The 24th Annual Who'll Be Back?

[dws1982]

Martin McDonagh already has the one Oscar so he is good on that front.

1) Do most people even realize McDonagh has that minor Oscar? and 2) Do you really think HE views that as recognition enough? I doubt Riz Ahmed feels himself taken care of in Oscar terms, and he got to appear both in his short and onstage to accept his Oscar. I think, if McDonagh finally wins (in screenplay, most likely), the press will have to remind people he already had a prize on his shelf.

I don't think anyone outside of our types remember he won the Oscar. My only point was that he will at least go to his grave an Oscar winner. And I do think McDonagh would like recognition for one of his features, but like I said, from what I've seen overdue narratives are harder to come by for screenwriters (that word has never really come up with Tony Kushner, another playwright who has been getting nominations roughly as long as McDonagh), and what makes a winning screenplay tends to be much less concrete, in terms of narrative, than what makes a winning performer, or even a winning director. He would've had my vote for In Bruges for sure, and possibly this year as well.

[Mister Tee]

To With Spielberg post Saving Private Ryan, I think he's had a chance at winning twice, for Lincoln and this year, but in 2012, Argo and Affleck were the higher priority and when Affleck was not nominated, I honestly think he was probably still in that race and it was probably a decently close result but Life of Pi was more popular with the Academy (something I continue to find inexplicable) and it was more obviously "directed".

The 2012 best director race was interesting/singular. Because of the Affleck mishegas, the directing prize was seen by many as truly separate from best picture. This was, recall, when we still viewed the two categories as joined at the hip; we had no idea we were inaugurating a 6-splits-in-8-years stretch, establishing the concept of them as separate for the first time in half a century. (Though we've now had film/director matches in 3 of 4 years, so maybe that trend is ready to revert back.)

Anyway, I think the problem for Spielberg was, as you note, Lincoln didn't strike as a film to be cited primarily for its directing. Lincoln wasn't my favorite of the nominated films -- Zero Dark Thirty was that -- but I viewed it as better than Life of Pi, and definitely better than Argo. But even I thought it was miscast as lone director candidate. Ang Lee, whose film was visual in a way none of his previous films approached, had more the feel of someone who fit that criteria (and set the standard for such succeeding films as Gravity and The Revenant). Plus Lee had been so screwed by the Oscars so many times over the years -- even his win for Brokeback Mountain had been soiled by the best picture loss -- that it seemed a perfect time to make amends to him.

Martin McDonagh already has the one Oscar so he is good on that front.

1) Do most people even realize McDonagh has that minor Oscar? and 2) Do you really think HE views that as recognition enough? I doubt Riz Ahmed feels himself taken care of in Oscar terms, and he got to appear both in his short and onstage to accept his Oscar. I think, if McDonagh finally wins (in screenplay, most likely), the press will have to remind people he already had a prize on his shelf.

[flipp525]

The Jackman casting is absurd. He’s entirely too old for the role and is starting to look it.

Glenn Close is of course twenty years too old for her part as well but somehow I could see still her pulling it off. The Sunset Blvd movie musical is one of those things we will always just talk about but will probably never happen (see also: a musical film version of Follies).

[Big Magilla]

The Holden character was a young, struggling writer prostituting himself with a middle-aged has-been. Wouldn't work with geriatric actors. Jackman with a young actor or actress as the struggling writer who prostitutes themselves to Jackman would. Close as the elderly mentor could be portrayed as someone with dementia who thinks she had the career Jackman had, so that she can still sing "As If We Never Said Goodbye" to "her" people in the dark.

So, are you saying only a young person can prostitute himself?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying no one would be interested in seeing Jackman doing it with Close.

[Big Magilla]

The Holden character was a young, struggling writer prostituting himself with a middle-aged has-been. Wouldn't work with geriatric actors. Jackman with a young actor or actress as the struggling writer who prostitutes themselves to Jackman would. Close as the elderly mentor could be portrayed as someone with dementia who thinks she had the career Jackman had, so that she can still sing "As If We Never Said Goodbye" to "her" people in the dark.

So are you saying only a young person can prostitute himself?

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying no one would be interested in seeing Jackman doing it with Close.

[Mister Tee]

I've been too occupied to respond to responses, but, since we're having a board interruption later this week, I thought I'd try to get to some of your thoughts now:

I've spoken before about Michelle Williams and the thing that I see is that any Oscar momentum she starts to generate gets quickly curtailed about other narratives so she ends every race as an afterthought.
...
I think it's more likely she ends up with a nomination or two, but doesn't win.

My optimism for Williams winning at some point is based almost entirely on Fosse/Verdon -- she proved she could hit it out of the park (as opposed to, to extend the metaphor, the solid doubles she mostly delivers) -- and win against a strong field on basis of performance alone.

It's not impossible for someone in that position to accumulate enough good will to actually win - I sorta assume that's what happened with Geraldine Page

Page didn't get much 1962 mention in Inside Oscar, with its Davis/Crawford focus, but she did win the Globe that year -- the only precursor of note, given the newspaper-strike-driven absence of NY Critics prizes -- and, as a third-time nominee, was likely in the running (someone in her film even won that same night). I grant that most of her nominations post-that/pre-Bountiful were of the extreme throw-in variety, but she got enough juice from the two Williams adaptations that I think she was always an itch voters would be happy to scratch in the right circumstance.

Worth noting: the 1980s offered that circumstance for a number of performers whose time in the Oscar sun had seemed to have passed. We'd spent the 70s watching talent of-the-era pick up prizes: J. Fonda, Hackman, Burstyn, Nicholson, Dunaway, Voight, Hoffman. The 80s were such a dreary decade that there hardly were any such people -- Hurt, Douglas and Foster maybe the closest. This enabled victories by people who'd probably abandoned all Oscar hope: H. Fonda, MacLaine, Newman, Page. Fonda's 41 year gap was the long-wait champ, but Page's was a pretty lengthy 33 years its own self.

But the thing you mentioned about adapted screenplay - how the shift in what Hollywood makes has profoundly affected the category - is also true here.
...
now, it seems like you make massive box office popcorn hits for Marvel or whatever and then maybe, maybe you get that one shot at a best picture/director.
...
But this is happening with the AMPAS inviting more international filmmakers, so you also get this concurrent increase of non-English language writer/directors getting in, so the AMPAS sweet spot gets harder and harder to hit for those types of directors.

This is what concerns me about the current trajectory of the Oscars. It feels like they swing between out-there/critics' picks and dreary crowd-pleasing picks, with no room for the quality mainstream film that used to be their hallmark. For the moment, I'm choosing to believe it's a phenomenon exaggerated by the pandemic. But I'm worried, as the saying goes, that the center cannot hold, that this is a permanent new state of affairs. (Weirdly, because of the expanded line-up, I find I'm generally happy with the nominees -- my favorites seem to make it in more consistently than before. But this is offset by the winners pleasing me less and less.)

in my mind, three wins seems to be a huge number for directors. Only three men have done it and all of them got their three wins within the first third of AMPAS history.

During the first 38 years of the Oscars -- culminating with the Zinnemann win in 1966 -- only 9 directors won a solitary prize; every other winner had 2, 3 or 4 trophies.. And a few of those 9 exceptions were also nominated on multiple other occasions (Cukor, Huston, Curtiz, Minnelli). It was a remarkable era of solidarity in the category, which seems unlikely to be re-enacted in our time, for the reasons you describe. Though, I will note, after a 17-year gap between repeaters (1967-1984), double wins became a thing again, with Forman, Stone, Spielberg, Eastwood, Lee, Innaritu and Cuaron all pulling off the feat. So, you never know when the trends can reverse.

[Reza]

The Holden character was a young, struggling writer prostituting himself with a middle-aged has-been. Wouldn't work with geriatric actors. Jackman with a young actor or actress as the struggling writer who prostitutes themselves to Jackman would. Close as the elderly mentor could be portrayed as someone with dementia who thinks she had the career Jackman had, so that she can still sing "As If We Never Said Goodbye" to "her" people in the dark.

So are you saying only a young person can prostitute himself? Age on film has taken a remarkable swing. In the old days men or women by 40 were considered over the hill. Not anymore. Even 70 year olds can prostitute themselves provided they look fit and attractive. And Jackman at his present age is very fit and attractive. Hardly a geriatric what that word implies. A rewrite could have him playing an older down and out writer.

In any case its all about what we allow our minds to believe in films today. If it is perfectly acceptable for a black actress to play Queen Elizabeth I on screen it will surely take much less twist of mind to believe that Jackman could prostitute himself to Close's Norma Desmond. And he can sing too. Imagine if one of those kid actors from West Side Story played the part instead. One shudders at the thought.

[Big Magilla]

The Holden character was a young, struggling writer prostituting himself with a middle-aged has-been. Wouldn't work with geriatric actors. Jackman with a young actor or actress as the struggling writer who prostitutes themselves to Jackman would. Close as the elderly mentor could be portrayed as someone with dementia who thinks she had the career Jackman had, so that she can still sing "As If We Never Said Goodbye" to "her" people in the dark.

[Reza]

Hugh Jackman would make a perfect co-star for Close.

In which role?

At 52, he's too old for the William Holden role and too young to be playing the Erich von Stroheim role of her director/mentor turned butler opposite the 76-year-old Close. Maybe it would work if they reversed the roles and had Jackman play the faded movie star with Close as his makeup artist/mentor turned housekeeper.

Jackman in the William Holden role of course. So what if he is old. Close is also proportionately older. In fact much older than even Swanson when she played Norma Desmond. Its about a silent movie queen and a younger actor. Close and Jackman easily fit the bill even if both are older than the ages depicted in the Wilder film. In any case Close will be under tons of garish makeup and Jackman will look positively youthful in comparison.

And how about Sir Anthony Hopkins in the von Stroheim part and another star name in the Nancy Olson role.

[anonymous1980]

Today (or last night actually) I learned that Todd Field is a co-inventor of Big League Chew bubble gum, so maybe this is part of what helps him pay the bills between film projects. Apparently he makes a lot of commercials too, which is probably the primary income driver. He is one of those directors who, should he decide to make another film, on whatever timeline, will be automatically in the Oscar discussion. I'm not sure whether he will ever get into the win territory.

I just listened to Todd Field's interview with Marc Maron on his WTF podcast and he claims that he's not making any money from his involvement with Big League Chew.

I really feel like The Daniels could just as easily go into studio superhero stuff as they could try to make a go of it at semi-serious stuff or they could just kind of stay into the offbeat niche they were in.

To see where the Daniels will go, I think one has to look at the career of Jordan Peele. They will still make their quirky films that will get some buzz and some acclaim but nothing quite like Everything, Everywhere. They will get close here and there but nothing in the same scale ever again.

[Big Magilla]

Hugh Jackman would make a perfect co-star for Close.

In which role?

At 52, he's too old for the William Holden role and too young to be playing the Erich von Stroheim role of her director/mentor turned butler opposite the 76-year-old Close. Maybe it would work if they reversed the roles and had Jackman play the faded movie star with Close as his makeup artist/mentor turned housekeeper.

[dws1982]

I don't know if anyone except for Glenn Close, who is a solid twenty years too old for the role at this point, wants to get aboard the white elephant of the Sunset Boulevard film.

[Reza]

So much is being said about Spielberg and his future with the Oscars. Will he ever go on to win his third? Why fart around with a remake of Bullit? Let the public revisit the McQueen classic.

Instead why not get magnanimous and help someone else win her first Oscar. He has proved that he can direct a musical and even got a nomination for it just last year. So why not jump start that perpetually in the doldrum musical Sunset Boulevard and help Glenn Close win her Oscar. Would rather see him to do that instead of wasting time on yet another remake. Who knows it could maybe even net him his much-wanted third. And Hugh Jackman would make a perfect co-star for Close.

[dws1982]

Today (or last night actually) I learned that Todd Field is a co-inventor of Big League Chew bubble gum, so maybe this is part of what helps him pay the bills between film projects. Apparently he makes a lot of commercials too, which is probably the primary income driver. He is one of those directors who, should he decide to make another film, on whatever timeline, will be automatically in the Oscar discussion. I'm not sure whether he will ever get into the win territory.

Part of Spielberg's issue is that when you've won the award twice, short of something undeniable, or short of a weird circumstance (like the legacy award/"it's his time" campaign that didn't quite get off the ground this year) it's hard to get back into the win territory. With Spielberg post Saving Private Ryan, I think he's had a chance at winning twice, for Lincoln and this year, but in 2012, Argo and Affleck were the higher priority and when Affleck was not nominated, I honestly think he was probably still in that race and it was probably a decently close result but Life of Pi was more popular with the Academy (something I continue to find inexplicable) and it was more obviously "directed". And this year, following The Fabelmans' box-office disappointment, had the critics lined up behind Spielberg, I think it still might have happened, but the criticsI sensed that this was over when the first few critics associations voted and didn't mention The Fabelmans. The Spielberg who had cameras filming him watch the Jaws year nominations, and even the one of the Schindler's List and even Private Ryan year is very different I think; he went to all of the events and Q&A's but it seemed less awards-hungry like Austin Butler and/or Brenda Fraser and more like the elder statesman who is visiting people and advocating for his film and for the industry at large which he sees it as his duty to advocate for. As for future prospects, if he's doing something serious, I think he'll be in consideration. And even though it seems to not be on the table, I think the Bullitt remake would probably be well within the realm of consideration, even though it's not what I personally would be excited to see him do, but he surprised me with West Side Story. I do think he would have to probably hit what is considered the Schindler/Private Ryan level to get to that third directing win, and while he can do it, he is now a few years older than Eastwood was at Million Dollar Baby.

Martin McDonagh already has the one Oscar so he is good on that front, but I do feel bad that he ran up against the straight ticket voting that cost his movie a couple of awards it might've won this year, including one for him personally. He is still going to have a much better shot at winning for Screenplay rather than Director, I would think, because this is not a man who is getting acclaim or precursor attention for his directing. (Rightfully so, in my opinion.) He is going to always get Oscar consideration and maybe one year will not roll up against the big juggernaut, but I don't know that they are going to feel the need to give him an award because again, I don't see him always getting Director nominations, and screenwriters getting "due" narratives is a different thing. I don't know if he's ever talked about it, but I wonder if he would ever adapt one of his plays, or if he sees them as strictly for the stage only?

I really feel like The Daniels could just as easily go into studio superhero stuff as they could try to make a go of it at semi-serious stuff or they could just kind of stay into the offbeat niche they were in.

Of the Swedish directors who got nominated, you have the first, Jan Troell (who beat Bergman to the punch by one year) who, after his Emigrants/New Land breakthrough, made his next film in Hollywood, his following one back in Sweden, and then got roped into a Dino DeLaurentiis disaster (and disaster epic), Hurricane, after which he went back to Sweden and never, barring a few Scandinavian co-productions, looked back. Bergman never left Sweden, except briefly, during the 70's, when he had his tax troubles, and then it was just to Germany, although he did make a couple of English language films during the 70's, two of his worst-received films. Lasse Hallstrom pretty much went straight to Hollywood and has only ever gone back to Sweden to make a film twice, and has become the most boring kind of studio hack. I don't expect Ostlund to follow any of those routes specifically. American investors will come and studio offers will come as well, although I don't think Ostlund will be eager to jump at just any studio offer. But when you get a directing nomination you are usually going to get at least a look on your next projects unless they are something along the lines of Chloe Zhao's Eternals (and even then, before it was seen, people were thinking, "is this going to be an even bigger Marvel breakthrough than Black Panther?"). So Ostlund will get his chances but I don't know that I would rate him as super likely to return, but then again, Triangle of Sadness' Oscar success was a surprise to me because I thought voters would be put off by it.

As for actors, people are going to predict Brendan Fraser but actors who win largely on a PR narrative largely do not return. I've said before but I think Butler's never-lost-the-accent thing hurt him in his Oscar bid, and hurt him probably in terms of being taken seriously as an actor, and he probably needs to do something very different. The longer he is seen as Elvis, the worse it is for his career. I said in another thread that I think we are about to hit a period of Paul Mescal overexposure, and while he is about to show up in a whole lot of things, that statement was probably much more harsh towards him than it should've been; I do think he is a very talented actor and probably is as likely as anyone of these actors to win in the near term. Farrell isn't a bad bet, but a lot of his acclaimed work before Banshees was in things that were just off center of what would get nominated for or win Oscars. Blanchett will get number three; it' really just a question of when. Williams would probably be a winner if she had gone Support; I really do believe this. She is still fairly young and is one of the go-to actresses for serious roles in serious movies. That doesn't always lead to an Oscar, see Glenn Close, but I do think she will win eventually. Other than Quan sucking the air out of the room, I was shocked that Gleeson was such a non-entity in Supporting Actor. I hope he gets a better shot later, but after all of these years working, I could just as easily see him not coming back. Keoghan I think definitely will, probably soon, and I agree with Tee that Hong Chau is a good prospect to return.

[Okri]

Hmmm....

a) I'm more worried about Michelle Williams and Colin Farrell than you are, Tee. I've spoken before about Michelle Williams and the thing that I see is that any Oscar momentum she starts to generate gets quickly curtailed about other narratives so she ends every race as an afterthought. It's not impossible for someone in that position to accumulate enough good will to actually win - I sorta assume that's what happened with Geraldine Page - but it's not something I'd wager on (see Glenn Close). I think it's more likely she ends up with a nomination or two, but doesn't win. As for Farrell, the thing that strikes me is how small the tabloid star portion of his career actually was, but for some people, that's how they still defined him. While I have no doubt that Hollywood is more familiar with his misdemeanours than I was/am, he's been casually resume building for some time now. While the partnership between him and McDonagh will likely yield more films down the road, I'm not optimistic they'll hit the AMPAS sweet spot like Banshees did.

b) I wanted to challenge you on the assertion that women who win first time often come back, but then I looked at the history and was surprised at how right you were. Of the last 10 actresses who won the first time, 7 returned since then - even those who you assumed might not. But given that Yeoh's campaign leaned heavily into making it a career tribute/history-making award and it can be difficult to return after that (Winslet had her longest gap after winning; Sarandon and Moore haven't returned). I think EEAAO represents lightning in a bottle and I doubt any of the major contributors are returning, except maybe Hsu actually. I echo you about Chau. I do think Riseborough and De Armas are both likely contenders to return, though. De Armas. I'll say that I found Riseborough memorable in Birdman and she tends to rise above her films pretty consistently (W.E, Made in Dagenham). I'll also say, though, that I have a fondness for performers who act in plays that I read, and that fits her to a T. De Armas brokethrough in a big way in Knives Out, then followed that up with Bond and the Blonde (sorry/not sorry).

c) So, before the show, I started look at recent directors history. 6 of the last ten years had 4/5 newbies nominated for directing. There's a little bit of cheating going on, admittedly, as it included people like Alfonso Cuaron and Martin McDonagh (previously nominated for writing twice). But the thing you mentioned about adapted screenplay - how the shift in what Hollywood makes has profoundly affected the category - is also true here. In the past, you can imagine someone like McDonagh making films, slowly accumulating nominations for his film and then eventually hitting the sweet spot and winning (like the Coens or Jonathan Demme or even a Barry Levinson). But now, it seems like you make massive box office popcorn hits for Marvel or whatever and then maybe, maybe you get that one shot at a best picture/director. So now we get directors like Adam McKay, Peter Farrelly, and Todd Phillips getting best director nominations or making best picture nominees despite their careers going nowhere near the Oscars beforehand. But this is happening with the AMPAS inviting more international filmmakers, so you also get this concurrent increase of non-English language writer/directors getting in, so the AMPAS sweet spot gets harder and harder to hit for those types of directors.

d) Spielberg's a fascinating case for me. The commercial arena that he's operated in has shifted, so when he makes a popcorn effort (like Ready Player One) it doesn't rank very highly (24th biggest hit of 2018). Especially in reference to say 10 years earlier. At the same time, his critical efforts (especially post Lincoln) seem less and less likely to get him the third win. It's interesting, because in my mind, three wins seems to be a huge number for directors. Only three men have done it and all of them got their three wins within the first third of AMPAS history. Once the gestalt of 2012 meant he wasn't getting it for Lincoln (even after the Affleck miss) and once this year the initial hope for him shifted so dramatically... yeah, I don't think it's happening. I don't feel that miffed about it either, to be honest. I'd rather take away a couple wins from Wyler, Ford, and Capra and spread them out.

e) Briefly: Blanchett and Mescal will be back. I think Henry will as well. Doubtful about Gleeson, Keoghan, Condon. Pretty confident that Nighy, Hirsch, Butler, Fraser, Curtis, and Quan won't be. Bassett... I'm choosing to be hopeful.

f) Director who's profile rose such that I think they'll make the main stem pretty soon: I'm gonna swerve a little bit and say Lukas Dhont. His debut featured in Cannes and while really controversial (I hated it, fwiw), his follow-up got respectful reviews, was a consistent performer at the precursors in it's category, won another award at Cannes. I thought of Park Chan-Wook, but I don't quite get why Decision to Leave didn't do better this year anyway. Tee, I know you'll hate this suggestion, but I suspect Joseph Kosinski will make it sooner rather than later.

As for performers, Daisy Edgar-Jones is a good pick [I'm floored at how solidly Where the Crawdads Sing performed at the box office. That would've been a respectable total pre-pandemic], but I'm gonna side with the supporting duo from The Woman King: Sheila Atim and Lashana Lynch. The former is already a two-time Olivier winner and was shortlisted for the BAFTA Rising Star thingy they do. The latter won that award last year. Both have seen their profiles rise and I suspect directors will be anxious to work with both. Magilla's suggestion of Harris Dickinson is an interesting one, because he's the one from Triangle of Sadness I most remember.

The early buzz/awardage didn't go anywhere, but I assume Janelle Monae will get an Oscar nomination soon and I wouldn't be surprised if Keke Palmer did as well. I assume that Claire Foy and Ben Wishaw will as well, but think Wishaw needs to try something completely different.