Raggedy Pre-Sunday Thoughts

[Mister Tee]

I'm in complete agreement, flipp, that the clips last year were ludicrously short. That's about the only real knock I have for Zislin vis a vis Cates.

BJ, your memory is correct: last year, supporting actor didn't come till almost an hour in, and supporting actress was close to an hour after that. I wouldn't look for a repeat, though. Cates has always pushed the two supporting trophies into the first hour/hour-fifteen. He seems oblivious to how long that makes the subsequent hour seem, before we get back to the remaining biggies.

Someone over at Awards Daily claimed to have seen the prompt book for the show, and (READ NO FURTHER IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SHOW) said costumes is the lead-off award. I can't tell you any more, because I stopped reading at that point; I prefer surprises.

To underline what you say about supporting actress, BJ: I've surveyed something like 60 critics and Oscar-hip friends -- and Blanchett, Ryan, Swinton and Dee ALL hit double figures in predictions. I was trying to recall the last time there was that wide-open an acting race -- I'm thinking the '92 supporting actress (which ended in the one seeming non-competitor winning, so Ronan may indeed be the surprise). There have been a few strong three-way competitions since -- supporting actor in '98 and '99. Can anyone think of another such case I'm missing?

What you say about Crash making people overly open to "anything can happen" upsets is true. I'm pretty sure I wrote something along those lines last year, trying to tamp down all the Little Miss Sunshine rooters. We should all keep in mind that last year, for all its seeming insanity, ended up a very traditional, DGA-winner-takes-film/director/screenplay, and the same is likely this year.

One more thought that struck me today: Assuming the Coens win best director, think of the streak we'll have been on since '01: Polanski, Jackson, Eastwood, Lee, Scorsese, Coen. That's a pantheon worthy of the golden age.

[The Original BJ]

Here's what I'd like to see in terms of category order: the first award should be something with minor suspense (say, Art Direction) followed by a gimme or two (Animated Feature, Visual Effects), then Supporting Actor. The totally wild Supporting Actress category should be saved until a bunch more techs are handed out. (My memory may be hazy, but I seem to remember Supporting Actress last year was surprisingly late in the evening, at least for that category.) We end the techs with the tighter Editing and Cinematography races, then move on to the less competitive Screenplay categories. Best Actress should most definitely be presented AFTER Best Actor, ideally right before Director.

I have three big questions for the ceremony:

1. How thin is Julie Christie's lead? Count me as one of those who don't think Christie has this all sewn up like Day-Lewis. (What's particularly strange is that I think Christie is miles above the other actresses this year, while I'd pick Day-Lewis only by a hair over some of this year's actors -- sort of the reverse of the situation that seems likely to transpire.) And yet for all the talk about Cotillard and Page, Christie actually hasn't lost very many precursors. In fact, I'd put her in a much different category than some of the weak, SAG-dethroned frontrunners in years past, some of whom pulled through (Kidman), some of whom did not (Spacek). I think Eric put it best on the Slant blog: Christie has QUIETLY won most of the precursors, which leads me to the theory I'm sticking by until Sunday, that Cotillard and Page may have more media attention, but Christie has the votes when it counts. Of course victories for babe-a-licious Cotillard and Roger Ebert's New Favorite It Girl Page would make the media salivate more than a prize for a reclusive screen legend! But I can't recall a situation in which a little-seen film triumphed at SAG without going on to Oscar, and if Christie could trump populist hipster Page and red carpet-friendly Cotillard there, I think she'll impress the Academy enough to pull through.

2. Who on earth is winning Best Supporting Actress? I can't recall the last time a field was this wide-open. I think any of them could get it, and yet no one feels like the right choice. Right now I'm leaning Swinton, but she seems to have gotten a late start, and I still feel like her role lacks money scenes. Blanchett is more of a player than I ever imagined, but I still can't see voters going for I'm Not There. Ruby Dee has sentiment, but that hasn't carried the day as much in competitive categories lately, and I can't imagine anyone voting for her because they thought her performance was the best. I'm hoping for Amy Ryan's powerhouse to pull through, but her buzz is gone, baby, gone. I'm half expecting Saoirse Ronan, who's excellent, adorable, and a total find, to shock everyone. At this point, though, the only thing that would be a real surprise would be a write-in victory for Catherine Keener.

3. How many Oscars will Bourne win? I agree with Tee's analysis: Bourne could win 'em all, or lose 'em all, or lose some combination to No Country/Transformers/Ratatouille. Right now my gut says Bourne is more Speed, less Black Hawk Down, and No Country's Best Picture push picks up the Editing prize instead.

Lastly, (and not to bring this up again, but here goes), I think the Crash victory has really affected the way some people analyze these races. Some people seem to have an "anything can happen now" attitude, when in actuality, certain scenarios seem pretty remote from where I'm standing. As dws said in the other thread, I can't fathom how people are still predicting Atonement for a Best Picture win. And this might be controversial, but I also have a hard time seeing There Will Be Blood as a winner at all -- it would have had to have broken out earlier somewhere. To me, No Country seems WAY ahead. It may not be "the type of film that usually wins Best Picture," but it sure looks like one.

[flipp525]

I have a very similar feeling leading into Sunday, Tee. First of all, this week has been short with President's Day and all so, even as I write this, I feel like it should be Wednesday and not Thursday, giving me even one LESS day to prepare. I don't have a huge handle on several categories (and this, I believe, is a good thing). Also, I'm missing out on several acting nominees -- okay about three (I'm not going to list all the movies I have and haven't seen because frankly, who cares?..I feel like it's pointless and boring "listing" at its worst).

A couple things I truly do not wish to see on Sunday:

1) Shortened clips for the supporting performances: I thought that little advent last year was truly unacceptable. How much time is being saved by cutting the clips in half? And what exactly does that say about how the Academy values supporting performances? Give them their due.

2) Excessive amount of montages: I know they're inevitable, but let's try and keep it to a minimum. All that show-filler could be used in giving the winners more time for acceptance speeches and lengthing acting clips. Plus, I don’t really need to see a five minute retrospective on the history of dogs in American film.

3) Lots and lots of Cate Blanchett-ing: She's already gotten a lot of attention this year because of her male impersonating performance in I'm Not There and I do feel like there will most likely be a joke or two surrounding her pulling off nods for both a queen and a male rock icon, but it seems like the show (and other presenters) might go overboard in recognizing her. Hey, how about a pastiche of former crossdressing nominees and performances? Okay, that's a montage I could probably get behind.

Supporting Actress is going to be a shocker. I can just feel it. Even little Saoirse seems like she could sneak through. Oscar-winning child performers have often been de facto leads or co-leads in their respective films (Duke, O'Neal, Paquin) and Ronan's Briony, even if only in her own section of the film, is most definitely a lead.



Edited By flipp525 on 1203629865

[Mister Tee]

Scattered thoughts leading into the big event:

Seems to me the writers' strike has cut substantially into anticipation fever this year. The settlement such a short time ago has made the process into a hurry-up offense -- events that normally grease the way failed to do so for various reason (the Globes were cancelled, the SAGs and nominees' luncheon were plagued by "Do you think there'll be an Oscars this year?" questions, the naming of presenters came in one lump rather than tantalizingly stretched out). Combined with the February-rather-than-March show (a change to which some of us have still not truly become accustomed), it all makes me feel I'm barely ready for the show.

However, as Sonic points out in another thread, at least this year we have true competition in some acting categories, which hasn't been the case for a while. Yes, I know Arkin upset Murphy last year, but an upset, however gratifying on Oscar night, doesn't provide much lead-in suspense. It's like Hitchcock's famous dictum about a bomb: if it goes off unexpectedly, you shock the audience for a moment; but if you tell the audience it's set to go off, even a mundane conversation is fraught with tension as you anticipate its detonation. The actress race (sorry, Magilla, I'm with Sonic: I HOPE it's Christie, but I'm not dead-solid-certain) and, especially, the wide-open supporting actress contest are the best selling points for watching Sunday night.

Oh, but, knowing Gil Cates' utter tone-deafness for suspense, who wants to bet he doesn't put supporting actress right near the top (if not absolutely first)? Compare his acumen to Laura Ziskin's: she knew enough to delay editing last year, simply because she knew it had major best picture implications.

Something I realized the other day: in the unlikely event Juno were to win best picture, it would be the third consecutive best picture winner with six nominations or fewer. You have to go back to Oscar's first decade for any similar streak.

And this year harkens back to those early days in another way: for the third year running, no film managed more than 8 nominations. Again, you need to go back pre-Gone With the Wind to match it.

The whole "Kevin O'Connell must win an Oscar" thing illustrates a real generation gap among predictors. The blogs and websites are oo-ey about his chances for sound mixing; traditional journalists are primarily going Bourne and No Country. My instinct is that the journalists are more in tune with Academy sentiment, but the final result will tell us something about the reach of blogger power.

Kris Tapley says at the Editors' Guild soiree people were chanting "Bourne! Bourne!" before the prize was given. Does this reflect huge sentiment for the film, or merely a desire to award a real person rather than a Coen pseudonym?

Bourne and Transformers are actually in unique position for minor nominees: each of them has a possibility of going 3 for 3 in their categories. The difference is, Bourne could also go 0 for 3, where Transformers seems assured the visual effects win.

That's all I've got. Anyone else with out-of-the-way observations?