Best Supporting Actor 2020

5. Daniel Kaluuya - Judas and the Black Messiah
Well, I can't help myself, but I don't think Kaluuya has enough charisma for this role. People keep telling he's great in it. I know he's probably going to win, but I don't think he deserved the nomination. He's fine in the film, don't get me wrong, but there is nothing special about his performance. In the scenes, where Hampton has his speeches he simply doesn't bring enough energy, charm to the perfomance (Fishback is acting, how he charmed her, but there is nothing in Kaluuya's performance to back it up. She's great in playing something Kaluuya should've had to). And in the rest of the scenes he's just there. Doing fine work. Just fine. 

4. Sascha Baron Cohen - The Trial of the Chicago 7
Cohen is very good in his portayal of Abbie Hoffman. He uses his talents for comedy well enough, while also being great in his more serious moments. Though the role is very expressive, he's still being overshadowed by some of his colleagues (Rylance, Langella). But overall he's very effective in the role... 

3. Leslie Odom Jr. - One Night in Miami

He's definitely co-lead with Kingley Ben-Adir and both of them are giving great performances. Odom Jr. si very effective in the conflicted scenes with Ben-Adir and finds the right balance between stage acting and acting on camera. The only reservation I have is towards his scene, where he sings - he simply doesn't bring enough charm that one. He's great in portraying a person, not that good in impersonating Sam Cooke. But the former is always more important.

2. Lakeith Stanfield - Judas and the Black Messiah

No way he is supporting! Stanfield is the true and only lead of the film and he's great in the role. He brings just the right amount of ambivalency to his performance, while being sympathetic enough for us to care for him. It was not an easy task, but Stanfield nailed it! 

1. Paul Raci - Sound of Metal

Raci's really is a supporitng performance, which makes him my pick for the win. Though sometimes underplaying his part, to his film, he's like seasing to food. Very sophisticated performance, precise in every single moment. I don't think his highlight is his last scene (as many do), but he's great throughout the film,, nevertheless. 

My Nominees:
1. Mark Rylance - The Trial of the Chicago 7
2. Jared Leto - The Little Things
3. Paul Raci - Sound of Metal 
4. Frank Langella - The Trial of the Chicago 7
5. Alan S. Kim - Minari 

Next Year: Musical Project: Best Leading Actress 1968

The Nominees:
Barbra Streisand - Funny Girl
Joanne Woodward - Rachel, Rachel
Katherine Hepburn - The Lion in Winter
Patricia Neal - The Subject Was Roses
Vanessa Redgrave - Isadora

What are your nominees? What is your ranking? What is your prediction for my ranking? Write in comments! 

Best Supporting Actor 2016

5. Lucas Hedges - Manchester by the Sea
Hedges is great in a subtle portrayal of grief and sorrow. Rightfully was this performance his breakthrough to more great roles in Hollywood. As Patrick, he is able to even bring the right amount of humour into the film and has got a great chemistry with Casey Affleck. In some brief moments you can see his inexperience, but those moments are forgivable, as they are really very brief.

4. Jeff Bridges - Hell or High Water
Bridges is great especially in the escalated moments of the film, but makes a nice presence throughout the entire film. The film itself is quite forgettable and Bridges doesn't help it, but it probably isn't very much his fault. Bridges uses an accent that is a bit distracting, but you get used to it quite easily. Long story short, it is a respectable performance in a decent film (though I'd prefer Foster to be nominated) and one certainly belonging into the year's top ten.

3. Mahershala Ali - Moonlight
This is a very fine winner that actually stood the test of time as one of the better ones and I can't complain too much about it. In a short time, Ali is able to leave a long lasting impression in a role that is not very showy (and it's not villainious, either). Very subtle performance, but works perfectly for the film.

2. Michael Shannon - Nocturnal Animals
Shannon is an that usually has a great on-screen charisma, though sometimes it is not used for the best. Furtunately, Nocturnal Animals uses it very well. He handles the character full of twists and layers with ease. The cherry on top of it is a masterfull scene in a cabin at the end of the film. It's only the script's holes (some of whom he can't save) that prevent him from being my win.

1. Dev Patel - Lion
Very consistent nominees throughout, in terms of quality. For now, I'm going with Patel. He makes a lasting impression, has got a great on-screen charisma and in fact elevates his film (rather than being overshadowed by it). Great chemistry with his co-stars and being able to lead his part of film gets him this win.

My Nominees:
1. Yosuke Kubozuka - Silence
2. Ben Foster - Hell or High Water
3. John Goodman - 10 Cloverfield Lane
4. Trevante Rhodes - Moonlight
5. Dev Patel - Lion

Best Supporting Actor 2016: Dev Patel - Lion

Lion is actually a very fine film that has fot some great acting and very nice direction.
Though Patel plays the leading role of Saroo, I don‘t have a problem with his placement in the supporting category, as he doesn‘t appear until the half of the film. Before that, his character is played by Sunny Pawar, because in its first half the film focuses on Saroo‘s childhood. Even though Pate is able to continue in what Pawar had done with the character and does a great job by convincing us that he plays the same character, it‘s not as mindblowing, as with the Moonlight actors‘. The reason for that might be mostly because the age gap between Pawar and Patel is bigger, than between Hibbert, Sanders and Rhodes, so I can‘t actually blame Patel for that.
The strongest aspect of his performance is the on-screen charisma. Patel wonderfully portrays the passion and eagerness to find his way home. The story itself is not too juicy and his actions wouldn‘t be so interesting, had not it been for Patel‘s charm and presence.
Patel also has chemistry with Kidman, Mara and the actor playing his brother. That is the relationship that defines this performance – the bullheadness he acts with makes a very strong impression.
Patel not only shines in the juicy scenes (like the argument with Mara in the street), but also in the subtle ones. For example when he‘s searching for the place he was raised in, or the one at the end (SPOILER ALERT), when he finally meets his mother. This particular scene is overlonged, but you don‘t feel bored thanks to Patel‘s performance. (END OF SPOILER) Patel never allows the film to overshadow him (unlike Slumdog Millionaire) and this film definitely could have ended the same way.
The chances of winning an Oscar: The Bafta win might have boosted him put. He was fighting for the second place with Bridges.

Best Supporting Actor 2016: Mahershala Ali - Moonlight

Moonlight is a great film that won an Oscar for best picture under very unfortunate circumstances, but it‘s a shame that the incident overshadows the quality of the film.
Mahershala Ali‘s performance in Moonlight is a very brief one, yet you will remember him after watching the film. It‘s an imporant role for the plot and the development of the leading character. And one thing that is very appreciatable is that this actually is a supporting role, in times when the Academy tends to make category frauds. It‘s an understated performance, but works wonderfully for the film.
Ali has got a great screen presence. It is very much visible in the scene, in which he first meets Little. He is somehow able to create an atmosphere around his characer, that we immediately start to sympathize with him, despite the character not being an angel.
Another great acting moment is his argument with Little‘s mother. He doesn‘t speak a lot throughout the scene, but you see all in his eyes.
Ali certainly is a worthy winner (we‘ve had much worse ones in recent years), though I probably would prefer other supporting male performances from the film and I‘d very much appreciate their nomination (Trevante Rhodes, Ashton Sanders).

Best Supporting Actor 2016: Lucas Hedges - Manchester by the Sea

Manchester by the Sea is a very solid Oscar-baity film, that works mostly because of strong performances involved. Lucas Hedges plays a young cousin of Casey Affleck‘s character, who lost his father.
Hedges very believably portrays the grief after such loss. He doesn‘t overact it anyhow and at the right moment he keeps revealing small parts of the grief. Actually, the best thing about this performance is the fact how ordinary his character is. It is just a normal boy, who has got his own problems at school, or with girls. The scenes, in which he is trying to deal with the problems with girls in fact bring some needed humour to the film.
Very important thing about the performance is the chemistry between him and a leading actor Casey Affleck. These two have great chemistry and I suppose it might have been difficult to have a good chemistry with Affleck.
Even though this performance is great at his own, there are a few moments that mirror the inexperience in Hedges portrayal and sometimes you feel a slight uncertainty from his presence.
On the other hand I must say this performance has grown on me after a rewatch.
His best scene would be his emotional outburst in the middle of the night because of the freezer.
The chances of winning an Oscar: I guess he was the fourth slightly in front of Shannon, but both are of those ‘happy-to-be-nominated‘ cases.

Best Supporting Actor 2016: Jeff Bridges - Hell or High Water

Hell or High Water is a great, yet quite forgettable film about a relationship between two brothers – robbers and a sheriff, who does everything to catch them. Bridges plays the sheriff. Because of the story envolving around these three character, one might argue that the role is in fact leading. It‘s actually on the line between leading and supporting and I personally don‘t mind putting him into supporting cateogory, as the film mostly centers around Chris Pine‘s character.
Bridges, as usual, has got a great screen presence throughout the film. His characterization of an old sarcastic sassy sheriff is great and very enjoyable to watch. Bridges uses accent in the role and a strange hummy way of speaking. I was distracted by it at first, yet after a short time I got used to it and I was able to fully appreciate the performance.
Bridges is very fine and enjoyable throughout the film, but the real showcase for him comes later in the film (SPOILER ALERT) when his partner is killed by Ben Foster's character. The urge to revenge for such act is wonderfully portrayed by Bridges. We completely understand him and sympathize with him. On the other hand he is able to bring some amount of shabbiness to the role. We sympathize with him, though we see a desperate man, though we realize that his actions are motivated by the revenge, despair and amok. (END OF SPOILER)
The best scene of his performance is the most subtle one at the very end of the film, when he talks to Chris Pine's character and it is their first confrontation. They talk after all of the things had already happened. Bridges (but Pine as well) brings a lot of tension to the scene.
The chances of winning an Oscar: Though the performance itself doesn‘t belong to the most memeorable ones, Bridges is a respectable persona, so I think he was the second, or the third, fighting for the second spot with Patel.

Best Supporting Actor 2016: Michael Shannon - Nocturnal Animals

Nocturnal Animals is a very divisive film, but I really loved it – the atmosphere, directing and editing of it are all perfect and they create one very enjoyable film experience. Though the line with Amy Adams is less interesting, the subplot involving Aaron Taylor-Johnson is very entertaining. Michael Shannon is a part of this subplot, luckily.
Unlike his performance in 99 Homes, he uses his on-screen charisma that this time actually works. The fact that he wasn‘t nominated for that is considered a snub and I think the mementum after the snub helped him to gain this nomination, so it was for the best. This is a better role and a better performance given by Shannon.
From the first moment we see Bobby Andes, he gets our attention and we can‘t take our eyes of him. It‘s the way he stands, or speaks, even the way he smokes his cigarette – so much charismatic Shannon is. Andes seems like a flegmatic cop, but once he comes to confronte a suspect, he won‘t give him anything for granted. Shannon portrays this ambousness with ease and even though we don‘t understand it at first, as the film goes on we are able to discover more and more layers underneath this character. So the character is full of twists and surprises, which could be an acting mess. Not in Shannon‘s hands.
A great example of this is a scene in a restaurant, where Bobby confesses to Gyllenhaal‘s character Tony that his health is not very good and that he might die soon – the paradox of the fact is that he really wants to punish the murderers.
One might wonder, why would he want to do it, without having any evidance about them doing it, except from Tony‘s word (that‘s especially the case of Aaron Taylor-Johnson‘s character). Shannon solves this problem rather greatly. In his portrayal of the cop he creates something twisted about him and so we assume that he would be able to do it just for the pure joy of trying to suffocate somebody. It‘s his entire on-screen persona that created this and by that he was able to cover up for the holes in the script.
The best scene of Shannon‘s performance would be one of his latter scenes in the cabin, in which he really violently questions the suspects – he is a delight to watch. In fact he brings to the role some enjoyable effect that reminded me of Christoph Waltz‘s Oscar-winning performance in Inglourious Basterds.
The chances of winning an Oscar: Happy to be nominated.

Next Year: Best Supporting Actor 2016

The Nominees:
Dev Patel - Lion
Jeff Bridges - Hell or High Water
Lucas Hedges - Manchester by the Sea
Mahershala Ali - Moonlight
Michael Shannon - Nocturnal Animals

What are your picks? What is your prediction for my ranking? What are your nominees? Write in comments! 

Best Leading Actress 2016

5. Ruth Negga - Loving
Negga is perfectly fine to watch, she has got some nice on-screen charisma, yet her performance is so understated, I forgot it a few days after watching the film. She gives a believable portrayal of a desparate woman, yet there's nothing more to it...

4. Isabelle Huppert - Elle
This is a very brave performance considering her age, but Huppert nails it. In most of the years she would be a frontrunner. But this was such a strong year that even such a first-class performance is ranked the fourth. Another subtle performance, yet this time it fits the tone of the film perfectly. She handled the ambivalency of her character flawlessly and I just have to agree with her nomination...

3. Meryl Streep - Florence Foster Jenkins
I know it's not a popular opinion, but I just loved Streep's portrayal here. She managed to be funny, without actually humiliating the actual Florence, as she was able to find the vulnerable tones of Jenkins' soul. It is a very sensitive performance and the one that is extremely difficult to execute.

2. Emma Stone - La La Land
I definitely understand her winning. She carries the film on her shoulders and she is the heart and soul of it. Charming, pretty, charismatic, talented. She makes everything she does in the film seem so effortless, you can easily take this performance for granted. She is even able to overcome the occasional pathos of the film.

1. Natalie Portman - Jackie
One of the best portrayals of a real life person ever. Portman disappeared into Jackie Kennedy in front of our very eyes and to top it of, she brings depth and humanity into her performance. This performance earned her the second win on my blog in a very strong year, with only Negga had been replaced, it would have been the best lineup of all times.

My Nominees:
1. Natalie Portman - Jackie
2. Emma Stone - La La Land
3. Meryl Streep - Florence Foster Jenkins
4. Isabelle Huppert - Elle
5. Jessica Chastain - Miss Sloane

Best Leading Actress 2016: Natalie Portman - Jackie

Jackie is a wonderful biopic that really flawlessly shows the depth and inner feelings of the wife of one of the most powerful men in the world back then. Before the film, I wasn‘t familiar with Jackie Kennedy, so right after watching this film I found some footage of an actual Jackie. It was fascinating to realize how excellent Portman was at capturing Jackie‘s gestures, body language or the way she speaks.
I‘ve heard many people‘s opinions, who tend to say it‘s a very cold portrayal, without Portman getting into the character. That is something I absolutely disagree with. It‘s all in her eyes – the moment she tells the reporter how it all happened is a showcase of bravura acting. She‘s great in subtle moments, as well as in the emotionally outbursted scenes.
The portrayal belongs to the likes of Joaquin Phoenix in Walk the Line, Charlize Theron in Monster, or Michael Douglas in Behind the Candelabra – all excellent portrayals of a real life people – in any other year she would be a clear frontrunner, with almost no competition.
Portman is also great at creating the chemistry with her colleagues. What I really appreciate about this performance is her chemistry with children. She was able to create a believable relationship with children – it‘s obvious that Jackie does all but to help them and make it as easy for them, as possible.
The chances of winning an Oscar: I guess she was right behing Stone, fighting for the spot with Huppert. 

Best Leading Actress 2016: Meryl Streep - Florence Foster Jenkins

Florence Foster Jenkins is a very nice film. It‘s definitely not a masterpiece in terms of biopics, but I definitely had a good time watching it. It is supported by an excellent leading turn by Hugh Grant (the fact that he was campaigned in supporting category is blasphemious, it‘s as bad case of a category fraud, as was Rooney Mara last year) and another cast member. This cast member could be nobody else, but Meryl Streep.
Streep portrays a person who cannnot sing, but she doesn‘t realize it and still wants to spread it to the world. A person like this is definitely not very smart in mind and doesn't have a self-reflection. Streep is wonderful at executing the simpleness of Florence. Personally, I have not seen such a good and respectable portrayal of a simple-minded person in years.
Streep is also masterful in showing the devotion, which Florence sings with. Her entire body language supports it, as well as the line delivery. The way she responds to the question if she wants to do another take of a song is hysterical: ‚It seemed perfect to me.‘
This performance and the nomiantion itself wasn‘t very popular. Many people blame the hype around it being caused by that great Golden Globes‘ speech, but I don‘t agree with that. I think we all take Meryl for granted. She is so magnificent, we don't forgive her anything simply because we‘ve got used to her being flawless. But the truth is, not everyone would be able to handle this role with such charm and wit.
Streep doesn't even do the overacting that has been typical for her in recent years – she has got many subtle moments and those are a proof of the layers Streep found within the character (the example is the scene, in which Grant finds her in the audience room of Carneggie Hall and she tells him that she booked the hall. Streep doesn't overdo the joy of Florence and I can imagine any other actress doing it. She stays subtle and there is a rather bitter feeling under her line readings and expressions).
Let‘s take a look at her Oscar clip, for example, that reminded me how exceptional this performance is. She was able to express the full scale of emotions through tones, which alone is not easy to achieve. But the tones were not supposed to be right. This is what you call acting. On the other hand she‘s excellent at showing the tenderness and vulnerability of Florence Jenkins.
Let alone the singing scenes must have been very difficult, as she had to consciously sing bad. Meryl Streep makes it look incredibly effortless and it‘s charmingly funny. She delivery the comic parts, as well as the heartbreaking ones.
The chances of winning an Oscar: She was fighting for the fourth spot with Negga.

Best Leading Actress 2016: Ruth Negga - Loving

Loving is a very slow and a bit overlonged film about an interracial couple that is being persecuted for marrying each other. Rather than really digging into the problem, the film coldly watches how it affects the relationship, so you get to watch a four-minute-long sequence, in which you only see a routine of two people being quite.
The most important thing about this film has to be the relationship of the main leads and the chemistry between two actors portraying them. Unfortunately, the film lets us see the working relationship for a very short time, so the contrast that should appear can never work. Now all we get to see is a non-working relationship. The actors are trying to solve it somehow, but they are unable (though the film doesn’t help them very much).
At first I have to mention that Negga’s performance is very subtle. So subtle, that one might say it’s underacted. It is, but if you look closer, you can see the emotions underneath. It’s all in her eyes. She does well enough to show us the sorrow, the despair, yet the love she feels. I guess the bore and flatness of the performance is not entirely her fault, since Edgerton is underplaying as well (though not that much) and the entire film is having this slow and subtle atmosphere. So probably the director wanted it this way, which is not the best way to express this story, to be honest. She and Edgerton are at least trying, unlike the supporting cast of lawyer and the family members, who seems to be bored throughout every second they spend on the screen.
So here’s the thing. Negga is a lovely actress and I liked watching her. She’s nice and enjoyable to watch at (presence-wise). But I think this is not enough for an actual nomination. There is every technical aspect done right, even the accent. Yet she misses something that would elevate this performance between the bests of the year.
The chances of winning an Oscar: She was a fill-in nominee. The last one and happy to be there…

Best Leading Actress 2016: Isabelle Huppert - Elle

During this year‘s Oscar race we witnessed this film and its leading performance slowly getting more and more atttention, which ended up in Huppert‘s performance being nominated. It got so much attention, that some predicted her to win against Emma Stone. Of course, it didn‘t happen. Yet, Elle is a very interesting film and it‘s one of those cases, which is just as good, as is its leading performance. Luckily, Huppert uses most of the given material.
This role is a very challenging one, especially for an actress her age, as it really takes a lot of courage to even accept this role, let alone to play it.
This is a very complicated character, I would call it a combination of Violet in August: Osage County (she always tells the truth) and Amy from Gone Girl (the twisted mind and (sexual) tastes) and just like these mentioned characters it‘s a very ambivalent one. We switch between sympathizing with her and hating her. To execute such a role one must really be experienced and skilled, but we all know Huppert was fit for this role.
Many people say it‘s a monstrious character, but I would not agree with that. Isabelle Huppert is trying to humanize this character of Elle and the fact is that she succeeded at this masterfully. The character is written the way you could just hate it and think she deserved all the nasty things that happened to her, but thanks to Huppert we really have moments that we pity her.
It must be said that it is a very subtle performance, but it works great for the film. For example in a scene, in which she is asked to go to the cellar with a man that we know is dangerous. Huppert‘s reaction to this is wonderful, as she takes a few seconds to answer and it‘s not clear until she says the final word. At first we think she‘ll agree, then that she won‘t and we keep switching between these two states until Huppert speaks. What‘s so masterful about this performance is that this keeps happening during a few seconds. And the same ambivalency she gives to the entire performance.
The chances of winning an Oscar: I guess she still wasn‘t being the second. Natalie Portman was slightly ahead of her, in my opinion.

Best Leading Actress 2016: Emma Stone - La La Land

Okay, I loved La La Land. It‘s a wonderful cinematic experience that is so real, that it will make most of the cynical people cry. Damien Chazelle has proved himself to be a director, whose next film will be highly anticipated.
I‘m not gonna be writting down bullshit, before exposing the truth. So here it is. One of the reasons La La Land was such a wonderful experience is Emma Stone. That‘s it. That being said, I have never been a huge fan of her. She has a speech defect, while she also doesn‘t have a perfect body holding. But after La La Land I understood, why people love her so much. Her on-screen charisma is beyond compare. Despite the flaws she might have, she is able to be so charming, charismatic and most of all an adorable woman. That is something beyond my understanding. During the film I was in a way attracted to her.
The best thing about it is that she is great at acting, too. All of her emotional moments seem so effortless, yet they never become boring. On the other hand she‘s able to elevate the moments that on the first sight don‘t offer her most of an acting opportunity. Yet, she never once is boring. She just is there on the screen and we believe her everything.
Emma was even able to overcome the occasional pathos of the screenplay. The way she delivers the singing line ‘Maybe this appeals to any girl, who feels there‘s some chance for romance‘ is wonderful, as she gives an overview to the whole situation and it seems as if she was making fun of the pathos under these words.
She also has a great chemistry with her co-star Ryan Gosling. This chemistry seems so effortless, one might take it for granted. That‘s a mistake. For example there is a scene of dinner, at which the two have an argument. It‘s as if they had known each other for a long time, as if they had really lived through this relationship. It‘s so heartbreaking and lovely at once. Never for a moment do we doubt about these two loving each other.
Stone is really the heart and the soul of the film. She dances well, sings great and acts flawlessly. This performance might be hated in the future as a weak winner (Gwyneth Paltrow, anyone?), but I don‘t give a shit. Because she does exactly what was required from her and she elevates the entire film (that even otherwise would have been great).

Next Year: Best Leading Actress 2016

The Nominees:
Emma Stone - La La Land
Isabelle Huppert - Elle
Meryl Streep - Florence Foster Jenkins
Natalie Portman - Jackie
Ruth Negga - Loving

What do you think about the nominees? What is your ranking? Who are you rooting for? What are your nominees? What do you think will be my ranking, or nominees? Tell us in comments! 

Best Leading Actress 1981

5. Susan Sarandon - Atlantic City

Sarandon is very fine the subtle moments of the film, but they don't very much fit the context of the film. The explosive moment are too overacted, on the other hand. But her chemistry with Lancaster is great and she had some very fine moments here and there.

4. Meryl Streep - The French Lieutenant's Woman
Meryl had recently said that this is a performance she is the least satisfied with. And I might in fact agree with her. She was miscast at the time and she simply failed to bring the required charm and energy to the screen. It's technically a fine performance, yet it misses the needed spark.

3. Marsha Mason - Only When I Laugh
Mason is a wonderful leader of this film and her chemistry with her co-stars (especially James Coco and Kristy McNichol) seems so effortless one might take it for granted. On the other hand she overacts some moment too much in the moments it's a bit distracting. 

2. Diane Keaton - Reds

Keaton is wonderfully leading this film without a help from her co-lead, which is quite impressive. She even managed to create some chemistry with Beatty, as well as with the rest of the cast. When she is on screen with Nicholson, it's a pleasure to watch. On the other hand the subtle moments are mostly too dormant.

1. Katherine Hepburn - On Golden Pond

Hepburn is such a delight in this film. I know, it's not her best performance, it's not even the best performance in this category of the year, but nobody can say it's a bad performance. She makes a wonderful couple with Henry Fonda and she made a believable mother to Jane Fonda. And that was an achievement! 

My Nominees:
1. Kathleen Turner - Body Heat
2. Sally Field - Absence of Malice
3. Katherine Hepburn - On Golden Pond
4. Bernadette Peters - Pennies from Heaven
5. Faye Dunaway - Mommie Dearest (guilty pleasure of mine, such a pleasure to watch)

Best Leading Actress 1981: Diane Keaton - Reds

Reds is a very well directed film, but it's utterly protracted. Luckily it's supported by some very good performances and the above-mentioned directing.
It's not easy to lead the film that lasts more than three hours. Diane Keaton had Warren Beatty to help her, but as an actor he wasn't very helpful.
The role of Louise Bryant is a difficult, yet very complex and good character to play. It's one of those that rarely happen for actresses these times. She is a feminist, she's an intelligent woman, who has her opinion and knows exactly what she wants. Though most of the time this is a very subtle portrayal, it is very convincing and strong. It's exactly the scenes, where Louise has to stand for what she wants, that Keaton shines most in. It doesn't matter if it's a court scene, where she must sustain her opinion, or it's an argument scene with Beatty. She handles all of them quite well.
It's interesting that though she is the leading character of the film, there are moments, in which she is pushed into corner and the true leader of that particular moment is Warren Beatty. However, Keaton handles these situations quite well, because despite she only has two short cuts to her face, we know what Louise is currently thinking about the main action taking place right now.
Keaton is also very good at having a good chemistry with her colleagues. And having a good chemistry with Beatty is a tough thing to achieve, but Keaton is good even at this. (Alright, their chemistry si not perfect, but it's as good, as possible.) But she has the best chemistry with Jack Nicholson. When these two have a scene together, it's a pleasure to watch. Both of them are really great, as both of them fully understood the character and they somehow fulfill each other's performance.
The only blame I'd have against Keaton would the above-mentioned fact that there are scenes, in which she doesn't have many things to do. Sometimes it's not just scenes, where she doesn't have anything to do, but the scenes that she is present in for the whole time and she has an opportunity to play something. She somehow underplays them. I don't know, if it's the result of Beatty's self-centeredness, or it's Keaton, who is to blame here, but that's the way I see it. On the other hand I think it's not only Beatty's fault, because she underplays some reactions even in scenes without Beatty. A because it happens often throughout Reds, I had to lower down her score.
The chances of winning an Oscar: Since Hepburn's win was not expected, I'm going to say that it was a fight between Streep and Keaton, which was won by someone third.

Best Leading Actress 1981: Marsha Mason - Only When I Laugh

Only When I Laugh is quite an enjoyable film that is especially interesting, if you are aware of some paralells with the actual life of Neil Simon. But apart from that, it's a great exhibition of some wonderful performances.
Marsha Mason plays the leading character Georgia, who we see getting back from the rehab. She used to be an alcoholic and now she is starting a new life. She portrays the joy very well. She is determined to begin a completely new chapter, yet she's not naive about it. In fact, I think that many feminists these times would welcome a film like this in the present. Georgia a strong woman and a very showy part to play. Here must be said that Mason uses all of the given potential.
She has got two great friends, who are waiting for her. One is a gay man played by James Coco and the second is a woman her age, who cares too much about her appearance played by Joan Hackett. Chemistry between Mason and Coco is outstanding. I really believed them, that they have known each other for a long time. The easiness and comfort they talk to each other with, is something that I miss with the chemistry between Mason and Hackett. Especially at the beginning of the film, I felt as if they were some further relatives, rather than close friends. This is mainly Hackett's fault, because in her first scenes she really seemed very reserved. It gets better later in the film, but I thought they are not as close, as with Coco. But it isn't a complaint, because it seems logical on the other hand. Hackett has got her own family to take care of. Coco is single and therefore he might have had more time to spend with Mason.
One excellent part of the film is Georgia's relationship with her daughter. They haven't seen each other for quite a long time and Georgia wants to take care of her. We see in Mason's behaviour the enormous trying to be the best mother. This is portrayed flawlessly and the more their relationship seems to be good, the more devastating will the dramatic change at the end of the film be. Both of the actresses (Mason, as well as Kristy McNichol) did their best and delivered first-class performances.
There is a scene in Only When I Laugh, in which her daughter organised a blind date for Georgia and the daughter's teacher. Georgia thinks the teacher wants to talk to her and he thinks she wants to talk to him. How Georgia finds out what's going on, is very well handled by Mason. What I liked even more was a small conniption. It is overacted, there's no doubt about it, but it fits the character 'I am an actress and you're not going to fool around with me!'
Another example of a great overacting is in her scene at the theatre rehearsal. She plays that she is playing and douring this scene I even had shivers. That's exactly a great example of the overacting I love. There is also a great change between acting and a real emotional outburst, that doesn't seem forced and is also very enjoyable.
There is a scene, in which Mason is supposed to be drunk. She plays drunk extremely well. She doesn't overact the drunkeness, she overreacts just like a drunk person does. She is effective in this scene, as she shows equally well, how her character is having a good time, as well as how serious the situation is.
I really liked this performance. Mason was really great. The only blame I'd have is the occasional inconsistency between the authentic real acting and overacting. Both of them I enjoyed, but together, as a part of one performance they don't work as well as they probably should and could have.
The chances of winning an Oscar: She was worshipped in her times and she was Oscar-less. There must have been some overdue factor and the strong character factor. In spite of that, the year and the campaigning was strong and maybe the film's reputation didn't help. She was the fourth.  

Best Leading Actress 1981: Susan Sarandon - Atlantic City

This performance has been the topic of many discussions, since it was campaigned in the supporting category, but it got nominated in the leading. It's the same case, as with Kate Winslet's win, but both of the times I think the Academy got it right. Both ladies are clearly female leads of their film.
Susan Srandon plays Sally, a woman who has had some problems with her life and she starts having an affair with an old retired mob Lou, played by Burt Lancaster. At first their relationship is not very close.
But some time around the first hour of the film, Lancaster's character Lou changes a bit. He starts doing business and it changes him. He starts to be very gentle and kind to Sarandon's character Sally. Sarandon is very good at her reactions to this change. We can clearly see just through her eyes what she thinks about it, but she wants to stay polite, because she needs his help. But then later in the film, their relationship develops too quick, from Sarandon's side. The director and even Lancaster are trying ot make it as slow and realistic, as possible, but Sarandon maybe pushes a bit too much. This is very obvious in a scene at the restaurant. I don't know, if she was trying to play a bit drunk, but if yes, then it wasn't enough and if no, then it was too quick.
On the other hand, later in the film she again gets to those tiny reactions that express she's not interested in Lou. Though they are very well handled by her, they simply don't work in context of the film.
Sarandon has got a overview over her character, which would normally not be bad, but this time it's transformed in the performance in the worst possible way. She became underwhelming throughout her entire performance. It's very disappointing to see it happen, since her character could in fact have been a juicy part to play. (SPOILER ALERT) For example, in a scene, where she sees her husband dead. There is a long take on her face, but there was nothing I could see in her eyes. She doesn't even try. I know that her relationship with him wasn't very good, but it must have done something to her. (SPOILER ENDS)
What is very strange about this performance is the fact that it seemed to me, as if Sarandon didn't know, what attitude Sally has towards Lou. It's like a roller-coaster. Sometime she plays disinterest, sometimes confusion, sometimes she is all right with it and even provokes Lancaster. When those scenes are cut one after another, it really seems odd and improbable.
I must as well say that this performance does have its good parts. For example the scene in the casino at the end of the film, in which she screams at everyone. After this scene she suddenly uses what's given to her and plays just like her previous scenes should have been played.
We all know that Sarandon is not a bad actress. She handled her character this way on purpose. But most of the time I just found it too underwhelming to like it. It's not a bad performance. It's rather a disappointing one.
The chances of winning an Oscar: The category confusion and the fact this is her first nomination weren't very helpful. Another case of 'just happy for the nomination'...