So Much To Talk About

[OscarGuy]

It's true that we all look for examples that make sense comparing Oscar history to modern things, but Moulin Rouge's box office equated to about $84 million on today's dollars. Mad Max is sitting at Fury Road is almost double that $153. Fury Road was a sizable hit when no one thought it would make much money since the high-water mark of the franchise would have made roughly Moulin Rouge's money in today's box office. Mad Max is in the top 20 at the box office this year. Moulin Rouge was #43 in 2001.

In 2001, no film won more than 5 awards for Best Picture. Rouge had 4 out of 26. On the director side, however, Rouge only won two awards from the Satellites and the Broadcast Critics. This year, however, Mad Max has picked up 8 of 24 so far. Miller has 14 awards. I know you want to find reasons for it to be a weaker contender than it is and finding a precedent for Mad Max is difficult, but trying to claim it's performing like Moulin Rouge did is myopic.

[Okri]

a) You know which film Mad Max reminds me of? Moulin Rouge. Genre film, unique staging within that genre, passionate fans, not-that-strong box office, a film that by hither or dither forced itself into the oscar conversation (and it's not like we were lacking for films) that ultimately wasn't going to win but seemed like a clear director's choice by virtue of it being such a director's-vision movie that ultimately they didn't go for. Heck, both were mid-May releases...

But that year also felt like a stronger directors year (as did 2010) And I feel that Miller's work has been singled out enough as the key takeaway from his film. I don't see Scott, Haynes, or Innaritu as anything more than strong possibles. Side note: If I admit Tee was right about [The Danish Girl now, do I still get to say "I-told-you-so" if it gets a best picture nomination?

b) What's interesting about best actor is mostly going to be a post-nomination thing, I think. I agree it's probably not quite so unsettled. Though a line-up of Damon, Carell, Redmayne, DiCaprio and Fassbender seems mostly right. Tee, didn't Bacall get hindered by the fact that people didn't like her all that much as well ("Bitch of Broadway" and all that)? It was a career tribute oscar to a major star but she was on her first nomination. But the "DiCaprio MUST WIN" narrative the echo chamber has produced is fascinating (see that quote flipp snipped earlier). Parenthetical: I think it's pretty awesome that Courtenay gives literally no shits about Oscar and didn't campaign, but it's somewhat disappointing that his equally marvelous turn in 45 Years won't be nominated.

c) Amusingly, Fonda is closer to Smith in age than to Minelli. A Rampling victory would be pretty cool and I could actually see it - she's been working the room hard. But Ronan's in that sweet spot where she's a young, clearly strong talent with a solid resume and bright future. So's Larsen. So's Mara. So's Vikander.

d) Supporting actor: No clue. Which makes me look at best picture contenders first. Then I realize I don't actually think that Keaton or Ruffallo will get nominated. So yeah, throw darts. Side note: flipp, I'd argue that Mark Rylance is closer to Chris Cooper than Dennis Quad.

e) Supporting actress: I'm very curious how the category fraud debate will play out, especially because of the balance between internal competition (MAra's co-star) and external (Vikander's year) also affecting things.

f) Foreign film: You know, once they nominated Dogtooth, I stopped thinking this group made sense. That movie is many things, but what it is not is AMPAS-bait. Though I could see Son of Saul missing out. If so, I will foam at the mouth.

g) I haven't seen Straight Outta Compton, but I've gotta imagine that sound or editing are within grasp. But I also don't think it'll get near the best picture category anyway. Like I'd rank it in twentieth.

[ITALIANO]

I would be SHOCKED if [Mark Rylance getting snubbed] happens. It's true that Supporting Actor is difficult to predict this year - but only for four spots, not five.

Two words: Dennis Quaid.

Exacrly. And I was shocked there, too.

[flipp525]

I would be SHOCKED if [Mark Rylance getting snubbed] happens. It's true that Supporting Actor is difficult to predict this year - but only for four spots, not five.

Two words: Dennis Quaid.

[Sabin]

Plus Kyle Chandler. 15 nominations for Carol on Oscar morning. You're insane. I like you, but you're insane.

[flipp525]

Supporting Actress, still, seems ripe for someone like Jacki Weaver/Silver Linings Playbook to emerge from nowhere.

My bold prediction is that the Academy resurrects Carol with double nods in Best Actress, film/director nods, adapted screenplay and Sarah Paulson lands a surprise Best Supporting Actress nomination.

[flipp525]

The only other thing I'd like to see in this category is a nomination for Julie Walters' surprisingly so far overlooked performance in Brooklyn.

Is it really such a surprise though? She disappears halfway through the film never to be heard from again. She's funny in her scenes, but I don't see many marking her down as a "must-have." I think it was Tee who mentioned this awhile ago, but Joan Allen has just about the same amount of screen-time in Room and makes far more of an impression.

And, at this point, you must sort of be used to the eventual demise of whatever old lady you start championing 6-7 months out.

I like your Jacob Tremblay idea in Best Actor though. That category is so weird this year that I can see some major surprises -- anything from the scenario you described to Fassbender inexplicably (and sadly) being left off.

[ITALIANO]

Best Supporting Actor is so crowded with prospects that it wouldn't surprise me to see presumed favorited Mark Rylance left off the list.

I would be SHOCKED if this happens. It's true that Supporting Actor is difficult to predict this year - but only for four spots, not five.

As for Mad Max Fury Road, by now we all know that it iisn't exactly my favorite movie of the year, but sadly I find it difficult to think that George Miller will be left out of the Best Director list. There are obstacles, certainly, and they have been well-exposed in other posts in this thread - but we are also talking about a somehow legendary filmmaker, who's now reached a very respectable age yet has never been nominated in this category, who, like it or not, is considered a sort-of maestro in a certain field of cinema, and whose movie has been endlessy praised this year. I would be very surprised if he doesn't get in - very glad but very surprised.

[Big Magilla]

The only major category I feel fairly confident about is Best Actress with Blanchett, Larson, Mara, Rampling and Ronan the nominees. The others are a combination of wishful thinking and dread as to what actually will get nominated.

Oscar will not mirror the PGA exactly. Carol and Room are still strong Oscar contenders for Best Picture, although the likelihood of either winning, which was probably never in the cards, is further diminished by their absence. Spotlight is the critical favorite not because of its direction as has been proven by Tom McCarthy's near-misses all season long, but by the subtext of its likely being the last hurrah for newspaper stories. That may or may not carry over to an Oscar win, but it's surely enough to get it nominated. Brooklyn is a film people just fall in love with, maybe not enough to give it the win, but surely enough to get it nominated. Ex Machina remains for me the most original film I've seen all year. Its inclusion on the PGA list was thrilling. I hope it carries over to an Oscar nom, although both it and Sicario seem to me to be the most vulnerable. I will eventually see The Big Short and The Revenant, but I find it hard to muster much enthusiasm in getting to the theatre for either. It would, sight unseen, make me happy to see either snubbed instead of Ex Machina or even Sicario.

I don't believe the alleged Son of Saul Foreign Film snub. It sounds too much like a ploy to get the film a surprise Best Picture nod. I suppose it could get in over Bridge of Spies, but not The Martian, which could be this year's Argo. Of course I would love to see Mad Max: Fury Road's journey end short of a Best Picture nod, but I'm sadly resigned to its likely inclusion at this point. Inside Out I just don't get. I found it cute at best. My favorite animated film was When Marnie Was There which has no traction at all.

I agree with B.J. that Straight Outta Compton could be a sole Best Picture nominee. A win would be a shock that would turn Oscar predicting inside out and upside down, which means that it's exactly the thing that could happen in this year of Trump.

Best Actor is ripe for a surprise or two. It would make my morning for the surprises to be 9-year-old Jacob Trembley and Ian McKellen who plays Sherlock Holmes in his 90s and in flashback, his 60s.

Best Supporting Actor is so crowded with prospects that it wouldn't surprise me to see presumed favorited Mark Rylance left off the list.

The one thing the precursors have done that happily surprised me is elevate the chances of Alicia Vikander not only getting a supporting actress nomination for Ex Machina, but winning the category. The only other thing I'd like to see in this category is a nomination for Julie Walters' surprisingly so far overlooked performance in Brooklyn.

The only sure nominee for Best Director at this point seems to be Tom McCarthy for Spotlight, although he's more likely to win for his screenplay than his direction. The win will probably go to one of the other nominees who at this point could run the gamut from Todd Haynes to George Miller with Ridley Scott, John Crowley and Lenny Abrahamson vying for the lucky to be nominated slot.

Aside from Spotlight, the screenplays I'm most hoping will find support with the Academy are those for Brooklyn, Carol, Room and Ex Machina.

[The Original BJ]

Although it seems extremely challenging to predict the Best Picture nominees this year, what's even more amazing is how difficult it is to even determine which ones would make up the classic Top 5, and beyond that, how suddenly the presumed top candidates seem to be changing every day. I mean, yesterday I would have told you that Carol is a top Best Picture candidate; today, it suddenly seems on the fringes of the race. (I do think Carol will still hold on with Oscar. I have to keep reminding myself that critical darlings like Amour, The Tree of Life, and Beasts of the Southern Wild had far less precursor support and still managed film/director nominations with the Academy. And Carol has Harvey Weinstein behind it -- it's difficult to imagine him having the year's most acclaimed film and falling so far short with it.) I think most people have conceded that Mad Max is a Best Picture candidate...but could you honestly say with a straight face that you'd be confident about it making a field of five? A recent LA Times article mentioned that George Miller could be the possible winner of the Best Director prize -- that seems bonkers to me, as I'm still with Mister Tee in thinking even that nomination is vulnerable -- but who really knows at this point. Even the one movie most of us assume is dead certain for a Best Picture nomination, Spotlight, seems pretty ho-hum as a Director candidate -- Best Picture players this strong usually don't miss under Director, but wouldn't this be the kind of thing that would be shocking for a second, and then make total sense?

In Best Actor, I have to admit I share Mister Tee's trepidation about Fassbender, having horrific memories of that Giamatti/Neeson year. But it's important to remember that the actual Best Actor nominees that year, tepid as they were, came entirely from Best Picture contenders or just-misses. Black Mass, The Danish Girl, and Trumbo aren't remotely reaching that enthusiasm level. (And this could be my bias toward the movie showing, but I don't view Steve Jobs as being as DOA as some of you -- 4 Globe nods & 2 SAG nods makes it fairly comparable in my eyes to the showing by Brooklyn, Bridge of Spies, and other on-the-bubble players.)

As for today's category fraud thoughts, I too am thinking Mara but not Vikander makes it in Best Actress, and here's my (probably delusional) reasoning. I think Carol is a strong enough candidate overall that it won't be hard for enough people to find a spot for Mara in Best Actress -- which is to say, I think she'll probably have enough votes to make it in both categories, and if this year's uproar over fraud has any effect, she's the one who I think could be promoted. The problem I see Vikander having is that The Danish Girl just isn't that strong a player, so even if she got more Best Actress votes than Supporting Actress ones (a big if), if she's the SIXTH PLACE Best Actress vote getter, but among the top five supporting actresses, her nomination would still come in support. And I still think Rampling is getting in Best Actress -- it's just such a great performance, and one I imagine those voters who pushed Emmanuelle Riva to a nomination will strongly endorse. (What's really amazing to note is just how much Joy seems to have imploded -- it doesn't seem totally unlikely that it rolls snake eyes on Oscar nom morning.)

I don't really have any more thoughts on Supporting Actor except to say that all of the names Mister Tee mentions strike me as exceedingly likely possibilities, and I have no idea how to argue which ones will place above any others except to just throw darts at names.

Supporting Actress, still, seems ripe for someone like Jacki Weaver/Silver Linings Playbook to emerge from nowhere. A lot of that will, of course, depend on whether or not the fraudsters make it here, and if the less inspiring SAG nominees (Mirren & McAdams) coast to nominations. As for Hobson's choices...if Mara & Vikander get placed in Support, and it means Charlotte Rampling gets a Best Actress nomination, and Helen Mirren/Trumbo gets left off...wouldn't the category fraud seem like the lesser of evils at that point? I also am running really hot and cold on Jane Fonda's chances -- on one hand, she seems like the sort of legend people would want to welcome back to the Oscars, but at the same time, her key scene isn't (to me) a Beatrice Straight-level knockout, in a movie I think a lot of voters won't like. Is the prospect of honoring the Jane Fonda comeback enough?

To jump to the Screenplay races for a second, the Adapted category looks like a brutal case of 7-into-5 won't go, with The Big Short, Brooklyn, Carol, The Martian, The Revenant, Room, and Steve Jobs each fighting not to be the odd (wo)men out. It's easy to imagine most of them being the snubbee for some reason or another.

Under Original, as is often the case with the category, there are a lot more oddball collection of players for the up-in-the-air spots. Ex Machina is a "cool" indie, Trainwreck could be a chance to honor Amy Schumer's star-is-born moment, Straight Outta Compton (which I still doubt as a Best Picture candidate) could find its best hopes lie here, Sicario feels like the most overall Oscar-y, and maybe even Son of Saul surprises given the branch's tendency toward the foreign.

Re: Okri's thoughts on Straight Outta Compton, I grant that it's a bit reductive to suggest that Compton's success is ONLY because of Selma's omission last year. But the #OscarsSoWhite thing was a pretty big story last year, and I could see people making more of an effort to push Compton into contention for that reason (sort of the way the outrage over Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing omission certainly helped John Singleton two years later). And not to completely contradict what I just wrote above, but couldn't you guys see a situation where Straight Outta Compton squeaked onto the Best Picture lineup without getting a single other nomination? It keeps getting precursor nominations, but it's one of the few movies in the Best Picture conversation that doesn't really have a single category you're certain it will get, and in fact, doesn't really seem to be a player in that many categories either. Could we have our first sole Best Picture nominee since, I believe, the 1940s?

[Mister Tee]

There’ll be developments nearly every day between now and nominations morning, things that will alter perceptions (as yesterday’s and today’s did), and I’ll no doubt jump in to react to each one. But I have a bunch of scattered overall impressions I feel like sharing (I can’t recall a recent year where there were so many elements meriting discussion). I may not have the energy to fully elaborate on each, but let me throw them out here, Larry King style.

First principles: There’s always the possibility voters will, given choice, go with the dullest possibility – like picking Robert Duvall last year for that final supporting actor slot. But they can also surprise and please – as they did in almost the next breath last year, bypassing Aniston for Marion Cotillard. So, fear the worst, but hope for the occasional best.

Mark Harris suggested yesterday that the major expansion of the voting pool in the past few years – with its clear drive for youth and diversity -- could be having greater impact each year. (He also said his impression this year is that, more than generally, people are thrilled there are ten slots, because almost no one feels confident their film would make top five.)

Something interesting this year is the degree of disparity among major pundits – even the most conventional-wisdom-bound, the ones who’ve so often tried to reduce the race early on. I see some touting Carol heavily, others downplaying it completely; most have Fury Road thriving, but a few omit it in the top categories. Generally these people talk to one another so much, they end up with virtually the same lists. This year, even they’re flying a bit blind.

It’s weird the two films that seem strongest (with both SAG Ensemble and PGA) are Spotlight and The Big Short, yet neither seems likely to get more than 6 or so nominations. (Even if Spotlight ran the table with Keaton, Ruffalo and McAdams, and got the editing nod it missed yesterday, it would stall out at 7) Some films that could rack up a high total – The Revenant and Carol – aren’t completely certain best picture contenders (certainly not sure best director candidates).

And then there’s Mad Max: Fury Road, which has an excellent shot at leading the nominations, primarily because of its tech haul: cinematography, art direction, editing, both sounds, and make-up seem given; I’m iffy on costumes, and don’t understand visual effects (since, as Oscar Guy noted, there really aren’t any), but some are touting it there, too.

Its ability to absolutely lead the pack, though, rests on its showing in the big two categories, film and director. I’m assuming it’ll make it for best picture, despite what I still see as its dual drawbacks (sequel/action) – Toy Story 3 made it despite being the former, and The Dark Knight (representing both) surely would have if the expansion had come a year earlier. But, despite Fury Road’s massive success at critics’ derbies, I remain dubious about it getting the directing nod. Believe me, given the critical groundswell, this is not an easy position to maintain (I need to repeat “You were right about Inception” to myself, mantra-like, to offset the feeling of utter aloneness). But I can’t shake the notion that the directors’ branch has just about never gone for a movie like this -- a sequel or action movie, let alone both. And people are asking me to believe both Miller AND Ridley Scotts get in for such films? (At least Scott’s is an original.) This may turn out to be one of those “times have changed, you just didn’t get it” moments. But until I hear Miller’s name read off, I’m going to be a doubter.

It seems, based on the past two years, that Cheryl Boone Isaacs has not only overall rejected the Seth McFarlane “read them in no order” method of revealing nominations, she’s even applied strict alphabetization to the best picture list -- something her predecessor didn’t do, thinking (rightly, in my view) there was more fun/suspense if we didn’t know how many nominees we had until the presenters stopped reading. This year I especially wish we could go back to that random system, because there are a whole bunch of films – Inside Out, Bridge of Spies, Carol, Room, Straight Outta Compton, Brooklyn –far enough out at the fringe of this race that I’d prefer not knowing they were out of it simply because their letter got passed.

Incidentally: Has anyone heard, are they planning on announcing all the nominations, the way they did last year? It’d be great if that got made a tradition.

Best actor may not be as unsettled as some of us would like – the SAG five, with maybe one switch, could be the whole thing. But Damon and Carell are hovering out there, and either/both could make it in past anyone but DiCaprio. (I know I should feel somewhat more definite about Fassbender, but ever since Paul Giammatti/Sideways, I’ve had the mortal fear of my favorite being surgically omitted.) And, an off-the-wall thought: if any of Paul Dano/Michael Keaton/Jacob Tremblay don’t turn up in supporting, isn’t there at least the possibility they could get into this top echelon list instead?

As far as the win in best actor…it’s widely thought DiCaprio is a shoo-in, and that’s clearly the way to bet. But something I read somewhere sticks with me: “The only thing that could keep DiCaprio from winning is if people see his movie”. Apparently there are those who truly find the film unbearable. (Same is true of Hateful Eight, which might hurt Tarantino even at the nomination stage.) Maybe it won’t be fatal, but I think it’s worth recalling that even with career honors, voters can’t totally ignore the film. As Lauren Bacall found, to her great chagrin.

Brooklyn turning up today at PGA was only surprising because of all the snubbage in the past few weeks; it’s been a modest hit, and always seemed the sort of movie that’d do well with Oscar folk. What does its (apparent) resurgence mean for the best actress race, which had been thought to be slipping inexorably toward Brie Larson? I’d been wary all along about a film that’s only grossed $5 million winning one of the top acting prizes. And I’m not sure Room will do that much better even if it gets prime nominations: there seems to be major “I don’t want to see children in peril” avoidance among even many smart people (offscreen, as in Spotlight, they’re apparently OK with it). Anyway, I think best actress is at least a two-person race. (Nostalgic flight of fancy: if Charlotte Rampling scores the nomination, could she play Maggie Smith ’69, storming past the two front-running young uns?)

It’s not impossible the SAG five in supporting actor could repeat (I know, none of us thought that the morning we heard the list, but all five have been decently supported since). But it just doesn’t seem right for that to be the outcome in a year/category that’s as full of possibility as this. There’s a long list of names -- all beyond the SAG five -- that no one would be startled to hear read off: Dano, Stallone, Del Toro (especially with Sicario rising), Keaton/Ruffalo, Hardy, even Oscar Isaac with the Ex Machina run. As I said elsewhere, if you gave me carte blanche to select the slate myself, I couldn’t do it without leaving off someone that would break my heart. I’m thinking this’ll be the toughest category to nail on the nose this year.

I’m in line with everyone here, thinking Rooney Mara is a clear lead actress, that she ought to be nominated in that slot -- and I actually think there’s a chance the Academy will place her correctly because of the great stink made online. But…that same push hasn’t really been applied when it comes to every-bit-as-leading Vikander. And it would annoy me if she, placed fraudulently supporting, were to run away with the race because Mara wasn’t there to compete with her. I want Mara in lead, but if it’s a choice between that and Vikander getting a free ride – well, it’s a Hobson’s sort of choice.

Of course, there’s now genuine suspense about which film would get Vikander noted. Ex Machina – the surprise today at PGA -- may be benefitting from a version of BJ’s bird-in-hand premise: during Spring/early summer months, it was about the only semi-interesting movie to see, and people thus remember it fondly. I think its quality is being overstated (Memento it ain’t, by me), but it’s now a contender for one of those fringe original screenplay slots. (Most of the Fall, when Joy and The Hateful Eight were seen as slam dunks, original screenplay seemed set in stone, but now, beyond Spotlight/Inside Out/Bridge of Spies, it’s a puzzle. Maybe Sicario cashes in its Guild chips here, as well.)

The rumor yesterday was that it took an emergency save to keep Son of Saul alive in the foreign film contest. Which makes one wonder if the film will even manage a nomination, when many of us have been seeing it as the likely winner.

So, now we’ve got ASC and WGA tomorrow (if Carol misses both, it’ll be a long season), BAFTA on Friday. And then, too soon it seems, the Globes on Sunday. It seems weird to be giving out Globes before the nominations – how can we kick off the winner phase before we know for sure who the contenders are? I guess the Globes have done this to some degree in the past (though not always); maybe it just feels weirder this year because the Oscar field is so unsettled.