I don't play video games and I love Mad Max: Fury Road and think the critical adoration is merited.
Likewise, I'm reasonably well-versed in the cinema of Fellini and Bergman (I rank some of their films as among my all-time favorites), thank you very much.
Intermission
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19337
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Intermission
I have to say that all this Mad Max genuflecting from the various critics groups restores some of my faith in the National Board of Review. I'm glad to see there's more to it than just anointing another Warner Bros. flick as best of the year.
Overall, though, I think that the support it's getting is largely from generation x-ers and millennials among the new batch of critics who grew up playing computer games. That's what the film reminded me of, a long, monotonous computer game with humans and/or other living beings substituting for the widgets that must be destroyed in those games. Them and the grandmothers and aunties trying to appear hip to the younger generations. Yes, I'm talking to you, Thelma and Sasha.
Overall, though, I think that the support it's getting is largely from generation x-ers and millennials among the new batch of critics who grew up playing computer games. That's what the film reminded me of, a long, monotonous computer game with humans and/or other living beings substituting for the widgets that must be destroyed in those games. Them and the grandmothers and aunties trying to appear hip to the younger generations. Yes, I'm talking to you, Thelma and Sasha.
Re: Intermission
I personally don't have any problem with that. And - at the cost of making Sasha Stone faint - I don't see anything wrong if a movie is mostly directed to men, to women, to animals, to vegetables... Some masterpieces of the past, let's face it, were "guy movies" - especially in American cinema, which gave us Howard Hawks, John Huston, etc. (In principle, I don't have anything against "women's pictures" either). What I mean is - not only I don't think that a movie should be about EVERYTHING - including any possible gender - but most importantly, I dont even think that a movie must necessarily "APPEAL to everyone". I must confess that, on the contrary, I have a soft spot for movies which are divisive, provocative, sectarian even. Or at least I don't think that such movies are bad for this reasons (they can, of course, be bad for other reasons).OscarGuy wrote:Sure, they are all about traditional "guy" subject matters, but shouldn't they not be?
Now, I know that I still have to see this Mad Max Fury Road and Creed (I'm more and more afraid that I'll have to see them), but my view is a bit more general - and for example I HAVE seen both 2013's Gravity and this year's The Martian, two other "action" movies which have been greatly praised by American (and in some cases even non-American) film critics. And when you read such enthusiastic reviews, you often "feel" a depressing lack of intellectual solidity - these reviewers would be lost dealing with a Bergman or a Fellini. (And this doesn't mean that even I can't find for example The Martian a nice and very watchable example of its kind).
But you are right, times are changing, so all this, and the pervasive influence of internet, should now be taken in consideration even when we make our predictions. If Mad Max Fury Road gets a Best Picture nomination (and I'd say most importantly, if it gets a Best Director nomination - where only five slots are available, and the branch is narrower and supposed to be more selective) it will be for me the most conclusive sign that things aren't as they used to be only a few years ago.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: Intermission
I think comparing Mad Max to Creed, The Martian and Furious 7 as guy films is one of the reasons a film like Mad Max is so important. Sure, they are all about traditional "guy" subject matters, but shouldn't they not be? Shouldn't they be the kinds of subjects that appeal to everyone, including women? Isn't isolating them as guy projects specifically why misogyny is such a dangerous thing?
The real issue with comparing Creed, The Martian and Furious 7 to Mad Max is that those three films, barring the appearance of women in the film, are ostensibly films about men and their actions and successes. Furious 7 may have a stronger female bent than the other two, but it's still a male-dominated film. (Though, I should note that one of my longtime female friends loves the Fast & Furious franchise and I doubt she's the only woman who does, which may account for the franchise's huge box office numbers).
Now, let's look at Mad Max. Yes, Max is the central character, but the film itself is more feminist than most traditionally guy-oriented film in recent memory. This is a film that speaks out for women's liberation from oppression and sexual slavery. It speaks about one man who's willing to acknowledge that even he isn't able to succeed on his own and, letting a woman protect him or fight alongside him, is necessary for survival. Is there any modern film that works out this way? Most feminist films have been about women being strong in spite of men. They don't necessarily depict men as inferior, but they don't give them much room to be strong and still supportive. Mad Max does that. It also has the added benefit of introducing a feminist subject matter directly INTO a traditionally male-dominated medium/subject matter. That alone gives it a level of gravitas that I think deserves recognition, whether you like the final outcome or not.
On a different subject matter, I see a lot of references to how the Globes and the DGA tend to ignore blockbuster fare, especially the latter, and then saying they aren't big on sequels. Must I remind everyone of the sweep of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. It was a mold breaker. Sequel. Fantasy Epic. Blockbuster. Sure, it had the added benefit of having its first and second films recognized by the Academy, so a direct comparison to Mad Max is not possible, but it does disprove that they won't go for this type of film, especially if critics support the film strongly.
I might make note that Mad Max has done well in all of the precursor groups so far announcing. It won heavily at NBR and Boston Online. It was runner-up in New York and received a tie-leading nomination count of 7 at the DC Critics. If it continues its dominance through the critics groups, the Academy WILL take notice. If it picks up nominations from many of the guilds, especially ACE, ASC and possibly DGA (we know it won't show at WGA, though), will everyone still be claiming otherwise? Citing Star Trek, The Dark Knight and Skyfall is disingenuous because none of those films dominated the critics. Matter of fact, the only one that won any Best Picture prizes was The Dark Knight and it won at Austin and Utah with the director winning only at Austin and the OFCS. Critics may have liked them and audiences may have too, but they were NOT contenders at the critics awards.
Now, let me be clear before I'm accused of being one of those Mad Max rallying folk. I do not have it in my current nominations predictions for any of the top categories. I won't put it there until I see what the rest of the critics do and a handful of the guilds. I'm not going to jump on the film's bandwagon until I see without a doubt that it is in competition for a nomination. However, this head-in-the-sand outlook against Mad Max needs to be checked before it gets too far out of hand. This is not your father's Academy (or Tee's and Magilla's). For good or ill, they are modernizing and shifting priorities. They changed the rules because The Dark Knight and WALL-E, both thought to be potential Best Picture nominees, didn't get nominated. They've made a reach towards inclusivity, which means a much more broad demographic of voters. We don't know yet how that diversity will impact Oscar voting. I suspect it might give Creed more credence if nothing else. We cannot continue to hold onto Oscar tropes just because they're familiar and they support our older sense of perspective. I doubt films like Birdman, The Grand Budapest Hotel or even possibly Boyhood would have done well with the Academy of the past.
There are myriad reasons you could use to claim the opposite, but there are just as many reasons to believe it is changing. Don't let your myopic view of the present and halcyon views of the past cloud your judgment before the playing field is fully in view. Wringing your hands over an outcome and then trying to find every possible narrative to oppose it is dangerous for any Oscar prognosticator. I've let that cloud my judgment in the past and it's always been to my detriment. I'm trying to be more open-minded about these things and look to ways that the Oscar dynamic is changing, rather than sticking to an antiquated view of the organization. Don't let your dislike or outright hatred of a film utterly remove your ability to be rational and thinking people. Set aside personal opinion and try to look at the race critically and with an open mind.
The real issue with comparing Creed, The Martian and Furious 7 to Mad Max is that those three films, barring the appearance of women in the film, are ostensibly films about men and their actions and successes. Furious 7 may have a stronger female bent than the other two, but it's still a male-dominated film. (Though, I should note that one of my longtime female friends loves the Fast & Furious franchise and I doubt she's the only woman who does, which may account for the franchise's huge box office numbers).
Now, let's look at Mad Max. Yes, Max is the central character, but the film itself is more feminist than most traditionally guy-oriented film in recent memory. This is a film that speaks out for women's liberation from oppression and sexual slavery. It speaks about one man who's willing to acknowledge that even he isn't able to succeed on his own and, letting a woman protect him or fight alongside him, is necessary for survival. Is there any modern film that works out this way? Most feminist films have been about women being strong in spite of men. They don't necessarily depict men as inferior, but they don't give them much room to be strong and still supportive. Mad Max does that. It also has the added benefit of introducing a feminist subject matter directly INTO a traditionally male-dominated medium/subject matter. That alone gives it a level of gravitas that I think deserves recognition, whether you like the final outcome or not.
On a different subject matter, I see a lot of references to how the Globes and the DGA tend to ignore blockbuster fare, especially the latter, and then saying they aren't big on sequels. Must I remind everyone of the sweep of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. It was a mold breaker. Sequel. Fantasy Epic. Blockbuster. Sure, it had the added benefit of having its first and second films recognized by the Academy, so a direct comparison to Mad Max is not possible, but it does disprove that they won't go for this type of film, especially if critics support the film strongly.
I might make note that Mad Max has done well in all of the precursor groups so far announcing. It won heavily at NBR and Boston Online. It was runner-up in New York and received a tie-leading nomination count of 7 at the DC Critics. If it continues its dominance through the critics groups, the Academy WILL take notice. If it picks up nominations from many of the guilds, especially ACE, ASC and possibly DGA (we know it won't show at WGA, though), will everyone still be claiming otherwise? Citing Star Trek, The Dark Knight and Skyfall is disingenuous because none of those films dominated the critics. Matter of fact, the only one that won any Best Picture prizes was The Dark Knight and it won at Austin and Utah with the director winning only at Austin and the OFCS. Critics may have liked them and audiences may have too, but they were NOT contenders at the critics awards.
Now, let me be clear before I'm accused of being one of those Mad Max rallying folk. I do not have it in my current nominations predictions for any of the top categories. I won't put it there until I see what the rest of the critics do and a handful of the guilds. I'm not going to jump on the film's bandwagon until I see without a doubt that it is in competition for a nomination. However, this head-in-the-sand outlook against Mad Max needs to be checked before it gets too far out of hand. This is not your father's Academy (or Tee's and Magilla's). For good or ill, they are modernizing and shifting priorities. They changed the rules because The Dark Knight and WALL-E, both thought to be potential Best Picture nominees, didn't get nominated. They've made a reach towards inclusivity, which means a much more broad demographic of voters. We don't know yet how that diversity will impact Oscar voting. I suspect it might give Creed more credence if nothing else. We cannot continue to hold onto Oscar tropes just because they're familiar and they support our older sense of perspective. I doubt films like Birdman, The Grand Budapest Hotel or even possibly Boyhood would have done well with the Academy of the past.
There are myriad reasons you could use to claim the opposite, but there are just as many reasons to believe it is changing. Don't let your myopic view of the present and halcyon views of the past cloud your judgment before the playing field is fully in view. Wringing your hands over an outcome and then trying to find every possible narrative to oppose it is dangerous for any Oscar prognosticator. I've let that cloud my judgment in the past and it's always been to my detriment. I'm trying to be more open-minded about these things and look to ways that the Oscar dynamic is changing, rather than sticking to an antiquated view of the organization. Don't let your dislike or outright hatred of a film utterly remove your ability to be rational and thinking people. Set aside personal opinion and try to look at the race critically and with an open mind.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: Intermission
Mister Tee wrote:I remember Italiano saying an international star with a showy, critics-sweeping role was an obvious choice. Once Cruz won the BAFTA, in my heart of hearts I pretty much thought he was right.
Yes well, I wish I could say that I was the only one predicting Cruz's win - but I was just maybe the first. By Oscar night, Best Supporting Actress was one of the most predictable categories ever. Nobody with such a role, in a movie directed by such a director, with such an international career, and with such looks could lose. The other nominees had no chance.
And I'm not sure I agree with Big Magilla that Winslet's role was supporting in size. I don't remember any truly important scene WITHOUT her (except one or two, quite short, after she dies, maybe), and all the narrative is about her character. Of course, like Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice, she's seen through the eyes of another character - typically, a sensitive young intellectual - so there ARE scene where this male character isn't with her - but a lead doesn't have to appear in ANY single scene.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: Intermission
The Globes gave Blomkamp a Best Screenplay nomination for District 9, FYI. I think them giving George Miller a Best Director nomination isn't out of the question.Mister Tee wrote:
Interesting note, BJ, about the Globe-sters shying away from the critic-hyped commercial fare. One would have to point out that George Miller's Australian-ness might help with a foreign press group. Though it didn't work for Blomkamp.
-
nightwingnova
- Assistant
- Posts: 516
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm
Re: Intermission
Just came back from seeing Spotlight.
It's a satisfyingly good enough film. Though I can't see why the NYFCC chose Keaton as best actor if not as a consolation for Birdman. I can't see the Academy honoring him for Spotlight. The role doesn't demand that much and Keaton doesn't show that much complexity or depth. I much more enjoyed the performances of Schreiber, Slattery and especially the absorbed, intense, deeply nuanced Stanley Tucci.
It's a satisfyingly good enough film. Though I can't see why the NYFCC chose Keaton as best actor if not as a consolation for Birdman. I can't see the Academy honoring him for Spotlight. The role doesn't demand that much and Keaton doesn't show that much complexity or depth. I much more enjoyed the performances of Schreiber, Slattery and especially the absorbed, intense, deeply nuanced Stanley Tucci.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: Intermission
I most definitely did take up for Adams, but I think in retrospect I was in denial, annoyed that a race that had seemed so interesting had gone flat, and was trying to pump air into the balloon. I know we all were pointing up the fact that Woody had failed to get a writing nomination for Vicky Christina, labelling that a big detriment to Cruz, but I remember Italiano saying an international star with a showy, critics-sweeping role was an obvious choice. Once Cruz won the BAFTA, in my heart of hearts I pretty much thought he was right. Call it revisionist history if you like; I view it as owning up after the fact.The Original BJ wrote:But the Supporting Actress race struck me as not dissimilar from the Affleck-less Director race in 2012 -- the candidate who'd won all of the precursors wasn't on the ballot, so no one really knew what was going to happen. I bet on Viola Davis, and I seem to remember Mister Tee predicting Amy Adams, with Magilla I believe stumping for Taraji P. Henson -- and we ALL ended up being wrong. In retrospect, of course, Cruz was hardly a shocking winner, but I remember a lot of doubt that year about how that race would actually resolve.
I've yet to see Lawrence, of course, but for me there are two world-class performances in lead actress this year: Larson's and Blanchett's (I think Mara is clearly a co-lead, and solid, but Blanchett shows colors I haven't seen before and is my definite choice of the two). Ronan is very good, well worthy of nomination, but her winning would be disappointing for me (kind of like Tilda Swinton beating out Any Ryan and Blanchett in '07).
Interesting note, BJ, about the Globe-sters shying away from the critic-hyped commercial fare. One would have to point out that George Miller's Australian-ness might help with a foreign press group. Though it didn't work for Blomkamp.
The real place I just find it difficult to imagine Mad Max getting traction is with the Academy's directing branch. The only sequels I can recall them ever nominating were The Bells of St. Mary's and The Godfather films. Their only choices you might call action films, Avatar and Gravity, were huge best picture behemoths (and commercial blockbusters well beyond Fury Road). I feel like he could miss with them even if he got DGA.
Nobody's much mentioned Jurassic World around here till okri brought it up here. I rented it a few weeks ago, and was, honestly, shocked at what a nothing it is. Is that all it takes to gross $650 million domestic these days? Even if I wasn't crazy about the original film, I understood everybody wanting to see it: the dinos were beyond anything that had ever been on screen before. Same with Titanic for the logistics of the boat sinking, and Avatar for opening a new age of 3-D. What about Jurassic World was novel, to drive people to see it in such numbers?
Magilla, for the reason you suggest, I think the Globes nominations for supporting actress will be very interesting to look at. What kind of template can be offered that right off the bat eliminates the 1-2 blogger choices? I'm rather more dubious of Fonda than I was a few days ago: Youth's reviews are really sub-par, and the grosses are, as well. Jennifer Jason Leigh seems the strongest mainstream candidate (I liked Stewart, but I'm still viewing her as a critic indulgence a la James Franco two years ago), but who might surround her is a mystery.
Re: Intermission
a) I don't think you'll need to take Mad Max seriously as an oscar candidate, BJ. I think what the critical acclaim does is set it up nicely for the "best picture-tech categories" like cinematography or film editing. What I would be curious about is the oxygen it's sucking away from other films that with more notice would be able to get in a big way. Something like Son of Saul for example needs all the critics awards it can get because it's releasing alongside Star Wars, The Hateful Eight, and Joy (I really take issue with how Sony Pictures Classics releases movies) and it will basically be asphyxiated.
a) Yes, I was definitely wrong about Keaton not being able to capitalize on his comeback. I wasn't hugely impressed with him in either Birdman or Spotlight so I definitely don't get it, but good on him.
b) Tee, I'm not sure exactly why "Hollywood product" is dominating to the extent that it is. Honestly, I will admit to preferring The Martian and Mad Max to Spotlight or Steve Jobs no question. I wonder if it's the return of two blogger tentpoles: Jurassic (World) and Star Wars. Now, neither of those films are going to get best picture attention, though it worth noting that Sasha Stone has no idea why Jurassic World won't (I'm not going to link to that article).
c) BAFTA, as a rule, doesn't do the category fraud thing as flagrantly. But I'm pretty sure they classified Carey Mulligan as lead for Drive (or Shame), so they do go in the other direction quite bizarrely.
d) Harvey Weinstein wrote an article about the Fall glut, which will interest those who are curious just how self-serving he can get (why aren't people voting for Helen Mirren in Woman of Gold? Why, cinema gods, why?).
e) The New York Drama Critics Circle not only release the runners-up, they post the way that each critic voted in each round. I don't get why the film group insists on such secrecy, but I'd assert it's counter-productive.
f) BJ, your comments about Best actress are intriguing. I actually think Ronan's the best positioned for a win right now. The film will probably end up in the high teens/low twentys. She's got those reviews and critics are beginning to fall in line. She won't have the lowest grossing film (I'll also point out that Carey Mulligan/An Education was up against a huge hit as well)
a) Yes, I was definitely wrong about Keaton not being able to capitalize on his comeback. I wasn't hugely impressed with him in either Birdman or Spotlight so I definitely don't get it, but good on him.
b) Tee, I'm not sure exactly why "Hollywood product" is dominating to the extent that it is. Honestly, I will admit to preferring The Martian and Mad Max to Spotlight or Steve Jobs no question. I wonder if it's the return of two blogger tentpoles: Jurassic (World) and Star Wars. Now, neither of those films are going to get best picture attention, though it worth noting that Sasha Stone has no idea why Jurassic World won't (I'm not going to link to that article).
c) BAFTA, as a rule, doesn't do the category fraud thing as flagrantly. But I'm pretty sure they classified Carey Mulligan as lead for Drive (or Shame), so they do go in the other direction quite bizarrely.
d) Harvey Weinstein wrote an article about the Fall glut, which will interest those who are curious just how self-serving he can get (why aren't people voting for Helen Mirren in Woman of Gold? Why, cinema gods, why?).
e) The New York Drama Critics Circle not only release the runners-up, they post the way that each critic voted in each round. I don't get why the film group insists on such secrecy, but I'd assert it's counter-productive.
f) BJ, your comments about Best actress are intriguing. I actually think Ronan's the best positioned for a win right now. The film will probably end up in the high teens/low twentys. She's got those reviews and critics are beginning to fall in line. She won't have the lowest grossing film (I'll also point out that Carey Mulligan/An Education was up against a huge hit as well)
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19337
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: Intermission
Winslet's role in The Reader was lead in terms of importance but supporting in terms of size. It could have gone either way. While I was stumping for Taraji P. Henson as the best among the supporting nominees that year, I would have preferred Winslet had been nominated and won in support and Streep won Best Actress for Doubt, a better film than the poorly constructed The Iron Lady for which she would win her third Oscar three years later.
This year I think Rooney and Vikander are clear leads. If nominated along with Blanchett, Ronan and Larson, the five nominees will represent one of the strongest group of nominees in any category ever. Whichever one emerges the winner will likely be heralded as a most deserving one. However, the dilemma facing Oscar voters is that there are more than five they want to put on their ballots and fewer than five they want to put on their ballots for supporting actress. They could easily list Rooney and Vikander in support and Mulligan, Tomlin or whoever in lead.
If they avoid the temptation, though, who will the five nominees be for supporting actress be, and who among them has the best chance of winning?. I don't have a clue.
I really liked Kristen Stewart in Clouds of Sils Maria, but despite her early critics' wins, has she got strong enough support to win?
Beyond her, I don't know. Jane Fonda, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Kate Winslet are all mentioned as possible nominees, but are any of them possible winners? The fifth slot? Julie Walters? Joan Allen? Someone no one is even talking about? We may not have an answer until the nominations announcement.
This year I think Rooney and Vikander are clear leads. If nominated along with Blanchett, Ronan and Larson, the five nominees will represent one of the strongest group of nominees in any category ever. Whichever one emerges the winner will likely be heralded as a most deserving one. However, the dilemma facing Oscar voters is that there are more than five they want to put on their ballots and fewer than five they want to put on their ballots for supporting actress. They could easily list Rooney and Vikander in support and Mulligan, Tomlin or whoever in lead.
If they avoid the temptation, though, who will the five nominees be for supporting actress be, and who among them has the best chance of winning?. I don't have a clue.
I really liked Kristen Stewart in Clouds of Sils Maria, but despite her early critics' wins, has she got strong enough support to win?
Beyond her, I don't know. Jane Fonda, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Kate Winslet are all mentioned as possible nominees, but are any of them possible winners? The fifth slot? Julie Walters? Joan Allen? Someone no one is even talking about? We may not have an answer until the nominations announcement.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: Intermission
I'd actually thought that if any group was going to go for Mad Max, it would be the LA Film Critics, knowing their occasional bent toward populism in Best Picture from time to time. (Watch them go for Mad Max in Best Picture, and Géza Röhrig in Best Actor -- that would be like CLASSIC LAFC.) But I think Mad Max stalls big time at the Globes -- even the comparable entries which went on to score at the Guilds (The Dark Knight, Skyfall, Star Trek, even the eventually Oscar-certified District 9) were mostly ignored by the Hollywood Foreign Press. Should Mad Max do well there, I'd be at least willing to start considering it more seriously as an Oscar candidate.
Obviously I can only report my personal reaction to those films I've seen early -- I certainly couldn't claim to have a crystal ball that would predict how they'll be received overall. But Joy strikes me as a feel-good crowd-pleaser that's ALSO exciting filmmaking -- would YOU underestimate that combo as something that could appeal to Oscar, particularly when coming from a filmmaker who has been on a total roll lately without ever making it to the podium? My real question is whether or not the trailers will have turned off enough audiences who would otherwise really like it to prevent it from becoming a hit, which could present an issue.
What's interesting about the Best Actress race is that there are a lot of strong performances, but most of the contenders seem to have some liabilities in terms of reaching front-runner status. For both Blanchett and Lawrence, it's not just that they're hot off VERY recent wins, but that the former would be winning a very-rare third, and the latter a second at a staggeringly young age. I'd thought Larson might present a star-is-born alternative, but the utter inability of her movie to find an audience makes me wonder if she won't end up like Mulligan/An Education. Ronan has that star-is-born factor as well (plus her past nomination), but her movie hasn't had much higher grosses, and I still question whether or not her part is too quiet to trump flashier competition. Both of the vets -- Tomlin and Rampling -- would probably love to see their movies become this year's Still Alice, but Julianne Moore wasn't competing against a bunch of actresses from widely nominated Best Picture candidates, which I think will be the case this year. And the category confusion isn't doing the fraudsters any favors, though I still wonder if, should she be properly nominated, being an ingenue with a past nomination in the year's most acclaimed movie couldn't lead to Rooney Mara putting up a fight for the prize.
I totally agree with Mister Tee that the category confusion will make both actress categories confusing for a while, maybe even up until Oscar night. I would, though, disagree that the '08 Winslet situation killed suspense. Not in Best Actress, where most of us ended up betting on Winslet, who'd been an awards magnet all season long. But the Supporting Actress race struck me as not dissimilar from the Affleck-less Director race in 2012 -- the candidate who'd won all of the precursors wasn't on the ballot, so no one really knew what was going to happen. I bet on Viola Davis, and I seem to remember Mister Tee predicting Amy Adams, with Magilla I believe stumping for Taraji P. Henson -- and we ALL ended up being wrong. In retrospect, of course, Cruz was hardly a shocking winner, but I remember a lot of doubt that year about how that race would actually resolve.
Obviously I can only report my personal reaction to those films I've seen early -- I certainly couldn't claim to have a crystal ball that would predict how they'll be received overall. But Joy strikes me as a feel-good crowd-pleaser that's ALSO exciting filmmaking -- would YOU underestimate that combo as something that could appeal to Oscar, particularly when coming from a filmmaker who has been on a total roll lately without ever making it to the podium? My real question is whether or not the trailers will have turned off enough audiences who would otherwise really like it to prevent it from becoming a hit, which could present an issue.
What's interesting about the Best Actress race is that there are a lot of strong performances, but most of the contenders seem to have some liabilities in terms of reaching front-runner status. For both Blanchett and Lawrence, it's not just that they're hot off VERY recent wins, but that the former would be winning a very-rare third, and the latter a second at a staggeringly young age. I'd thought Larson might present a star-is-born alternative, but the utter inability of her movie to find an audience makes me wonder if she won't end up like Mulligan/An Education. Ronan has that star-is-born factor as well (plus her past nomination), but her movie hasn't had much higher grosses, and I still question whether or not her part is too quiet to trump flashier competition. Both of the vets -- Tomlin and Rampling -- would probably love to see their movies become this year's Still Alice, but Julianne Moore wasn't competing against a bunch of actresses from widely nominated Best Picture candidates, which I think will be the case this year. And the category confusion isn't doing the fraudsters any favors, though I still wonder if, should she be properly nominated, being an ingenue with a past nomination in the year's most acclaimed movie couldn't lead to Rooney Mara putting up a fight for the prize.
I totally agree with Mister Tee that the category confusion will make both actress categories confusing for a while, maybe even up until Oscar night. I would, though, disagree that the '08 Winslet situation killed suspense. Not in Best Actress, where most of us ended up betting on Winslet, who'd been an awards magnet all season long. But the Supporting Actress race struck me as not dissimilar from the Affleck-less Director race in 2012 -- the candidate who'd won all of the precursors wasn't on the ballot, so no one really knew what was going to happen. I bet on Viola Davis, and I seem to remember Mister Tee predicting Amy Adams, with Magilla I believe stumping for Taraji P. Henson -- and we ALL ended up being wrong. In retrospect, of course, Cruz was hardly a shocking winner, but I remember a lot of doubt that year about how that race would actually resolve.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Intermission
The evolving Oscar race will have more input tomorrow, with the always-fun Boston/LA results, and will explode later in the week with SAG and the Globes. But some things have crossed my mind over the past few days, and I thought I’d note them now in this lull:
Can we now pronounce with certainty that Michael Keaton’s got more out of his comeback than Mickey Rourke got from his?
You might have seen that the Boston Online Critics (active since 2012!) went full-blown Hollywood: Mad Max for film/director, Creed for actor/supporting actor. Mix in The Martian, and you have a major push for Hollywood commercial product this season that surpasses anything I can recall in recent years.
Two things bother me about this:
First: I might not have minded this so much in dreary years, like 2011 or 2014, where the Oscar bait was so lame. But the movies I’ve seen this Fall – Steve Jobs, Room, Spotlight, Brooklyn, Carol – are of quite solid calibre. Even Bridge of Spies or Sicario are preferable to War Horse or Philomena or The Theory of Everything, and the big-three-still-to-come all sound at the least interesting/ambitious. Why was this year chosen as the time to make a stand for entertainment over a set of compelling auteurist projects?
The second: I hate to go all Sasha Stone on this, but the films being pushed – Max, Creed, Martian – are pretty much Guy Films. Yeah, Max has Charlize and her posse prominent, but it’s a movie about fast-driving cars, a guy thing par excellence (the same way Fast and Furious is a guy thing, even with Michelle Rodriguez at one of the wheels). Are some movies being give short shrift – especially Room or Joy – because they’re female-centric? (Note that even the one Oscar-type film everyone considers clearly in the top mix, Spotlight, has a cast so male-dominated Rachel McAdams jumps out simply for her gender)
Along those lines: The three super-late arrivals -- Joy, The Revenant and The Hateful Eight -- have all been screened, but two remain under embargo – which means the dominant takes on them, leaking from screenings, are from the least trustworthy folk: bloggers and pundits (actual critics mostly hold back). Early tweeters, we can say from experience, skew young and a bit fanboy-ish – meaning they adore Tarantino and mostly love DiCaprio, but have antipathy for David O. Russell (evident in the early hostile response to American Hustle). So, “buzz” on the three – as reported by the NY Times’ Carpetbagger the other day – is “Revenant up, Joy down”. Of course, we’ve heard the opposite reaction from our trusted BJ, and, I have to say, from the many tweets I’ve seen, his response is hardly an outlier: many, many reactions to Joy (some from SAG actors) seem to burst with enthusiasm for the film. I wonder if its girl-ness is blinding people to its possible appeal.
I’m glad Kyle Buchanan violated the omerta under which the NY critics were supposedly working. But what the hell was the point of this silence to begin with? As you can see from the historical NY Critics’ thread, releasing full statistics was the norm for most of the organization’s existence. What purpose is being served by all the secrecy, and who would commit to such a pre-Francis-Vatican-like system – remaining silent under pain of expulsion? Who thought this was a good idea?
The Rooney Mara/Alicia Vikander placement controversies strike me as very intriguing. We know Mara had already shown up lead at the Indie Spirits, and that both will appear thus (if they appear at all) at the Globes. I believe they’re classified supporting at SAG, and we can pretty well bet the Broadcasters will put them there as well (the better to predict Oscars, my dear). This combo might bring, especially to Harvey Weinstein, what he most dreads: category confusion. For, while it’s possible Oscar voters go blithely along with the fraud, it’s also possible the clamor around the issue this year makes it more like 2008, where Winslet was elevated. (I’ll be interested to see what BAFTA does, since they pre-figured the Academy classification there.) Which could mean Mara, especially, in lead, or nowhere at all.
It’ll also be interesting to see what happens in the TV round with this mixed set of classifications. The Globes will have to pick somebody else as a winner in support. What, then, if SAG or Broadcasters (or both) go with a fraudster? In that case, either way -– Mara/Vikander nominated lead or support at the Oscars –- won’t this make both actress categories less predictable? It’s the three TV picks going in a sweep that’s most killed suspense in many categories recently.
Cautionary note, though: the surprise bump of Winslet/The Reader in 2008 actually vitiated the suspense. With her doubly-nominated, best actress was a muddle –- would people go for her in lead, in a movie (Revolutionary Road) many people hated? Or would they channel all their votes into support? In which case, who’d get their best actress votes? The Oscar switcheroo removed the confusion: Winslet in lead in a movie they (by virtue of best picture nomination) didn’t hate was an easy pick, and, in support, voters switched easily to the actress who’d swept the critics’ awards (and probably would have done the same in the TV round sans Winslet). This year, let’s hope, offers better.
Can we now pronounce with certainty that Michael Keaton’s got more out of his comeback than Mickey Rourke got from his?
You might have seen that the Boston Online Critics (active since 2012!) went full-blown Hollywood: Mad Max for film/director, Creed for actor/supporting actor. Mix in The Martian, and you have a major push for Hollywood commercial product this season that surpasses anything I can recall in recent years.
Two things bother me about this:
First: I might not have minded this so much in dreary years, like 2011 or 2014, where the Oscar bait was so lame. But the movies I’ve seen this Fall – Steve Jobs, Room, Spotlight, Brooklyn, Carol – are of quite solid calibre. Even Bridge of Spies or Sicario are preferable to War Horse or Philomena or The Theory of Everything, and the big-three-still-to-come all sound at the least interesting/ambitious. Why was this year chosen as the time to make a stand for entertainment over a set of compelling auteurist projects?
The second: I hate to go all Sasha Stone on this, but the films being pushed – Max, Creed, Martian – are pretty much Guy Films. Yeah, Max has Charlize and her posse prominent, but it’s a movie about fast-driving cars, a guy thing par excellence (the same way Fast and Furious is a guy thing, even with Michelle Rodriguez at one of the wheels). Are some movies being give short shrift – especially Room or Joy – because they’re female-centric? (Note that even the one Oscar-type film everyone considers clearly in the top mix, Spotlight, has a cast so male-dominated Rachel McAdams jumps out simply for her gender)
Along those lines: The three super-late arrivals -- Joy, The Revenant and The Hateful Eight -- have all been screened, but two remain under embargo – which means the dominant takes on them, leaking from screenings, are from the least trustworthy folk: bloggers and pundits (actual critics mostly hold back). Early tweeters, we can say from experience, skew young and a bit fanboy-ish – meaning they adore Tarantino and mostly love DiCaprio, but have antipathy for David O. Russell (evident in the early hostile response to American Hustle). So, “buzz” on the three – as reported by the NY Times’ Carpetbagger the other day – is “Revenant up, Joy down”. Of course, we’ve heard the opposite reaction from our trusted BJ, and, I have to say, from the many tweets I’ve seen, his response is hardly an outlier: many, many reactions to Joy (some from SAG actors) seem to burst with enthusiasm for the film. I wonder if its girl-ness is blinding people to its possible appeal.
I’m glad Kyle Buchanan violated the omerta under which the NY critics were supposedly working. But what the hell was the point of this silence to begin with? As you can see from the historical NY Critics’ thread, releasing full statistics was the norm for most of the organization’s existence. What purpose is being served by all the secrecy, and who would commit to such a pre-Francis-Vatican-like system – remaining silent under pain of expulsion? Who thought this was a good idea?
The Rooney Mara/Alicia Vikander placement controversies strike me as very intriguing. We know Mara had already shown up lead at the Indie Spirits, and that both will appear thus (if they appear at all) at the Globes. I believe they’re classified supporting at SAG, and we can pretty well bet the Broadcasters will put them there as well (the better to predict Oscars, my dear). This combo might bring, especially to Harvey Weinstein, what he most dreads: category confusion. For, while it’s possible Oscar voters go blithely along with the fraud, it’s also possible the clamor around the issue this year makes it more like 2008, where Winslet was elevated. (I’ll be interested to see what BAFTA does, since they pre-figured the Academy classification there.) Which could mean Mara, especially, in lead, or nowhere at all.
It’ll also be interesting to see what happens in the TV round with this mixed set of classifications. The Globes will have to pick somebody else as a winner in support. What, then, if SAG or Broadcasters (or both) go with a fraudster? In that case, either way -– Mara/Vikander nominated lead or support at the Oscars –- won’t this make both actress categories less predictable? It’s the three TV picks going in a sweep that’s most killed suspense in many categories recently.
Cautionary note, though: the surprise bump of Winslet/The Reader in 2008 actually vitiated the suspense. With her doubly-nominated, best actress was a muddle –- would people go for her in lead, in a movie (Revolutionary Road) many people hated? Or would they channel all their votes into support? In which case, who’d get their best actress votes? The Oscar switcheroo removed the confusion: Winslet in lead in a movie they (by virtue of best picture nomination) didn’t hate was an easy pick, and, in support, voters switched easily to the actress who’d swept the critics’ awards (and probably would have done the same in the TV round sans Winslet). This year, let’s hope, offers better.