Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:18 am**

rain Bard wrote:Of the 200+ other features in the festival, the ones it was impossible to escape hearing all about included 127 Hours, the King’s Speech and Black Swan. Anything else paled in comparison for "being-talked-about". As a first-time attendee of the festival, I didn’t expect to see so many walkouts at every press screening I attended (not so the public screenings). But apparently nobody walks out of films like these. Marching orders from editors? Or publicists? Who knows?

Intriguing.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:27 am**

I recognize what Eric said as being facetious, but I also think Reza was trying to make a joke upon the joke, but I'm not 100% clear on what the desired result was.

Posted: **Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:01 am**

Eric wrote:I being facetious about the Academy's propensity for tokenizing black performers, not suggesting that there has to be a "slot" for them. I would've hoped that was clear, but apologies for the confusion.

Eric, your post was completely clear. Reza, I'm afraid you lack an ability to read tone. Italiano, somehow gets away with these sort of generalities about Americans. You? Not so much.

Edited By flipp525 on 1285185879

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:48 pm**

I being facetious about the Academy's propensity for tokenizing black performers, not suggesting that there has to be a "slot" for them. I would've hoped that was clear, but apologies for the confusion.

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:42 pm**

Damien wrote:
flipp525 wrote:
Reza wrote: Then I'm surprised by what you just said. Surely you should have known better. Lol.
What does this even mean?
I was wondering the same exact thing.

The way African Americans and other minorities have been treated all along and continue to be treated in America. My comment was about Eric's reference to the ''thing'' he was referring to. As an American he should have known.............or he probably does know that.

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:22 pm**

flipp525 wrote:
Reza wrote:
Eric wrote: American enough.
Then I'm surprised by what you just said. Surely you should have known better. Lol.
What does this even mean?

I was wondering the same exact thing.

Posted: **Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:51 am**

Reza wrote:
Eric wrote:
Reza wrote: Eric are you American?
American enough.
Then I'm surprised by what you just said. Surely you should have known better. Lol.

What does this even mean?

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:51 pm**

So I said I’d post a wrap-up of my Toronto Film Festival experiences here. Might as well be in this thread. This is not my “real” wrap-up as that’s going to be exclusive content for Senses Of Cinema (the Australian film journal which secured my press pass, without which I wouldn’t have seen nearly as many films as I did- with a few exceptions, tickets are expensive if you have to buy them!)

Instead, I’ll be focusing solely on the Oscar potential of the 32 film programs I saw. Which, in most cases, remains zero. Even if a few of the foreign films I saw were to be nominated in the foreign-language category, it seems unlikely that any of them would break out into other categories.

I’ll get most of the no-nomination-possibilities out of the way first.

I saw four of the Wavelengths programs: three sets of shorts (sets 1, 2, and 6), none of which are remote contenders for the short film prizes. And James Benning’s Ruhr: a 2-hour “documentary” consisting of seven static shots, one lasting an hour. Uh-uh.

Of the 28 remaining features, I feel absolutely confident that Marimbas From Hell, the Strange Case of Angelica, Pinoy Sunday, Attenberg (despite the Venice-prize-winning performance from the woman who plays the older sister in Dogtooth), the Mysteries of Lisbon, Oki’s Movie, Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (Cannes palme d’or notwithstanding), Rare Exports: a Christmas Tale, Roses à Crédit, Curling, or The Sleeping Beauty are not going to get nominations from the academy, even if their respective countries have the guts (in many cases such as Thailand or Portugal the taste) to submit them for foreign language oscar consideration.

Almost as unlikely are: Lapland Odyssey (mainstream Finnish comedy, but a laughless one), Poetry (despite a knockout lead performance, Korea’s Lee Chang-dong is too Cassavetes-inspired an auteur to appeal to the Academy unless he begins working in another style), A Useless Life (one of my favorite films of the festival, this poetic Uruguayan film about a cash-strapped cinematheque is touching, but perhaps only to hardcore cinephiles), The Ditch (what country would even submit this digital docudrama scathingly critical of 1960-era Chinese work camps?)

That leaves thirteen features with some kind of chance at Oscar nominations. Six of these are foreign-language films. In order of my perceived likelihood that they’d be nominated by the Academy presuming they’re submitted by their respective countries (from least to most likely – not taking into account eligibility years, as I believe some are eligible for the 2011 derby and some not until 2012, based on commercial release dates in their homelands): Special Treatment (France), The Illusionist (France), Carancho (Argentina), Behind Blue Skies (Sweden), Aftershock (China), Home For Christmas (Norway). Actually my favorite of these is Behind Blue Skies by a wide margin, but the Chinese and Norwegian films are more packed with sentiment so I rank them higher in likelihood of a nom. Carancho is the worst of this bunch, but it has a gritty slickness that the Academy could go for.

The Illusionist, like Persepolis before it, has a stronger shot at an animated feature nomination than a foreign-language one. It features some of the most impressive character animation seen in a long time, so it could take the “hand-drawn” and “for adults more than for kids” slot in the animated race. However, I’m not so sure that either of those slots are guaranteed (look at 2006), and there is some controversy over the film, so it might not be a slam-dunk for a nomination in a year with so many animated hits.

Of the seven remaining films, 3 are documentary features. It’s always difficult to suss out eligibility in this category. I don’t know if any of these three films have any kind of commercial release date, and if they do whether it’s in time for this year’s Oscars. However, I’d say that Tabloid is Errol Morris’s most entertaining film- perhaps ever. Which could be held against it by the more serious-minded documentary committee, but ought to make it appeal to audiences who shied away from Standard Operating Procedure. If Werner Herzog could get a nomination for his Antarctica doc, I don’t see why he can’t for Cave of Forgotten Dreams, even though I personally don’t think these are among his best recent non-fiction films. The only thing going for Boxing Gym is its length- at 1 ½ hours it’s the first Frederick Wiseman film in years that academy members won’t be daunted by the thought of sitting through. Still, I don’t see why a career of his fine work being ignored by Oscar should be interrupted by this otherwise typical film for him.

So that leaves four films, and right away we can toss out the two involving Vincent Gallo (although they were two of my own favorite films of the festival). Essential Killing is the one he won the Venice prize for- but since it’s a wordless performance in a sure-to-be-controversial art film I think we can rule out his ability to repeat that feat with more aesthetically conservative awards bodies. Promises Written on Water is practically an avant-garde film of the kind even more anathema to Oscars.

Is Meek’s Cutoff Oscar-friendly? I doubt it. If Kelly Reichardt had the reputation of Terence Malick in 1998 or David Lynch in 2001 her film could see a few nominations in categories with slim candidates. But she’s still seen as an upcoming indie director; awards bodies will see this film as a step in the right direction but will want her to go further towards the mainstream before giving out prizes. If Michelle Williams didn’t register with Wendy and Lucy, I don’t see how any of these performances will. I’d single out the costumes and cinematography myself, but I think voters in those branches are looking for larger-scale productions to honor.

So, finally: Another Year. If I had to put money on one of my Toronto films to get any Oscar traction, it’d be this one. The fact that it feels like a companion piece to Happy-Go-Lucky could make it feel a bit old news, but I think it’s more likely to put voters in the mood to remember that Sally Hawkins got snubbed. Lesley Manville’s is the showiest performance by far, and just barely in that grey area where she could be considered lead or supporting. To me, the film is really about her character, but she’s out of enough scenes that voters could rationalize her either way, and if she ends up support, look out! It’s just that kind of role that can steamroll everything else in the supporting category because it’s got so much for audiences to chew on. And attention for Manville could also help the film in screenplay, and perhaps even picture and director categories. I suppose that will depend on the box office factor somewhat as well, though it comes late in the season.

Of the 200+ other features in the festival, the ones it was impossible to escape hearing all about included 127 Hours, the King’s Speech and Black Swan. Anything else paled in comparison for "being-talked-about". As a first-time attendee of the festival, I didn’t expect to see so many walkouts at every press screening I attended (not so the public screenings). But apparently nobody walks out of films like these. Marching orders from editors? Or publicists? Who knows?

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 2:23 pm**

Already this Oscar positioning is getting crazy. Suddenly Anne Hathaway's advance buzz for Love and Other Drugs has evaporated. If she's mentioned at all it's for support because "according to the script she doesn't enter until page 30."

That might make sense if she was an up-and-coming star, but she's not, and has a Best Actress nomination from just two years ago to prove it. Let's see how these professional Oscar prognosticators manage to fall all over themselves explaining why she is suddenly again the one to beat once the film comes out and is a bigger hit than Black Swan.

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 12:21 pm**

Eric wrote:
Reza wrote:
Eric wrote:Plus, surveying all the other offerings this year, it's probably the Academy's only chance to nominate a non-white performer (if that's, you know, their thing).
Eric are you American?
American enough.

Then I'm surprised by what you just said. Surely you should have known better. Lol.

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:56 am**

Decided to debut my 1st ever predictions for the Actress categories. Enjoy... :;):

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Annette Bening -- The Kids Are All Right {"Nic"}
Diane Lane -- Secretariat {"Penny Chenery"}
Jennifer Lawrence -- Winter's Bone {"Ree Dolly"}
Gwyneth Paltrow -- Country Strong {"Kelly Canter"}
Natalie Portman -- Black Swan {"Nina"}

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Helena Bonham Carter -- The King's Speech {"Queen Elizabeth"}
Elle Fanning -- Somewhere {"Cleo"}
Whoopi Goldberg -- For Colored Girls {"Alice"}
Thandie Newton -- For Colored Girls {"Tangie"}
Miranda Richardson -- Made in Dagenham {"Barbara Castle"}

Too bad no Sandy again... maybe next year for Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:14 am**

The actress who won the Tony for For Colored Girls played the Lady in Red, so that would seem to indicate that whoever plays the same part in the film would be the most likely of any of he actresses in the film to have a shot. Judging from the posters that would be Janet Jackson. And I'm telling you it ain't gonna happen.

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:04 am**

Reza wrote:
Eric wrote:Plus, surveying all the other offerings this year, it's probably the Academy's only chance to nominate a non-white performer (if that's, you know, their thing).
Eric are you American?

American enough.

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:58 am**

Has there ever been a movie that has failed to get an acting nomination because they couldn't figure out who to nominate? Someone will emerge from the film as the honorary performer.

Posted: **Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:51 am**

I think the big problem with nominating an actor is choosing which one. Do they go with the past Oscar nominee, Whoopi Goldberg; do they pick the past contender, Kimberly Elise; do they pick one of the Tyler Perry muses, Janet Jackson or Loretta Divine; do they pick someone else: Philicia Rashad or Anika Noni Rose?

Confusion over a central selection is what may prevent the film from earning an Oscar nomination in acting, though Adapted Screenplay and Best Picture could be possibilities if it's popular enough.

Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

How Things Look After Toronto