Don't Fret Over Viola Davis...

Somewhere deep down inside me, I knew this would happen. I denied the feeling but it was there. The race for Best Actress this year was a classic case of Brain vs. Heart. My brain told me Viola had the deck stacked in her favor. My heart told me Meryl would be a stealth victor. 

Seriously, why would I doubt my brain? After all, Viola Davis had key precursor victories (Critics’ Choice and especially SAG), “momentum”, a ubiquitous campaign, an air of inevitability, and a winning narrative. In any given year, why wouldn’t she emerge victorious? Even her defeats at the hands of Meryl could be explained away. The Globes love Meryl and they’re an international body who couldn’t relate to the character of Abilene. The BAFTAs (British Academy Awards) gave Meryl her prize because she played a (in)famous Brit; they were simply awarding their “hometown” gal. Well, another lesson learned. Precursors are very important indicators as to where the Oscars will land, and this year, we should have listened to the Brits. 

I don’t think Meryl triumphed because she had the superior performance. Cynically speaking, Academy voters don’t often use that criterion as their motivation for awarding an actor. Winning performances usually fit into one of two categories: “due” veteran or rising ingénue; and this is especially the case for Best Actress. Going back to the year Julia Roberts (veteran) won in 2000, the only exception to either category was Hillary Swank, who won her second Oscar in five years for “Million Dollar Baby”. The story on Streep since she last won a Best Actress award for “Sophie’s Choice” has been, “when will she win a third?” She is, after all, indisputably the Greatest Living Actress of Our Time. The movement to give Streep a third win really began to ramp-up during her late-career resurgence in the early 2000s, namely for her quirky, masterful work in “Adaptation”. That movement only grew as the years went by and the nominations stacked up. The one thing in her way, however, was those young starlets (and veterans) who often prove the apple of the Academy’s eye. Women like Catherine Zeta-Jones (ingénue) and Helen Mirren (veteran) and Kate Winslet (veteran) and Sandra Bullock (veteran) all denied Meryl her third Oscar, even though (I would argue) she gave superior performances. 

(For the record, I love me some Meryl Streep, I'm glad she won her third, just wish it came for  "A Cry in the Dark", "The Devil Wears Prada", or "Doubt")

So here we are in 2012 and Meryl finally pulled off the feat. Even as she almost blatantly campaigned for Viola Davis and critics universally savaged the movie from which her Margaret Thatcher came. That’s because Viola neither fit-in as an ingénue or a “due” veteran. Her campaign was one of defensive entitlement. She somewhat paid the price for Halle Berry. 

Viola Davis lost that Oscar, not because she didn’t give a stellar performance, but because she spent the entirety of her campaign DEFENDING it! On nearly every outlet that featured the actress in the run-up to the Oscars, from Tavis Smiley to the Newsweek Roundtable and others, Viola was forced to address the “controversy” surrounding her choice of playing Abilene and the flaws of the movie. She wasn’t given powder puff questions the way other front running actresses would have received. Sandra Bullock didn’t spend her campaign explaining the “controversy” over her “white savior” role in “The Blind Side”. There was an equal amount of folks deriding that film, but Bullock was not called to be the “authority” on the racial implications of its message. Davis however, much like many black folks paving a new way, had to spend her time being “deep”. Personally, I think that turned off a lot of voters, who weren’t interested in fueling controversy and awarding a performance so many criticized for being “stereotypical”. 

Secondly, the media tried to make this an “entitlement” victory. They played the race card, trumpeting this victory as a win for all black actresses in Hollywood. Surely in conjunction with the defensiveness of her campaign, Viola was the victim of being a “representative”, instead of being praised as an actress. Octavia Spencer didn’t mirror this approach, nor was she subjected to it by the media (more likely because so many other black actresses have won in her category), and she won…all season long. The entitlement narrative worked for Halle Berry because it was legitimate. Before her, no black woman had ever won Best Actress. The movement behind her was one of emotion and rooting for her “representation”. No one had to force-feed that narrative, whereas in Viola’s case, I’m sure it felt very much like manipulation. 

I don’t credit (or blame) Viola for this loss. I blame the media. And I blame all those folks out there who made Abilene and her film, “controversial”. I hope they’re happy, they just denied a talented actress who happens to be black her due. 

Perhaps the best thing to come from this epic upset is that Viola can now legitimately be called a “due veteran”. And that means the Academy will be checking to see when they may honor her in the future. She has already broken precedent by being the first black female to be nominated for the Oscars on more than one occasion, so there’s no reason to believe Ms. Davis will disappear silently into the night without getting her due recognition at a later date. Additionally, maybe next time Viola campaigns, she won’t be forced to defend her choices and instead be allowed to talk about the performance itself. Next time, that sense of “entitlement” will be due to her veteran status, not her race, which may prove an easier pill to swallow for an Academy made up largely of old, white men. 

I predict Viola will win her Oscar one day. It may not be next year or the one after that, but as widely respected as she’s become, Davis will be “due”. Ironically, as per usual with Oscar, when that day comes, it may be at the expense of a more deserving performance.