State of the Race, November 2nd Report

[Big Magilla]

He doesn't seem to be incensed by Dench's omission and neither am I. I've said all along she will be a come from behind winner if she is to win. The current issue also has a long piece on Dench, though not as long as their piece on The Hobbit.

Nor would I have a problem with Adams if anyone had seen the film and found her performance to be the cat's meow. But they haven't. All the speculation based on Adams is that she is a previous four time nominee in the supporting category and is therefore somehow due for a lead actress nod.

[Eric]

A blogger who is, like you, shocked at EW's cavalier attitude toward Dench and Philomena's chances.

http://afistfuloffilms.blogspot.com/201 ... oscar.html

[Big Magilla]

Read EW's predictions. Not impressed. This new guy is no Dave Karger. These sound more like wishful thinking predictions than the more attuned ones Karger used to make. Pardon my French, but how the fuck is Amy Adams all of a sudden a front-runner for a film no one has seen? Ditto, Her, which may be a great film (don't know - haven't seen it yet) but it is a not a film likely to appeal to the old fogeys in the Academy, many of whom are so computer illiterate that they can't even figure out how to vote on line if they even own a computer.

[Big Magilla]

A thoughtful column from Dave Poland on late breakers in the race:
http://moviecitynews.com/2013/11/20-wee ... late-game/

[mlrg]

He's not the only one who sees Redford as at worst a co-favorite for the best actor Oscar; I'm hearing that said lots of places. Like you, I can't quite believe it, given both the lack of big scenes Redford has in the film, and, more particularly, the film's near-complete box-office flame-out. Of course, I don't see the wow factor in Ejiofor's work, either (though I have zero doubt he'll be nominated). I can't help thinking someone else is going to come along and brush both men aside -- possibly Dern (right now being dismissed by the denizens of Internet, who've apparently forgotten how wrong they've been about Alexander Payne's films with the Academy), or else DiCaprio. It does appear to be a bumper crop of leading actors this year (at least, actors who are getting massive critical raves, deserved or not). It might be wise to hold off making pronouncements till we've at least seen all the films, and tested their market stamina.

I've not seen Dallas Buyers Club, but I see MM being the spoiler for best actor at this point.

[Mister Tee]

As you say, Rogers is usually quite sane on the Oscars, but these seem pretty far off the beam.

I'm always surprised when people speak of best director, as he does here, as if voters decide it totally separately from best picture. Long history shows that voters, except in unusual circumstances, award them as a package deal. Even his qualifier -- that voters have been more likely to vote a split recently -- is ridiculous, since "recently" they've matched 7 of 8 years, and it probably would have been 8 of 8 if Affleck hadn't been off the ballot. Truly, except for two anomalous periods (1948-1952 and 1998-2005), best film and director have matched up about 9 of ever 10 years since 1938.

A funny thing about this is, Rogers doesn't even particularly like Gravity. Maybe it's a case where his lack of enthusiasm makes him paranoid voters will rub his face in it. I have a bit of the same feeling about 12 Years at this point -- as I've said, I like the movie well enough, but the to me wildly-inflated praise makes me dread that it'll turn into an overwhelming sweep four months from now.

He's not the only one who sees Redford as at worst a co-favorite for the best actor Oscar; I'm hearing that said lots of places. Like you, I can't quite believe it, given both the lack of big scenes Redford has in the film, and, more particularly, the film's near-complete box-office flame-out. Of course, I don't see the wow factor in Ejiofor's work, either (though I have zero doubt he'll be nominated). I can't help thinking someone else is going to come along and brush both men aside -- possibly Dern (right now being dismissed by the denizens of Internet, who've apparently forgotten how wrong they've been about Alexander Payne's films with the Academy), or else DiCaprio. It does appear to be a bumper crop of leading actors this year (at least, actors who are getting massive critical raves, deserved or not). It might be wise to hold off making pronouncements till we've at least seen all the films, and tested their market stamina.

Incidentally, EW's Holiday Preview, with its frequently correct broken-out list of Oscar hopefuls, is also out, so things are starting to get real.

[Big Magilla]

I'm not buying it...yet. Also not buying his prediction for Best Supporting Actress - Oprah.

[The Original BJ]

Did anyone else read Nathaniel Rogers's recent article on the state of the races right now? I only want to say something because he usually strikes me as an astute commentator, but a lot of his current arguments struck me as WAY off.

For starters, I can't fathom that anyone could say, at this point, that Alfonso Cuarón is going to WALK AWAY WITH the Best Director prize, even if Best Picture goes elsewhere. The argument that voters prefer major technical directorial feats in Best Director strikes me as mostly blind to Oscar history, given how often non-entities have won the Director trophy as an adjunct to their film's Best Picture prize. But it seems like voters very well COULD choose a notable directorial achievement this year and STILL pass on Cuarón -- Steve McQueen, of course, has already presented himself as a hugely viable and deserving candidate, and career/talent-wise, David O. Russell would have to be considered a potential candidate if American Hustle hits (to say nothing of the possibility of one of the already-awarded auteurs emerging in a strong way). As late as February 2011, David Fincher looked like he would walk away with Best Director, and we saw how that turned out; I'm baffled anyone could assume Cuarón's got it in the bag this year at this point.

Baffling point two was the claim that Robert Redford has emerged as THE Best Actor frontrunner. Perhaps my own lack of enthusiasm is coloring my view, but a Best Actor win for a performance as subtle as this strikes me as exceedingly unlikely; by comparison, Adrien Brody's performance in The Pianist seems positively scenery-chewing. Redford is obviously an icon, but is there really such an urgent feeling that he needs to be rewarded yet again -- for such a minor movie -- after his competitive & honorary prizes?

And even further puzzling was the argument that Chiwetel Ejiofor's place in Best Actor could be vulnerable. I take the general point that Best Actor is very crowded, and fields like that can sometimes produce surprising exclusions...but given how much heat 12 Years a Slave has generated, and the emotional nature of the actor's role, I just find it so hard to believe that he would be one excluded. I view Redford as being in a WAY more precarious position.

But...he could very well be right and I could be wrong, so...what do I really know?

[FilmFan720]

Can I nominate that for best post of the year?!?!

[Eric]

I think this conversation has just ensured a Judi Dench win from L.A.

See what I did there? "Ensured"?

[Mister Tee]

Not sure she'd even be eligible (I think the film isn't opening in the U.S. officially until January), but I'd have Paulina García in Gloria marked down as another possibility for the LAFCA this year.

Yeah, Coming Soon has its limited release date as early January, which suggests ineligibility. But of course alot of critics will have seen her film at festivals. And she does seem more precisely the sort of actress LA has been tending toward; Exarchopolous is almost too obvious/mainstream a choice for them.

[Eric]

Not sure she'd even be eligible (I think the film isn't opening in the U.S. officially until January), but I'd have Paulina García in Gloria marked down as another possibility for the LAFCA this year.

[Mister Tee]

It would not surprise me to see some sort of unified (not "organized," per se) critics'-awards movement in favor of one or both of them. I guess I'd argue there's more leeway in supporting actress for Seydoux (given I don't think Lupita Nyong'o is anywhere near as invincible a contender as many others see her to be), but such "statements" are made in the lead categories. Also, best actress has in recent years been the category most prone to selections leagues to the left of the Oscar/GG/BFCA pool (especially from the LAFCA). So if they're not quite feeling peachy on Blanchett ...

If anything, you understate LA's preference for subtitled ladies -- 4 1/2 of their last 6 best actress prizes have gone that way. In most of those years, there were perfectly respectable local alternatives, so it seems to be a genuine preference. I'd say anyone looking to play the odds would have to predict Exarchopolous this year. I'd even reverse what you say: if they pick Blanchett despite their propensity, she'd have to be viewed as strong on a Mirren level.

It's true that, as with the Oscars, critics' prizes to foreign performers have tended be of the lead variety...but LA has provided more exceptions that anyone else, with Gheorghiu in Mr. Lazarescu, Ivanov in 4 Months, and Arestrup in A Prophet. Like you, I have my doubts about Nyong'o (at least to the extent of her sweeping through the critics' groups unchallenged), and this might be a spot for Seydoux to be promoted.

I repeat that I'll know better how to judge Blue in a week or two when I've seen it. But it may be true that the "art" stigma can be overcome (as it was by Amour and The Master last year), but "art + sex" is a bridge too far for top-level nominations.

[ITALIANO]

And the Academy has a more potent foreign film to follow this year in The Hunt, which may get more love and attention from critics than Blue.

I thought that The Hunt had been shown in the US centuries ago, like in Europe. It's certainly more Academy-friendly than Blue, still I feel that it won't get more than a Foreign Film nomination (which it could eventually win).

As for the sex, it is certainly a strong and, as I said, potentially controversial element - but for example in Italy Blue is only forbidden to those under 14... I mean, it's not Last Tango in Paris. And it's between two girls, which may shock some but, who knows, could also be attractive for some of the members of the Academy (who are mostly men and straight). Had it been between two men, of course, it would be different.

Also I personally think that it's a better movie than (the admittedly very good) Amour. But it's a difficult comparison of course.

[mlrg]

The Academy does not like sex and have been resistent to its charms for a very long time. I think that rating alone will be the factor that ultimately keeps the film out of most categories.

Just ask Halle Berry