IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Performances that are too intense for Oscar

Will Robert Downey Jr.'s performance in blackface result in an Oscar nomination? How about Benicio del Toro starring in a 4 1/2-hour movie about Che? These are probably too controversial for Oscar.

During the 2005 Oscar season, my friend and colleague Manohla Dargis was characteristically direct when one of her New York Times readers asked why, in a year when “Sideways” was respected enough by the Academy to receive five Oscar nominations, was there no love for Paul Giamatti’s extraordinary lead performance.

“The best explanation that I’ve heard, one I wish I had thought of it, is that while film critics embraced the actor and the performance, because they relate to both, actors are terrified of the specter that each presents,” Dargis wrote. “Actors sell themselves as being completely together, manicured, extraordinary physical specimens; they are not (or so they think and hope) losers. In this sense, both Mr. Giamatti, whose physical appearance is a rebuke to the buff and gloss of Hollywood’s plastic people, and the sad-sack character he plays in ‘Sideways’ represent twinned nightmares for these professional narcissists. Then there’s the fact that actors can also be pretty damn stupid.”

And so it goes that many great performances have been ignored by the Academy over the years by virtue of the fact that the acting makes other actors feel… uncomfortable. Giamatti was snubbed the year before “Sideways” for his decidedly unfabulous portrayal of shabby comics genius Harvey Pekar in “American Splendor,” and back in 1983, Eric Roberts did such a bravura job of bringing real-life Hollywood bottom-feeder (and murderer) Paul Snider to life in Bob Fosse’s “Star 80” that the Oscars wouldn’t touch his work with a 10-foot pole.

These are just two examples of many that get short shrift every year. Whether it’s because these performances fail to provide the requisite uplift — or maybe it’s just the thought of watching clips of those performances on the Oscar telecast — Academy voters often eschew fascinating but challenging work in favor of safer, well-manicured performances that can be more easily quantified. (He’s a straight guy playing gay! She’s pretty but she gained weight and wore ugly false teeth!)

Here are some of 2008’s finest performances that may unfortunately prove to be not the Academy’s cup of tea this time around:

Robert Downey Jr., “Tropic Thunder”: The notion of putting blackface into a mainstream comedy and making it politically unassailable — by making the character, a ridiculously dedicated Australian method actor who surgically dyes his skin to play an African-American role in a film, eminently mockable — was one of the boldest gambits in a film last year. And it wouldn’t have worked without Downey at the helm, turning the character into a pompous, pretentious peacock who claims to remain in character until the recording of the DVD commentary.

Why they won’t nominate him: This is the group that gave a best-picture award to “Crash,” let’s not forget. They’re not ready for audacious satire regarding race.

Philip Seymour Hoffman, “Synecdoche, New York”: As theater director Caden Cotard, who wins a MacArthur Genius Grant right after he’s abandoned by his wife and beloved daughter, Hoffman unforgettably inhabits an artist who tries desperately to recreate successfully on stage all the things that elude him in real life. As his theatrical production grows more and more elaborate, Caden’s health deteriorates until he literally disappears into his own creation.

Why they won’t nominate him: Hoffman in this movie makes Giamatti in “Sideways” look like Seann William Scott. Also, actors all secretly want to direct, so they don’t want to hear that directing can be just as soul-draining as any other artistic endeavor.

The rest of the cast, “Synecdoche, New York”: You’ve got Catherine Keener and Jennifer Jason Leigh playing cruelly abrasive women, Tom Noonan as a stalker and Dianne Wiest as an enigmatic figure who subsumes her director’s life. Not to mention Samantha Morton as an elusive object of desire and Emily Watson as a version of Samantha Morton.

Why they won’t nominate them: Not a lot of catharsis or hugs or scenery-chewing in this bunch. Just honest, challenging acting that doesn’t cue the audience what to think about the characters.

Angelina Jolie, “Changeling”: Clint Eastwood’s missing-child saga unabashedly embraces the conventions of the melodrama and even the cliffhanger. (Will they rescue the plucky single mother before the evil doctors perform shock therapy on her?) Jolie throws herself into the mix with a larger-than-life performance of suffering and inner torment that would fit perfectly in a Douglas Sirk movie but doesn’t follow the contemporary fashions in acting.

Why they won’t nominate her: For one thing, the ad campaign turned Jolie’s wail of “I want MY son!” into something of a running gag among people who hadn’t even seen the movie. And until Jolie can shake the ubiquity of “Brangelina” in the tabloid press, many Academy voters will no doubt think that the one Oscar this actress already has should suffice.

Michelle Williams, “Wendy and Lucy”: Indie films often violate the unwritten rule of Hollywood cinema that states that viewers will follow movies to the darkest places so long as everything gets tidied up in the final reel. Williams gives a gut-wrenching performance as a woman running out of choices because of lack of finances, and — without getting too spoiler-y — the climax doesn’t exactly allow much room for audiences to exhale.

Why they won’t nominate her: Voters quite likely didn’t see the movie, and many of those who did probably don’t want to reminded of their own looming lack of finances.

Benicio del Toro, “Che”: Del Toro’s performance as Ernesto “Che” Guevara — like the movie in which it appears — refuses to stop and explain itself to you. What we learn about the man from the actor comes from paying attention to the details and to the tiny moments of life as it is lived, and not from speeches where the character spills his soul to another character who acts as an audience surrogate. Thankfully, while del Toro makes you work for it, there’s a great deal to be gleaned from his work here.

Why they won’t nominate him: “Subtlety” is not an attribution that pops up often when looking at Oscar-nominated performances of the past. Being in a 4 1/2-hour movie probably doesn’t help him much, either.

Catherine Deneuve, “A Christmas Tale”: Judging from such past wins as Anthony Hopkins in “Silence of the Lambs,” Kathy Bates in “Misery” and Charlize Theron in “Monster,” the Academy likes its villainy with a capital V. The fact that Deneuve plays a selfish and casually cruel mother with icy, polite disdain rather than scenery-chewing, smoke-emitting intensity falls into a moral gray area that’s too ambiguous for comfort.

Why they won’t nominate her: She doesn’t actually kill anyone; the character just expects her children to volunteer for a life-threatening marrow transplant because they all owe her their lives in the first place. (Thanks, Mom!)

Josh Brolin, “W.” and “Milk”: In Oliver Stone’s portrait of the 43rd president, Brolin had the brass to make us feel compassion for one of the most widely loathed commanders-in-chief in American history. For Gus Van Sant, Brolin takes another despised politician and reminds us what the face of wholesome, polite, all-American face of homophobia looks like.

Why they won’t nominate him: No one wants to cop to liking Bush for fear of being cast in “An American Carol 2.” And Hollywood’s many polite homophobes were probably unsettled at seeing their own reflection, assuming they didn’t pull an Ernest Borgnine and shun the movie outright.

Heath Ledger — had he lived — “The Dark Knight”: A sophisticated psychopath, like Hannibal Lecter, is one thing. But when movies give us the real thing — like, say, Jeremy Renner in the little-seen “Dahmer” — the Academy hides its eyes in horror. After the tragic death of Heath Ledger last year, however, this is the last chance for the Oscars to honor one of this generation’s most promising actors.

Why they wouldn’t have nominated him were he still with us: He’s playing a disturbing mass-murderer in a movie based on a comic book. This is not the sort of role one takes on in the hopes of being recognized by Oscar. Critics would still have been spellbound by his work here, but the Academy would have waited for him to do something safer and more palatable.