MaxWilder wrote:Precious Doll wrote:I had Blunt pegged until I actually saw Mary Poppins Returns and poor Emily Blunt gets lost in the ensemble.
There are
long stretches of the movie where she's either not in the scene or off to the side, not talking. It's insane and baffling, to put it mildly.
I watched the original Mary Poppins a year or two ago -- first time in decades -- and, you know what? Julie Andrews has a pretty long disappearing act in the second half, as well. Shocked me.
I think Emily Blunt getting a lead actress nomination for Mary Poppins Returns was one of those Ideas that permeated the blogosphere prior to release and has hung around on inertia, with no real reason behind it. The film got far worse reviews than imagined and, while its gross is something First Man or Widows would have craved, it's not been big enough to offset the general ho-hum surrounding the entire project. I'd say Emily Blunt, if she's in the conversation at all this year, would have a better likelihood at a best actress nod for A Quiet Place. (Not that I'd do it myself, but if there's a spot to do a Kate Winslet/Reader category bump, that's it.)
Not that I have any idea who the fifth best actress nominee will be (assuming Close/Colman/McCarthy/Gaga all show up, as they do here). Any one of the names BJ mentions could take the slot; it's going to be random, whoever it is.
The two-day-old hysteria over Bohemian Rhapsody can calm down a bit: yes, it got a bunch of techs, and the certain Malek, but none of the glamour categories (I don't count Best British Film as important).
Green Book showed up here, but its miss in directing suggests its status in the race is somewhere between top and second tier. Ali will certainly stay in the supporting actor race -- it'll be interesting to see how many of the upcoming TV awards he can grab -- but I think our only deep worry about the film is its winning screenplay. (Though not here at BAFTA: I'd faint dead away if The Favourite failed to win.)
Roma did about as well as could be hoped, short of an Aparicio nod (which has always struck me a deep long-shot: she's a non-professional, and it's just not that kind of part. If people think Amy Adams doesn't have enough big scenes -- something on which I disagree, by the way -- how can they argue for Aparicio?).
A Star is Born got the top-line citations, but was soft in the lower echelons -- no Elliott or editing, to indicate the film really has immense popularity. Such omissions at the edges may not hurt in the end -- remember how we over-interpreted every shortfall for 12 Years a Slave? -- but they don't seem to point to a King's Speech sort of romp ahead. I do think the Globe wipeout will have us all wary of Cooper's film the rest of the way.
And then there's BlackkKlansman, which continues to quietly rack up everything it needs. Its worst news of the day was missing under editing, which barely qualifies. BAFTA continues to have a reputation for ignoring black artists -- where are you, Regina King? --but they came through bigtime for Spike. Since I remain agnostic about the entire best picture race this year, I can't help wondering if BlackkKlansman could have a right place/right time scenario for lucking into a win at AMPAS. (Again, not here: I see The Favourite as the clear likelihood here, with Spike relegated to adapted screenplay.)
It's weird that First Man did so well in the undercard categories, but missed the one where it seemed to have its best shot at winning, score. The haul it did get (including supporting actress and screenplay) reinforces my thought that the film isn't utterly out of the running for a best picture slot with the Academy (had BAFTA had up-to-ten nominees, it would have had an excellent chance at a nod, given its overall haul).
On the other hand, Black Panther. I wasn't much surprised at its failure under best picture/director -- BAFTA was the one group that resisted the siren call of Mad Max: Fury Road, so they seemed likely to steer clear of such a pulpy contender. But Mad Max did kick butt in their tech categories, so it's shocking to see Panther limited to one nomination (in its far from most impressive area).
Though people will inevitably lump them together for demographic reasons, I'd say the omissions for If Beale Street Could Talk are more for esthetic reasons. I've indicated how much I like the film, but it seems clear by now that large swaths of the awards-giving community are putting it in the Carol "too art-house" category. There's a chance the film could be rescued by AMPAS, the way Room was, but an equal possibility is it falls way short. The primary question is, what to make of Regina King? Her omission here – coupled with the SAG miss – is a dark cloud, and there’s no point trying to brush past it. She could well win the Broadcasters' prize – I expect it, in fact – but to have no chance at winning the other two TV awards puts her in the exact same spot as Sylvester Stallone a few years ago. Remember how, after the fact, we realized that the two places Stallone was left out were the ones with industry overlap? Same here. Perhaps we should also prepare ourselves for a repeat of the “it’s still ok; the other prizes were split” argument, since that’s likely to happen, as well. The best argument for why it’s different is, King had a massive run at the critics’ awards, which makes her more Rylance than Stalllone. But the way the season has gone, we’re going to be in doubt about the outcome right up the envelope-moment. For which I say, hooray.
Incidentally, I disagree it’s a weak year in the category. By me, King, Adams, Weisz and Stone are easily deserving of note (though the latter is closer to lead), and Foy is a perfectly solid ballot filler (as would be the till-now-ignored Debicki). If you want to argue that no one jumps out as obvious winner, I wouldn’t strenuously disagree. But that’s not the same as calling the field weak.
I was watching the live-stream of the nominations last night/early this morning, and I knew someone I’d been expecting was missing from the best actor slate (in favor of Coogan), but it wasn’t till I woke this morning that I realized who: Ethan Hawke. How bizarre, to have a sweep-the-top-critics performer fail to be nominated by three of the four TV precursors. The guy who won the minor critics as well, by landslide, is in the same category as Cotillard in Two Days, One Night: hoping a sliver of art-house fans sneak him onto the AMPAS ballot.
BAFTA went for a bunch of on-the-bubble candidates who seemed aided by carryover from breakthroughs last year: Chalamet, Robbie and Rockwell. I haven’t seen the first two, but Rockwell I find puzzling. Talk about someone who didn’t truly have much to do in his film: I found Carell both better and more integral to the film. Supporting actor still seems a fuzzy category to me, beyond Ali/Grant/Driver.
Still a ways to go, but everything so far seems to be setting up an uncharacteristically competitive Oscar year. Let’s make it happen.