The 88th Oscar Nominations

[anonymous1980]

The only redeeming aspect is that Room, my other most-loved film, did get its big nominations, film and director (though Tremblay couldn't make the cut).

I think Tremblay's main problem, as I feared, was that he was getting votes for both Lead AND Supporting and sadly not getting enough votes to land on either category's top 5. Room getting in Picture shows that enough Academy members loved it and I can't imagine most people who loved it enough to vote for it in Picture and Actress not voting for Tremblay. I think they should have campaigned for him in Lead from the start.

[flipp525]

I think we're thinking of different scenes, and "scene" may have been the wrong word to use. I'll hopefully write a longer review this weekend and explain more.

Perhaps. I'm talking about the scene where she's talking to that one priest on his doorstep who admits that he molested several boys (and that he himself had been raped by a priest back when he was younger) and is then shooed away by his sister. More commentary on that in the Spotlight thread.

[Sonic Youth]

McAdams had nothing to do (with the exception of one crucial scene), but between her, Ruffalo and Keaton she was the most natural. Keaton had more to do, and he was awful. If anyone deserved a nom, it was Liev Schreiber.

This has been discussed elsewhere in depth in the Spotlight thread but that one "crucial" scene was pretty unrealized. The one moment that reached for a larger indictment of the "institution," a brief window into a better film and it was not mined for dramatic depth or meaning at all. Not McAdams' fault, of course. She did what was asked for.

I think we're thinking of different scenes, and "scene" may have been the wrong word to use. I'll hopefully write a longer review this weekend and explain more.

FWIW, Spotlight is not a terrible film, and it won't be among the worst films that wins Best Picture (if it does) or Best Screenplay (which it will). I preferred it to The Imitation Game. But I'm so tired of lazy movies with such unfulfilled potential getting all this acclaim.

[nightwingnova]

Just filling out my first attempt at predictions, Max Mad would be the big winner at 7 on Oscar night. No other movie would come close.

[Sabin]

The supporting races are interesting because there is no way to know with any certainty who the front-runner will be. Which is a kind of nice change of pace. There are only three awards left to give out that could clarify things...

The SAG, Critic's Choice, and Baftas.

The SAG nominees for Best Supporting Actor are Bale, Elba, Rylance, Shannon, and Tremblay. The CC nominees are Dano, Hardy, Ruffalo, Rylance, Shannon, and Stallone. The Baftas are Bale, Del Toro, Elba, Ruffalo, and Rylance. Stallone can only pick up one more award. That's the Critic's Choice. Rylance can pick up the SAG and the Bafta. Who knows? I wasn't even confident that Sylvester Stallone winning a Golden Globe meant he was going to get nominated.

On the Best Supporting Actress front, the SAG nominees are Mara, McAdams, Mirren, Vikaner for The Danish Girl, and Winslet. The CC nominees are the same. The Baftas are Leigh, Mara, Vikander for Ex Machina (she's nominated in lead for The Danish Girl), Walters, and Winslet.

This means things could get cleared up in Best Supporting Actress (or not if they give it to Vikander for Ex Machina) and things will not be cleared up in Best Supporting Actor.

[Sabin]

Was history just made? Did the first transperson get an Oscar nomination?

[CalWilliam]

Rooney Mara is officially the nominee with the highest screen-time in the supporting actress category ever. At 71 minutes on-screen, she beats Tatum O'Neal in Paper Moon who stands at 66 minutes. Blanchett clocks in at 65 minutes for Carol and is nominated in the lead category. (Source: CineMatthew).

The eternal dilemma, then: is she deserving just for the performance or undeserving in terms of what the category represents? Should one vote for the performance, or think about the obvious position of disadvantage of her fellow nominees (except Vikander)? Has ever been a category with two leads in supporting at the same time?

[HarryGoldfarb]

I was listening to the nominated songs and scores. Out of context, the scores are almost inpossible to evaluate. Not so the songs.

Manta Ray?? Where did this came from? I had to do a quick research. Racing Extinction is a documentary from the Oscar winning team of The Cove. The song is in the vein of that other somber and obscure song sung by Scarlet Johansen which got nominated a few years ago, also from a documentary (so obscure, it wasn't even performed live on the ceremony).

Anyway, reading about the nominees I found this:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/01/14/t ... ong-oscar/

He is also the singer I believe...

[ITALIANO]

Rooney Mara is officially the nominee with the highest screen-time in the supporting actress category ever. At 71 minutes on-screen, she beats Tatum O'Neal in Paper Moon who stands at 66 minutes. Blanchett clocks in at 65 minutes for Carol and is nominated in the lead category. (Source: CineMatthew).

I'm not sure that this wouldn't work against her.

[flipp525]

Rooney Mara is officially the nominee with the highest screen-time in the supporting actress category ever. At 71 minutes on-screen, she beats Tatum O'Neal in Paper Moon who stands at 66 minutes. Blanchett clocks in at 65 minutes for Carol and is nominated in the lead category. (Source: CineMatthew).

[mlrg]

This year, Idris Elba, Helen Mirren, and Michael Shannon each got Golden Globe and SAG nominations that failed to translate. Same thing last year with Jake Gyllenhaal and Jennifer Aniston. In 2013, it was Tom Hanks, Emma Thompson, and Daniel Bruhl. In 2012, it was John Hawkes, Marion Cotillard, Helen Mirren, and Nicole Kidman.

Elba is the only one missign with globe+sag+bafta

[Sabin]

CalWilliams wrote
Yes, I understand your point, and though Mara's performance is certainly deserving, she will possibly be the most fraudulent winner in the supporting category ever, even more than Tatum O'Neal or Timothy Hutton. That's why I tried to make a theory by which Jason Leigh could win, or someone else, like Winslet. After the Globe, and if she wins SAG, is she the kind of actress that wins a second in the lower category, as Maggie Smith did?

I think you're making distinctions that Academy voters don't. I think they do one of two things: 1) go with the hype narrative, or 2) vote for their favorite. If anything, that favors Jennifer Jason Leigh. There is no desperately deserving Best Supporting Actress narrative this year. Aside from category fraud, the most notable thing about this lineup is how attractive it is. Really, the Academy did a great job this year of nominating gorgeous women.

This will be the most fraudulent winner in a supporting category...until the next time. Alejandro G. Innaritu can't win because he won last year...and who knows? Maybe he'll win next year too. We care about these things. They don't.

Italiano wrote
I wish. And she's certainly helped by the fact that Vikander (who is she?) got only one nomination, and for a movie which has been dismissed by most. (Ex Machina is more respected than The Danish Girl, but to be honest, had she been nominated for THAT, even with two nominations I wouldn't have bet on her. Just not the kind of role that gets an Oscar). Still, Mara plays a lesbian woman in a movie that the Academy clearly doesn't love. This is the most intriguing acting race this year - and it has been so right from the start.

I think Vikander might have stood a better chance with Ex Machina just because the role would've stood out from the pack a little bit more. She can't help but invite comparisons to Rooney Mara who was a leading role in more well-regarded queer costume drama. If there's one thing we know is that the Academy doesn't love any of these films. Carol, The Danish Girl, The Hateful Eight, and Steve Jobs were slam dunk nominees three months ago. Are they going to honor Rachel McAdams for Spotlight? No, of course not. I think Carol is the only film they think might think should have been nominated and that could help Mara.

[flipp525]

McAdams had nothing to do (with the exception of one crucial scene), but between her, Ruffalo and Keaton she was the most natural. Keaton had more to do, and he was awful. If anyone deserved a nom, it was Liev Schreiber.

This has been discussed elsewhere in depth in the Spotlight thread but that one "crucial" scene was pretty unrealized. The one moment that reached for a larger indictment of the "institution," a brief window into a better film and it was not mined for dramatic depth or meaning at all. Not McAdams' fault, of course. She did what was asked for.

[ITALIANO]

I think Rooney Mara is the likeliest winner.

I wish. And she's certainly helped by the fact that Vikander (who is she?) got only one nomination, and for a movie which has been dismissed by most. (Ex Machina is more respected than The Danish Girl, but to be honest, had she been nominated for THAT, even with two nominations I wouldn't have bet on her. Just not the kind of role that gets an Oscar). Still, Mara plays a lesbian woman in a movie that the Academy clearly doesn't love. This is the most intriguing acting race this year - and it has been so right from the start.

[CalWilliam]

CalWilliam wrote

Jennifer Jason Leigh isn't out of the running but until the SAG winners are announced right now I think Rooney Mara is the likeliest winner. She's a previous nominee in a huge role from film that was fairly liked. Clearly, the Academy doesn't care about category fraud and we need to stop thinking they do.

Yes, I understand your point, and though Mara's performance is certainly deserving, she will possibly be the most fraudulent winner in the supporting category ever, even more than Tatum O'Neal or Timothy Hutton. That's why I tried to make a theory by which Jason Leigh could win, or someone else, like Winslet. After the Globe, and if she wins SAG, is she the kind of actress that wins a second in the lower category, as Maggie Smith did?