OscarGuy wrote
There's a difference between snubbing an award and slapping someone in front of millions of people and then doing nothing to rehab his image afterward. This stinks of Smith putting his finger on the Apple TV scale and forcing them to release it this year. I think it's too fresh and since he's banned from attending the ceremony and resigned his membership, I don't think they'll be climbing over themselves to nominate him.
It could also be that they're realizing that The Greatest Beer Run Ever ain't doing it. You might be right, but my sense is that Apple is going to be a semi-permanent fixture at these award ceremonies for a long time.
I have no idea how good Emancipation will be. On the one hand, Antoine Fuqua hasn't been a mark of quality for the last twenty years. On the other hand, I don't know how hard he's been trying. The fact that this film is shot by Robert Richardson is a good sign. I certainly think it's a good idea for a movie (a friend described it as Glory crossed with The Revenant). But yeah, I'm inclined to say it has to be better than an Antoine Fuqua film is likely to be for anything resembling voter forgiveness.
There's a difference between snubbing an award and slapping someone in front of millions of people and then doing nothing to rehab his image afterward. This stinks of Smith putting his finger on the Apple TV scale and forcing them to release it this year. I think it's too fresh and since he's banned from attending the ceremony and resigned his membership, I don't think they'll be climbing over themselves to nominate him.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Regarding Will Smith getting a Best Actor nomination for Emancipation; even though it was a half century ago, the Academy did see fit to nominate both George C. Scott and Marlon Brando the year after they turned down their awards.
Read the script for Babylon - I really do think that Margot Robbie is in. I worry for both Michelle’s actually. Yeoh because of internet overhype and Academy snobbishness and Williams because she’s shoehorning herself into an already very wide and strong field of Best Actress candidates.
Margot was one of the better elements of Amsterdam (a film that I didn’t like) so I don’t think she’ll suffer from the inevitable failure of it.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
Sabin wrote:I realize how stupid it is to state with any certainty at this point that a race is taking shape, but it sure looks like we have six strong Best Actress contenders in Cate Blanchett, Olivia Colman, Danielle Deadwyler, Michelle Williams, Michelle Yeoh, and a sight-unseen Margot Robbie. There are several strong contenders just outside the gate in Ana de Armas, Viola Davis, and more, but those six *SEEM* like a Best Actress lineup. So, who doesn't make the cut? Without going through the pros and cons of each contender (like if Babylon flops, Robbie is out), it really could be Michelle Yeoh.
I just don't see Margot Robbie making it in for Babylon. Davis is borderline supporting and I think Michelle Williams will not make the cut in the lead category. I think the critics awards will place her in support and Academy members will follow suit and she will be nominated and will win in the supporting category. The rest you mention will most probably end up nominated in the lead category with (wishful thinking) Yeoh taking the gong
Okri wrote
I actually wonder if that will be the fate of Everything Everywhere All At Once across the board, outside Yeoh. As Sabin and I had mentioned, there was a particular fervor to the internet enthusiasm that was an active turnoff. But I do assume that the enthusiasm for the film won't be replicated by AMPAS at that rate, even if it does make the best picture line-up.
This is a good point. Even if EEAAO does manage to enter the Oscar race, it's inconceivable that the AMPAS replicates the hype that we're seeing online. On another thread, I mentioned that I thought it was firmly in the race because A24 is going to push it heavily and because I think it's a very likely Golden Globe and SAG nominee in more than one category. And I think it should be considered as such. But maybe I'm a little too bullish about its chances in multiple categories like Best Director or Film Editing (it is quite long). And -- I'm starting to realize -- Best Actress.
I realize how stupid it is to state with any certainty at this point that a race is taking shape, but it sure looks like we have six strong Best Actress contenders in Cate Blanchett, Olivia Colman, Danielle Deadwyler, Michelle Williams, Michelle Yeoh, and a sight-unseen Margot Robbie. There are several strong contenders just outside the gate in Ana de Armas, Viola Davis, and more, but those six *SEEM* like a Best Actress lineup. So, who doesn't make the cut? Without going through the pros and cons of each contender (like if Babylon flops, Robbie is out), it really could be Michelle Yeoh.
Okri wrote:Both Flipp and Sabin mentioned Deadwyler.
Not only that, but I posted here just last week that I spoke to a good friend who had just seen Till and he stated unequivocally that “Deadwyler will win.” So, yeah, other people here have already been talking about her.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
Heh. I think Gandhi is a disappointing choice, but in context of 1982. Whereas I think Out of Africa is the right choice, but in the disappointing context of 1985. I think Reds is fine, but I do think that it's reputation was saved by losing best picture (and conversely, I love Chariots of Fire, but think it's reputation was hurt by winning all the same).
---
No wonder the Internet squad is so hot to push him. I wonder if that's one of those things that gets bloggers all excited and doesn't mean a thing to Oscar voters.
I actually wonder if that will be the fate of Everything Everywhere All At Once across the board, outside Yeoh. As Sabin and I had mentioned, there was a particular fervor to the internet enthusiasm that was an active turnoff. But I do assume that the enthusiasm for the film won't be replicated by AMPAS at that rate, even if it does make the best picture line-up.
Mister Tee wrote:And, for the record, while Out of Africa belongs to a stuffy style of film not nearly my favorite, I think there's a vast difference between it and Gandhi. (Even before you get to the quality of the films they defeated.)
I hope by this you mean that Gandhi was a better film than Out of Africa, although I suspect you mean the reverse
Of the competition Tootsie was neck-to-neck for me with Gandhi (this was history about my part of the world so resonated strongly despite the plodding nature of it). Yeah, maybe Tootsie and Sydney Pollack should have won just so Pollack would not win later for the deathly Out of Africa. In 1985 the winner should have been the wicked Prizzi's Honor with either Huston winning his second director award or better still Kurosawa (Ran) winning instead.
Okri wrote:
I wonder, if Reds had won best picture would it be viewed like Out of Africa and Gandhi are now?
Certainly not by me, but possibly in the eyes of some, who even throw The English Patient into that bin -- which to me simply indicates they're genre-haters, not astute critics.
And, for the record, while Out of Africa belongs to a stuffy style of film not nearly my favorite, I think there's a vast difference between it and Gandhi. (Even before you get to the quality of the films they defeated.)
Big Magilla wrote:
Ke Huy Quan is probably a strong possibility for Supporting Actor for those 80s fans who remember him as Short Round in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Data in The Goonies,
THAT'S who he is? No wonder the Internet squad is so hot to push him. I wonder if that's one of those things that gets bloggers all excited and doesn't mean a thing to Oscar voters. I mean, in all honesty: I could see the push for Yeoh, I though Hsu was impressive, and Curtis had her moments...but this guy getting nominated never even occurred to me. (Obviously, as I thought people must mean someone else.)
I didn't contribute anything to this thread earlier, but I've had Deadwyer in my predictions all along. She and Yeoh were the only ones in my initial predictions.
CBS Sunday Morning did a profile of Blanchett and TAR. She looks to be the strongest of the best actress contenders from the few scenes I've seen, but Yeoh has the "it's time" vote and Deadwyler has the "where has been" vote all to herself.
Williams will be nominated, but it's still unclear whether it will be in lead or support regardless of how she's campaigned. Either Viola Davis, Olivia Colman, or both, could be nominated but neither is certain. Naomi Ackie looks great in the trailer for the Whitney Houston biopic, but the film's overall strength remains a question mark.
The only certainties for Best Actor do seem to be Fraser and Farrell. I have Jackman, Butler, and Nighy as fill-ins but I'm not really sure about any of them.
Supporting Actress without Williams is wide open, but Foy and Buckley do seem like strong candidates. I would like to say Hoss is as well, but I'm not sure how large her role is. The rest are fill-ins at this point.
Ke Huy Quan is probably a strong possibility for Supporting Actor for those 80s fans who remember him as Short Round in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Data in The Goonies, but most voters will probably see him as riding in on Yeoh's coattails. Giving the Oscar to Ben Whishaw without rewarding one of the women from Women Talking would probably be seen as heresy but you never know. Brendan Gleeson would seem to fit the mold of respected character actor finally receiving his due, but two Brendans in one year? I'm not so sure.
Best Picture would go to The Fabelmans by default if the awards were held today but we still have a while to go.
Mbedu is good but if she gets nominated it'll be because it's a leading role that would be trounced by the proper placement. I really like Atim.
Quan plays Yeoh's husband, but at least 50% of the push for him is 80s nostalgia.
I wonder, if Reds had won best picture would it be viewed like Out of Africa and Gandhi are now?
Having seem Aftersun, I don't think Mescal is in it but his trio of films (strong reviews for this, God's Creatures and Carmen) and his upcoming work suggests he won't have to wait top much longer. I did wonder about Emily Watson for best actress this year if only as a Longshot.
As mentioned in the predictions thread: I’ve traditionally done this sort of write-up after the festivals -- often at elaborate length. This year, I find I don’t have sufficient time or, more crucially, motivation to follow up. It’s really hard to deeply care about an Academy that thought CODA the year’s best movie (many of you have let that slip quickly from memory; for me it’s in Gandhi/Braveheart/Crash “how can I ever care again?” territory). This instinct to disengage is reinforced by the fact that, for the third year running, the field of release seems woefully thin – especially devoid of the sorts of movies that got me interested in the Oscars -- and the race appears mostly over already, with practically nothing remaining to redeem the year (give or take a She Said/Babylon/god help us Emancipation) .
Nonetheless, I feel obligated to keep up some semblance of tradition. Because I don’t feel up to pontificating to my usual degree – and because, to judge by the predictions thread, many of you are ahead of me on all this -- I’ll put my thoughts into something closer to bullet points. To wit:
Best picture
This feels like a year where a compulsory 10 will horribly expose how barren the field is. I could see putting together an old-time slate of 5 that wouldn’t look dismal: The Fabelmans, The Banshees of Insherin, and TAR were all well-enough received to form a solid core, Babylon (if the rumors are true) could well join them, and, after that, you could throw in either Elvis – “movie that wasn’t hated and made a (relative to right-now grown-up movie standards) ton of money” -- or Everything Everywhere All at Once, the popular novelty item. There have been vintages over the years that looked worse. Maybe you could nominate all 6, then add a niche item like Women Talking, or a foreign title, either Triangle of Sadness or Decision to Leave. But extending the list to 10? To get there, people are apparently talking up multiple sequels – Glass Onion, Wakanda Forever, Avatar 2, along with that Top Gun thing – not seeming to remember that getting just one nominated would normally be a long-shot.
As to individual titles:
Feinberg having TAR way down his list is very on brand for someone whose taste is as bland as can be – he’s a guy who predicted Juno to top to Country for Old Men all the way to the last envelope, because he hated No. Country. Those YouTube twins are more open to interesting art than he is. TAR got the strongest notices of all the festival films (91 on Metacritic), should very much contend for critics’ prizes, and will have a hugely exploitable lead performance to center a campaign around. Never say anything’s a lock, but the film’s candidacy feels certain.
The Banshees of Insherin might be the most widely/genuinely liked film of the group (90 on Metacritic). People who trashed Three Billboards call it a big comeback; people who thought that film was unfairly targeted will be happy to see McDonagh back in the race, with a shot at the screenplay prize he was denied last time. This might be a dark horse.
The Fabelmans was well-received, though at a slightest lower tier (Metacritic 84), but is deemed the going-away front-runner, in a sort of unholy alliance among those who think sweet family dramas are always the Academy sweet spot (“Belfast is the clear favorite!”), those who’ve spent all year pundit-ing that it’s some outrage Spielberg doesn’t have 3 directing Oscars, and those for whom “sad childhood saved by the magic of movies” is a profoundly insightful genre. I of course haven’t seen the film, but I’ll maintain my skepticism – while acknowledging it could win the big prize on sheer inertia. (I’m a bit cynical about the Toronto Audience Award: by most accounts, festival coordinators were so delirious over having the film that they put multiple thumbs on the scale to get it the win.)
I confess I have no idea what to expect of Women Talking, either my personal reaction or its award performance. Initial response was euphoric, and backlash over-cooked in the other direction; either one could be more politically than esthetically driven. It doesn’t seem best-picture-winner likely, but it could appeal enough to a niche to nail down key categories.
Glass Onion seems to have popped up on lists of late, seemingly because Netflix’s almost historic bust of a season (Blonde, White Noise and Bardo all deemed DOA) has pushed it to top of their roster. I find it impossible to believe a sequel whose predecessor nabbed just one nomination will get to that status, but, as I said, requiring 10 nominees will mean some from-hunger choices.
I don’t see much else from the festivals that float up to top consideration. All Quiet on the Western Front was received well enough (78 Metacritic), but doesn’t have much to promote it. The Whale and The Son seem to have as many people hating them as liking them. The Good Nurse sounds like fun, but minor. The Woman King did better than I anticipated (the trailer was full-on “This is not your movie” for me), but maybe it isn’t quite big enough a box-office hit to make it over the hump.
As for what’s already out there, I’ll remain dubious about Maverick to the bitter end – it may turn out a blind spot of mine, a la Fury Road, or it may be just the second coming of last year’s Spider Man, which many of the same crowd were advocating. Elvis and Everything Everywhere All at Once seem to me stronger bets.
As to what’s ahead, I have most hope for Babylon and She Said, remain open to Pinocchio (because DelToro), and dread in advance the ugly arguments we’re going to hear around Emancipation. (By the way: Apple slating that for December should eliminate any remaining hope Killers of the Flower Moon will slide in, last minute.)
Best actress
As per usual, the best actress field is quite broad, with Cate Blanchett the clear critical triumph of the festivals – held back from front-runner status only by the (reported) coldness of her film, and possible reluctance to award a third prize to anyone (though Day-Lewis and McDormand have managed the feat of late).
Second place, by me, belongs to someone none of you have highlighted: Danielle Deadwyler of Till. (To be fair, she emerged from the NY Festival, a few days after many of you posted.) Reactions to the film itself are mild, but raves for Deadwyler have been close to universal; it’s hard for me to believe she could be omitted.
The fact that Michelle Williams’ role was initially thought supporting, but is now campaigning as lead, makes me wonder how strong her candidacy will be, despite very strong notices and the sense that she’s overdue for a win after 4 nominations. Olivia Colman won with such a profile, but she didn’t have such critically-acclaimed competition. I wonder if Williams might be bumped back to support before the season ends?
It's become accepted wisdom that Michelle Yeoh will be nominated, and that may well prove out, based on career affection and her film’s popularity. I don’t think her performance is all that special, but it certainly wouldn’t bother me to see her cited.
After that, it’s a blur. Viola Davis has had something of a personal triumph with The Woman King, and is always a possible nominee. Olivia Colman is permanent Academy bait at this point, and got strong individual reviews, but her film is widely seen as a dud (60 on Metacritic). Ana de Armas has enthusiastic support, but will be hobbled by many hating her film. (Of course, Kristen Stewart got past that handicap last year.) Jessica Chastain seems a minor candidate this time around, but never underestimate a former winner’s chance at nomination. The field is so broad, few are even mentioning Emma Thompson, whose notable work in Good Luck to You, Leo Grande would easily have qualified in some years.
To come: Margot Robbie in Babylon, and we probably shouldn’t overlook Naomi Ackie, playing Whitney Houston in I Wanna Dance with Somebody,
Best actor
By contrast, such a weak field that people are advocating for performances in movies many hated.
Brendan Fraser has been highly touted by the bloggers all year long, chiefly on the basis of “wears a fat suit” – presuming he’d follow Cotillard/Streep/Oldman/Chastain as make-up/lead actor winners. They probably weren’t counting on The Whale getting quite so trounced by critics (64 on Metacritic). Fraser himself was reviewed well, but I’m not sure he’s in quite the so-well-liked-they’ll-jump-to-honor-him category as, say, Forest Whitaker. A nomination does seem quite gettable.
Colin Farrell’s been around a long time, getting little awards notice beyond a Globe, but he seems certain to make the best actor list for Banshees. It’s early to tell, but I wonder if he might back into a win, simply for being attached to the most liked film.
Shockingly, I’m not sure anyone else emerged from the festivals as likely candidates. Adam Driver and Hugh Jackman would certainly have been possibilities, but their films crashed so hard, I can’t see them surviving.
Of course, we do have existing candidate Austin Butler, who delivered maybe a B+ in the difficult task of approximating icon Elvis. I think he’ll be nominated, little problem.
There are a bunch of other seen candidates who might or might not qualify. I’m highly doubtful about the Tom Cruise thing – the only rationale for such a nomination seems to be “have you seen the grosses?” I assume the Globes and Broadcasters will fall in line, but AMPAS might, in the end, have higher standards.
Bill Nighy was indeed well-received for Living, but it’s a small, almost anonymous film, and I wonder if it has enough visibility for the Oscars. Same for someone who’s also had the reviews but is mentioned by almost no one: Paul Mescal in Aftersun.
I see this Hustle thing, for which Feinberg is promoting Sandler, premiered on Netflix in June without my ever noticing. Hey, in a weak year, I suppose anything’s possible. But I think a Sandler nomination is the sort of thing a parochial insider like Feinberg would champion a lot more than the average AMPAS member.
Maybe a late-breaker will join the list – this Diego Calva, the lead in Babylon, and, who knows, Tom Hanks in the English-language remake of A Man Called Ove?
Supporting actress
I don’t think Jamie Lee Curtis is such a long-shot for Everything Everywhere All at Once. She’s a long-familiar hometown resident, and her role is nasty-person-with-a-sympathetic-scene-near-the-end, a persona that has yielded nominations in the past. She obviously doesn’t have the screen-time Stephanie Hsu does, but she might be even more likely to secure a nomination. (Both, of course, could also miss.)
Feinberg pushing Nina Hoss so far down his list is, again, indicative of how hostile he is to art projects. I think Hoss is very near the top of consideration.
Wherever Women Talking ends up in the overall race, it appears likely to yield supporting nomination consideration. Jessie Buckley and Claire Foy have received the strongest praise, with Judith Ivey also possible.
Kerry Condon has also been significantly singled out for Banshees, though it’s unclear to me how large her role is, which will affect her odds.
I have no idea how seriously Thuso Mbedu is taken for The Woman King. Has anyone seen it, to give a hunt?
Hong Chau already suffered an Oscar tease a few years back, getting all the prelims for Downsizing but missing AMPAS. The Whale is no stronger a film, but being attached to a likely best actor hopeful might be helpful to her.
Still to come are the ladies of She Said. Among the prominent: Jennifer Ehle, Samantha Morton and Patricia Clarkson – any of whom I’d be happy to see cited. And Jean Smart, in Babylon, could add to her late-in-life trophy accumulation.
Supporting actor
Brendan Gleeson, it seems to me, can at least dream of being an Oscar winner this year: a large, showy role in a film people seem to really like. His chances at nomination seem prohibitive.
Judd Hirsch apparently knocks it out of the park in his short scenes in The Fabelmans, which 1) give him a good shot at nomination but 2) might negatively impact Paul Dano’s chance at either nomination or win for a far larger role.
Ben Whishaw had nearly every review I read of Women Talking singling him out. This will be a test of okri’s idea, that, while solo women can get nominations for male-dominant films (Basinger, McAdams), it’s more difficult for men to achieve the reverse.
I guess Eddie Redmayne plays “against type” in The Good Nurse, so he has a shot – though I’ve heard some reports he mugs shamelessly.
Of those already on-scene: I confess I don’t have that much recollection of Ke Huy Quan in Everything Everywhere… He played the gay son, I assume?
Don’t know of much upcoming, though I suppose Brad Pitt could be considered for Babylon.
Best director
Take the directors of the primary best film candidates – Spielberg. Field (for the first time), Chazelle to come. Toss in a subtitled guy (Ostlund or Park Chan-wook). Maybe consider Sarah Polley. I’m not sure about the Daniels, but possibly.
I’m too lazy to break down the screenplay divisions – though I see the balance heavily favors originals right now – and I’ve given zero thought to tech categories, so I’ll wrap this up now. (I’ve already written more than intended.) As always, happy to hear of all that I’ve myopically omitted.
