The Real Season Begins - Part One: Best Picture

[flipp525]

I'm not going to change the prediction I have up, but Tee's convinced me about The Grand Budapest Hotel. I'll explain my rationale and then the change of heart.

I'm sure it didn't take that much convincing .

[The Original BJ]

The closest situation I can think of would be Sam Mendes, Spike Jonze, and M. Night Shyamalan (though, BJ, it's Morten Tyldum, not Alan). If any year was going to do it, I think it would be this year.

Ah yes, I mixed up the name of the protagonist with the director! Thanks.

[Mister Tee]

Also, it's worth asking how many of the year's Best Director nominees can be filmmakers that most people literally have never heard of until this month. I'm with Mister Tee in thinking that Selma and The Imitation Game seem like more major players, and a Director field that includes Ava DuVernay, Alan Tyldum, AND Damian Chazelle would seem to have a bit too few respected names than the category nearly always likes.

The closest situation I can think of would be Sam Mendes, Spike Jonze, and M. Night Shyamalan (though, BJ, it's Morten Tyldum, not Alan). If any year was going to do it, I think it would be this year.

Another comparable year would be 1995, where three of the nominees -- Radford, Noonan & Figgis -- came from practically nowhere (and, in Oscar terms, went right back there), while the other two -- Gibson & Robbins -- were known only as actors. This was, by the way, I think the only year post-the early 30s where all five directing nominees were first-timers. The directors' branch is far more likely to have 2 or 3 previous nominees on their list than a batch of neophytes. Innaritu will keep it from being an all-newbie group this year, but maybe we ought to be thinking more about the chances of vets like Leigh, Eastwood or Fincher.

[Sabin]

I'm not going to change the prediction I have up, but Tee's convinced me about The Grand Budapest Hotel. I'll explain my rationale and then the change of heart.

I look at the contenders for Best Original Screenplay and I had down Birdman, Boyhoood, Foxcatcher, Selma, and Whiplash. I didn't see much room for The Grand Budapest Hotel or even Mr. Turner. Wes Anderson fundamentally might just be one of those filmmakers that the Academy doesn't warm up to.

And yet as I look at the Best Original Screenplay field, were Wes Anderson to be overlooked for Best Original Screenplay, that would be an incredibly surprising snub. True, he's only been nominated twice before by this branch, but he already feels like a mainstay. Truthfully, The Grand Budapest Hotel is likely third in line for a nomination behind Birdman and Boyhood and then perhaps higher. He is similar to the Coens who had an off-year last year with Inside Llewyn Davis' lack of a screenplay nomination, but The Grand Budapest Hotel arguably has more in common with Fargo than Inside Llewyn Davis. It was a surprisingly strong hit with incredible word of mouth that feels like the first film Academy voters could truly warm up to.

[Okri]

Also, it's worth asking how many of the year's Best Director nominees can be filmmakers that most people literally have never heard of until this month. I'm with Mister Tee in thinking that Selma and The Imitation Game seem like more major players, and a Director field that includes Ava DuVernay, Alan Tyldum, AND Damian Chazelle would seem to have a bit too few respected names than the category nearly always likes.

The closest situation I can think of would be Sam Mendes, Spike Jonze, and M. Night Shyamalan (though, BJ, it's Morten Tyldum, not Alan). If any year was going to do it, I think it would be this year.

[The Original BJ]

This season will be something new for me -- I got my WGA card this year, so pretty much all of the major awards contenders I'll be seeing at preview screenings before they open (in some cases, nearly a month before). Of course, I won't go in totally cold with many of these candidates -- i.e. the ones that have previewed at festivals -- but a couple (Into the Woods & Unbroken) I'll be seeing well before reviews come out, and I'm looking forward to going in without any knowledge of how people might respond.

Mister Tee's analysis was pretty thorough, but here are some of my additional thoughts:

I, too, think many people are underestimating The Grand Budapest Hotel, and I'll add another argument in its favor: there just aren't that many "light" candidates this year. Birdman is really funny, and a certain nominee, but I rate its brand of humor quite a bit darker than what usually appeals to those looking for something fun to nominate. And -- contrary to popular belief -- voters DO usually like to have something more light on the list, and nothing on the horizon looks like it has the potential to fill that void. Also, it's true that Wes Anderson hasn't been an Oscar favorite up until this point...but the same thing was true of David Fincher, Kathryn Bigelow, David O. Russell, the Coen brothers, and plenty of other filmmakers who were persona non grata with Oscar until suddenly they became regular players. So, I guess I view Anderson's situation similar to Mister Tee -- Moonrise Kingdom seemed a just-miss, and it may be that it's just time for such a singular filmmaker to finally break through in the top category.

We've all talked a lot about Whiplash's chances elsewhere, and I still feel perplexed by its credentials. That screener was one of the first to go out, and the number of people who have told me they watched it and were completely blown away is too many to count. And yet, those grosses -- for what is, by no means, a challenging or difficult effort -- remain bafflingly low for a movie whose narrative seems to be that it's the crowd-pleaser EVERYONE loves. Oddly, though, it seems like Best Picture is the category (after Supporting Actor, of course) where the movie is MOST likely to get in, just due to the number of spots, and that everything still seems so up for grabs. But I remain really puzzled by the faith so many have placed in Chazelle as a Director candidate. Yeah, Benh Zeitlin made it, but plenty of other hot new directors have entered awards season with seemingly greater credentials, only to see the Director category filled up with more established names, and I just don't think the movie is such a heavyweight that a newbie won't have at least an uphill battle getting into the Director category.

Also, it's worth asking how many of the year's Best Director nominees can be filmmakers that most people literally have never heard of until this month. I'm with Mister Tee in thinking that Selma and The Imitation Game seem like more major players, and a Director field that includes Ava DuVernay, Alan Tyldum, AND Damian Chazelle would seem to have a bit too few respected names than the category nearly always likes.

I know the screenplay categories weren't overtly discussed in this post, but that Original field is outrageously strong: of candidates we've already seen, Birdman, Boyhood, Foxcatcher, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and Whiplash could easily fill out the lineup on their own. But on the horizon, it's hard to imagine Selma missing if it's the top-flight contender we're being promised. And after failing to predict the last FOUR Mike Leigh screenplay nominations, I'm going to keep my eye pretty closely on Mr. Turner. And J.C. Chandor is a past nominee here, so A Most Violent Year isn't anything I'd rule out until it at least makes an appearance. And who even knows what Top Five could end up being? It's very possible this category ends up more brutally competitive than last year.

It could just be my utter dislike of the movie, but I don't think Interstellar is showing up anywhere above the line. It's just not a genre voters naturally gravitate toward, and while people seem interested enough in seeing it that it's made decent money, so many people from my real life have responded the way I did. Although I think it will get more nominations than Super 8 overall, I don't think Interstellar's overall trajectory will be that different, going from "Is this a Best Picture nominee?" to basically an awards season afterthought within weeks.

I think the number of nominations The Theory of Everything gets depends on the level of blandness of other contenders. If Unbroken is seen as mostly square but still decent, that could spell trouble for one of them. If Unbroken tanks completely as a possibility, that could be a plus for the Hawking biography. It's likely at least something bland will make the list, but last year Philomena pretty much staved off all other possibilities, and the same could happen this year among more vanilla efforts.

I run in a lot of musical theater circles, so excitement for Into the Woods is at a movie-event-of-the-year level. I remain optimistic (simply because I'm a huge fan of the material) but exceedingly cautious...do any of those people remember Nine?! Because with that musical, that director, that writer, and that cast, plus a fantastic trailer...it's still mind-boggling that the movie version could have resulted in something so terrible. Here's hoping for another Chicago, but I've got my doubts.

[Mister Tee]

Twelve days. Twelve days from now, Monday December 1st, the NY Film Critics meet, and we move from the unadulterated gossip/speculation stage of the season to a point where we deal in actual facts: knowledgeable people, who’ve seen everything, selecting the best of the year. (The Spirit nominations actually come earlier, but they operate on a different track.) Things to me still feel blessedly hazy for this time of year – so hazy, in fact that, to do the race justice requires dealing with far more names than usual. Not so much with the acting races – they’re somewhat clearer. Best picture, however, is as wide open as I can remember it being at this point in the year. So much so that I’m going to devote the whole of this post simply to the best film slate.

The field is so murky I feel like I need to keep as many as 18 possibilities on one burner or another. But, of course, not all those possibilities are created equal. I see the candidates falling into four distinct categories.

The first batch consists of the blue chips: films that have had significant exposure, and have shown enough critical and popular support that even today we can feel reasonably confident they’ll show up on nominations morning. Boyhood and Birdman are the films that meet the criteria most solidly – I put them, down in ink. And, though they’ve not yet been tested commercially, to me Selma (assuming those initial reviews hold up – maybe even if not) and The Imitation Game (on the Harvey push alone) also appear solidly in. Some would put The Theory of Everything in this group as well, but I’m not 100% convinced that won’t be a performances- (or performances-and-script-) only affair.

Okay, that’s the baseline. The second group is for films in the interesting grey area: they’ve had their release, and show some of characteristics of a nominee – critical or market success, or a level of passion among supporters that can offset an otherwise mixed reaction – but can’t remotely be considered set. The motley crew of films in this slot:

Interstellar – for this film, the slot represents a demotion. Two weeks or so ago, there was vernal hope that Nolan – out of the bat-suit, dealing with “serious” themes -- would have a major breakthrough with AMPAS. That hope seems to have faded daily: reviews were under expectation, and while Sabin is correct the grosses have held the film short of failure-level, they don’t seem powerful enough to drown out the middling response. It’s possible the film will hold on as a best picture contender – though I’d say a chanceless one. But there’s equally the possibility it scores only a few techs (given widespread complaints about the soundtrack obscuring dialogue, I even wonder about the normally dead-certain sound nominations). At some point, the question might even become, is the film viewed as superior enough to the best liked summer films (Guardians, Apes) that it’s the sure winner for visual effects?

Gone Girl, the hit of the Fall, has easily surpassed Interstellar as the populist film most likely show up on the best film list, even if it’s not taken fully seriously. Grosses well beyond expectation will do that for you. Right now, it feels like the film won’t have a corresponding directors’ nomination, but if the season plays out disappointingly enough – if borderline prospects fail commercially, and the remaining big guns crash -- even that could change.

I’m trying not to let my personal feelings for Foxcatcher overwhelm my objectivity. The film’s reviews have been more than solid, and many have spoken all year of it being a logical candidate for top nominations. However…as I said in the review thread, I find the film greatly lacking in basic dramatic elements, and that makes me dubious it can catch on as the kind of audience hit necessary to thrive in these major categories. It’s possible enough people are sold on it…that they look at what, to me, is insufficient dramatization, and see mystery/subtlety. I can definitely imagine a big enough portion of the writers’ branch coming to that conclusion. But enough to score in all the major categories? I’m vain enough to think enough will share my feelings to hobble it a bit.

Some of us have mulled over Whiplash elsewhere. If I just went by general vibe --what appears to be genuine enthusiasm in some quarters -- I’d be thinking you can’t rule out film/director/screenplay nods. But the grosses remain punishingly low, even for such an effort – barring hugely atypical staying power, it’s going to end up with less in the till than most any best picture nominee since the expansion. Which should hurt. Of course, I made similar fiscal arguments a few years ago against The Hurt Locker winning best picture, so anything CAN happen. But I’m less sanguine about Whiplash’s chances than some seem to be.

On one film, though, I’m much more optimistic than just about anyone else. None of the predicting sites – and the few who’ve posted lists here -- seem to be even considering The Grand Budapest Hotel (most sites don’t even have it in their top 15 possibilities). And I have to say I find this baffling. It seems to me a perfect illustration of BJ’s bird-in-hand syndrome: people so focused on upcoming, fabulous-on-paper projects that they ignore a perfectly solid candidate already on board and tested. Many of the films being more commonly mentioned didn’t have Budapest’s reviews or (relative) box-office success. Why the cold shoulder? The rationale for many seems to be twofold: first, early in the year films are always forgotten, and second, Oscar voters have proven definitively not to like Wes Anderson. To the first point: can anyone cite me a recent early-year film with the critical/commercial success of Budapest that failed at nomination? There just aren’t that many such cases, studio tendency to hold back award-hopefuls till Fall being what it is. But if you push “early” to mean pre-June, Midnight in Paris and The Tree of Life held on with no problem. The closest to an early-year favorite that failed to make the best film list would be Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but 1) that wasn’t really a financial success and 2) that was pre-expansion; I’m confident it would have made a field of 9-10. So, that criterion doesn’t seem exclsuionary, to me. As for the second: it’s true: Moonrise Kingdom (another May opener) failed to score for anything but screenplay, despite great praise and near the same box-office as Budapest. But 2012 was an over-achieving year, with way more undeniable, big ticket successes than this year (seven well-reviewed late-year films got around or over $100 million) and, even with that, Moonrise made showings at PGA, AFI, the Broadcasters and the Globes – which says it was clearly in the running. Given a thinner field, a stronger base of potential nominations (design and costumes, along with screenplay), and subject matter with appeal to the nostalgia wing, I think Grand Budapest’s got a seriously good chance of cracking the best picture list. Why is it viewed as such a long-shot? Because Oscar bloggers don’t talk it up the way they do mediocrities like The Theory of Everything?

On to a third category: films that have had some exposure – including significant reviews (in the trades, at minimum) – but on which it’s hard to get a fix, until we’ve seen a wider spectrum of reviews, awards-cache, and, eventually, commercial performance. The latter factor is tough in general to handicap these days, given how late so many films hit theatres, but this year it’s beyond insane: a slew of films are debuting in December, including a shocking six on Christmas day alone, with A Most Violent Year as late as New Years’ Eve. The table-setting Broadcast/Globe/SAG nominations will appear well before that -- the second week in December – so they (especially the prediction-whores at BFCA) will be operating largely on guess-work: possibly overinflating a hyped effort (like, in the past, The Shipping News and Nine), or potentially missing something late-breaking.

My thoughts on some of the films in this category follow (and let me make clear: I KNOW most of these are going to go belly-up. But right now, with things in flux, they have some chance, so why not consider that, rather than narrowing the field to the same names everyone else is tossing out?):

A Most Violent Year got very-good-not-quite-great reviews. It’s got a new, untested “studio” behind it. It’s not being released till December 31st. Many are using that combo of facts to eliminate it from consideration, except for the slim possibility of belle-of-the-ball Jessica Chastain as a supporting actress. But what if it scores at the critics’ awards? Couldn’t it at least contend for a screenplay slot – or even dream about making the best picture list? Again: it’s early. Why shut films out?

Inherent Vice is getting “just not the Academy type” treatment from most bloggers, and they may be right. But there are some exceedingly enthusiastic supporters among critics. Is this enough to propel it into the mix at, say, LA (where they love Anderson) or NSFC? The Master wasn’t the Academy’s type either, yet got three acting nods – and, in a less competitive year, might have found its niche on the best picture slate. I don’t think Inherent Vice is as utterly without chance as general buzz would have it.

Despite the great reviews at Toronto – and the “Chris Rock’s Annie Hall” talk – pundits who spend their year mulling Oscar bait are dismissing Top Five out of hand (“screenplay at best”, is the prevailing attitude). And of course they could be absolutely right. But Top Five is opening, wide, December 12th. Suppose it hits like a comet? People are assuming the breakout hit of Christmas is going to be Unbroken or Into the Woods (alongside, of course, the finally-ending Hobbit). But what if Top Five turns out to dominate the box-office over that stretch? And it really is as good as all those critics said at Toronto? Riding that level of zeitgeisty success, mightn’t it be the kind of thing that could summon up the necessary 5% and sneak its way onto the ballot? Things like that USED to be able to happen. Have the bloggers so calcified the system they block off potentially invigorating surprise?

Despite decent initial response, blogger reaction to American Sniper was somewhat dismissive – almost like they hadn’t had it penciled in for making a showing, so it was tossed back in the pile without a second thought. But, as Sabin says, there are those who think this is Eastwood’s strongest effort since Iwo Jima, and I can’t rule him out for catching another Academy wave.

Wild is of course mostly seen as a Witherspoon vehicle, but anything widely seen by voters (as a best actress sure-shot will be) could surprise by getting support higher up. Case in point: this director’s film from last year, which mushroomed way beyond expectation as award season went on.

Still Alice, same story – maybe even a slightly better one. Moore is of course a prime prospect for the best actress award (the only thing those ludicrous Hollywood Film Awards were good for was the ovation she got – it made clear how happy many in Hollywood are to see her a front-runner). Most seem to be looking at the film one-dimensionally, despite its getting quite strong overall notices, and being at least a solid contender in the lackluster adapted screenplay category. Throw in another possible acting nod (Stewart or Baldwin), and you have a package that wouldn’t look so out of place with best film thrown in.

At least a few people are giving Mr. Turner the “possible” treatment. I think it’s very much worth consideration, certainly for critics’ awards. The reviews already logged are extremely enthusiastic, and the film has apparently done very well in its British release (admittedly, Turner is far better known there). It’s worth recalling Mike Leigh is a long-time favorite with the veteran critics’ groups, for both himself and his actors. It’s possible Timothy Spall wins the wide-open best actor race in NY or National, and puts himself in the conversation. Leigh is always possible for a writing or directing nod, and the film seems likely to compete heavily under cinematography/sets/costumes. That’s a batch of potential nominations that could spell a best picture mention -- even if Tom O’Neil’s “experts” haven’t given it much thought.

Finally, there’s the now extremely small group of films yet to be screened, down to a mere two: Into the Woods and Unbroken. Both have loud partisans sight-unseen – the former of course supported by musical fans, the latter touted by many who see it as the quintessential Academy picture. I’m of course open to either being a success, but, like all things on paper, they’ll at some point come into contact with bracing reality. The reality of Into the Woods is that, while it has many fans (me among them), and an interesting cast, the stage show was never close to universally popular (I recommended it to some people I work with for an office-funded outing, and several came back angry: saying the second act depressed the hell out of them). And Rob Marshall has exactly one notable film to his credit (along with at least one disaster). This is a very iffy project. Unbroken has, as I see it, one unimpeachable asset: the fact its source book has been an enormous best-seller. But Angelina Jolie is, to put it mildly, unproven as a director, and, I have to tell you, the coming attractions make it look like a humorless endurance test – the kind of movie that typically won best picture in the mid-60s or mid-80s, but really hasn’t been near as popular lately. It’s entirely possible the film can be a commercial hit and make the best picture list even without critical approval – Hillenbrand’s previous Seabiscuit managed that feat. But I’m still waiting on those reviews before I even pencil it in…despite how loudly the bloggers are crowing for it.

Okay: that’s my best picture survey. I’ll try to deal with the rest of the categories sometime over the next few days.