Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

The Original BJ wrote:I'd be interested to know how Cate Blanchett and Fernanda Montenegro think this race will turn out.

Also, If Argo is to be the first film since Driving Miss Daisy to win Best Picture without a Best Director nomination, well, that was the year that Jessica Tandy beat Michelle Pfeiffer.

Yes, given the choice of voting for Lawrence in more than one category the Broadcast guys were able to give an award to both Lawrence and Chastain, however Lawrence's win was in a category that most of the membership derided. The comedy and action categories were forced on them by the TV network that carried the "show". In other words Lawrence's winning category didn't really count in most of their minds so her true supporters given an opportunity to vote for her in both categories probably did so. We do know, that Jeffrey Wells, who has been advocating for SLP since Toronto voted for her in both categories.

The reason you see bloggers hype the Broadcast "critics" so much is that bloggers are considered "broadcast" critics and many of them are members of the organization.

I'm going to bring up one of my minor pet peeves of the year: Jessica Chastain was NOT the sole winner at the Broadcast Critics. Let us not forget that they JUST instituted a comedy category. Voters were then able to vote for Jennifer Lawrence there so they could vote Chastain in Best Actress. My guess is that had Lawrence not had another category to win a prize in, she would have taken Best Actress as well. When given an option, voters will spread the wealth. I think I would have been more surprised had Lawrence won both prizes than had they split as they now have. Yes, I realize that Lawrence was also nominated for Best Actress, but to suggest that Chastain was the night's ONLY winner is a bit deceptive on the face of it.

It'a almost as bad as the drivel I read at Hollywood Reporter, with someone speaking about the Broadcast Critics like they are THE dominant precursor out there. I fail to see how a group who focuses itself on predicting the Oscars can be considered a real critics group. Hell, at least the Golden Globes vote for whomever the hell they want even if they aren't Oscar frontrunners. Not all the time mind you, but with more frequency than the Broadcast Critics.

As I said earlier, I'm most interested to see what wins the WGA. If the writers' union joins in the prize-fest for Argo, I'll likely find it pretty hard to argue that the movie doesn't have broad enough support to win Best Picture, and the fact that Oscar's directors' branch gave Zeitlin a couple more votes than Affleck probably isn't going to stand in its way. (I'll also be a little frustrated -- I'm fine with Argo winning Best Picture, and would have been fine with Director as well, but I feel Tony Kushner's script to Lincoln is of a far more literate class than Chris Terrio's. Argo winning the screenplay Oscar would be a bit like Apollo 13 trumping Emma Thompson's far superior scripted triumph in its year.) But an Argo that ISN'T the Screenplay favorite going into the Oscars would seem to be in a far more precarious spot in relation to Best Picture.

I, too, share Mister Tee's disappointment with the lock-step nature of the precursors, which basically turned what seemed like a very competitive dogfight into an Argo-fest. Still, I remain curious to see how this will all turn out. Even if I end up betting on Argo, I doubt I'll do it with the kind of certainty that the majority of the blogosphere -- and, for that matter, the entertainment industry folk I know -- seem to be attributing to the race. It really feels like some people are pretending that that director omission just didn't happen. And, sorry, but I'm not betting the house on a scenario with Halley's Comet level frequency.

I do hope this year's Oscar producers have some foresight to delay Editing and the Screenplay prizes until late in the evening. Because those categories seem like pretty major Best Picture bellwethers this year.

Argo is simply the default winner of this elimination game we have this year. I guess each one of the other contenders has enough detractors, so Argo is really the non offensive compromise choice. A In the Heat of the Night or, indeed, a Driving Miss Daisy kind of candidate. And yes, for once, I personally am perfectly fine with such a scenario.

And I like BJ’s analogy. And completing it, we also have an English born actress playing a (supposedly) real person, who’s bedridden through a large chunk of her film, which leaves us with Wallis as the new Streep. Nice.

All I asked of BAFTA was that they not close the door too hard on any potentially interesting contests, and, except for the ongoing Argo onslaught, they obeyed. I don’t have a major issue with Argo as ultimate best picture victor; I was suggesting that possibility back in December when these nominations started appearing. What I can’t fathom is the bizarre unanimity being displayed. Since this January/February obstacle course of Broadcast/Globes/PGA/SAG/DGA/BAFTA was set up, only a few films have gone on this sort of run: American Beauty, Return of the King and Slumdog Millionaire. All of them, of course, had Academy directing nominations. And they didn’t stage their runs in years where there seemed to be a great number of credible best picture winners. (Of course, not quite everyone agrees it’s been an impressive year – Uri and Precious Doll in the Evaluating the Nominees thread put the kibosh on the idea. I find it interesting -- in an “I don’t know quite what it means” way -- that they end up being two of this site’s biggest Argo supporters)

The Riva win certainly isn’t a throw-out-all-the-formsheets moment, and BJ makes a good case. But a televised season that’s had Chastain winning at Broadcasters, she and Lawrence splitting at the Globes, Lawrence taking SAG and Riva triumphing here, makes me feel like the bidding shouldn’t be closed just yet. (When the awards split last year, we ended with a winner that surprised many)

Anne Hathaway’s candidacy shows not the slightest sign of vulnerability. The better question now might be whether she’ll ever give a speech that makes audiences glad she won. She just doesn’t seem capable of striking the right tone. I should add that, now that I’ve seen her film, I’m a little puzzled by her utter dominance. I thought she was terrific in Rachel Getting Married, but here I found her mostly one-note – 15 minutes of Abject. She certainly sang her song well, and the long close-up gave her supreme focus. But I don’t think the song as a number is remotely in the class of “And I Am Telling You…” I saw it with a substantially populated house, and there were no audible sobs or bursts of applause. It’s just a popular song, the way “The Impossible Dream” was in Man of La Mancha (by the time I saw that show, the audience applauded when the song showed up in the overture). I don’t see how this has led to a sure-thing Oscar. I haven’t seen Amy Adams as yet, but I’d rate Hathaway third, behind Hunt and Field.

Supporting actor remains a huge question mark. As do, I’d say, BOTH screenplays, as well as director, with strong implications for best picture. Which, no, I still won’t 100% concede to Argo, despite its extraordinary season. That lack-of-director thing isn’t just a tiny footnote; it essentially flies in the face of the entire history of the Oscars. (Remember when everyone wanted to give Fincher the best director prize because the only thing he hadn’t won was the DGA? Turned out it was the most important one) Obviously there’s a strong temptation to get behind Argo now, and I may decide it’s the safest way to bet. But it still doesn’t feel right.

And if it does triumph, what wins director? People are saying Spielberg, but it’s impossible for me to envision Lincoln as a directing winner not in conjunction with a best film prize. Lincoln may be the least directorially distinctive film I’ve ever seen from Spielberg; Schindler’s List had far more bravura shots. I’d argue that Kushner is far more the auteur of Lincoln than Spielberg. So, who, then? Ang Lee? David O. Russell, for a movie not even nominated by the DGA?

Not to say the most commonly predicted slate (Argo/Day-Lewis/Lawrence/Jones/Hathaway/Spielberg) may not come up two weeks from now. But for right now I still view this as the least settled Oscar field in several years. And the many surprises of nominations morning have me thinking there could be surprises still to come.

The Original BJ wrote:So, the Best Actress race right now looks like this:

You've got a young starlet in her twenties in a romantic comedy, who won the Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical and the SAG Award, two years after she had a major breakthrough film role. Her detractors don't find her role very substantial, but the media loves her and she's gotten a big push from Harvey Weinstein.

Right at her heels is a slightly older actress, who won the Golden Globe for Best Actress in a Drama, only one year after she had a significant cinema breakthrough. This actress is touted by many as the next great film actress, and is viewed by many as a more "serious" thespian.

Then you have a significantly older actress, in a foreign language film, who seems to be the favorite of the critical community, and who won many critics' prizes for her work. Many members of the UAADB find her work to be the standout, but most people in the states, even in Hollywood, have probably never heard of her before this movie.

I'd be interested to know how Cate Blanchett and Fernanda Montenegro think this race will turn out.

You've dashed my hopes quite expertly, sir. I plan on focusing on the differences (Riva is certainly more known than Montenegro, Amour more AMPAS-feted than Central Station) but yeah, You've pretty much nailed it.

...damn you.

I think in order for Emmanuelle Riva to win, I honestly think that the only thing that has to happen is for enough Academy members to SEE her movie. Period. I believe people who see Amour will vote for Riva 9 times out of 10.

Plus I really never got the sense that there's a clamour to give Jennifer Lawrence an Oscar, or that it is her time to win. She's very young, even in the standards of Best Actress winners. Oscar likes his Best Actresses young, sure but usually not THAT young. She also only JUST became famous a couple of years ago and her career has only just begun. People may feel she may have other chances and winning an Oscar at this point in her career could be more of a liability than an advantage.

I think, in terms of age, this year's category will have a different angle. Jennifer Lawrence may be young by Academy standards, but she's much older when compared to Quvenzhane Wallis. Add to that the fact that she is on her 2nd nomination, and you could see Academy voters checking off her name as the winner.

ITALIANO wrote:

Big Magilla wrote:
I need to see it again to reach a final decision, but I loved the acting and Haneke's approach if not the film's resolution.

Yes, I told you that it isn't a very cheerful movie... But when they make those ten-best lists about "movies on old age" Amour will certainly be there (The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel won't).

Depends on who "they" are.

The Original BJ wrote:I'd be interested to know how Cate Blanchett and Fernanda Montenegro think this race will turn out.

Although Silver Lionings Playbook does not appear likely to win 7 Oscars including Best Picture.

Big Magilla wrote:
I need to see it again to reach a final decision, but I loved the acting and Haneke's approach if not the film's resolution.

Yes, I told you that it isn't a very cheerful movie... But when they make those ten-best lists about "movies on old age" Amour will certainly be there (The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel won't).

What the heck was up with Billy Connolly's face as he was presenting last night? He looked like a wax figure of a Bond villain.

ITALIANO wrote:

ITALIANO wrote:What do you think of Amour, Big Magilla? Honestly.

He must have hated it...

I was in the process of responding when I saw this.

I need to see it again to reach a final decision, but I loved the acting and Haneke's approach if not the film's resolution. More I cannot say without resorting to spoliers.

The film presents a picture of the elderly who live their lives as though things will go along the way they have for some time to come. That's pretty much true of the way most elderly people see themselves. They tsk tsk tsk the deaths of the guy or gal down the street who has suddenly become ill or just as suddenly died but don't see their own immortality until it hits them squarely in the face. How they deal with it is another matter. Most, it has been my experience, are in denial until the last. Those that see death as imminent think "maybe tomorrow, but not today".

How does the film stand up in its depiciton of the elderly? It's certainly up there with Make Way for Tomorrow ; Umberto D. and The Whisperers. On the other hand, it's no more symptomatic of how today's elderly behave than The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. I know the people in that film. Living in an "active adult community" i.e. over 55 residences, I see people like that every day and could easily cast the characters from amongst my neighbors. Riva and Trintignant's characters would be more diffcult, but not impossible, to cast.

ITALIANO wrote:What do you think of Amour, Big Magilla? Honestly.

He must have hated it...

I really liked it, although it touched a pretty personal nerve for me.