One question I've been asking myself re: Dunkirk -- and it's basically an extension of my thoughts on its Oscar chances when I saw it -- is "Does this look like a Best Picture winner IN 2017?" Of course, it isn't true that the Oscar winner is always a movie that taps into the zeitgeist of its moment -- The Artist and The King's Speech definitely didn't do that -- but this is a very different cultural era, and I think plenty of people in Hollywood are eager to show the world how much they're Resisting. On top of that, this industry is dealing with its largest internal scandal since probably the Black List, what with powerful players being exposed as sexual harassers and assailants on a seemingly daily basis, with no signs of stopping. Despite everything in Dunkirk's favor -- and as Sabin pointed out, there's a lot -- I just still find it hard to imagine that in this political time, Hollywood would settle on a 1940s war movie about a bunch of white dudes as its top choice.
This is exacerbated by the fact that the other players in the race offer a compendium of different ways to make a statement with their selection -- Three Billboards is the story of a woman's revolt against toxic masculinity, The Shape of Water is (according to Del Toro at the Q&A after I saw the movie) a statement against the MAGA agenda, Get Out is an unnervingly timely film about race relations (and features an opportunity to honor a promising black filmmaker), Lady Bird similarly has got a promising female filmmaker behind it, Mudbound has a black gay female filmmaker at the helm (diversity bingo!), Call Me By Your Name is certain to be a Fox News whipping boy, and, sight unseen, The Post is about the work of journalists exposing a corrupt presidency. Of course, we have no idea how the ranked voting system will cause this race to shake out -- for all we know, it could allow Dunkirk to prevail by cannibalizing #1 votes from the more conservative members of the Academy -- but the idea that Dunkirk will be some unchallenged front-runner, as some at other sites are positing, seems to be a serious misread of the room right now.
The Best Picture Formula Ramble
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
The Best Picture Formula Ramble
A mild ramble...
Over the past couple of years, my understanding of the Oscar race has changed. When I was younger, I would look at movies and ask myself "Does this look like a Best Picture winner?" If I'm not mistaken, I spent the bulk of 2000 predicting that the Oscar would go to Enemy at the Gates. I was mistaken, and the fact that it was bumped to 2001 was not the reason why.
Today, it's clearer to me that it's not so much an Oscar race as an Oscar primary, and the question is whether or not a movie has a pathway to victory. And the formula basically looks like this:
1) In the running for the DGA Award, PGA Award, SAG Ensemble Award, and BAFTA Best Film Award.
2) Best Film Editing nomination.
3) Best Screenplay nomination.
That's kind of it, right?
With the increasingly diverse Academy membership, it's entirely possible that this was a realization for yesteryear. But in retrospect, it should have been clear that The Revenant and La La Land had big disadvantages going into the race because they missed out on somewhat crucial mentions.
In retrospect, The Revenant should have been a clear loser. While, yes, it was a big hit, had twelve nominations, and a surprise Tom Hardy nomination, it lacked a crucial screenwriting nomination. Movies that don't have screenwriting nominations are two different feasts for the eyes: Gravity or Titanic. The Revenant was clearly more of a Gravity-style film. And the fact that it lost at the Producer's Guild Award to The Big Short, meant that it didn't quite capture the fans we thought. The question that tripped me up was which film ultimately was going to win? The Big Short or Spotlight? It should have been clear then that Spotlight was in a better position because while it didn't win the PGA Award, a nomination for Rachel McAdams as well as Film Editing (where perhaps it was the shakiest) meant wider appeal among actors, who make up the largest portion of the Academy.
Likewise, La La Land's lack of a SAG nomination, which brings me to my next point: when does something "matter?" When La La Land lost out on a SAG nomination, I told myself it didn't matter. Just like when Birdman missed out on an editing nomination. With Birdman, it didn't matter because it was just one take. Right? And with La La Land, it didn't matter because the film was basically a two-hander. Ultimately, I don't think La La Land lost BECAUSE it missed out on a SAG nomination. I think it lost for different reasons. But the fact that it missed out on a Sag Ensemble nomination to Captain Fantastic of all reasons meant that SAG voters simply looked elsewhere. So, again: this paragraph is simply about when a missing a crucial component doesn't matter.
Oscar prediction season hasn't fully picked up yet but it would seem as though if one had to pick a front-runner, the answer would be clear: Dunkirk. It's grossed $500+ million worldwide, has a 92% on RT, it's directed by someone who is perceived as due, and at this point it has a very good chance of winning Best Film from BAFTA, the DGA Award, and possibly the PGA Award. It would seem to me though that it's chances are severely hampered by the fact that is is unlikely to receive a SAG Ensemble nomination as well as a screenwriting nomination. Especially with films like The Big Sick, Lady Bird, The Post, The Shape of Water, and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri in the running.
Now, if it somehow manages to pick up nominations for both, then game over. Dunkirk will win Best Picture. But it would seem to have far more in common with Gravity in this regard.
So, Dunkirk's pathway to victory is limited. But it was at this point in my conception of my essay that I realized: we're probably looking a year where everything is going to be all over the place, aren't we? One movie winning this, another movie winning that, uncertainty going into Oscar night like in 2015... Only this time, I get the sense we're going to care more about the films, aren't we?
--
As I've said, it's quite early to be predicting anything with any certainty, but I do feel we could take a reasonable stab at nominees for SAG's Best Ensemble Award. Some combination of Call Me By Your Name, Darkest Hour, Get Out, Lady Bird, Mudbound, The Post, The Shape of Water, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and either Dunkirk or something a bit more populist like Girls Trip, which I'm increasingly convinced has a good chance in this lineup.
Right now, my guesses would be:
Girls Trip
Get Out
Lady Bird
Mudbound
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
With The Post and The Shape of Water as spoilers. Lady Bird's standing seems a bit shaky to me because it might just be a bit too small. But there is just so much genuine enthusiasm for the film that it seems silly to bet against it. I'm just guessing the The Post isn't going to be as beloved as some are guessing while The Shape of Water might ultimately not be an actor's film. I could be wrong, but my current predictions would essentially count these two films out of the race.
So, what else?
I've been a bit bullish on Get Out's chances. It's a big hit that has garnered extended enthusiasm. But does it really have a chance at a BAFTA nomination? They've shown a willingness to fall behind films about black people occasionally, but there's something a bit odd about a group that has never nominated Denzel Washington or Morgan Freeman.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri can run the gamut. The only question is whether it will pick up a DGA nomination (I think so) as well as an editing nomination (perhaps not).
Same with Lady Bird, mostly about an editing nomination.
--
And finally the question is: with a new, more diverse Academy, we have less an understanding of what "matters" now than ever. Even if Dunkirk wins, this should be fun.
Over the past couple of years, my understanding of the Oscar race has changed. When I was younger, I would look at movies and ask myself "Does this look like a Best Picture winner?" If I'm not mistaken, I spent the bulk of 2000 predicting that the Oscar would go to Enemy at the Gates. I was mistaken, and the fact that it was bumped to 2001 was not the reason why.
Today, it's clearer to me that it's not so much an Oscar race as an Oscar primary, and the question is whether or not a movie has a pathway to victory. And the formula basically looks like this:
1) In the running for the DGA Award, PGA Award, SAG Ensemble Award, and BAFTA Best Film Award.
2) Best Film Editing nomination.
3) Best Screenplay nomination.
That's kind of it, right?
With the increasingly diverse Academy membership, it's entirely possible that this was a realization for yesteryear. But in retrospect, it should have been clear that The Revenant and La La Land had big disadvantages going into the race because they missed out on somewhat crucial mentions.
In retrospect, The Revenant should have been a clear loser. While, yes, it was a big hit, had twelve nominations, and a surprise Tom Hardy nomination, it lacked a crucial screenwriting nomination. Movies that don't have screenwriting nominations are two different feasts for the eyes: Gravity or Titanic. The Revenant was clearly more of a Gravity-style film. And the fact that it lost at the Producer's Guild Award to The Big Short, meant that it didn't quite capture the fans we thought. The question that tripped me up was which film ultimately was going to win? The Big Short or Spotlight? It should have been clear then that Spotlight was in a better position because while it didn't win the PGA Award, a nomination for Rachel McAdams as well as Film Editing (where perhaps it was the shakiest) meant wider appeal among actors, who make up the largest portion of the Academy.
Likewise, La La Land's lack of a SAG nomination, which brings me to my next point: when does something "matter?" When La La Land lost out on a SAG nomination, I told myself it didn't matter. Just like when Birdman missed out on an editing nomination. With Birdman, it didn't matter because it was just one take. Right? And with La La Land, it didn't matter because the film was basically a two-hander. Ultimately, I don't think La La Land lost BECAUSE it missed out on a SAG nomination. I think it lost for different reasons. But the fact that it missed out on a Sag Ensemble nomination to Captain Fantastic of all reasons meant that SAG voters simply looked elsewhere. So, again: this paragraph is simply about when a missing a crucial component doesn't matter.
Oscar prediction season hasn't fully picked up yet but it would seem as though if one had to pick a front-runner, the answer would be clear: Dunkirk. It's grossed $500+ million worldwide, has a 92% on RT, it's directed by someone who is perceived as due, and at this point it has a very good chance of winning Best Film from BAFTA, the DGA Award, and possibly the PGA Award. It would seem to me though that it's chances are severely hampered by the fact that is is unlikely to receive a SAG Ensemble nomination as well as a screenwriting nomination. Especially with films like The Big Sick, Lady Bird, The Post, The Shape of Water, and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri in the running.
Now, if it somehow manages to pick up nominations for both, then game over. Dunkirk will win Best Picture. But it would seem to have far more in common with Gravity in this regard.
So, Dunkirk's pathway to victory is limited. But it was at this point in my conception of my essay that I realized: we're probably looking a year where everything is going to be all over the place, aren't we? One movie winning this, another movie winning that, uncertainty going into Oscar night like in 2015... Only this time, I get the sense we're going to care more about the films, aren't we?
--
As I've said, it's quite early to be predicting anything with any certainty, but I do feel we could take a reasonable stab at nominees for SAG's Best Ensemble Award. Some combination of Call Me By Your Name, Darkest Hour, Get Out, Lady Bird, Mudbound, The Post, The Shape of Water, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and either Dunkirk or something a bit more populist like Girls Trip, which I'm increasingly convinced has a good chance in this lineup.
Right now, my guesses would be:
Girls Trip
Get Out
Lady Bird
Mudbound
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
With The Post and The Shape of Water as spoilers. Lady Bird's standing seems a bit shaky to me because it might just be a bit too small. But there is just so much genuine enthusiasm for the film that it seems silly to bet against it. I'm just guessing the The Post isn't going to be as beloved as some are guessing while The Shape of Water might ultimately not be an actor's film. I could be wrong, but my current predictions would essentially count these two films out of the race.
So, what else?
I've been a bit bullish on Get Out's chances. It's a big hit that has garnered extended enthusiasm. But does it really have a chance at a BAFTA nomination? They've shown a willingness to fall behind films about black people occasionally, but there's something a bit odd about a group that has never nominated Denzel Washington or Morgan Freeman.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri can run the gamut. The only question is whether it will pick up a DGA nomination (I think so) as well as an editing nomination (perhaps not).
Same with Lady Bird, mostly about an editing nomination.
--
And finally the question is: with a new, more diverse Academy, we have less an understanding of what "matters" now than ever. Even if Dunkirk wins, this should be fun.
"How's the despair?"