Reza wrote:[quote="Mister Tee"Philip Seymour Hoffman...One of my good calls from years past: not only predicting Hoffman would be back more than once, but that it'd be more likely in supporting roles (even if this year's was a lead in masquerade). Despite opinion to the contrary here, Hoffman is viewed as one of America's most impressive actors, and I see no reason to doubt he'll be back time and again. With a second win -- in support -- very much a likelihood.
What a sad, wasted end to a promising career.[/quote]
He has 3 or 4 films in the can. He might get in for one of them next year.
[quote="Mister Tee"Philip Seymour Hoffman...One of my good calls from years past: not only predicting Hoffman would be back more than once, but that it'd be more likely in supporting roles (even if this year's was a lead in masquerade). Despite opinion to the contrary here, Hoffman is viewed as one of America's most impressive actors, and I see no reason to doubt he'll be back time and again. With a second win -- in support -- very much a likelihood.[/quote]
1. The thing that really interests me is that we had nine movies nominated this year. Which matches the previous year. I actually thought the dynamics of the best picture race were a lot different (I agreed with Original BJ's contention that we'd probably only see 5 or 6 films nominated) so that intrigues. It really does seem that the expanded field, along with the 5% rule, really pushes the idea to vote for your actual favourite, not merely the favourite with a shot. The other thing: much like 2010, we had a bunch of overperformers at the box office.
2. Haneke strikes me more like an Atom Egoyan or Almodovar than Bergman/Fellini, I'm afraid. Someone at Nathaniel's podcast cracked that he imagined Haneke making his most audience punishing film yet after participating in the awards circuit ("Funny Games, set in the Dolby")and I don't think Amour really represents a shift in focus. Speaking of the director's category, the reason I remembered Tee's comment about O.Russell (basically he said that of the nominated directors that year, he'd be the first to return) was because I really disagreed with it. Hooper seemed more AMPAS bait, Fincher more notable, and Aronofsky had made films with AMPAS history.
3. I'll third Oscarguy's mention of Redmayne. Already a Tony winner. He seems to have interesting enough taste (though perhaps a little less mainstream than AMPAS usually goes for - his stage breakthrough was the boy in The Goat and one of his early films was Savage Grace). That said, I'm really surprised at how little awards impact that whole plethora of young British actors actually has had (Dominic Cooper, Jamie Parker, Ben Wishaw, Andrew Garfield, Eddie Redmayne) - and given the way British theatre, television and film merge and cross breed, I wonder if that's a bit of a hindrance here. And he's only got one film coming up.
4. Of the actors, I actually feel relatively sanguine about Jackman coming back, though I'd be surprised to see him win. Phoenix I'm of two minds. On the one hand, to get in given his public dissension and the sheer amount of hatred The Master engendered is pretty amazing. On the other hand, why would his sourness affect Tommy Lee Jones but not Phoenix? Washington will be back if he makes actual films and not bad-ass toss-offs.
5. Naomi Watts: crying while dirty got her two nominations. I don't think she'll ever win, but I can see her getting a nomination or two. Chastain will likely win, but I could also see her being a bit too adventurous to really coalesce "winning" support.
About the bonus round: Totally agree with OscarGuy about Eddie Redmayne. I've seen him twice on stage and he was excellent. I also expect sometime in the future Wes Anderson to get that lone Best Director spot, although a screenplay win is more likely than a director nomination. Ezra Miller is also a possibility for a supporting actor nomination, but i can't see him as a leading actor contender anytime soon. Other people that were in this years oscar race but didn't have serious hopes of an oscar nomination include: Joe Wright, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Ehle, Ewan McGregor and Isabelle Huppert (let's hope so).
At this point, anything Spielberg, Lee or Russell do has to be considered a major Oscar contender...all three of them will be back as nominees at some point, although I think they each would need a Best Picture winner to win Best Director at this point (although another year like this and anything is possible.) If Haneke returns it will probably be in the screenplay category, and Zeitlin is too much of a wildcard at this point to know what his career will be.
As for the actors, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Daniel Day-Lewis, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Joaquain Phoenix and Amy Adams all seem to have the right combination of Hollywood love and strong choice in films to guarantee they will be back as nominees sooner than later. Naomi Watts, Jennifer Lawrence, and Denzel Washington will get more nominations, but they may have to wait a while for the right role to come. Robert DeNiro, Alan Arkin, Tommy Lee Jones and Helen Hunt can never be counted out, but they also have to find the right films to work as showcases (and all probably need to be brought along the wave of a Best Picture nominee). Hugh Jackman and Bradley Cooper could certainly be winners down the line, but it all depends on what they use their new-found appreciation to do...more blockbusters or more prestige work.
Although, both Jacki Weaver and Christoph Waltz taught us this year that anything is possible!
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
FilmFan720 wrote: Magilla, I think that Tee excluded John Hawkes from the discussion under the "previous nominee" category...he has already been to the Oscars, so we instead focus on actors likely to break through in the future.
Yes, I know. However, I don't think Hawkes really broke through with his previous nod. If he had he would have surely have been nominated for The Sessions which confirms his acting genius.
Cranston also delivered an Oscar nominatable performance in Drive, so Cranston is a possibility.
I doubt Tarantino will be back...unless he gives up on his supposed break from movies (he's long said his next will probably be his last, but he does have Kill Bill, Vol. 3 in addition to that on his schedule).
Ang Lee will definitely be back depending on the project. He's talked about Cleopatra a few times recently, which suggests to me that he's one of the top contenders for that assignment.
Jennifer Lawrence will likely build her money chest over the next few years while she's young while keeping serious films in her mix and then turn away from the pomp and circumstance and delve into serious, dramatic roles afterwards (I still think Elizabeth Taylor's career and success is the perfect model for how Lawrence can and probably will proceed).
Sally Field might be back...after all, she was in the competition in 1994 for Forrest Gump, her last mega-watt role. However, nearly 18 years is a long time to be taken seriously. However, her focus on television has been why she's been outside the Oscar landscape for so long and I have a feeling that once she's done with that (and she seems like she may be), I can see her digging back into the big screen in a big way.
As for Tee's Bonus Round, I'm going to toss out a couple of names. The first is Richard Gere. With films like Arbitrage marking an attempt to gain serious attention from his colleagues after his lightweight career previously, Gere has a strong chance of a late-career accolade. Perhaps not a win, but he just needs the right level of brilliance and bankability to propel him into the race. And he is working hard at that. The second name is Eddie Redmayne. While I wasn't impressed with him in My Week with Marilyn, that film did gain him attention and with his well received performance in Les Miserables, I think he's an up-and-coming young talent that, if he picks and chooses his roles with wisdom, will be at the Oscars before long. John Goodman's a possibility, but he hasn't got the best inclination for choosing roles. I think he was more deserving a nomination for Argo than Arkin was, but others seem to disagree.
As to Quvenzhane Wallis? I'd like to believe she won't be back, but she will be pushed so hard for her upcoming performance in Annie that if she doesn't get a nomination, people will cry ageism/racism. Of course, if she's downright awful in it, everyone who saw her as just a molded and manipulated child actor will be proven true, but her nomination will be validated if she's better than we expect. I suspect she only got cast because of her prominence this season. I wonder if she did any actual screen testing or auditioning for the role? Of course, when was the last time an actor or actress below the age of 10 for their nomination came back with a later one? None that I can think of. So, we'll see if she does indeed make a return showing and break the books.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
FilmFan720 wrote:In the same vein, I will throw in the similar Bryan Cranston.
I actually had him down as an addendum to Chandler. The only reason I took him off is that most of his roles of late have tended towards the summer blockbusters or action films rather than prestige pics like Argo. But I think that he definitely could be in the mix with the right role. Another one worth mentioning is John Goodman. I thought he was over-indulged in Argo and waaay over-indulged in Flight, but he's definitely one of the go-to Supporting Actors right now. (I loved him in Trouble With the Curve though.)
Big Magilla wrote:As usual, Tee, very well put. I pretty much agree with all of your assessments, but I wouldn't leave John Hawkes out of the likely to turn up soon discussion. His lack of a nomination for The Sessions was, along with Jean-Louis Trintignant's omission, one of the year's two most egregious oversights.
Magilla, I think that Tee excluded John Hawkes from the discussion under the "previous nominee" category...he has already been to the Oscars, so we instead focus on actors likely to break through in the future.
dws1982 wrote:However, the bonus round, in which case I will follow my time-honored tradition of playing fast and loose with the rules by mentioning an actor who wasn't in the mix for a nomination this year. But, this actor was at least in a movie that was contending for Oscars this year, so I'm getting better! He was in more than one Oscar contender, actually. My pick is Kyle Chandler. After a widely-acclaimed, Emmy-winning TV role, he's had supporting roles in Argo and Zero Dark Thirty this past year. Plus he was in one of the Sundance hits this year, and has a role in The Wolf of Wall Street. His roles this year were a bit on the smallish side for consideration, but I think he's a good bet to move up the character actor food chain and land a supporting nomination in the near future--especially if prestige directors keep turning to him. (Rumors that he's returning to television could hurt his prospects of a film career though.)
In the same vein, I will throw in the similar Bryan Cranston. He is a little more on the radar with Hollywood and the awards circuit, but he has also in the past few years popped up in several Oscar contending films, and in roles a little more demanding and central than Chandler. With Breaking Bad ending this summer, I could see him becoming a favorite of directors looking for interesting character actors and picking up a role with Oscar nominee potential in the next few years (probably in a Best Picture contender, where he could be brought along a la Alan Arkin this year).
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
I don't think there's a lot for me to add to Mister Tee's rundown. (May think of something later though.)
However, the bonus round, in which case I will follow my time-honored tradition of playing fast and loose with the rules by mentioning an actor who wasn't in the mix for a nomination this year. But, this actor was at least in a movie that was contending for Oscars this year, so I'm getting better! He was in more than one Oscar contender, actually. My pick is Kyle Chandler. After a widely-acclaimed, Emmy-winning TV role, he's had supporting roles in Argo and Zero Dark Thirty this past year. Plus he was in one of the Sundance hits this year, and has a role in The Wolf of Wall Street. His roles this year were a bit on the smallish side for consideration, but I think he's a good bet to move up the character actor food chain and land a supporting nomination in the near future--especially if prestige directors keep turning to him. (Rumors that he's returning to television could hurt his prospects of a film career though.)
As usual, Tee, very well put. I pretty much agree with all of your assessments, but I wouldn't leave John Hawkes out of the likely to turn up soon discussion. His lack of a nomination for The Sessions was, along with Jean-Louis Trintignant's omission, one of the year's two most egregious oversights. Trintignant, like Riva, likely had his last possible opportunity, but Hawkes continues to be a very busy actor. It's only a matter of time before he's nominated again in either lead or support and may well win. On the other hand, I wouldn't bet against McConaughey, especially with two Oscar bait-y roles this year in The Dallas Buyers Club and The Wolf of Wall Street certain to keep him in the conversation.
I think Phoenix' is the most likely of the Best Actor nominees to back soon. A lot of people wrote him off a few years ago with his odd behavior, but his performance in The Master elevates his stock beyond all expectations. The film was the year's most misunderstood. I tip my hat to all those who got it the first time they saw it. It took me a second viewing on DVD to do so. It wasn't the film that did it for me, but the inclusion of John Huston's brilliant 1946 documentary, Let There Be Light as an extra on the DVD which put it all in perspective. It wasn't a film about Scientology and was never meant to be. The whole cult thing was a sideshow. Blame it on the man who had it rain frogs in Magnolia because he couldn't afford cats and dogs. PT Anderson doesn't explain, he just shows. My review will be in next Tuesday's DVD report. I recommend anyone who hasn't seen it, to watch the doc first, or if you're planning on seeing it a second time, watch the doc first.
Interestingly, Phoenix's co-stars in James Gray's upcoming Lowlife are Jeremy Renner, who was originally mentioned for in his role in The Master and Marion Cotillard who was another of this year's surprise omissions.
Of the actresses, I expect Amy Adams to be nominated a fifth time soon and win; Anne Hathway to be nominated in lead again and quite possibly win that category and Jennifer Lawrence to be nominated but not win again unless her career lasts more than ten years, which it well might.
As for the directors, it depends on where they go from here. Spielberg will continue to be a possibility for as long as he makes films. Lee, who always surprises, will likely not have seen his last nomination. But please, no more Tarantino. He's not the only contemporary director who employs forgotten old-time actors. That was Patty McCormack, The Bad Seed herself who was the woman who awakens giddily from her hypnosis in The Master.
This was an unusual Academy season for me -- most of my filmgoing compressed into a four-week period -- so much of my knowledge came from following the Oscar sites. Sad to say, I think alot of them crossed the line this year: making it more about them than the films in contention, and really souring the atmosphere. As always, I'm grateful for the level heads we (generally) keep around here.
Anyway, enough of that. On to the ever-interesting question of who among this year's contenders, losers in particular, we might see back in future years. The list:
Joaquin Phoenix...Glass half full: this was Phoenix's third nomination, for three really quite varied roles. Half empty: Academy folk in the main hated this film, and he never had a chance of winning. But maybe the nomination helped him a little, anyway. I went back and found other performers with nominations for films that rubbed voters the wrong way (or were out-there in subject matter), who came back shortly after to win for more mainstream material -- Peter Finch '71/'76; Sissy Spacek '76/'80; Kate Winslet, both '04 and '06, followed by '08; Natalie Portman '04/'10. You might even include Jennifer Lawrence -- her first effort was indie enough it allegedly led the Board of Governors to change voting procedure again (Winter's Bone not being the sort of film they had in mind for an expanded field). Phoenix has a full schedule of interesting-sounding films just ahead (James Gray/Spike Jonze/PTA again), and I think we could see him a winner soon.
Bradley Cooper...After Jonah Hill last year and now Cooper, let's register this lesson: an actor's prior resume will not interfere with his getting a nomination; the current role is all. I was actually pretty unfamiliar with Cooper's earlier credits, beyond The Hangover and Limitless; I didn't realize he was seriously theatre-trained. I will say that, from the moment Silver Linings started, I thought of him as not some standard issue Hollywood pretty face, but as a serious actor. Doors to good scripts should be opening to him right now, and his future will depend on his own taste in choosing roles. I like his chances of returning.
Hugh Jackman...I suppose alot of people will see this as encouragement for Jackman, in terms of eventually competing for a win -- he did, after all, manage to snag the nomination despite mixed reviews. But I look at it another way. This was Jackman IN HIS ELEMENT. He's one of a very tiny group of actors thought competent in both the acting and singing department, playing one of the major musical roles of the last half- century. This should have been his dream project. But, even to many fans of the film, he only achieved respectability. Does it now seem likely he'll jump into a standard dramatic role and soar to heights? To analogize: Judy Garland never flew as high in any dramatic role as she did in A Star is Born -- and her work in that film is leagues beyond what Jackman does in Les Miz. What he still has is his immense likability (which I presume helped some this year); that -- plus his franchises -- should keep him working for a long time. But unless I see him show unexpected depths of feeling somewhere along the line, I'm not expecting him to reappear often on the Academy lists, or to seriously contend for a win.
Denzel Washington...Eleven years between nominations -- years filled with mostly routine thrillers that have presumably paid the bills. Flight -- however uneven a film -- was a reminder that at one time Denzel was an actor of some excitement. The man already has two Oscars, and -- unlike this year's best actor -- he doesn't fit the profile of one to whom voters will happily give three. But he's young enough he might turn up on occasion -- especially if he goes forth with projects like Fences. But I suspect he'll always be there to clap for someone else's win.
Daniel Day-Lewis...He defied history back in 2007 when he became the only Brit to win best actor twice; this year he obliterated the record books. It's the kind of thing can happen when you're viewed as an acting legend. I presume Day-Lewis will keep to his self-chosen regimen: work only infrequently, but always in films that will be viewed as Oscar-fodder sight unseen. Which means we should expect him to show up at the Dolby in future years. I'd say another win is beyond imagining -- but after this year, who would commit to that?
Jessica Chastain...Surely the top 2012 candidate for "rising with a bullet". Her varied 2011 plate was enough to make many of us think her future was bright. To return the very next year in a dominant role, in a widely-praised, widely seen drama? She's a keeper. Her near-term projects seem a bit off-the-track for Oscars, but you'd have to be a fool to bet against her becoming a best actress perennial over the next decade.
Naomi Watts...This is one of those nominations that appear uneventful -- it certainly was never in contention for the win -- but can be prelude to bigger things. Watts of course came onto our radar with Mullholland Drive in 2001, and the Oscars belatedly caught up two years later. But she's had no attention since, despite a big money-maker in King Kong, and a significant role in The Painted Veil (which might have given her an Oscar shot had it not been the rare year of five locked-in best actress candidates). For Watts, just getting back on everyone's short-list could help set her up for recognition when the right role comes along. The Princess Diana project seems too Oscar-obvious to predict...but, of course, I'd have said the same of Abraham Lincoln. In any case, I think she'll be back before long.
Emmanuelle Riva...86 years old and French, she's of course well beyond the scope of this survey. Amour -- and her nomination -- were wonderful late-in-life gifts to her. Let's salute that, expect no more, and move on.
Quvenzhane Wallis...Same comment, from the other end of life. We don't know if she can do anything besides what we've seen, or, honestly, can act at all -- nor if she'll still be attempting it five years from now. But she was a bright presence on the awards circuit, and I choose to keep that as a pleasant memory.
Jennifer Lawrence...My take two years ago -- that a very attractive actress who'd given a genuinely strong performance at age 20 was a solid future bet -- paid off remarkably quickly. To be honest, I had my doubts about her after the X-Men prequel, where she did next to nothing, but launching a franchise and winning a merited Oscar makes for a pretty good year. Her immediate schedule has both franchises and legitimately interesting projects; she's widely liked; and (my opinion, but fairly widely shared) she's got talent. I see no reason to expect less than a solid career, which could well mean more Academy appearances.
Philip Seymour Hoffman...One of my good calls from years past: not only predicting Hoffman would be back more than once, but that it'd be more likely in supporting roles (even if this year's was a lead in masquerade). Despite opinion to the contrary here, Hoffman is viewed as one of America's most impressive actors, and I see no reason to doubt he'll be back time and again. With a second win -- in support -- very much a likelihood.
Tommy Lee Jones...I'm wondering if the somewhat overblown "what a grouch" publicity did lasting damage to Jones' future award hopes. He entered the season with quite vernal prospects: reviews that truly singled him out; a popular, major film; the sense that 19 years, an intervening nomination, and an additional well-received credit (Hope Springs) had him lined up nicely for a second win. Was he a victim of Lincoln's slow fade, or did he foul his own nest? In any case: he continues to get pretty good work for a guy his age, and I wouldn't bet against a return to the nominations list. But a win now might be more difficult to pull off.
Robert DeNiro...Unlike Jones, his return was a surprise, given the dreary bunch of performances and films with which he's been associated over the past two decades. One has the sense these days that funding Tribeca via big paydays is a greater focus than adding to his screen legacy. He has -- as he has for the past decade -- a lengthy list of slated/shot films. The question is whether there's another Silver Linings hidden in the batch, or if they're all of the Happy New Year/Hide and Seek ilk. Skepticism has me leaving toward the latter, but, as this year proved, late-career surprises are always possible.
Alan Arkin...A guy who goes 38 years between nominations, then only waits 6 for another, clearly isn't travelling a predictable path. If you look at Arkin's filmography, he's never gone long between jobs; he's always going to be appearing in something. The Oscar-qualifying variable is, how much does one project or another catch on? Obviously Little Miss Sunshine and, to an even greater degree, Argo, became critical/commercial causes celebres, and Arkin benefitted to the tune of two nominations and a win. Whether he shows up again at the Dolby is wholly dependent on another film achieving that level of success.
Christoph Waltz...Well, I don't think any of us saw this one coming. My take three years ago -- a 54-year old German who came from nowhere to sweep the category was unlikely to return quickly -- still seems eminently reasonable. And after seeing some of his follow-ups, like Water for Elephants, I thought he was for sure a one-hit wonder. But as an interpreter of Tarantino, at least, he's pretty impressive, and it's possible he'll be back. A third win, of course, would be off-the-charts doubtful.
Amy Adams...Amy Adams gained the least from her nomination this year -- primarily because she already stood so high on the must-win-someday list. This citation, for a movie many audiences hated (I've heard more than one actor use that very word, "hated"), amounted to a lateral move. Still, being in the same position as she was two years ago is something most performers would envy. She remains one of current filmdom's brightest, most versatile performers, and with Spike Jonze/David O. Russell projects, as well as a biopic of Janis Joplin, in the immediate offing, it's hard to see how she can be denied a statuette much longer.
Jacki Weaver...My labelling Weaver a one-off year before last would have to be classified one of my bad calls -- though her nomination this time around was, if pleasing, strictly filler as far as the competition. She does appear to be making the most of her late-in-life breakthrough, so maybe there'll be another citation somewhere along the way. But it's not anything to count on.
Sally Field...I'm kind of sorry to see Sally Field slip out of the perfect 2-for-2 best actress class she shared with Luise Rainer, Vivien Leigh and Hillary Swank; now she'll always be a LOSER as well as two-time champ. It's hard to see this as the beginning of any full-throated comeback for her-- she's up there in years, and she's not as talented as those contemporaries with whom she'll be competing for available roles. But I never saw this success coming, so maybe we'll be surprised again.
Helen Hunt...She waited even longer for post-win vindication than Marisa Tomei. The question: can she parley this mild comeback and become a force again? The fact that The Sessions never became any kind of commercial force works against her. But with the "she's not worthy" stench removed for the time being, she has a chance of hanging around.
Anne Hathaway...Okay, the unlikely has happened: I've started to feel sorry for Anne Hathaway. I still find her speeches lacking authenticity, but, you know, not everyone has Jennifer Lawrence's gift for spontaneity; it doesn't mean she's automatically a bad person. I also didn't want her to win for this -- partly from not being all that impressed, partly because of the fanboys' setting up the award for literally a year ahead of time. But...I liked her in Brokeback Mountain and loved her in Rachel Getting Married, so she was on my list of potential future award winners before Les Miz was ever in production. She has nothing of interest on her immediate schedule, and, one presumes, this win will probably take her off the hot list for future consideration. But I'm figuring she could have other nominations down the road.
David O. Russell...As Okri so kindly pointed out, my two-years-ago instincts on Russell were pretty solid. He brings an auteurist touch to mainstream films, and that ever was and ever will be Oscar's sweet spot. Presumably every project of his for the foreseeable future will be considered an Academy hopeful upfront, and, if he hits the right level of success in the right year, he'll be a winner. (For argument, I'd posit that if The Fighter had come along in the year of The Hurt Locker or The Artist, he'd already have that status)
Michael Haneke...Only Fellini and Bergman of the not-in-English crowd have received more than one directing nod. And even fans would acknowledge that Haneke's films tend toward audience-unfriendly, which is to say they're not Academy catnip. However...apart from Almodovar, it's hard to think of another overseas director more consistently turning out attention-getting/festival-dominating projects. So maybe he has more writing nominations in his future, and a second directing mention if he gets lucky.
Benh Zeitlin...I guess you'd have to pinpoint him as the surprise nominee who "stole" the Affleck/Bigelow spots (Haneke was always a strong contender for lone director) -- though in a lesser year, his profile (surprise indie hit, slightly exotic but not difficult) might have seemed a natural for the slot. It's of course impossible to guess what kind of career he has ahead -- maybe he'll turn out a series of successes; maybe he'll be a John Singleton, over-rewarded for his breakthrough effort and then forgotten. This recognition will at least give him freedom to make whatever second film he wants.
Steven Spielberg...Here's the thing: if, six months ago, you'd given me a glimpse into the future and told me Lincoln was a favourite for best picture, I'd have thought, Christ, how dull -- an Oscar-baity history lesson by a director already well-rewarded with prizes. In reality, Lincoln turned out a far more interesting, complex effort than its on-paper description -- but alot of the criticism tossed its way, which in the end cost it dearly, was of exactly the tenor I'd have imagined. The film was trashed for what it APPEARED to be, which is a shame. Not that anyone needs to feel sorry for Steven Spielberg, who's already in the most exclusive part of the Academy's directing wing -- by nominations and wins -- and has plenty of time to add to his totals. I can't imagine he doesn't have more film/directing nominations ahead of him, and at some point -- even if by accident -- he'll get that third win to move him into Wyler territory.
Ang Lee...As Okri noted in another thread, the best part of Lee's winning this year was the enthusiastic standing ovation he received -- far more vociferous than the one he got for his Brokeback Mountain win. This may have represented affection for his film (even 11 nominations didn't alert some to how well-liked Pi was), but I'm guessing it also arose from after-the-fact sympathy for Brokeback's best picture loss -- and, maybe, appreciation for someone who seems a true gentleman. Truth be told, Lee's work post-Brokeback has not matched the standard he'd set in the decade previous -- Lust Caution was intriguing but too long by an hour; Taking Woodstock a near complete miscalculation; and even Pi had its widely dismissed framing scenes. One presumes the stunning worldwide success of the film (do people realize it's at $600 million worldwide and counting?) will allow Lee to make just about anything he wants next. If he can recapture the classical elegance of his work in the late 90s/early 00s, he has a chance to add nominations to his resume -- though I'd say another win will be very hard to come by.
And, because they were expected to be there, let's also discuss...
Ben Affleck...Will two Oscars for the decently talented Affleck be deemed enough, or will the directing omission be flogged in coming years as something that must be directly offset? For me, Affleck's career trajectory is a bit disappointing. I think his first feature, Gone Baby Gone, remains his best, and the ways he's developed have sacrificed the best qualities of that film (the authentic local atmosphere and characters) in favour of action/thriller tropes, which any number of less talented folk are capable of matching. The catch: what doesn't thrill me seems to be just what the Academy's craving, so it may be he'll make more films that achieve Argo's level of Oscar success.
Kathryn Bigelow...The question I asked about her in 2009 was, what would she do with her breakthrough -- return to genre pieces, or flex her creative muscles in more ambitious ways? The initial answer, at least, is the latter. And now that Zero Dark Thirty has given her her first true commercial/critical hit, I'd have to assume she'll push further in that direction. And, if she doesn't hit another directors' logjam of a year, she might get further nominations.
Quentin Tarantino...A man thought to have peaked during the early Clinton administration suddenly has multiple best picture nods and a second screenplay win. Will this continue? He's apparently persuaded many of Hollywood's bankable actors that signing on with him is a good career move, so he'll be able to work for a long time. But predicting his Oscar trajectory is always going to be hit and miss.
Finally: the traditional bonus round, where we seek out the person who 1) got into the conversation for nomination this year but 2) fell short, yet 3) seems likely to turn up in some future year. Disqualified are those who've had nominations in earlier years, like John Hawkes, Marion Cotillard, Nicole Kidman. Jean-Louis Trintignant would qualify, but, sadly, I think this was his best lifetime shot; too bad it came in a year where best actor competition was so fierce (I think in a year like '06 or '07, he'd have made it easily). Ann Dowd is someone I see as possibility -- she got attention if not a citation this year, which I could see winning her more choice roles than she's had in the past. And I assume some would advocate for Dwight Henry -- though I'm dubious about an ideally-cast first-time actor repeating his achievement. I think the strongest candidate is Matthew McConnaughey, who failed to score despite several notable roles this year, but has a slew more coming up. He seems determined to make himself a taken-seriously actor; I don't think voters are going to be able to hold him off forever.
