- Share via
Does the best performance ever win the Oscar? Sometimes. Let’s not be too cynical. But even the most detached fan knows that getting to the podium requires a narrative, a story behind the story. So-and-so Worked So Hard. It was a Total Transformation. This was a Life that Needed to Be Told.
And then, one of the oldest narratives: They Were Due. After so many nominations and brilliant performances, how could they not have won yet? But does that logic hold water? Columnist Glenn Whipp and film editor Joshua Rothkopf sat down to discuss the substance of “dueness.” Does it work? Is it fair? And how is it playing out this year?
Joshua Rothkopf: I must admit that, for me, the concept of “due” took hold early, during the mid-to-late ’80s and early ’90s, when it was a good time to be a revered performer who had never quite gone all the way: Paul Newman, Geraldine Page, Al Pacino — the latter, especially. His momentum grew inexorably, inevitably, even as that “hoo-ah” became a joke almost immediately after “Scent of a Woman” was released. But how could the star of the “Godfather” movies, “Serpico” and “Dog Day Afternoon” remain unrewarded? I think I prefer every other actor he was nominated against: Denzel Washington for “Malcolm X,” Stephen Rea for “The Crying Game,” Robert Downey Jr. for “Chaplin” and Clint Eastwood, doing a majestic inversion of his own iconography in “Unforgiven.”
At root, I think there’s something unfair about an actor winning for being due. It turns the achievement into more of a career nod and there are honorary awards for that. It steals focus from the confident work of preternaturally talented younger nominees who suddenly have to “wait their turn.” (As if there’s any justice in that? Ask Glenn Close.) And it implies that an Oscar is something that an actor of a certain status inevitably should have, which I think is simply wrong. Glenn, has there ever been a case, historically speaking, in which you can justify an actor being due? Or is this just part of how the game is played?
Glenn Whipp: Forget it, Josh — it’s the Oscars. Ideally, actors would win for their signature roles: Pacino for Michael Corleone, Jeff Bridges for the Dude (or el Duderino, if you’re not into the whole brevity thing) or Elizabeth Taylor for Maggie in “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.” But Oscar voters are rarely prescient enough to see what’s in front of their faces, or they’re distracted by another performance from an actor who’s “due” or has a sentimental narrative, such as when Art Carney won for the sweet “Harry and Tonto,” beating both Pacino (“The Godfather Part II”) and Jack Nicholson (“Chinatown”).
Occasionally the stars align and an actor perceived as due also wins for giving the year’s best performance — or at least one that’s in the ballpark. There’s half a dozen Leonardo DiCaprio movies I’d watch before “The Revenant,” but his primal, immersive turn as a frontiersman in that movie deserved the Oscar, even if much of the narrative surrounding his work revolved around him eating raw bison liver and almost freezing to death. And, yes, Washington should have won for “Malcolm X,” but that first lead actor Oscar for “Training Day” still looks pretty good. I voted for him.
What I’d ask you, Josh, is: Do you really want to live in a world where Pacino doesn’t have an Oscar? Say the academy gave that “Scent of a Woman” prize to another actor. You’d be OK with an untelevised career achievement for him? A pat on the back because two wrongs don’t make a right?
Rothkopf: Ah, see? You clearly come from the “Don’t ever take sides against the family” school, whereas I come from the “It’s not personal, it’s strictly business” one. We should always stick to the movie in question. Meanwhile, what kind of a cosmic wrong was created when, every time we think about “Scent of a Woman,” we groan? The irony is that Pacino did several worthier turns after his Oscar win: “The Insider,” “Donnie Brasco,” even “Glengarry Glen Ross” from the same year, 1992, is better: the definitive Ricky Roma.
Does it bother me that Saoirse Ronan doesn’t have an Oscar? Yes. But I’m not her agent. I know she’ll always get work. She should have won for “Brooklyn,” “Lady Bird,” “Little Women,” all three of them, epochal. But I worry more that she’ll win for something less astounding. And Ronan continues to do amazing work, as proven in this year’s “The Outrun.” Also, ridiculously, she’s only 30.
That’s another thing: The “due” argument is ageist in reverse. When Pacino won for “Scent,” he was a tad over 50. The prime of life! Isn’t that premature for a pat on the back? This really gets at the heart of what we’re talking about, as of last weekend’s SAGs and the surging Timothée Chalamet. He’s been dogged by the notion that he’s somehow too young for the big enchilada. Never mind that he’s carried two “Dune” films, adding unusual depth to a messiah role that could have been a disaster. Add in “Call Me by Your Name” and his shattering turn in “Beautiful Boy” and I say Chalamet is due, in a weird way. He’s that good. What did you think of his speech at the SAGs, calling out to the “greats,” hoping to earn a spot with them? I think that’s what the Oscars should be: electric.
Whipp: Electric? Like the standing ovation that grew like a wave when Pacino took the stage for winning his Oscar? “You broke my streak,” he joked, before ending his speech with a beautiful note of gratitude. Maybe it feels like I’m being a contrarian because, as a critic, when I’m voting on awards, I adhere to the “strictly business” stance that you champion, Josh. But these are the Oscars, possessing a near-100-year tradition of “cosmic wrongs,” from Mary Pickford winning, in just the show’s second year, for her connections (definitely not her over-the-top work in “Coquette”) to Brendan Fraser prevailing for the shameful, exploitative “The Whale.”
I love Chalamet, but can’t fully get behind him winning because “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story” ruined me for music biopics. He should have won the Oscar for “Call Me by Your Name,” but lost to the great Gary Oldman, who had the advantages of playing Churchill and being, yes, “due.” Chalamet could win this year or the Oscar could go to previous winner Adrien Brody (“The Pianist”), not due in any sense for “The Brutalist.” What’s curious about the category is how little traction Ralph Fiennes received. He’s sensational in “Conclave,” conveying both spiritual doubt and turmoil and, on lighter notes, leaning into the movie’s campy fun. This is only his third nomination, marking Fiennes as criminally overlooked.
But Fiennes needed a platform to make his case, which is what Demi Moore did when she won the Golden Globe for “The Substance.” In her speech, Moore recalled a producer telling her that she was a “popcorn actress” and how she bought into that idea, narrowing her belief in what she could do. Then she got “The Substance,” and, as she put it, “the universe told me that ‘you’re not done.’ ” No one is making the case that Moore is due — except for that voter who told me she should have won for “Ghost” — but her narrative of perseverance has resonated with many in this town. That and a career-best performance that was raw, honest and vulnerable could win her an Oscar.
Rothkopf: One day, Fiennes will unleash another dazzling “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” another “A Bigger Splash,” and I hope AMPAS, in all its questionable wisdom, will honor him for his Sturges-worthy speed and humor, which are unparalleled. And yes, all the attention Moore is getting this season for “The Substance” is deserved — her performance is of a caliber she’s never had the chance to build until now. When she wins, people can and should applaud her for being a survivor, but mainly, I hope, for creating an avatar of Hollywood self-destruction that’s right up there with “Sunset Boulevard” and Gloria Swanson (who never won an Oscar).
It’s worth noting, perversely, that Moore’s Elisabeth Sparkle is supposed to be an Oscar winner. (“What, for ‘King Kong?’ ” snipes Dennis Quaid as her backstabbing producer.) We never do learn what kind of movie it was and maybe that’s the point: You can win for something great or something awful, but ultimately, as we learn at the end of “Barry Lyndon,” they are all equal now. All rationales of “dueness” are destined to be forgotten in time. And when it comes to some of my favorite performances — Faye Dunaway’s unhinged TV producer in “Network,” say, or Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood” — the skill level is so high that their Oscars are almost incidental. It’s just self-evident.
Whipp: Oh, this is the Oscars, Josh. We never forget. Though you’re right: Once you win the trophy, it doesn’t matter if it was deserved. The words “Oscar winner” will be placed before your name in every story written about you all the way to your obituary and beyond. It’s the lure that entices most actors to spend several months chatting up voters at receptions and film festivals, enduring endless, repetitive Q&As (“So, what attracted you to the role?”) and pushing aside plates of overcooked chicken at awards shows. They want to be an “Oscar-winning” actor.
And as tired as the “due” narrative can be, it also seems to be a reason some people watch the show. For them, here’s a teaser: Glenn Close has a choice part in the next “Knives Out” movie. She’s already called it “truly one of the best experiences of my life.” Who knows? Maybe she’ll finally win that “overdue” Oscar next year. It feels like she has already started her campaign.
Only good movies
Get the Indie Focus newsletter, Mark Olsen's weekly guide to the world of cinema.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
