Amy Madigan's Potential Weapons Win Shouldn't Be Considered A Career Oscar

The other day, I was innocently browsing X — which I still call "Twitter," by the by — when I came across what I can only describe as a "bad take." Referencing "Weapons" actress Amy Madigan's win in the supporting actress category at the recently rebranded Actor Awards (formerly known as the Screen Actors Guild Awards), user @upperupland wrote, "I'm so f***ing tired of career awards for old washed up actors just because everyone feels bad for them for their tanked careers. Very few people take awards seriously anymore because it always results with this bullsh**."

I'm sorry to put this person on blast, but that's just ... flat-out wrong. (Also, I'm not really sorry. They wrote it on the Internet for everyone to see, and that's how this stuff works.) First of all, calling Madigan "washed up" with a "tanked career" and suggesting that people pity the veteran actress is straight-up rude, and furthermore, if Madigan wins an Oscar for her genuinely phenomenal performance as Gladys in Zach Cregger's sophomore feature, she'll deserve it wholeheartedly.

To be fair, the Supporting Actress category at the Oscars this year is stacked. Alongside Madigan, Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas and Elle Fanning are both nominated for Joachim Trier's family drama "Sentimental Value." Wunmi Mosaku joins them as a nominee for Ryan Coogler's beautifully bloody blockbuster "Sinners," and Teyana Taylor rounds out the category for Paul Thomas Anderson's American masterpiece "One Battle After Another." (Everyone except Madigan, who earned her first nod in 1986 for "Twice in a Lifetime," is a first-time nominee. It's exciting!) Still, I take umbrage on Madigan's behalf at someone claiming she'd only win because people feel bad that her career is "washed up." Madigan may very well win, and that would be a thrilling outcome.

What do we talk about when we talk about "career Oscars?" The clearest example is probably the fact that Al Pacino won an acting award from the Academy for "Scent of a Woman" after years of not winning any acting Oscars at all — including for his roles in, say, "The Godfather" and its beloved sequel. You could also probably claim that Jamie Lee Curtis' win for "Everything Everywhere All At Once" in 2022 felt like it honored her "career" at large, letting her beat out candidates like Angela Bassett for "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" and Curtis' own co-star Stephanie Hsu. If Amy Madigan triumphs in the Best Supporting Actress category, it won't be because she's some washed-up loser the Academy pities; it'll be because she gave the best supporting performance of the year.

Madigan, who you might remember from "Field of Dreams," hasn't worked a ton recently; before "Weapons," her most high-profile role was a therapist on "Grey's Anatomy" (and that was a while ago now). In a profile in The Hollywood Reporter in 2025, Madigan said that when she did get recognized, people asked rude questions about her career. "Let's say I'd be in the airport and someone recognized me — they'd go, 'Oh, are you still acting?' or 'So what are you doing? Did you give up acting?' " she said. "Those kinds of questions, just straight out!"

Just because Madigan nearly quit acting entirely before booking "Weapons" doesn't mean she's some desperate loser who's getting a pity Oscar. Madigan's return in "Weapons" isn't just one of the best performances of the year; she defines the entire project.

The second time I saw "Weapons" in theaters, a friend of mine joined me — and I was almost levitating out of my seat when we finally saw Amy Madigan's Gladys (when we properly see her, not in the disturbing visions that feature her before her actual, corporeal form appears to meet with Benedict Wong's Marcus Cho). Without thinking, as Gladys appeared on screen, I muttered, "This diva." That's her impact. Gladys is, without question, the most important character in "Weapons," and she's the one that sticks in your head after you leave the theater.

I bring up this admittedly silly anecdote because, with the utmost due respect to Madigan's "Weapons" co-stars Julia Garner, Josh Brolin, Wong, Austin Abrams, and the outstanding child actor Cary Christopher, Madigan is the breakout character. (If you went out for Halloween this year, I'd be willing to bet that you saw at least a few Gladys-inspired wigs and lipstick smears.) Not only does she drive the movie's action, but Madigan, an unbelievably talented and versatile actress, uses her meager 14 minutes of screen time so beautifully that her visage literally represents the entire movie. There's also the way that Madigan switches between a sickly-sweet act and a darker, foreboding tone, especially in her scenes with Christopher's Alex; her range is on full display here, and it's incredible.

Zach Cregger himself said "Weapons" wouldn't work without Madigan, and we here at /Film have been ringing the Oscar bell for her since the movie's release. If Madigan's name is on that winning envelope during the Oscars on Sunday, March 15, naysayers can rest easy knowing it's not a pity party. It's a celebration of her incredible work.