First Post-Oscar Nominations Predictions

[OscarGuy]

Mathematically, the minimum a film can succeed after a vote split is 20.1%.

So, if there are 1000 voters and 5 nominees, it would basically have to be:

199
200
200
200
201

That's the smallest margin by which any film could win, but I agree that it's unlikely, but it is possible. More often, we see the case of voters who object to the content of one movie finding a film that already has support and tossing their own support behind it in order to force a loss. This is a way of thinking, not a conspiracy, but it obviously has happened at least once and no doubt has happened more often than that.

The only evidence we have of minimal support triumphing is in years where we don't have awards sweeps. An awards sweep is often attributed to voters picking one movie above all others in most, if not all, of the categories it's nominated. This tends to lend towards a big vote tally. However, in years where there is no clear frontrunner or in which the frontrunners all have considerable support, you see fractures where once there might have been splinters.

Let's take for instance 1997 and compare it with 2005.

In 1997, Titanic had huge support and pulled a sweep out because it did. While it may not have been the best in every category, it still managed to win on sheer opinion. Brokeback Mountain and Crash each picked up a smattering of awards throughout the evening, which suggested it was a close race because partisan voters kept to their guns, but neutral parties voted for the films they liked and swayed them certain directions.

We know voters aren't as altruistic as some would claim they are. They know where the wind blows and they can play off rumor to sway votes in certain directions if there are enough people that think the same way. It doesn't always happen, but it's there. Some voters will HONESTLY vote for what they think is the best of the year, others have an agenda.

And don't tell me the Academy doesn't have a tendency towards career recognition, jumping behind a candidate in an almost alarmingly uniform direction. You may not believe a group as large as the Academy could suffer from group think, but I'll bet that if we actually were able to conduct a poll each year of the members and how and why they voted, you would find a similar thought pattern in a majority of voters' minds.

[ITALIANO]

It happens much, much less often than some people here seem to think. I mean, sometimes it doesn't EVEN happen when two performers are nominated or the same movie - which is the most typical case of this kind, one even I can agree on - and now we want to believe that it can happen for two movies which only have in common a sort of intellectual appeal? Please. Even if this way of thinking had to be taken seriously, then the "non intellectual" vote would be shared by the THREE other movies, resulting in each of them taking less votes than the two "artistic" ones. This is math, my friends - did you study it at school?

Bette Davis WAS partly the victim of vote-splitting in 1950 - but only because her chances of winning were damaged by Anne Baxter being nominated in the same category for the same movie - in such a close race, even a few votes less count. And there are other examples, I admit it - for example it was obvious that, while both very good, Susan Sarandon and Geena Davis could have never won Best Actress for Thelma and Louise and a third contender would have got to the podium. But let's not forget that in both cases - even if one wants to agree with Big Magilla's theory - this "third" contender was a very strong one (and from a Best Picture nominee), and the two others (Baxter/Parker and I don't even remember who in the Silence of Lambs year) were VERY weak alternatives. And this kind of situation is very rare.

I can even imagine, for example, a similar scenario for Marisa Tomei's win in the early 90s, when ALL the four other nominees - even just for the fact of being non-Americans, but for other aspects too - COULD (and I say could) have kind of damaged each other's changes and led to that big shocking outcome. But really, it happens rarely and only under special circumstances which I honestly don't see this year. And in the next years too, so spare me please.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1201443254

[Big Magilla]

It's safe to assume that the majority of voters preferred either Davis or Swanson, but were evenly split on which one they preferred, getting say 30% each so Judy Holliday, whose performance was appreciated more then than it is now, only needed 31% to win.

Having seen All About Eve and Sunset Boulevard , and Born Yesterday as well, recently, I can say that I disagree with you about this film , and as for the voting, we really don't know what happened. I simply don't know whether the others were preferred over Holliday.

I also take exception , Peter, to your assertion that Judy Holliday's performance is not appreciated "now". May I say that having seen them *then* and now, that Holliday's is the memorable one then *and* now, and Davis' and Swanson's histrionics seem to me , *now*, to be way over the top.

And this is 1950--histrionics were past their prime, as were Davis and Swanson.
And if I knew how to use the bloody italics, I would!

Cam, I don't know too many people who think Holliday deserved the Oscar over Davis and Swanson, but if you're one of them, that's cool. However, I don't know what you mean by Davis and Swanson being past their prime. Neither was playing an ingenue. At 42 and 53, respectively, they were at the same age as their characters.

Davis' performance was subtle and controlled, bringing out the histionics only in the scenes that called for her to act actress-y. Swanson's was more stylized and unreal but in keeping with the fact that she was playing a self-deluded nut job.

Those performances sustained Daivs and Swanson for the rests of their lives. Davis was able to act until she dropped, and if Swanson didn't get a lot of acting assignmnets in films after Sunset Boulevard, she was nevertheless much on TV, primarily as herself, until she died. She also had a good run as Hepburn's replacement in Coco on Broadway in the early 70s which she parlayed into another screen comeback as herself in the silly Airport 1975.

Holliday, though good in Born Yesterday, was even better IMO in The Marrying Kind, The Solid Gold Cadillac and Bells Are Ringing. Although she is fondly remembered today, her career had pretty much petered out by the time she died two weeks before her 44th birthday in 1965. She hadn't made a film in five years and had appeared only briefly in the Broadway flop, Hot Spot in 1963. She had a short lived prime whereas Davis and Swanson were able to extend their theirs for a long, long time.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1201434366

[Sabin]

I think we're forgetting that both movies acknowledge and underlying and rather unsettling moral corruption. 'There Will Be Blood' finds it in the hearts of greedy men who succeed. 'No Country for Old Men' finds it overtaking the planet entire. I think voters will fall in one camp or the other, pro-Coen or pro-P.T.A. I love both movies but I know several people who are very put off by the ending to 'No Country for Old Men' and are passionate about 'There Will Be Blood'. And I also know people who think that Daniel Plainview is an underdeveloped character and find the movie (especially in the final scene) almost pointlessly cruel. I can see people favoring one or the other. We know that if a sprawling epic like 'Atonement' can't get a directing nomination over a procedural ('Michael Clayton') and a comedy ('Juno') then it's probably done. The Film Editing thing confirms it as well. Similarly, 'Michael Clayton''s seven nomination pull seems to be reward in itself, a film certainly liked enough but perhaps that not enough. It's the ruin of 'No Country' or the ruin of 'There Will Be Blood' ...

...And then there's the possibility that some people will throw their arms up and vote for 'Juno' which is the antidote to these films. A movie that says: sometimes 30 year old strippers in the body of 16 year old girls get pregnant, have the baby, and it's hiLARious.

I can only think of two different sets of front-runners that have been so thematically linked: '50's 'All About Eve' & 'Sunset Blvd.' and '74's 'Chinatown' & 'The Godfather: Part II'. In both scenarios, one of them one. If 'Juno' were to upset, I would imagine it would be the biggest Oscar-winning shock since 'Chariots of Fire'. What were people going to vote for? The sprawling communist epic, the sentimental soap opera, the blockbuster thriller, or the sensitive character study? How about Jews running? Let's vote for Jews running. Why? Because it's the least controversial. Everybody loves Jews running fast and succeeding. And every parent on the planet would love as delightful a teenage pregnancy as Juno McGruff's.



Edited By Sabin on 1201433215

[The Original BJ]

I don't see these even going after the same audiences, though. There Will Be Blood is very much epic in scale, in while No Country For Old Men is a fairly small-scaled crime drama. (Although I think it's much, much more than a simple crime drama, but that's another post.)

I agree that the two films are very different...but just because they are different doesn't mean they will appeal to very different audiences. Perhaps this is thinking with my personal taste, but I like both films a lot and don't really have a strong preference as to which one I want to see win. I bet most people who'd rank one of these films the best would rank the other second.

That doesn't mean I think a split will occur, mainly because none of the other films have really broken out as a possible threat...yet at least. Based on the films themselves, Atonement would seem to have the best chance -- it's the classic compromise choice -- but no director nod kills it. As others have said, Michael Clayton is one of those pictures that everyone knew would be nominated but, once the nods are announced, everyone realizes its chances for actually winning are zilch. Juno could be the little upset that could...but I can't see voters going for something so minor, big hit or not.

[Penelope]

And if I knew how to use the bloody italics, I would!

You can either click on the I button above the posting space before the word(s) you want italicized and then click on it again when you're done italicizing, or type [ i ] before the word(s) and then [ /i ] after the word(s) with no spaces between the [ ] and the i and /i.



Edited By Penelope on 1201418313

[cam]

It's safe to assume that the majority of voters preferred either Davis or Swanson, but were evenly split on which one they preferred, getting say 30% each so Judy Holliday, whose performance was appreciated more then than it is now, only needed 31% to win.

Having seen All About Eve and Sunset Boulevard , and Born Yesterday as well, recently, I can say that I disagree with you about this film , and as for the voting, we really don't know what happened. I simply don't know whether the others were preferred over Holliday.

I also take exception , Peter, to your assertion that Judy Holliday's performance is not appreciated "now". May I say that having seen them *then* and now, that Holliday's is the memorable one then *and* now, and Davis' and Swanson's histrionics seem to me , *now*, to be way over the top.

And this is 1950--histrionics were past their prime, as were Davis and Swanson.
And if I knew how to use the bloody italics, I would!

[Penelope]

Any other actress could have done what Christie did in away from her I can name three of the top of my head Mirren, Dench and Redgrave.

Possibly Mirren and Redgrave (either Vanessa or Lynn), but certainly not Dench; she went down this route once before--Iris--and it wasn't all that great.

Still, Christie put her own special Christie-esque qualities to the performance, which is part of the reason it's so powerful. Too, Sarah Polley wrote the part with Christie in mind.

[avril94]

Best picture and director will go to no Country I don't think it deserves it this movie will not attain the same status as Fargo which was far superior.
Best actor will go to Day-Lewis the guy is actually really campaigning hard for this, this year he even made an appearance on Oprah.
Best actress I have stood by Cotillard and continue to believe she will Win, Any other actress could have done what Christie did in away from her I can name three of the top of my head Mirren, Dench and Redgrave.
Best supporting actor will go to Bardem Into the wild's weak showing put the nail in the coffin for Holbrook.
Best supporting actress, Blanchett wins.

[Big Magilla]

The classic cases of cancelling out are the 1950 best actress race between Bette Davis and Gloria Swanosn and the 1951 best picture race between A Place in the Sun and A Streetcar Named Desire.

It's safe to assume that the majority of voters preferred either Davis or Swanson, but were evenly split on which one they preferred, getting say 30% each so Judy Holliday, whose performance was appreciated more then than it is now, only needed 31% to win. That assumes that neither Anne Baxter nor Eleanor Parker got very many votes.

The same is likely true the following year when An American in Paris left Streetcar and Sun in the dust with Quo Vadis and Decision Before Dawn not getting very much support in the bargain.

It's possible for the same thing to happen this year, but I don't think it will because it seems to me that the other three nominee have about the same level of support.

My bet is on Blood, but it could go either way.

[ITALIANO]

Is there any veracity to the "cancel each other out" theory?

No.

[dws1982]

Is that how splits happen? I always thought it was more of a case where two films are similar enough to be going after the same audience, thus hurting the possible outcome.

For it to be a true split, I think it would literally have to happen that way on a large scale. (Note: I'm not one to buy into vote splits very much, and this is part of the reason why.)

I don't see these even going after the same audiences, though. There Will Be Blood is very much epic in scale, in while No Country For Old Men is a fairly small-scaled crime drama. (Although I think it's much, much more than a simple crime drama, but that's another post.)



Edited By dws1982 on 1201403861

[Okri]

Is that how splits happen? I always thought it was more of a case where two films are similar enough to be going after the same audience, thus hurting the possible outcome.

I've seen both, and while I agree that they're not that similar, I wonder if the superficial similarities would be enough.

[dws1982]

They're both generally western-set films (but not Westerns like 3:10 To Yuma) that revolve around people with large amounts of money, but that's as deep as the comparison goes. Aesthetically, stylistically, and thematically, they're very far removed from each other.

It's hard for me to see anyone thinking, "I can't decide which of these to vote for", and next to impossible for me to imagine them following that up with, "so I'll just vote for Juno/Michael Clayton/Atonement." So no, I don't see anything to that theory myself. It may happen on a very small scale with just a handful of voters (but that probably happens every year in a few cases), but I seriously doubt it would be widespread enough to actually effect the outcome.



Edited By dws1982 on 1201403238

[Sonic Youth]

Oh, I'm so glad you spoke up this minute.

You've seen both films; I haven't. Is there any veracity to the "cancel each other out" theory?

I mean, I'm guessing they're not exactly similar movies.