Where We Stand, Post-Festival

For the films of 2015
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Where We Stand, Post-Festival

Post by flipp525 »

The Original BJ wrote:The other thing that's interesting is that, looking back over the past two decades, we haven't really had the worst category fraud candidates actually win the supporting trophies, or even genuinely compete for them; most of the time these nominees sort of just sat there on the ballot. (It's been a while since anyone Tatum O'Neal-ed their way to a win.) And yet, virtually all pundits view Mara and Vikander as two of the very top supporting actress candidates -- might this have any effect on how they're placed? It's worth noting that the example often used as the one where voters ignored the campaign fraud -- Winslet in The Reader -- was one where she was actually winning prizes all over the place. A lot of other fraud cases -- Roberts, Damon, Hawke, Gyllenhaal -- have often included performances generally considered not strong enough to even make it in lead. Obviously I haven't seen their films yet, but I wonder if the fact that Mara and Vikander are both seen as so dominant in their movies will have any effect on things.
Well, especially annoying is when you have two obvious co-lead performances duking it out as the most likely supporting nominees while Jane Fonda's cameo in Youth is talked about as such an unlikely possibility given its brevity. Supporting actress is exactly the kind of category where those Beatrice Straight-style performances should be recognized.

What was the last cameo-sized performance to garner a nomination? Hal Holbrook in Into the Wild (that seemed longer than a cameo though)? William Hurt in A History of Violence? Viola Davis in Doubt?
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Where We Stand, Post-Festival

Post by The Original BJ »

I've seen other sites mention Straight Outta Compton, and although I haven't seen the movie, it's really hard for me to imagine THIS Academy going for something like that. For me, the argument that "voters want to make amends for Selma" is about on par with "voters want to nominate more blockbusters" -- I could see increased concerns about honoring more racially diverse films leading them to something like the Miles Davis biopic (if it's any good), but I just don't think Oscar voters are so crushed about omitting Ava DuVernay that they're suddenly going to become the target audience for Straight Outta Compton this year.

I have no idea what to think about the chances of The Danish Girl. Nathaniel Rogers suggested it would be an across the board nominee, but some of those early reviews are pretty bad. It seems like the movie could do as well as Tom Hooper's last -- Best Picture but not in the tip tier, and with a pretty healthy total of nods across the board including multiple actors -- or end up like The Sessions, with Alicia Vikander getting the most high profile citation for what many thought would be an awards vehicle for Redmayne. Or...somewhere in between. (Okri, in response to your list of lower rated Best Picture nominees to serve as precedent, I would definitely argue that Les Mis and The Help were pretty big hits at the box office, putting them in a slightly different category for me. It's the two Daldry films that stand out as examples of movies that no one really cared about, but still made it in Best Picture because they were engineered for Oscar; certainly, if anyone can repeatedly join Daldry in that club, it's Tom Hooper.)

I know it's stupid, and I know I just need to let it go, but I'm going to at least wait until we get well into the season before I completely give up hope on these category fraud situations this year. What's interesting about Rooney Mara is that, at this point in the year, doesn't it seem like she could possibly WIN Best Actress, if properly placed? She's already got one prize for the role, is appearing in a movie seemingly bound to have a successful awards run, and fits the most obvious profile of a Best Actress winner (young starlet, with a solid enough track record so far she has one past nod under her belt already). I know Cate Blanchett has her double-punch of roles this year, but she did JUST win her second prize, and Oscar voters may want to look for other win options if people feel like a third Oscar would be too much too soon. (Though yes, Daniel Day-Lewis pulled it off in five years between 2nd and 3rd prizes, and going further back, Katharine Hepburn did it back to back, so it doesn't seem impossible.) And if Alicia Vikander is poised to be the most heavily feted element of The Danish Girl, wouldn't a lead campaign even make more SENSE? (I know, I know, I'm expecting logic where there is none.)

The other thing that's interesting is that, looking back over the past two decades, we haven't really had the worst category fraud candidates actually win the supporting trophies, or even genuinely compete for them; most of the time these nominees sort of just sat there on the ballot. (It's been a while since anyone Tatum O'Neal-ed their way to a win.) And yet, virtually all pundits view Mara and Vikander as two of the very top supporting actress candidates -- might this have any effect on how they're placed? It's worth noting that the example often used as the one where voters ignored the campaign fraud -- Winslet in The Reader -- was one where she was actually winning prizes all over the place. A lot of other fraud cases -- Roberts, Damon, Hawke, Gyllenhaal -- have often included performances generally considered not strong enough to even make it in lead. Obviously I haven't seen their films yet, but I wonder if the fact that Mara and Vikander are both seen as so dominant in their movies will have any effect on things.

The flip side, of course, is that there don't seem to be all that many strong Supporting Actress candidates yet, and so if there just aren't a ton of options, then I'd imagine folks will have little concern for slotting lead players there if they have to fill their spots with SOMEONE.

But of course, I've accepted the nonsense, and I know this is a losing battle, and will try not to get too grouchy about it this year.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Where We Stand, Post-Festival

Post by Okri »

a) Tee, Son of Saul has a very "A Separation" feel to it. As in it did well it's first festival (Berlin/Cannes), but TIFF really boosted it as a critical cause. Of course, SPC tends to drop every ball when it comes to oscar films, so I am not as convinced as you are, but I definitely cannot wait to see it.

b) Also, this is going to be a very bad season for you if you spend the whole time hating on Redmayne/The Danish Girl. As frustrating as the oscar bloggers are, I'm actually looking forward to this movie (I love Vikander, Redmayne, Whishaw and Schoenhart as performers). Nathaniel from the Film Experience became more convinced it was being nominated after seeing it (and liking it). Best picture nominees with low metacritic scores include The Reader (58), Les Miserables (63), The Help (62), Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (46). I do think TDG can do Dallas Buyer's Club level business and I don't think it needs to do much more than that.

c) Room seems more like an indie-indie candidate that would struggle to crack a line-up of five but in the variable line-up might have a stronger chance. A24 is coming on a lot more strongly this year with Ex Machina and Amy doing very well for their profiles and I think what the TIFF nod does is give it a platform to build on. At the very least, I don't think A24 will wait until the December crush before releasing it.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Where We Stand, Post-Festival

Post by FilmFan720 »

There is a lot to say here, but one question in regards to Best Picture candidates we have already seen: are we completely discounting Straight Outta Compton? With the box office and the reviews it picked up, wouldn't that be considered a strong possibility? Add in a possible reaction to last years Selma snub, and the diverse winners last night at the Emmys, mightn't there be a push for it larger than usual?
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Where We Stand, Post-Festival

Post by Big Magilla »

I pretty much agree with Tee's assessment. I expect Spotlight and Steve Jobs to be the critics' favorites unless something else comes along, but neither is a sure bet and nothing is a front-runner for the Oscar at this point.

From what's been seen by those lucky enough to have attended the festivals so far, I think Brooklyn, Carol and Beasts of No Nation are the best bets along with Spotlight and Steve Jobs to receive Best Picture nods. If the nominations were today I think Black Mass, The Danish Girl and either Suffragette or Room would be there as well. Of the yet-to-be-seen, Bridge of Spies and The Revenant seem to have the most potential. The trailer for The Hateful Eight looks awful. I always underestimate David O. Russell, but a film about the woman who invented the miracle mop doesn't strike me as Oscar material even if she is played by Jennifer Lawrence.

The acting categories are filling up fast. Michael Fassbender seems to be emerging as the critic's choice among lead actors, but Eddie Redmayne and Johnny Depp remain viable with Michael Caine a strong possibility. Of the yet-to-be-seen, Leonardo DiCaprio seems the most promising. Among lead actresses, Cate Blanchett, Saorise Ronan and Carey Mulligan are safe with the other slots likely to be filled by a combination of Brie Larsen, the yet-to-be-seen Jennifer Lawrence and lovable old ladies Maggie Smith and Lily Tomlin. Supporting actor is still wide open, but Idris Elba, Michael Keaton and Harvey Keitel look strong with yet-to-be-seen Tom Hardy and Mark Rylance nipping at their heels. Rooney Mara and Alicia Vikander lead the supporting actress race, but Kate Winslet and Julie Walters look strong with either Jane Fonda or the yet-to-be-seen Jennifer Jason Leigh taking the fifth slot. Fonda's role is a cameo, which doesn't bode well for a two-time winner looking to receive her eighth nomination, her first in almost thirty years, but then she is Jane Fonda.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Where We Stand, Post-Festival

Post by Sabin »

Perhaps In the Heart of the Sea was pushed to December 11th for a reason. The whale smashing the ship will likely be the kind of set piece that people go on about.

Crimson Peak is a movie I honestly hadn't thought much about until you just mentioned it. Guillermo Del Toro hasn't really crossed back over with the Academy since Pan's Labyrinth. Then again, he hasn't really tried. I was a bit baffled in 2006 (some ten years ago? yeesh...) that Pan's Labyrinth didn't do better.

If people are paying attention to Joy a little bit more in the past week, it's because of yet another battle between David O. Russell and a writer. He apparently tried to get Annie Mumolo's name removed from the film and now they share Story By credit. Regardless, his past three films have picked up nominations for writing, directing, acting, and the top prize. There's no reason to believe this won't go over about as well.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Where We Stand, Post-Festival

Post by Mister Tee »

I initially thought I’d wait and include NY Festival reactions, but those screenings are still a week from starting and will run into October – by which time other, non-festival films will be appearing. So, now seems a time to do our “first round over -- what do we know/where do we go?” round-up.

What we know above all is, it’s a murky year. In years just past, we’ve had films emerge at these festivals that instantly had the look of best picture contenders – 12 Years and Gravity in 2013, Birdman (along with summer release Boyhood) in 2014. I don’t see anything from this year’s Venice/Telluride/Toronto that gives off a “sure to be in the final rounds” vibe. This doesn’t mean something from the festivals won’t get there in the end –Argo wasn’t universally seen on quite that level in September ’12, but took the top prize in February. Argo, though, managed an 86 Metacritic score, better than any debut film screened this year. Bottom line: the landscape is far harder to scope out this year than it has been recently.

This means two things: 1) if nothing is sure to contend, far more films have to be considered at least possible; and 2) in such a field, whether a film is a contender could be in the eye of the beholder. I see pundits making pronouncements that don’t gibe with my take at all – over-inflating some films, downplaying others that have seemed better received. More than most years, I feel a need to wait for films to open in theatres, both to get a broader view of the critical response (which, despite claims some have been making – looking at you, David Poland -- still matters) and to see how they play commercially.

So, with that as intro, how do things look? Start with best picture.

The first thing to say is, the fact that no festival film truly rocked the world means the two films already on the scene that HAVE got exceptional response—Inside Out and Carol – are stronger now than they were three weeks ago. We already argued Inside Out back in June, and I don’t expect dissenters to have changed their minds; my view remains, it’s clearly in the class of the special animated films – Beauty and the Beast, Wall E, Toy Story 3 – which, by virtue of exceptional critical acclaim, either have received best picture nominations or easily would have in an expanded field. As for Carol: it of course needs to be tested in the marketplace, but I’d be very surprised if a film with that calibre of reviews didn’t achieve at least success d’estime box-office levels.

Another film already on the list – Sundance’s Brooklyn – appears to have enhanced its prospects after a well-received Toronto showing. It’s not a critics’ award candidate – too sentimental for that – but appears to fall in the “acceptably well-reviewed” range, which will make it at worst the most respectable of the populist efforts. Other films hoping to grab that slot (or slots) have been pretty badly battered by critics at the various festivals. I know there’s a feeling among some that such baity projects have to be near-godawful to disqualify themselves, but I think maybe bloggers have become too soft on such efforts -- more apt to believe in them than even Oscar voters. Not to say something dire can’t possibly slip through – we’ve been disheartened on a few nominations mornings -- but I’d say, if your precedents are Philomena or Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, your arguing position’s not a strong one.

On to the films newly screened.

It felt, at least after the Telluride screening, that Steve Jobs had evoked the most enthusiasm of any movie in the past few weeks. Overall response was somewhat more mixed, but having exuberant fans is a plus. We’ll get to check the commercial response quite shortly, but I like the film’s chances.

Beasts of No Nation is an interesting case. Reviews were quite good/not quite raves (Metacritic 82), with lots of respect offered, but some “it’s a bit grueling to watch” caveat. This is one were you’ll want to watch the box-office; if it’s seen to be performing above expectation (which, given its largely no-name cast, wouldn’t be terribly difficult), it could become a major factor.

Spotlight is one I have to say sneaked up on me, and I’m not sure what to make of it. Its reception at Venice was decent but hardly overwhelming; the Metacritic score is an un-thrilling 79; and it only ran third in the Toronto Audience competition (behind a movie I’d barely heard of). Yet, starting last weekend, a number of Oscar bloggers started touting it as a sure-fire contender/potential best picture winner; the ever-anxious-to-call-it Goldderby puts it in the number one slot. It’s possible all these people perceive something I can’t glean from the reviews; that, when I see the film, I’ll instantly feel it as prime Oscar material. But it’s also possible this is a movie about heroic journalists, and that’s a subject with inherent appeal for people – Oscar bloggers -- who view their own selves as truth-chasing journalists, which makes them inflate the film’s importance based on their personal identification. We’ll have to wait till early November to see if this is another media-centered movie (like Quiz Show or The Insider) that fails to find much audience – or if it truly does take off.

Son of Saul was of course seen at Cannes last Spring, and very well-received there, but for me it wasn’t until the reception was replicated at Toronto that I began to view it as potentially a top category player. The film is reportedly quite innovative, which might be catnip for what in the old days would have been a lone director slot, and which, in the up-to-ten era, could spill over to best picture, as well. The Holocaust has, of course, long been a subject of massive Academy interest, and the solid acclaim the film’s receiving (it’s at 90 on Metacritic, the highest of any film shown at Toronto) makes it a real contender.

Those are the films I see as having the most genuine shots at best picture nomination right now. Various people are making arguments for a bunch of other films – as I said, when nothing’s truly top-tier, many normally second-level efforts have to be considered. To cover them in brief: Like BJ, I thought better of Sicario’s chances prior to seeing it; it doesn’t seem to me to have the heft of a renegade best picture nominee, nor the reassuring, audience-pleasing tug of a populist favorite… I may be underestimating Youth (after over-estimating it since Cannes) – but some reactions I read after Toronto screenings were surprisingly down on the film. I’m open to being surprised… Room, despite its audience award at Toronto, seems more a possibility for acting/screenwriting nominations than best picture. The reviews were sufficiently mixed (despite enthusiastic positives) that the top category feels like a bridge too far for a little outfit like A24… The Martian could pull a surprise, if it takes off as an audience hit – the reviews are strong enough that, if it’s viewed as at least semi-serious (as opposed to pure popcorn), it could slip into the main race. I doubt that’s the way to bet, but you never know…. Black Mass, Truth and The Danish Girl, while they have some boisterous backers, really didn’t receive the critical response a best picture nominee normally has (they’re all in the 60s on Metacritic). The Danish Girl has an especially loud claque insisting it’ll still make the list because, dammit, they came into the year planning on that (shades of Unbroken). I’d pose the question in the other direction: if the film weren’t on the imaginary pre-season list, is there anything in the critical response to make one think it would get Academy attention? Before you say “What about The Imitation Game?”, let me point out that film 1) while no world-beater, did about 10 points higher on Metacritic; 2) had Harvey Weinstein flogging it, and 3) did $90 million in box-office. Does anyone think a transgender story, however Hooper-sensitively it’s treated, is going to do that level of business?

Anyway…because nothing really jumps out as “I can totally see that winning best picture/director next February”, many are turning to the upcoming slate, which, while thinner now (Snowden, if you hadn’t heard, has been bumped to ’16), does offer some bold-faced names – Spielberg’s Bridge of Spies, David O. Russell’s Joy, Innaritu’s The Revenant, and Tarantino’s The Hateful 8. Oscar bloggers are, surprising to me, almost completely discounting two other films, In the Heart of the Sea and The Walk – not that I expect much of either, but given their Oscar-veteran directors, you’d think the conventional wisdom crowd would give them more credence. And, finally, to repeat what I said in the other thread: I’m open to the possibility that Crimson Peak, despite skipping the festival route, might turn out to be more than a mere Halloween flick, and aggress its way into the race.

To the performances:

The crapping-out of so many bio-pics at Toronto (Legend, The Program, I Saw the Light, maybe Trumbo) wreaked havoc on the best actor category – a bunch of names we thought we might see are gone for the year. While I agree with okri’s “No one can be a winner yet”, I think we can label Michael Fassbender the strongest candidate currently on the field, given both enthusiastic reaction to his performance and his career profile (including the previous nomination). After him, I don’t think anyone can be viewed as a certain nominee, but there are several already seen who are at least contenders: Johnny Depp (whose film did well enough this past weekend to go with his strong personal reviews); Mark Ruffalo, hoping to ride Spotlight-fervor; and Michael Caine, whose Youth performance might be his twilight years highlight. I’m still dubious about Eddie Redmayne, who’s had some really hostile reaction (Todd McCarthy was pretty withering today), but of course failed Oscar-bait performances have managed nominations in weak years (Close in Albert Nobbs, Theron in North Country). We’ll better know the calibre of the ultimate field after the NY Festival, where Tom Hanks, Don Cheadle, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt will be seen in major roles (Cheadle’s Miles Ahead still doesn’t have a 2015 release date, but I imagine a strong response would change that). Then, at Christmas, we’ll see DiCaprio’s big bopper, and Will Smith’s smaller potential sleeper. Only after all that settles will we know if it’s the sort of weakish year where Depp, Redmayne, or even minor summer candidate Ian McKellen could make the grade.

The actress slate is, uncharacteristically, stronger – enough that Mara’s apparent fraudulent dip to supporting won’t weaken the field much. Towering at the top for now is Cate Blanchett, for two performances that might help her repeat her critics’ dominance of just two years ago. Brie Larson has been an up-and-comer for a few years, and seems decently poised to make the cut if Room is any kind of success. Saoirse Ronin headlines Brooklyn, apparently winningly, and is a solid candidate. I see Carey Mulligan as weaker than some – her personal reviews were impressive, but she might be weighed down by a film whose reviews were sub-par. Beyond this group, there are several contenders from small films – Lily Tomlin, Charlotte Rampling in 45 Years, and Maggie Smith in The Lady in the Van – any or none of who could make the final list. And still to be seen are Jennifer Lawrence in Joy and, if you follow my Crimson Peak instinct, Jessica Chastain.

Supporting actor has been a category prone to runaways of late -- the all-winners’ face-off of 2012 was the only time in the last eight years it didn’t feel settled by early January. This year feels like it might be an exception, as the field is pretty densely populated already -- a number of performances have got standout attention -- but I don’t think any single one rises above the rest of the field in the way Fassbender and Blanchett do. Joel Edgerton got even stronger reviews than Depp for Black Mass, and is a rising talent due for recognition. Idris Elba, who nearly everyone admires, was singled out for Beasts of No Nations. Michael Keaton is back again, aboard the Spotlight train. Benicio Del Toro has his best role in a while in Sicario. And reports are emerging that Paul Dano will be campaigned in support for Love and Mercy, where I think he has a chance. As far as what’s upcoming: scoping out supporting players in unseen films is pure guesswork, but I think most would look at Mark Rylance in Bridge of Spies and Tom Hardy in The Revenant as particularly worth watching.

Finally, supporting actress. Rooney Mara presumably leads the pack at the moment, partially thanks to the size of her carpetbagged role. Reports suggest Alicia Vikander is planning the same lead-but-going-supporting for The Danish Girl; she’s also the topline element of that film who’s been most singled out as deserving by critics. Kate Winslet’s prominent part in Steve Jobs seems like it might get her among the nominated again. Jane Fonda’s abbreviated performance in Youth has had people invoking Beatrice Straight in Network, which I’ll be interested to see. And, for the future, many, including Sabin, have pointed to Jennifer Jason Leigh, who’s labored long without ever getting Academy attention and would probably be a popular choice.

That’s it for now. An update when there’s more to say.
Last edited by Mister Tee on Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “88th Predictions and Precursors”