The Post-Festival Landscape

[OscarGuy]

Considering their advertising push for The Color Purple, I'd say it's locked into its Christmas release.

[Sabin]

The floodgates for bumps are now open again. The Bikeriders has been pushed; no official release date.

What are the next likeliest bumps? I think The Color Purple or Napoleon.

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
Scorsese already has four: The Aviator, Gangs of New York, The Irishman, Hugo.

That said, I'm surprised at how many directors I would've guessed that didn't meet that threshold, to be honest.

Oops, you're right. So, if Killers pulls in double-digits, Scorsese will have the highest tally until Spielberg comes back.

I guess David Lean is on the list too for Doctor Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, and A Passage to India, but not A Bridge on the River Kwai. Fred Zinnemann is on for From Here to Eternity and Julia, but not High Noon, A Man for All Seasons, or The Nun's Story.

[Okri]

Scorsese already has four: The Aviator, Gangs of New York, The Irishman, Hugo.

That said, I'm surprised at how many directors I would've guessed that didn't meet that threshold, to be honest.

[Sabin]

Reza wrote
I don't know how these Metacritic ratings work but KOTFM, which still hasn't been released, now stands at 89. Has this rating now been cast in stone or can it go up further once the film comes out?

It's absolutely subject to change when more reviews come out (it's the same as RT). My understanding is that the bulk of those reviews are from the Cannes crowd. Maybe not the best place to premiere it? We'll see.

An observation: which filmmaker has released the most films to net double-digit nominations? Off the top of my head, Spielberg has four, Wyler has three... With all the craft elements and baity performances, Killers could be Scorsese's fourth.

[Reza]

The Irishman got a 94 on Metacritic while KOTFM sits at 89. And correct me if I'm wrong but I don't get the sense that KOTFM reception is as rapturous in general.

I don't know how these Metacritic ratings work but KOTFM, which still hasn't been released, now stands at 89. Has this rating now been cast in stone or can it go up further once the film comes out?

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
I'm not entirely sure why the big 3 critics groups have coalesced to the degree they have in the past few years. You can understand it with a universally-hailed film like Boyhood, or a Drive My Car that (owing to a thin schedule) stands out from the rest in a huge way. But some of the recent mind-melds have occurred despite more varied opinions. It's possible that overlap between NY and the Nationals has just become so great that match-ups are inevitable. But LA is almost a completely different pool of voters from NY, yet they often come staggeringly close to duplicating their East Coast counterparts.

An excellent long-term bet is that NY, at least, will vote for the film with the highest Metacritic score. That's, as noted, All of Us Strangers. But Zone of Interest, Past Lives and Poor Things are close enough for debate, and Killers (with a potential Marty's-last-chance push) barely behind them. It would be fun if the groups were to truly split, the way, I believe they last did in 2013 (4 films, actually: American Hustle in NY, Inside Llewyn Davis at National, and a Gravity/Her tie in LA).

This might surprise you but Boyhood wasn't selected by the big three. NY and LA agreed but the National Society of Film Critics gave it to Goodbye to Language over Boyhood in a vote of 25 over 24. In Best Director, Richard Linklater triumphed over Jean-Luc Godard 36 over 17 which is a victory I'm sure the Austin Film Society founder found ridiculous.

Here's something that exists to make us feel old. Before the 21st century, The Big 3 agreed three times (Goodfellas, Schindler's List, and L.A. Confidential). That's basically three agreements over the first 25 years of The Big 3. Well, we're nearing the second 25 years of The Big 3 (!) and they've agreed four times (The Hurt Locker, The Social Network, Drive My Car, and Tar). So, that isn't that off.

That's a good observation about NYFCC's prerogative to vote for Marty one last time (eh, who knows?); although we're already seeing a burgeoning split in critical reception between the two. The Irishman got a 94 on Metacritic while KOTFM sits at 89. And correct me if I'm wrong but I don't get the sense that KOTFM reception is as rapturous in general.

I think you mentioned earlier that All of Us Strangers is one to watch. I'm increasingly bullish on its chances for a strong showing. It's going to be released over Christmas which could build chatter, especially considering that the screening reactions to this film genuinely ecstatic.

[Mister Tee]

If Past Lives ended up winning all three major critics groups, would you be surprised? Or if NYFCC went for The Zone of Interest, LAFCA went for Poor Things, and NSFC went for All of Us Strangers, would that be less? Over the last five years, all three major critics have selected different films only once, on something of a technicality. In 2020, NYFCC went for First Cow, NSFC went for Nomadland, and LAFCA went for Small Axe which they probably shouldn't have allowed to have picked. Had that film been considered television (as it should have), their runner-up was Nomadland. It seems to be that this year, the critics have (as you point out) a better set of options in a while. All of which might end up in there for Best Picture.

I'm not entirely sure why the big 3 critics groups have coalesced to the degree they have in the past few years. You can understand it with a universally-hailed film like Boyhood, or a Drive My Car that (owing to a thin schedule) stands out from the rest in a huge way. But some of the recent mind-melds have occurred despite more varied opinions. It's possible that overlap between NY and the Nationals has just become so great that match-ups are inevitable. But LA is almost a completely different pool of voters from NY, yet they often come staggeringly close to duplicating their East Coast counterparts.

An excellent long-term bet is that NY, at least, will vote for the film with the highest Metacritic score. That's, as noted, All of Us Strangers. But Zone of Interest, Past Lives and Poor Things are close enough for debate, and Killers (with a potential Marty's-last-chance push) barely behind them. It would be fun if the groups were to truly split, the way, I believe they last did in 2013 (4 films, actually: American Hustle in NY, Inside Llewyn Davis at National, and a Gravity/Her tie in LA).

[Mister Tee]

I've watched the "which is stronger, lead actor or lead actress?" evolve as an issue over many years. From time immemorial -- well, from the mid-60s, when I started following in earnest -- it was taken as given that best actress was almost always weaker, requiring often obscure (and/or foreign) nominees to bring the ballot to five. Peaking, famously, in 1975, when the winner was widely seen as a supporting role, and all the rest were in the category of "lucky to be there".

As it happens, lead actor had its own nadir just two years later, in 1977. The actress category was having one of its rare bumper crops, but actor... I remember meeting a friend on the street the afternoon of those awards, and he couldn't get over how weak the slate was. When you've spent most of a decade watching Hoffman, Nicholson and Pacino face off, choosing among Dreyfuss, Travolta, and Burton in a lousy film seemed impossibly second-rate. (With Woody and Mastroianni having no chance.) Yet, this unquestionably thin slate only reinforced the general feeling: it stood out as so bad because we were accustomed to best actor being so much better.

I'd say this sense lingered for, honestly, the better part of 40 years. There were certainly years the genders yielded relatively equal slates, and an occasional "wow, a lot of good roles for women this year" vintage (1985 a particular one; 1996, as well), where men trailed for a change. But, by and large, the impression persisted that men usually got the better of it. We had a stark case as recently as 2014, where the only lead actress from a best picture nominee was seen as borderline support, and the two most impressive performances in the pack came from films with that sole nomination.

But things changed almost immediately. In 2015, Blanchett, Larson, Ronan and Rampling all gave top-tier performances, while Cranston and Redmayne cluttered the best actor list (and even winner DiCaprio won more on career points than anything special in the acting department). The following year, Garfield and Mortensen got strictly-filler nominations, while Adams and Bening were bumped from the female list. In 2017, even worse: Chastain couldn't crack an air-tight best actress slate, while Denzel got a nod for the godawful Roman J. Israel. Suddenly, best actress was almost annually the superior category; first time I can remember that being the general take.

I do agree with okri that 2019 is an exception -- it'll irk me till my dying day that DeNiro couldn't make the list for his best post-1980 performance, but I understand the rationale for all those who were nominated. i wouldn't say the actress field is a complete disgrace -- Erivo and maybe Zellweger are the only nominees that don't seem at least runner-up-worthy. But the list definitely pales by comparison, first time in 5 years.

Since then, a few years are debatable -- 2020, the COVID year, seemed to me to offer fairly equal not-great-but-not-bad slates. 2021 had to lower standards to allow Bardem in, while Haim and Gaga were left off the competitive actress slate. And last year, as noted, Nighy and Mescal were clear "boy-you-picked-the-right-year" entries, while poor Danielle Deadwyler got boxed out of the competitive lead actress race.

This year, again I think actress will be strong enough (especially with the praise for Stone, Mulligan and Gladstone), but probably will finish second to the bursting best actor slate we're currently contemplating.

With luck, the categories will not only be competitive, but will stay that way, despite the efforts of the TV awards to narrow things down.

[Okri]

a) 2019's best actor race stomps all over 2019's best actress race. Outside the nominees, you also had Christian Bale, Eddie Murphy, Taron Egerton and Robert de Niro (and Adam Sandler, if you want)

b) That's a really good point - re distributors/what can they do. We saw this in 2019, where Neon dropped Portrait of a Woman on Fire/Clemency when it became clear that Parasite was a top candidate (Alfre Woodard should've been a bigger contender for that anemic best actress race); A24 couldn't even get 20th Century Woman an original screenplay nomination after they went all in on Moonlight. In the past five years, only Netflix (2020 and 2021) has gotten more than one best picture nomination.

c) Tee, regarding Hit Man, I think it's a bit of both. Richard Linklater spoke about how Apollo 10 1/2 had been somewhat dropped by Netflix and the streamer has so much content (sorry) on it's channel that it's easy for something to get lost in the weeds. I don't think Oscar would go for it generally (though I do think Powell is the sort of leading man that would score a nomination in the future) but it would definitely need the type of campaign it won't get without a theatrical release and committed distributor.

d) I'd be really intrigued to see if Gerwig makes it or not. I don't feel like the film would work as well as it does without her overseeing everything. But there's a Black Panther-esque feel to the film/it's success that feels analogous enough.

e) I'm really curious if Haigh can make it. There's certainly form for his type of director to get nominated if his film gets consistent acclaim (I'm thinking like a Steve McQueen or Lenny Abrahamson). That said, I think Haigh, Triet, and Song could all be the screenplay/not director films just as easily.

[Sabin]

Excellent rundown as always.

A few thoughts:

Mister Tee wrote
The best-reviewed film of the year to date, with a stellar 98 average, is All of Us Strangers – highest score, far as I can tell, since Moonlight. Yet this extravagant praise doesn’t seem to have pushed it to the top of most predictors’ lists. Some combination of its ephemeral style and gay content seems to make people queasy about its overall prospects. It certainly doesn’t profile as a classic Oscar movie, the way Oppenheimer or Killers do -– but maybe, as with Past Lives, the intense reactions audiences have to it will push it higher than punditry assumes. I think we need to keep a sharp eye on this film, especially in the critic’s phase.

This is a good point, especially if audiences turnout and if it does well with critics which is a question I hadn't really entertained yet: who is winning what from the critics this year? If Past Lives ended up winning all three major critics groups, would you be surprised? Or if NYFCC went for The Zone of Interest, LAFCA went for Poor Things, and NSFC went for All of Us Strangers, would that be less? Over the last five years, all three major critics have selected different films only once, on something of a technicality. In 2020, NYFCC went for First Cow, NSFC went for Nomadland, and LAFCA went for Small Axe which they probably shouldn't have allowed to have picked. Had that film been considered television (as it should have), their runner-up was Nomadland. It seems to be that this year, the critics have (as you point out) a better set of options in a while. All of which might end up in there for Best Picture.

Mister Tee wrote
Best actor was already reasonably formidable pre-Labor Day, with Leonardo DiCaprio and Cillian Murphy attached to prime vehicles. The festival round knocked out one buzzed contender (Keoghan in Saltburn), but solidly confirmed another (Giamatti), and possibly boosted a blogger favorite (Colman Domingo, depending how Rustin performs up ahead). It also ratified hopes for Bradley Cooper in his bio-pic, and added sleepers Andrew Scott (All of Us Strangers) and Jeffrey Wright (American Fiction) to the mix. This seems to me a very strong group of 7, and I can picture a tight contest to get onto the final ballot of five. Murphy seems to me the most solid candidate for nomination, but doesn’t strike me as that likely a winner. I can imagine Cooper (on overdue points), Giamatti (on we’re sorry about Sideways/years of service/audience-friendly movie basis), or Wright (on career and diversity points) all winning –- but that’s contingent on their making the cut to begin with. For right now, things look quite interesting. With Paul Mescal (Foe) and Joaquin Phoenix (Napoleon) still ahead.

I can't tell if you're burying the lede or if you don't see it? This looks like the most formidable Best Actor lineup in ages. When was the last time we had a strong group of 7, let alone 6 or even 5? Javier Bardem for Being the Ricardos, Paul Mescal for Aftersun, Willem DaFoe for At Eternity's Gate.... no knock on any of them, but most years they wouldn't have a chance and I don't think any of them would get close this year. Maybe Paul Mescal because he's been so thoroughly embraced by the industry but his nomination last year was virtually a default selection over Tom Cruise and Adam Sandler. This might be the first time since -- where Best Actor is a more impressive lineup than Best Actress or at least its equal.

I'll just differ from you in one sense: I could see Cillian Murphy winning. He has one advantage over the others. I think he's probably a good bet to win the BAFTA. I don't think we can count him out.

I'll make two more points:

I wouldn't necessarily count out Air just yet, especially considering they have to go to ten films. Air is being considered a Comedic/Musical Film at the HFPA, so it might very well end up there, and I could see it picking up a solid guild track (ACE, costumes, WGA). Not a sure thing but it probably plays well with a certain crowd in the Academy and it might end up as Amazon's best bet.

Do we need to start asking how many films is too many for each distributor? Searchlight has All of Us Strangers and Poor Things, MGM has American Fiction and Saltburn, A24 has Past Lives, Priscilla, Dream Scenario, and The Zone of Interest, Netflix has Maestro, Nyad, Rustin, and The Killer... that's not the case for all of them. Focus just seems to have The Holdovers. Warner Bros. can probably manage The Color Purple and Barbie, etc. But for some of these companies, how much do we have to take this into consideration? Can A24 really balance Past Lives and The Zone of Interest, especially while taking into account how much they spent last year on Everything Everywhere All At Once along with concerns for their films' spiraling budgets? Beau is Afraid reportedly cost $70m, and yes Past Lives should be considered a success at $13m... but it cost $12m.

This is turning into a fun season.

[danfrank]

Thanks, Tee, for your latest marathon post. Thorough and thoughtful, as usual.

All of Us Strangers does seem to be the wild card. What you said about predictors being cautious due to the film’s ephemeral style and gay content got me wondering: is that latter concern still a valid one? In the last 10 years I count 9 films with significant queer characters and content nominated for Best Picture, with two of them winning. If it’s not nominated, my guess would be because it’s too arty and inaccessible for a wider audience. In any case, can’t wait to see it.

[Mister Tee]

Okay: I’ve at last regained enough strength to give that promised post-mortem on the festival run (it may come as weaker sauce than usual, given how many of you have jumped ahead with full-on predictions). In one sense, I’m glad to have had this enforced delay; I’d otherwise have posted as soon as Venice wrapped, not expecting anything from Toronto –- when, as it turned out, Toronto was more productive than in recent years, and added a title or two to the mix.

Overall take, one I hinted at it my earlier post: after several years of famine, we appear to finally have a feast. I don’t want to get wrapped up in Metacritic scores as ultimate arbiter of quality, but here are some pretty eye-popping stats.

First, 2022’s best picture nominees, with Metacritic scores:

Tár 92
The Banshees of Inisherin 87
The Fabelmans 84
Everything Everywhere All at Once 81
Women Talking 79
Top Gun: Maverick 78
All Quiet on the Western Front 76
Avatar: The Way of Water 67
Elvis 64
Triangle of Sadness 63

Now, 2021’s list:

Drive My Car 91
Licorice Pizza 90
The Power of the Dog 89
West Side Story 85
King Richard 76
Belfast 75
Dune 74
CODA 72
Nightmare Alley 70
Don’t Look Up 49

You can see, the two years together only gave us 3 films with scores of 90 or above, one more above 88, and 8 total above 80. Lots and lots of mediocre 70s, a couple of iffy 60s, and one dire 49.

In contrast, this current year already has 4 movies above 90 (all higher than ‘21-22 top scorer TAR), another 4 above 88 (including the animated Boy and the Heron), and a staggering total of 17 films rating 80 or higher (including another animated effort, the Spider-verse). With at least a few major films still to come, it’s impossible to view this as anything but a bumper crop. Whether that translates into a banner vintage at the Oscars is of course still to be determined –- AMPAS voters can go dumpster-diving at the most inopportune moments.

As to these films, individually:

As noted in the earlier thread, we came into festival season with as strong a foundation as seen in many years – each of Oppenheimer, Barbie and Past Lives, with strong reviews/boxoffice/audience passion, strike me as virtually certain best picture contenders. Killers of the Flower Moon, barring wholly unexpected popular failure, seems sure to show up alongside them. It’s hard to accurately predict how foreign-language efforts will perform (even with AMPAS’s recent greater disposition toward them), but both Anatomy of a Fall and The Zone of Interest seem very hot prospects (I was actually startled, doing this research, to find Zone of Interest’s Metacritic score is a blazing 95). On the subject of high scores, one film I inadvertently omitted in my initial stab: it had somehow been my impression May/December wasn’t all that highly regarded…but a Metacritic 81 isn’t something to toss aside. I’d still lean against it making the best picture slate –- even winning NY Critics’ awards hasn’t been enough for Haynes to entice AMPAS –- but I note it as another quality-enhancing piece on the landscape.

Now, the films the festivals added to the mix:

The best-reviewed film of the year to date, with a stellar 98 average, is All of Us Strangers – highest score, far as I can tell, since Moonlight. Yet this extravagant praise doesn’t seem to have pushed it to the top of most predictors’ lists. Some combination of its ephemeral style and gay content seems to make people queasy about its overall prospects. It certainly doesn’t profile as a classic Oscar movie, the way Oppenheimer or Killers do -– but maybe, as with Past Lives, the intense reactions audiences have to it will push it higher than punditry assumes. I think we need to keep a sharp eye on this film, especially in the critics’phase.

The festival hit people do assume will contend at the highest level is of course Poor Things -- which strikes me as pretty wild, honestly. This is Lanthimos, hardly what you’d call Oscar-friendly (yes, The Favourite got a load of nominations, but crapped out in all but lead actress, which seemed very personal for Colman). And this film is reportedly highly sexualized, something AMPAS has shied away from over many years, from Carnal Knowledge and Last Tango through Shame and countless other recent efforts. The encouraging news is that many of the fuddy-duddier pundits seem to have swooned for this just as much as the more art-inclined, so maybe it’s more accessible than I’m imagining. (By all accounts, it’s quite funny, which could count for a lot.) The film has to be seen as heavily in the running for critics’ prizes, and for a load of Academy nominations. How far it goes beyond that remains in question.

It's a bit of a drop from these exalted, 90+ entrants to the next batch, but low to mid 80s is still a solid position from which to contend for a best picture slot. The Holdovers, as I’d imagined, upped its composite score with Toronto critics after being somewhat coolly received at Telluride –- for some reason, pundits who do that Colorado weekend have never responded to Payne the way most critics (and Oscar voters) do. The film has been hovering around 82-83, perfectly strong for a crowd-pleasing Oscar hopeful; it may not make it into a crowded director race, but best picture/actor/screenplay seem eminently gettable.

American Fiction was the from-left-field Toronto star, getting solid reviews and an 82 score. Its snatching the predictive Audience Award of course only increases its chances. The film seems the sort of pungent satire that gets critics interested, and contends for screenwriting prizes. And I think nearly everyone agrees Jeffrey Wright is the kind of universally-respected actor long overdue for a nomination. That combo could easily lead to a spot on the best picture slate.

Going purely by numbers, Priscilla –- with an 84 score –- would actually rank above the last two cited titles…except for the fact it’s, you know, Sofia Coppola, whose only Academy coup was so long ago it feels like pre-history; who’s been far more feted by critics than audiences or AMPAS in the past two decades. I’ll keep the film there, in pencil, but suspect it’s more likely an acting play than best picture hopeful.

You could probably say the same for Maestro, which debuted to an 80 score. But, partly because Bradley Cooper has had far better recent Oscar history, I think it could get itself into more widespread contention. Cooper and Mulligan seem like the sort of must-nominate pair who push their film to best picture nomination, even without much hope of winning the top prize (think The Theory of Everything).

Hit Man I simply don’t know what to do with. It, like American Fiction, was unexpectedly popular at the festivals, and was snapped up by Netflix for a high $20 million. People on Twitter seem to view this as disappointing – thinking it needs a theatrical run to demonstrate mainstream popularity (something I don’t exactly get). It may be it’s the sort of quirky thing that wouldn’t be up AMPAS’ alley regardless. As, I say, I have no idea if this will play any part in the upcoming award season, but it looks like it’ll be fun.

The last 80-and-above scorer at Toronto was His Three Daughters, which doesn’t yet have a distributor, so is likely put off till 2024.

Of course, an 80 on Metacritic isn’t the be-all end-all, and there are several lesser contenders that could manage to sneak onto a best picture slate -– or, at the least, contend for acting nominations. When Ferrari opened Venice, I thought its reviews were respectable for a lower-tier best picture placement (its 74 score is roughly on par with Belfast or King Richard – better than CODA!). But, weeks later, it feels like a long-shot in all categories. Same with Fincher’s The Killer, which I’m excited about seeing, but don’t expect to have an awards run in a stuffed year. Rustin and Nyad are actually rated lower than any of those just mentioned –- 68 and 63, respectively -– but each has a lead acting hopeful to better keep it in voters’ minds. Also still vaguely alive are Nicolas Cage’s Deam Scenario, Anna Kendrick’s Woman of the Hour, and the Jessica Chastain/Peter Sarsgaard starrer Memory (which got very high praise for its actors) –- though it‘s not certain the latter two will make it out before year end.

The biggest loser appears to be Saltburn, which came in with excited buzz, but saw its score decline almost hourly, to a paltry 59. There’s still some talk of a Rosamund Pike supporting nomination, but I’ll believe that when I see it. And Kate Winslet’s Lee, which some had hope might be a thing, clearly isn’t.

That’s the best picture competition as I see it, with, of course, a few things still lurking out there: Foe, to open imminently at the NY Festival, with no word to date; the big boppers Napoleon and The Color Purple; the Julia Roberts starrer Leave the World Behind; family films Wonka and the animated Wish; and The Iron Claw, which is about the wrestling world, but has the oddity of Sean Durkin directing, and the boost of hotter-than-hot Jeremy Allen White in lead.

On to the performance categories:

Best actor was already reasonably formidable pre-Labor Day, with Leonardo DiCaprio and Cillian Murphy attached to prime vehicles. The festival round knocked out one buzzed contender (Keoghan in Saltburn), but solidly confirmed another (Giamatti), and possibly boosted a blogger favorite (Colman Domingo, depending how Rustin performs up ahead). It also ratified hopes for Bradley Cooper in his bio-pic, and added sleepers Andrew Scott (All of Us Strangers) and Jeffrey Wright (American Fiction) to the mix. This seems to me a very strong group of 7, and I can picture a tight contest to get onto the final ballot of five. Murphy seems to me the most solid candidate for nomination, but doesn’t strike me as that likely a winner. I can imagine Cooper (on overdue points), Giamatti (on we’re sorry about Sideways/years of service/audience-friendly movie basis), or Wright (on career and diversity points) all winning –- but that’s contingent on their making the cut to begin with. For right now, things look quite interesting. With Paul Mescal (Foe) and Joaquin Phoenix (Napoleon) still ahead.

Best actress seemed less competitive when I wrote about it in my preview thread, but the addition of two prime candidates and several hangers-on have turned it into a race quite on par with best actor. Prior to the festivals, I had Greta Lee and Margot Robbie as the most likely nominees among the then-exhibited, with Natalie Portman a further-down possibility, Sandra Huller as a bit of a question mark (people who’ve seen Anatomy of a Fall seem convinced she’s in, but I‘m always dubious about subtitled entrants), and Lily Gladstone an asterisk -– people seem convinced she’ll eventually drop to supporting and win handily (like they thought about Olivia Colman, and Michelle Williams last year), but she and the studio insist she’s campaigning in lead.

The clear over-performers at Venice and elsewhere were Emma Stone and Carey Mulligan, who, improbably, both got “best performance of her career” notices, for Poor Things and Maestro, respectively. Being attached to a more dominant film should boost Stone, while not being a previous winner might elevate Mulligan. In any case, I presume both are dead-solid-certain nominees this winter. Which makes it an inauspicious year for Annette Bening to be staging an “it’s my time, dammit” campaign –- you can get away with that in a thin field, but you’re not likely to triumph over performances that engender true enthusiasm. I never did get confirmation that the Bening boomlet was any more than pre-set blogger hope -– her reviews were solid enough, but, without a surrounding narrative, I doubt she’d be much singled out. So, I don’t know whether to take her candidacy for even a nomination seriously. I feel somewhat the same about Cailee Spaeny in Priscilla – though, in this case, critics were more there for her. Perhaps the deArmas nomination last year should alert us not to downplay the likelihood a truly iconic figure snags a nomination -– and, on that score, Priscilla Presley towers over Diana Nyad.

For the rest of the year, Saoirse Ronan stars in the still-unscreened Foe, Fantasia Barrino will of course be touted for The Color Purple, and, for completeness’ sake, I’ll include Julia Roberts in Leave the World Behind.

Supporting actor was a burgeoning category prior to Venice, and several weeks of festival screenings only packed it more fully. We were already looking at Robert Downey Jr. and Ryan Gosling, with John Magaro a possibility, Matt Damon a potential tag-along, Robert DeNiro almost certainly to come. We didn’t especially need more candidates…so, naturally, we got them. Mark Ruffalo (especially) and Willem Dafoe are both being touted for Poor Things. Paul Mescal (assuming he runs in support) and Jamie Bell are both solid possibilities for All of Us Strangers. And The Holdovers’ Dominic Sessa is said to be the equal of his more touted co-stars -– though, by most accounts, slotting him in support would be egregious category fraud.

Supporting actress is substantially less firmed up. We came into the season with a rather wan group: Emily Blunt (mostly on the strength of her film), Viola Davis (hampered by was-that-this-year? attitude toward Air), and Julianne Moore (veteran winner in well-reviewed film). And the only one to join the contest with a bang is DaVine Joy Randolph, who confirms all the promise she showed in Dolemite with a breakout role in The Holdovers. After that, you have a batch of “she-was-good, anyway” candidates -- Jodie Comer in the otherwise brushed aside The Bikeriders, Rosamund Pike in Saltburn (though the movie’s overall reception makes her quite the long-shot), Jodie Foster in Nyad (like Mare Winningham in Georgia, the long-suffering supporting character could get the nomination while the driven lead is left off), and, maybe the strongest possibility, overdue Claire Foy for her mother role in All of Us Strangers. Things are so unsettled, people are still clinging to the idea that Danielle Brooks and Taraji P. Henson will reprise the two nods the original Color Purple got. Which is kind of the opposite of a bird in hand, but we’ll see how it goes. This category might be a case where critics’ awards could make a difference…whether presenting us someone new/unexpected, or strengthening an existing candidate beyond where she currently appears to stand.

Best director is a sort of indirect way of asking, How would this year shake out if we only had the historical five best picture spots? I thought, prior to Labor Day, that it was hard to imagine a directing slate that didn’t include Nolan and Scorsese. After the festival reception, I’d have to add Lanthimos to that. From there, one has to consider severe space limitation. To my mind, Celine Song, Justine Triet and Jonathan Glazer all feel like primo candidates. Andrew Haigh seems just the sort of hanging-around-a-while/finally-get-recognition-for-a-critical-hit directors love. Alexander Payne never wins director, but he keeps getting nominated by them. And, undoubtedly, some Greta Gerwig fans will think she deserves recognition for her achievement. (I actually think it’s just the sort of achievement directors typically pass on, but that’s an argument for later.) In a train wreck like this, you never know what might happen; even one of the presumed-safe folk can find themselves omitted. Scorsese hasn’t been a surprise snub-ee since The Age of Innocence; Nolan, of course…

Screenplay is only slightly less competitive. Adapted is absolutely loaded for bear, with Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon and Poor Things seemingly locked in, and The Zone of Interest nipping at their heels. All of Us Strangers seems just the sort of thing writers, if no one else, would leap at…but the same could be said of American Fiction, giving us a 6-into-5-won’t-go situation. This is not even to consider seemingly lesser contenders, like Ferrari, Priscilla, or Hit Man, not to mention Foe and The Color Purple to come.

With all that heat on the adapted side, you’d think original would be moribund. But Past Lives, The Holdovers, and Anatomy of a Scandal make that a pretty lively category all its own, with Barbie also likely to place there, and such efforts as Maestro, Rustin or Dream Scenario filling out the slate.

Below the line, things are certainly bustling, as well. Overall heavyweights Oppenheimer, Killers and Poor Things look to score in most of the visual categories, with Barbie certain to join them in production design and costumes, and both Napoleon and The Color Purple no doubt waiting in the wings. Visual effects is about the only category that won’t be flooded with best picture nominees.

Even animated feature got a boost from the festivals. Going in, the Spider-verse seemed near-unbeatable, but The Boy and the Heron’s reviews were above even expectation. The publicity of Miyazaki’s farewell, combined with disgruntlement over the Spider-verse offering only Part I, could make the category competitive (with Elemental, the Ninja Turtles, and perhaps Wish to come making it a full ballot).

And that, at great length, is the lay of the land…with updates to come as warranted.