Oh, well, we live in Canada, don't you know.Big Magilla wrote:That's old news, Cam.
Pre-Nomination Musings
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Excellent and insightful post, as usual.
Regarding Best Actress, my no-guts-no-glory prediction is Nikki Blonsky. Knightley would be the first thing to go if voters didn't LOVE Atonement -- in other words, she's toast. I hope to god voters have the good sense to drop Blanchett's place-filler nod. You all make good points about Laura Linney, but to me I get a vibe of Jennifer Connelly '03. Most people kept predicting her because she seemed like a totally obvious choice, the kind of totally obvious choice that should have shown up regularly in the precursors...but didn't for some reason. (I think in both cases, it's the same reason -- the work is too similar to a lot of what they've done before.) I think Amy Adams will come awfully close...but Hairspray is a better, less-kiddie populist film than Enchanted, and Blonsky is more of an out-of-nowhere sensation. The SAG nod shows it has some support. Will it happen? Probably not...but if there's a shocker in this category I say she's it.
Tee's analysis of the screenplay races is dead-on. This has been an AMAZING year for adapted scripts -- Assassination of Jesse James, Atonement, Away From Her, Diving Bell, Gone Baby Gone, Into the Wild, Lust, Caution, No Country, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac. I'd rank all of those above most of the original contenders. (And I think the five best scripts of the year are ALL adapted.)
The original side, however, is pitiful. I'm rooting for long shots I'm Not There and 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, but even in those cases the films soar because of direction, performance, and tech elements, not scripted strength. Barring a surprise, however, I honestly think Ratatouille will be the finest nominee in this category (even above Juno and Michael Clayton, neither of which I love), but that's also more of a visual and aural wow than a scripted one. I can't say there's a candidate here I really love, and some of them -- The Savages, Lars and the Real Girl -- I'm not wild about at all.
Regarding Best Actress, my no-guts-no-glory prediction is Nikki Blonsky. Knightley would be the first thing to go if voters didn't LOVE Atonement -- in other words, she's toast. I hope to god voters have the good sense to drop Blanchett's place-filler nod. You all make good points about Laura Linney, but to me I get a vibe of Jennifer Connelly '03. Most people kept predicting her because she seemed like a totally obvious choice, the kind of totally obvious choice that should have shown up regularly in the precursors...but didn't for some reason. (I think in both cases, it's the same reason -- the work is too similar to a lot of what they've done before.) I think Amy Adams will come awfully close...but Hairspray is a better, less-kiddie populist film than Enchanted, and Blonsky is more of an out-of-nowhere sensation. The SAG nod shows it has some support. Will it happen? Probably not...but if there's a shocker in this category I say she's it.
Tee's analysis of the screenplay races is dead-on. This has been an AMAZING year for adapted scripts -- Assassination of Jesse James, Atonement, Away From Her, Diving Bell, Gone Baby Gone, Into the Wild, Lust, Caution, No Country, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac. I'd rank all of those above most of the original contenders. (And I think the five best scripts of the year are ALL adapted.)
The original side, however, is pitiful. I'm rooting for long shots I'm Not There and 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, but even in those cases the films soar because of direction, performance, and tech elements, not scripted strength. Barring a surprise, however, I honestly think Ratatouille will be the finest nominee in this category (even above Juno and Michael Clayton, neither of which I love), but that's also more of a visual and aural wow than a scripted one. I can't say there's a candidate here I really love, and some of them -- The Savages, Lars and the Real Girl -- I'm not wild about at all.
I Hope that Michael Clayton should not emerge as the surprise winner of this year.Mister Tee wrote:But I wonder if, as Magilla I believe mentioned, Juno's appeal is more to young voters, and older voters might go for the 70s-reminiscent Michael Clayton. I know lots of people of otherwise good taste who think Michael Clayton is a really great movie (for me, it vaguely reminds me of some un-specific great movie I once saw, but it is not that movie).
I'm predicting Laura Linney just because I'm mystified that she hasn't gotten a single nomination. Even if you don't like 'The Savages' or think that this is just another Linney-esque performance, she's not the kind of performer it seems that people have tired of, she's worked well within the industry, played the game, and found one of the strongest roles for women of the year in a movie as well-liked as 'The Savages'. I haven't seen Amy Adams' film and I'm sure it's charming enough but it seems as antithetical to Academy tastes as any movie this year.
How 'The Savages' isn't being taken seriously and 'Lars and the Real Girl' is astonishes me. Tamara Jenkins' film is a little too simplistic in dealing with dementia for me to fully embrace the film, but considering that Ryan Gosling is locked in for his goonish pastiche that one would imagine a consummate performer like Ryan Gosling would scoff at had he not starred in it, there seems to be no justification to speak of for Linney's lack of support other than the fact that voters haven't really gotten around to watching 'The Savages' yet.
How 'The Savages' isn't being taken seriously and 'Lars and the Real Girl' is astonishes me. Tamara Jenkins' film is a little too simplistic in dealing with dementia for me to fully embrace the film, but considering that Ryan Gosling is locked in for his goonish pastiche that one would imagine a consummate performer like Ryan Gosling would scoff at had he not starred in it, there seems to be no justification to speak of for Linney's lack of support other than the fact that voters haven't really gotten around to watching 'The Savages' yet.
"How's the despair?"
I'm truly at a loss as to why Laura Linney is not a solid contender in the Best Actress race this year. I saw The Savages last night and thought it was fantastic -- heartbreaking, funny, bleak, and humane with a great script. Linney is just wonderful in it. And Tee, I like your comparison to Edward Norton in American History X. Let's hope she follows the same trajectory. Also, Philip Bosco's scene in the diner sold me on why, in any other year for Best Supporting Actor, he'd be at least a top three contender. Philip Seymour Hoffman was dependably excellent, as per usual.Mister Tee wrote:First Laura Linney -- who, as Sabin aptly puts it, seems an obvious choice except for the fact she keeps getting left off lists. I'm thinking she might be like Edward Norton in American History X…also widely thought of as a strong contender but missed every list until the big one on Oscar morning.
Also, I've never fully gotten over Amy Adams figuring into this race either.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
My ongoing rehab/otherwise hellacious schedule has kept me from writing any Big Seasonal Opus, but a few thoughts on the major categories before most become moot next Tuesday:
Best Picture…The craziness of the SAG choices led some of us to believe it might be that unicorn-rare unpredictable year…but now, barring a mild (Atonement) surprise around the edges, it seems we're down to six real contenders: Diving Bell, Into the Wild, Juno, Michael Clayton, No Country and There Will Be Blood. What's striking is how, in contrast to basically all Oscar races of my lifetime, it's a poor man's race: Juno is the only one itching to hit $100 million, and that's one of the candidates on which we're most iffy. (It's startling to think, but, if Juno doesn't make it, No Country will be this year's highest grosser) And it's not as if there were simply no commercial alternatives: Even if you want to toss away American Gangster or Hairspray (and I do, I do), Sweeney Todd has, to date, outgrossed everything but No Country, and Atonement will probably do the same in the end. I'm not complaining about this at all; I just think it's worth noting.
Best Director…As Sonic and BJ have touched on in another thread, it's very hard to find a lone-director candidate this year, because so many of what we see as mainstream film/director possibilities would normally fall in that category -- Diving Bell for its subtitles, Into the Wild for its low gross, No Country and Blood for their seemingly difficult subject matter. I suppose you can make a left-field case for I'm Not There or Assassination of Jesse James…or Zodiac because of its commercial disappointment. But for the most part, this year the lone directors -- normally the stay-at-home nerds -- are going to the prom as guests of honor.
Best Actress…The estimable Magilla considers this race over. I lean (hopefully) more in that direction after the Broadcast win for Christie, but I still worry the combination of Away from Her's low grosses, Cotillard's foreign-ness and Page's youth will combust the competition in some odd way. As for who the other two nominees will be -- many are still pushing Blanchett and Jolie, with Knightley close behind. I honestly doubt any of these but Jolie have much shot (Blanchett for her film's artistic/financial failure, Knightley for her minor role and the general blackballing her film has received). And I haven't given up on two seeming longer shots. First Laura Linney -- who, as Sabin aptly puts it, seems an obvious choice except for the fact she keeps getting left off lists. I'm thinking she might be like Edward Norton in American History X…also widely thought of as a strong contender but missed every list until the big one on Oscar morning. And I'm also sticking by Amy Adams. Why has someone who got such overwhelming, a-star-is-born raves, and whose film has well outgrossed every other contender, been so dismissed? She got Globe and Broadcast Critics' nods; the sole rationale for ignoring her now seems to be the snub by SAG. But I'm still not convinced the early deadline wasn't at fault there (December releases Juno and There Will Be Blood were also mostly ignored by SAG, yet seem to have done far better subsequently). I think recent history tells us it's very risky to bet against the (rare) contending actresses who appear in box office hits.
So, that's my slate: Adams, Christie, Cotillard, Linney, Page. And you know what? In terms of how they were received by critics, that's a pretty solid group of five -- not up to last year's all-timers, but well beyond '05 or '03. I realize it's in everyone's DNA by now to proclaim the best actress line-up weak, but I really don't think you can make that case this year.
Best actor…By contrast, why don't more people note that best actor IS fairly thin? For the second straight year, we have one performance (Day-Lewis/Whitaker) widely judged best by critical consensus, and the rest all hangers-on. This isn't to say individuals here and elsewhere can't be enthusiastic about the work of Hirsch, McAvoy, Mortensen or whoever. But, in critical terms -- based on this year's prizes -- George Clooney's Michael Clayton work seems to be the year's second-most highly rated. As highly as I think of Clooney the guy, that bespeaks a truly humble year. (And, honestly -- do you think any of this year's also-rans would have had a chance at breaking into the Hoffman/Ledger/Phoenix/Strathairn group of just two years back?)
Because of all this, I have difficulty pinning down who the nominees will be, beyond Day-Lewis and Clooney. Hirsch's chances seem decent based on his film's Guild popularity, but I wouldn't bet rent money on him. Depp's odds have sunk along with Sweeney, but he might make it on long-term affection. McAvoy could make it (with or without Atonement in other categories)…or not. Is Gosling really likely to make it two in a row for movies practically no one's seen? Is Mortensen's early precursor fortune a fluke, or a sign? Could Philip Seymour Hoffman turn up here…and if so, for which film? In terms of nomination, I consider this the most wide-open of any acting category. And Day-Lewis of course wins.
Best supporting actor/actress…Not that much to say about these categories. They both have dead-solid-certain candidates (Bardem/Holbrook/Wilkinson/Affleck on the men's side, Blanchett/Ryan/Swinton among women) and some suspense around the edges. Perhaps the most interesting question that can be answered here is, how strong is No Country? If Jones and/or McDonald work their ways onto the ballot, I think the case can be made that the film has truly won over Hollywood to the point it's a best picture probability.
As far as winners…I know some of you are predicting Holbrook/Keener wins, and never say never, but…it seems to me Bardem and Ryan go in as very strong favorites.
Best screenplays…I can't remember a recent year where the two screenplay categories were more distinct. Adapted screenplay is virtually an adjunct of best picture, with Into the Wild, No Country and There Will Be Blood solidly anchored, and Diving Bell just about as strong. The writers' tendency to reward unappreciated gems showed only in the WGA nod to Zodiac -- and even that required them to bump seemingly-nomination-friendly Atonement. Where does this leave Away from Her or Gone Baby Gone, films that in a normal year would easily have contended for nomination here?
On the original side, the opposite. Not one of the contenders is absolutely certain of making the best picture list…though Juno and Michael Clayton are clearly in the running. I assume Ratatouille and The Savages will take two of the other slots, but what will be the 5th choice? Lars and Knocked Up made the Writers' Guild list, and one of them could repeat. But this branch has often struck out in a more independent direction. They could go for I'm Not There -- or, less adventurously, Once. And what about 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days -- surprise foreign-language entries have sometimes made their way into this competition.
As for who wins it…early speculation was all Juno! Juno! Juno! But I wonder if, as Magilla I believe mentioned, Juno's appeal is more to young voters, and older voters might go for the 70s-reminiscent Michael Clayton. I know lots of people of otherwise good taste who think Michael Clayton is a really great movie (for me, it vaguely reminds me of some un-specific great movie I once saw, but it is not that movie). Or, if votes split, could we actually have the Damien-nightmare of the rat cartoon eking out a victory?
Best Picture…The craziness of the SAG choices led some of us to believe it might be that unicorn-rare unpredictable year…but now, barring a mild (Atonement) surprise around the edges, it seems we're down to six real contenders: Diving Bell, Into the Wild, Juno, Michael Clayton, No Country and There Will Be Blood. What's striking is how, in contrast to basically all Oscar races of my lifetime, it's a poor man's race: Juno is the only one itching to hit $100 million, and that's one of the candidates on which we're most iffy. (It's startling to think, but, if Juno doesn't make it, No Country will be this year's highest grosser) And it's not as if there were simply no commercial alternatives: Even if you want to toss away American Gangster or Hairspray (and I do, I do), Sweeney Todd has, to date, outgrossed everything but No Country, and Atonement will probably do the same in the end. I'm not complaining about this at all; I just think it's worth noting.
Best Director…As Sonic and BJ have touched on in another thread, it's very hard to find a lone-director candidate this year, because so many of what we see as mainstream film/director possibilities would normally fall in that category -- Diving Bell for its subtitles, Into the Wild for its low gross, No Country and Blood for their seemingly difficult subject matter. I suppose you can make a left-field case for I'm Not There or Assassination of Jesse James…or Zodiac because of its commercial disappointment. But for the most part, this year the lone directors -- normally the stay-at-home nerds -- are going to the prom as guests of honor.
Best Actress…The estimable Magilla considers this race over. I lean (hopefully) more in that direction after the Broadcast win for Christie, but I still worry the combination of Away from Her's low grosses, Cotillard's foreign-ness and Page's youth will combust the competition in some odd way. As for who the other two nominees will be -- many are still pushing Blanchett and Jolie, with Knightley close behind. I honestly doubt any of these but Jolie have much shot (Blanchett for her film's artistic/financial failure, Knightley for her minor role and the general blackballing her film has received). And I haven't given up on two seeming longer shots. First Laura Linney -- who, as Sabin aptly puts it, seems an obvious choice except for the fact she keeps getting left off lists. I'm thinking she might be like Edward Norton in American History X…also widely thought of as a strong contender but missed every list until the big one on Oscar morning. And I'm also sticking by Amy Adams. Why has someone who got such overwhelming, a-star-is-born raves, and whose film has well outgrossed every other contender, been so dismissed? She got Globe and Broadcast Critics' nods; the sole rationale for ignoring her now seems to be the snub by SAG. But I'm still not convinced the early deadline wasn't at fault there (December releases Juno and There Will Be Blood were also mostly ignored by SAG, yet seem to have done far better subsequently). I think recent history tells us it's very risky to bet against the (rare) contending actresses who appear in box office hits.
So, that's my slate: Adams, Christie, Cotillard, Linney, Page. And you know what? In terms of how they were received by critics, that's a pretty solid group of five -- not up to last year's all-timers, but well beyond '05 or '03. I realize it's in everyone's DNA by now to proclaim the best actress line-up weak, but I really don't think you can make that case this year.
Best actor…By contrast, why don't more people note that best actor IS fairly thin? For the second straight year, we have one performance (Day-Lewis/Whitaker) widely judged best by critical consensus, and the rest all hangers-on. This isn't to say individuals here and elsewhere can't be enthusiastic about the work of Hirsch, McAvoy, Mortensen or whoever. But, in critical terms -- based on this year's prizes -- George Clooney's Michael Clayton work seems to be the year's second-most highly rated. As highly as I think of Clooney the guy, that bespeaks a truly humble year. (And, honestly -- do you think any of this year's also-rans would have had a chance at breaking into the Hoffman/Ledger/Phoenix/Strathairn group of just two years back?)
Because of all this, I have difficulty pinning down who the nominees will be, beyond Day-Lewis and Clooney. Hirsch's chances seem decent based on his film's Guild popularity, but I wouldn't bet rent money on him. Depp's odds have sunk along with Sweeney, but he might make it on long-term affection. McAvoy could make it (with or without Atonement in other categories)…or not. Is Gosling really likely to make it two in a row for movies practically no one's seen? Is Mortensen's early precursor fortune a fluke, or a sign? Could Philip Seymour Hoffman turn up here…and if so, for which film? In terms of nomination, I consider this the most wide-open of any acting category. And Day-Lewis of course wins.
Best supporting actor/actress…Not that much to say about these categories. They both have dead-solid-certain candidates (Bardem/Holbrook/Wilkinson/Affleck on the men's side, Blanchett/Ryan/Swinton among women) and some suspense around the edges. Perhaps the most interesting question that can be answered here is, how strong is No Country? If Jones and/or McDonald work their ways onto the ballot, I think the case can be made that the film has truly won over Hollywood to the point it's a best picture probability.
As far as winners…I know some of you are predicting Holbrook/Keener wins, and never say never, but…it seems to me Bardem and Ryan go in as very strong favorites.
Best screenplays…I can't remember a recent year where the two screenplay categories were more distinct. Adapted screenplay is virtually an adjunct of best picture, with Into the Wild, No Country and There Will Be Blood solidly anchored, and Diving Bell just about as strong. The writers' tendency to reward unappreciated gems showed only in the WGA nod to Zodiac -- and even that required them to bump seemingly-nomination-friendly Atonement. Where does this leave Away from Her or Gone Baby Gone, films that in a normal year would easily have contended for nomination here?
On the original side, the opposite. Not one of the contenders is absolutely certain of making the best picture list…though Juno and Michael Clayton are clearly in the running. I assume Ratatouille and The Savages will take two of the other slots, but what will be the 5th choice? Lars and Knocked Up made the Writers' Guild list, and one of them could repeat. But this branch has often struck out in a more independent direction. They could go for I'm Not There -- or, less adventurously, Once. And what about 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days -- surprise foreign-language entries have sometimes made their way into this competition.
As for who wins it…early speculation was all Juno! Juno! Juno! But I wonder if, as Magilla I believe mentioned, Juno's appeal is more to young voters, and older voters might go for the 70s-reminiscent Michael Clayton. I know lots of people of otherwise good taste who think Michael Clayton is a really great movie (for me, it vaguely reminds me of some un-specific great movie I once saw, but it is not that movie). Or, if votes split, could we actually have the Damien-nightmare of the rat cartoon eking out a victory?