Loose Thoughts

Post Reply
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I don't think comparing Alice in Wonderland to Blind Side is a good analogy. Alice in Wonderland is your typical blockbuster. Matter of fact, it would have been bigger news had it bombed. Blind Side appealed to a demographic that Alice in Wonderland most certainly won't. Bored suburban housewives. There aren't a lot of blockbusters this year that would fit that criteria, so we may not get a Blind Side-comparable entry.

But, I would contend that Harry Potter has a better shot at a nomination than does Alice in Wonderland. Not only will Potter be competing in the same categories, it might actually compete in more (cinematography, despite the idiotic handheld crap) and original score, possibly even sound, sound effects and visual effects, though a case could be made for Alice in these categories.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

I agree that the ten nominees have made the race less fun, partly because a number of what would have been on-the-bubble candidates in a 5-wide field (Kids Are All Right, Inception, Toy Story 3) seem like the kind of films for which significant claques of people would have a strong rooting interest. I'd imagine certain crowds would be over the moon for inclusions or omissions of these films, an aspect which would definitely make the race more exciting. As it stands, it's hard for me to imagine too many people caring one way or the other about whether or not The Town or Hereafter nab those last-place spots in a field of ten.

Regarding those films, I actually think The Town has a fairly solid shot at making the list, simply because it was both a commercially successful drama AND because it was generally thought of as at least a decent film, if not A-grade. I'd put Hereafter's chances closer to Invictus's last year -- too lukewarm on all counts to make the list, even if the December films crash and burn.

Invictus's failure to make the cut last year has actually had me thinking about something that applies to ALL the films that made up the list last year: they all were enthusiastically received in some way. Those films that didn't ignite the box-office (A Serious Man, An Education) had strong critical enthusiasm. Conversely, a less well-reviewed effort (The Blind Side) had enormous grosses. What didn't land was something like Invictus, which seemed like it was solidly reviewed enough, and in the mainstream box-office wise, and Oscar-bait in subject, but just didn't really excite anybody enough to place. It's hard to take one year's worth of ten nominees and make conclusive statements, but it seems to me to be worth noting, particularly when it comes to bait-y films like Hereafter, and Secretariat -- they look like OKAY candidates, but aside from subject matter, don't really have too much going for them.

(I thought Secretariat made Seabiscuit look like Au Hasard Balthazar, so I may be dismissing its chances just out of distaste, but I really do think this one is too bland even for the Academy.)

Along those lines, I wonder if -- bear with me, here -- Alice in Wonderland isn't a stronger candidate for a Best Picture nomination than some have thought. No, I don't think it will happen. (And in fact, I PRAY it doesn't!) And certainly Star Trek's failure to place after big box office AND critical acclaim doesn't set any kind of precedent. But, Alice is, alarmingly, one of the highest-grossing films ever made, and it's certain to get a raft of technical nominations. It may well be that Toy Story and Inception will garner the blockbuster vote, and there won't be any more room for a more poorly received hit. But, if there's a "Blind Side candidate" this year...maybe this isn't as far out of the realm of possibility as we'd like to think. (This isn't so much a prediction -- again, I'd predict otherwise at the moment -- but maybe something to chew on for the time being.)
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

I'm having trouble with my revamped predictions which will be posted on CinemaSight shortly along with Oscar Guy's, Movie Wes' and Film Fan 720's.

The supporting categories are the ones I'm having the most trouble with. With the actresses, I'm seeing Adams, Leo, Bonham Carter and Wiest fairly clearly, but my crystal ball is a little hazy in predicting the fifth slot. I submitted Richardson's name, but Made in Dagenham is beginning to look more like Calendar Girls than Norma Re, so now I'm torn between Hershey and the still unseen by anyone, Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit.

With the actors, Bale and Rush are locks, Garfield and Ruffalo near locks, but I took Rockwell out of the fifth slot and put Ed Harris in. Now I'm thinking I should have left Rockwell there.

Oh, well, the precursors will start coming in in less than two weeks and we'll have a clearer picture then of what to expect.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Post by Reza »

Mister Tee wrote:This creates the delicious possibility of Rush having two Oscars, one lead and one support

Perish the thought !!

Otherwise a great sum up Mister Tee.




Edited By Reza on 1290319162
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

Great state of the state, Tee.

Depending on the performance, I may have to swap out The King's Speech as my bete noir this Oscar season if Amy Adams continues to gain traction.

As Nate R. points out at The Film Experience, if she gets into the mix and nets a third nomination, the combination of her age, her looks and her backlog of nods has her hitting the sweet spot for a win.




Edited By Eric on 1290310742
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

I'm not much inclined to churn out a prediction list at this point. There are plenty floating out there, all of which resemble one another to the point it makes my eyes glaze to try and locate the variations. Adding to that miasma doesn't strike me as fruitful activity. I do, however, have assorted thoughts about the race that's almost upon us, so I'll share -- in more conversational fashion -- some of the things occupying my mind.

The expansion to ten best film nominees has, in certain ways, made Oscar prognosticating less interesting. Because it's no longer a tight-fit game -- straining to figure just which films will be lucky to squeeze into that severely limited field of five -- many calls are easier to make. Were this year being played under the old system, we'd obviously be certain The Social Network and The King's Speech were on board, and maybe relatively convinced 127 Hours would be joining them (unless, as is possible, it collapses commercially as it goes wider). But after that we'd be dealing with a raft of second-tier questions: Would Inception's profile (non-superhero, non-franchise) mean Nolan could make the best picture cut this time despite its being a popcorn picture? Could Toy Story 3 break through as no Pixar film had to date (presuming Up, in a five-film contest, would not have)? Is The Kids Are All Right (or Rabbit Hole) the sort of actor-dominated effort that gets best film-nominated even while being left off for directing? Conversely, is Black Swan what it looks like -- a lone director non-pareil -- or might it arouse sufficient enthusiasm to make the final five? Are the so-so trade reviews or the enthusiastic blogger responses indicative of how well The Fighter will do? And will one of the late-breakers -- True Grit or How Do You Know? -- rewrite the race in the late frames?

We don't ask most of those questions now (except about the late arrivals), because, in all likelihood, every one of those already-released films will be on the expanded list -- certainly Inception, Kids are All Right and Toy Story have been sure nominees since premiering, despite the problems their candidacies faced in the old format. It's clear going to ten has cheapened the special status of "Best picture nominee", but I'd say it has the additional drawback of making predicting way too easy.

It also forces us to stretch beyond the bounds of what would ever have been considered best picture level. We all groaned when The Blind Side showed up last year, but now people go looking for something that might fill "The Blind Side slot" - and how can you tell them they're wrong? Respectable but clearly not top-drawer films that would have been well out of the conversation under the old regime -- things like Hereafter, Secretariat or The Town -- continue to be touted by some, and you can't dismiss them out of hand because, after all, something has to fill those 9th and 10th slots. Especially if the counted-on December releases turn out to disappoint like, let's not forget, most of last year's entries.

About those two big December unknowns: bloggers seem to have decided, sight-unseen, that the Brooks film is to be dismissed but the Coens have a sure-bet. This makes me feel just a bit old...since I remember when every James Brooks film was viewed as an Oscar hopeful until proven otherwise, and when the Coens couldn't get within a hundred yards of the Kodak Theatre. I recognize time has moved on. I realize Spanglish was pretty dire, and the Coens have -- improbably -- moved into the mainstream. But I'd still note that, while the filmmakers are tied with three best picture nominees/one win apiece, Brooks has a way higher batting average -- 60% of his films to date have been nominated (all three with Jack Nicholson, who's in this one) -- and Brooks has also seen far more of his actors nominated: 10 (12 if you count the roles he scripted for Starting Over) versus I believe 4. And, even in this seemingly pre-programmed era, there's still always the possibility of a last-minute surprise. So I'm looking at both with equal anticipation.

Slightly off-topic: is anyone else starting to get annoyed at how few of the supposedly award-worthy films have been put out there for viewing? In the past few weeks I've seen the few available -- The Town, Conviction, Social Network, 127 Hours -- but, today, I looked at the listings and found not a single film I expected to be up in a major category. The King's Speech finally arrives over Thanksgiving (at least here in NY), and then December will be, apparently, even more a deluge than usual. It's especially annoying because these must-wait-till-December releases have almost all been widely screened for critics and, more and more, bloggers, meaning the conversation/backlash/backlash to the backlash are all underway without us everyday fans being able to take part . And, I'll predict: around New Years, some of these bloggers will pronounce themselves utterly bored with the whole thing, so they'll advocate moving up the date of the ceremony to get it over with. This is really starting to drain the fun out of the whole process.

I assume, as usual, people are going to be mixed on the quality of this year's best picture contenders -- posters here are already seriously split on Social Network and Inception, Eric loathes the very idea of The King's Speech and I'm pretty much the same when it comes to The Way Back (the kind of best picture candidate I thought was safely part of the past). But I wonder if we might end up agreeing that this is some kind of major year for performances. With the apparent fizzle of Anne Hathaway's candidacy, the best actress slate shrinks from world-class to merely very solid, but, no doubt, to have Being/Moore/Lawrence already on the field, and with advance word on Portman/Kidman/Williams so strong, it's hard not to see it as a banner slate, where every nominee might have won the prize outright a year ago. Fringe candidates, like Watts or Hawkins or the unseen Witherspoon, might find themselves wishing their timing had been better.

And it doesn't appear lead actress wi'll be the only crowded category this year. When last we had a truly strong group of actresses -- the Mirren/Dench/Cruz/Streep class of 2006 -- the corresponding actor race was pretty much Forest Whitaker and four stragglers. This year, the actor slate is rich as well: so rich, in fact that -- with Franco and Firth heading the can't-miss group -- you have people variously arguing that Eisenberg or Gosling will be omitted, despite stellar reviews, because others (Duvall, Bardem, Wahlberg, the unseen Bridges) are going to take their slots. I'm thinking the critics might play a larger role than usual in establishing the nominees. Firth may well end up the runaway Oscar favourite, but it strikes me NY/LA/National critics would be more likely to go with someone slightly edgier, meaning Franco or Gosling. Gosling, recall, finished second in '06, and sometimes being a previous year runner-up can provide a boost in critics' voting. Critics' victories are not automatic paths to nominations, as one Ms. Hawkins would attest. But they can help resolve ambiguous competitions.

Supporting actor offers a similarly strong slate, with, at this point, no one doubting.Geoffrey Rush or Christian Bale, and most assuming Andrew Garfield and Mark Ruffalo will be along for the ride as well. Throw in Sam Rockwell, Aaron Eckhart (if he's deemed supporting), Justin Timberlake and Damon/True Grit or Rudd/How Do You Know, and the slate modestly overflows.

By the way, I understand Rush is a bit of a ringer in this category -- that his role is of equal size to Firth's. This creates the delicious possibility of Rush having two Oscars, one lead and one support, with the latter being easily the larger role.

Lesley Manville is maybe the most interesting element in all of this year's competition. Reaction to her performance has been close to unanimously positive; she's widely seen as worthy of, at minimum, a nomination. But it's far from unanimous in what category that performance belongs. The role is apparently borderline enough either placement would be justifiable. My view in that situation has always been, if supporting isn't clear fraud, it's probably preferable. Sony Classics is, for now, reportedly pushing her for lead. But, given the insane level of competition in that category, and general belief Manville could win supporting but would have no chance in lead, the company may change its view (refusing to would seem almost masochistic). It's very possible a few critics' prizes could pop up and change this...in either direction, but most likely downward.

Because of this, one needs to envision two sets of supporting actress nominees -- with Manville or without. A few weeks ago, people were talking about the category without her as the year's unhappily thin field. Helena Bonham Carter was widely seen as a lock, and Dianne Wiest also seemed likely to return to the scene of her double-triumph. But, beyond that, the candidates were divisive (Hershey or Kunis from Black Swan) or from minor films (Weaver in Animal kingdom, Miranda Richardson in Made in Dagenham). Suddenly, though, The Fighter emerges, and apparently brings us not one but two strong candidates in Melissa Leo and Amy Adams. This transforms the category into, without Manville, a solid one, and, with her, one in which top-drawer candidates will have to fight for slots. (And there will be a few of us, hoping, probably in vain, that someone pushes Olivia Williams into contention for her very fine but seemingly forgotten work in The Ghost Writer)

It's starting to seem tantalizingly possible the best director category could be dominated by the hip crowd that emerged in the mid/late 90s. Tom Hooper aside, the strongest candidates appear to be David Fincher and Danny Boyle, the '08 match-up reunited, this time paired with up-from indie guys Darren Aronofsky and David O. Russell. Obviously others could intrude on this fantasy line-up -- relative old-timers named Coen or Leigh. And what does one make of Christopher Nolan's place in this puzzle? A number of bloggers seem to feel he's a dead-certain directing nominee. It strikes me they're setting themselves up for a repeat of their Dark Knight letdown. Because Inception is, as I said earlier, neither part of a franchise nor comic book-derived, it's in a slightly better position than Dark Knight was, but it's still summer pop entertainment, not standard Oscar fodder. The rule change to ten will surely get it onto the best picture list, but best director might be just as out of reach as it was two years ago. So, get ready for more potential keening from the blogosphere, who seem, against all evidence, to believe that the Academy shares their adoration of Mr. Nolan, and will agonize if he's left out again.

And that's the main competition as I see it today. More, of course, to come as the season progresses.
Post Reply

Return to “83rd Predictions and Precursors”