Fall Predicitons

[The Original BJ]

I read the script to Bug last summer. I found it incredibly stagey (taking place essentially in one hotel room), and preposterously lame. Perhaps it plays better on-screen than on the page, although I admit I was shocked to learn it was such a well-received play.

[OscarGuy]

Ed Harris is going to be like Peter O'Toole. He's not likely to win for playing the same characters he's always played.

Gillian Anderson will get her due soon enough. She's got Bleak House and House of Mirth in her repetoire, so we know she's got acting chops. It's just going to take a great deal of time and effort to slough off the Scully mentality.

Murphy has a good shot. Unlike Carrey, he's paid his dues. Sure he may have made duds but he's also made gems. The role seems perfect for him though the role itself may be what loses it for him. After all, from what I know of the musical, which admittedly isn't much, he's not the likeable character Murphy's used to playing (which could also work to his benefit)

[VanHelsing]

I would love to predict Anderson for The Last King Of Scotland but from the trailer, it seems that she'll have a miniscule role and maybe, die in the film? In any case, I'm quite confident that Washington has more screentime than her. But it would be delectable if Anderson is nominated. I've always liked her as Agent Dana Scully.

Ain't gonna include Goya's Ghosts in my predictions until it gets a distributor.

I feel that Ed Harris might just win this year, of course provided he gains critical success once the film is out. Also, the overdue factor is there as well. Have you guys seen him in that Beethoven garb? Copying Beethoven might even be nominated for Best Make-Up.

flipp, haven't you heard the good Cannes buzz for Judd in Bug?

[flipp525]

rudeboy, I think Adam Beach is more likely to score for 'Flags' in the supporting race. I really like your BSA line-up, but I'd prefer Jill Clayburgh in 'Running with Scissors', Jennifer Connelly in 'Little Children' or Judi Dench for 'Notes on a Scandal' over Natalie Portman. Hudson already seems the favorite to me, especially is 'Dreamgirls' hits as big as they're saying.

Poor Ed Harris. Is he ever going to win? If his performance is good, I'll be rooting for him. I thought his interpretation of Pollock was fantastic and he's quite overdue (this is a case where I think it's warranted. Sort of like if Glenn Close delivered a fantastic performance, at this point in her career, I'd definitely be pushing her).

Not so sure about your Best Actress line-up. I think we'll be seeing Meryl Streep in their for one of her best performances in recent years.

What's the word on 'Bug'? Anyone? Sounds freaky to me.

[rudeboy]

If Dreamgirls goes over big - which, from everything that's been said, sounds quite likely - then I see no reason why Murphy won't be nominated. He's paid his dues and even if his career choices have been unwise on occasion, he's been around long enough to have a lot of supporters. He managed to win one or two awards for The Nutty Professor, which means the critics aren't afraid to reward him even for a mediocre movie - so I say his chances look good right now.

Best Picture
Dreamgirls
Flags of Our Fathers
Goya’s Ghosts
The History Boys
Running With Scissors

Best Director
Pedro Almodovar for Volver
Bill Condon for Dreamgirls
Clint Eastwood for Flags of Our Fathers
Milos Forman for Goya's Ghosts
Paul Greengrass for United 93

Best Actor
Ben Affleck for Hollywoodland
Javier Bardem for Goya’s Ghosts
Richard Griffiths for The History Boys
Ed Harris for Copying Beethoven
Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland

Best Actress
Penelope Cruz for Volver
Laura Dern for Inland Empire
Ashley Judd for Bug
Naomi Watts for The Painted Veil
Kate Winslet for Little Children

Best Supporting Actor
Samuel Barnett for The History Boys
Brian Cox for Running With Scissors
Eddie Murphy for Dreamgirls
Barry Pepper for Flags of Our Fathers
Stellan Skarsgård for Goya’s Ghosts

Best Supporting Actress
Gillian Anderson for The Last King of Scotland
Annette Bening for Running With Scissors
Frances de la Tour for The History Boys
Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls
Natalie Portman for Goya’s Ghosts

[anonymous1980]

I feel that if Carrey the comedian hasn't even managed to score a nod yet, the best Murphy the comedian could get would be just a nod for a film which seems set to be a strong Best Picture contender.

Murphy's terrific, flashy performance is certainly good enough to win Supporting Actor. Given Oscar politics, however, it all comes down to in how high regard he's held in Hollywood, and I have no idea what the level of affection for him is.

I think, in order for Eddie Murphy to get a nod, he should get just as huge a universal acclaim as Bill Murray had for Lost in Translation, if not bigger (that is, sweeping the critics awards, Golden Globe, etc.).

[Damien]

I feel that if Carrey the comedian hasn't even managed to score a nod yet, the best Murphy the comedian could get would be just a nod for a film which seems set to be a strong Best Picture contender.

Murphy's terrific, flashy performance is certainly good enough to win Supporting Actor. Given Oscar politics, however, it all comes down to in how high regard he's held in Hollywood, and I have no idea what the level of affection for him is.

[VanHelsing]

Do you really think Robbins will win again so soon? I think he was terrific in Mystic River, but given your line-up, shouldn't Murphy take precedence?

I also can't see the Academy nominating a usually light-weight actor like Affleck. (not that he's not a decent actor, but winning an Oscar would require a truly stunning performance from him)

I feel that if Carrey the comedian hasn't even managed to score a nod yet, the best Murphy the comedian could get would be just a nod for a film which seems set to be a strong Best Picture contender. Reviews for Robbins' performance are not out yet so at this point of time, I'm picking him for the win simply based on the dramatic role that he has and the lack of challenge from the other 4 nominees in my view. Although I must say that the scene in the Black Dahlia trailer, when Eckhart violently threw a fit by pushing the glass off the table seems to be pure Oscar-bait.

Many usually light-weight actors have been nominated before. Some even won. So I don't think it's not possible for Affleck to get nominated for Hollywoodland given that he's playing a real-life character and Focus Features is behind the picture, of course provided he's really good and received critical success. Not forgetting he is already an Oscar winner, so I think the "fanbase" is there and it also seems that his role as George Reeves is sort of like a comeback role for him and we all know how much AMPAS loves comebacks. But for him to win, it would be a different case altogether.

[Big Magilla]

When the star's name is used to sell the film, I think it's approprate. Otherwise, as I've said before, the star should take secondary billing.

Really, Magilla?

You would let a contractual decision between a star's agent and a producer determine in your mind who a film's lead performance is? Based on marketing decisions?

Check out these two posters, and see which star is selling this particular film. But that didn't fool the Academy into thinking he was a lead.

Don't know what the first link was supposed to be, but I already talked about the second one, which in case I didn't make my point clear enough, I thought was ridiculous.

[criddic3]

With the above nominees, I'm guessing Harris, Robbins, Judd & Dench for the wins.

Do you really think Robbins will win again so soon? I think he was terrific in Mystic River, but given your line-up, shouldn't Murphy take precedence?

I also can't see the Academy nominating a usually light-weight actor like Affleck. (not that he's not a decent actor, but winning an Oscar would require a truly stunning performance from him)

Liking the prediction for O'toole, but at this point I don't think any of us should hold our breath for that one.

[HarryGoldfarb]

There are debatable female tandems, too: the two English Patient ladies, whose roles were about the same size (actually, both of them probably belonged in support)

I don't know how the campaign was at the time, but actually Binoche was credited above Scott Thomas, probably cause at the time she had already a bigger name than the latter, so credits desn't always make the difference as you guys mentioned with the examples of Good Will Hunter and others.

[Sonic Youth]

When the star's name is used to sell the film, I think it's approprate. Otherwise, as I've said before, the star should take secondary billing.

Really, Magilla?

You would let a contractual decision between a star's agent and a producer determine in your mind who a film's lead performance is? Based on marketing decisions?

Check out these two posters, and see which star is selling this particular film. But that didn't fool the Academy into thinking he was a lead.

[Big Magilla]

I agreed with the Brando/Pacino positioning with The Godfather. Even though Pacino had the larger role, the deference of Pacino and the other actors, as well as his titular role, made him the sole star if there was to be only one star or best actor contender.

They were both the titular role. One was the Godfather, and one became the Godfather.

It's not only that Pacino had the larger role. He had the central role. The story arc centered on him, not Brando. But age and stardom tends to win out in these category placements. Timothy Hutton of Ordinary People is another example of this inequity.

When the star's name is used to sell the film, I think it's approprate. Otherwise, as I've said before, the star should take secondary billing.

[OscarGuy]

I know I've discussed this with Magilla before, but I still can't understand how any actor with a larger role can be supporting an actor with a smaller role, a la Pacino and Brando in The Godfather. I guess I feel star power has very little to do with lead/supporting status.

Mister Tee, don't forget Oscar's most recent avoidance of two-guys-together (pun very much intended): demoting Jake Gyllenhaal to supporting status simply because he would have almost certainly been left out of an overcrowded Best Actor field. That this barely raised an eyebrow outside of circles like this board makes me think the days of multiple nods for the same film in lead categories is definitely over.

In the case of Gyllenhaal, Focus pushed him as Supporting, so that was again studio jockeying for position rather than logical positioning.

[Nik]

don't forget Oscar's most recent avoidance of two-guys-together (pun very much intended): demoting Jake Gyllenhaal to supporting status simply because he would have almost certainly been left out of an overcrowded Best Actor field.

It was probably also easier to place Gyllenhaal in supporting since his character was viewed by many to be the um "bottom" in that relationship.

I'm not being snide or crude here. Heath Ledger deserved all the praise he got for that role but I really think some of it had to do with our society still prioritizing what is perceived as "masculine" over "feminine." Heath was the "top" and the one who got to brood and be all angst-ridden about his feelings - essentially the "man" in the relationship - and that kind of performance is almost always lauded above the lovelorn one delivered by Gyllenhaal. In my opinion they were both equally wonderful but I was not surprised that one got more attention than the other. Interestingly then, Brokeback Mountain may not have been a "gay issues" film as the producers, cast and crew TIRE of reminding us (anxious to isolate themselves from any polarizing political position), but the critical reception to the film's two LEADS was remarkably revealing about gay and gender politics in the U.S. and the fact that we really haven't come very far at all.