Reactions

For the films of 2018
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Reactions

Post by Uri »

Big Magilla wrote:I Bacall's two husbands and Plowright's one were both dead when they were nominated.
Not that he didn't look like he was, but was Robards really dead when he made Magnolia?
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Reactions

Post by Big Magilla »

I was going for first nominations, although I did forget about Tandy's second.

I was also going for the second spouse to have been married to the other at the time of his or her nomination. Bacall's two husbands and Plowright's one were both dead when they were nominated.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Reactions

Post by Uri »

And - Olivier and Plowright had also a 53 years gap between Wuthering Heights and Enchanted April.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Reactions

Post by Uri »

Now all we need is for Mia Farrow to be nominated so she and Sinatra can break the record.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Reactions

Post by Uri »

Woodward and Newman had a 45 years span while Coronin and Tandy had 47 (Tandy was nominated again for the tomatoes movie).
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Reactions

Post by Mister Tee »

Uri wrote:
Big Magilla wrote:Unless I'm forgetting someone, Sam Elliott and Katharine Ross now hold the record for the longest stretch for acting nominations between spouses - 51 years, breaking the 45 year record of Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy that had held for 28 years.
Actually, no. Humphrey Bogart was nominated for Casablanca (1943) and Lauren Bacall was nominated for The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996) 53 years later.
I assume Magilla was going for "still married at the time of nomination". Although that probably wasn't true at the time of Ross's nomination.

Bacall, by the way, has the distinction of having been married to TWO Oscar winners, Bogart and Jason Robards.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Reactions

Post by Uri »

Big Magilla wrote:Unless I'm forgetting someone, Sam Elliott and Katharine Ross now hold the record for the longest stretch for acting nominations between spouses - 51 years, breaking the 45 year record of Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy that had held for 28 years.
Actually, no. Humphrey Bogart was nominated for Casablanca (1943) and Lauren Bacall was nominated for The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996) 53 years later.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Reactions

Post by Big Magilla »

Greg wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:In fact, I'm still in the mode of "Shallow for song is the only category I'd bet the rent on". We'll see if that changes over the next few weeks.
I would think the biggest shoo-in has to be Roma for Foreign Language Film.
Thanks, Greg, for using the proper term - "shoo-in" - if I see one more article saying "shoe-in" today, I'm going to throw a shoe at something!

Something can be shoehorned (forced) in, but not shoed in. A shoo-in is a certainty. They are two completely different things.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Reactions

Post by Big Magilla »

Unless I'm forgetting someone, Sam Elliott and Katharine Ross now hold the record for the longest stretch for acting nominations between spouses - 51 years, breaking the 45 year record of Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy that had held for 28 years.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Reactions

Post by Greg »

Mister Tee wrote:In fact, I'm still in the mode of "Shallow for song is the only category I'd bet the rent on". We'll see if that changes over the next few weeks.
I would think the biggest shoo-in has to be Roma for Foreign Language Film.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Reactions

Post by Sabin »

danfrank wrote
It sounds like you're saying that what makes a film a worthy best picture nominee is that there is cultural buzz about it, or that it somehow catches the zeitgeist; that a film "matters" if there is a lot of media coverage or people are talking about it around the water cooler. I don't agree with this premise. I think quality matters. I don't think that the 4th version of "A Star is Born" matters all that much. I also think that fluff is fluff, whether it catches the zeitgeist or not, or whether it is promoted by Harvey Weinstein or not.
No, I’m not saying that. But I’m saying it can be a factor. I’m open about the fact thay I only really like one film nominate (The Favourite — I haven’t seen Roma). But if we MUST get mediocrities, I’d rather they be mediocrities that tap into the zeitgeist rather than a year filled with Imitation Games and Theory if Everythings.
"How's the despair?"
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Reactions

Post by FilmFan720 »

Mister Tee wrote: Like many, I thought Paul Schrader's at-last nod was a good omen for Ethan Hawke, but the branches seemed unusually independent of one another this year. (Still weird for the most widely-acclaimed lead performance to be omitted. Sally Hawkins was only a top-tier critics' choice; Hawke won damn near everywhere, making his miss harder to process.)
And while both lost out on nods, they both brought along a lone screenplay nomination!
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Reactions

Post by Mister Tee »

Some might remember my wish from a while back: that, if it couldn't be a good year, it could at least be an interesting one. The first two rounds of TV awards have kept us on such a track, and today, I'd say, furthered the cause. Dare we dream of an old-time Oscar race, where the goddamn precursors don't get to spoil everything upfront?

Obviously the core of the expected competition showed up this morning, give or take a director Bradley Cooper. But it showed up in odd ways: the only three movies that got the key film/director/screenplay/editing combo were BlackkKlansman, The Favourite and Vice -- none of which have been seriously spoken of as best picture front-runners. Films could get excited about inclusion (Green Book scoring the editing nod) and then deflated by omission (Green Book director, Roma editing). And there were so many surprises at the fringes, as the fifth-place slot often went to films way down the list (Buster Scruggs in multiple spots) or not on the list at all (Never Look Away for cinematography -- which, for a moment, I thought might be a typo, since it followed Cold War exactly where it had on the foreign film list. Magilla is correct, though: had we known it was a Deschanel effort, we might not have found it so shocking.) Plus we had at least two categories -- original score and documentary -- where a film that seemed in contention for the win failed to even get nominated. This is some kind of fluid race.

The guilds, it turned out, weren't so predictive this year: Black Panther scored six below-the-line nods despite having been treated sparingly in the prelims; First Man, on the other hand, was a guild favorite but here missed categories that seemed gimmes. These two things together made it seem obvious the former would make the best picture slate, but the latter would miss.

I'd say BJ got what he sort of wished for over the weekend: Panther got its best picture mention, which, along with Star is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody, should quiet down the "why are there no popular pictures?" crowd and prevent suicidal Board of Governors action -- but the film isn't a serious best picture contender unless full-on chaos reigns. (Interestingly, Panther got 7 nominations without even maxing out: visual effects, make-up and cinematography weren't beyond-the-pale hopes. Had the film been the sort of artistic breakthrough its most adamant fans labeled it -- i.e., had it done director/screenplay/supporting actor -- it might have been one of the all-time biggest nominations grabbers.)

It's nice that the best picture field was at least limited to 8; such a crappy year didn't deserve to fill up the slate (and I think evidence now suggests it's almost impossible to go lower).

Bohemian Rhapsody apparently scored a tad higher than Extremely Loud on Metacritic, but is as poorly-rated a film to compete for best picture in a long while.

Vice gets 8 nominations, pretty much as many as it could have hoped -- it's tied with A Star is Born, which wouldn't have been a popular prediction a week or two ago.

Mark Harris notes that the two nomination-leaders, Roma and The Favourite, both are female-centered -- the first time that's happened since Julia/The Turning Point in 1977. Of course, the downside is, in the other six nominated films, only one (A Star is Born) has a true lead female role.

Harris also notes that 7 of the nominated actors are playing gay roles (Malek, Colman, McCarty, Ali, Grant, Stone, Weisz). The best part of that is, it didn't even occur to me till he pointed it out.

I'm glad for Dafoe, who to me is more deserving than he was last year. But Ethan Hawke would have been a stronger competitor in a category that seems to have become unpredictable.

Aparicio wasn't such a surprise simply because deTavira had preceded her. That the two of them got nominated tells us Roma is way closer to a juggernaut than many thought possible. (Though the trend bypassed the editing branch.) And yes, flipp, unless my memory fails me, deTavira is the first foreign-language film supporting nominee since Cortese -- in fact, I believe they're the only two ever.

Chalamet is this year's Hong Chau. Repeat after me: if you're a film's only contender, you'll have a tough time getting on the Oscar supporting list, especially if your film was a commercial bust.

Remember back in 2009, when we all struggled to find an alternative directing candidate not on the DGA list? When the DGA five turned up, people said we were all trying too hard, that maybe things would always be more predictable than that. The actions of the directing branch since, however, have proven our original point, as nearly every year the directors have thrown some sort of curve, either by omission or addition. We all remember Affleck/Bigelow for Haneke/Zeitlin, but we pass too lightly over Payne for Greengrass, Bennett Miller/Foxcatcher, Abrahamson for Scott, Mel Gibson (not their finest hour), Anderson over McDonagh. The fact is, the directing branch does throw curves, and this year is no exception -- kicking out an early front-runner and giving us two foreign-language candidates for the first time since Seven Beauties/Face to Face in 1976. ON EDIT: And, I almost forgot: a lone director! Which seems like a very difficult thing to manage under the up-to-ten-nominees system.

I guess the Netflix boycott is past, yes? Not just Roma's spectacular showing, but the robust Buster Scruggs batch. The Coens have a long way to go to catch Woody Allen, but by my count this is their 6th writing nod.

Spike Lee, it would seem, is the clear favorite for adapted screenplay at least, right? -- since it's the strongest best picture nominee in the pack.

A quick word for Can You Ever Forgive Me?: the film has shown an almost alarming consistency, getting its three top-line nominations (actress, supporting actor, screenplay) pretty much everywhere. It never did better -- never snapped up a stray best film nod -- but it never missed, either. I wonder if it's a sleeper candidate, especially in supporting actor. (I'm not disregarding Ali's strength...but I still think his just-won-two-years-ago status might affect him at AMPAS.)

Condolences to If Beale Street... for getting less than it deserved overall. But it seems to me it's got a decent shot in two of its three categories.

Like many, I thought Paul Schrader's at-last nod was a good omen for Ethan Hawke, but the branches seemed unusually independent of one another this year. (Still weird for the most widely-acclaimed lead performance to be omitted. Sally Hawkins was only a top-tier critics' choice; Hawke won damn near everywhere, making his miss harder to process.)

Foreign film (except Burning) and animated feature went fully according to form. But doc feature went insane. This is reminiscent of the old days in the doc field, where box office hits like Hoop Dreams were routinely omitted. Does this mean RBG has it cold, or might Free Solo (or a wild card) make a run?

Lots of competitive categories below the line: Black Panther and The Favourite should battle out both design and costumes. I have no idea where to go with the two sound categories, or editing. And visual effects is a toss-up.

In fact, I'm still in the mode of "Shallow for song is the only category I'd bet the rent on". We'll see if that changes over the next few weeks.

More later if I think of anything.
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Reactions

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

With Pawlikowski and Cuaron's nominations, this is the first time since 1976 that two directors of foreign-language films competed (Bergman's Face to Face and Wentmuller's Seven Beauties) in Best Director.
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Reactions

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

It's been covered elsewhere, but Bohemian Rhapsody's 49 Metacritic rating is the worst for any BP nominee since at least the birth of Metacritic. :)
Post Reply

Return to “91st Academy Awards”