The First Hopefuls List

[Cinemanolis]

Just saw the 'Revolutionary Road' trailer on ET. It looks very promising. Both Winlset and Di Caprio seem like very strong contenders for the awards season. The Nina Simone song that accompanies the trailer makes it look even better.

P.S.There is no way that Winslet goes supporting for this role.



Edited By Cinemanolis on 1221356562

[flipp525]

Just saw the trailer for 'Doubt'. It looks like simplistic grandstanding to me.

I think Doubt looks interesting actually, but they showed a bit too much in that trailer. "Grandstanding" and Oscar-whorification would be that shitty preview for Local Color or The Soloist.

Viola Davis should be on everyone's shortlist.



Edited By flipp525 on 1221359450

[MovieWes]

I think that maybe I should re-iterate my meaning. To say that the makers of "prestige" pictures make them only because they want to win awards is not what I meant (although, yes, I know that's what I typed); I was mostly referring to the studios and producers that greenlight these movies in the first place. While I understand that nobody wants to make a bad movie and I'm sure that any good director and/or producer goes into any project with only the best intentions, I sincerely doubt that the Weinsteins would have greenlit a film like Cold Mountain if they didn't think they could market it as a major awards contender, or that Focus and/or Joe Wright would've made movies like Atonement and Pride & Prejudice if they didn't think that there were awards to be won in the process. Yes, those films were all based on popular novels with very devoted fanbases, but it's not as if they have rabid fanbases on par with The Da Vinci Code or Harry Potter. And it's not as if costume dramas have stong box-office track records.

That being said, there is a reason why films are made to compete for awards, and it's not because studios and filmmakers like to stroke their egos (although there is plenty of that involved too). The main reason is because the Academy Awards can add countless millions of dollars to the studio's profit margins and raise a filmmaker's awareness level with the public (therefore raising both his/her demand and box-office potential). Why else would a studio spend tens of millions of dollars on an Oscar campaign? Mainstream filmgoers, for the most part, find these kinds of films pretentious and won't see them unless they get nominated for awards. Cold Mountain and Dreamgirls were both very successful films at the box-office, but it's totally possible that nobody would've gone to see them had they not been nominated for Academy Awards. Atonement probably added an additional $30 million to its box-office gross because of its Best Picture nomination. There Will Be Blood more than quadrupled its box-office earnings after the Oscar nominations.

Studios and producers also know that even if a film doesn't register at the box-office, it's very likely that it will do well on DVD if it wins or is nominated for enough awards. Think about it...have you ever seen a DVD cover for an Oscar nominee, particularly one that was nominated for Best Picture, that didn't display in big, bold print how many nominations it received and in which categories? It's true that even though these films are not so expensive that they could potentially bankrupt a studio, they're also not very cheap to make and studios obviously want to see a return on their investment.

Academy members know this and lately they've resisted nominating/awarding films that are made mainly for their appeal. Many of the films over the past few years that have registered strongly at the Oscars have either been crowd-pleasing epics, indie movies with broad appeal, or dramas that were somehow socially relevant without being pretentious (although I concede that the last statement is pretty debatable). No Country for Old Men, Juno, The Departed, Little Miss Sunshine, Sideways, and The Lord of the Rings trilogy pretty much all fit that mold, regardless of what feelings you may have towards them. Even Crash, which has become something of a pariah around these parts, was not originally intended as Oscar-bait; it only became an "Oscar Film" after a successful box-office run and surprisingly strong showing with the critics and guilds. Perhaps homophobia did have something to do with with its win, but I don't think that anyone can argue that by the time the Oscar ceremony rolled around, the very thoroughly-praised Brokeback Mountain was already beginning to show major signs of overexposure. Believe it or not, Crash was very much a crowd-pleaser. It might not have been our cup of tea, but to the public at large it was truly a success story. It was kind of like Rocky or Rain Man, but with a social message that common folk could absorb without feeling talked down to. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a completely bland, completely one-note film, but I understand how it might appeal to some people.

And I never said anything along the lines of: because "a film WASN'T trying to be anything special," it should be "seen as a selling point for it to win prizes." I think that it's fairly obvious that The Dark Knight was trying to do something new and original with the superhero genre, but it also wasn't a film that postured and grandstanded its way to success. Alternately, I'm not promoting the idea that crap like Transformers or National Treasure should be considered for Academy Awards because audiences found something in them to connect with. That would be ludicrous. I personally don't have a problem with the "Oscar Films" I cited above. I think that Dreamgirls, Pride & Prejudice, and There Will Be Blood are all excellent pieces of filmmaking and I'm glad that the latter film was nominated for Best Picture. All three were in my personal top 10 lists for their respective years. I think that if a truly great film does what its makers set out to do from the beginning and registers with Academy voters, more power to 'em. But the fact remains that there are far too many bad to mediocre films that were made simply to win Oscars, and it's refreshing when a great film that was made for the masses and not for Oscar voters makes it into the top 5. It's nice when a movie like Angela's Ashes fails on nearly every level while a film like The Sixth Sense makes it into the Best Picture race.



Edited By MovieWes on 1221355500

[Okri]

Put me in the "Adapted Screenplay is a bridge too far" category on Dark Knight. It's true the writers' branch isn't genre-snobby, but the films MoveWes cites were considered more special as writing specimens than Dark Knight is. I'd say Tell No One is more up this branch's alley, if you're talking thrillers.

I dunno - I'm not sure I'd consider Pan's Labyrinth, Shrek or Rataouille are "more special" as writing specimens go, considering the gravity with which critics seem to be treating Nolan's film. I don't think that gravity is entirely earned (though I will say I have no problem with the definitives, and I think the Prisoner's Dillema climax is quite effective), but I'd put it at least on par with those efforts.

Truthfully, of the picture/directing/screenplay divisions, I think director is probably easiest, followed by adapted screenplay, followed by picture.

[Sabin]

Just saw the trailer for 'Doubt'. It looks like simplistic grandstanding to me. Perhaps not Viola Davis, but certainly Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman who looks like a slimebag. No doubt in my mind what happened in the rectory, although I haven't read the play myself so I couldn't say.

I saw the trailer for 'The Soloist' and I think I want to run in the opposite direction.



Edited By Sabin on 1221343136

[dreaMaker]

A very good hopeful list by OscarGuy.. Let me tell something about The Reader.. Bruno Ganz has definitely no chance to get nominated, but dont count Ralph Fiennes out!
And i think it will most probably get nominated for Best Makeup. This is Kate Winslet's year. And its going to be for The Reader..

[Mister Tee]

And it'd be ludicrous if the fact that a film WASN'T trying to be anything special came to be seen as a selling point for it to win prizes.

Hasn't it already happened? The Departed? (Shakespearian overtones aside.)

I'd say it's a halfway case. The film's reputation for doing this mainly came from its passing up Toronto as a launching pad, on the premise that they'd have better commercial prospects if they were perceived as a big studio film rather than a Fall art film. It was the Oscar bloggers who took this (as they take everything) as some kind of new Scorsese Oscar strategy. I think Scorsese and Warners were more concerned about making the film a success, and maybe Scorsese didn't want to go through the circus Harvey had put him through twice in recent years. It's a pleasing irony that, thanks to a lack of sure-fire Oscar choices that year, he ended up winning -- like the couple that stops trying for a baby and ends up conceiving -- but I don't think the premise was the same as what MovieWes was advocating about Dark Knight.



Edited By Mister Tee on 1221332339

[Eric]

And it'd be ludicrous if the fact that a film WASN'T trying to be anything special came to be seen as a selling point for it to win prizes.

Hasn't it already happened? The Departed? (Shakespearian overtones aside.)



Edited By Eric on 1221331355

[Mister Tee]

Put me in the "Adapted Screenplay is a bridge too far" category on Dark Knight. It's true the writers' branch isn't genre-snobby, but the films MoveWes cites were considered more special as writing specimens than Dark Knight is. I'd say Tell No One is more up this branch's alley, if you're talking thrillers.

I'll agree with BJ and take it a step further. There are no doubt films that are too cloyingly in the Oscar wheelhouse; there always have been, and some have managed to get nominated. But I think we've come to the point now where Oscar-bait -- used pejoratively -- has become almost synonymous with adult human drama, in the same way "do-gooder" became a right-wing term of opprobrium. (Think about how perverse that usage is)

Look, back in the 80s, the studios began to concentrate more and more of their effort on mindless comedies and blow-'em-up-real-good spectacles. It seemed for a time that grown-up drama was going down for the count. The indies, led by Harvey Weinstein, found a way to help the genre survive, and they largely did it by selling the films for awards. This may have had a limited shelf-life as a strategy -- and may have only accelerated the majors' retreat from serious film. But it annoys the hell out of me that snide outlets like the now-essentially-defunct MovieLine coined the dismissive phrase "Oscar bait" for all these films that, you know, respresent the tradition of all world film-making until the past two or three American decades. And it'd be ludicrous if the fact that a film WASN'T trying to be anything special came to be seen as a selling point for it to win prizes.

[The Original BJ]

I think that one of the things that may work in favor of The Dark Knight as opposed to films like Cold Mountain and Dreamgirls (as well as other films such as Memoirs of a Geisha, Flags of Our Fathers, and almost Atonement) is that they were very obviously made for no reason other than the studio wanted to compete during the awards season.

I may not be the best person to make this argument -- I mostly like Atonement, Cold Mountain, and Dreamgirls -- but isn't it a little reductive to suggest these films were ONLY made to win awards? Perhaps they were marketed excessively as award-bait films, turning some voters off. But it seems clear to me that Wright and Minghella both have a fondness for literate period romances, and Condon enjoys musicals, and the studios involved obviously hoped to appeal to ticket-buyers who enjoy these genres. And if the filmmakers did think about awards while they were making the film, well, they're not stupid -- you or I making the same picture would think it's right up the Academy's alley.

[MovieWes]

Point taken. However, they stand as the biggest pinnacles (and yes, I meant Shrek 2) of box office power since Jurassic Park.

I guess my problem is I need to see how well it performs with critics and guilds. After all, some in the Academy may feel the shameless re-release of the film isn't necessary since it will be hard to forget it was out (unlike Braveheart, which might have been forgotten as mostly was Rob Roy, the infinitely better picture of the style that year). The Academy has shown a resistance in recent years to avoid studio baiting. Look at the collapse of Miramax and Weinstein Company. I think some in the Academy are tired of their ballots being cast before they cast them and have rebelled in certain situations to avoid a film in competition. The studios say "you must honor this" to which the Academy says "no we don't". Not perfect corollaries, but Dreamgirls and Cold Mountain are two such recent examples.

Those were smaller, "prestige" pics, but they were nevertheless heavily pushed by the studios and ended up suffering in the nominations because of it, even though they would have performed well within the Academy of the 1980s (a la Out of Africa)...at least Cold Mountain would.

I think that one of the things that may work in favor of The Dark Knight as opposed to films like Cold Mountain and Dreamgirls (as well as other films such as Memoirs of a Geisha, Flags of Our Fathers, and almost Atonement) is that they were very obviously made for no reason other than the studio wanted to compete during the awards season.

The Dark Knight, on the other hand, is anything but pretentious Oscar-bait. The re-release may appear on the surface to be shameless Oscar-whoring, but the film itself was made purely for entertainment purposes and has an undeniable uphill battle to get into the top 5. I think that Oscar voters, whether or not they feel compelled to place it at the top of their ballots, will basically be understanding of WB's motives and won't be too put off for the most part. It doesn't seem to say "you must honor this" as much as it seems to say "please give this a second look." The re-release might not help, but it certainly won't hurt it to the degree that you seem to think it will. I think it's very probable that Academy members who might be bothered by the re-release probably weren't going to vote for it anyway, so I think that there will likely be little to no blowback. Those who vote for it will vote for it solely on its merits and those who don't probably didn't think it was Oscar-worthy in the first place.

I also think that it is possible that the re-release could draw in quite a few potential supporters that didn't catch the film while it was in theaters the first time. Maybe they weren't interested the first time out, but the Oscar push will spark some curiosity to see if it's really as good as everyone says it is.



Edited By MovieWes on 1221282459

[Sabin]

I would certainly agree with you. Christopher Nolan writes in definitives that are a little off-putting but we can't forget the screenwriting is innately structure, and there are very few movies of 'The Dark Knight's stature that are so intrinsically structured. I would say 'The Dark Knight' is a very decent bet for Best Adapted Screenplay.

[FilmFan720]

I don't know, I think that the screenplay could be a tough category for it. It seems like most of the complaints people have, even those who really like the film, is that the dialogue is too heavy handed and the film is confusing. It could clean up pretty well, but screenplay (and director -- will that branch nominate someone who many agree made incomprehensible action sequences) seems an uphill battle.

[MovieWes]

'The Dark Knight' gets nominations for Picture, Director, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Film Editing, Sound Mixing, and Sound Editing.

Rather excessive don't you think?? I guess not!

I think that Supporting Actor, Cinematography, Editing, Sound Mixing, and Sound Editing are pretty safe bets. I also wouldn't rule out Adapted Screenplay because the writers don't seem to have much genre bias, as recent nominees have included Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth, Ratatouille, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, Shrek, and the Lord of the Rings films. I would also say that Makeup, Art Direction, and Original Score are in play too.

[Hustler]

The reviews for The Women are almost uniformly abysmal, so I doubt anyone will emerge from that film with a potential nomination.

Bad News!

I think it's good news. It might lead more to seek out the much better original film, which most reviewers are sagacious enough to point out.

Unfortunately, I haven´t seen the film yet. I´ll have to wait till October when it opens here. And, by the way, bad news were, according to my expectations towards the film.



Edited By Hustler on 1221246638