Re: LA Winners
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:37 pm
And Call Me by Your Name wins best picture, with The Florida Project running second.
How spread out was this? I noted the other day there were 11 films that seemed possible for best picture citation. 7 of those films (Call Me by Your Name, The Shape of Water, The Florida Project, Lady Bird, The Phantom Thread, Get Out and Dunkirk) won awards today, and an 8th -- Three Billboards -- was runner-up in three high-profile spots. The missing were The Post, The Big Sick and Darkest Hour. Even if only the first of those three makes ts way onto the ultimate best picture slate...this is the very definition of a wide-open field. What are those minor critics groups, and the Broadcasters -- whose only goal in life is to anticipate the consensus -- going to do? They might have to vote their own choice, for a change.
Chalamet now has a chance (even a likelihood) of sweeping the traditional three critics' groups. This won't make him an Oscar favorite, but it should -- at least until the TV awards come along -- prevent people from calling Gary Oldman a runaway front-runner. (For once, my instincts were correct: the critics don't want much to do with that prosthetics-and-imitation performance.)
What can you say about best actress? After NY, people seemed ready to toss it to Ronan -- and she could well win. But this massive splitting of honors -- the only fitting thing, in a year so rich -- could keep the competition going a long way. (I'm already fantasizing McDormand/Ronan winning the Globes, Hawkins at BAFTA and Streep at SAG. Hoo-eey, would that be fun!) Spreading the wealth was such a good idea this year, it weaned LA off its subtitled addiction.
I'm still thinking Dafoe is an unlikely candidate to run through the whole season untouched -- I can't believe Rockwell or one of the Call Me by Your Name/Shape of Water guys won't offer resistance somewhere. But I have to acknowledge it hasn't happened yet, and the clock is running.
Someone at Awards Watch made a surprisingly apt analogy to the supporting actress race: 1999, when Chloe Sevigny was a critics' darling, but the Angelina Jolie performance -- a much more showy one -- found its footing at Globes/SAG. The analogy falters a bit, in that Sevigny was strictly an indie lady, where Metcalf is a veteran well-liked from TV work. But it may be the broader work of Janney will play better when critics are not the arbiters.
If best picture is wide open, narrowing it down to five for the best director category is gong to be a true nightmare. del Toro and Guadagnino join Spielberg, Nolan, and an assortment including Baker, Gerwig, McDonagh, Peele, Anderson.
I worried that, despite the wealth of choices the season offered, early awards would narrow things down unnecessarily. Happily, so far at least, that doesn't seem to be the case.
How spread out was this? I noted the other day there were 11 films that seemed possible for best picture citation. 7 of those films (Call Me by Your Name, The Shape of Water, The Florida Project, Lady Bird, The Phantom Thread, Get Out and Dunkirk) won awards today, and an 8th -- Three Billboards -- was runner-up in three high-profile spots. The missing were The Post, The Big Sick and Darkest Hour. Even if only the first of those three makes ts way onto the ultimate best picture slate...this is the very definition of a wide-open field. What are those minor critics groups, and the Broadcasters -- whose only goal in life is to anticipate the consensus -- going to do? They might have to vote their own choice, for a change.
Chalamet now has a chance (even a likelihood) of sweeping the traditional three critics' groups. This won't make him an Oscar favorite, but it should -- at least until the TV awards come along -- prevent people from calling Gary Oldman a runaway front-runner. (For once, my instincts were correct: the critics don't want much to do with that prosthetics-and-imitation performance.)
What can you say about best actress? After NY, people seemed ready to toss it to Ronan -- and she could well win. But this massive splitting of honors -- the only fitting thing, in a year so rich -- could keep the competition going a long way. (I'm already fantasizing McDormand/Ronan winning the Globes, Hawkins at BAFTA and Streep at SAG. Hoo-eey, would that be fun!) Spreading the wealth was such a good idea this year, it weaned LA off its subtitled addiction.
I'm still thinking Dafoe is an unlikely candidate to run through the whole season untouched -- I can't believe Rockwell or one of the Call Me by Your Name/Shape of Water guys won't offer resistance somewhere. But I have to acknowledge it hasn't happened yet, and the clock is running.
Someone at Awards Watch made a surprisingly apt analogy to the supporting actress race: 1999, when Chloe Sevigny was a critics' darling, but the Angelina Jolie performance -- a much more showy one -- found its footing at Globes/SAG. The analogy falters a bit, in that Sevigny was strictly an indie lady, where Metcalf is a veteran well-liked from TV work. But it may be the broader work of Janney will play better when critics are not the arbiters.
If best picture is wide open, narrowing it down to five for the best director category is gong to be a true nightmare. del Toro and Guadagnino join Spielberg, Nolan, and an assortment including Baker, Gerwig, McDonagh, Peele, Anderson.
I worried that, despite the wealth of choices the season offered, early awards would narrow things down unnecessarily. Happily, so far at least, that doesn't seem to be the case.