Mister Tee wrote:The Blind Side would have a single nomination for its long popular but till then unacknowledged female star. It'd be Unfaithful or Casino...or maybe Rachel Getting Married.
It's true. But you mentioned three moves which honestly - though I know that we can't be sure - I doubt would have been nominated for Best Picture even in this new, expanded version (yes, Rachel had its supporters, but you know what I mean). The fact that The Blind Side WAS nominated makes a difference unfortunately.
Add to this that those three movies definitely weren't as commercially successful as The Blind Side, and their stars, even Sharon Stone, never as popular and beloved as Sandra Bullock.
And Bullock's main rival for the prize isn't an actress whose movie has got more nominations.
I'm not saying that Bullock WILL win - actually I still think that Meryl Streep will make it, but knowing myself, I can't deny that I think so partly because I hope so. Not just for that reason of course - the fact that Streep's third Oscar seems due at this point in her life and in her career could be an major factor, so major that it really could change for once the usual, unwritten rule of so many recent Best Actress verdicts.
Also - I know that what I'm saying now is less important, but still - Best Actor will almost certainly be a man in, I think, his 60s; with the Best Supporting trophies going to people who aren't and will never be stars, I don't know, I hope I'm wrong, but I can see some voting for Bullock just for the show's sake (the Bill Condon factor).
Something that occurred to me last night: there's a psychological effect on the ten movies being designated best picture nominees -- or, rather, on the five that wouldn't have been nominated without the rule change.
Consider these five (we all know which ones they are), and what they'd look like without that now more easily-earned best film designation:
A Serious Man would have one nomination, for original screenplay. It'd be In Bruges -- or, if you want a more exact analogy, with a two-time former writing winner, it'd be Match Point.
The Blind Side would have a single nomination for its long popular but till then unacknowledged female star. It'd be Unfaithful or Casino...or maybe Rachel Getting Married.
Up wouldn't be Wall E. It wouldn't even quite be Ratatouille. It'd in fact match the unremarkable Finding Nemo in nomination profile.
An Education doesn't have a perfect analogue I could find -- Breakout Stage Actress with Adapted Screenplay -- but change adapted to original and you've got You Can Count on Me.
District 9 got a widely expected nod (visual effects), plus respect-worthy mention by the writers and editors. Swap visual effects for cinematography, and you're looking at Children of Men. (Though we were delighted Children did so well, whereas District 9's haul, post-Guilds, would have been seen as disappointing)
The point: these past precedents were minor items on the Oscar board, noticed mostly by obsessives like us. But now, even for some here, they have become -- via a mere accounting move -- important elements in the race: Up overcomes the animation barrier! Bullock is the best actress front-runner! District 9 a breakthrough for popular sci-fi! All, even if we view them as chanceless as to winning the big prize, are seen in a different light.
Not judging this as good or bad. I just think people are undervaluing the degree to which this changes our perception of the Oscar field.
Hi Guys! I´m back. After all these news it feels like returning 1000 years later.
I´m very happy having seen Campanella´s film getting nominated.
Here in Argentina it was the biggest commercial success in about 10 years. 2.500.000 viewers watched it. The movie was in the first place leading the ranking of box office during 24 weeks.
I´ll keep my fingers crossed.
Not sure where to put this amusing aside, but Sandra Bullock is apparently a huge Meryl Streep fan, and joked with a friend of mine that she thinks the Academy should create an annual category called Outstanding Performance by Meryl Streep which would go, every year, to, you guessed it, Mary Louise herself. This year she thinks there would be tough competition.
The writers' branch should have nominated (500) Days of Summer without question, but I can't say it deserved the nod over The Messenger, which I haven't seen.
I blame Fox Searchlight for the film's failure to be nominated for anything. Granted, one shouldn't have to campaign for Oscars, but the fact is if you don't you'll be ignored.
The independent distributor, which is a subsidiary of 20th Century-Fox, determined early on it didn't have the budget to spend a lot on Oscar campaigns. They put all their eggs in Amelia's basket. When that film tanked, both critically and commercially, they rushed Crazy Heart into quick release and concentrated on promoting that. Obviously the strategy worked, but it left two better films, (500) Days of Summer and Adam lurking.
Adam, like (500) Days of Summer, was also about an ill-fated romance, for which Hugh Dancy received a Satellite nomination but nothing of note thereafter. Dancy was probably never going to make the final five anyway, but they should have tried to do something for Dancy's affecting portrayal of a mathematical genius suffering from Asperger's Syndrome.
Mister Tee wrote:Personal note: I've been so morose lately I couldn't be bothered to post my predictions list, and, in fact, couldn't quite remember what I'd put down on my private list (except I did recall going for Maggie Gyllenhaal). So, imagine my surprise last night when I got home and checked, and found that I'd nailed the full 10 of the best picture nominees. It was a near thing -- I'd wavered on both Blind Side and Serious Man, and gave myself four alternates -- but somehow I did luck into the exacta. Sure wish I'd posted it here for the bragging rights.
I was too lazy to go back and check, but I do remember someone suggesting Maggie Gyllenhaal had a chance at a nomination. If it was you, then you deserve to brag about it.
I certainly feel like bragging about prediciting THE MESSENGER being nominated while everyone else was going for 500 DAYS OF SUMMER.
I know some feel upset about that snub (not having seen 500 DAYS OF SUMMER, I have no opinion either way), but I wanted to defend the subtle beauty of the screenplay for THE MESSENGER. Much like FROZEN RIVER last year, THE MESSENGER is a screenplay that excels at a well crafted story and fully realized characters.
I love clever dialogue as much as the next person, but sometimes screenwriting is more than just how smart and funny the characters sound when talking. Sometimes it is about revealing them as "real" people.
For those who have seen it, I would remind you of the amazing scene between Harrelson and Foster's character where Foster tells Harrelson about what happened to him in combat. As amazing as both of their performances were, it was the realistic-yet-compelling way he told his story that really made that scene work.
I just wanted to come to the defense of a screenplay which some seemed to be hating for taking the place of their beloved romantic comedy (which, again, I have no opinion on since I have not seen it).
I predicted Maggie Gyllenhaal, just on a hunch. Not bragging, though -- my other hunches (Anthony Mackie, Broken Embraces for Original Screenplay) didn't pay off.
I like The Messenger and I would certainly vote for it among these 5 nominees (even if it does fall apart a bit in the third act, when the characters act somewhat untrue to themselves). But it's no (500) Days Of Summer.
I'd also vote for Woody Harrelson.
Edited By Damien on 1265228854
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Mister Tee wrote:Personal note: I've been so morose lately I couldn't be bothered to post my predictions list, and, in fact, couldn't quite remember what I'd put down on my private list (except I did recall going for Maggie Gyllenhaal). So, imagine my surprise last night when I got home and checked, and found that I'd nailed the full 10 of the best picture nominees. It was a near thing -- I'd wavered on both Blind Side and Serious Man, and gave myself four alternates -- but somehow I did luck into the exacta. Sure wish I'd posted it here for the bragging rights.
I was too lazy to go back and check, but I do remember someone suggesting Maggie Gyllenhaal had a chance at a nomination. If it was you, then you deserve to brag about it.
I certainly feel like bragging about prediciting THE MESSENGER being nominated while everyone else was going for 500 DAYS OF SUMMER.
I know some feel upset about that snub (not having seen 500 DAYS OF SUMMER, I have no opinion either way), but I wanted to defend the subtle beauty of the screenplay for THE MESSENGER. Much like FROZEN RIVER last year, THE MESSENGER is a screenplay that excels at a well crafted story and fully realized characters.
I love clever dialogue as much as the next person, but sometimes screenwriting is more than just how smart and funny the characters sound when talking. Sometimes it is about revealing them as "real" people.
For those who have seen it, I would remind you of the amazing scene between Harrelson and Foster's character where Foster tells Harrelson about what happened to him in combat. As amazing as both of their performances were, it was the realistic-yet-compelling way he told his story that really made that scene work.
I just wanted to come to the defense of a screenplay which some seemed to be hating for taking the place of their beloved romantic comedy (which, again, I have no opinion on since I have not seen it).
Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1265225629
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
I had the pleasure of watching The Blind Side this morning, and let me say that not in recent memory have I been subjected to a more saccharin, sanctimonious peice of shit. I mean the entire movie was phoney, preachy, terrible... You would think these characters had never seen a black man before.
Sandra Bullock's performance was good for a Sandra Bullock performance. The performance shouldn't win the Oscar, even though I know it will. I actually don't mind Bullock winning. I think it'll be a Julia Roberts type win - give her the Oscar, and we'll never have to contemplate another nomination for her again.
BJ, I agree the early-evening awards won't tell us everything, for the simplest of reasons: they'll be voted upon under a different system (simple plurality) than the best picture prize (which'll use the complicated tier method). Even in a year that turned out normal -- say, 2007 with No Country for Old Men-- it might have changed the outcome. In a year where no film perfectly fits the best picture profile, the potential for an upset is great.
I'll raise you one on your Mulligan/An Education example of why the best picture nod isn't necessarily decisive for best actress: A Serious Man is also nominated for best picture plus another prize. For all we know, it did better in its categories than The Blind Side. Yet we all (rightly) toss off its presence in best picture as a minority result -- yet are ready to declare Bullock a runaway winner based her film's inclusion.
The whole Bullock thing is bizarre. She of course made no waves in any critics' voting, except for the group whose sole purpose is to anticipate Oscars (which could now be a self-fulfilling prophecy). She wouldn't even be in the conversation had this been a good year for actresses; it was solely the severely limited field and her film's high gross that got her this nomination. Her credentials for winning amount to winning a Golden Globe (in a different category from Streep, from a group that has historically favored big star names far more than AMPAS -- see Sharon Stone, Madonna), and winning the SAG Award -- an award Streep won only a year ago, a fact widely mentioned ahead of the presentations but completely overlooked the day after.
I'm certainly not saying Bullock can't win. Any organization that thinks Ron Howard deserves a directing award is obviously not to be over-estimated. But Streep's profile for the award this year is far stronger than she's being given credit for at this point, and Bullock's film/performance a far weaker achievement than you'd think, to hear all the hype (A.O. Scott last night compared her to Roberts in Brockovich, which -- considering Robert's LA Critics' prize that year -- is an insult to both her and Soderbergh's film).
Personal note: I've been so morose lately I couldn't be bothered to post my predictions list, and, in fact, couldn't quite remember what I'd put down on my private list (except I did recall going for Maggie Gyllenhaal). So, imagine my surprise last night when I got home and checked, and found that I'd nailed the full 10 of the best picture nominees. It was a near thing -- I'd wavered on both Blind Side and Serious Man, and gave myself four alternates -- but somehow I did luck into the exacta. Sure wish I'd posted it here for the bragging rights.
Based on instantaneous post-nom predictions, here and elsewhere, the tide definitely seems to have turned toward The Hurt Locker as the Best Picture favorite. But I think that race will be a nail-biter until the final envelope. First, because we really don't know what effect the 10-wide, preferential balloting system will have on the race, there's the possibility a real shock could occur, giving a win to a film other than the top two. But I don't even think the scales in the Avatar/Hurt Locker race will necessarily be tipped until very late on Oscar night. I could see an outcome where Hurt Locker wins Director and Screenplay but still loses Best Picture to Avatar (sort of in the tradition of the Gladiator/Traffic and Chicago/Pianist splits). But I could also see Hurt Locker prevailing in Picture and Director while still losing Screenplay to Inglourious Basterds, as a consolation prize for Tarantino's popular film over the not-so-screenplay-centric Hurt Locker. In fact, the biggest bellwether seems to be, as in many years, Editing, since Avatar and Hurt Locker both seem to be really strong candidates for that prize. Still, for every close Best Picture race tipped off by Editing -- The Departed over Babel -- there are those that aren't -- Traffic over Gladiator, The Aviator over Million Dollar Baby. And given that the precursors are mostly done, it won't be easy to tell how the winds are changing over the next month (though a WGA Hurt Locker win would certainly be a boost.)
As for Best Actress, a lot of people seem to have ceded the race to Sandra Bullock, and it does look like that outcome is far more likely than I'd ever have imagined a couple weeks ago. The Blind Side's Best Picture nomination helps (though, to be fair, An Education has both a Best Picture nod AND a Screenplay nod and no one seems to be arguing that that'll do Carey Mulligan any favors). But I also think a lot of people are underestimating Meryl -- she's far more due for trophy #3 than Sandy ever was for trophy #1, and Julie & Julia, while no runaway Blind Side-hit, wasn't exactly a box office flop. In other words, I think she's still very much in the running. Still, recent Best Actress history very much suggests that veterans gunning for repeat Oscars (Burstyn, Spacek, Keaton, Christie) tend to lose to hot babes deglamming (Roberts, Berry, Theron, Cotillard), which would obviously favor Bullock. Still, I think The Blind Side is way below even Monster/La Vie en Rose level, which still makes me feel Bullock isn't the runaway the press seems to have annointed her.
I am so pissed off about the (500) Days of Summer screenplay snub. That script had everything they usually go far -- indy quirk, time jumping chronology, great dialogue. If that isn't the definition of an original script, I don't know what is. Nothing against The Messenger, it's a solid piece of writing, but (500) Days really should have been there.
Down-ballot, the 4/5 matchup in Sound Mixing and Sound Editing continues for the fourth year in a row, only I, too, am surprised that District 9 was left out of both categories. One wonders if we'll ever get a year when these categories are wildly split.
I guess A Single Man is just one of those movies that I responded to that many others didn't -- including a lot of critics, who have praised Firth but have been more mixed overall. Given the other categories I could have fit it into -- Supporting Actress, the crowded Adapted Screenplay category, Cinematography, and above all, Score -- it's a little disappointing to me it only wound up with the bare-minimum Firth.
I guess that's all for now, though obviously, once we get the Categories One-by-One started, there will be much, much more...
