Jennifer writes:
Dear Joyce and Chris,
I really enjoy listening to your pod, and appreciate the mailbag episodes because so many listeners have questions similar to mine. Since I’m the lone cinephile in my family, it’s nice to know that others share my interest/obsession.
My question is about Amy Adams — though it could also be about Glenn Close. But I’m an Amy stan so… since Amy has six nominations and no wins, is it better for her to not be nominated in any given year when she has little chance of winning? Does just racking up nominations actually look worse as time goes on? Will the Academy write her off after a certain point — and maybe give her the dreaded honorary Oscar down the road? I, like many, think it’s ridiculous that she wasn’t even nominated for Arrival, and she’s amazing in Nightbitch, so I’d hate to think that that’s the case. Hope springs eternal.
Chris: I’m of two minds about this one. On the one hand, you have to be in it to win it. So Amy Adams getting nominated probably never actually hurts because there’s always the chance she could be win-competitive. And while Nightbitch probably isn’t the one (see it on Hulu Dec. 27!), even detractors of the movie can admit she is as go-for-broke as any actor in contention this year. But I do think, eventually, there is the sense that the Academy is just used to passing someone like Adams over. And if that becomes a habit, well, it would be much harder to break. Fortunately, Adams has At the Sea coming as soon as next year, so maybe this will all be moot by 2027.
Joyce: I’m of the mind that, while obviously her fans and awards nuts are aware of her 0-6 Oscar record, I’m not sure how many voters are. They might know she hasn’t won yet but not the actual number. Adams is also still young enough that she might not be seen as overdue either, and hey, more people are definitely aware that Close is Oscar-less and that didn’t push her over the line with The Wife. I don’t necessarily think the voters get used to or are purposely writing people off after a certain point — they don’t group-vote — but winning an Oscar is a lot about timing. It’s not just about the performance, but the film, the momentum, the “right” competition, and other external factors that change every year. Before Still Alice, Julianne Moore hadn’t been nominated for an Oscar in 12 years and many thought she might be doomed to be Oscar-less, but that year just played out perfectly for her with soft competition. She probably would not have won the year prior or the year after. Close probably would’ve won with The Wife had she competed in that field. I guess what I’m saying is: You never know what’s gonna happen.
SEE Is ‘The Substance’ just another ‘Black Swan’? And more questions in the Oscar Experts Mailbag
Brett writes:
Hi Joyce & Chris,
My question for you both is this: If Nicole Kidman and Demi Moore swapped roles in Babygirl and The Substance, respectively, would they both still have the same level of Oscar buzz? How would this impact the award season trajectory of these actresses and films?
Chris: An interesting “what if”? At the risk of further making fans of The Substance angry, I think part of the draw of Moore’s Best Actress campaign is the novelty of it coupled with her narrative. Don’t get me wrong: She’s a great actress (I’ve always loved her as much as any ’90s movie star) and she’s great in The Substance. But if that were Kidman in the same part, I kind of think people would just shrug it off as yet another great Kidman performance. At the same time, if Moore was in Babygirl, I think she’d have the same comeback narrative, but maybe be dinged, wrongly, for playing a part at least within the same area code as some of her ’90s thrillers like Disclosure. So, long typing short: If the roles were flipped, maybe neither actress is as strong of a contender as they are right now.
Joyce: Love this. And I concur. They’d both be in the conversation, but the tenor around them would be slightly different. With Kidman, maybe people will think she’ll come up short like she did with The Others. I think with Moore, part of the appeal of her candidacy with The Substance is that she’s having this amazing comeback with a body horror film and not an “Oscar movie.” Babygirl is not typical mundane Oscar fare either, but it still carries a “prestige” sheen. And no disrespect to Kidman, who’s fantastic in Babygirl, but substitute her for any great actress in the role and that person would automatically be flagged in advance as a potential Oscar contender. The Substance was on nobody’s early predictions lists nine months ago and is more fun to root for as an unexpected hit. But now you’ve got me thinking who would be Kidman’s Sue.
