Laying The Odds For This Year's Emmys: Outstanding Supporting Actor and Actress in a Limited Series/Movie

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR IN MOVIE/MINI SERIES

Asante Blackk, When They See Us: 7-1

For playing:  Kevin Richardson as a teenager, one of the Central Park 5. Pro: Much of the most memorable work in this mini series comes from watching this children being taken off the street for reasons they can’t comprehend, being bullied into confessions, and then having to deal with mockeries of trials. Blackk’s work was particularly good as a child practically picked off the street by accident. Con: As good as Blackk was, any one of the actors playing the teenagers could have been nominated in his stead. There’s little to separate in quality when it comes to determining who the best of these actors was, and it’s hard to shake that feeling compared to some of the other performances.

Paul Dano, Escape at Dannemora: 5-1

For playing: David Sweat, an inmate suffering on the inside for killing a cop, who uses his expertise to tunnel his way out of prison. Pro: Ever since Little Miss Sunshine, Dano has been one of the most undervalued character actors working today. And as the boyish Sweat, who does everything possible to escape and then finds him being bogged down at the border because of the sloth of his fellow prisoner, was one of the most brilliant roles he has yet given. Con: I’ll be honest. Dano’s role was as much a lead as Del Toro’s was. He should be competing in the Best Actor category. That might end up hurting him. Hurting him more was that, like so many of Dano’s roles, this one was understated. He’s never gotten credit it for it before, I doubt he will now.  

John Leguizamo, When They See Us: 13-2

For playing: Raymond Santana, Sr., a devoted father who unwittingly sends his son to confess to a crime he didn’t commit, and then has to deal with a complicated aftermath when his son is released from prison. Pro: A standup comedian and performer by trade, Leguizamo stretches perhaps more than anyone else in the cast in this series. Raymond never forgives himself for abandoning his son, and when he tries to move on with his life, his family never forgives him – and his new wife never lets him forget what his son is accused of. This is perhaps the greatest revelation in the case. Con: As good as Leguizamo is, it’s hard to really say his performance is greater than, say, those of the teenagers or young adults in the cast.

Stellan Skarsgard, Chernobyl: 5-1

For paying: Boris Shcherbina, a low level bureaucrat who finds himself dealing with a crisis that he can’t even begin to comprehend. Pro: As much credit as his sons have been getting for their abilities over the last few years, it’s often been forgotten just how great an actor Skarsgard is. And in many ways, his role in Chernobyl is astonishing. As Boris himself says in the final episode, he didn’t initially think this would be a catastrophe because they sent him. He doesn’t give himself credit until the end for doing everything in his power to stopping a disaster from becoming apocalyptic. It’s a superb role. Con: The acting world tends to treat Skarsgard like the Soviet Union treated Boris. He’ll never get enough credit for what he does.

Ben Whishaw, A Very English Scandal: 37-10

For playing: Norman Scott, the lover of Jeremy Thorpe whose politician ex-lover targets him for murder. Pro: This was one of the most astonishing performances of the year. Whishaw’s work as a young man who becomes a liability was one fine work from an already brilliant actor. He’s already taken the Golden Globe and the Critics Choice award for his performance; it’s hard to see him not winning. Con: Just as in the case from Grant, Whishaw may fall victim to the fact that his series premiered over a year ago.

Michael Kenneth Williams, When They See Us: 4-1

For Playing: Bobby McCray, the father of Anton who bullies his son into confessing, and then has the most conflicted relationship with him during the trial and after prison. Pro: For nearly twenty years, Williams has been one of television’s greatest actors, from his landmark turn as Omar Little in The Wire to his wry performance in Hap and Leonard, he is a true jewel. And his work here – as a father with a criminal record, who pushes his son towards confessing, who doesn’t attend most of the trial, and who is suffering from a fatal disease when Anton gets out – is yet another example of incredible work. He’s deserved an Emmy for a very long time; it would be fitting if he won here. Con: Williams just can’t seem to catch a break with the Emmys. He’s only been nominated once, and he didn’t win.

PREDICTION

Much as I’d like to see Williams prevail, this award is Whishaw’s to lose.

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRES, MOVIE/MINI SERIES

Patricia Arquette, The Act: 4-1

For playing: Dee Dee Blanchard, a mother whose constant inflicting suffering on her daughter leads to murder. Pro: What are the odds? The two favorites in this category are two character actresses named Patricia playing mothers who use Munchausen by proxy on their daughters that leads to murder. The main differences’ Arquette’s series is true, and she ended up the victim of the ultimate crime. This was as transformative a performance for her as the one in Dannemora, and in any other year, she might go two for two. Con: For one, there’s the other Patricia (see below), and the Emmys rarely reward a person twice for acting. (And given Arquette’s luck, she may have less).

Marcia Stephanie Blake, When they See Us:  13-2

For Playing: Linda McCray, the mother of Anton, who fights the hardest and the longest to keep her family together. Pro: In many ways, the McCray family made up the backbone of the series, and Linda had to play peacemaker, trying to keep her son’s spirits up, while explaining why her husband wouldn’t come to visit her son. Years later, she had to serve as caregiver to a rogue husband now suffering from kidney disease. One of the more solid character portrayals in the series. Con: As good as Blake was, in comparison to some of the other actresses, especially Nash and Farmiga (and to an extent, Felicity Huffman), her role was not nearly as well defined.

Patricia Clarkson, Sharp Objects: 69-20

For playing: Adora Crellin, the ice queen mother and princess of Wind Gap, whose austere manner hides darkness. Pro: Clarkson is one of the world’s greatest character actresses, and while I’m loathe to use the phrase ‘role of a lifetime’ for anybody, it’s hard to look at her work as Adora, and not consider it. Clarkson was extraordinary as one of the most terrifying maternal figures in history, a woman who didn’t have a bone of compassion in her body, who was concerned with appearances more than reality, who could tell her own daughter she never loved her – something that might have saved her life in the end. Finding out that she wasn’t the killer at the center of Sharp Objects was remarkable because you could believe her capable of anything. Winner of the Golden Globe and Critics Choice in this category, this is hers for the taking. Con: It’s been nearly a year since Sharp Objects ended. Are Emmy voters’ memories that short?

Vera Farmiga, When They See Us: 11-2

For playing: Elizabeth Lederer, the woman who ends up prosecuting the Central Park Five despite her misgivings – and more than a decade later, ends up being the force that leads to their exoneration. Pro: One of the things When They See Us illustrated was how flawed and ruthless the justice system can be. So to see Farmiga playing the only character in the prosecution with doubt, and the only one who sees where they went wrong, was brilliant work. The fact that Farmiga is one of the stealth performers of film and TV adds to her stature. Con: Bates Motel pretty much proved that Farmiga has no luck with the Emmys, even when she’s nominated. Considering the level of performances in this category, the odds are stacked against her.

Margaret Qualley, Fosse/Verdon: 7-1

For playing: Ann Renking, the muse that Bob Fosse ends up with near the end of his career – and life. Pro: Qualley was one of the great discoveries of 2019, her brilliant work in this as well as Native Son revealing that she is a true talent that will go far in whatever field she practices. And playing one of the great musical actresses of our time is no mean feat. Con: It was a shock that the voters even remembered Qualley’s work beneath the towering portrayals of Rockwell and Williams, and considering that sometimes it was hard to even know when she was there, it may just be an honor to be nominated.

Emily Watson, Chernobyl: 5-1

For playing: Ulana Khomyuk, the investigative scientist who tries to find out what caused the events leading up to Chernobyl. Pro: Watson is nearly as great an actress as Skarsgard is an actor – the sole difference being she hasn’t been doing it for nearly as long. It was a shock when we learned at the end of the series that Watson’s character was merely a composite; she did so much work making her fully dimensional and the one voice for truth in a society that stomped on any result that disagreed with the State. It’s hard not to watch her performance and not be shaken. Con: As good at Watson was, much of her work paled beneath Harris’ and Skarsgard. It seems likely that yet again, she will be ignored for more showy work.

PREDICTION

Nothing will stop Patricia Clarkson from prevailing.

See you Monday with my reactions to the winners – and to see how well I di