Mister Tee wrote:
Italiano, I think you leap way too fast, putting Michael Shannon as a lock. This is a film whose final gross was $1.4 million; Love and Mercy is a blockbuster by comparison. Remember Tilda Swinton got SAG/Globe/Broadcaster nods and won NBR, only to be tossed aside by AMPAS; Shannon seems closer to that likelihood than to becoming a sure thing.
Yes, Mister Tee, I know a bit of Oscar history, too. I guess I have a European approach to all this - which is very rational. Too rational maybe - and of course I know that, say, even Charlize Theron could be nominated as Best Actress for this Mad Max movie (as many claim she will, on other sites, not this one thank God), because one year centuries ago an actress from an action movie with no precursors got a nomination etc...
Yes. True. It happened. But my duty - and this is why I've been often attacked here, remember Dreamgirls? - is, simply but sadly, to say NOT what could happen in theory (and we know that there are always surprises, though less and less so in recent years) or what I personally wish will happen (which isn't your case, but it's true for others even here), but what AT THIS POINT OF THE RACE, will most probably happen. And while I know even too well that history has it exceptions, predictions become meaningless if we don't have the guts to say: like it or not, this is what will rationally happen. And trust me - again, I realize that I am very European - what's rational is, let's say, 90% what will actually happen. I'm sure that for example you could find a reason to say that, I don't know, Jennier Ehle could be nominated as Best Supporting Actress for Fifty Shades of Grey (Brenda Vaccaro was nominated for a not-much-better movie) - but our task isn't just to know every single possibility in history - but also to choose a pattern, and to follow it. A realistic, reasonable pattern, if we can. (And by the way, it's not like you aren't reasonable usually).
That's what I've been doing here - for years now. Am I always right? Of course not - for instance I have sometimes misunderstood the more and more pervasive influence of internet. But one has to be clear, to make choices - not just list all the possibilities, which are endless.
So - as for Best Supporting Actor: I find it difficult to believe, given the similar (I dont say identical, I say similar) kind of voting group, that only two SAG nominees will repeat at the Oscars. There must be at least a third, and - again: at this point - who has the most chances of being that third? A child actor, Christian Bale or someone who also has a nomination at the Globes some other prizes and a great reputation? Ok, maybe it will be the child, I'm sure he's impressive, I'm not denying this possibility and I've even said that both could be nominated... But OF THESE THREE it's obvious who has an edge over the others.
As for Leonardo Di Caprio... As you correctly say, it's not like anyone thought that Lauren Bacall had given a Duse-level performance in The Mirror Has Two Faces. It was just generally perceived that there was no way this veteran, this screen legend, could lose. So I'm not saying that YOU personally, Mister Tee, will be shocked if Leonardo Di Caprio doesn't win the Oscar - I can't go into every personal brain - but what I'm saying is that the GENERAL reaction - from those writing in many blogs - will be shocked. And then of course if Di Caprio doesn't win the SAG award and the Golden Globe the shock will be less strong, most will expect his defeat at the Oscars too - but trust me, many will still be shocked. Not you or me - many. Because people are like this, what can we do? I'm not lazy at all - I just look at reality.
Otherwise I agree with you.
Last edited by ITALIANO on Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Some of you got up crazy-early to watch these. I actually saw them around 10AM, but have had a hellaciously busy day, and this is my first opportunity to comment.
These are RELATIVELY down-the-middle compared to yesterday’s SAG tremors, but, as BJ notes, some of the things we now take for granted – Spotlight’s guys excluded, Brooklyn with thin support – are things that would have shocked us 48 hours ago; SAG normalized the unsettling.
Start by saying I’m overall happy because the three movies I’ve most liked this year – Carol, Room and Steve Jobs – all have done well over the past two days (Steve Jobs less emphatically so, but given the catastrophic box-office publicity, major acting & writing nods seem fine to me); I’m not pre-loathing the season. Carol, especially, proves it’s not Far from Heaven Part Deux – the Globes’ failure to nominate that earlier film for picture/director was the start of its downward trajectory. Here, although they sadly left out the screenwriter, they otherwise feted the film nicely, even with Mara properly placed. Room didn’t get Tremblay in this time (the Globes don’t seem anxious to nominate children for acting – Wallis was left off for Beasts, as well), but it got a best picture listing, which is even better. After Ronan’s run at the critics’ awards, it seemed best actress could become a one-woman race, but Room’s stronger showing vis a vis Brooklyn the past two days makes things feel more competitive. (I do, though, expect Brooklyn to be somewhat revived by BAFTA and to do better with AMPAS than today would suggest).
Spotlight got the three must-have nods, but it failed again to get one of its supporting guys in, and this time, despite diminished competition, didn’t have McAdams as consolation. Are Keaton and Ruffalo truly boxing one another out, or are people just unimpressed with their performances? As Mark Harris noted today, the only place they’ve been front-runners is on predictor lists. It just seems odd for an ostensible best film front-runner, one so actor-oriented, to fail to get a single acting mention. Which reinforces the idea the film’s a soft front-runner. This isn’t necessarily fatal: such films as Ordinary People or No Country for Old Men have held on to win despite seeming drawbacks. On the other hand, other films, like Reds and Apollo 13, have fallen victim to apathy.
The Mad Max nominations definitely bring us a step closer to what seemed unthinkable, but I’m not ready to sign on just yet. I can see it making the best picture list despite being an action sequel – in the same way I’m certain The Dark Knight would have qualified in a group of ten in 2008. But much of the hoopla seems focused on the film being a top-tier contender – a film/director nominee – and there I wonder if the directors’ branch’s longstanding antipathy to the action genre will get in the way. (They were so determined to avoid Nolan in ’08 they went for The Reader!) I see the HFPA has nominated Miller and Ridley Scott alongside one another, and asking me to believe two such commercial genre pictures will occupy two of the five slots for best director is getting close to six-impossible-things-before-breakfast territory. On the other hand…the odd thing about the directing category this year is how few typical auteur-y candidates there are. Haynes is surely one (if he can’t break through this year, he should forget AMPAS forever), and McCarthy will get in because front-runner, and I suppose The Revenant has sufficient reviews/visual panache/leftover affection to get Innaritu in. But after that it’s very murky -- Abrahamson for his work in tight quarters? Son of Saul as classic lone director? (Though okri is right, Sony Classics just doesn’t seem to know how to maximize Oscar potential – they’re Bizarro Harvey) Miller’s work is distinctive, I’ll give it that, and that’s the big thing it has going for it in he directing category this year.
I don’t agree that DiCaprio not winning would be equivalent to Binoche over Bacall – though I will note everyone’s reason for assuming Bacall would triumph (“she’s been around so long, they all want her to win”) is remarkably similar to the scenario around DiCaprio, about whom no one seems to be saying “that was the performance of the year”. If The Revenant gets a boatload of nominations (in the 7-10 range, including film/director), that will up DiCaprio’s chances, and certainly if he sweeps the three televised prizes, I’ll declare the race over. But I’m not 100% confident those things will happen.
It’s easy/lazy to just say, yeah, the overlapping SAG/Globe lead actors, and one more, maybe Depp, maybe Damon, for the Oscar best actor slate. But I think all the contenders are iffy enough I could imagine any one being left out, in favor of somebody promoted to lead, like Keaton, Dano or Tremblay, or someone from The Big Short (probably Carell). What does seem unlikely anymore is a long-shot like Michael Caine: Youth seems to be cratering commercially, and reviews were disappointing as well. I bet some of the fringe actress candidates wish they could compete for a spot on this slate.
We’ve now seen what happens to Rooney Mara and Alicia Vikander when their category is set in stone: they get in, either way. But we don’t know what will happen if voters are unrestricted. My guess is, there’s been enough of a federal case made about Mara that she could turn up in lead at the Oscars. Vikander is a weirder case. It’s possible there’ll be dual campaigns, Danish for lead and Ex Machina for support. But I’m thinking what might happen is she’ll get not quite enough votes to qualify for lead actress (against a strong entry like Rampling), will get votes for both performances in support, and ultimately end up with a nomination for Danish Girl. (Note: I haven’t seen Danish Girl – do I have to? – and it may be the absurdity of the fraud is more apparent upon viewing, which might work against my thesis)
Because it’s only competing at the kiddie table of comedy, people might miss how well The Big Short is doing. I’d say the film has vaulted ahead of several higher-profile candidates and is now a very likely best picture nominee. I’d thought, a few days ago, that The Martian was the easy winner in this category, but now I think McKay’s film might beat it out. (Incidentally, taki, you obviously missed the memo from a few weeks ago, where the HFPA ruled The Martian a comedy; we all laughed about it then.)
So, does Jennifer Lawrence win the free-spot-on-your-Bingo-card comedy actress prize, just for being the biggest star? Or does it go to Amy Schumer for her breakout? Or Lily Tomlin, for being the best? An actually suspenseful, if insignificant, category.
Italiano, I think you leap way too fast, putting Michael Shannon as a lock. This is a film whose final gross was $1.4 million; Love and Mercy is a blockbuster by comparison. Remember Tilda Swinton got SAG/Globe/Broadcaster nods and won NBR, only to be tossed aside by AMPAS; Shannon seems closer to that likelihood than to becoming a sure thing. I think this category has way too many possible (and strong) candidates for anyone but Rylance to be viewed as locked in. And something fascinating about the lineup here: except for Paul Dano, each represents the sole nomination for his film (Love and Mercy’s song nomination isn’t all that impressive a tack-on, either). It’s rare for people to win Oscars in such situations, and ones that have recently (Julianne Moore, Christopher Plummer) have been far more famous than anyone in this group aside from Sylvester Stallone. I think one of the Spotlight guys, or Tremblay, could benefit (for both nomination and competing) from being associated with more widely popular films.
It’s hard to know what to say about supporting actress, since the will-they-or-won’t-they? question will hover over Mara and Vikander till nominations day. Obviously today was good news for Jane Fonda and Jennifer Jason Leigh. (It was actually a good day for all NBR winners, three of whom – Damon, Stallone & Leigh – had been left out by SAG.) Given the confusion hanging over all this, Winslet is probably the safest of the bunch. I suppose Mirren could carry over, but who knows? – is Trumbo Hitchcock, or The Last Station?
ITALIANO wrote:I find it difficult to believe that the Academy will resist the temptation of making Sylvester Stallone the male actor with the longest span between two consecutive nominations -
No, it would still be Henry Fonda (41 years to 39, if Stallone is indeed nominated).
ITALIANO wrote:I find it difficult to believe that the Academy will resist the temptation of making Sylvester Stallone the male actor with the longest span between two consecutive nominations -
No, it would still be Henry Fonda (41 years to 39, if Stallone is indeed nominated).
ITALIANO wrote:I find it difficult to believe that the Academy will resist the temptation of making Sylvester Stallone the male actor with the longest span between two consecutive nominations -
No, it would still be Henry Fonda (41 years to 39, if Stallone is indeed nominated).
The Golden Globes confirm what I wrote yesterday on the acting races after the SAG nominations, more or less.
Best Actor is the most boring race this year. We all know who the winner will be, right? And if HE doesn't win, it will be the most shocking surprise since - I don't know, Juliette Binoche? And such surprises are really very rare nowadays. But the nominees will be boring too - I mean, I don't live in the US so I haven't seen most of the movies yet, but even from Italy I can "feel" that none of the nominees will be of a Laurence Olivier-caliber. Fassbender, Redmayne and - at this point very possibly - Cranston will be the other safe three. The fifth spot is more interesting and unpredictable - Matt Damon? Johnny Depp (I hope not because I so don't want to see Black Mass)? Or someone new and unexpected? We'll see.
Best Actress is more competitive, and more unpredictable - even in the nomination phase. It will stay unpredictable till nomination morning actually - because of course there's the Mara-Vikander question. But again - Blanchett, Larson, Ronan will be there. I can only hope that at least Rooney Mara won't fall in the category-fraud trap, and the fact that, as far as I know, she doesn't play your typical heterosexual supporting wife in Carol could help. The fifth spot will either go to Vikander or hopefully to a more "creative" choice than, say, Helen Mirren in Woman in Gold! I've heard good things about Charlotte Rampling, Lily Tomlin and others. This could potentially be a very solid Best Actress slate, and, for once, better than its male counterpart.
Best Supporting Actor is a bit more chaotic. Yesterday I wrote that only two were safe Oscar nominees - Elba and Rylance. But I also wrote that, clearly, at least a third SAG nominee would repeat at the Oscars, I just didn't know who. Now we know it - Michael Shannon for 99 Homes. There are only two available spots, and several names to choose from. Unfortunately - and despite the recent snub - I find it difficult to believe that the Academy will resist the temptation of making Sylvester Stallone the male actor with the longest span between two consecutive nominations - AND for the same role! So in theory there's only a fifth spot left - which could go to anyone from Paul Dano to that child to someone from Spotlight (I can't believe that a movie which could win Best Picture won't be nominated for ANY of its stars).
Best Supporting Actress could easily be the same five names we see at the Globes - except maybe Vikander for another movie. But ironically - and because of the category-fraud situation - at the moment only one is 100% sure she will be nominated in this category: Kate Winslet. Vikander for The Danish Girl will probably run this race in the end - needless to say, with very good chances of winning it. The third name I'd bet on is Helen Mirren for Trumbo - like for Sally Field decades ago, they like her, they really really like her. If Rooney Mara is nominated here, the final outcome will be a bit more unpredictable, but two actresses in the wrong category would really be a bit too much even by the Academy's notoriously "fluid" standards. So let's say that there are still two available spots: who? As I said before - Jennifer Jason Leigh (who years ago was always considered a very possible nominee and was always left out) should finally make it. The fifth spot (IF there still is room for someone) should go to one of these (in order of likelihood): Rachel McAdams, Jane Fonda, Kristen Stewart.
anonymous1980 wrote:Is Big Magilla sitting shiva now that Mad Max is OFFICIALLY a viable Best Picture contender?
Why would I do that? Shiva is the week-long mourning period in Judaism for first-degree relatives: father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, and spouse. The ritual is referred to as "sitting shiva."
Wesley, where were the unexceptional reviews for Room? It has a freaking 96% on Rotten Tomatoes and is in the high 80s on Metacritic. It got rave reviews!!!
I was relying on reviews from peers with whom I'm Facebook friends. Many of them weren't terribly impressed with it. And after the Spirit Awards ignored it for Best Picture, I took those others' opinions for granted.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
anonymous1980 wrote:Is Big Magilla sitting shiva now that Mad Max is OFFICIALLY a viable Best Picture contender?
Why would I do that? Shiva is the week-long mourning period in Judaism for first-degree relatives: father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, and spouse. The ritual is referred to as "sitting shiva."
Alicia Vikander's double nomination if repeated by Oscar would make her the clear front-runner to win in support.
Cranston and Mirren have been working tirelessly on promoting Trumbo. With their efforts paying off with both SAG and the Globes, Oscar voters who still haven't already taken the bait will feel compelled to watch the screener. Cranston will have the tougher time breaking in to his heavily packed category. Mirren could benefit from the weaker field in supporting actress.
Most of the Globes' comedy nods are filler as usual. Danny Collins may be Pacino's best film in years, but that's still not saying much. I actually heard of Infinitely Polar Bear but hadn't given it any thought since viewing the trailer prior to its June release. Maybe Ruffalo's nod will help sell it on DVD when it releases in January.
