(We can forego
the TV Movie part of this because none of the acting nominees were nominated
for one.)
I would like to
take this opportunity to toot my own horn slightly. I predicted all five of
these men would be nominated. (I also predicted Kiefer Sutherland would be, but
that was due to bad math.) All five nominees have given brilliant performances
and in four of them we got very different views of homosexuality in a way few
categories in TV history ever have. Even more interesting, three of those performances
looked to the distant past to show a different world and all three of them ranged
from morally ambiguous to downright villainous.
So who is
likely to win? Well, we actually have some intriguing possibilities which I’ll
relate below.
Matt Bomer, Fellow
Travelers. Odds: 9-2. For Playing: Hawkins Fuller,
a 1950s State department official who
hides his sexuality in the shadows in the midst of the Lavender Scare. Pro: Bomer
received every nomination in the book leading up to the Emmys and is actually the
only nominee to have won an award in this category – the Dorian for Best
Dramatic Performance in which he was contended against many of the nominees in
this category. And having watched his work in what was one of the best shows of
2023, it is impossible to argue with that. Bomer has been one of the most undervalued
actors in the era of Peak TV but he was a revelation as Hawk, a man who has no
problem flaunting his homosexuality in private but puts up a face of
heterosexual bravado in public. We traveled with Bomer backwards and forwards
through nearly forty years as he met Tim, an intern for Joe McCarthy. For much
of their relationship he would use him for information and sexual purposes,
while protecting himself by wooing and marrying the daughter of his patron. We
watched him raise a family and endure tragedy, all while the public face was in
place. And in the final episode he finally confronted who he was, what it was
cost him and with the last sign of the series, one of the most moving moments
in all of 2023. Bomer is long overdue an Emmy and this performance deserves it.
Con: Bomer couldn’t break against the tide for Steven Yeun at the start
of 2024 and now it looks very much like his chances will be thwarted by another
star of a Netflix series.
Richard Gadd, Baby Reindeer. Odds: 82-25. For Playing: Donny, a
struggling comic who befriends the wrong woman at his job bartending and whose
life becomes a nightmare he may not escape alive. Pro: At this time last
year, no one knew who Richard Gadd was. Now no one will ever forget him. His
retelling of the series of horrors he endured when he accidentally befriended a
woman named Martha would have been more than enough to astound us. But when we
learned what he had been burying in the fourth episode - a horrifying relationship that had essentially
destroyed him as a human being – it
became one of the great episodes of 2024. Almost every element of Gadd’s
performance was incredible, both incredibly dark, funny and an exploration of
so much of sexuality that somehow this horrible experience with Martha forced
him to confront. Any single moment of his performance could be for consideration.
It’s likely that it will be his performance at a comedy showcase where he
finally completely unravels and falls into darkness. But I’m just as impressed
by his work in the series finale as what is initially a job to listen Martha’s
recordings for an overt threat becomes what amounts to a soundtrack of his life
that he can’t escape – and at the end of the series, it’s unclear if he’s
unable to. This was one of the most moving performances of all of 2024, and he
more than deserves to be the favorite for the Emmy. Con: There has since
been a backlash against Baby Reindeer, from the original subjects of the
article and while none of this is Gadd’s fault or responsibility, he better
than anyone knows how the world can turn into one of scapegoating and blaming
the victim. It could very well cost him the prize.
Jon Hamm, Fargo.
Odds: 9-2. For Playing: Sheriff Roy Tillman, a North Dakota
sheriff determined to find his former wife no matter what laws need to be destroyed
to do so. Pro: Somehow Jon Hamm, despite playing one of the most iconic
characters in TV history, has one of the worst track records of any major
performer at the Emmys. He has returned to the awards front in great glory as
Roy Tillman, the major force of evil at the center of Fargo’s incredible
fifth season. It says something that in five seasons we’ve never had a villain
quite like Roy Tillman yet somehow there’s something instantly recognizable
about him. A sheriff who believes in right and wrong, but whose law is God’s
not man’s. Who believes it his duty to both interpret and execute the law as he
sees fit. Who claims to be a family fan but treats his children like dirt, engages
in horrible sexual practices with his wife, and who has been a groomer to two
previous wives and may well be to a third. Throughout the series he remains
convinced of his own righteousness and while he faces a sort of justice at the
end, he still remains a monster and alive – and we know all too well that the
world he lives in not only tolerates but forgives men like him. Hamm has played
morally ambiguous characters all his career but he’s never gotten to play a
villain like this. He’s been nominated for Golden Globe and SAG awards and he’s
more than due. Con: It’s not just Hamm that has a bad track record with
the Emmys; in four seasons not a single actor has ever won an Emmy for Fargo.
Granted there have been extenuating circumstances and this group of
nominees is just as strong as any of them. All of which means bad things for
Hamm. I don’t know if this is right or if it’s wrong but it’s a fact.
Tom Hollander, Capote
Vs. The Swans. Odds: 9-2. For Playing: Truman Capote, a
brilliant writer trying to decide
whether he can finish a book or whether it will finish him. Pro: Somehow
Hollander managed to be the only performer on The White Lotus not to get
an Emmy nomination last year. There’s a very clear parallel between the
character he plays – Capote is another gay man who is trying to murder rich
white women here (and is accused at the start of the series of doing just
that). But there are critical differences. Truman Capote was one of the most well-known
men in America when he was alive and prevalent in high society – something that
was unheard of for a person as openly gay as he was. He has been portrayed in
multiple films but not like Hollander shows him: a man who spends the first
half of the series apparently the vicious destroyer of the circle he was
invited into and in the second half, we see the darker side of his Swans and
our views are flipped as to who the true victims are. In both cases we see a
man who is being starved of his friendship to so many women he truly loved and
who dies tragically and alone, absent from the lives of his women. This is one
of the powerhouse performances of 2024 and considering Hollander was one of the
few people from The White Lotus who can say he was ignobly passed over;
he could argue for a win. Con: Unlike so many of the lead contenders Capote
Vs. The Swans didn’t get nominated for Best Limited Series. Ever since this
era began it has been rare for a lead to win in this category without their
show being nominated: the last was Mark Ruffalo for I Know This Much is True
and that was a much weaker category then this year. It’s likely to work
against Hollander.
Andrew Scott, Ripley.
Odds: 19-5. For Playing: Tom Ripley, a low-level New York con
man who takes a case of mistaken identity to reinvent himself in Europe. Pro:
Scott was bold when he took a role that has been played by such master craftsman as Alain Delon, Matt
Damon and John Malkovich to perfection. And like everything he’s done in his
career, you can’t imagine anyone else doing it. Scott’s work was unlike the
other performers in this category, almost an anomaly in the Emmys in recent
year. Tom’s skill was guarding himself and choosing his words carefully so
Scott best known as a vibrantly expressive actor in his most well-known roles
as Moriarty and Hot Priest, chose to underplay everything he did and say as
little as possible. I haven’t seen a show in so long do so much with its pauses
and Scott was perfect at this: choosing his words carefully, working backwards
to think over old stories, completely silent for large sections of individual
episodes. Much of what we heard Scott say was in fact in voiceover from so many
of the letters ‘Dickie’ wrote. Even when you knew what he had done Tom’s utter
calmness made you doubt yourself when he told other people the opposite. And
the two shocking acts of violence he committed were so sudden that the viewer
was genuinely surprised – and then the episodes would focus on his calmness as
he did everything he could to get away with it. We’ve seen series with murderers
and psychopaths at the center of them over the past decade but it says a lot
that I’ve never seen anything like Tom Ripley in all this time. It’s the first
limited series that deserves a sequel and Scott deserves an Emmy. (Also the
Emmys really owes him for ignoring him for Fleabag. We all know it.) Con:
The question is can Scott overcome the momentum that Richard Gadd has had
for the last six months. There are signs that might happen – Scott has been
rising in Emmy predictions the last few weeks – but it might be too late.
Prediction: It comes down
to Gadd or Scott. I want to see Scott prevail but I think Gadd wins by an
eyelash.
Tomorrow I take
on Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series. Not quite as good as Outstanding
Lead Actor but a fascinating collection anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment