Les Miserables

[Precious Doll]

Some Best Actor-y thoughts:


Bradley Cooper has the opposite problem. I found him completely delightful in Silver Linings, in a part that shows a good bit of dramatic/comedic range, and made me view him as almost a completely different type of actor than I had in the past. And his movie is undoubtedly a major Oscar player. But it's a lot easier for women to be rewarded the first time they make a serious movie -- not being thought of as an awards-type actor generally hurts the guys as much as it helps the girls.

.

BJ makes some very valid points and I really think, even without seeing his performance, that Bradley Cooper hasn't a hope in hell of gaining a nomination in such a competitive year. His major handicap is the baggage his carries from a string of awful films, with generally awful performances to match. Though he wasn't too bad in Limitless. In a weak year maybe but this year is far from that. Richard Gere has more of chance of nomination then Cooper and Gere's chances a tiny to none.

One could almost place Hugh Jackman in the same situation except that he has had a respectable stage career including a Tony under his belt and he hosted the Oscars a couple of years for a show which was generally well received (I can't comment personally as I didn't watch it). Les Mis looks like it make play to his limited strengths.

I don't think anyone in this category is a lock and the critics awards probably won't make much difference if there are spread across a number of actors. Just ask Paul Giamanti & Liam Neeson who won New York and LA respectively for Sideways and Kinsey and then failed to gain nominations. Giamanti 's omission was most baffling as the film was a critical and commercial success. Go figure that one.

It's important to remember that whilst Lincoln may resonate with American critics and audiences it's likely to be a very different situation outside of the U.S. and this could hinder Day Lewis.

There will no doubt be a couple of shock omissions in this category.

I would rate the contenders as such:

Locks - none

Very likely to receive a nomination but could miss out - John Hawkes, Daniel Day Lewis
Likely to be nominated would be still be considered a shock omission - Denzel Washington, Jaoquin Phoneix (Phoneix is very vulnerable. The Master has failed at the box office in the U.S. and is not doing any better overseas as it starts it's international roll out. He is really going to need critic citations and even then it could result in no nomination).
Fighting for the final spot or spots if any of the above miss out - Hugh Jackman, Jean-Louis Trintignant (this years Gary Oldman?)
Longshots - will be a surprise to me if they make the cut but anything is possible - Philip Seymour Hoffman, Anthony Hopkins, Richard Gere & Bradley Cooper.

[The Original BJ]

Some Best Actor-y thoughts:

I think Sabin is right that the race at the moment comes down to Daniel Day-Lewis...and whichever four other guys make the lineup. Which isn't to say I think Day-Lewis is unbeatable, but I do think no one else is 100% safe for a nom.

Sabin, I think you're really underselling Denzel Washington. I thought while watching Flight, of course he's in for sure. If there's a chance he doesn't make it, it's only because the year is full of men whose movies you could watch and think, of course he's in for sure. But Washington -- a huge star playing a baity alcoholic role in a hit drama -- doesn't seem like a candidate to quickly write off.

I've been having my worries about Joaquin Phoenix (who I actually prefer to everyone else I've seen so far, even Day-Lewis), simply based on the "difficult" nature of his film, though I remain hopeful his sensational work will pull through. But he does seem like the kind of candidate everyone assumes is safe, then gets squeezed out by performances in more soothing films. I do think he'll have an easier time than Fassbender/Shame (simply because The Master wasn't NC-17), but Okri's comparison between the two isn't wrong.

I pray to god Anthony Hopkins doesn't make it in. A totally one-note performance in a shallow, inconsequential movie. Given that Hitchcock seems a lot less likely an Oscar player than most of these movies, I truly hope lack of enthusiasm will keep him out of a competitive roster. But the on-paper combo of THAT actor in THIS role seems like the kind of thing the actors' branch has fallen for before, regardless of actual performance.

John Hawkes is solid in The Sessions, but it's really not all that dominant of a role. And Sabin is right, The Sessions hasn't really broken out box office-wise in the way I thought it would. I still think it's the kind of somewhat "edgy" but feel-good/aesthetically conservative movie that does appeal to voters, and the disabled role is always an effective hook. Plus, Hawkes seems like the kind of actor's actor who voters like to reward in the male acting categories.

Bradley Cooper has the opposite problem. I found him completely delightful in Silver Linings, in a part that shows a good bit of dramatic/comedic range, and made me view him as almost a completely different type of actor than I had in the past. And his movie is undoubtedly a major Oscar player. But it's a lot easier for women to be rewarded the first time they make a serious movie -- not being thought of as an awards-type actor generally hurts the guys as much as it helps the girls.

Obviously, I haven't seen Les Mis, but I will chime in on what rolo said about Hugh Jackman's good reputation. One of my best friends worked on Real Steel and said Jackman was an unbelievably kind person to everyone, and that he's held in very high esteem throughout the industry because he's so pleasant to work with. So...to the extent that those things matter, there's that.

I haven't seen Amour either, but it's looking more and more like Trintignant will need a miracle (or three) to break through this logjam.

Okri: I literally cannot believe that Aaron Tveit did not get a Tony nomination for his Next to Normal performance, when virtually his entire cast and crew were so recognized. That penultimate number -- when he's hugging his father -- is one of the most heartbreaking, goosebump-inducing moments in contemporary musical theater.

[Okri]

a) Aaron Tveit scoring an oscar nomination before a Tony nomination would be hilarious (lost out on both Next to Normal and Catch Me if You Can)

b) re Lincoln - I agree with Sonic. I doubt Jones is gonna win, but that's because at this point I doubt everyone winning. "And The Oscar goes to....(the envelope is empty)"

c) This year does seem obscenely competitive with possible sweeping competitors. What's the year with the most films hitting double digit nominations? I see 1964 had three (Becket, My Fair Lady, Mary Poppins) as did 1977 (Julia, The Turning Point - also ew, and Star Wars).

d) I think Joaquin Phoenix is in Fassbender/Shame territory. It'll be close the whole way through, imo.

[The Original BJ]

Photo Flash: First Look - Aaron Tveit as 'Enjolras' in LES MIS

http://movies.broadwayworld.com/article ... S-20121127

BJ mentioned he's a fan of Tveit; so, he might be particularly interested in these photos.

Aaron Tveit is the best! Whatever trouble some of these actors might have with this score (can Russell Crowe really pull off "Stars"?), I have no doubt that Tveit's "Do You Hear the People Sing?" is going to be killer, cause that guy can SING!

[Greg]

Photo Flash: First Look - Aaron Tveit as 'Enjolras' in LES MIS

http://movies.broadwayworld.com/article ... S-20121127

BJ mentioned he's a fan of Tveit; so, he might be particularly interested in these photos.

[rolotomasi99]

If voters have been waiting for their opportunity to reward Jackman, I hadn't noticed he was in anything that made them prick their ears up and say "This guy!"

Well, I am not sure why folks were supposedly eager to award Sandra Bullock, and yet that atrocity still happened.

As for Jackman, I started taking him seriously as an actor after seeing his work in THE PRESTIGE. I was subsequently utterly charmed by his hosting duties for the Tonys and the Oscars, as well as his numerous television interview appearances. He just comes off as a really sweet and genuine guy. He also did some acclaimed work on Broadway, including a very well received one-man show. I am sure only a small fraction of the Academy's actors branch saw him on stage, but it might be enough to put him over the top when voting time comes. We all know an actors personality plays a hand in whether someone is nominated. You still have to back it up with a good (or in Bullock's case, showy) performance, but it certainly helps if people like you. From the previews and behind-the-scenes material I have had a look at, it seems Jackman is giving this role the performance it deserves (unlike Crowe).

As for Phoenix, I thought his performance was very well done, but I also thought his off-putting character ruined the film. I do not understand why P.T. Anderson thought Freddie was more interesting than Lancaster. I would have loved the movie more if it had actually been about the titular character. Also, Phoenix may not be nominated simply because not enough folks saw the film. I cannot imagine word-of-mouth was very good. A challenging film can still do well with the Academy if it has very passionate supporters (like THE TREE OF LIFE), but I do not get the feeling THE MASTER (or Phoenix in general) has that level of passion behind it. At this point, I think Philip Seymour Hoffman has the best chance at a nomination for the film, followed by its screenplay and cinematography. If enough folks actually see the film, Phoenix and Amy Adams have a shot as well.

I would add Bradley Cooper as the seventh possibility to my list (thanks for reminding me about him). It is funny how his film was being considered a possible Best Picture winner a week ago, but no one seems to think he has much of a shot at a nomination. Similar to how Mark Whalberg was ignored despite all the love for THE FIGHTER, I think Cooper will be attending the Oscar ceremony simply to smile supportively when Jennifer Lawrence accepts her award.

[Greg]

Les Misérables May Be the Best Movie I Have Ever Seen:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-westo ... 88906.html

[Sabin]

Indeed bringing it all back to Les Miserables, I have Hugh Jackman on the periphery of a nomination. Les Miserables can go three ways, I think: 1) completely delivers across the board and Jackman is in, 2) it's liked but not loved, Jackman's odds as well as Hooper's for direction and Nicholson's for screenwriting are rougher, but it still has a shot as nominations leader, and 3) it's not great at all, it gets in because it makes a lot of money and enough people like it, and it fails to nab nominations for Jackman, directing or writing. Les Miserables is going to have to be incredible and Jackman incredible in it for him to be any kind of threat to Daniel Day-Lewis. If voters have been waiting for their opportunity to reward Jackman, I hadn't noticed he was in anything that made them prick their ears up and say "This guy!"

I haven't seen Flight or Hitchcock and likely won't. Washington's movie seems like the kind of thing that's nominated for a Golden Globe and then isn't followed-up with at the Screen Actor's Guild. Hopkins has gotten mixed notices but he could play well on DVD. I think he has to be considered. John Hawkes' movie hasn't been doing as well as I thought it would do. He probably has a good shot still. And Hugh Jackman...well, I just mentioned him. Regardless of his behavior, Joaquin Phoenix is in the club and his performance in The Master is universally hailed as unbelievably strong even by those who didn't like the film. My mother hated the movie and said that Phoenix gave one of the best performances she'd ever seen. The only thing Bradley Cooper has going against him is the fact that he's Bradley Cooper and hasn't been taken seriously prior to this past month.

Those are the six that will vie for the four spots trailing behind Daniel Day-Lewis. As I wrote the above paragraph, I felt like I was detailing the runners up.

[rolotomasi99]

How are Daniel Day-Lewis' chances diminishing? His closest competition would seem to be Joaquin Phoenix but if anything Phoenix's chances at his first Oscar are diminishing.

Really? At this point I do not even have Phoenix on my predix.

Right now I see the Actor noms looking like this:
Daniel Day-Lewis - Lincoln
Hugh Jackman - Les Miserables
Denzel Washington - Flight
John Hawkes - The Sessions
Anthony Hopkins - Hitchcock

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. If a P.T. Anderson fanboy like me (who considers THERE WILL BE BLOOD one of the greatest films ever made) found THE MASTER difficult to love, I doubt the average Academy member in the actor's branch is going to put Phoenix at the top of their ballot.

I think Day-Lewis' chances are most threatened by Jackman (getting back to the topic of this thread). I have said this before, but Jackman will win not just because the performance is great (from what is being reported), but because people really like him. He does Broadway, hosted the Oscars, does big blockbusters as well as prestige films, and is just generally known as a nice guy. Much like Sandra Bullock, I think folks have been waiting for their chance to recognize Jackman. It also helps to be the male lead of the (potential) Best Picture winner. That is certainly what allowed Russell Crowe to beat his far superior competition for GLADIATOR. Crowe ended up losing the next year despite again being the lead in the Best Picture winner, but that was partly because of his boorish behavior and mostly because Denzel Washington was considered "overdue". Jackman is not going up against anyone considered overdue and he is a gentleman. As long as the performance delivers as well as we expect, Jackman looks like the winner to me.

[Sonic Youth]

(Also, guaranteed something is going to be made of the fact that he will be the first actor to win an Oscar in a Spielberg movie.

Unless Tommy Lee Jones gets it first. Supporting Actor comes before Lead Actor in the Oscar broadcast.

[Sabin]

How are Daniel Day-Lewis' chances diminishing? His closest competition would seem to be Joaquin Phoenix but if anything Phoenix's chances at his first Oscar are diminishing.

As I see it, people win their second (or third) Oscars when nobody can think of a reason why they shouldn't. Sean Penn beats Mickey Rourke because 1) everybody loved his performance, and 2) Sean Penn is a good enough actor that nobody had a problem with him winning another Oscar. That seems to be the case. If anybody can be "due" for a third Oscar, Meryl Streep was because she is Our Greatest Living Actress (wouldn't know it from her roles and performances, but whatever). The only thing standing in Day-Lewis' way is that he won five years ago for There Will Be Blood. But considering how much backlash there was against his voice in the trailers for Lincoln, everybody loves his performance. Damn near through the roof. And he's got a solid rep going as Our Greatest Living Actor (that's the buzz, mind you) so is it entirely out of the question that Daniel Day-Lewis win three Oscars for Best Actor? I would argue that it's something of an inevitability. May as well be for playing Abraham Lincoln.

(Also, guaranteed something is going to be made of the fact that he will be the first actor to win an Oscar in a Spielberg movie. That will be a talking point plus rather than a "curse". If acting in a Spielberg movie is a curse, then it's one that nobody speaks of but us.)

[Sonic Youth]

Tommy Lee Jones may be a scene-stealer, but more importantly he's a stand-out. He's the only male supporting role - and probably the only role, period - with a complete character arc, and he exemplifies modern attitudes about race and equality that no one else in the film, including Lincoln does. He's the enlightened audience's surrogate character. Steven's was also the only one (other than Mary Todd Lincoln) I was compelled to do further research on and learn more about after I saw the movie. I'm only speaking for myself on that last point, but if other Oscar voters are like me then they also found Stevens to be the most intriguing character in the film. I'll be very happy if Tommy Lee Jones wins. His acting career has basically been reiterations of his Oscar-winning performance, but he's always deepening it and finding more nuances as he gets older.

I thought Arkin was a hoot in Argo, and easily the best thing in the film. Maybe it's slumming, but it felt far less lazy than his Oscar winning performance was. But a win for it is absurd.

Sticking to the actual topic..... I have nothing to say about Les Miserables.

[Big Magilla]

Of all the former winners and nominees mentioned for supporting actor thus far, I like Tommy Lee Jones' chances. His previous win was for a box-office hit at a time when he was getting extra mileage out of having been the then Vice President's roommate at Harvard. Always a good actor, he's only gotten better since. He has a very juicy role in Lincoln, one that might reasonably put him in the forefront of nominees if hadn't already won. With Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field already having two Oscars and their chances of winning a third becoming more and more unlikely, Jones could be the one representing the film as the only winner in the top six categories.

On the other hand, this could be another 1973/1992 switcheroo when Jack Lemmon won the award that Al Pacino should have won, only to see Pacino win the award he should have won 19 years later. Same could happen with Jones and DiCaprio, my pick for the 1993 win.

[Sabin]

RE: Rolotomasi99
It's not just that Leonardo DiCaprio has three Oscar nominations, but rather he could just as easily have six! He was nominated for What's Eating Gilbert Grape?, The Aviator, and Blood Diamond. He could have just as easily have been nominated for Titanic, Catch Me If You Can, and J. Edgar -- and he could have just as easily been nominated for The Departed instead of Blood Diamond and possibly both. DiCaprio is an incredibly limited actor who is on his way to a win and it will have to be for a change of pace role. Sight unseen, this could be it.

RE: The Original BJ
I haven't seen Flight so I can't attest to John Goodman. But your reasoning that a movie like Argo generally gets an acting nomination, and the veteran Oscar-winner in a comic relief part seems like the strongest bait is exactly why. He's also doing what people seem to love him do: play the foul-mouthed grandpa. Is it enough to win? Or rather, should it be enough to get him nominated? Nah. But it will be.

As for Tommy Lee Jones, okay. I suppose it's possible that he could win again. He has everything he needs to win in this film my own resistance to a few of his moments aside. Unlike OscarGuy there really is no reason why he can't win another Oscar. He's been in a solid string of hits and mega-hits with some flops in between since his win. What does this mean? He's been working very constantly. He has another nomination to his credit. Could have easily been more than one. And even though people find him difficult to work with at times, they respect the hell out of him. Does he extend outside of his range much? Not really, but neither do a lot of terrific supporting actors.

RE: dws1982
Was Weinstein truly "not at all happy about it?" Because the original running time for Inglourious Basterds was 2:48 and that got chopped by twenty minutes with nobody seeming to mind. I personally think that Inglourious Basterds feels somewhat cut to pieces. Whether or not I personally think Django Unchained is any good is no indication of how much business it's going to do.

RE: rudeboy
James Spader is for me the standout supporting performer in Lincoln but he doesn't have quite enough to do. He will doubtlessly end up making my ballot this year. He's unrecognizable and hilarious.

[rolotomasi99]

I am completely biased when it comes to Leonardo DiCaprio (that S.A.G. nomination for J EDGAR gave me hope until the bitter end), but I think his chances of winning for DJANGO UNCHAINED are pretty good. Supporting Actor has always been a friendly place for villains, and Tarantino's villains are often more interesting than his protagonists (there is no such thing as a "hero" in a Tarantino film). As many times as I have seen the trailer for that flick, I always get a kick out of DiCaprio's bits. Audiences also seem to respond well. I hope this fight between Harvey and Quentin over running time does not lead to less screentime for my beloved Leo.