OscarGuy wrote:And who really takes the Globe placement with any seriousness? They classified The Martian as comedy...
And if The Martian WINS Best Picture and Best Actor Globes, that's not going to have ANY effect on its overall award season narrative?
As I said below, the Academy could of course in the end buy into the studio's fraud, but I expressed big doubt that the Supporting Actress race would settle as easily into Mara vs. Vikander the way the bloggers seem to have mandated, and I'm truly puzzled that you guys are willing to brush off this development as something meaningless, rather than EXACTLY the kind of hurdle that could shake up that category.
Especially because I think it's a much bigger development than I anticipated at this point. I figured a critics prize or two in Best Actress (especially in Mara's case, because she's attached to such an acclaimed film) could show some signs of revolt, and at least fuel the category fraud debate for a while longer. But the Golden Globes are HUGE -- the press they generate and the attention from within the industry they receive make them one of the most significant bellwethers during awards season. You can mock their star-whoring tendencies as much as you want, but to suggest that no one takes their awards seriously strikes me as an argument not based in reality.
So, the fact that five other women in the Supporting Actress category will be able to build traction as Globe nominees (and one of them will be up on stage as the winner) is going to shape the race. The fact that some of the borderline Best Actress Drama candidates are now probably going to be D.O.A. -- Carey Mulligan virtually needs that nomination for her candidacy to stay alive at this point -- is going to shape the race. The fact that, as the Variety article notes, the studio campaigns could even change if there's a concern over category confusion being a detriment to getting nominations, is going to shape the race. And unlike other cases where the fraud has just been rubber-stamped across the board (i.e. Julia Roberts in August: Osage County, who no one thought would be promoted to Best Actress), the fact that there will be doubt about whether or not these actresses will show up at the Oscars in Lead or Supporting will likely persist until nomination morning, and that is also going to shape how people perceive that race. In fact, I think it's going to make predicting both actress categories pretty chaotic. (Hooray!)
All I'm saying is, it's important to remember that A LOT is going to happen over the next couple months, and this weird blogger insistence that Mara vs. Vikander is your Supporting Actress race seems oblivious to all of the ways that could be tripped up -- as flipp says, all anyone is talking about is that these actresses are actually leads, and their movies haven't even OPENED yet!
Not to put a damper on it, but the Globes often consider performers in lead that the Academy doesn't although Tatum O'Neal and Catherine Zeta-Jones are the only ones I can think of who went on to win Oscars in support after the Globes nominated them as leads.
The Globes have ten slots to fill for lead actresses. The Academy has just five. Actors are not restricted to category. They will be nominated in whichever category in which they get the most votes provided there aren't five actresses with more votes in that category.
Mister Tee wrote:Apropos flipp's point below: Deadline's Pete Hammond says he's hearing the Foreign Press are ruling both Mara and Vikander as lead actresses. If that turns out true, let's see if AMPAS truly wants to show itself as having less integrity than the Golden Globes.
The Original BJ wrote:This wasn't on my radar at all, but Cynthia Nixon has been getting very strong notices for James White, which opened today. The movie could very well be too indie for major awards contention, but anything seems to be possible in that Supporting Actress field right now, and Nixon is hardly a low-profile actress herself. Could she be the kind of candidate critics push into contention?
Mark Harris opined a week or two ago that critics' groups in several categories this year could pick actors who are not part of Internet chatter, because they see far more of the low-grossing/small-release indies and don't limit themselves to the usual suspects. Recall last year, when Timothy Spall and Tom Hardy won NY & LA (Marion Cotillard, as well, though she, because her field was so barren, was able to parley it into an AMPAS nomination). Jason Segel in The End of the Tour, Peter Sarsgaard in The Experimenter, Nina Hoss in Phoenix -- these are people no one in Oscar blogger land is giving a second's thought, but critics from the three classic groups may think different. (It used to be only the National Society went for these off-the-beaten-path choices, but these days NY & LA are equally if not more likely)
Apropos flipp's point below: Deadline's Pete Hammond says he's hearing the Foreign Press are ruling both Mara and Vikander as lead actresses. If that turns out true, let's see if AMPAS truly wants to show itself as having less integrity than the Golden Globes.
This wasn't on my radar at all, but Cynthia Nixon has been getting very strong notices for James White, which opened today. The movie could very well be too indie for major awards contention, but anything seems to be possible in that Supporting Actress field right now, and Nixon is hardly a low-profile actress herself. Could she be the kind of candidate critics push into contention?
Mister Tee wrote:Supporting actress could be the battle of the fraudsters, between Rooney Mara and Alicia Vikander, but, as BJ says, the critics may not play along (sadly, though, those pathetic “Southeast Ohio Critics” groups probably will).
I think AMPAS will bump Rooney Mara up to leading for Carol. It's just not as easy to get away with category fraud when everybody is talking about it. She and Blanchett are going to do a Thelma & Louise (they'll probably share tons of precursor awards like the NYFCC).
Last edited by flipp525 on Sun Nov 15, 2015 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
Mister Tee wrote: you'll get applause from Italiano and Uri, but, by general critical consensus, it's not close:
Well, I certainly think that The Martian is much better than Gravity. But I also understand that for example Matt Damon could be nominated for Best Actor only if this is really a weak, weak year at least for that category. Not because his performance isn't good - it's definitely more varied and expressive than Bullock's in Gravity - but because it's honestly the kind of role that the Academy rarely takes seriously. Even when Sigourney Weaver was nominated for Aliens - and she was also good in it - it wasn't a great year for leading actresses.
Mister Tee wrote:As noted, I’m deeply skeptical of this notion of The Martian as a leading contender (and people touting Ridley Scott as director, even in a split!).
Gravity had its director win and probably came very close to winning Best Picture. So, if this year is just a little bit weaker than 2013. . .
This year is, barring last-minute deluge, well weaker than 2013 -- 2013 was an all-timer, by recent standards. On the other hand, if you're suggesting The Martian is in anything like Gravity's class...well, you'll get applause from Italiano and Uri, but, by general critical consensus, it's not close: Gravity had a 96 Metacritic score, to The Martian's 80. Apart from both being set extra-terrestrially, I don't see the comparison.
BJ, I dearly hope your view of Steve Job prevails -- it's neck and neck with Room as my favorite thing I've seen this, and its belly-flop has pained me. Nathaniel at Film Experience says those Hollywood folk to whom he's spoken like the film and are ignoring the box office stories, so, we'll see. (I honestly wonder how the film has become such a conspicuous flop. Checking our thread, I see you, me, Sabin, okri and dws all favorable to highly favorable on it. Given that we as a group have...um...been known to disagree, it's odd that we'd achieve rough consensus so at odds with what seems mainstream opinion.)
In the two days since I posted my reactions, Concussion has opened, and -- if it's going to get Smith a nomination, it's going to have to be as populist favorite, because the reviews are not positive.
Mister Tee, you bring up a point that I can only hope distributors are realizing, perhaps this year more than past years -- when every movie targeted toward grown-ups is dropped in the last three months of the year, you have way too many movies fighting for the same audience. Just yesterday, my mom was telling me how excited she was to finally see Steve Jobs -- she hadn't been putting it off, she'd just been seeing Bridge of Spies, and Room, and Truth. And yet, this year, the first nine months were virtually barren of anything of interest to grown-ups -- surely some of these currently floundering movies could have been the Grand Budapest of this year had they had a chance in a less competitive month. The notion that year's end is the ONLY acceptable time to release grown-ups movies is seeming more and more crazy to me, because these movies are really starting to suffer at the box office, which, of course, in turn limits chances for awards, which is pretty much the main reason to release films at this time in the first place.
Box office be damned, I guess I'm less doubtful about Steve Jobs's awards prospects than Mister Tee. I think its poor grosses make DIRECTOR a lot more iffy a prospect, simply because its overall Best Picture strength seems to have waned. But I find it hard to imagine a universe where Fassbender, Winslet, and Sorkin don't make the cut in their respective categories -- they're three very respected individuals doing impressive work in a film I think voters will still very much like. (And Actor and Supporting Actress seem like pretty thin fields.)
I've obviously made clear my feelings on the Best Picture chances for Mad Max: Fury Road, but from this vantage point, I actually think it's even MORE out-there a prediction than it was in the summer. There are a lot of movies that have already been seen that fit pretty well among the kinds of movies the Academy usually likes to nominate (Spotlight, Bridge of Spies, Room, Steve Jobs, The Martian, Inside Out, Brooklyn, Carol), and that's not even considering the year-end entries from heavy-hitters (The Hateful Eight, Joy, The Revenant). That's eleven movies right there, and I'm not even convinced all the nominees will necessarily come from that group, given the potential for a wild card foreign entry like Son of Saul, or a late-breaking surprise like The Big Short, or even a resurgence over middling reviews for The Danish Girl. As I've said in past years, voters can now nominate up to ten movies, not FIFTY, and with so many more traditional options available (plus, with The Martian and Inside Out, no shortage of populist competitors), why the Academy would all of a sudden go for the kind of movie they literally NEVER nominate is beyond me.
Of course, some of these same people are also arguing that Star Wars: The Force Awakens could actually WIN Best Picture, and at that point, there are just no words anymore.
Mister Tee wrote:As noted, I’m deeply skeptical of this notion of The Martian as a leading contender (and people touting Ridley Scott as director, even in a split!).
Gravity had its director win and probably came very close to winning Best Picture. So, if this year is just a little bit weaker than 2013. . .
I do check out the Oscar bloggers from to time but I almost never read the comments from the fan boys. That Mad Max movie is the worst piece of crap I've seen all year. If it gets nominated fro anything it will be in the tech categories and even that will be an abomination. I don't care how nice George Miller is supposed to be, he isn't going to be nominated for Best Director. I don't care how many fellow actors Charlize Theron schmoozes, she isn't going to be nominated for Best Actress.
I've been skeptical of the chances of The Revenant, The Hateful Eight and Joy all along, but both SAG and the Globes nominations will be announced before box office can have an effect on the chances of all three films so that's not going to be a factor. Strong showings from both those bodies could have an effect on Oscar, which is why I'm coming around on DiCaprio more and more as others fall.
The film doesn't look good to me in the trailer, but DiCaprio looks strong. Hanks, Smith and even Jackson are certainly possibilities but I don't see them routing Fassbender or Redmayne. Damon is a more likely popular contender based on the continuing mass popularity of his film. Depp has been nominated three times before for lesser work so I'm reluctant to count him out. Of the older guys, Caine's film doesn't look Oscar friendly and Courtenay's film looks minor. I very much like McKellen's take on the elderly Holmes, but I'm not sure he has enough support. He's probably a shoo-in for a nomination for the AARP award for Best Actor over 50 along with Hanks and Courtenay, though.
I kind of discount Rampling's chances for Best Actress for the same reason I discount Courtenay's. Danner's film is very minor and her performance is not all that good. If they're going to nominate an old lady this year it is more likely to be Tomlin or Smith or both. Mulligan's not completely out, but she is far from a guarantee. Interestingly, Smith's film has more scheduled Academy screenings than Mulligan's. Lawrence remains a question mark.
Supporting Actor is not an open and shut case. No one has emerged as a clear favorite, which is why I think this is going to be one of those years, and there have been many in this category, where they reward a long-time actor who has been overlooked in the past. Keaton fits the bill perfectly.
I think it's wishful thinking that the Academy will rebel and nominate Vikander and Mara in lead. They might, of course, but I wouldn't count on it. Supporting Actress is really weak this year with Walters and Allen probably the strongest of the possibilities.
Magilla, what surprises me about your post is how blithely you’re narrowing down some categories, as if it’s a standard winding-down Oscar year. Like BJ, I see an unusual level of murk. It’s common for ultimate outcomes to be hazy at this point, early November, but, this year’s worse. I feel about the race the way I do about the Republican presidential nomination: not only do I not know who/what is going to emerge from the wide fields; in all but one of the major categories, I’m not even confident who’s in which tier (last year, contrastingly, it was clear by now Boyhood and Birdman were prime film/director candidates). Things have seemed to change week to week, as hot-shot contenders go down in box-office flames (Steve Jobs), and efforts barely on the radar a few weeks back suddenly get loud buzz (where did The Big Short come from? Same place The Martian did). It’s illustrative of how amorphous the field is that most Oscar blogger sites have the unreleased Joy and The Revenant ranked near the top for best film, with The Hateful Eight not far behind, and actors from all those films counted upon to run strong. Meantime, people continue to tout Mad Max: Fury Road as a nominee, and more than a few are now pushing The Martian and Ridley Scott as winners! (You may infer from my exclamation point that my take on that is No Way in Hell.) This year seems designed to make William Goldman’s oft-repeated phrase, Nobody knows anything, the official motto.
Something I say every year – that we need to wait for box-office results before we really know a film’s chances – has proven out with a vengeance. Steve Jobs is the most prominent case – its complete nose-dive has made even its baseline nominations (actor, supporting actress, screenplay) iffy. But the attendance numbers on Suffragette have also reduced Carey Mulligan from solid to Hillary-Swank-in-Conviction dubious, and even Room is a bit wobbly – if it scores well, it will do it Whiplash style, without major public support. Conversely, while I question the vernal expectations some have for The Martian, there’s no doubt the film benefits from being THE hit of the Fall, and it’s at least a decent bet to get on the best film slate a la Inception (or The Fugitive in a year of five). The fact that Bridge of Spies has held up so well clearly improves its chances of out-muscling films of similar or greater critical response. Even Sicario’s decent gross helps it stay in the game for a few nominations. (One might wonder: did Sicario getting out of the gate first help it stand out in what’s become a progressively cannibalizing environment for grown-up films? Might that affect future strategy, for films looking to make a mark in Fall?)
To the categories, starting with best picture, where I have almost no idea how to begin. Were I trying to predict an old-school slate of five, I’d be close to paralyzed – I’m not sure any single film easily clears that standard. But, having only to say “in contention for a spot among 10”, I can throw out a batch of titles, many the same you’re highlighting, though my order is strictly random. Based on its position today, from reviews and initial grosses, Spotlight rates first place, but I’m not convinced it won’t slip in weeks to come. Reviews this week were markedly better than the festival response, but a huge percentage were from newspaper critics who oohed and aahed with nostalgia for old-time newsroom culture – a subject not as vital to movie-going audiences. I’m not saying the film’s going to crater, a la Shattered Glass, but it might be just another The Insider, which survived for nominations but won not a thing… As noted, I’m deeply skeptical of this notion of The Martian as a leading contender (and people touting Ridley Scott as director, even in a split!). But I can easily see the film getting onto the ballot as a populist effort – it’s an original piece of work with a beginning/middle/end (not a franchise launcher), and, while its science is speculative, it doesn’t demand its audience believe in fantasies/miracles – meaning it has grown-up appeal… Two other films that work on a popular level, with at least nominally more serious content than The Martian: Brooklyn, which opened this weekend to quite positive reviews and good numbers, presumably hits the nostalgia spot for old-timers in the Academy (my mother’s asked me about the movie twice already), and seems like the kind of mid-range hit that makes the cut. Bridge of Spies got (to me) unaccountably generous notices, but it’s clearly appealing to audiences, at least those with memories of the Cold War (which is to say, Academy members). I see both these films as being attractive to the group that voted for The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything last year, while having the advantage of being at least somewhat better… A possibly more problematic candidate is Room, which has shown an ability to sway voters (cf. its Toronto Audience Award), but hasn’t broken out at the box office (though A24 is, maybe smartly, giving it a very slow release, and it may increase with awards notice). I can only say that several people with whom I’ve spoken about it have used the word “love” when describing their reaction – it’s a word I’d use, as well – so, if there’s a passion element to best picture voting, it may have an edge… The argument against Inside Out – here and elsewhere – seems to be that, while it’s on par with films like Up and Toy Story 3, which did get best picture nominations, those efforts got in under the middle set of rules: after the expansion, but before the “5% number ones” codicil was added. The premise is that no animated film could possibly get 5% of voters putting it in first place. My memory is of numerous people back in July telling me it was “not just the best animated film, one of the best FILMS”, so I dispute the notion. But we’re going to have to wait for January to see who’s right about it… The odd thing about Steve Jobs is, it does have a devoted following (even here); someone noted yesterday that it had an A- Cinemascore, which seems incompatible with its box-office collapse. One suspects the amount of publicity its failure has received will kill it for top consideration, but never say never (The Right Stuff, back in the day, got similar flak, but survived for a best picture nod)… Sicario still seems to me mainly a contender for supporting actor and sound/editing prizes, but, as one of the few adult movies to do business this season, it can’t be ruled out… Netflix claims Beasts of No Nation was watched by 3 million viewers its first week. I don’t know how impressive that is, since Netflix has never released figures prior for comparison. What I do think is the fact the film has died in theatres has taken it out of the conversation, and it’s hard to generate top nominations for a movie no one’s talking about… Conversely, Oscar bloggers seem obsessed with talking about Mad Max: Fury Road. There are people at AwardsWatch confidently predicting the film and its director will win the LA Critics prize; they speak with such conviction I almost question my own skepticism. Such a thing can’t happen – right?
There are two other groups of candidates that might figure among best picture hopefuls– those in the phantom zone (screened/reviewed, but not yet subject to public release), and those tantalizing few still hidden from view. In the first group, BJ’s reaction to Carol gives me pause – I’d thought the film a dead-certainty, based on the accumulating raves the film’s received since being unveiled at Cannes. The bloggers are certainly down on the film’s prospects, largely from cynicism about or antipathy toward Todd Haynes (Tom O’Neil and Kris Tapley have never liked his films), and a belief there are too many female-centric films in the mix this year – Brooklyn, Room, Carol, even Inside Out, perhaps Joy to come – and the male-skewing Academy will surely snub some of them, starting with Carol. (I’d dispute that last premise: the Academy was just as male-dominant in the 70s, and most major films of that era were male-leaning, but when, in 1977, the most talked about films skewed female – Julia and The Turning Point – or had co-leads -- Annie Hall and The Goodbye Girl – voters had no problem choosing them all (it was the male-centered Close Encounters that actually got boxed out). It’s a long time truism that the industry leans male, but I don’t see evidence voters go out of their way to emphasize that fact.) Anyway, I still have Carol on board for nomination till persuaded otherwise… I also see Son of Saul as candidate, mainly because I see it as a classic lone-director sort, and, last year notwithstanding, in a field of up to 10, lone directors can turn into best picture nominees… Some will also argue for Youth and The Danish Girl, but I’m dubious about them unless they turn into much bigger things than I anticipate.
Which leaves the future – and for most people, that means Joy, The Revenant and The Hateful Eight, though The Big Short has started being whispered about recently (despite being directed by the unpromising Adam McKay). To be fair, we should include In the Heart of the Sea, Concussion, and The Secret in Their Eyes in that list of possibles. Oh, and some at AwardsWatch are touting Creed and, yes, Star Wars: the Force Awakens – proving fanboys never learn.
The best actor race is almost hypothetical at this point. There’s blogger near-unanimity that unseen The Revenant will be Leonardo DiCaprio’s Oscar vehicle – something for which he’s certainly well-positioned, in career terms, not unlike how his Titanic co-star was 7 years ago. But if the film goes bust – or his performance doesn’t reach minimally acceptable prize levels -- who else could win? This is one of the weakest best actor fields we’ve seen in recent times: not a single on-the-field candidate is a dead-solid certainty to be nominated. Michael Fassbender seemed to be in that category a few weeks ago, and the widespread praise he received may be enough to carry the day…but some are doubting even that nomination (a win for such a commercial flame-out would be atypical). You could fill some slots with respectable names among the already-released, but none of them are performances that’d qualify on their own; they rely on being attached to decent grossing films -- Johnny Depp, Tom Hanks, and Matt Damon (Damon’s film of course did more than “decent”, and he’s actually has been enthusiastically praised, but he’s in a genre rarely taken seriously). In this context, Ian McKellen, still hanging around since summer, has to be seen as a possibility. And, though we all know I’m skeptical about Eddie Redmayne this time out, as a high-profile candidate in a role that screams bait, he can’t be ruled out in such a lackluster year. Still to come, besides DiCaprio: Will Smith, Samuel L. Jackson in The Hateful Eight (bumped to lead, per a Harvey decision a few days ago), and Steve Carell, said to be a comic standout in The Big Short.
Best actress is the exception: the one category we can speak of in standard “the year’s winding down and here’s how it looks” terms. This is because there are solid candidates already on the field -- Brie Larson and Saoirse Ronan, plus Cate Blanchett highly endorsed pre-release. Most would add Jennifer Lawrence to the list – even if her film’s a disappointment, but especially if it’s a hit – and, after that, all you need to do is select out your slate-fillers, with Carey Mulligan standing up for youth, and Charlotte Rampling, Lily Tomlin, Maggie Smith and Blythe Danner offering a nice smorgasbord of older ladies whose presence would be pleasing to many.
As I noted a few weeks back, supporting actor has been a bandwagon category over the most of past decade – Javier Bardem, Heath Ledger, Christoph Waltz and, J. K. Simmons all became favorites early on and coasted to victory; Jared Leto , Christian Bale and Christopher Plummer did the same after the critics’ scrums. I’d initially thought Mark Rylance might get that sort of momentum this year, but, after seeing the film, I don’t think his role is quite dominant enough (though I surely see him as a nominee). Spotlight could bring us a winner, but there’s already division over whether it’s Michael Keaton or Mark Ruffalo who makes the strongest showing, and they could do like the Platoon boys: divvy up the vote enough to throw the award to someone else. And that “someone else” is a very long list, any one of whom might be jump-started by a critics’ award or two: Paul Dano in Love and Mercy, Jacob Tremblay in Room (I know it’s category fraud, but no kid is likely to be nominated lead), Benicio del Toro in Sicario, Joel Edgerton in Black Mass, Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation – with Robert DeNiro in Joy and Tom Hardy in The Revenant still unseen. When there are that many live possibilities, “we have no idea” is the only honest evaluation.
Supporting actress could be the battle of the fraudsters, between Rooney Mara and Alicia Vikander, but, as BJ says, the critics may not play along (sadly, though, those pathetic “Southeast Ohio Critics” groups probably will). And there are lots of other candidates, some from films that may be more popular with voters: Joan Allen in Room, Julie Walters in Brooklyn. A few weeks back, we thought Kate Winslet a near-certainty for Steve Jobs, and she may still make the cut. Many people are pushing Elizabeth Banks in Love and Mercy – something I don’t see, myself, but a Dano wave could carry her along. Jane Fonda’s apparent short bit in Youth has many suggesting her for a nod. And, still to come, we have Diane Ladd and Isabella Rossellini in Joy, and Sabin-endorsed Jennifer Jason Leigh. Again: that’s too big a group, with too many unknowns, for anything like a definitive pronouncement at this point.
As far as director, I’ll echo BJ: four or so of the five directors will likely be the top best picture contenders. And since I’ve already indicated I have no idea which films those are, I’m completely unable to make anything beyond a wild stab here.
I’m not even going to think about the lower categories till at least the weekend.
FilmFan720 wrote:You know what's a lock right now...NOTHING!
While I agree that there are no locks in the "big eight" categories, I can think of one lock for a nomination, and probably a win, in the "lower" categories, The Martian for Visual Effects.
Two words: LEGO Movie.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
FilmFan720 wrote:You know what's a lock right now...NOTHING!
While I agree that there are no locks in the "big eight" categories, I can think of one lock for a nomination, and probably a win, in the "lower" categories, The Martian for Visual Effects.
