First 2009 predictions - It's time...

[Big Magilla]

I have Renner down in my predictions I posted yesterday. I, however, put him in the Supporting category. I haven't seen the film yet, and I know he is the lead, but it seems the kind of breakthrough nomination that has been pushed in the past few years to the Supporting category (i.e. Casey Affleck) in order to raise its likelihood.

Wrong analogy. Casey Affleck could be considered support because Brad Pitt could be considered lead.

Renner is the undisputed star of his film. He'll be a bigger name by Oscar time once he starts winning a few precursors.

No, I think it is a perfectly good analogy. In no way was Brad Pitt pushed or considered for lead. Affleck got the supporting push because they knew the chances of him getting in as an "unknown" was greater. Same with Haley Joel Osmont, Timothy Bottoms, Ethan Hawke, William H. Macy, and Thomas Haden Church. Yes, there were "bigger stars" with lead pushes (except Macy), but the major reason that they were pushed in supporting is because it is easier for an unknown to move into that category. The Hurt Locker could be argued to be an ensemble piece, and Renner one of the group.

In all those cases other stars, whether they were pushed for Oscars, given minimal obligatory mentions or ignored altogether, could be pointed to as "lead" whether fairly or unfairly.

The Renner situation is closer to someone like Stephen Rea in The Crying Game, if not Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia.

[Zahveed]

I don't think it matters too much considering my age group, but I hear more talk about (500) Days of Summer than I do The Hurt Locker.

[flipp525]

Same with Haley Joel Osmont, Timothy Bottoms,

I think you mean Timothy Hutton.

[Okri]

2. How much youth can one category sustain? I'm not sure if you mean youth (aka, young) or less established

...........................

6. I don't know about the Weinsteins anymore. I know, The Reader means that they're back. But given how they botched I'm Not There, Control, Boy A, Breaking and E ntering and Factory Girl in recent years, I'm not holding out hope for A Single Man beyond Colin Firth.

I meant both, actually. The idea that the best actress category could be dominated by women barely (if at all) out of their teens, of whom Ronan is the only one most have heard, strikes me as extremely unlikely. The tendency to nominate boilerplate performances by veterans -- Streep in Music of the Heart, Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- over better-reviewed younger perfomers -- Witherspoon in Election, Adams in Enchanted -- might turn up this again year. Which is why I'd be on the lookout for candidates like Bening.

Do you really think those Weinstein films you mentioned had any real shot at Oscar hope? I'm Not There had clearly the strongest profile, but an awful lot of people I know just found it baffling, so I'm not surprised it was limited to the one nod. And the others just didn't crack through with critics, which they needed to do to get support. Harvey doesn't revive the dead; he simply (to extend this metaphor to abusrdity) gets the sick to sit up, and helps the well run the marathon.

I wasn't suggesting A Single Man is now a sure film/director nominee. All I meant was, this is a film with a lead performance getting truly exceptional, perhaps critics-award-winning buzz, and the fact that Harvey's behind it means it won't simply slip through, the way, say, Langella in Starting Out in The Evening did, for basic lack of oxygen.

Well.... yeah, sorta.

Breaking and Entering is a great example. It did the one-week qualifying release than got dumped in February. I have to imagine there would've been a way to get that movie a nomination in say, original screenplay before Pan's Labyrinth or Letters from Iwo Jima.

Ditto I'm Not There the year Lars and the Real Girl got nominated (writer-directors tend to be very popular). Maybe I'm overestimating the public or something, but surely those films mentioned could have had releases befitting their profile.

[OscarGuy]

When was the last time a critically acclaimed film that only made about $12 M managed to linger into the new year? And I would argue that the political war film aspect works AGAINST it, not for it. The Academy and audiences have shown a reluctance to recognize these films, good or bad.

Now, I'm not saying critical acclaim won't help the film, but I wonder if it's going to be able to last another 6 months even with critical acclaim.

And my point regarding success is that you called 500 Days a disappointment at the box office yet Julie and Julia was stated to be a success by Tee. It was a semi-unrelated-to-Hurt-Locker thought, but one that was bugging me at the time I wrote it.

Anyway, it's too early to say what the critics are going to push at this point. They haven't seen a number of the year's more heavy contenders: The Lovely Bones and Invictus. So, for all we know Hurt Locker may be thoroughly ignored because of those late-year entries. Or it could be bolstered by any one of those failing. Septembers good to make beginning predictions. Some things look more likely than others, but let's not get all our eggs in one hen house.

[FilmFan720]

I have Renner down in my predictions I posted yesterday. I, however, put him in the Supporting category. I haven't seen the film yet, and I know he is the lead, but it seems the kind of breakthrough nomination that has been pushed in the past few years to the Supporting category (i.e. Casey Affleck) in order to raise its likelihood.

Wrong analogy. Casey Affleck could be considered support because Brad Pitt could be considered lead.

Renner is the undisputed star of his film. He'll be a bigger name by Oscar time once he starts winning a few precursors.

No, I think it is a perfectly good analogy. In no way was Brad Pitt pushed or considered for lead. Affleck got the supporting push because they knew the chances of him getting in as an "unknown" was greater. Same with Haley Joel Osmont, Timothy Bottoms, Ethan Hawke, William H. Macy, and Thomas Haden Church. Yes, there were "bigger stars" with lead pushes (except Macy), but the major reason that they were pushed in supporting is because it is easier for an unknown to move into that category. The Hurt Locker could be argued to be an ensemble piece, and Renner one of the group.

[Big Magilla]

I have Renner down in my predictions I posted yesterday. I, however, put him in the Supporting category. I haven't seen the film yet, and I know he is the lead, but it seems the kind of breakthrough nomination that has been pushed in the past few years to the Supporting category (i.e. Casey Affleck) in order to raise its likelihood.

Wrong analogy. Casey Affleck could be considered support because Brad Pitt could be considered lead.

Renner is the undisputed star of his film. He'll be a bigger name by Oscar time once he starts winning a few precursors.

[FilmFan720]

At this point, everything is purely academic. We have no idea what is going to happen yet in the next four months.

However, pure numbers are in no way meaningful of a hit or not. The Hurt Locker has the critics on its side, has probably the best reviews of the year so far, is a political war film that plays into the Academy's traditional tastes in many ways and proves to be a huge hit come DVD time. 500 Days of Summer may show to have earned more money, but it is not the type of film usually embraced by the Oscars (isn't that about what Garden State made...yeah, that surely lasted to the summer). Once is the closest we can come to in this category, and that wouldn't have been a blimp on Oscars radar without the song. Plus, come December, I bet everyone will be talking about The Hurt Locker a lot more than 500 Days of Summer.

When it comes to Julia and Julia, 85 million is pretty good for it's genre, and the only chance we are talking about is Meryl Streep. Best Pictures need a bigger push than Best Actresses.

[OscarGuy]

I find it interesting how an indie film with a $7.5 M budget making $30 M at the box office is a failure, yet a film with a $40 M budget making $85 M is a bona fide hit. And that an indie film making $12 M is somehow more prone to earning multiple Oscar nominations than a $30 M one...

(Referring here to, in order, 500 Days of Summer, Julie and Julia, and The Hurt Locker).

[FilmFan720]

Is there any reason why no one seems to think Jeremy Renner has a change in the Best Actor field? The Hurt Locker will likely start to build steam again once the Critics awards start.

I think Renner has a better chance than Gordon-Levitt.

Yeah, I think people are completely overestimating the possibilities of 500 Days of Summer. It has not been doing as well as a film of its size needs to, and Deschanel's reviews have been much better than Gordon-Levitt.

I have Renner down in my predictions I posted yesterday. I, however, put him in the Supporting category. I haven't seen the film yet, and I know he is the lead, but it seems the kind of breakthrough nomination that has been pushed in the past few years to the Supporting category (i.e. Casey Affleck) in order to raise its likelihood.

[jack]

Is there any reason why no one seems to think Jeremy Renner has a change in the Best Actor field? The Hurt Locker will likely start to build steam again once the Critics awards start.

I think Renner has a better chance than Gordon-Levitt.

[Mister Tee]

2. How much youth can one category sustain? I'm not sure if you mean youth (aka, young) or less established

...........................

6. I don't know about the Weinsteins anymore. I know, The Reader means that they're back. But given how they botched I'm Not There, Control, Boy A, Breaking and Entering and Factory Girl in recent years, I'm not holding out hope for A Single Man beyond Colin Firth.

I meant both, actually. The idea that the best actress category could be dominated by women barely (if at all) out of their teens, of whom Ronan is the only one most have heard, strikes me as extremely unlikely. The tendency to nominate boilerplate performances by veterans -- Streep in Music of the Heart, Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age -- over better-reviewed younger perfomers -- Witherspoon in Election, Adams in Enchanted -- might turn up this again year. Which is why I'd be on the lookout for candidates like Bening.

Do you really think those Weinstein films you mentioned had any real shot at Oscar hope? I'm Not There had clearly the strongest profile, but an awful lot of people I know just found it baffling, so I'm not surprised it was limited to the one nod. And the others just didn't crack through with critics, which they needed to do to get support. Harvey doesn't revive the dead; he simply (to extend this metaphor to abusrdity) gets the sick to sit up, and helps the well run the marathon.

I wasn't suggesting A Single Man is now a sure film/director nominee. All I meant was, this is a film with a lead performance getting truly exceptional, perhaps critics-award-winning buzz, and the fact that Harvey's behind it means it won't simply slip through, the way, say, Langella in Starting Out in The Evening did, for basic lack of oxygen.

[OscarGuy]

Ok. I think I finally have a list I like (at least better than the last one)

Picture:
The Lovely Bones
500 Days of Summer
Amelia
Avatar
Bright Star
The Hurt Locker
Invictus
Nine
The Road
Up

Director:
Peter Jackson
Clint Eastwood
Rob Marshall
Terrence Malick
Jason Reitman

Actor:
Morgan Freeman
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Robert De Niro
Mark Wahlberg
Daniel Day-Lewis

Actress:
Annette Bening
Hilary Swank
Helen Mirren
Saoirse Ronan
Vera Farmiga

Supporting Actor:
Matt Damon
Christoph Waltz
James McAvoy
Stanley Tucci
Jim Broadbent

Supporting Actress:
Catherine Keener
Rachel Weisz
Susan Sarandon
Marion Cotillard
Mo'Nique

Original Screenplay:
The Tree of Life
500 Days of Summer
Bright Star
A Serious Man
Up

Adapted Screenplay:
The Lovely Bones
Invictus
Nine
Up in the Air
Where the Wild Things Are

[Okri]

1. I liked the trailer for A Single Man

2. How much youth can one category sustain? I'm not sure if you mean youth (aka, young) or less established - 2007 had Ellen Page and Marion Cotillard. Of course, Cotillard was 32 her oscar season. But both Mulligan and Sidibe have just been highlighted by the New York Times. I can definitely see them both in the final line-up. That said, along with Cornish and Ronan, we have a younger slate of contenders than usual.

3. District 9? Really? That would surprise me.

4. I'll echo the "boooo Amelia" vibe. My goodness does that look like lame oscar baiting. At least Vanity Fair looked awake.

5. Big Magilla, I think you nailed the reason why Meryl Streep will be nominated. It's not like there's a heavy slate of contenders to replace her. And she's been nominated when there was said slate (1999).

6. I don't know about the Weinsteins anymore. I know, The Reader means that they're back. But given how they botched I'm Not There, Control, Boy A, Breaking and Entering and Factory Girl in recent years, I'm not holding out hope for A Single Man beyond Colin Firth.

[The Original BJ]

I don't recall saying she wouldn't be nominated for Prada, though I may have.

Not to be a brat or anything, but I do recall this. And I remember saying at the time that Streep was far too strong of a candidate -- film seen, reviews in, hit status established -- to be edged out by five other unseen contenders. (And I don't mean to single you out Magilla -- a lot of the Oscar bloggers at the time underestimated her significantly as well.)

Magilla, I do agree with you that Julie & Julia is not as much of a cultural phenom as Prada was, and I agree that it's unlikely she'll win this year. Streep is really on a roll these days, continuing to churn out critically acclaimed performances AND box office successes, and as there's little doubt she'll remain a major Oscar player in upcoming years, I have to think voters will wait to give her a third trophy until she does something really special again, rather than something as slight as Julie & Julia.