Les Miserables

criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Les Miserables

Post by criddic3 »

Okri wrote:Phoenix was great, but I'd be startled if he actually routed the critics awards, and even more surprised if he was able to parlay that to a win. Tee's Crowe reference is salient, and even he was unable to win against a former winner in the best picture frontrunner and he had the biopic/true life trappings inside a best picture nominee. The Insider was a flop, but not because it was inaccessible. I just don't see the critics as truly edgy enough to rally behind Phoenix is anyway (I don't think his comments are much of an issue here.)
I think Russell Crowe had a better chance with his other biopic two years later, A Beautiful Mind, and the perception is he lost it due to his off-screen behavior just prior to the awards. This is actually a point that interests me, because his movie won Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actress and Screenplay. His nearest competition, Denzel Washington, had also already won an Oscar. While The Insider was a flop, A Beautiful Mind was not. But Washington's popularity was an asset to him at a time when Crowe's public image wasn't looking so great. If anything, the passing of a decade might help Crowe in the supporting category this year.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: Les Miserables

Post by Okri »

Phoenix was great, but I'd be startled if he actually routed the critics awards, and even more surprised if he was able to parlay that to a win. Tee's Crowe reference is salient, and even he was unable to win against a former winner in the best picture frontrunner and he had the biopic/true life trappings inside a best picture nominee. The Insider was a flop, but not because it was inaccessible. I just don't see the critics as truly edgy enough to rally behind Phoenix is anyway (I don't think his comments are much of an issue here.)

Day Lewis is a four time NYFCC winner, actually (My Beautiful Laundrette/Room with a View, My Left Foot, Gangs of New York, There Will Be Blood), but that just further proves Tee's point.

Conversely, I wouldn't be surprised to see Jackman win a critics award. For all the talk of populism, the critics awards have trended that way. George Clooney, Jamie Foxx, and Colin Firth are all critics winners in a more populist mold, imo.
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: Les Miserables

Post by criddic3 »

Mister Tee wrote:My impression is that Phoenix's performance has received the broadest critical acclaim this year, and he might pull off such a feat.
I hope this doesn't seem too obvious, but I think that it also might help him that he is a two-time past nominee. Academy members may simply want to nominate him for a well-reviewed performance, because they like him. Not sure if that translates into a win for a movie hardly anyone saw, but that also could be said of John Hawkes' chances. If Les Miserables is a big hit I can see Hugh Jackman winning over past nominees/winners like Washington, Day-Lewis, Hawkes, and Phoenix, if that's the line-up. I actually could see a scenario where Hawkes or Phoenix are replaced by Anthony Hopkins or long-shots Jack Black and Richard Gere. Gere, in particular, seems to peak too early whenever he's mentioned as a contender. Chicago and even The Hoax might have gotten him on the list, but the latter was too small and the former was released in a competitive year for lead actors. Black is up for the Independent Spirit Award, and if he gets a Globe nomination he could ride that to a nod, although it is an admittedly slim chance. However, I do think Hopkins could make it.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
MovieFan
Graduate
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:40 am

Re: Les Miserables

Post by MovieFan »

I just see the critics going crazy for Phoenix's performance, especially NY and LA. I feel its going to have the same impact as DDL did in 07 ironically in a PTA film.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Les Miserables

Post by Big Magilla »

MovieFan wrote:Are people underestimating Phoenix's chances because of those comments he made?
No, but that doesn't help in a crowded race when your film/performance is not universally loved. Critics generally liked The Master and Phoenix and Hoffman in particular, but there were loud dissenters as well. He's still got a strong shot at a nomination, but I don't see him winning.
MovieFan
Graduate
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:40 am

Re: Les Miserables

Post by MovieFan »

Are people underestimating Phoenix's chances because of those comments he made?
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Les Miserables

Post by Big Magilla »

They all laughed when I predicted Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock for wins early in the season a few years ago. Some did the same when I predicted Jessica Chastain last year. She didn't win the Oscar but she won her share of precursors. This year is much more exciting because there are no easy predictions.

I do think Les Miserables will be the ultimate Best Picture winner and Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty; Argo; Life of Pi and Silver Linings Playbook will be nominated for Best Picture. Beyond that I can fill in possibilities but no sure bets. Best Director should line up with five of the six films I mentioned with Hooper having the edge.

For Best Actor there are no locks, though Hugh Jackman, Daniel Day-Lewis and John Hawkes are near-locks. I don't see Day-Lewis winning a third Oscar so soon, if at all. You can't just make a film every few years and win all the awards for it. It just isn't done. The handful of actors who've won three or more Oscars - Walter Brennan, Katharine Hepburn, Ingrid Bergman, Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep - all had long, prolific careers who with the exception of Brennan, a favorite of the extras who voted for him no matter what, went years between wins. Jackman, propelled by his film, and Hawkes very reminiscent of Day-Lewis in My Left Foot are the ones to beat in my estimation with Denzel Washington, Joaquin Phoenix and Jean-Louis Trintignant battling it out for the other two slots.

Jennifer Lawrence and Jessica Chastain should keep the Best Actress race a close one to the finish line with everyone else still a question mark. Marion Cottilard would seem a likely nominee, but I still maintain that Emmanuelle Riva's chances are tied to Trintignant's. If he can't break through the competition with a nomination for Best Actor, I don't think her chances are as good as everyone seems to think. Quvenzhané Wallis seems likely but a six or eight year-old isn't going to win. She may even be knocked out of competition by either Helen Mirren, Naomi Watts or Keira Knightley. Mirren could easily replace Riva as well.

Supporting Actor is wide open with previous nominees and winners - Alan Arkin, Robert De Niro, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tommy Lee Jones and sight unseen, Leonardo DiCaprio most often cited. Then there are William H. Macy and Javier Bardem with only Dwight Henry, John Goodman and latterly Eddie Redmayne receiving any mention at all. DiCaprio, by virtue of never having won and Jones by virtue of being his film's most likely representative to reward would seem to be the ones to keep an eye on. DeNiro has made so many bad films since 1990 I don't see them giving him a third Oscar for his first well-received performance in all the time since.

Supporting actress seems to be moving toward Anne Hathaway with Amy Adams, Sally Field, Helen Hunt and Maggie Smith most often mentioned as likely nominees. Other possibilities include Samantha Barks, Jacki Weaver and Judi Dench, though none have much of a chance of winning.
MovieFan
Graduate
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 5:40 am

Re: Les Miserables

Post by MovieFan »

I can't see anyone than Phoenix winning to be honest, I just think its his year. The critics are absolutely going to go for this performance, its showy, emotional, plenty of acting going. No one from Day-Lewis, Denzel, Jackman or Hawkes have gotten the type of praise Phoenix has, and despite The Master being a flop I think the strength of the performance will see him through. I jus can't see Denzel and definatly not DDL winning a third so soon, especially DDL who won for Blood just a while ago.
mlrg
Associate
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Les Miserables

Post by mlrg »

dws1982 wrote:Let me just say: Even though my Oscar interest is less and less each year, I'm glad that we currently have a long, ongoing discussion about Best ACTOR. So many years Best Actress is the dominant discussion in an Oscar race, even when the lineup is lamer than lame. (Of course there's still plenty of time for Beset Actress to take over.)
I've been following the oscar race for the past 16 years and I think this year is getting more and more interesting than many of the past years. No locks for winning at this point and pretty much weel reviewd films across the board.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Les Miserables

Post by dws1982 »

Let me just say: Even though my Oscar interest is less and less each year, I'm glad that we currently have a long, ongoing discussion about Best ACTOR. So many years Best Actress is the dominant discussion in an Oscar race, even when the lineup is lamer than lame. (Of course there's still plenty of time for Beset Actress to take over.)
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Les Miserables

Post by The Original BJ »

Mister Tee wrote:Obviously the frickin' Broadcast Critics will do their best to take the fun out of this, but right now this looks like a potentially interesting, convoluted race, with no clear outcome.
How much do you want to bet that the Broadcast Critics have seven nominees in this category, to make sure they cover their predictive bases?
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Les Miserables

Post by Mister Tee »

I'm writing about this having seen zero of the performances (except available-on-demand Gere in Arbitrage), but my added thoughts on the best actor race:

I agree Phoenix has the problem of The Master being thought (and proven) audience-unfriendly. I don't think it quite matches up to Fassbender/Shame for the reason BJ cites: Shame had both the avant handicap and the "filthy movie" handicap; The Master only has the first, and if a performance is acclaimed enough -- like Blanchett's in I'm Not There -- it can manage the nomination despite that (though with no chance for the win). I think Phoenix is very dependent on the critics. Yes, if there's a split verdict among the three serious critics' groups, that'll be no help to Phoenix. But what if they unite behind him, the way they did for Russell Crowe in 1999 (when it looked like he might fail to cash in on his great reviews because his movie flopped)? My impression is that Phoenix's performance has received the broadest critical acclaim this year, and he might pull off such a feat. Obviously Sally Hawkins proved that that trifecta is not a golden pass to the Oscars, but it would certainly up Phoenix's chances.

Variation on the same theme; clearly Day-Lewis has been praised for Lincoln and will be among the nominees, but my recollection of the primary reviews is they were very strong for the film but not extraordinary for Day-Lewis in particular, the way they were for his Daniel Plainview. Put it this way: Day-Lewis has already been a three-time winner in NY, and I don't think this performance was so widely-singled out as to net him an automatic fourth. And I believe the same sense may keep him from winning a third Oscar so soon after his second.

Though it's hard to be excited upfront about a Zemeckis film, I think Denzel Washington's reviews for Flight were far and away the best he's received since Training Day, or maybe since Malcolm X, and I could see him contending for a major critics' prize. And maybe it's been long enough since Training Day that the academy would be more inclined to give him another Oscar than Day-Lewis.

Hugh Jackman is by all accounts a great guy, and there's every likelihood he could be aided by a very popular best picture contender. But I don't think he has nearly the performance strength the previous three I've mentioned have. A goodly number of the tweets I saw from the screening were fairly mid-range on him (better than Crowe, but not up to the praise Hathaway or even Eddie Redmayne got); it was only the real fanboy contingent that raved about him. Because of this, I don't see Jackman getting any boost from the serious critics; he'll be strictly a poulist choice. Obviously, Sandra Bullock thrived with that profile, but she had been a huge star -- one of Hollywood's few of her gender -- for about 15 years. Jackman has his credits, but I don't think enough to win an Oscar simply on personal points. If he were to win, it would be largely on negative centrifugal force -- a disinclination to over-reward guys with multiple Oscars already (Day-Lewis, Washington) or guys whose films didn't connect with audiences (Phoenix, Hawkes).

Obviously the frickin' Broadcast Critics will do their best to take the fun out of this, but right now this looks like a potentially interesting, convoluted race, with no clear outcome.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Les Miserables

Post by FilmFan720 »

I agree with a lot of what has been said here, but wanted to chime one thing in about Hugh Jackman and Bradley Cooper.

First, I think that a lot of you are underestimating the love (particularly in the acting community) for Hugh Jackman. While his movie roles may have left quite a bit to be desired through the years, his stage work has been hailed in many corners. I have heard several actors talk about having seen him in The Boy from Oz multiple times, and remember that the acting nominations are decided by actors themselves. He is held in much higher esteem in the theatre community (which shares many voting members of the Academy acting branch) than the film community (or even the general public) and at this point I would have to view him as a near-lock for a nomination.

Bradley Cooper is another person who does also have some more of a theatre background than his film work may signify. He was in the Julia Roberts Broadway production of "Three Days of Rain" and worked quite a bit in regional theatre before beginning his Hollywood career. He even had a very praised Williamstown production of "The Elephant Man" this summer. My guess is that in acting communities he is seen as a little more legitimate than we are giving him credit for. He is not in the Hugh Jackman realm, but I don't think this will be seen as much as a departure than Jonah Hill last year or someone like Jim Carrey in the late 1990s (although the question is which way will he go with Oscar voters...one of those was nominated, one of them wasn't.)
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: Les Miserables

Post by rolotomasi99 »

OscarGuy wrote:Two things I haven't seen mentioned: Joaquin Phoenix's diss of the Oscars and its selection process (along with his bizarre and frustrating behavior from a couple of years ago)
That is what I meant by...
rolotomasi99 wrote:Joaquin Phoenix is waiting in the wings to replace Hawkes or Hopkins, but given his past and (particularly) present behavior I doubt he has enough support to break into such a strong line up.
...but I guess I was being pretty oblique.
OscarGuy wrote:Neither Neeson nor Giamatti had Harvey behind them. I'm sure if they had, Neeson would have been a nominee (that's the kind of role Oscar voters DO go for), Giamatti I'm not so sure.
Liam Neeson not being nominated for KINSEY was unfortunate. Paul Giamatti not being nominated for SIDEWAYS was a travesty. Giamatti deserved to win for his brilliant performance. He made the audience care for a very unlikable character, and used his expressive eyes to great comedic results. I will never forget the audience roaring with laughter at Giamatti's terrified expression when he is trying to get the wallet back from the crazy couple. That should have been the clip they showed at the Oscar ceremony right before they called his name as the winner. However, as we all know, comedy never receives the respect it deserves with the Oscars.

Your point about Weinstein and Cooper is particularly salient OscarGuy since Harvey was able to secure a nomination for Johnny Depp's dreadful performance in FINDING NEVERLAND over Giamatti and Neeson. I think this goes back to my point about people voting for folks they like. Depp was riding a career high point after the huge success of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN in addition to just be a well liked actor, while Giamatti was still relatively unknown. I am not sure the Academy has warmed up to Cooper, but if anyone can make them love him it is Harvey Weinstein.

In fact, if Weinstein was involved with the campaign for LES MISERABLES, I would say this race is over. This is the type of movie he knows how to sell. SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK is still the type of feel good movies that Weinstein feeds the Academy voters, it is missing the period piece gilding his films usually have to make them appear classier than the average Hallmark hookum. I am surprised Hooper did not repeat his successful relationship with Harvey for his next film. Did they have a falling out over Harvey editing THE KING'S SPEECH for a PG-13 rating? Did the Weinstein company not have the money to finance LES MISERABLES, or did Universal already have the rights secured? I would have thought the Weinstein Company could have still come on a co-producers. In the end, Universal better have a crackerjack team put together to handle the film's Oscar campaign because they are going up against the dark prince of Oscar.
"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
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Les Miserables

Post by OscarGuy »

Two things I haven't seen mentioned: Joaquin Phoenix's diss of the Oscars and its selection process (along with his bizarre and frustrating behavior from a couple of years ago); and the fact that Cooper has Weinstein behind him. That may not have helped with Richard Gere, but Harvey's had 10 years to realize a different strategy for such an event. Neither Neeson nor Giamatti had Harvey behind them. I'm sure if they had, Neeson would have been a nominee (that's the kind of role Oscar voters DO go for), Giamatti I'm not so sure.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Post Reply

Return to “2012”