Pre-Nomination Thoughts

[Okri]

I wonder if the Daniels could potentially miss out.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
I suggested yesterday -- and Sabin picked me up on it -- that Spielberg might be an unexpected omission from the directing slate. But there is a stat that works against this, one similar to the one people have been throwing around about best actor. Post-1930 -- which is to say, pretty much since it became possible -- the nominees for best director have almost always included a previous nominee. There are only 3 exceptions in all those 90+ years: 1948, 1995 and 1997. (There are more years with 4 former nominees on the slate than 0.) And there were a few years in there where it took a surprise inclusion to get a repeater in amongst a batch of novices -- Fellini in 1970, Lasse Hallstrom in 1999; recently, Mel Gibson in 2016 and PTA in 2017. The only counter-example -- where a previous nominee could have infiltrated a list of 5 newbies but didn't -- is 1997, when James L. Brooks was (for the second time) left out by the directors despite DGA and most other precursors including him. Spielberg and Cameron are the only veteran nominees in the hunt this year, so leaving them both out may be a statistical risk.

I've been double-guessing that pick all day. I think I'm going to backtrack. Stats are meant to be broken but there hasn't been a Golden Globe winner for Best Director to miss out on a corresponding Oscar nomination since Clint Eastwood for Bird. Weirdly that film wasn't up for Best Motion Picture-Drama, which leads me to think they were just Hollywood Foreign Pressing around. So, we go all the way back to Barbra Streisand for Yentl. But again, no DGA nomination. Farther back we go and Charles Jarrott for Anne of a Thousand Days. Slightly more likely is a Golden Globe Best Director winner being attached to a film not up for Best Picture (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly The People vs. Larry Flynt), both of which would unquestionably make a Best Picture slate of ten-ish.

Also, I'm with you on industry bullishness on RRR. I just have such a hard time imagining anyone who likes the film not throwing up high up on a ballot.

[Mister Tee]

A few tack-on thoughts:

I omitted Carey Mulligan from the list of could-be's for supporting actress, which I shouldn't have done. I know no one thinks she's particularly deserving, and her film (apart from adapted screenplay) is a non-factor. But she got both the Globes and BAFTA, so she could turn up. My formula for supporting nominees is they should be either 1) attached to a best picture nominee; 2) coupled with a lead category nominee; or 3) a previous nominee. Mulligan, like Bassett, qualifies under proviso number 3, and can't be ruled out.

I suggested yesterday -- and Sabin picked me up on it -- that Spielberg might be an unexpected omission from the directing slate. But there is a stat that works against this, one similar to the one people have been throwing around about best actor. Post-1930 -- which is to say, pretty much since it became possible -- the nominees for best director have almost always included a previous nominee. There are only 3 exceptions in all those 90+ years: 1948, 1995 and 1997. (There are more years with 4 former nominees on the slate than 0.) And there were a few years in there where it took a surprise inclusion to get a repeater in amongst a batch of novices -- Fellini in 1970, Lasse Hallstrom in 1999; recently, Mel Gibson in 2016 and PTA in 2017. The only counter-example -- where a previous nominee could have infiltrated a list of 5 newbies but didn't -- is 1997, when James L. Brooks was (for the second time) left out by the directors despite DGA and most other precursors including him. Spielberg and Cameron are the only veteran nominees in the hunt this year, so leaving them both out may be a statistical risk.

Speaking of Cameron: don't know if everyone's seen it, but there's a clip floating around of him gushing over RRR to Raajamouli. The effusiveness he displays underlines what I said in discussing his film the other day, why I can't help but think, precursors or no, this film has a shot of scoring big. The film tends to make people -- well, me and Cameron, anyway -- stupidly giddy with pleasure. In a year where so few films offer anything like that, I think that could be a strong point in its favor.

[Big Magilla]

Between The Donalds and Green Onion yesterday, I'm on my way to the funny farm.

[Reza]

Can I have Green Onions on my Licorice Pizza?

Licorice Pizza wins out on originality. Green Onions are very run of the mill and found in almost every kitchen.

[Eenusch]

Can I have Green Onions on my Licorice Pizza?

[Big Magilla]

I am as confident as I can be that four of the DGA nominees (Spielberg, McDonagh, Field, and the Donalds) will make it into Best Director with the fifth slot going to either Berger or Ostlund. Ideally, they would both get in and the Donalds wouldn't but that's extremely unlikely.

They're the Daniels.

Best laugh I had all day.

Surely, then, Berger and Ostlund have a better chance than the Donalds do!

[anonymous1980]

I am as confident as I can be that four of the DGA nominees (Spielberg, McDonagh, Field, and the Donalds) will make it into Best Director with the fifth slot going to either Berger or Ostlund. Ideally, they would both get in and the Donalds wouldn't but that's extremely unlikely.

They're the Daniels.

Anyway, my pre-nomination thoughts:

- I am thrilled Everything, Everywhere All At Once seems to be the front-runner at this point. A bonkers, science-fiction existential kung-fu action-comedy being an Oscar contender and has an excellent chance at actually winning is so exciting. It's nice for the Oscars to step out of their comfort zone every once in a while.

- That fifth spot in Best Actor is so tricky and is ripe for a surprise. I'm predicting Paul Mescal but since Aftersun didn't do as well in BAFTA as I thought it would (no Picture, Director and Screenplay nominations), I'm not confident. History says that fifth spot SHOULD go to a former nominee because an all-first-timer Best Actor lineup hasn't happened since the 1930's but your choices on that one are quite dire: Tom Cruise, Hugh Jackman, Tom Hanks...MAYBE Adam Driver? Ralph Fiennes?

- Supporting Actress is equally troublesome. Kerry Condon is the only one I'm sure has her nomination secure. I think Angela Bassett may be "snubbable". But I am predicting a potential Jamie Lee Curtis snub because of four reasons a.) There's always one or two people who get in everywhere and get left off the Oscar list; b.) Banshees is already getting double Supporting nominees. It happening to two films is unlikely; c.) I don't think Jamie Lee Curtis is getting a lot of #1 votes and fans of her film are more likely to rank Stephanie Hsu higher than her; d.) Angela Bassett has siphoned some of that "overdue veteran" narrative Curtis was riding her nomination on.

[Big Magilla]

I understand they’re back to doing [the nominations] live for the press this year? Can anyone confirm they’ll still do all 20-odd categories on-air, or do I need to be online for the start of it?

I don't know, but ABC's oscars.com is pushing the GMA announcement and adding that you can also stream at their website so it's probable that you will see the same thing whichever one you watch.

My thoughts:

Best Picture

Everything Everywhere All at Once is the presumptive favorite of anyone under 45 but with the average age of Academy members still around 60, its win is not guaranteed. The Fabelmans may be the favorite among the older crowd, but The Banshees of Inisherin is probably the film that is liked most by both groups and should place fairly high on most lists which should give it the edge on the preferential ballot.

My hope is that Tár as well as both Triangle of Sadness and All Quiet on the Western Front make the top ten. That would still leave room for two of Top Gun: Maverick, Elvis, and Avatar: The Way of Water and no room for Green Onion or Babylon.

I am as confident as I can be that four of the DGA nominees (Spielberg, McDonagh, Field, and the Donalds) will make it into Best Director with the fifth slot going to either Berger or Ostlund. Ideally, they would both get in and the Donalds wouldn't but that's extremely unlikely.

Best Actor

This is a two-way race between Colin Farrell and Brendan Fraser. I can't see Austin Butler being a factor at all outside the Globes where they were getting back at Fraser for badmouthing them. Bill Nighy and Paul Mescal have been my fourth and fifth predictions for a while now but another potential first-time nominee like Jeremy Pope could still get in. I don't see any previous winner or nominee being taken seriously.

Best Actress

Cate Blanchett, Michelle Yeoh, and Danielle Deadwyler should be slam dunks but between Viola Davis, Ana de Armas, and Michelle Williams, I am not certain. I would love to see Emma Thompson pull off a surprise nomination but that's probably not going to happen.

Best Supporting Actor

Other than Ke Huy Quan, Brendan Gleeson, and Barry Keoghan, I am prepared for anything though I would hope that the selection would be between Paul Dano, Judd Hirsch, and Ben Whishaw.

Best Supporting Actress

I think Angela Bassett and Kerry Condon are both likely but everyone else is vulnerable. I would like to see Dolly De Leon, Nina Hoss, and pre-year-end awards front-runner Jessie Buckley fill the three remaining slots. De Leon is probable with Jamie Lee Curtis, Stephanie Hsu, and Hon Chau all probably ahead of Hoss and Buckley.

Surprise nominations for Thompson and Buckley would make my day. What would make yours?

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Weird thought: last year, with best director a scramble, some of us thought Spielberg might be the omission, but he made it in. This year, everyone thinks he’s a certainty, with the win clearly possible. What if he were to be left out on Tuesday?

I've been wondering about this. You've inspired me to go out on a limb and predict that he won't.

[Mister Tee]

I’ll do a prediction list, eventually. But, for me, the interesting part isn’t the final decision, but the thought process. Herein, my thoughts for the top slots.

Start at the top: If you read my response in okri’s What Makes a Best Picture? Thread, you’ll already know my opinion -- no candidate among this year’s top contenders comes close to being a normal times/classic choice. There will be a best picture winner solely because the rules say there has to be.

Everything Everywhere All at Once seems to clearly have the juice right now; it’s an unqualified commercial success, and many have genuine enthusiasm for it. But I wonder how wide that enthusiasm goes…specifically, if it might have less appeal to the Academy age demographic. Purely anecdotal, but three people my age –- sophisticated film fans all -– have told me they turned it off after an hour/hour-and-a-half. This doesn’t seem a good sign for triumphing on a preferential ballot. The fact that the Globes failed to honor it for film, director or screenplay might also signal weakness. Let’s recall: when we initially talked about the film, in late Spring, we were discussing it chiefly in terms of screenplay/visual effects nominations (the latter of which, ironically, it won’t get); MAYBE a lower-tier best picture nod. The way the year’s played out, there’s no question it’s moved up in the rankings. But it’s possible it’s now ascended to what The Peter Principle calls its level of incompetence.

If there was Globes aversion to Everything…, The Fabelmans was the beneficiary. But that was about the only good news Spielberg’s film has received in recent weeks –- the BAFTA near-shutout was brutal; even the SAG Ensemble nod was offset by the absence of Michelle Williams; and the grosses have been, at best, not quite awful. This despite critical and blogger hype of the sort one would dream.

I’m reminded of an old joke, which in the past has been applied to losing political campaigns: An ad exec for a dog food company says, “Gentlemen, we have the best dog food. It has the best ingredients, it tastes the best, looks the best. Why can’t we sell it?” A junior assistant pipes up, “Dogs don’t like it.” That’s where I think The Fabelmans is sitting right now: like Belfast, bloggers and critics are certain it’s the movie Oscar voters will eat up…but Oscar voters are proving more resistant than expected. This doesn’t mean the film CAN’T win the top prizes –- as I said, SOMETHING has to win. But it’s not the solid bet it was a few months back.

Weird thought: last year, with best director a scramble, some of us thought Spielberg might be the omission, but he made it in. This year, everyone thinks he’s a certainty, with the win clearly possible. What if he were to be left out on Tuesday?

The Banshees of Inisherin has pluses – clear actor appeal, a potentially winning screenplay, perhaps leftover affection from those who DID love Three Billboards. The good showing at the Globes indicates real affection, and I think it has a shot at the SAG Ensemble win. (Folks at AwardsWorthy pooh-pooh this notion, saying the cast is too small. Do they not remember Sideways?) There are days when I think it could be the one to slip through to the ultimate win. But then I look at the not-great gross, remember those mutilations, and recall the minor key in which the film ended…and I think, it’s just another film that shouldn’t be able to win best picture.

I had dinner with a high school friend over the holidays –- someone with whom I saw many of the landmark films of the 70s. Unsolicited, he told me his son had told him he needed to watch Top Gun: Maverick. “And it sucked!” he said. I could have hugged him on the spot: for months now, I’ve felt I’ve been living in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, as ostensibly intelligent moviegoers tell me I should consider the film a prime candidate for the best picture Oscar. For reason I’ve articulated at length, I really can’t fathom this attitude (the only rationale I seem to hear is “Have you seen how much money it made?”). I’m of course taking comfort from the stumbles the film has encountered of late –- the BAFTA above-line shutout; Cruise missing all the lead actor precursors. But I never relax when it comes to choices I think would be so appalling: I let down my guard on Braveheart, and it sucker-punched me at the finale. There seems no way this film misses the best picture slate (though one can dream). But if it were to win the prize, as some are predicting…I think, not long after, voters would awake as from a drunken haze and wonder how they let their judgment get so clouded as to go to bed with THAT.

I don’t think anything else is being truly considered as likely winner. TAR is outstanding, but a classic art film/lone director-in-a-year-of-5, that will be fortunate to win best actress. All Quiet on the Western Front, however it does in nominations, will always be a subtitled remake of a film that ALREADY won best picture…though I suppose a BAFTA triumph could change our outlook. After CODA’s last-minute surge, we should probably allow for the possibility of a lower-tier nominee somehow outlasting the elimination rounds. But I don’t see anything with major potential.

So, on to the actors:

The male acting race could actually give us the rare 3-way race, as the Globes and Broadcasters have given each of the leading contenders a trophy. If SAG and BAFTA split (please, please!), and (as seems likely), all 3 films score best picture nominations, the playing field ought to be level.

As for the also-ran nominees: a lot of people are now coming around to Nighy/Mescal as the fillers, and I admit to being a bit nervous about such a low-grossing-indie profile for 40% of the line-up. The category seems ripe for a surprise, but it’s hard to see where that would come from. I of course shudder at the thought of a Cruise nomination (however ridiculous a Top Gun best picture would be, Cruise nominated for that nothing performance would be worse). Maybe Tom Hanks slips in, for an at-least-credible role in a surprise money-maker? Who else?

The female top race seems destined to be uncertain right up to the envelope-opening. Blanchett has clearly won over the top critics -– even the Broadcasters couldn’t deny her -– but the double-narrative of “Blanchett has won twice already/Yeoh may never have a better chance” should keep things fluid right to the end.

As for the other nominees, there are a lot of interesting things to watch: Does Deadwyler make it, despite the Globes omission? Is de Armas a real thing (even while her film rules the Razzies)? Is this Riseborough boomlet enough of a thing to actually get her listed? Does Williams make it or not? (Or is she, as some are suggesting, relocating to support?) Is Davis turning into a perennial candidate, a la Streep? Are they still so infatuated with Olivia Colman as to nominate her even for this? Could Emma Thompson’s seemingly forgotten effort get her in after all?

Supporting actor is the dullest race, as the world has apparently met in secret session and decided Ke Huy Quan is the only candidate. The Banshees duo seem likely to become the category’s fifth tandem in the past 6 years. Might the two from the Fabelmans make it (I think) the only double-double slate since 1949’s supporting actress? If only one Fabelman makes it, which one -- the guy with the larger character, or the guy with the boffo scene? Can former winners Pitt or Redmayne slip in despite weak films? Or is there a chance for long shots Ben Whishaw or Brian Tyree Henry?

The Globe/Broadcasters combo has a lot of people proclaiming Angela Bassett a lock, but I’m not even 100% sure she’ll survive the nomination process. There are a ton of candidates for this slate-of-5, and almost all the rest come from films more likely to make the best picture list. Kerry Condon seems the safest, with Banshees in the inner circle of contenders. Everything Everywhere… also sits there, but its situation is confused by the fact of two strong candidates, Curtis and Hsu. Will both be nominated? Only one (but which)? Or will they split enough that neither make it? You can make a case for any scenario. Hong Chau and Dolly DeLeon, with films that could well get lower tier best picture slots, have been coming on strong. What of the seemingly forgotten early critics’ winners, Keke Palmer and Janelle Monae? Is Nina Hoss still a possibility to coattail her dominant leading lady? And does Michelle Williams do a reverse-Winslet and show up here instead on in lead? This category seems to me to have the greatest range of possible outcomes of any top-line contest, and I’ll listen with great interest.

I disclosed my utter confusion about best director in the Last Three Slots thread. I could see as many as 4 of the DGA nominees carrying over, or as few as 2 (shades of 2012). The Daniels and (unexpectedly) Field are the only ones I’d view as fully safe. As far as substitutions, the list approaches double digits. This one could be dull, or full-on-crazy.

As for the screenplays: Adapted looks a bit less amorphous with All Quiet and The Whale seemingly raising their profiles, but there are still a bunch of iffy candidates (Women Talking/She Said/Glass Onion/White Noise/Living/Pinocchio) looking to nab the other slots. In original, nearly everyone agrees on the big four (Banshees/Everything Everywhere/Fabelmans/TAR), and the major question appears to be whether the favorite –- Triangle of Sadness –- grabs the fifth slot, or if something else (Aftersun, Decision to Leave) swoops in.

In other categories, I’ll be much interested to see which five emerge from the absolutely stellar International Film shortlist (atypically, there are at least ten titles on the list with wide name recognition); whether the song category favors pop stars or integrated-into-the-film efforts (and, of course, whether they continue being sluts for Diane Warren); which animated long-shot fills out the list; whether the documentary branch indulges its “leave out a front-runner or two” tendency; and which atrocities the visual effects branch will force me to sit through this year.

I share something okri expressed a while back: in many ways, I enjoy Nominations Day more than the final ceremony, as there are usually little things to appreciate, even when there are disappointments in top spots. I look forward to Tuesday morning, as I know we all do.

By the way: I understand they’re back to doing them live for the press this year? Can anyone confirm they’ll still do all 20-odd categories on-air, or do I need to be online for the start of it?