Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

And on the speech line. I'm glad to see a lot of multiple winners are delivering differing speeches. I love what Plummer has done up to this point (much like I loved Mo'Nique's approach) and I think everyone enjoys having something new to listen to each time instead of Melissa Leo saying almost the same thing (without the swearing) every chance she got.

This is one of those years where I won't come close to watching all the nominated films or performances. I have not seen Max von Sydow's performance and I likely won't, but it seems as though pretty much every performer in this lineup was in some way hampered by the limitations of their roles. The same is true for Albert Brooks, Armie Hammer, and Patton Oswalt among those who waited in the wings.

Max von Sydow could be a winner, but he wasn't given enough to do. Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier? Sounds like a winner. From what I understand, he wasn't given enough to do. Jonah Hill is pretty hilarious in Moneyball, but his role is somewhat marginalized at the expense of flashbacks to young Billy Beane. Nick Nolte emotes up a storm in Warrior, but it's still very much a stock role. And Christopher Plummer? He'll win and deservingly so, but he never gets a big, teary scene that would push him over the edge, which goes a long way to explain why Ewan McGregor's Oliver is so repressed. His performance is all joyful presence.

This is also the first race in ages where everyone nominated is truly a supporting player, so there's something to be grateful for there. I suppose von Sydow could surprise everyone. It's pretty clear that Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close has some fans out there. I like Daniel's point that it's pretty difficult to look at Kenneth Branagh's career of nominations amounting to being very due because it's so spread out. Plummer likely has a leg up because of his snub for The Insider and his recent nomination for The Last Station. Also (again, sight unseen) contrasting von Sydow's haunted survivor, Christopher Plummer plays a man who is finally free and despite the fact that he doesn't quite get as many plummy scenes as you would expect, it's pretty infectious to watch him. He's given a string of glorious acceptance speeches as well.

Anyone other than Plummer would be an utter shock!

I always enjoy visiting old threads and seeing the lists of those who were in the running for a nomination but fell short of the final five - so I'll do it here. Closest to a nomination were probably Albert Brooks in Drive, Armie Hammer in J. Edgar, Andy Serkis in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Viggo Mortensen in A Dangerous Method and Patton Oswalt in Young Adult.

rolotomasi99 wrote:

Greg wrote:Screenplays also contain descriptions of physical action and stage directions, even if decisions on camera length, camera angles, type of lighting, etc., are left ot the director. So, there is still some work involved in adapting Hamlet even if Shakespeare's dialog is used verbatim.

If that were true it would undermine the argument that director's are the true creators of what you see on screen, and since that issue has since been settled (I conceded defeat) we should just agree that Branagh's nomination for HAMLET should have been as the director like he was with HENRY V.

Regardless of what argument it undermines, it is true. That is what screenplays contain. This is how, for example, The Red Balloon could win for original screenplay even though it contained no dialog.

Greg wrote:Screenplays also contain descriptions of physical action and stage directions, even if decisions on camera length, camera angles, type of lighting, etc., are left ot the director. So, there is still some work involved in adapting Hamlet even if Shakespeare's dialog is used verbatim.

If that were true it would undermine the argument that director's are the true creators of what you see on screen, and since that issue has since been settled (I conceded defeat) we should just agree that Branagh's nomination for HAMLET should have been as the director like he was with HENRY V.

Even the original master of bringing Shakespeare to the big screen, Laurence Olivier (bringing us back to the Supporting Actor category), was nominated several times for directing and acting in Shakespearean films, but never for "adapting" them.

And one more point. It was said that it seems difficult to believe that SAG and Oscar would line up, yet that's what's happened the last two years running. And the only reason it didn't happen 3 years running was that Kate Winslet jumped from Supporting Actress at SAG to Lead Actress at the Oscar (and were she not nominated in lead, Streep might have her third Oscar).

rolotomasi99 wrote:Yeah, except Branagh's nomination for Adapted Screenplay is a joke. His nomination for writing HAMLET has to be one of the most egregious abuses of the concept of the Adapted Screenplay. Other fully written plays have been nominated in this category before (12 ANGRY MEN, THE LION IN WINTER, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF, etc.), and it seemed unfair to put that work up against screenplays which were actually adapted for the screen. However, HAMLET's nomination is particularly ridiculous since it is the only time I am aware of when the original text of Shakespeare was credited to another writer. This is not like Kurowsawa adapting Lear into RAN. Branagh just used the original words, and in fact his version is notable for being completely uncut. So you cannot even credit him with editing the play like other directors like Olivier or Zeffirelli.

This is actually a good example of the point many on this board have made about the director being the true author of a film. Even though Branagh used every word written by Shakespeare, this HAMLET is all the director's creation. He came up with some amazing visuals to go with the text. Why they did not just nominate him for director is beyond me, but the Adapted Screenplay nomination is stupid.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but this has always bothered me.

Screenplays also contain descriptions of physical action and stage directions, even if decisions on camera length, camera angles, type of lighting, etc., are left to the director. So, there is still some work involved in adapting Hamlet even if Shakespeare's dialog is used verbatim.

Using the largest ovation at the nominees lunch doesn't mean much when he is the most legendary of all the nominated performers (I don't count Streep because she's been at this for awhile, so people aren't going apeshit over a career nomination). Let's remember that Christopher Plummer wasn't there, so we don't know what kind of reception he would have gotten. And whether difficult to work with or not, I don't think the Academy is going to hold that against him. Plummer also has a highly visible performance in another of this year's Oscar nominees: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and his warm, grandfatherly performance in Beginners (which is really quite charming in itself) should be a strong enough combination to make him a noteworthy winner.

I don't know if von Sydow's sudden emergence in the field has more to do with people wanting an alternative contender to Plummer or if they think the sudden inclusion of EL&IC means more people like the film than do. Let's remember that the film has only two nominations meaning it isn't as well liked as we may think. Yes, von Sydow has the legendary quality, but he's feels more like the kind of actor who reaps a career tribute from the Governor's Awards than from a competitive honor.

mlrg wrote:If you count Adapted or Original Screenplay as one, then Branagh holds the record behind Disney

Yeah, except Branagh's nomination for Adapted Screenplay is a joke. His nomination for writing HAMLET has to be one of the most egregious abuses of the concept of the Adapted Screenplay. Other fully written plays have been nominated in this category before (12 ANGRY MEN, THE LION IN WINTER, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF, etc.), and it seemed unfair to put that work up against screenplays which were actually adapted for the screen. However, HAMLET's nomination is particularly ridiculous since it is the only time I am aware of when the original text of Shakespeare was credited to another writer. This is not like Kurosawa adapting Lear into RAN. Branagh just used the original words, and in fact his version is notable for being completely uncut. So you cannot even credit him with editing the play like other directors like Olivier or Zeffirelli.

This is actually a good example of the point many on this board have made about the director being the true author of a film. Even though Branagh used every word written by Shakespeare, this HAMLET is all the director's creation. He came up with some amazing visuals to go with the text. Why they did not just nominate him for director is beyond me, but the Adapted Screenplay nomination is stupid.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but this has always bothered me.

Thanks, dws, for initiating this thread. We have alot to cover in less than two weeks, and all help is appreciated.

I actually like Jonah Hill the best of the five nominated performances, but I'd be shocked if he were to manage a win. He is, as you say, not only young, but was, prior to this film, not remotely seen as an actor in Oscar territory. He has two things going for him: Moneyball's considerable overall Oscar presence (its six nominations and best picture nod make it one of the year's formidable overall contenders), and the fact that, in theatrical gross, his work was probably seen by as many as the rest put together. (Though DVD may have closed that advantage)

Had Warrior been the hit the trades initially foresaw, Nick Nolte would probably be a strong prospect. As it it, I was surprised he even survived for the nomination. Nolte has obviously been around a long time now -- he was touted in critical circles as long ago as 1978's Who'll Stop the Rain? -- but he's never been much of a mainstreamer, and, though he'd have to be considered a veteran, his persona doesn't evoke the warm fuzzies that can help such veterans to unlikely Oscar wins.

For a while I thought Kenneth Branagh might be able to surprise here, given his overall career curve, his solid reviews, and the fact that Williams' nomination would ensure most voters saw the film. But the disappointing box-office, while superior to that of Beginners, probably makes him a distant long shot at best.

I'm not sure Max von Sydow's ovation at the luncheon means much. Given that chance, I'd have cheered the cinematic legend, but it doesn't mean I'd vote for him in this piece of cheese. He's being viewed as the upset possibility chiefly based on his long-time iconic status, the fact that we haven't seen him matched against Plummer in any preliminary heats, and the fact that Extremely Loud got that best picture nod. That last may not mean as much as some think; this year's 5% rule made it alot easier for a determined small bloc to push a stinker into the race, and their numbers may be insignificant in a general Academy race. But I suppose he's got a chance.

I'm still rather gobsmacked at how Christopher Plummer has emerged such an overwhelming favorite. Whatever doubts I've harbored about The Artist as a commercial weakling go triple for Beginners -- the film slipped through barely making a ripple last summer. Yet, right from the start, Oscar bloggers (at Indie Wire, Tapley's site, etc.) declared him the clear front-runner, and somehow the narrative caught on. The critics obviously helped -- in a year when critics generally showed a pleasing diversity of opinion, they pretty much narrowed the supporting actor field to two men right from the start. And of that pair, Plummer was clearly going to be more up the Academy's alley (much as I like Albert Brooks, I never imagined a film as violent as Drive could win a major Oscar). So, here we stand, with Plummer rampaging through the TV-presented awards, likely to add the Oscar to his pile. The only caveat is what Precious Doll notes: Plummer has had run-ins over the years that have marked him difficult. This would seem to counter the wave of sentiment that would be expected to carry him home, and there's a small chance it could be lethal in the end (as alot of folks think it was for Lauren Bacall and Eddie Murphy). In that scenario, the never-made-an-enemy von Sydow would be the likley beneficiary.

But that's not the way to bet. All smart money is on Christopher Plummer to become the oldest acting Oscar winner.

If you count Adapted or Original Screenplay as one, then Branagh holds the record behind Disney

Add to that list: George Clooney (Directing, Actor, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay)

As an FYI: these are the individuals that have been nominated in five or more categories. The caveat is that this is not a complete list as some individuals may not have birth or death information and the spreadsheet I'm currently using only has birth/death information in it.

I'm also not including categories where they weren't always separated (nominations for Substantially Original Score and Song or Adaptation Score are counted separately in my sheet, but won't be included here).

Dore Schary (wasn't sure to count or not, but: Original Story, Screenplay, Documentary Feature, Documentary Short, 2-Reel Short)
Federico Fellini (again, not sure if I should count: Directing, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Screenplay, Story and Screenplay)
Kenneth Branagh (Directing, Actor, Supporting Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Live Action Short)
Stanley Kubrick (Picture, Directing, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Visual Effects)
Warren Beatty (Picture, Directing, Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay)
Joel & Ethan Coen (Picture, Directing, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Editing)
Walt Disney (Picture, Documentary Feature, Documentary Short, Animated Short, Live Action Short, 2 Reel Short) - 6 categories
John Huston (not sure if I should count: Directing, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Screenplay)
Billy Wilder (not sure if I should count: Picture, Directing, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Screenplay, Original Story, Story and Screenplay)

The true multi-category artists are Branagh, Kubrick, Beatty, the Coens and Disney.

I'm going with what would be an upset: Max Von Sydow. I haven't seen his performance (the film opens in my part of the world and I'm dreading it as I have loathed all of Daldry's work) and my mind may change once I've seen the film, but I feel a 'career Oscar" would be more befitting to him then Plummer. Also Plummer apparently hasn't the best of reputations within the industry and is someone seen as 'difficult' to work with. If I was an Academy voter I would vote for Von Sydow even though I think Jonah Hill is the best of the 3 that I have seen (I haven't seen Kenneth Branagh, but expect to tomorrow night). Christopher Plummer was the best things about Beginners, but there was nothing revolutionary about the film or his role. It's unlikely that the same four actors that won the SAGS will win the Oscars, and I think Plummer is the most vulnerable of those four SAG winners (with Viola Davis behind him).