Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
You can look at Atonement in one of two ways:

1) We got to December thinking Atonement could have been the best picture winner -- I mean, No Country or Old Men and There Will Be Blood were WAY too out-there to win major Oscars. But then it failed to win NBR (which seemed in its wheelhouse), and not only missed DGA/PGA nods, it somehow got left out at WGA (in favor of Zodiac, which got no attention anywhere else). It did score with the Globes and BAFTA, but that might have been a Brit thing. It looked like the film could be the first movie in forever to win Globe Drama and not get a best picture Oscar nomination. Extreme Focus fail.

2) But, somehow, on nominations day, it rallied for 7 nominations, including best picture/supporting actress/screenplay, and on Oscar night it won a prize. In that context, does missing best director look so bad? Does it matter missing at precursors if you get the Oscar nods?
Hmm...

Y'know, the more I think about it, the more I fall into camp 1, even though I don't think I predicted Atonement for Picture or Director. Atonement wasn't marketed as a smoldering film. I think it was seen as a cold one. And that's VERY bad.

But really, what was it up against? No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood, two front-runners that were indeed far out there. Michael Clayton and Juno, two solid also-rans with their strong supporters but depending on who you asked, a tonic for voters too bummed out by the big dogs. And then what? I think we can agree there were three other films in the running: Atonement, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and Into the Wild. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly had surprising muscle behind it with Kathleen Kennedy as a producer, strong showings at the Director's and Producer's Guilds, and a Golden Globe win for Julian Schnabel (admittedly, one nobody saw). But it was still a foreign-language film and a VERY French one at that. Into the Wild was a very powerful movie that came back from a weak start in the race and a small box office with DGA, WGA, and SAG nominations. But it was still a Sean Penn movie and it felt like one. It was unabashedly anti-establishment and liberal. Admittedly, it was a dreadful year to be a Republican. But I've seen several actors-turned-directors in the Oscar race and Sean Penn's presence felt strangely muted. People like George Clooney worked the circuit very well. I never got that from Sean Penn. Whatever Atonement had going against it, it wasn't a foreign film and it wasn't directed by Sean Penn. That really should've been enough.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote: - I think expectations for Atonement were set too high and when it came out general consensus was that the first hour so outperformed the rest of the film. But when has that ever stopped Harvey Weinstein before?
You can look at Atonement in one of two ways:

1) We got to December thinking Atonement could have been the best picture winner -- I mean, No Country or Old Men and There Will Be Blood were WAY too out-there to win major Oscars. But then it failed to win NBR (which seemed in its wheelhouse), and not only missed DGA/PGA nods, it somehow got left out at WGA (in favor of Zodiac, which got no attention anywhere else). It did score with the Globes and BAFTA, but that might have been a Brit thing. It looked like the film could be the first movie in forever to win Globe Drama and not get a best picture Oscar nomination. Extreme Focus fail.

2) But, somehow, on nominations day, it rallied for 7 nominations, including best picture/supporting actress/screenplay, and on Oscar night it won a prize. In that context, does missing best director look so bad? Does it matter missing at precursors if you get the Oscar nods?
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Sabin »

Okri wrote
b) Oh, I absolutely agree. But if you said to me "Okay, Hanks is going to anchor an acclaimed, hit best picture nominee and turn in a performance that reveals depths to his talent you haven't seen before" - I'd have said ink that nomination down. I don't actually understand how he missed in 2013 - it was a crowded year, admittedly and it seems that after Matthew M (no, I can't spell his last name) they were all viewed about the same level and Hanks (and Isaac and Redford, but their films underperformed generally) got crowded out. I don't want to give the impression I'm writing him/the film off, though.
This doesn't exactly address your point, but I think Tom Hanks is mostly having a much better decade than last. He seems more comfortable in the kinds of roles he's getting. He's settled into elder statesman roles and it's a good fit for him. The problem is that they're slightly too familiar to edge past his competition for a nomination. For the most part, once you've broken through you have to reinvent yourself in some way to get a nomination. People don't want Tom Hanks to reinvent himself so getting a nomination is going to be difficult...at least at this point in his life. Old Man Hanks could be a different story.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that he came in a close sixth for Captain Phillips, Bridge of Spies, AND Sully. Captain Phillips especially drives home the main problem. His final breakdown is deeply affecting but one has to get through an entire movie before of a performance that is merely...a very strong Tom Hanks performance. And therein lies the problem. He has to essentially do what he did in Cast Away again: give audiences what they want while also doing something new.
Okri wrote
c) re: Focus Features
- They promoted Scarlett Johansson for LiT as supporting when lead actress was far more amorphous
- I'm still bitchy that Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy didn't get best picture/director/etc, though that might be AMPAS' fault.
- Atonement arguably underperformed - would Weinstein really have lost director/actress/actor for that one? To Schnabel/(BLANCHETT or Linney)/Jones
- I get the impression that this was a management decision because she also had Girl with a Pearl Earring out that year. Big mistake but not entirely their fault.
- You might be right. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was a bit of a late-starter. I wasn't expecting ANY nominations but it pulled in a strong handful (Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Original Score) and at least another handful (Cinematography, Art Direction, Costume Design) should have been easily achievable.
- I think expectations for Atonement were set too high and when it came out general consensus was that the first hour so outperformed the rest of the film. But when has that ever stopped Harvey Weinstein before?
"How's the despair?"
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Okri »

criddic3 wrote:
Okri wrote: pretty easily. It's not as if Spielberg is a huge "actor's director" anyway.
Spielberg has actually been scoring better in recent years with this. Both Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) and Mark Rylance (The Bridge of Spies) won Oscars in the last five years, while Sally Field and Barkhad Abdi also scored nominations. In the past, his films garnered acting nominations without winning (most notably The Color Purple and Schindler's List) until Day-Lewis broke that streak. The big surprise was when Hanks was left off with two films in contention in 2013, Captain Phillips and Saving Mr. Banks. They've had two chances to make up for that and haven't gone for them. With the pedigree of The Papers cast and the timing of release, it would really have to tank for it not to at least be considered.
a) Captain Philips is not a Spielberg film.

b) Oh, I absolutely agree. But if you said to me "Okay, Hanks is going to anchor an acclaimed, hit best picture nominee and turn in a performance that reveals depths to his talent you haven't seen before" - I'd have said ink that nomination down. I don't actually understand how he missed in 2013 - it was a crowded year, admittedly and it seems that after Matthew M (no, I can't spell his last name) they were all viewed about the same level and Hanks (and Isaac and Redford, but their films underperformed generally) got crowded out. I don't want to give the impression I'm writing him/the film off, though.

c) re: Focus Features
- They promoted Scarlett Johansson for LiT as supporting when lead actress was far more amorphous
- I'm still bitchy that Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy didn't get best picture/director/etc, though that might be AMPAS' fault.
- Atonement arguably underperformed - would Weinstein really have lost director/actress/actor for that one? To Schnabel/(BLANCHETT or Linney)/Jones

Now, I like them a fair bit simply because they shepherded more unlikely contenders to the big stage - they ain't no SPC.

d) The thing that drives me positively bonkers about SPC is the fact that they always do a massively slow roll-out (if it exists at all) and super late releases.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3791
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by dws1982 »

Mister Tee wrote:(And certainly, I count their USA era, as it was the same team under a different name. In fact, I believe the team was together even earlier as Gramercy, in which case you can credit them for Fargo and Elizabeth.)
You could back that up and include Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Usual Suspects, and Dead Man Walking as well.

Looking back at their list of releases, Gramercy was a pretty solid little distributor. Not just several Oscar contenders, but several movies that are still pretty highly regarded today, and of course one of the biggest cult classics ever with Dazed and Confused.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Sabin »

OscarGuy wrote
I guess I'm more concerned how they've failed to deliver in terms of wins for films that should have been frontrunners. A stray screenwriting award is great, but Far From Heaven underperformed as an award-winner, and perhaps even as a nomination vehicle...
Sure, and perhaps Harvey Weinstein could have done a better job. But that doesn't change the fact that: 1) clearly, the Academy does not like Todd Haynes. Even when they have ten available slots, they would rather just cut the number off at eight. And 2) 2002 was the heyday of Miramax and they scored seven nominations and three MAJOR wins with The Pianist so it's hard for me to look at that year as a bust for them. If anything, it's the year that proved their mettle.
OscarGuy wrote
...so did Lost in Translation, Eternal Sunshine, Brokeback, Pride & Prejudice, Eastern Promises, Lust, Caution, Reservation Road, In Bruges, A Serious Man, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The World's End, Nocturnal Animals, and A Monster Calls. All of these would have done far better in the hands of Harvey Weinstein. I'm not saying that they haven't done well, I'm just saying that they've failed more often than succeeded. They've also picked up their fair share of dreck on the Chocolat level that again Weinstein could have done wonders with, but Focus couldn't find itself.
Uh, that's where we'll have to disagree because I think A LOT of the movies you listed did about as well as they could have. Promoting films for awards costs money and sometimes they just have a better horse in the race. The only film I agree with you on is A Monster Calls but that was under their new management.

Several of these films did about as well as they could've done OR performed exceptionally. Like what are you basing your claims that Lost in Translation or Brokeback Mountain could've done better? Because both films were about as fantastically marketed as any two films last decade.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by OscarGuy »

I guess I'm more concerned how they've failed to deliver in terms of wins for films that should have been frontrunners. A stray screenwriting award is great, but Far From Heaven underperformed as an award-winner, and perhaps even as a nomination vehicle, so did Lost in Translation, Eternal Sunshine, Brokeback, Pride & Prejudice, Eastern Promises, Lust, Caution, Reservation Road, In Bruges, A Serious Man, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The World's End, Nocturnal Animals, and A Monster Calls. All of these would have done far better in the hands of Harvey Weinstein. I'm not saying that they haven't done well, I'm just saying that they've failed more often than succeeded. They've also picked up their fair share of dreck on the Chocolat level that again Weinstein could have done wonders with, but Focus couldn't find itself.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
When Eternal Sunshine opened in Spring, I was delighted to have something that good to see so early in the year -- such an event was getting to be rare, but not yet unprecedented at that point (Fargo and Donnie Brasco had, within memory, opened in February or March). But I recall nearly all the critics flaying the studio for putting the film out there before Oscar season, so I guess by then it was becoming accepted lore that a Fall opening was de rigueur for any film with Oscar aspirations. Two possibilities for Focus' play: 1) they, like me, hadn't realized this shift was now a permanent part of the landscape; 2) they hadn't expected Eternal Sunshine to do as well as it did with critics/audiences, so hadn't seen it as prime Oscar fodder to begin with.
But the writing was on the wall for years by that point. It took a year as barren as 1996 for Fargo to last in voters' memories. Donnie Brasco could only manage a screenplay nomination in a stronger year like 1997 despite Al Pacino's strongest work in what? Two decades? In 1997, it would be easier to list the 60's/70's icons that weren't nominated for Best Actor...and one of them was Al Pacino. I think it's less 1) than 2). I was going to use Wonder Boys as an example of a public shaming of the changing landscape...but Erin Brockovich held over just fine and it was released a week before? A week later? But a quick boxofficemojo search reveals that they released Eternal Sunshine... on the EXACTLY SAME weekend in March that Memento was released. They didn't know what they had on their hands so they found the nearest comparison and hoped it would turn into the hip movie that connects with the art house crowd because The Motorcycle Diaries was a safer bet for Oscar glory.

It's also worth noting that Eternal Sunshine...'s original release date was in the fall of 2003. I remember hearing that they needed further reshoots and editing to finish the film, but I'm willing to bet that they recognized that they already had Lost in Translation so better to push to next year.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote:
Mister Tee wrote
Agreed. That Brokeback Mountain or Traffic didn't win best picture were the Academy's fuck-ups, not Focus'. Focus won three directing/screenwriting Oscars in the six years between 2000 and 2005, and all the corresponding films were in the heat of the picture and acting races. They also got major attention for Being John Malkovich, Far from Heaven, 21 Grams, Lost in Translation, Pride and Prejudice, The Constant Gardener, Milk, The Kids Are All Right and Dallas Buyers' Club. It's disappointing they didn't win bigger with some of those titles, but I put that down to poor Academy taste rather than Focus marketing failures. They put a whole bunch of adventuresome work out there and made significant successes of many of them -- six acting Oscar wins, and three other screenplay victories (including Eternal Sunshine, despite its release date) beyond the three already mentioned. That seems like a hell of a run to me.
Three screenwriting Oscars? If we're including their time as USA Films, didn't they win six screenwriting awards in a row? Traffic, Gosford Park, The Pianist, Lost in Translation, Eternal Sunshine..., and Brokeback Mountain.
My phraseology was off. I'd already referenced the three times they had films win the directing/screenwriting tandem (Traffic/Pianist/Brokeback), so I was adding three to that (and actually it's four, as I forgot Gosford Park; Milk makes it seven all together). But, yes, it would have been simpler to say six in a row. (And certainly, I count their USA era, as it was the same team under a different name. In fact, I believe the team was together even earlier as Gramercy, in which case you can credit them for Fargo and Elizabeth.)

I've always seen 2004 as the year they screwed up though. Their two films were under-performers, admittedly ones that each scored an Oscar. If The Motorcycle Diaries has been released earlier in the year, I think it would've garnered stronger reviews. I don't entirely know why the film flopped. I was never much of a fan but the biggest knock on it was that it deigned to glorify and depoliticize the life of Che Guevara. I've always thought that the best thing you can do after Sundance is get some of those movies out there. The Motorcycle Diaries would have been a real hit early in the spring. And Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind lost all of its luster the minute Sideways came out. But these aren't fuck ups as much as miscalculations that can only come when you're playing at the big boy's table.
When Eternal Sunshine opened in Spring, I was delighted to have something that good to see so early in the year -- such an event was getting to be rare, but not yet unprecedented at that point (Fargo and Donnie Brasco had, within memory, opened in February or March). But I recall nearly all the critics flaying the studio for putting the film out there before Oscar season, so I guess by then it was becoming accepted lore that a Fall opening was de rigueur for any film with Oscar aspirations. Two possibilities for Focus' play: 1) they, like me, hadn't realized this shift was now a permanent part of the landscape; 2) they hadn't expected Eternal Sunshine to do as well as it did with critics/audiences, so hadn't seen it as prime Oscar fodder to begin with.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
I came to that view of SPC as far back as 1996. That was the big "Year of the Indie", the first time the small studios overwhelmed the majors; only one of the five best picture nominees was from a big studio. SPC had Lone Star that year -- as highly praised and commercially successful a film as John Sayles ever made. Any Oscar-promoter worth their salary should have been able to get Sayles in contention for a directing nomination, on career points; Harvey Weinstein would have got a handful of nods for the film. But SPC only managed an original screenplay nomination -- considerably less than Sayles' Passion Fish a few years earlier.
In retrospect, it's baffling that Lone Star performed as poorly as it did. 1996 was indeed "The Year of the Indie" but Lone Star was a movie that embodied that moniker more than the film's that got in the Academy's favor. In retrospect, it should have easily been able to maneuver past Secrets & Lies.

Mister Tee wrote
Agreed. That Brokeback Mountain or Traffic didn't win best picture were the Academy's fuck-ups, not Focus'. Focus won three directing/screenwriting Oscars in the six years between 2000 and 2005, and all the corresponding films were in the heat of the picture and acting races. They also got major attention for Being John Malkovich, Far from Heaven, 21 Grams, Lost in Translation, Pride and Prejudice, The Constant Gardener, Milk, The Kids Are All Right and Dallas Buyers' Club. It's disappointing they didn't win bigger with some of those titles, but I put that down to poor Academy taste rather than Focus marketing failures. They put a whole bunch of adventuresome work out there and made significant successes of many of them -- six acting Oscar wins, and three other screenplay victories (including Eternal Sunshine, despite its release date) beyond the three already mentioned. That seems like a hell of a run to me.
Three screenwriting Oscars? If we're including their time as USA Films, didn't they win six screenwriting awards in a row? Traffic, Gosford Park, The Pianist, Lost in Translation, Eternal Sunshine..., and Brokeback Mountain.

I've always seen 2004 as the year they screwed up though. Their two films were under-performers, admittedly ones that each scored an Oscar. If The Motorcycle Diaries has been released earlier in the year, I think it would've garnered stronger reviews. I don't entirely know why the film flopped. I was never much of a fan but the biggest knock on it was that it deigned to glorify and depoliticize the life of Che Guevara. I've always thought that the best thing you can do after Sundance is get some of those movies out there. The Motorcycle Diaries would have been a real hit early in the spring. And Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind lost all of its luster the minute Sideways came out. But these aren't fuck ups as much as miscalculations that can only come when you're playing at the big boy's table.
"How's the despair?"
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by criddic3 »

Okri wrote: pretty easily. It's not as if Spielberg is a huge "actor's director" anyway.
Spielberg has actually been scoring better in recent years with this. Both Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) and Mark Rylance (The Bridge of Spies) won Oscars in the last five years, while Sally Field and Barkhad Abdi also scored nominations. In the past, his films garnered acting nominations without winning (most notably The Color Purple and Schindler's List) until Day-Lewis broke that streak. The big surprise was when Hanks was left off with two films in contention in 2013, Captain Phillips and Saving Mr. Banks. They've had two chances to make up for that and haven't gone for them. With the pedigree of The Papers cast and the timing of release, it would really have to tank for it not to at least be considered.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Mister Tee »

Sabin wrote:
OscarGuy wrote
SPC doesn't have anything on the eternal fuck-ups that are Focus Features. How many Oscar contenders have they botched?
Uh, I give up. How many?
I'm confused. I thought that during their heyday of the 2000's they were all but beyond reproach.
The only screw up I can point to is Eternal Sunshine... They released it was too early in the year and unsuccessfully so. It could have been a much stronger contender in 2004 had it benefited from a fall release. They put far too much faith in The Motorcycle Diaries.
Agreed. That Brokeback Mountain or Traffic didn't win best picture were the Academy's fuck-ups, not Focus'. Focus won three directing/screenwriting Oscars in the six years between 2000 and 2005, and all the corresponding films were in the heat of the picture and acting races. They also got major attention for Being John Malkovich, Far from Heaven, 21 Grams, Lost in Translation, Pride and Prejudice, The Constant Gardener, Milk, The Kids Are All Right and Dallas Buyers' Club. It's disappointing they didn't win bigger with some of those titles, but I put that down to poor Academy taste rather than Focus marketing failures. They put a whole bunch of adventuresome work out there and made significant successes of many of them -- six acting Oscar wins, and three other screenplay victories (including Eternal Sunshine, despite its release date) beyond the three already mentioned. That seems like a hell of a run to me.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Mister Tee »

Okri wrote: re: Sony (Pictures) Classics

Yeah, I can't think of a studio that lost as many "gettable" nominations as this one. That they're releasing Call Me By Your Name has me a little concerned oscar wise.
I came to that view of SPC as far back as 1996. That was the big "Year of the Indie", the first time the small studios overwhelmed the majors; only one of the five best picture nominees was from a big studio. SPC had Lone Star that year -- as highly praised and commercially successful a film as John Sayles ever made. Any Oscar-promoter worth their salary should have been able to get Sayles in contention for a directing nomination, on career points; Harvey Weinstein would have got a handful of nods for the film. But SPC only managed an original screenplay nomination -- considerably less than Sayles' Passion Fish a few years earlier.

I have to feel it was because, on some level, they didn't want to play in the big league. If you look at what SPC has done over the years, they've never made great effort to achieve major Oscar or commercial attention -- nothing like what Weinstein or Focus or even Lions Gate or A24 have done. They seem happy to go for stray acting nominations, and put most of their effort into fighting for the best foreign language film prize. Their one true breakout film in all these years was Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and I feel like that became a sensation almost in spite of them (they were very slow to expand the film, until demand -- and critical/Academy attention -- made it impossible to keep hemmed in).

A friend of mine worked with the SPC guys at an earlier stage of their careers, and he says they've always seen themselves as a boutique business; they seem afraid that if they succumb to the allure of the boom side of the business, they might backslide into bust and lose everything (the way Weinstein and Focus have done, the former more than once). Maybe they've got that right. It does, however, make them maybe not the right team to handle a potentially super-hot Oscar property.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Sabin »

OscarGuy wrote
SPC doesn't have anything on the eternal fuck-ups that are Focus Features. How many Oscar contenders have they botched?
Uh, I give up. How many?
I'm confused. I thought that during their heyday of the 2000's they were all but beyond reproach.
The only screw up I can point to is Eternal Sunshine... They released it was too early in the year and unsuccessfully so. It could have been a much stronger contender in 2004 had it benefited from a fall release. They put far too much faith in The Motorcycle Diaries.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Oscar Predictions & Race Discussion Thread - July to Toronto

Post by Big Magilla »

From what I've read, the story of The Papers is about publisher Katharine Graham's emergence as a powerful woman backed by editor-in-chief Ben Bradlee. Hanks has the tougher role in that both Bradlee and Jason Robards who won an Oscar for playing him in All the President's Men are both etched in the memory of anyone who was around in the 70s, which is most of the Oscar voters. He'll have the tougher time convincing them that he's worthy of a third Oscar for this one. Streep, on the other hand, is playing someone who, though known, is not as well known, and who has never been portrayed on screen before.

Hanks should certainly have been nominated for Captain Phillips and Bridge of Spies, and may be nominated for The Papers either due to his performance or as makeup for those two snubs as well as for not being nominated for Sully last year, but it won't be a slam dunk. For every brilliant performance, there have too many Da Vince Codes and the like for voters to take him as seriously as Daniel Day-Lewis who only does quality work.
Post Reply

Return to “90th Predictions and Precursors”