Good analysis, Tee.
Unless something totally unexpected happens to change the narrative in the next couple of weeks, I'd say supporting actor and actress are pretty much set in stone. Best actor and actress are still going to be nailbiters between Farrell and Fraser and Blanchett and Yeoh right until the opening of the envelopes no matter what SAG does. If Spielberg loses DGA to the Daniels, expect him to do the same at the Oscars. If he wins, it will be another nailbiter.
On a "whatever gets the most votes wins" basis, I'd say EEAAO has the momentum, but with the preferential ballot I suspect that Banshees has more of an edge because it is apt to rank high on just about everyone's list. But watch out for All Quiet on the Western Front. It has a lot of support from the techies and voters checking off box after box for it will likely rank it higher than the pundits are predicting in their Best Picture rankings.
Ruminations
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19362
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8660
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Ruminations
We’re in the Big Lull right now – nothing to affect Oscar-thinking will come along till DGA and BAFTA two weekends hence – so I thought I’d throw up a few things crossing my mind just now…some looking back at the nominations, others looking a bit ahead, but not so far as to handicap races.
My thoughts:
With all the foorfaraw over Andrea Riseborough, there’s not enough attention to Brian Tyree Henry’s unlikely nomination. I mentioned before the announcements, I’ve developed a system for projecting supporting nominees these days: they’re either 1) attached to a best picture nominee; 2) attached to a lead category nominee; or 3) a previous nominee. Back in the day, there were more exceptions to this (to cite a favorite few: Catherine Burns in Last Summer, Barbara Harris in Who Is Harry Kellerman…?, Bruce Davison in Longtime Companion), but, starting at the turn of the millennium, and accelerating with the expansion of best picture, such one-and-done candidates have just about disappeared -- I’d presume partly because the search for ten top-line films has left people with less time to search out more obscure entries.
Since that 2009 expansion, in fact, only 7 others have defied the criteria. Two of them (Bakalova and Odom) came in the major pandemic year 2020, when the pickings were slim (and both their films got screenplay nominations). Another two (Regina King in 2018, Melissa McCarthy in 2011) were attached to films that were in the hunt for best picture nods (and also got screenplay nominations). Which gets at the real oddity about Henry’s nomination: the last prior actor to get his or her first nod for a movie not nominated in any other category (let alone a major one)? Jacki Weaver’s first time out, for Animal Kingdom; 12 years ago.
We complain about how many biopics get acting nods for “real people,” so let’s note how few there are this year. Ana de Armas and Austin Butler are the only two such on the slate. By comparison, there were more than that in each of last year’s lead rosters. And that was far more in line with recent history: in fact, to find a year with so few Actual People roles, you have to go back to 2003, when Charlize Theron was the only such candidate.
This anomaly is somewhat offset by the fact that the two nominated this year play just about the most iconic celebrities of the 20th century.
This Year’s Best Picture List is probably the Oscar Powers That Be’s favorite in some time. When the expansion came in 2009, the idea was that voters would start nominating blockbusters (i.e, The Dark Knight) in the extra slots. But, while there was an occasional Blind Side or Bohemian Rhapsody to validate this hope, more often voters would fill the openings with even smaller efforts – A Serious Man, Winter’s Bone, Room, Call Me by Your Name. While the poohbahs aren’t thrilled to see Triangle of Sadness taking up a spot, they’re delighted to have got Top Gun: Maverick and Avatar: the Way of Water to carry the big studio flags. (Anyone wants to argue Avatar might have made even a field of 5, I’d say find me an example of a before-times film getting best picture-nominated with just production design, sound and visual effects. The only thing that got Avatar its slot here is 2 billion dollars and the expanded field.)
Supporting actress = 2015 supporting actor. I mentioned before the nominations that Angela Bassett struck me as a Stallone-in-Creed sort of candidate, and I’ll stick with the notion, despite the fact that Pundit World has surrendered to her inevitability. Having now seen most of this year’s serious contenders, I’m convinced there’s even greater similarity to 2015. The main fact about that year was how many solid candidates there were for supporting actor: Paul Dano (him again!), Benicio Del Toro, Jacob Tremblay, Idris Elba and Michael Keaton all gave highly-praised performances that were as worthy as (or worthier than) those who got nominations. In such a bountiful field, it seemed ridiculous for a triviality like Stallone, reprising his 40-years-past persona in yet another Rocky movie, to walk away with it. Similarly, this year…in addition to four quite solid fellow nominees, we had Dolly De Leon, Jessie Buckley, Claire Foy and Thuso Mbedu, all of whom would have been credible candidates. Disclaimer here: I haven’t seen Wakanda Forever (waiting for home viewing), and I suppose it’s possible Bassett gives a performance for the ages. But serious critics didn’t seem to feel that way; she was entirely missing from their award tallies. And Wakanda is not only a Marvel movie but a sequel, which certainly makes it feel like a trivial entry. I’m not saying she’s going to suffer Stallone’s fate…but the circumstances feel somewhat familiar.
Doesn’t it feel like we have more tight contests than usual? I know: the Guilds will be coming along, and will do their best to drain all suspense. But, from this vantage point, things feel more unsettled than usual. In the age of the preferential ballot, best picture is always something of a crapshoot. Best actor and actress feel like, short of SAG/BAFTA harmonic convergence, they’ll remain Blanchett/Yeoh and Butler/Fraser/Farrell to the end. Original screenplay seems a Banshees/Everywhere jump ball. As for below the line…I took a look at Gold Derby today – a place where they live to be an Amen chorus – and find that, beyond Avatar visual effects, All Quiet foreign film, and Naatu Naatu song (along with top-line Quan supporting actor), achieving full consensus has been beyond their powers. Dare I hope we have a year where we don’t have to depend on the shorts to determine prediction contest winners?
By the way, how fast have Naatu Naatu’s fortunes turned? I won our Golden Globes contest being the only one to predict it, and now it’s thought to be running away with the race.
What about this overperforming thing? As okri noted a week or two back, lots of people make a big deal over films seen as overperforming in nominations, but this can be meaningless. Roma and The Power of the Dog both got unexpected nominations, and were seen as super-strong as a result…but then faltered in the end (Power of the Dog quite ostentatiously, holding on for a single prize out of 12 nominations).
This year’s big perceived over-performer is, of course, Everything Everywhere, and there’s no disputing its field-leading 11 nominations. But I wonder if the “look at all those nods/it’s so winning” takes are a bit premature. For one thing, they were largely set by the film’s luck in the first couple of categories announced: right off the bat, it got its double in supporting actress, plus somewhat unexpected costume and score nods, and people (especially YouTube watchers) declared it was sweeping. Less noticed was that it missed sound (making it, by the Sabin rule, less likely to win editing) and a hoped-for production design, as well as a might-as-well-hope cinematography slot. So, in a sense it underperformed as well as over-performed.
You could say the same of All Quiet on the Western Front, which got a ton below the line, plus a screenplay citation, but missed out on key editing and directing nominations. Or The Fabelmans, which got its shaky Michelle Williams in, and notched a supporting actor (if not he one most expected)…but then also fell short in editing. Elvis did exceedingly well in techs – could win several – but Baz once again was brushed off by the writers and directors. And what about Top Gun: Maverick, which missed the pie-in-the-sky lead actor slot, but got the are-you-kidding-me? screenplay citation – and then missed out in the cinematography category it was supposed to easily win. How do you characterize THAT?
I guess The Banshees of Inisherin came closest to performing right at par, but that might be an after-the-fact assessment. Prior to nominations, there were many suggestions McDonagh could miss in director; neither editing nor score were slam dunks; and two nominations in one category are never a given. Apart from not making it in cinematography (where much of the best picture field was slighted this year), it’s hard to see how the film could have done better. Overperforming?
Though It started from a much lower base, maybe our strongest over-performer was TAR. Until the film made it at DGA, many saw the film as certain only in actress and screenplay. Getting film/director were not, by nominations time, seen as in doubt, but editing and cinematography certainly were. The film ends up being the only nominated best picture to cover that whole field Sabin noted in discussing Mrs. Miniver last year: it was viewed as among the best written, directed, acted and shot (with edited thrown in). Pretty impressive for a film many dismissed as too arty for Oscar voters.
None of this is to dismiss the strength of Everything Everywhere, which certainly has as good a shot at winning best picture as anything this year. But it is to say that other films did well, too, and we don’t want to overlook them in our haste to pick a winner.
My thoughts:
With all the foorfaraw over Andrea Riseborough, there’s not enough attention to Brian Tyree Henry’s unlikely nomination. I mentioned before the announcements, I’ve developed a system for projecting supporting nominees these days: they’re either 1) attached to a best picture nominee; 2) attached to a lead category nominee; or 3) a previous nominee. Back in the day, there were more exceptions to this (to cite a favorite few: Catherine Burns in Last Summer, Barbara Harris in Who Is Harry Kellerman…?, Bruce Davison in Longtime Companion), but, starting at the turn of the millennium, and accelerating with the expansion of best picture, such one-and-done candidates have just about disappeared -- I’d presume partly because the search for ten top-line films has left people with less time to search out more obscure entries.
Since that 2009 expansion, in fact, only 7 others have defied the criteria. Two of them (Bakalova and Odom) came in the major pandemic year 2020, when the pickings were slim (and both their films got screenplay nominations). Another two (Regina King in 2018, Melissa McCarthy in 2011) were attached to films that were in the hunt for best picture nods (and also got screenplay nominations). Which gets at the real oddity about Henry’s nomination: the last prior actor to get his or her first nod for a movie not nominated in any other category (let alone a major one)? Jacki Weaver’s first time out, for Animal Kingdom; 12 years ago.
We complain about how many biopics get acting nods for “real people,” so let’s note how few there are this year. Ana de Armas and Austin Butler are the only two such on the slate. By comparison, there were more than that in each of last year’s lead rosters. And that was far more in line with recent history: in fact, to find a year with so few Actual People roles, you have to go back to 2003, when Charlize Theron was the only such candidate.
This anomaly is somewhat offset by the fact that the two nominated this year play just about the most iconic celebrities of the 20th century.
This Year’s Best Picture List is probably the Oscar Powers That Be’s favorite in some time. When the expansion came in 2009, the idea was that voters would start nominating blockbusters (i.e, The Dark Knight) in the extra slots. But, while there was an occasional Blind Side or Bohemian Rhapsody to validate this hope, more often voters would fill the openings with even smaller efforts – A Serious Man, Winter’s Bone, Room, Call Me by Your Name. While the poohbahs aren’t thrilled to see Triangle of Sadness taking up a spot, they’re delighted to have got Top Gun: Maverick and Avatar: the Way of Water to carry the big studio flags. (Anyone wants to argue Avatar might have made even a field of 5, I’d say find me an example of a before-times film getting best picture-nominated with just production design, sound and visual effects. The only thing that got Avatar its slot here is 2 billion dollars and the expanded field.)
Supporting actress = 2015 supporting actor. I mentioned before the nominations that Angela Bassett struck me as a Stallone-in-Creed sort of candidate, and I’ll stick with the notion, despite the fact that Pundit World has surrendered to her inevitability. Having now seen most of this year’s serious contenders, I’m convinced there’s even greater similarity to 2015. The main fact about that year was how many solid candidates there were for supporting actor: Paul Dano (him again!), Benicio Del Toro, Jacob Tremblay, Idris Elba and Michael Keaton all gave highly-praised performances that were as worthy as (or worthier than) those who got nominations. In such a bountiful field, it seemed ridiculous for a triviality like Stallone, reprising his 40-years-past persona in yet another Rocky movie, to walk away with it. Similarly, this year…in addition to four quite solid fellow nominees, we had Dolly De Leon, Jessie Buckley, Claire Foy and Thuso Mbedu, all of whom would have been credible candidates. Disclaimer here: I haven’t seen Wakanda Forever (waiting for home viewing), and I suppose it’s possible Bassett gives a performance for the ages. But serious critics didn’t seem to feel that way; she was entirely missing from their award tallies. And Wakanda is not only a Marvel movie but a sequel, which certainly makes it feel like a trivial entry. I’m not saying she’s going to suffer Stallone’s fate…but the circumstances feel somewhat familiar.
Doesn’t it feel like we have more tight contests than usual? I know: the Guilds will be coming along, and will do their best to drain all suspense. But, from this vantage point, things feel more unsettled than usual. In the age of the preferential ballot, best picture is always something of a crapshoot. Best actor and actress feel like, short of SAG/BAFTA harmonic convergence, they’ll remain Blanchett/Yeoh and Butler/Fraser/Farrell to the end. Original screenplay seems a Banshees/Everywhere jump ball. As for below the line…I took a look at Gold Derby today – a place where they live to be an Amen chorus – and find that, beyond Avatar visual effects, All Quiet foreign film, and Naatu Naatu song (along with top-line Quan supporting actor), achieving full consensus has been beyond their powers. Dare I hope we have a year where we don’t have to depend on the shorts to determine prediction contest winners?
By the way, how fast have Naatu Naatu’s fortunes turned? I won our Golden Globes contest being the only one to predict it, and now it’s thought to be running away with the race.
What about this overperforming thing? As okri noted a week or two back, lots of people make a big deal over films seen as overperforming in nominations, but this can be meaningless. Roma and The Power of the Dog both got unexpected nominations, and were seen as super-strong as a result…but then faltered in the end (Power of the Dog quite ostentatiously, holding on for a single prize out of 12 nominations).
This year’s big perceived over-performer is, of course, Everything Everywhere, and there’s no disputing its field-leading 11 nominations. But I wonder if the “look at all those nods/it’s so winning” takes are a bit premature. For one thing, they were largely set by the film’s luck in the first couple of categories announced: right off the bat, it got its double in supporting actress, plus somewhat unexpected costume and score nods, and people (especially YouTube watchers) declared it was sweeping. Less noticed was that it missed sound (making it, by the Sabin rule, less likely to win editing) and a hoped-for production design, as well as a might-as-well-hope cinematography slot. So, in a sense it underperformed as well as over-performed.
You could say the same of All Quiet on the Western Front, which got a ton below the line, plus a screenplay citation, but missed out on key editing and directing nominations. Or The Fabelmans, which got its shaky Michelle Williams in, and notched a supporting actor (if not he one most expected)…but then also fell short in editing. Elvis did exceedingly well in techs – could win several – but Baz once again was brushed off by the writers and directors. And what about Top Gun: Maverick, which missed the pie-in-the-sky lead actor slot, but got the are-you-kidding-me? screenplay citation – and then missed out in the cinematography category it was supposed to easily win. How do you characterize THAT?
I guess The Banshees of Inisherin came closest to performing right at par, but that might be an after-the-fact assessment. Prior to nominations, there were many suggestions McDonagh could miss in director; neither editing nor score were slam dunks; and two nominations in one category are never a given. Apart from not making it in cinematography (where much of the best picture field was slighted this year), it’s hard to see how the film could have done better. Overperforming?
Though It started from a much lower base, maybe our strongest over-performer was TAR. Until the film made it at DGA, many saw the film as certain only in actress and screenplay. Getting film/director were not, by nominations time, seen as in doubt, but editing and cinematography certainly were. The film ends up being the only nominated best picture to cover that whole field Sabin noted in discussing Mrs. Miniver last year: it was viewed as among the best written, directed, acted and shot (with edited thrown in). Pretty impressive for a film many dismissed as too arty for Oscar voters.
None of this is to dismiss the strength of Everything Everywhere, which certainly has as good a shot at winning best picture as anything this year. But it is to say that other films did well, too, and we don’t want to overlook them in our haste to pick a winner.