Over at MCN, David Poland has offered his first formal Oscar column of the season (can we say “the season” in July?) and he has some strong points to make. Prediction junkies who just jump straight to his top 10 forecast for Best Picture will find some (delete according to taste) interesting/exciting/eccentric choices in the mix — he’s certainly the first pundit I’ve heard suggest that Michael Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story” is a frontrunner, while “Julie & Julia” hasn’t previously entered the discussion much either.
But the column itself is of more interest, largely because he brings up a key (and I think under-discussed) point about the potential impact of a 10-nominee race: namely, that with such a broad field, it becomes much more difficult to pinpoint voter and industry trends from year to year:
How will 10 nominees change the dynamic of desperate efforts to spin trend stories? How can it be The Year Of… anything with such inevitable diversity?
It could, I guess, be The Year of Matt Damon, who has Invictus, The Informer!, the animated Miyazaki film, Ponyo, and maybe even Green Zone coming out. It could be The Year Of Not Bio-Pics, in spite of the Nelson Mandela film from Eastwood, Invictus, and Meryl Streep invoking Julia Child.
Some will try to make it The Year of The Woman, with Nine leading the way for such hopefuls as Julie & Julia, Bright Star, Precious, An Education, Broken Embraces, the 2 SPC Coco Chanel movies, Amelia, Cheri, and even the female director of The Hurt Locker. And maybe they will have a point… there could be 5 nominations in that group.
Or not.
It’s a good question. Collective trends may not affect the voting that much in the present, but they become more meaningful in the long run. 1996 has come to be seen as a watershed year for independent cinema, with an unprecedented 4 of the 5 Best Picture nominees classified as indies. (A term I still don’t feel comfortably applying to “The English Patient,” but nonetheless.) Would such a narrative still have emerged with major studio fare like “Evita” and “The Crucible” crowding the field?
In Oscar terms, 2005 was deemed the year of socially/politically conscious cinema, but would the inclusion of, say, “Walk the Line,” “Memoirs of a Geisha” or “King Kong” have altered that story? And would the year have been more or less interesting for it? I’m not sure I know, but it’s something to consider.
With all that said, I still have a feeling that the biggest story angle of this year’s awards season could be the rise of the female director. It’s something I’ve discussed before, with women like Kathryn Bigelow, Lone Scherfig, Jane Campion and Mira Nair all potentially bringing something to the Oscar table. That, however, is still a narrative that hangs more on the five slots for Best Director than the ten for Best Picture. Perhaps from now on, trend-spotters will simply have to look a little lower than the top category.
Comments
27 responses to “Finding trends in Oscar’s ten”
Another possible “label” would be “the year of animation.” As of now, only “Beauty and the Beast” has been able to secure a nomination for BP. Animated features always seem like “uh, well, maybe” even if the quality is there, but with 10 nominations I think the stigma will be downsized and voters will lean more towards these films. “Up” seems to be a guarantee (unless there are 10 brilliant films that live up to expectations and come out in the fall), and I wouldn’t yet count out “Ponyo” or “9.” We also have to consider “Coraline” and “The Fantastic Mr. Fox” (if it comes out this year). “The Princess and the Frog” also has a good chance of impressing. Of course, none of these may make it (even though “Up” is heavily favored), but we could also see 3 or 4. It’s all speculation. But it’d be nice for the Academy to finally recognize a genre that has had a bit of a resurgence these past few years. But we’ll see.
Personally, I don’t see any way that more than one animated pic makes the cut. But fair point.
I’m curious how exactly the Best Picture and Animated Feature categories work out?
The problem I see with the whole thing is I don’t believe it’s fair to have an Animated Feature category if you’re gonna nominate them for Best Picture. Back when Beauty and the Beast was nominated, there was not an Animated Feature category, so I understand that.
But, with the Animated Feature category, isn’t that basically the “best picture” for animated movies? I guess what I want to know is, movies can’t be nominated for both categories, can they? If a feature is nominated for Best Picture, then obviously it’s gonna win the Animated Feature, right? If it’s the only animated film in the 10 “best” movies of the year, then I’d expect it to win the animated category. And I don’t think that’s fair. I feel like if animation gets its own category, and other things like documentary and foreign language get their own categories too, why is there not a category specifically for live action features? I kinda thought that was the point of breaking into different sub-categories? To give these smaller market films the chance to win their best picture awards and leave the “real movies” to the main category. And, especially with 10 nominations now, if everything is gonna be free to be nominated for best pic, then why have the smaller categories? I think we either need to keep films in their categories, or just have the 10 best pics regardless, and get rid of the sub-categories. I know a lot of animated movies and maybe documentaries and foreign language films would be against this because they realize most of the time they probably won’t win, or even be nominated for best pic, so their speciffic categories are like their best picture categories. But I feel like that’s a chance you have to take. Either be happy staying confined to your sub-categories, or get rid of them, make it one huge list (like the awards were 15, 20 years ago), and take your chances.
If Up gets a in the top ten and wins best animated film it would be imposible to win best pic also.
So you can be nominated for both categories, you just can’t win both? That doesn’t seem to make much sense. Why even bother with the multiple nominations? I feel like these films should have to choose which category they want to be nominated in (or which they want to take the chance of being nominated in). I say if Up wants to be nominated for Best Picture, then it needs to be removed from the Animated Feature nominees. Of course Up will not win the Best Picture award, so its..Best Picture nom, or Animated Feature win.
There’s no chance that’s how it works, is there? That’s how I think it should be though.
But what happens if Disney don’t submit Up in animated and in the end it don’t get nominated to best pic?
I think they should submit in both categories, win animated and if they are lucky just be happy to be nominated for best pic.
I think that’s the risk you should have to take though. If you can’t be happy enough with your personalized category that was made just for films like yours, then you should have to take the chance of getting nothing at all.
Or, like i said the first time, just get rid of these little sub-categories, and we won’t have these problems. Then we can just nominate the best 10 films and see who wins. It seems unfair to certain films the way things are set up now.
Well, I’m in the old school side here and I think animated films should stay in their own category. I know, its’ not the most popular opinion but I think firmly that filming live action is harder than “filming” an animated feature. There’s no set, they don’t go through the preassure of lighting, time, etc. I’m like a shorts filmmaker here in my country so I’m not talking without knowing the stuff. The best picture award is not only for the final product, it’s also for the production values.
Alfredo: I don’t feel like going into detail about how your logic is wrong, but consider that for any animated feature production takes at least three years and also have art directors and cinematographers. If that is not enough of an argument, consider stop-motion animated features. That alone nullifies your “There’s no set, they don’t go through the preassure of lighting, time, etc” argument.
Stop motion is nearer to live action shooting but all computer is only click click click.
Just compare the top 10 films of all time and compare the top 10 animated films of all time and tell me who wins.
Of course a film can be nominated for both Best Picture and Best Animated Feature, and win both. No rules preventing it, it just hasn’t ever happened.
Same for Best Foreign Language Film.
I think the efforts to expand the type of movies that will get nominations will fail.
The only thing that will happen is that the rest of the ten nominees would be much, much like the first top five nominees.
the year of science fiction with moon, district 9, avatar, star trek. the year of fantasy with lovely bones, where the wild things are, avatar, harry potter, up. Personally fantasy are usually my favorite films a la lord of the rings. who else thinks that the hobbit will sweep when it is completed? kris? guy?
It’d be weird if Hobbit swept given that LOTR 1&2 didn’t win any major Oscars and Hobbit’s rep is much less than LOTR.
I think it would be interesting if for egalitarian reasons they got an animated, a doc (which is I figure why Capitalism is in the mix), and a foreign language film in there. Of course, if they wanted a nod for the ghettoized films, and they’d done 10 last year, all 3 would be fulfilled with Waltz with Bashir…
Films in the top 10 anchored by a key performance will as in the past help that actor/actress in Oscar hopes. So if, say, Julie & Julia and An Education did get nommed, I wouldn’t think they had a good chance at winning but they would boost Streep & Mulligan’s chances.
4 of his top 10 aren’t by white men. Hopefully Amelia is looking “fogged in.” Interesting point about Star Trek; it can’t be called this year’s DK with being probs #4 box office of the season. I’m rooting for the Chanel & Keats biopics; they’re 2 of the only 5 films I am anticipating this year (w/Potter, September Issue which I hope gets a doc nom, & Princess/Frog).
Alfredo, stop talking nonsense.
J: The ONLY five films you’re anticipating this year? Wow.
Requiem: Personally, I wouldn’t count on much beyond tech recognition for “The Hobbit.” The Academy has paid their dues to Tolkien, and even that was a reach for them.
Could be wishful thinking on my part, too.
[…] Lodge over at In Contention floats the idea that 2009 could be the best year yet for women in the Best Pic category (no doubt about that), but […]
alfredo have you ever seen a movie called “wall-e”?? Well, that movie is by far one of the best movies on the decade (not that I’m saying is THE BEST, just one of the betters) and is animated. Just see it and you’ll see a incredible and believable cinematography (yes!! in a animated movie), an awesome work of writing, and perfection on use of animated techniques.
So, why not nominate movies that good??
I’m not saying that it can’t be nominated for writing or sound if you like, but cinematography?? Animated films are made in a computer, there was no real lightning because nothing is real in an animated film, there’s nothing to light.
Ok, don’t hate me alright but for me the production values of live action and animation are very diferent and they should not compete together.
So, what you are saying is that since there is already an animated feature category, as well as foreign and documentary category, the top prize should be called “Best live-action and scripted film in the english language”
“Or, like i said the first time, just get rid of these little sub-categories,”
Or just add one more subcategory, Best Live Action Film….
and keep best picture up for all who want to submit.
lol
Mr. F:
I didn’t say anything about foreign language or documentary. With foreign language I don’t have a problem, it’s film. About documentaries I think that the Academy separates narrative or fiction from documentaries or nonfiction if you like and the Best Pic Oscar is for the first.
What I was refering to was about the sense of cinematography they put on the movie despite the fact it is an animated movie. Of score I don’t hate your commentary, I just think in other way, and I believe that an animated movie, like Wall-e should have received a nomination last year as Best Picture (even with only 5 slots) for the reasons I write before. It’s an outstanding masterpiece.
Maybe I’m too old school I guess. I still buy CDs and think is illegal to download music.
I analyzed MCN, Tapley, and the Awards Daily reader polls’ picks, looking at the top, respectively, 25, 20, and 31 (those with 1+%). I gave 1 point for being included, 2 for being in top 10, 3 for being top 5 (or 3 in MCN’s case) to see the general consensus.
Nine: 9 points
Invictus, Up: 8 points
Precious, Hurt Locker: 7 points
Lovely Bones, Avatar: 6 points
Bright Star, Amelia, An Education, Shutter Island: 5 points
So, Tapley’s top 10, plus Shutter Island.
An animated film will never (and shouldn’t) be nominated for cinematography, but I can think of several that should have been nominated for art direction. The art direction category isn’t called “Best Sets As Build By People”. It’s the design and the way it works for the film and how intricate it is. “The Incredibles” and “Wall-E” should have been nominees there. There’s by far more imagination and ingenuity in the art direction of those movies than, say, “Seabiscuit”.
But, still, you’re talking nonsense. Animated films take just as much effort to make as live action films. You say making an animated film is just clicking on a computer, well, making a movie like “Capote” is just aiming your camera at Phillip Seymour Hoffman doing an accent.
[…] Poland over at MCN (via In Contention) has written a column about the effect 10 best picture nominees might have on the Oscar race. […]