’t.) He is drawn to someone who genuinely appreciates him and his wise disdain for everyone he knows. He’s drawn to Marion because he senses like-mindedness in her. Like him, she’s managed to find a place mingling with the Hollywood elite. But (also like him) she’s actually better (and worse) than those other people. Something inside Marion makes her very special, and she hides it, letting it slip out in just small enough doses to keep people coming back for more and more.
I’ve never known anything about Marion Davies, but Seyfried makes her utterly fascinating. Her big eyes help sell the character, but it’s the intelligence (and the sorrow) shining behind her eyes that make the performance exceptional. Seyfried plays Marion as a person who makes those around her feel special. But sometimes she forgets. Sometimes she says “stupid” things (i.e. makes observations that are actually too wise and salient to keep the party going smoothly).
Marion and Mank like talking together, walking together, drinking together (especially drinking together). Both seem to recognize the sadness inherent in the illusion of splendor. But Marion knows how to recover from the social blunder of occasionally telling the truth too loudly, whereas Mank just can’t keep his mouth shut. I love the moment when he charges drunk into a dinner party and says far more than he should. Seyfried shows us that Marion recognizes her friend’s self-sabotaging blunder and perhaps feels the gravity of his social suicide more fully than the others gathered at the table (who see him merely as an idiotic, blustering drunk). The looks on her face speak volumes.
Seyfried also gets to deliver some deliciously witty lines throughout the film. She manages to seem simultaneously vivacious and exhausted by the pretense. I only wish she were in the movie more.
Why She Might Not Win:
Nobody seems all that excited about Mank, and Seyfried was not even nominated at the SAG awards. This does not convince me that she couldn’t sneak in and win the Oscar, though. I’ve been watching the Oscars a long time. The Academy loves awarding Best Supporting Actress to a young, attractive ingenue type. Now granted, Seyfried is thirty-five, but she looks younger, and in all of her most famous roles (before this one), she plays someone conspicuously young. And, obviously, she’s beautiful (and blonde. That doesn’t hurt). Seyfried is the type of actress that the Academy especially likes to reward in this category. For that reason, I think that writing her off would be a mistake.
Plus, rewarding Seyfried would be a way to honor Mank (which received more nominations this year than any other film but seems unlikely to win any of them).
Unfortunately for Seyfried, Maria Bakalova is an even younger beautiful blonde and giving the Oscar to Yuh-jung Youn would be a way to honor Minari (which can’t win Foreign Film because it was made in America). So a win for her doesn’t seem too likely. I’m simply saying that I can see a glimmer of hope.
To be blunt, though, a first nomination is a win enough for Seyfried, who should now be taken more seriously as an actress. That the Academy now sees her in this light is a big, big win in and of itself.
That said, I love Amanda Seyfried, and I’d be thrilled to see her win.
Yuh-jung Youn
Age: 73
Film: Minari
Role: Soonja, the maternal grandmother of David and Anne, the mother of Monica, and the mother-in-law of Jacob, who comes from Korea to live with her family on their new farm in Arkansas. Soonja’s not like the other grandmas. She loves to gamble and drink Mountain Dew. At first, young David has trouble getting along with her, but then, as time passes, the two form a very special bond. Then something awful happens. Notably, Soonja is also the character who introduces minari to the story, planting the crop and teaching David all about it.
Nomination History:
This is Youn’s first nomination.
Why She Could Win:
I have a hard time believing that Youn won’t win the Oscar. I’ve thought so from the day nominations were read, and the fact that she just won the SAG gives me an actual, tangible bit of evidence to back up my gut feeling. Minari is such a beautiful film. Surely the Academy will want to find a way to honor it. And together, Youn’s grandma character and her grandson David (played by the adorable Alan S. Kim) bring us some of the tenderest, funniest, most moving, and most captivating parts of the story. Without them, Minari would literally have no minari! (In case you’re wondering, it’s a variety of water celery that Grandma Soonja brings with her from Korea to plant near the creek where it can grow wild.)
After watching Youn’s touching, tearful SAG acceptance speech and reading every article about her that I can find, I must say that Minari officially has the most charming cast on Earth. They react to their wins with elation, gratitude, and surprise that reads as one-hundred percent genuine. In real life, Youn exudes a beautiful radiance that’s such a joy to behold. If her SAG acceptance speech was an audition for further wins (as conventional wisdom maintains), I’d be stunned if an Oscar win doesn’t follow. No one would ever regret giving an award to such a gracious recipient.
And her performance itself is certainly deserving, especially because it allows her to display such range. Initially, Youn’s challenge is to reveal Soonja to us and make us love her by lending her own spark to the character written by Lee Isaac Chung (based on his own grandmother). Then she must develop chemistry with David to share with us the developing relationship between the two characters. All of this takes a certain grace and charm. We’re drawn to Soonja largely because of her eccentricities. Youn makes her quite a character. But at the same time, she’s not such a character that she doesn’t feel like a real woman. Near the end of the film, however, Youn suddenly faces an entirely different challenges as the character she is playing undergoes a drastic change. Because of this, Youn seems to give two performances in one, and she excels at both.
Probably my favorite moment from her is the aftermath of David’s Mountain Dew trick. We see how much she cares for the child here. Their dynamic feels quite real as does her shifting reacting to the prank he has played in light of changing circumstances.
Why She Might Not Win:
In a perfect world, Yuh-jung Youn and Glenn Close would tie, sharing the Oscar win. They’re playing very similar characters, after all, outside-the-box grandmothers that win at cards and have a special bond with and huge influence on their grandsons. The big difference is that most of us here in America have never seen Yuh-jung Youn act before. For all we know, she’s just playing herself in this movie. We know that Close is not doing that. A case could be made that we haven’t seen enough of Youn’s other work to know if she’s doing something special here or not.
Then again, Youn could be the most versatile actress on the face of the earth. I don’t know. Plus, this performance is good, and the Oscar should be given on the basis of the strength of the performance, right? (But for Pete’s sake, what does Glenn Close have to do? She should make a movie about herself losing repeatedly at the Oscars and round up all the actresses who have beaten her to star in it with her. That sounds good, right? She probably still wouldn’t win an Oscar, but what a cast!)
Honestly, Youn probably has the edge over Close here because she’s seen as presenting something authentic, while we all know Glenn Close is quite different from Mamaw to the point that some believe the performance is hammy and contrived.
Deep down, I began writing this piece unable to shake the feeling that Youn or Close (or perhaps Youn and Close) would win this Oscar. Now that Youn has won the SAG, she is more the more likely of the two to emerge victorious. I’ll be happy for her if she does win because Minari is an excellent film, my second favorite of 2020.
But to be honest with you, anything could happen in Best Supporting Actress this year, and I would be perfectly satisfied with any winner. They’re all very good.