Mister Tee wrote:Magilla, I'm not sure it's appropriate to say you agree with Mark Harris, since I took his point to be that, whatever pleasing narrative 12 Years a Slave may fit into, it's way too early to be making sweeping judgments, with at least half a dozen major films still unseen.
Yes, that's his point. I agree with him, but I also agree with the prognosticators. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Many of the same prognosticators will be voting for various regional awards which will make their predictions come true. It doesn't necessarily mean that Oscar will follow suit, but 12 Years is a fact-based history lesson that will appeal strongly to an Academy membership that liked The King's Speech more than they did The Social Network and with no Argo on the horizon, there doesn't seem to be a spoiler lurking in the wings to zap its front-runner status a la Lincoln last year. It would be nice to be surprised, but I don't expect to be.
What we really need is an embargo on Oscar predictions, but that isn't going to happen any time soon and in a few days Harris will come out with his own predictions which will likely have 12 Years in front-runner status, too.
FilmFan720 wrote:Year after year, we are handed an extremely important, socially relevant and epically made film that the academy is supposedly going to embrace and year after year the film ends up losing to something lighter and more "entertaining."...Avatar and Inglorious Basterds lost to The Hurt Locker.
I don't disagree with your premise, but I think this is more of an exception rather than example of it.
Last edited by dws1982 on Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Original BJ wrote: Chiwetel Ejiofor (which, since you mentioned spelling, you actually did spell wrong, Mister Tee
Thanks for pointing it out . (I realized after a few days, but at that point it seemed cheating to correct. I was so concentrated on getting the last name correct -- I'd been WAY off on that -- that I neglected the first)
To address a few points:
My pessimism about Fruitvale Station is not so much based on its raw total as its box-office trajectory. My long-time rule of thumb has been, a film that holds up well week over week is apparently popular with audiences, and is likely to be so with voters as well. Thus, Blue Jasmine's solid run, despite not yielding blockbuster totals, bespeaks audience satisfaction that helps Blanchett over and above the reviews she got. Fruitvale Station started off extremely well, but declined more sharply than is desirable (and more sharply than Beasts of the Southern Wild, despite ending up with a higher final gross). I'd be happy to be wrong, because I admire the film, but I think its best shots are Spencer and the screenplay.
Not to re-litigate The Help, but I think that film, with its 50s-bestseller pulp framework, had at least some engaging characters, and its racial issues were framed within a story somewhat freshly explored. The Butler is considerably more routine -- it's like a survey course or TV miniseries covering the familiar events of the 50s and 60s, with fairly flat characters at the center. I found myself actually yearning for some of the lunatic touches Daniels had displayed in his previous films, to relieve the blandness.
Magilla, I'm not sure it's appropriate to say you agree with Mark Harris, since I took his point to be that, whatever pleasing narrative 12 Years a Slave may fit into, it's way too early to be making sweeping judgments, with at least half a dozen major films still unseen. For you to talk about things like "the fifth slot" under best actor seem wildly premature in just the way Harris is cautioning against. (As for the Judi Dench declaration -- Magilla predicts an old lady to win; stop the presses)
May I suggest, also, that the idea of the Academy honoring 12 Years for its strong statement on an important issue may reflect an outdated model of the best picture winner? Yes, from The Lost Weekend through Schindler's List, such films have classically won the top prize. But the Shakespeare in Love victory over Saving Private Ryan may have marked more than a personal victory for Harvey Weinstein; it might have announced a move away from that prestige standard. In the years since, Gladiator beat Traffic, Chicago topped The Pianist, The Departed bested Letters from Iwo Jima, Argo won over Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty (Crash over Brokeback Mountain was more a lateral thing -- not in quality, but in perceived significance). It may be that today's Oscar voters are more used to voting for lighter-weight efforts than their forebears.
Oh good, we have officially entered my least favorite part of the year, when people start making proclamations about a race that we still know very little about. How can anyone feel like they can make any kind of claim about who is the person to beat, or who is out of the race, when their movies haven't even come out yet. There is so much still to happen, and so many unknowns...making predictions about nominations is risky enough.
The major problem that I have with all of the hype around 12 Years a Slave (besides my general lack of interest in Steve McQueen's films) is that it doesn't fit into the types of films the Academy has been embracing for the past few years. Year after year, we are handed an extremely important, socially relevant and epically made film that the academy is supposedly going to embrace and year after year the film ends up losing to something lighter and more "entertaining." Lincoln lost to Argo, The Social Network lost to The King's Speech, Avatar and Inglorious Basterds lost to The Hurt Locker, Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon and The Reader lost to Slumdog Millionaire, and in betweens the Best Picture has gone to thrillers and light comedies. The last really traditionally "epic" film to win was Lord of the Rings a decade ago. If this were the mid-90s, after the era of Gandhi, The Last Emperor, Dances with Wolves and The English Patient, I would see a frontrunner. But I have a hard time seeing the current Academy embracing this film as the best of the year, especially if it is as rough to watch as it seems it might be.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
I have to say I agree with him. I, myself, predicted here that 12 Years a Slave had to be the presumptive favorite based on early reviews. The only film that so far seems to have a chance of beating it is Gravity even if some Oscar bloggers are still holding out hope for David O. Russell's American Hustle and Martin Scorsese's Wolf of Wall Street, neither of which has been finished, let alone seen.
To B.J.'s point, Barkhad Albi in Captain Phillips and Iris Elba and Naomie Harris in Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom are other black actors in contention, although the latter two are facing an uphill battle based on the film's overall reception.
Right now, I'd say 12 Years a Slave and Steve McQueen are still the ones to be for Best Picture and Director with Gravity and Alfonso Cuaron still their only threat. Chiwetel Ejiofor is still the one to beat for Best Actor, but Matthew McConnaughey in Dallas Buyers Club should win enough critics awards to make it seem like a more open race. Robert Redford in All Is Lost should get the geezer vote over Bruce Dern in Nebraska and Tom Hanks in Captain Phillips is the only former winner likely to be the race. The fifth slot is still wide open.
Lupita Nyong'o is still the likely Supporting Actress winner, with former winner Octavia Spencer in Fruitvale Station and the omnipresent Oprah Winfrey in The Butler (I refuse to call it Lee Daniels' The Butler) thus far her strongest competition.
With the mixed reviews that August: Osage County has been getting, Philomena now more than ever seems to be Harvey's best bet to take home yet another Best Actress trophy. It finally has a U.S. opening date - Christmas Day in New York and L.A. (San Francisco, Boston, Chicago as well?), the rest of the country January 10th. The big question is can Judi Dench beat Cate Blanchett in critics' darling Blue Jasmine? I think so.
That leaves Supporting Actor as the potentially most wide open race among the top six. As of now it should be a duel to the finish between Michael Fassbender in 12 Years a Slave and Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club, the latter taking critics by surprise as McConnaughey's drag queen business partner in the film.
Do we really think Fruitvale Station is out of Best Picture contention? I realize that it wasn't a box-office hit, even at its level. But it sort of strikes me as the kind of movie that people discover more during Oscar season, when awards buzz brings it back into the conversation. Fruitvale Station grossed more than Beasts of the Southern Wild did, and that was a movie that most people I know didn't finally see until awards season. It seems to me that Harvey Weinstein can REALLY push the timeliness of the material -- I saw the movie the day after George Zimmerman was acquitted, and it was difficult NOT to be engaged with the movie emotionally for this reason, never mind the merits/flaws (and I think there are some of both) in its filmmaking. I think it might not be on the tip of everyone's tongue right now, but I'm not sure it will just be forgotten.
It's also worth noting that it seems like there's potential for this to be a record-breaking year for black actors. 12 Years a Slave seems a near-certain Best Picture candidate, and I imagine The Butler is in good shape too, mainly due to the strong-box-office-for-a-historical-drama factor that certainly helped The Help in its year. (Snarky side question: wasn't The Help already The Help-lite?) And maybe there's still a chance for Fruitvale. In Director, Steve McQueen and (less likely, but still possible) Lee Daniels stand a shot. And the actors in the running -- Chiwetel Ejiofor (which, since you mentioned spelling, you actually did spell wrong, Mister Tee ), Forest Whitaker, Michael B. Jordan, Oprah, Lupita Nyong'o, Octavia Spencer, and maybe someone else -- could possibly top or at least match 2006's record of five black acting nominees. And Fruitvale's Ryan Coogler and Slave's John Ridley could represent in the writing categories.
Analyzing the Oscars can often be a way to examine the industry in general, and I think the fact that many of us feel there's no certain Visual Effects nominee is a pretty clear indication of one thing: this summer sucked, at least for the tentpoles. I assume Gravity will end up the eventual winner, with The Hobbit: If I Type the Actual Title I Might Burst Into Laughter along for the ride. And then...I guess some stuff from the summer. I'd bet most on Iron Man 3, just because it was such a big hit (god knows why). Maybe Pacific Rim, given Guillermo del Toro's street cred and the fact that the effects did look pretty elaborate (at least from the trailer, I didn't venture to that one.) And perhaps Star Trek, another successful sequel with some graceful effects. But, like last year, I don't imagine this will be a banner year for the category.
Animated Feature is another category that will be searching for nominees. I liked Monsters University more than Brave, but I really feel like the situation would just have to be default-to-Pixar for the prequel to carry the day. Frozen could have the potential -- I've seen a bit of the animation at Disney events over the last two years, and it looks beautiful. And the songs are by Book of Mormon/Avenue Q songwriter Bobby Lopez (and his co-writer wife Kristen), performed by a pretty top-notch musical theater cast. And it's worth noting that Disney Feature Animation has still never won one of these Animated Feature trophies. And I imagine Miyazaki's final film, The Wind Rises, could be a threat too. As for the rest of the nominees, it's maybe possible that two sequels -- Despicable Me 2 and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2 -- could be in the surprising position of nabbing a nomination their first installments could not.
My god, I really hope we aren't being set up for another Emmanuel Lubezki disappointment. I've been tricked down that road way too many times, it seems.
It will be a bittersweet irony to have to root for Lubezki to win for the sort of FX-heavy cinematog-hybrids that have increasingly become associated with this category, and which have sidelined some of Lubezki's best work in the classical lensing tradition.
It will be a sad irony if the conversation about this trend turns the tide against Lubezki's bid this year and he ends up a bridesmaid yet again, in favor of something earthy like, say, Roger Deakins' Prisoners.
The only film I've seen at TIFF that'll get real oscar recognition is Gravity - though I have missed/skipped most of the bigger players. I remember Tee mentioning during the Blind Side season (after Bullock won) that Bullock might surprise and come back to win for a more truly deserving film (a la Elizabeth Taylor with her two victories). I don't think that'll happen, to be honest, but the nomination is definitely a possibility (only the strength of the year acts as an obstacle). She's good, but this is clearly Cuaron's show - he and his crew of craftsmen will surely be in play throughout the season (though I'd be genuinely surprised if Cuaron went all the way and won). The visual effects are locked in to win, though. Lubezki? I dunno - I don't get how AMPAS votes for cinematography now. Lubezki does give us undeniably pretty pictures, astonishing virtuosity and does so in the special effects framework this category seems to need now.
Would any of you dare say Streep misses a nomination due to a split in lead/support votes for her, or do you think her campaign will eventually lead her to one or the other?
My hope is that the critics awards and Golden Globes slate her as a lead to get everything on the right track.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Mister Tee wrote:(Someone pointed out that having Bullock on this slate in an odd way makes her otherwise ghastly ‘09 win seem a small blessing. Had she lost then, she might be an even greater sentimental favorite this year. And, while her beating Streep for Julie and Julia was a minor crime, beating Blanchett or Streep at full throttle would be a capital offense)
Although there appears to be a critical consensus that Bullock's performance in Gravity, unlike hers in The Blind Side, is actually worthy of an Oscar win.
Good summarization on what we have so far this year.
I agree with you on the Supporting Actress race. Those five look like strong candidates, but the big question is if Meryl Streep will be campaigned here (whether it is justified or not…)
If I had to call acting winners by now, I would say McConaughey, Blanchett, Fassbender and Winfrey have the best chances.
I meant to put together an end-of-summer/Oscar outlook piece prior to the kick-off of Venice/Telluride, but the flu delayed me. Now, with Toronto about to kick off in the A.M., I still don’t have a fully thought out piece. But here’s a short précis of what we’ve had so far, which you’re free to use as a launching pad for discussing the seemingly interesting year to date/ to follow.
What a difference a week makes. Had I posted as planned last week, I’d have said The Butler – based on adequate reviews and depressingly strong box office – was the only real possibility for best picture nomination among the already-released (even though I view the film as The Help-lite). I might have suggested Blue Jasmine as a bare possibility for one of the 9-10 spots, based on enthusiasm I’ve heard from actors, and that Fruitvale Station was sadly off the table due to public indifference. I’d have also mentioned Inside Llewyn Davis as the hottest reviewed-at-Cannes-but-not-yet-in-the-market entry, with Nebraska and All is Lost second-tier candidates. (As for Blue is the Warmest Color – it’s pretty out-there for culturally timid Oscar voters. But, after Amour’s great showing last year, we should keep it in mind)
Telluride/Venice changed the picture substantially. Nebraska was apparently tweaked since Cannes, and got a uniformly stronger reception from American critics. All is Lost, on the other hand, appears to have evoked less response. More to the point, new films vaulted to the top of the pack, with Gravity and 12 Years a Slave getting major-nominations-for-sure reviews, and Prisoners and Philomena also seemingly fairly strong.
Normally at this point we’d say “on to Toronto”, but, as many are noting, Telluride has largely stolen Toronto’s thunder -– scooping them on many big-ticket titles. With Rush reviewed pre-festival, there are only a few films getting their first exposure to critics at Toronto (barring surprises): August: Osage County, The Fifth Estate, the Mandela movie, Dallas Buyer’s Club.
NY – which has only recently started getting in the Oscar game at all -- has about as much of interest on offer, with Captain Phillips and Her as their opening/closing films, maybe (based on the way Hugo and Lincoln slipped in the past two years) a sneak of Wolf of Wall Street, and the Secret Life of Walter Mitty –- a film in which I’d normally have little interest, but the very fact it was chosen for NY rouses one’s interest.
Once the festivals are past, we’ll be down to just a few big titles, most of them December openers: American Hustle, The Monuments Men, Saving Mr. Banks, Foxcatcher.
The lead acting categories were naturally boosted by the festival pack. We of course already had Blanchett as a gimme; Bullock seems to have followed her to lock status; and now BJ tells us Meryl Streep is also a sizzling hot candidate -- something, given the material, only flat-earthers were willing to bet against to begin with. If Dench is as strong as Venice audiences seemed to feel, that’s a near-full slate, with a fair group (Adams, Kidman and Thompson) to come -- plus the possibility that, by the of end of critics’ awards season, we’re all going to need to learn to spell Exarchopoulos.
(Someone pointed out that having Bullock on this slate in an odd way makes her otherwise ghastly ‘09 win seem a small blessing. Had she lost then, she might be an even greater sentimental favorite this year. And, while her beating Streep for Julie and Julia was a minor crime, beating Blanchett or Streep at full throttle would be a capital offense)
Since I mentioned spelling: Chiewetel Ejiofor -- apparently the strongest of what is a virtual parade of contending black lead actors this year: Forest Whitaker, Michael B. Jordan, with Idris Elba to come. There are some old white guys in the running, too: Dern and Redford (though their buzz did a flip-flop between Cannes and Telluride, and Dern now seems a somewhat stronger possibility). Add to that Hugh Jackman in Prisoners…and then it’s “wait and see”, as we’ll hear about Tom Hanks, Joaquin Phoenix, Matthew McConnaughey, Benedict Cumberbatch and Leonardo Di Caprio in the weeks to come.
As was mentioned yesterday, supporting actor seems the weak draw at the moment, though Daniel Bruhl and Michael Fassbender are getting nomination-level reviews for Rush and 12 Years. And there are murmurs (to be confirmed or contradicted shortly) about Jared Leto in Dallas Buyer’s Club and (get ready for it again) Jonah Hill in Wolf of Wall Street.
Supporting actress, on the other hand, is already packed, with Oprah campaigning hard, Sally Hawkins and Octavia Spencer already solidly on board, and, from festival reviews, June Squibb (Nebraska) and Lupita Nyong'o (12 Years) poised to score. Might be tough for anyone else to crack that slate.
After last year’s surprise-a-palooza, one hesitates to predict the directing nominees. But surely Alfonso Cuaron and Steve McQueen seem in line for their first mentions, and veterans like the Coens, Paul Greengrass, David O. Russell and Martin Scorsese may well score again.
As for below the line: Can we dare hope Emmanuel Lubezki will finally become a winner for cinematography? (He’d be the 4th 3-D winner [EDITED] out of five, and must be the favorite at this point) It’s way too early to guess on the design and costume categories – though there‘ll be plenty of candidates, Gatsby and 12 Years a Slave among them.
It seems weird to end a summer with a more certain candidate for best actress than for visual effects or animated feature. Actually, a quick check shows that, apart from Inception three year ago, summer films haven’t done as well as you'd think under special effects -- the last to win was the Pirates sequel in 2006. And, of course, I’m relatively sure something from this year’s summer pack will turn up -- but I’m at a loss to say which: Iron Man 3? Man of Steel? Pacific Rim, despite its weak box office? And I’d guess none of them will stand a chance against newly-crowned front-runner Gravity.
Animated feature, though, you really do expect to come out of the summer films –- thanks to the Pixar run, five of the last six winners have been summer releases (the exception, Rango, came out even earlier). I suppose Monsters University will get a nomination -– Pixar efforts have to be downright putrid to be snubbed. But the beyond-lackluster pack we’ve seen so far this year means we’ll be searching for decent nominees, let alone a winner –- unless Frozen ends up a pleasant surprise.
Last edited by Mister Tee on Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
