This one there is no suspense over.
Ever since January one actress has been absolutely dominating the award season
and there is absolutely nothing that is likely to stand in her way. While I
acknowledge my favorite in this category prior to the nominations has somehow
been excluded, even I admit she would have had no chance against the
front-runner. It doesn't make this group of contenders any less formidable but
it's hard to argue that there isn't a deserving winner.
Kathy Bates, Matlock. EXPERTS PICK,
MY PICK. For Playing: Madeline
Matlock, a seventy five year old associate working with a mission to bring the
truth to light at a New York City law firm. Pro: Ever since she
surprised even herself with an upset win at the Critics Choice Awards this
January Bates has been winning every Best Actress in a Drama award in the book,
from the Astras to the African-American TV Awards. And no one who's watched
Bates work on this show can argue that this is an extraordinary performance
from one of the greatest actresses in film or television. First this is a performance
on every level: Bates is doing a division of work life and home so radical it
makes the performance in Severance looked unsubtle. Second, this is a
reboot which is more self-aware then most. Usually these kinds of shows are seen
as derivative but the entire show with Bates at its head is completely
different – and superior in many ways – to the original. And third, it's a
network drama. One that has breathed life into the format in the same way that Abbott
Elementary has done to the network comedy. Throw in the fact that this may
be one of Bates's last professional roles and she deserves the prize. Con: Bates's
nomination is the only one Matlock received this year. That's the Emmys
flaw more than hers – this show absolutely deserved to be nominated for Best
Drama as well the other actors - but the
fact remains it's very difficult for an actor to win if the show their
nominated for has no other nominations. The last one was Tatiana Maslany for Orphan
Black in 2016.
Sharon Horgan, Bad Sisters. For
Playing: Eva Garvey,
the oldest sister of the Garvey clan dealing with the possibility of another
death and exposure for her family. Pro: Like Bella Ramsey and Keri
Russell, Horgan managed to earn her second nomination for the second year of
her show. And unlike the majority of the performers in Drama altogether Horgan
has more to do with the success of Bad Sisters then most actors in TV
dramas. In her work as Eva, the eldest sister of the Garvey clan who yet again
find themselves at the center of a criminal investigation Horgan gets to show
the range we've seen her capable of for nearly fifteen years but until now
she's never been recognized for as a performer. Even when you found yourself
doubting the believability that the siblings were involved in something this
complicated, Horgan's natural power was capable of leading you through the hard
points. Like the character she plays, Horgan is a tower of strength. Con: She
was also, without question, the actress who's nomination not just in this
category but all of the dramatic nominations combined that made most people
(myself included) do a double take. There were many more qualified nominees
ahead of Horgan for this last spot, not just Melanie Lynskey but Elizabeth Moss
for the final season of The Handmaid's Tale or Kaitlin Olson for High
Potential. In fact Horgan didn't get a nomination from any of the previous
critics groups all year. Throw in the fact that Horgan is the only nominee for
her show and she has no realistic chance of even finishing in the money.
Britt Lower, Severance. For
Playing: Hetty R, living
a double life working for Lumen and the daughter of the head of the company. Pro:
Lower is given the best chance of any of the nominees in this category for
being capable of an upset. And it's hard not to deny the logic. For one thing,
like every other cast member of Severance, she's given two different
performances – and when we learn the truth about she ended up working at Lumen,
it's deeper than that. There's also the fact that she's part of a love triangle
(trying to figure out traditional roles is incredibly difficult here) that involves
the two sides of every character in a way that hurts the most emotionally. And
when you consider the sacrifice that is made at the end of Season 2 that kicks
us in the teeth the most, it has all the emotional power of so many veteran
actors. Lower deserves to win. Con: But likely not this year. Last time
out Lower was one of the few regulars not nominated by the Emmys. I suspect
that this nomination is redress but I suspect she will win another season
(whenever they happen).
Bella Ramsey, The Last of Us. For
Playing: Ellie,
dealing with her past after the murder of her surrogate father sends her on a quest
for revenge to Seattle. Pro: Honestly Ramsey deserves it just for all
the abuse they've been forced to endure for the last two years by the
misogynistic fanbase of the original game. I'm also in Ramsey's favor because
even though they identify as non-binary, they've made it very clear that they're
fine being nominated in this category because "I respect women." And
that's before I get to Ramsey's
performance, which on every level was magnificent. As we saw Ellie struggle
with the awkwardness of her relationship with Joel in the early episodes, saw
her witness him being killed in front of her eyes, go on a blind quest for vengeance
with Dina, saw the love story erupt in the aftermath of the apocalypse, saw
through a story of birthdays how Joel and Ellie's relationship changed, and
then in the season finale saw how broken she truly was, Ramsey demonstrated why
they are a performer for the ages. Ramsey will win in this category someday. Con:
The Emmys have never been guided by the backlash on the internet when it
comes to bigotry, and that's going to be true this year as well as anything
else. But Ramsey is by far the youngest nominee in this category. They will
have to wait their turn.
Keri Russell, The Diplomat. For
Playing: Kate Wyler, ambassador to London dealing with the likelihood the Prime
Minister is behind a terrorist plot. Pro: Russell is the only repeat nominee in this category from
last year and remains the force of nature she's been since she exploded on to
the scene way back in Felicity. Here she plays an utterly brilliant
professional trying to deal with problems on multiple fronts: her husband
barely surviving a car bomb, the fact that her government is conspiring with
Britain on a terrorist plot, learning the vice president – who's job she's been
being groomed for since the start of the series – is behind it, only moments
before she becomes President herself. She does so with a kind of brusque humor
and bluntness that is built towards service, rare on TV these days. And
considering that she hasn't won an Emmy despite starring in three underrated
classics – this one, Felicity and The Americans – she is more
than overdue a win. Con: Just like Gary Oldman with Slow Horses Russell
is starring in a quietly undervalued show and that's almost certainly not the
thing that Emmy voters pay attention to. She might win later on, but not this
year.
My Prediction: I hope the orchestra at
the Emmys remember which version of the Matlock theme music to play when
Bates wins.
Tomorrow I deal with Outstanding
Supporting Actor in a Drama, the only nomination in this category that the
Experts are not sure about and that they might have reason to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment