The Post-Festival Landscape

For the films of 2019
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: The Post-Festival Landscape

Post by Greg »

Rodgers was the first to EGOT, but, Hayes the first to win Oscar/Emmy/Tony triple crown.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Post-Festival Landscape

Post by Big Magilla »

Greg wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:It's impressive for an actor/writer/whatever to win awards across the three major media of film/TV/theatre -- Rita Moreno was famously the first. . .
Helen Hayes was the first.
Sorry, guys, you're both wrong. Richard Rodgers was the first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ony_Awards
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: The Post-Festival Landscape

Post by Greg »

Mister Tee wrote:It's impressive for an actor/writer/whatever to win awards across the three major media of film/TV/theatre -- Rita Moreno was famously the first. . .
Helen Hayes was the first.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Post-Festival Landscape

Post by Mister Tee »

Thanks for that link, Precious. It's fun to read someone who sees more or less the same reality I do.

The Bad Education news is not surprising, though even the article seems to suggest the article had Oscar prospects, which I think is doubtful. One thing that happens in a weak year is, arguments get made for nearly everything at the soft end. The fact that Indiewire gave the film one of its stronger reviews seems to influence the optimism of the article.

The children at Awards Watch are upset because eliminating Bad Education deprives Jackman of his chance at the holy grail EGOT. Can I digress and ask, how the hell did the Grammy get into that discussion? It's impressive for an actor/writer/whatever to win awards across the three major media of film/TV/theatre -- Rita Moreno was famously the first, and Helen Mirren/Frances McDormand are notable recent additions. But for any of those people to win a Grammy is generally pure fluke -- singers are now advantaged, unless someone does a spoken word album or something like that. This may be an analogy only danfrank, Bog or FilmFan would appreciate, but it's like taking the traditional baseball triple crown statistics -- batting average, home runs, RBIs -- and throwing in hit-by-pitch or outfield assists as a 4th requirement...purely random, signifying little.
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: The Post-Festival Landscape

Post by Precious Doll »

Well Bad Education can be cut out of the competition now once and for all, though I have to admit it always sounded like it never had a chance anyway:

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/09/tiff- ... 202174342/
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: The Post-Festival Landscape

Post by Precious Doll »

Great write up Mister Tee.

It is a great shame about Edward Norton's Motherless Brooklyn turning out to be regarded as disappointing. His only prior film Keeping the Faith (2000) was a very promising debut and that rare beast, a romantic comedy with some substance to it.

Funnily enough Benjamin Lee from The Guardian posted a piece the following day which covered some of what you had already observed. It makes for an interesting 'companion piece' to your own:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/s ... ontrunners
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

The Post-Festival Landscape

Post by Mister Tee »

It was somewhere between last Saturday and Sunday night in Toronto that the season started going south. There’d been disappointments at Telluride (notably Motherless Brooklyn), and Joker had been a very divisive choice in Venice. But a few titles and performances had arisen from the three conclaves that seemed likely to populate Academy lists. And, here, on Saturday night the 7th, there was genuine surprise over Hustlers, a personal triumph for Tom Hanks with A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, and excited response to Rian Johnson’s return-to-genre Knives Out. Eddie Murphy’s My Name is Dolemite was screening that night, foreseen as possibly getting him to the Globes if not the Oscars. Jojo Rabbit, one of the anticipated behemoths of the season, was being shown Sunday night, with Harriet and Lucy in the Sky to follow early in the week. All seemed exciting in the festival world.

Then, in short order, Dolemite got a middling reception at best; Jojo Rabbit received frosty, even hostile reviews; Harriet turned out to be the flat history lesson its trailer had suggested; and Lucy in the Sky got utterly slaughtered by critics. Suddenly, one had to look back to the earlier days of the festival to find the high points – nothing past early Saturday evening seemed worth consideration.

This isn’t to suggest it’s a hopeless season. Marriage Story has played all three festivals to significant critical acclaim – its 96 Metacritic score suggests that, to this point, it would complete with Parasite for December critics’ prizes. There are performances everyone thinks will make the Oscar short-list – Driver, Johansson and Dern in Marriage Story; Zellweger in Judy; Pryce and Hopkins in The Two Popes; Hanks in Beautiful Day; and, as out-there as it once seemed, Lopez in Hustlers. And there are a group of medium-level films -- mid-70s to mid-80s Metacritic performers – that could fill out a best picture slate without too much grumbling. But the aggregate doesn’t excite very much – it’s certainly not close to what the festivals yielded two years ago, and I’m not even sure it matches last year’s paltry-on-its-own-terms bunch. One has to hope the films still over the horizon – The Irishman, Little Women, 1917, Haynes’ Dark Waters, maybe Eastwood’s Richard Jewell film – can bring some excitement to the game, because there doesn’t seem to be much currently in sight.

So…what does the awards landscape look like, at this major juncture? If we were assembling an old-school five-film best picture slate (the way decades of custom have conditioned me to handicap), three films would seem likely to make the grade: Once Upon a Time in...Hollywood, Marriage Story, and The Two Popes. The first two would be clear directing/writing/acting nominees as well; the latter could be the sort the directors omit, unless 1) the film becomes a Kings Speech-like juggernaut or 2) Meirelles’ status as former nominee gives him a boost (remembering the directors’ branch has long favored repeaters). I’d also think that, at this stage, Parasite, by virtue of near-universal acclaim (including finishing third in the Toronto Audience Award – the slot Roma filled last year), would be a classic lone-director under the old rules, and, though Cold War shows such choices can still miss the best picture slate, Amour is a counter-example to suggest Bong’s film could play its way onto the big board.

Beyond that, we have a few films that received more or less excited critical response, but, for assorted reasons, I question if they’ll figure into awards thinking. First is Waves, which wowed ‘em at Telluride. I noted when I posted reviews that I wondered if the film’s YA designation would limit its appeal. I now have to add that subsequent screenings at Toronto weren’t nearly as enthusiastic, and the Metacritic score dropped from the stratospheric to a still good 81. I’ll need to see how this performs on contact with audiences and wide-release criticism before I’m ready to slot it… Next, Knives Out, about which critics and audiences were generally enthused (Metacritic 85), but the genre – comically-tinged murder mystery – might prevent its being taken seriously for much beyond a screenplay mention (though there are murmurs about Ana de Armas’ performance)… And then, The True History of the Kelly Gang, which caught people happily off-guard. It shows a robust 84 on Metacritic, and is certainly serious enough to work its way into prize consideration. Two issues, though: 1) the film is said to be pretty violent (not AMPAS catnip) and, 2) more significantly, it may have caught people TOO off-guard – the film has no firm release date, and it may be late in the day to initiate a campaign. This may be a case –- like The Hurt Locker -- where an upbeat Toronto response causes a studio to give a movie more attention, but that attention is better deferred until sometime the following year.

Of course, even if none of those iffy-for-one-reason-or-another films stay alive, there’ll be lower-echelon efforts that make the best picture category –- 8 is the smallest slate we’ve yielded in the near decade of the sliding-scale option. Experience has shown that standards for what amount to down-ballot slots are considerably less rigorous than those applied above. This is where that group of mid-70s/mid-80s films comes in –- several such films shown the past two weeks could slip onto the list. I divide these lower-tier contenders into two groups: the respectable and the divisive.

The first category speaks for itself: films that didn’t get absolutely glowing reviews, but were liked enough by most that they might nab spots in a not-so-competitive year. The films I’d watch: A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood – mainly cited for its Hanks Mr. Rogers transformation, but the film itself has a solid 82 Metacritic score, so it may crack the big list, and the rising Marielle Heller could slip into the directing five… Hustlers – an 80 Metacritic is well above what was expected going in, and a $32 million opening weekend catches everyone’s attention. The JLo campaign seems amped to 10 already, and it could carry the film along, especially if (as seems to be happening) the film catches a female-empowerment zeitgeist… The Aeronauts, about which I expressed worry in my preview post, didn’t exactly crash – it’s a respectable Metacritic 73 – but 1) its “carry the banner for middlebrow drama” position was pilfered by the apparently much better The Two Popes, and 2) Netflix doesn’t seem to view it as top priority, not even trying for an IMAX release that might highlight its aerial sequences… Ford v Ferrari’s 71 on Metacritic would seem the height of mediocrity, but an awful lot of pundits seem to feel the film has a bead on a best picture slot. Those of us who remember Rush from not so long ago may be warier, but the bigger star power of Damon/Bale might be enough to propel this film to greater commercial and, thus, awards heights… Down at the low end of this list are two films that look like failed Oscar bait -- Just Mercy with a Metacritic 65, Harriet with a 64 --- but people at Toronto keep saying the first is popular with audiences, and the latter has Historical Significance to keep it in the conversation. The fact that neither made a dent in Audience Award voting suggests the opposite, but we can’t 100% rule either out.

As to the films I’m labelling divisive: some have significantly better critical numbers than the above. In fact, one -- Uncut Gems – has a stellar 88 on Metacritic, which would normally be close to a golden ticket. But one must add that the film is directed by the Safdies, who’ve long done better with critics than with audiences or awards groups, and it stars Adam Sandler, a big handicap for any movie trying to be taken seriously. I’m open to this being a surprise player, but will wait till I see what happens with audiences… Another director who’s historically appealed more to critics than ticket-buyers is James Gray, and his latest, Ad Astra, looms as one of the most interesting test-cases of the next month or so. It’s got a solid 81 on Metacritic, and many critics have been considerably more enthusiastic than that – comparisons to 2001 and Terence Malick have been made. Which, of course, could mean death at the box-office, Brad Pitt or no Brad Pitt – if the relatively meat-and-potatoes First Man was a failure, what chance does an artier space film have? Nonetheless, we’ll wait and see if audiences surprise us and boost the film near where critics are putting it… Joker is such an oddball movie -- a comic-book effort that has critics fretting it will incite violence – that I don’t know what to expect from it. Audience tracking has it set to open at $90 million, which would normally be a fabulous sign for a serious-ish film. The Venice prize tells us it will have at least some support from hipster critics (the 70 Metacritic score includes both 100’s and furious 20’s). And the Phoenix performance, if nothing else, is being widely praised. My instinct is, the film might get wiped out in a pincer movement: those who hate comic book movies, joining those who don’t like movies that make them feel bad, uniting to blackball it. But I’ll be fascinated to watch this play out… Finally, Jojo Rabbit. At last glance, it stood at 52 on Metacritic, and Anne Thompson was telling anyone who’d listen that no film with a score that low could make the best picture cut. Fans keep answering that Toronto audiences were eating it up, that she should just wait for the Audience Award. Fans of Just Mercy were making the same argument; in their case, it was illusion -- but, for Jojo, the wish came true. Given the general success of Toronto award-winners with the Academy, you can’t rule the film out from making a serious run. In fact, I’m having a flashback to a film that predates my years at this board: The Shawshank Redemption. Like Jojo, Shawshank had months of positive buzz preceding its release. When it opened, though, it received soft reviews (not as bad as Jojo’s, but far from raves), and its box-office was unimpressive. When year-end prize time came, though, it scored with all the key guilds, and on nomination day, got 7 nods including best picture and best actor. It didn’t win any of those, but it then went on to become a smash success in home video, and has consistently ranked high on the IMBD chart in the years since. Maybe Jojo Rabbit has that kind of unexpected future ahead.

Lest you think I’m at this point including every screened film on the still-alive list, I’ll say that Motherless Brooklyn seems to have seriously deflated (dashing my perennial hopes for an Edward Norton lead actor win); Seberg didn’t get enough support for the long-sought Stewart nomination; The Laundromat appears to be a Soderbergh dud; Dolemite is My Name seems like Netflix will be its only home; and Bad Education got enough shrugged reaction that it may not even be released this year.

One more film, a carryover from Cannes, about which I remain genuinely mystified: The Lighthouse. This film has, no question, some very enthusiastic supporters –- for the two performers, definitely, and almost as much for the film itself. But may people qualify this support with “of course, it’s weird”… leaving me to wonder, how weird? Antonioni/Malick weird, likely to alienate as many as it draws in? Or delToro/Lanthimos weird, which we’ve seen can go a long way with AMPAS? The fact that I didn’t much care for The Witch puts me on the more skeptical side for now…but I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if this were the film this year to totally shock with its award upside.

And that’s the best picture landscape, with precious few major titles still to come. This is the sort of year where we could really use a Phantom Thread to drop in our laps late. In 2017, it was pure lagniappe; this year, it could be a godsend.

In one way, this year does appear stronger than most recent ones: the best actor slate, anemic over the past 5 years, is bursting. Adam Driver, Joaquin Phoenix and Jonathan Pryce all seem prime contenders, with Leonardo DiCaprio also likely to make the list. (ON EDIT: Whoops -- forgot Antonio Banderas. Even more crowded.) Someone among Adam Sandler, Brad Pitt (Ad Astra), Christian Bale and Robert Pattinson could easily qualify, and that’s before we’ve even had a look at the cast of The Irishman.

Best actress, conversely, would appear the weakest group since much-maligned 2014. Renee Zellweger’s Judy Garland and Scarlett Johansson in Marriage Story seem the only certainties. Awkwafina (despite Precious Doll’s dissent) seems an even stronger hopeful than she did pre-festival, just from lack of competition. You can’t quite rule out Cynthia Erivo, either, despite her film’s disappointment -- she may be one of the only options left (for a chanceless slot). JLo’s campaign to date seems focused on supporting, but maybe her team will notice the opening here and shoot for lead (which strikes me more appropriate for a star of her magnitude). Lupita N’yongo might still have a chance for Us. Uri would point out, this dire circumstance is the one in which a non-English-speaking actress can sometimes get lucky -– perhaps one of the leads from Portrait of a Lady on Fire could sneak in. And, of course, Saoirse Ronan or Charlize Theron (for the Fox News tell-all Bombshell) are still out there lurking.

There’s already a fierce campaign in motion for Brad Pitt (in …Hollywood). Toronto brings fellow top-liners Anthony Hopkins and Tom Hanks into the conversation, with Matt Damon also being touted (for, as I’ve suggested elsewhere, an all-fraud slate). Willem Dafoe might be the only traditional supporting player of the group – though, again, we don’t know what The Irishman will bring.

Supporting actress also seems notably thin this year, with Laura Dern probably out front for Marriage Story –- though I don’t know quite what to make of JLo. My floated scenario about Shuzhen Zhao for The Farewell seems less far-fetched than it did a month ago, with such a barren field. Of what’s still to come, Little Women and Bombshell seem most likely to provide further candidates. And, of course, we can always hope for surprise.

Quentin Tarantino, Noah Baumbach, and Joon-ho Bong, as noted, seem the likeliest best director candidates at this point, with Robert Eggers and James Gray wild cards, and, if the directors’ branch deigns to think it’s time for another female nominee, Lulu Wang or Marielle Heller are possibilities. Along with Greta Gerwig, who, like Martin Scorsese, Sam Mendes, and Todd Haynes represent the most promising of the as-yet unveiled.

I’m not certain yet how the screenplay categories will break out – who knows whether The Two Popes will label itself adapted or original? But, even without that, the race looks heavily weighted to the original side: Marriage Story, Once Upon a Time in...Hollywood, The Farewell, Parasite, Knives Out, The LIghthouse, Pain and Glory all seem like the sort of film writers would champion…but obviously not all can make it. Adaptation, meanwhile, would seem like a place A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood or Jojo Rabbit could qualify without effort (though The Irishman and Little Women are heavyweights to come).

Below the line, there’s not that much to say. The Lighthouse is shot in black-and-white, so it’s got a good shot at the cool-cinematographers’ nomination. Maybe Harriet will get in for its costumes. Ford v Ferrari could nail the Grand Prix trifecta of sound mixing, film editing and sound editing (though Rush, it should be noted, was shut out of all three). Since we’ve demonstrated that AMPAS likes its visual effects winners to be more serious than super-hero, Ad Astra seems a solid candidate. Joker might take make-up – unless the tech branches reject the movie whole. And would someone like to tell me what’s going to win animated feature? Toy Story 4, simply for existing? Seems like the sort of year critics’ groups might decline to choose in the category.

Anyway…on to NY. Hope The Irishman comes through. And go to the movies; see how these movies measure up. Much more to come.
Post Reply

Return to “92nd Academy Awards”