The (Can You Believe It?) 16th Annual Who'll Be Back?

Post Reply
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: The (Can You Believe It?) 16th Annual Who'll Be Back?

Post by Reza »

An excellent analyses, Mister Tee.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The (Can You Believe It?) 16th Annual Who'll Be Back?

Post by Big Magilla »

From Variety, Michael Keaton's next Oscar bid:

The Weinstein Co. has acquired distribution rights to Michael Keaton project “The Founder,” the story of how Ray Kroc turned McDonald’s into a global fast food empire.

FilmNation is producing along with Jeremy Renner and Don Handfield, through their shingle theCombine. The company plans to shoot later this year with John Lee Hancock directing.

The story, developed in the vein of “The Social Network,” will focus on how Kroc — a milkshake dispensers salesman created one of the most powerful brands in the world. Kroc began working for the McDonald brothers in 1954 at the age of 51 as a franchising agent and bought the chain for $2.7 million in 1961.

“The Wrestler” scribe Robert Siegel wrote the script for “The Founder.”

ed. John Lee Hancock ("The Blind Side", "Saving Mr. Banks") is set to direct.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: The (Can You Believe It?) 16th Annual Who'll Be Back?

Post by Okri »

Hmm... I disagree more than usual.

I actually give Knightley more credit than you do, Tee. I think she was fantastic in Anna Karenina and actually seems to be challenging herself more these days (Never Let Me Go, A Dangerous Method). It's somewhat disappointing that her blandest work gets her to oscar and I don't think she'll ever win because of it, but it wouldn't surprise me to see her surprise us all.

Eddie Redmayne is an actor that I've liked since Savage Grace if not before that - he worked in interesting plays that I enjoyed on the page (The Goat, Red, Now or Later) and he's part of that cohort of young British actors that I've been fascinated by for about a decade. I think that he'll definitely get his chances over the next few years. And frankly, that still from The Danish Girl suggest both the stretch and perfect fit in the role. I think he may yet encourage you out of that corner.

I think the fact that Michael Keaton couldn't win when his film was the best picture winner works against him, not for him, actually. It's almost as if Harrison or Firth lost their winning nomination despite their films doing strongly. He's in a similar boat to Simmons in that this kind of defining role is very rare.

I kinda get why people think that way about Pike. She's the quintessential Hitchcock Blonde. Nathaniel actually compared her to a Terminator. And it's not as if the role was going to engender that much sympathy. I hope she sticks around, because I loved her in Made in Dagenham and An Education.

Because Jones had her breakthrough year, followed that up with a fairly easy nomination, has a decent slate... I think she's probably be back.

The one thing about Moore returning that I question was that huge gap between her 3rd/4th and 5th nominations. How easily could Still Alice been another one in a line of small films that go nowhere for her? Of course, Bridges not only won after such a gap, but followed up with another nomination. But another "slow rise to the top" performer, Susan Sarandon, also dropped off. I'd be surprised if she ever got to the stage again and a nomination could happen, but I don't think that's the way to predict.

I agree with you regarding Dern, but she also did Enlightened and Inland Empire in that time. And had a key role in every childhood imagination.

I wonder if Emma Stone is going to be hindered by the fact that she reads more comic than not.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: The (Can You Believe It?) 16th Annual Who'll Be Back?

Post by FilmFan720 »

Great job, as always, Tee.

For the people left off the final list, does anyone else feel that the next project either Ava Duvernay or David Oyelowo will have a lot of Oscar attraction? Their missed nominations were so pronounced by the media that I wouldn't be surprised if the voting bodies feel pressure to vote for them next time.

He wasn't too close to a nomination, but I could see Channinng Tatum picking up a nod somewhere soon. He has picked up a lot of "oh, he can act" reviews the past few years, and has hung out on the fringes of some races (with costars nominated or in the running).
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: The (Can You Believe It?) 16th Annual Who'll Be Back?

Post by dws1982 »

I hope Felicity Jones returns soon just to prove all the haters wrong! I'll take her any day over Keira Knightley, and I'll take her over Carey Mulligan on most days.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The (Can You Believe It?) 16th Annual Who'll Be Back?

Post by Mister Tee »

Greg wrote:Not to be anal-retentive, but, any thoughts on Patricia Arquette, the one person whose chances you did not mention?
Apologies to Ms. Arquette, who I've folded into the narrative.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The (Can You Believe It?) 16th Annual Who'll Be Back?

Post by Big Magilla »

A few thoughts...

The racist charges against Patricia Arquette and Sean Penn are nonsense. Their past actions have proven otherwise. Arquette unfortunately made some foolish remarks, but she meant well. Penn's smarmy "green card" remark was totally inappropriate but it won't hurt his career.

Arquette is more likely to win Golden Globe and Emmy recognition for her new CSI spin-off than she is to receive another Oscar bid.

Michael Keaton is playing Boston Globe reporter Walter "Robby" Robinson in the McCarthy film. Mark Ruffalo, as one of he abused, probably has the meatier role and could emerge as a supporting actor candidate nominee again next year..

Eddie Redmayne will definitely be back and soon. Bendedict Cumberbatch will likely be back but probably not as soon.

Juilanne Moore is always a threat. She will be in contention many more times whether or not she is actually nominated.

Streep will probably get her 20th nomination next year for playing Mrs.Pankhurst in Suffragette.

Tom Hardy has been on the bubble of an Oscar nod for years. It's only a matter of time, quite possibly for Inarritu's Revanent. However my pick for overdue Oscar recognition is Brendan Gleeson who has to get a nomination sometime. He's a got a very Oscar type role opposite Emma Thompson in Vincent Perez's anti-Nazi drama, Alone in Berlin. And for Oscar comeback, how about Ian McKellen as the elderly Sherlock Holmes in Bill Condon's Mr. Holmes?
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: The (Can You Believe It?) 16th Annual Who'll Be Back?

Post by Greg »

Not to be anal-retentive, but, any thoughts on Patricia Arquette, the one person whose chances you did not mention?
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

The (Can You Believe It?) 16th Annual Who'll Be Back?

Post by Mister Tee »

The Oscars have become a bit like summer blockbusters – generating massive amounts of copy before the fact, then slipping from memory in a day or two. A few Internet fights over who’s the bigger bigot, Patricia Arquette or Sean Penn, and we’ve left the whole thing behind for llamas and blue/black/gold/white dresses.

Here, however, we have our scarily-long-standing tradition of surveying the field one last time – trying to dope out who among this year’s contenders is likely to return at some date to compete again. The 16th annual Who’ll Be Back?

Has any actor in recent history had as good a three-year run as Bradley Cooper? Oscar nominations for three films that were all best picture nominees AND all grossed north of $120 million (the most recent, WAY north); in his spare time, playing a key role in the biggest hit of the summer; and, to keep it real, going to Broadway for an extended sell-out run of a serious play. If you even think about calling him “The Hangover guy” now, it’s yourself you’re marking out of touch. Things may slow for him in the short run: Serena is apparently a dead film walking; Amy Pascal, at least, doesn’t see much hope for Aloha; and John Wells’ early track record doesn’t leave one sanguine for his next film. But, after that, the band is getting together one more time: David O. Russell will be guiding Cooper, Lawrence and DeNiro in Joy. Regardless how that -- or the others -- turn out, you have to figure at this point Cooper has leapfrogged ahead of a bunch of actors, and is one of our prime candidates to win an Oscar in the years just ahead.

The immediate impulse about Michael Keaton is to say, well, you had your shot and it didn’t come through for you. And, indeed, this may be the sole late career firework for Keaton. But another possibility is, this impressive comeback (linked to a best picture winner, something Mickey Rourke never had going for him) reminds filmmakers that this guy was a live-wire actor in his day, and it’s time he was used again. His upcoming project -- Thomas McCarthy’s Spotlight, about the Boston archdiocese child abuse scandal – sounds more bracing than anything he’s been associated with in some time. Maybe he’ll follow the Rex Harrison/Colin Firth model: hang around for years, never get Academy attention, fail at your first nomination, then snap back with a win soon after.

Benedict Cumberbatch has been so omnipresent the last few years, it’s almost a surprise this was his first nomination. He’s apparently going to continue sliding back and forth between TV and film, commercial and art-film, the U.S. and Britain…but, however it all breaks down, he’s booked well into the future, and it’s easy to imagine him showing up on these lists in the years just ahead. And anyone with that sort of schedule – and reputation – has a very decent shot of joining the list of winners.

I’m not sure what to make of Steve Carell. For all the talk his leap-to-seriousness engendered, he wasn’t exactly a slam dunk nominee, and was an afterthought in all win discussions. None of this, of course, hurts his career, but his career was in decent shape to begin with – doing films like Crazy Stupid Love and The Way Way Back had already got him out of the dopey-comedy ghetto, and he’ll be co-starring again with Julianne Moore later this year. Yet I don’t sense he’s made quite the respect-advance the film/role seemed to promise; while he’s liked well enough, I doubt anyone has him on the short list for future Oscar wins. My instinct may be wrong, but I see him as one of this year’s one-offs.

I’m clearly not best suited to projecting Eddie Redmayne’s future, given my general antipathy toward him in the present. Other sites are already touting him as a back-to-back nominee for this Danish Girl transgender movie ;for me, Eddie Redmayne, directed by Tom Hooper, in a “look-at-me-stretch” role, is the harmonic convergence of everything that irks me about the Oscars. (It would also unify my two most-misery-inducing Oscar wins of recent vintage.) I still find Redmayne as presence-less an actor as I can ever recall ascending to such heights, and I think his acting has a clying quality. What I wonder is, will others start to feel the same as we move forward? -- or will I be the crank in the corner screaming “the emperor has no clothes” while everyone else continues lionizing him? This could all be clearer a year from now.

When Gone Girl was having its box-office whirl last October, it seemed Rosamund Pike would be at least a semi-“it girl” throughout award season. But things didn’t play out that way: though she got all the expected mentions, she seemed to float through the process without making much impression. (There were even Internet suggestions she wasn’t terribly personable, which might have made it a net negative for her.) She’s clearly not been a mainstream presence before now (even when she appeared in things people saw – like Pride and Prejudice or An Education—few seemed to register her in particular), and her immediate schedule doesn’t suggest a sudden turn in that direction. So maybe she’ll be a classic Oscar one-off. I think she’s a talented lady, so I’m rooting for her….but the signals aren’t terribly strong.

Whatever issues some of us had with Marion Cotillard after her La Vie en Rose win are long gone; the lady’s an actress as well as a beauty, and she’ll continue to get plum roles in both English and French. How many there are of the former will play a large role in how often she returns to the Dolby; even special people don’t get very many subtitled nominations. We’ll look closely for Cotillard’s upcoming Lad Macbeth, and whatever follows that up. I’d say she’s unlikely to score a second win, but I could see her turning up occasionally as a nominee.

Reese Witherspoon is back – that’s pretty much what the movie Wild, and this nomination, amounted to. None of that, of course, got her a win, or even all that much publicity in a Julianne-uber-alles season. But it brought her back from the commercial ignominy of Four Christmases and This Means War, reminding people that she was, a decade ago, viewed as someone who could straddle comedic and serious work (even, as in Election, gloriously combine the two), and be a star in the process. Establishing her own production company seems to be working well for her so far (accounting for two of this year’s best actress nominees). If her future projects display the same level of discernment, we could see her turn up again.

It’s a mystery to many of us how Felicity Jones got this far – even given the lackluster group of eligible actresses, she managed to be the most shrug-worthy of the group. She has an unaccountably lively list of upcoming projects – apparently the market for bland British young things is brisk. But I’d count her extremely lucky to ever get back here again.

The last actress to take the slow-climb-to-the-Oscar route Julianne Moore just enacted -- Kate Winslet -- seemed to drop off the end of the earth right after. Julianne Moore shows no sign of repeating that trajectory: she’s already completed another interesting-sounding project, and will no doubt line more up quickly. She is, if nothing else, a quintessential working actress, and I’d not be surprised if she enters the multiple-win class at some point.

Mark Ruffalo didn’t have the slightest chance at a win this year – not with J.K. Simmons dominance, and polarized reactions to Foxcatcher. But I think the idea has now crystallized, after a decade or more of his being taken for granted, that Ruffalo is an estimable actor, worthy of being awarded prizes. (His SAG TV win furnished proof of this) He seems to have settled into the meaty supporting role niche in films, where he seems a natural, and where it’s probably easier for him to win. I’d say it happens within the decade.

With all the comeback talk surrounding Michael Keaton, not enough people noted what an enormous return this was for Edward Norton. Not that he’d been entirely out of view in recent years, but, for a guy who 15-20 years ago was seen as a titan in the Hoffman/Nicholson/DeNiro class, doing walk-ons for Wes Anderson was pretty small beer. Norton is the rare performer whose “difficult” reputation seemed to truly cost him in career terms. This Birdman role – a knowing send-up of that reputation – reminded many again of just how strong and fearless an actor he was in his early films. Now, the question is how he follows up this attention. Was it a one-shot, or will good directors remember how strong he can be and make use of his prodigious talent? Plus: has he learned to tamp down his, shall we say, exuberance, and fit in a bit more smoothly? If so, he might return to being a semblance of the actor we thought we were getting back in the 90s…and one of these statues might eventually find its way into his hands.

Ethan Hawke has four career nominations – two acting, two writing --- yet I don’t think anyone sees him as especially owed. His acting, much like Matt Dillon’s, gives off an “I’m barely doing anything” vibe, which can take a while to start impressing people; both acting nominations he’s received have been of the coat-tail variety. I think he’s a bright guy, certainly a serious one, and I presume he’ll continue to associate himself with interesting projects. But as to whether that ever puts him into win contention? Right now, I don’t see it.

Even with the thin field of contenders, giving Robert Duvall the fifth supporting actor slot seemed pointless. Presumably it was meant as salute to a career of exceptional length and quality – over 50 years, associated with some of the most famous titles of the era. And, god love him, even in his 80s, he still works feverishly: few actors on the roster have made as many movies in the past five years, with several more already in the can. I think the time has probably passed for him to add a second trophy, but I suppose even further late-career nominations can’t be ruled out.

For most of America, J.K. Simmons now has a name to go with that face they’ve known for years. Whiplash offered him the kind of recognition that comes to few actors of his ilk – both the defining role, and Academy acknowledgement (even though he’s the sort for whom supporting awards were basically invented, too often of late they’ve gone instead to slumming top-line stars, like Clooney or Ledger). And all that, maybe paradoxically, makes me tend to doubt we’ll see Simmons turn up again. Not that he’ll stop being excellent (as he always has been) -- but that voters will feel they’ve take care of the journeyman actor, and, barring something truly revelatory (not the likeliest occurrence in a career like his), they’ll consider this year having fulfilled their lifetime duty by him. He’ll certainly continue to work…but I don’t see much Oscar future.

Twenty-three years later, Laura Dern returns to the Oscars. It’s not as if she’s been invisible in the intervening period: she’s worked pretty steadily, in a wide variety of venues. But the only credit that really stands out in that whole stretch is the HBO Recount movie; Dern has been an actress it’s easy to take for granted. Maybe this nod will mark a resurgence in public attention. More likely, it’s a blip in a career that will amble along commendably but never make many big waves.

Emma Stone has been a lively presence since we first became truly aware of her (for me, it was in Easy A), but I think this year she took a step up the ladder: the combination of her Broadway Cabaret work, this nomination, and, to a lesser degree, her Woody Allen film, has moved her at least a little toward Jennifer Lawrence territory. This isn’t to say she’s going to rocket to a Oscar the way Lawrence did; that would take the sort of good fortune one doesn’t lightly predict. But she’s well-liked, by creators and audiences, and showed decent range in Birdman, suggesting she could have roles upcoming that get her on this list again. And, though it didn’t happen this year, we know the Academy can show favoritism to its pretty young things. I see her as a strong contender over the decade to come.

When Meryl Streep’s name was read out this year, someone at another site noted, The single strongest precursor for nomination is simply to be Meryl Steep. Why even pretend her string might have run out? – this is her third time up in four years, all AFTER she’d hit the ridiculous 16 mark (the last two post that elusive third win). She has, as always, worthy projects with great parts lined up and in production; more people want to work with her now than did 20 years ago. She’s to Oscar nominations what Gretzky was to the hockey record books: just throw out the old marks, because she’s blowing past them at 60 MPH. I used to think 20 nominations was a crazy-ambitious goal; now I see I was too cautious. She’ll keep getting cited, and, yes: somewhere in there, she’ll probably win again, putting her alongside Hepburn at the improbable four-victory level. We’ll not see her like again.

I wonder if a lot of people are where I am on Keira Knightley: I genuinely like her; she’s enormously pretty to look at, but seemingly quite approachable despite that; and I don’t consider her a BAD actress. But the fact that she’s now racked up two Oscar nominations – more than many superior performers can claim – for me speaks to the idea that, if you get enough opportunities in film, AMPAS will give you a few mentions almost from inertia. I find it hard to believe she could ever excel enough to outright win an Oscar -- though never say (Halle Berry/Charlize Theron) never – but, given her prominence, she could get further chanceless citations like this one.

Patricia Arquette helped make it a pleasingly middle-aged actress slate this year (though of course parts of her performance occurred when she was in her early 30s). Arquette has had a thoroughly eclectic career – some supporting roles in good films; attempts at stardom in projects (like Beyond Rangoon) that went nowhere; her greatest success by far in television, Medium for the long term and Boardwalk Empire most recently. But who’d have guessed, the whole time she was doing Medium, she was quietly putting together this performance that would win her an Oscar? Such a scattershot approach – and the fact that she’s retreating to another network series even now – makes further Oscar attention seem unlikely. And the odds of another part like this ever coming along feel quite slim; she’ll likely have to be content with this happy win.

It’s tempting to deal with Richard Linklater and Wes Anderson as a unit – to point out that both had, twice in the past, been recognized by the writers’ branch, but had never till now got to the glamour categories despite critical raves; to note that the primary Oscar distinction between them is that Anderson’s animated entry got nominated where Linklater’s failed; and to lament that, despite multiple nominations, neither managed to score an individual trophy this year. But I think there might be a difference between them when it comes to potential futures with the Oscars; sadly, I believe Linklater is the disadvantaged one. Linklater’s laconic style is just not much to the taste of voters outside the writers’ branch. Though Boyhood was exceptional enough – and so critically endorsed -- it couldn’t be left out of nominations, in the end it fell woefully short in the way critics’ darlings have in the past (like Prizzi’s Honor or Goodfellas, it was limited to a single supporting award). Those who disliked Boyhood, both inside and outside the Academy, had a near-universal complaint: that nothing HAPPENED In it. This is a complaint that has bedeviled Linklater throughout his career (it’s something I’ve felt, about much of his work), and I have doubts he’ll ever get past it. I also doubt he’ll ever again stray as close to mainstream territory as he did here – which makes me very sad he didn’t win at this golden opportunity.

Obviously I’m not going to argue that Wes Anderson, on the other hand, is right in the Academy’s wheelhouse; he, too, is clearly an acquired taste. But I think his devotion to narrative makes him more likely to at least occasionally get in sync with Academy preferences -- he DID seemingly come close to top-line completion just two years ago, with Moonrise Kingdom, and that could well happen again. He might be like the Coen brothers – someone whose quirky style took some time to wear down Academy resistance, but who eventually became a regular competitor. It’s hard for me to imagine a Wes Anderson film ever becoming a best picture/director winner – but I could envision an Alexander Payne/Spike Jonze/Quentin Tarantino-like screenplay win some year.

Obviously one doesn’t bet against Bennett Miller’s return, anymore than one scoffs at the idea of more Stephen Daldry nominations. I’ve only really liked one of Miller’s films – the one for which the directors DIDN’T nominate him – but I respect the seriousness of his approach, the fact that he makes films of substance. It’s certainly a possibility that a director who works in such mode can hit the sweet spot some year and run away with the top Oscars.

For all of you who chortle at the idea of Morten Tyldum’s ever making a return to the Oscars, I recommend you watch Headhunters sometime – not to say it’s anything great, but its darkly humorous style will startle you; it’s miles away from the Disney-fied history of The Imitation Game. It’ll be interesting to see if Tyldum gets more America offers, and, if so, whether he continues along the Weinstein path, or goes back to his earlier approach. He’s hardly my top prospect to return, but I’m not willing to 100% write him off.

Alejandro G. Innaritu, of all of this year’s nominees, has the hottest ticket for quick return: a DiCaprio film slated for next Christmas. Had he not won the other night, we’d probably see him as a super-hot prospect to take the prize next year. As it is, the odds fall heavily against him – a fair number of Oscar-winning directors have been nominated for their subsequent film, but the last to do it in the very next year was Woody Allen in ‘77/’78 (and the last to win was Mankiewicz in ‘49/’50). I’d also suggest there’s bound to be, in this “we hate whoever gets to the mountain-top” era, some level of backlash, by virtue of his having won for a not universally beloved film. But perhaps we should also recall that Innaritu has been way more popular with the Academy than he has been in online circles: every single one of his films has been nominated somewhere, some (Babel and Biutiful) in glamour categories despite intense Internet hatred. So maybe he’s inaugurating a run of sequential nominations.

Tangential issue: is there any chance Guillermo del Toro can make it into next year’s race, for a three year Amigo parlay?

Finally, the bonus round, where you try and pick out the performer who was talked about for nomination this year but fell short, but who you guess will break through for nomination before long. Specifically disqualified are those who’ve been recognized in years past, eliminating those like Jake Gyllenhaal, Ralph Fiennes or Jessica Chastain. Neither Jennifer Aniston nor Timothy Spall (for very different reasons) appeal to me as options. And I chose Oscar Isaac LAST year, so he’s out. Even I’m getting tired of my Carrie Coon advocacy. So…let’s settle on LA Critics’ winner Tom Hardy: he’s a far more interesting actor than he (at least to me) appeared at first; he’s had a string of roles where he’s shown an impressive range; and he seems to be attracting the interest of top directors (including Innaritu just ahead). He’s my bet to make the list before long.

I await your always-thoughtful responses.
Last edited by Mister Tee on Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Other Oscar Discussions”