If Hollywood Elsewhere had Roger Durling‘s job as director of the Santa Barbara Int’l Film Festival, right now I’d be doing everything I could to add Andrea Riseborough to the SBIFF Virtuosos panel. She has to be included…no debate!

The current Virtuosos lineup includes Austin Butler (Elvis), Kerry Condon (The Banshees of Inisherin), Danielle Deadwyler (Till), Nina Hoss (Tár), Stephanie Hsu (Everything Everywhere All At Once), Jeremy Pope (The Inspection), Ke Huy Quan (Everything Everywhere All At Once), and Jeremy Strong (Armageddon Time).

The Academy’s statement, by the way, is merely about straddling the gulf between (a) ass-covering and (b) placating the conversation.

Read Pete Hammond’s excellent “Much Ado About Nothing” assessment.

We’ve all been touched by that haunting Citizen Kane moment when the elderly Mr. Bernstein (Everett Sloane) recalls glimpsing a beautiful young lass in a white dress on the Staten Island ferry. No conversation or eye contact — just a glancing whatever when Bernstein saw her and melted, and then the ferry pulled out and that was it…”I only saw her for one second and she didn’t see me at all, but I’ll bet a month hasn’t gone by since that I haven’t thought of that girl.”

Being the impressionable type and certainly a lot more impressionable than Bernstein, I’ve experienced several such moments over the decades. Probably dozens. But there was one in particular…oh, man. Early Clinton era, ’93 or ’94…yours truly inside West Hollywood’s Monkey Bar (8225 Beverly Blvd.), a highly magnetized, hard-to-get-into joint that had opened in October ’92 with a general understanding that Jack Nicholson liked to drop by now and then…probably the hottest place in California or maybe even the world that night. How do you calculate this stuff?

And suddenly my gaze fell upon actress Joan Severance, a total smoke show and a reasonably decent actress who was known for Red Shoe Diaries and Lake Consequence…around 35 at the time. Severance had risen from her seat at a well-located table and was staring at something or someone across the room, and my first thought was “she’s standing there because she knows everyone is looking at her and she loves the attention, and who can blame her?”

But my God, the beauty…those eyes, the cheekbones and that mouth, that exquisite jawline and the perfect hair and tanned skin…nothing happened and she certainly didn’t notice my marginal journalistic ass, standing at the bar some 30 or 40 feet away. But here we are 30 years later and this moment is a memory tattoo.

One reason I want to see Frances O’Connor‘s Emily is because of Emma Mackey, who has a bit of that Severance thing going on. She plays the titular role of “Wuthering Heights” author Emily Bronte.

As I’ve said two or three times, I didn’t feel a great deal of affection for or emotional alignment with Andrea Riseborough’s performance as an all-but-incorrigible drunk in To Leslie, which relatively few have seen. Released by Momentum Pictures on 10.7.22, the film has earned a bit more than $27K so far.

To Leslie is, however, being re-released this weekend in the wake of Riseborough landing a Best Actress nomination, which was totally surprising and seat-of-the-pants. But there’s an odd (do I mean oddly hysterical?) side angle to this.

Hold onto your hats, but certain industry voices and at least one industry analyst are viewing the Riseborough insurgency with a degree of SJW alarm, suggesting that there was something (no invention or exaggeration) bluntly racist about it. “Racially-tinged cronyism”! A grass-roots campaign fortified by “a network of powerful (and, let’s be honest, white) friends in the Academy”!

From Matthew Belloni’s latest “What I’m Hearing” column:

If you have any sporting blood you have to at least half-admire the fact that Team Riseborough (led by actress Mary McCormack, wife of To Leslie director Michael Morris, with vigorous assistance from Frances Fisher) managed to land Riseborough a Best Actress nomination. They basically mounted a grass-roots social-network campaign, but one that may have been “illegal,” according to Belloni.

If the general consensus was, in an alternate universe, that the Riseborough campaign had elbowed aside a couple of deserving paleface actresses instead of Viola Davis and Danielle Deadwyler, does anyone think that Belloni or anyone else would be talking about illegality?

Renegade Oscar campaigns go all the way back to The Alamo’s Chill Wills. It’s sometimes a rough and tumble game, and there are always questions and quibbles about tactics and line-crossings. But from this moment on, Andrea Riseborough is a name, a star, even a legend.

Did I not say a few days ago that I smelled trouble after watching the trailer for Shrinking (Apple, 1.27)?

From Martin Robinson‘s recent review:

“The big question that comes from watching the new therapist comedy Shrinking, is: are there therapists who can help those who watched Shrinking?

“Oh boy, this is…bad. Which is very disappointing, because it looked great on paper. Jason Segel — has there been a more likeable actor ever? Harrison Ford — has there ever been a more beloved film icon? And though they may try hard (well, Segel tries hard; Ford phones it in, but that’s to be expected, he practically invented phoning it in the moment an Ewok starting hugging his leg in Return of the Jedi), the show has a death wish with regards to sentimentality: every pithy or mildly bruising encounter is followed by a plunge off a cliff into yet another musical montage of people bonding.

“Shrinking is about a therapist called Jimmy (Segel) whose wife has died, leading him into a breakdown in which he starts telling his clients what he really thinks about them and their problems. Much to the disdain of his curmudgeonly boss at the clinic, Paul (Ford), who has Parkinson’s and his own grief to deal with.

“It’s not a bad set-up, and you could imagine, say, Vince Gilligan bringing out all the darkly funny shades within that story. But here, Segel along with fellow co-creators Brett Goldstein (Ted Lasso) and Bill Lawrence (Scrubs), can’t seem to help but keep things easy and breezy and outright nauseating.

“So while our first sight of Jimmy is of him drinking and doing prescription drugs in his pool with two prostitutes while his teenage daughter is asleep inside the house, he’s really nice and shuts everything down when his neighbor complains, and… well, that’s the last we see of him doing anything self-destructive on the drink or drug related. That’s some addiction.”

As far as Academy membership is concerned, one measure of fairness and equity would be to have Academy membership reflect general U.S.population tallies in terms of tribal ethnicities and whatnot. What are the actual hard Academy percentages as far as this goes? I’m asking.

We all understand that the Academy has become much more diverse since 2015. Two and a half years ago the Academy invited 819 new members into the fold. On 6.30.20 Variety‘s Marc Malkin reported that total Academy membership thereafter stood at 9,412 “with 45% of the new members will be women and 36% are from underrepresented ethnic/racial communities…the international make-up is 49% from 68 countries.”

But right now (January ’23), what percentage of the Academy is white, African American. Asian-descended, LatinX and so on? I’m searching around for hard stats and not finding any from ’22. Then again I’m in a rush and haven’t the time. I’ve asked some colleagues but they’re probably gun-shy…too much of a sticky wicket.

Should Academy percentages roughly equate with U.S. population percentages? That would be one yardstick. Right now the U.S. is roughly 60% white, 12.6% African American, 18.9% Latino, 9% Asian and so on.

Or should the Academy percentages be higher, based on the number of POCs or non-whites working in the film/TV industry? I honestly don’t know. But there has to be some statistical basis for fairness and inclusion.

Yesterday a “woe to black women filmmakers…Oscars-so-white is back” essay appeared in the Los Angeles Times, which of course was one of many articles lamenting the failure of Danielle Deadwyler and Viola Davis to land Best Actress noms for their respective performances in Till and The Woman King.

Written by Robert Daniels, the piece was a complaint about a seeming failure of Academy voters to follow the dictates of equity and quota voting, which basically means “to hell with merit…we’re in an age of social justice course correction and therefore it’s just not right for both Deadwyler and Davis to have come up empty-handed or, if you will, to have been elbowed aside.”

Do I have to remind that the chances of a Davis nomination were more or less out the window the minute those articles about Dahomey having profited from the slave trade appeared last September and October? They gave everyone an excuse to not vote for her.

And of course, Deadywler’s commanding lead performance aside, Till is just an okay or good enough film — it didn’t blow anyone’s socks off. So when Andrea Riseborough and her hardcore rummy performance in To Leslie busted into the conversation two or three weeks ago, it was inevitable (speaking from hindsight) that a weak sister contender would get pushed out. Fairly or unfairly, Deadwyler was the victim in this instance.

Riseborough to Deadwyler: “Excuse me, Danielle, but…wow, this is hard because I don’t know to put this. I absolutely adored your Till performance and all, but it’s not my fault that relatively few people saw it. The cold, cruel fact is that (a) I’m a latecomer and (b) I’m riding a surge, and I’m afraid somebody has to go. I know you’ve been working the circuit for several weeks plus you’re a presumed nominee for two reasons — how good you are in Till plus the equity thing. But I’m tapping you on the shoulder regardless. I’m in and you’re out…sorry.”