Fall Predicitons

[Sonic Youth]

I agreed with the Brando/Pacino positioning with The Godfather. Even though Pacino had the larger role, the deference of Pacino and the other actors, as well as his titular role, made him the sole star if there was to be only one star or best actor contender.

They were both the titular role. One was the Godfather, and one became the Godfather.

It's not only that Pacino had the larger role. He had the central role. The story arc centered on him, not Brando. But age and stardom tends to win out in these category placements. Timothy Hutton of Ordinary People is another example of this inequity.

[The Original BJ]

I know I've discussed this with Magilla before, but I still can't understand how any actor with a larger role can be supporting an actor with a smaller role, a la Pacino and Brando in The Godfather. I guess I feel star power has very little to do with lead/supporting status.

Mister Tee, don't forget Oscar's most recent avoidance of two-guys-together (pun very much intended): demoting Jake Gyllenhaal to supporting status simply because he would have almost certainly been left out of an overcrowded Best Actor field. That this barely raised an eyebrow outside of circles like this board makes me think the days of multiple nods for the same film in lead categories is definitely over.

[Big Magilla]

I agreed with the Brando/Pacino positioning with The Godfather. Even though Pacino had the larger role, the deference of Pacino and the other actors, as well as his titular role, made him the sole star if there was to be only one star or best actor contender. That same year did see two lead actors nomianted for the same film, Olivier and Caine for Sleuth. I remember the commentator on the local news, Stewart Klein I believe it was, say it was riduculous to nominate both becuase if you were for Sleuth you were for Olivier. Again I disagreed with the contrary notion, feeling both were equally important to the success of the film.

The positioning to effect awards outcomes really took root five years later with the positioning of Vanessa Redgrave in the supporting actress category for Julia. Yes, her role was smaller than Fonda's, and yes, she was by all accounts a supporting player in the film except that her name above the title with Fonda helped sell the film so it came as a bit of a shcok when it was announced that she would be pushed for a supporting nomination.

In 1997, Robin Williams received top billing in Good Will Hunting yet was nominated and won in support, while second billed Matt Damon, who played the title role, was nominated in the lead category. My feeling is if you are going to position "stars" for supporting awards consideration you should also advertise/sell the film with their names clearly listed below those fo the co-stars you are pushing for lead, i.e. Jane Fonda in Julia with Vanessa Redgrave, Matt Damon in Godo Will Huning with bla bla bla and Robin Williams. However, with the prctice having been abused for so long I doubt things will change any time soon.

This year it looks like Blanchett or her reps may be doing the same thing that was done with Streep and Moore in 2002. Streep was the female lead in Adaptation, for which she was pushed for support so she could potentitally be nomianted both for lead actress for The Hours and support for that film. With no such double opportunity this year she is taking the high road and opting for a best actress nod where she will have less of a chance than in support. Methinks the real reason is that if she loses in lead she can say it was because of the strong competition whereas if she were to lose again in support she might be more than a little embarassed.

[Mister Tee]

The Blanchett role in The Good German is clearly the lead female character in the book, but of course who knows how the adaptation has gone. There's also the question, how seriously will people take the film? The book (like another of Kanon's, Los Alamos) does a terrific job of blending a mystery plot with an atmospheric study of a particular time and place. Done optimally, it could be like The Third Man. But if only done decently, it could strike voters as "just" a mystery, a genre they've been known to mostly overlook.

Uri, you raise an interesting question: whatever happened to multiple nominations in the leading acting categories? I went back and checked, and found that:

On the male side, they used to be moderately frequent. Skipping over the pre-supporting-category three-man crush of 1935, and the utterly fluky Crosby/Fitzgerald combo in '44, I find 10 instances in the years 1945 through 1984 ('53, '56, '58, '61, '64, '69, '72, '76, '83 and '84) -- which is to say, one in four. But none in the 21 years since.

On the female side, it was far less frequent -- 5 between 1950 and the 1991 you mentioned ('50, '59, '77, '83 and '91). But even that's about 1 in 10, whereas now we've had silence for 14 years.

Is this absence coincidence, or a sign of overt strategizing?

It's interesting that, the year just after the last two-guys-together slate, many of us expected a double-nomination, for both Hurt and Raul Julia in Spider Woman (though Hurt was widely seen as likelier to win). Did Julia's surprise non-appearance cause rethinking on the part of Oscar campaigners? Did it suddenly seem more opportune to designate one of the pair supporting, whether reality supported that notion or not? Such thinking actually had its roots 13 years earlier -- when Pacino was relegated to supporting for The Godfather, despite, in the view of most of us, carrying the film, and giving the truly legendary performance. In the years after, there were other debatable instances -- Eastwood and Hackman in Unforgiven; Travolta and Jackson in Pulp Fiction. And maybe Jeff Bridges denied himself a shot by aiming for best actor alongside co-star Robin Williams in The Fisher King, rather than slumming in the very weak '91 supporting actor slot.

There are debatable female tandems, too: the two English Patient ladies, whose roles were about the same size (actually, both of them probably belonged in support); Hilary and Jackie (with the placement probably determined by Watson's greater name-recognition, and Jacqueline's greater fame); the two Iris-es (many have said to me they should have been, if anything, reversed); and the three-car pile-up that was The Hours, with Nicole given top billing, Julianne bumped to support, and Streep farmed out for an Adapation nod instead -- when all had about the same screen-time.

On the whole, I agree with you, it's unseemly to watch people categorize themselves not by common sense but by likelihood-to-win (one reason I'm happy Streep is not stooping to conquer by campaigning as supporting for Prada). But it's worth wondering if many out there hold that same view.

[VanHelsing]

I've heard that even though Blanchett is clearly the leading actress in The Good German, her role screentime is more like Weisz's in The Constant Gardener. Much more screentime is in store for Clooney & Maguire instead.

I think for Blanchett's case, she will be pushed for leading in Notes On A Scandal and supporting in Babel and The Good German. Either way, I don't think she'll win this year. It's too early and I don't think AMPAS really loves her cause if they did, then she would have won long ago for Elizabeth before winning for The Aviator.

----------

And here are my August predictions for the acting categories:

Best Leading Actor
Ed Harris ~ COPYING BEETHOVEN
Hugh Jackman ~ THE FOUNTAIN
Derek Luke ~ CATCH A FIRE
Peter O'Toole ~ VENUS
Forest Whitaker ~ THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND

Best Supporting Actor
Ben Affleck ~ HOLLYWOODLAND
Aaron Eckhart ~ THE BLACK DAHLIA
Eddie Murphy ~ DREAMGIRLS
Brad Pitt ~ BABEL
Tim Robbins ~ CATCH A FIRE

Best Leading Actress
Cate Blanchett ~ NOTES ON A SCANDAL
Dakota Fanning ~ HOUNDDOG
Maggie Gyllenhaal ~ SHERRYBABY
Ashley Judd ~ BUG
Helen Mirren ~ THE QUEEN

Best Supporting Actress
Judi Dench ~ NOTES ON A SCANDAL
Jennifer Hudson ~ DREAMGIRLS
Diane Lane ~ HOLLYWOODLAND
Sharon Stone ~ BOBBY
Hilary Swank ~ THE BLACK DAHLIA

With the above nominees, I'm guessing Harris, Robbins, Judd & Dench for the wins.

[Uri]

Regarding the Blanchett/Dench debate – is it really totally impossible anymore for two actors of the same gender to be nominated as leads? It hasn't happened for the past 15 years, the Sarandon/Davis showing for Thelma and Louise being the last one, and you all seem to accept it as a given. I don't blame anyone here – you try to do your best at guessing what the Academy will do – but for me, it's an indication (one of many) to the fact that the Oscars have become such a predictable, cynical, and eventually extremely boring affair in the last few years.

[Okri]

Is she? I haven't read the book (The Good German). I thought both Dench and Blanchett were co-leads, based on reading the book [Notes from a Scandal (I also wonder if Bill Nighy can sneak into the supporting category too for his role)].

While it may be advantageous, I'm still pissed off that Jamie Foxx was campaigned as support for Collateral.

[Mister Tee]

I believe part of the Blanchett/Dench thing is the fact that Blanchett is clearly a lead in The Good German, and, if that film also hits, it'd be more advantageous for Blanchett to be campaigned in separate categories.

But, hell, none of us have seen the film; maybe Dench is the focus.

I've always sort of rooted for Affleck, despite the dismal movies with which he's been associated, because I think he's a very bright guy, and also because I liked him alot in Chasing Amy before the blockbuster bug bit him. It's interesting to look at the quite distinct paths he and buddy Damon took after their mutual emergence. Damon was quoted as saying he viewed Robert Duvall's career as a guide -- take possibly smaller roles in projects that look interesting (as Duvall did, early, in Bullitt, True Grit, MASH), and people will start associating you with quality. Thus, Damon showed up briefly in Saving Private Ryan (and soon after, to more effect, in Talented Mr. Ripley), while Ben was making his pile for Armageddon and Pearl Harbor. No one of course can guarantee success for any project, and Damon took some lumps, but even Bagger Vance and All the Pretty Horses were failures of ambition, not cynicism -- and he's been rewarded further on with the Bourne movies and Syriana (with possibly The Departed and Good Shepherd to come) while Ben struggles to get taken seriously once again.

[Reza]

If Magilla's list was the actual list of nominees for 2006, I would choose the following winners:

Picture: Dreamgirls
Actor: Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland
Actress: Helen Mirren, The Queen
Supporting Actor: Eddie Murphy, Dreamgirls
Supporting Actress: Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls
Director: Bill Condon, Dreamgirls

[Big Magilla]

Typically, you are correct. When the National Board of Review gave Diane Keaton their Supporting Actress award for Annie Hall no one followed suit. When Peggy Ashcroft picked up a slew of Best Actress awards for A Passage to India AMPAS still nominated and awarded her in support. Last year Maria Bello failed to be nominated after she unexpectedly won a Best Actress award throwing mass confusion into the mix.

The difference with Dench is that she has had three nominations for Best Actress and two for Best Supporting Actredss. She is very definitely a star. The inclination, I would think, would be to nominate her in the lead category and AMPAS may well look to the critics, not just Fox's campaign, for guidance.

I can't see Dench pressuring anyone over awards campaigns, least of all at the expense of another actor. She may have said she thought she ought to be considered lead, but when the studio balked at promoting two lead actresses in the same film backed off and said it was Blanchett's film so promote her in support. It doesn't mean awards givers will honor her wish or Fox's campaign. However, they just may. Suddenly what looked to be a boring awards year has generated some controversy, surrounding of all people, the usually unassuming Judi Dench.

[OscarGuy]

Magilla, I wouldn't count on the precursors to be an accurate barometer. Sometimes they go their own way but they get the same press info, screeners and mail adds the Academy gets. They are generally told where to consider a performance by the screeners/ads. Now, like I said, sometimes we go our own way because we disagree, but that's a very rare occurrence, so look where the campaign tries to put her first, then make your determination.

More likely than anything a push in the "considerably" wrong category often backfires and results in no nomination at all.

[VanHelsing]

Dench pressured a lead campaign? Is she that self-centered?

Anyways, would just like to point out that predictions are fun! And it could be greatly satisfying to find that your predictions (especially the early ones) turn out to be true.

[Big Magilla]

William Goldman is right; nobody knows anything (especially this early in the game).

Which is why I'm going to refrain from making any changes right now, though it occurs to me that The Blood Diamond is unlikely to score a best picture nod without any acting or directing nods.

If Dench scores pre-cursor recognition for lead she is likely to be campaigned as lead by Fox whether she wishes it or not. However, delegating Blanchett to support doesn't seem likely in any case.

I liked Ben Affleck pre-Jennifer Lopez when he was a serious actor. Now that he is presumably happily married to the other Jennifer and keeping his private life private he seems to be anxious to to be taken seriously as actor once more. He allegedly watched all 104 episodes of George Reeves' Superman and carried around a taped recording of Reeves' voice so he would get the voice inflections as well as the mannerisms down pat. The only problem seems to be where to place him.

[paperboy]

I've also read somewhere (sorry, can't remember) that Dench said she wouldn't be campaigning for lead since she feels that Notes On A Scandal actually belongs to Blanchett.

How funny; only a few hours ago I happened to read this at In Contention:

Rumor has it that Dame Judi Dench pressured a lead campaign for her performance in “Notes on a Scandal,” while co-star Cate Blanchett will potentially be relegated to the supporting arena. Both may still go into the lead category at the end of the day, however.

William Goldman is right; nobody knows anything (especially this early in the game).

[Damien]

An actress friend of mine saw Hollywoodland and said she's never liked Ben Affleck, but thought he was wonderful in the picture.