Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
Here’s something I’ll bet a lot of you wouldn’t have guessed: once upon a time, when my pants were short and my South African accent heavy, I was a very good Oscar pundit. I won every pool going. I beat the lame TV critics’ guesses and laughed in their televised faces. When that got old, I entered a radio “predict the Oscars” contest and won ZAR200 in mall vouchers. (Okay, that’s $26 – it was worth more in the 90s.)
Since those heady days of glory, however, things have changed. The internet came along, for starters, and proved to be a hell of a lot smarter than me. But my own predictions – particularly at the nomination stage – got more wayward by the year; gone were the days of going five-for-five in one category after another.
When it comes to picking the winners, meanwhile, I’ve begun losing Oscar pools to my brother, a mostly disinterested architect with an uncanny knack for calling the Academy’s most gauchely sentimental instincts. (He nailed the Best Foreign Language Film upset by “Departures,” for example, simply by reading a one-line plot synopsis of each nominee. I can learn much from him.)
Why the lapse in form lately? It’s simple, really: I’ve started seeing the movies.
That is to say, I’ve started seeing the movies in time. Back in the days when I had no access to press screenings or festivals, I was wholly at the mercy of South African release schedules, which usually meant I was lucky if one of the Best Picture nominees landed before Easter.
Invariably, that meant predicting nominees with little perspective on the nominees beyond what precursors, reviews and past Academy form dictated. Logically, such blindness should be a handicap. But over the years – not least the last 18 months I’ve spent working at InContention – what I’ve learned is that familiarity breeds confusion. The better I know the players in any given year, the harder it gets to see the forest for the trees.
It’s not merely a case of favoring what I like, though I can’t help but let wishful thinking play a part. Last year, for example, had I not spent the better part of a year admiring and championing one Sally Hawkins, I might have found it easier to drop her from my predictions when she missed with the BFCA, SAG and BAFTA. Come February, had I had no personal investment in the showdown between Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn, I’d probably have seen how cold Oscar logic favored the latter. But I did. So I didn’t.
What this is a very roundabout way of saying is that my current predictions, which I spent a good deal of time puzzling over yesterday afternoon, are somewhat in limbo. As we sit on the eve of the National Board of Review offering the first broad precursor pointers of the season (the Spirits are too exclusive, the Satellites too daffy), I’m torn between protecting outside notions that I’ve nurtured for months on end, and facing up to more obvious realities.
It broke my heart to drop “Bright Star” from my projected Best Picture list, for example, but I can’t ignore the sinking feeling that the industry love isn’t there – though it’s nothing that a well-placed critics’ award or two couldn’t fix. I held on for ages to the idea of Tilda Swinton scoring one of those rare connoisseur’s nominations from left field, but until I see some hard precursor evidence to the contrary, I’m letting go.
That said, I can’t give over entirely to sensible thinking – I’m sticking by my Best Picture and Best Actress calls for “It’s Complicated,” simply because the possibility of being right is too rich, however remote. And I still can’t accept that all the heavily-hyped December contenders are going to make the cut – “spot the Christmas turkey” is one of the most enjoyable games in Oscar prognostication, though I fear The Ten may have put paid to that ritual.
In this regard, I kind of sympathize with Jeff Wells, who recently wrote a plea to his fellow Oscar pundits to “lead a little bit” with their forecasts, to “mysteriously and inconsistently blend their predictions with some personal conviction of their own.” Wells drove home his point recently by leaving “Precious” out of his recent Best Picture slate for the Gurus of Gold – not because he doesn’t think it will be nominated (Wells is a sharp man, after all), but because he felt someone was duty-bound to resist it.
When someone like Wells raises the question of what an Oscar pundit’s responsibility is, I’m not sure there’s a right answer. The very objective of predicting is to be right. At the same time, successfully anticipating the success of films or artists you don’t personally believe in can feel like a hollow victory. And if you do use predictions to champion those you think deserve a boost, how far can you stray into the impossible?
Perhaps sites like ours should run a parallel sidebar of “should-be” candidates throughout the year. Or perhaps one should keep meshing personal hopes with practical considerations – which is why, in the end, I popped “Bright Star” back in my ten after all.
Because there are rare, beautiful moments when wishful thinking is validated. In 2007, I fell hard for a performance I encountered in early autumn. It seemed a surefire Oscar bid to me, and it duly entered my predictions, not budging despite precursor after precursor failing to take notice. Months later, when nearly every Oscar pundit had rationally dropped said actor from their lists, my loyalty was rewarded when Laura Linney landed a deserved Best Actress nod for “The Savages.” There’s nothing sweeter than being right in two ways.
50 responses so far
1 12-02-2009 at 6:11 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
“Crazy Heart” director Scott Cooper told me a story this week about when he showed his film to Kris Kristofferson. The movie ended, Kristofferson got up and left. Cooper and the rest, they had no idea what that meant and started to get worried. Kristofferson came back in wiping his eyes. “I just saw my life up there on that screen,” he said.
Same thing with many professional wrestlers last year, actually, when it came to “The Wrestler,” ironic given one of your image choices here.
This is all a long-winded way of saying the first half of this column, that was, well, not my life, but certainly the last eight or nine years of it.
I once said you don’t have to see the films to guess this stuff. Then I foolishly thought you had to be a slave to seeing everything before having a valid point of view. Now I see it as a mixture of both (much like your mixture of wishful thinking and level-headed realism in actually predicting).
Luckily, following the inevitable slump that accompanies access, if my record the last couple of years mean anything, there’s a bit of a bounce back in store.
Now you’ll excuse me while I go be disgusted at the amount of hot air I just blew with the last five graphs…
2 12-02-2009 at 6:16 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Ah, and regarding the “responsibility” of an Oscar blogger…come on. As you say, the point is to get it right. But the idea that we should try to “lead,” you’ll forgive me if I think, at the end of the day, that lends FAR too much gravitas to what the Oscars actually mean in the grand scheme of things. It’s frivolous. A horse race. Bet on it, on to the next one. It’s not a place for true cinema passion — at least not where it is now.
3 12-02-2009 at 6:19 pm
Brent said...
Great article.
And you’ve only been around for 18 months? Could’ve sworn it were longer.
4 12-02-2009 at 6:21 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Kris: Hot air or not, I am rarely so comforted by a comment! Thank you.
And your second point is on the money. I let myself get far too invested, simply because the feeling when a film/artist you deeply care about gets the recognition is so sweet. But it should mean as little to us from a critical standpoint as it should to them from an artistic one.
5 12-02-2009 at 6:22 pm
Jim T said...
“It’s simple, really: I’ve started seeing the movies.”
That reminded me of the first time I watched the show live (in Greece we didn’t have that luxury without paying until the internet gave it to us for free) and even though I had seen none of the nominated female leading performances, I knew, after watching the clips, that Berry would win.
6 12-02-2009 at 6:34 pm
James.C said...
I totally agree with Guy, regarding Laura Linney. I immediately fell in love with her performance in The Savages.
I thought it was a fantastic movie. Too sad it was overshadowed by too many masterpieces that year.
7 12-02-2009 at 6:43 pm
Simone said...
This was a great personal reflection Guy about your past and current Oscar prognosticating abilities. I wish I possessed 1/8th of your current skills as I am just a big fan of movies and I admit to investing my emotional response to a select few that the Academy utterly fails to share the same appreciation for. Thanks for sharing.
8 12-02-2009 at 6:46 pm
j said...
If I had to pick Guy’s or Kris’ predictions in each category (not what I think, but what I want…so the fact that Bright Star is my #1 of the year biases me a lot):
Pic – Guy, Dir – Guy, Actor – Guy, Actress – Guy, Supp Actor – Kris, Supp Actress – Kris, Adapted – Kris, Original – Guy, Cinematography – Guy, Editing – Guy, Score – Kris, Song – Kris, Animated – Kris
9 12-02-2009 at 6:47 pm
Bradley said...
I still refuse stubbornly to take Peter Capaldi and In The Loop out of my predictions for supporting actor and adap screenplay! Wish I could be as optimistic about Sam Rockwell… And in a just world, Tom Hardy would be in the mix too…
10 12-02-2009 at 6:51 pm
James D. said...
So true, indeed. I am big on betting on the NFL (I would call it football, but you Brits get crazy about it) and I always ask my girlfriend on who she thinks will win. Based on no reasonable formula, she gets picks much better than I do, who follows the sport intensely.
11 12-02-2009 at 6:54 pm
Nigel Bridgeman said...
Being in Australia means that I don’t get to see everything until around Oscar time which means I rely on buzz and gut instinct for nomination predictions. Unfortunately by the time I have to predict the winners I’ve seen more of the films and my success rate plummets.
It would be nice if pundits made bold choices – it has become painfully obvious over the years that the Academy can’t think for themselves and seem to rely on pre-cursors for guidance (exceptions: Tommy Lee Jones for In the Valley of Elah, Kate Winslet as lead for The Reader and Keisha Castle-Hughes as lead for Whale Rider instead of supporting).
And Guy, as I said to you on Twitter, I’m willing to pick It’s Complicated for nominations in several major categories. I still think if Meryl is nominated it will be for this and not Julie & Julia. I was underwhelmed by her performance in the latter, maybe because I’m Australian and didn’t have a clue who Julia Child was.
12 12-02-2009 at 6:58 pm
Kevin said...
Interesting that you are still predicting Viggo Mortensen for Best Actor. As much as I disagree with you and Kris on The Road, it just seems odd that you would go out on a limb to predict a nomination like that. I personally think predicting him is wise thinking, but I’d like to hear from you what made you have more faith in the film’s award’s prospects than Kris?
13 12-02-2009 at 7:01 pm
Kevin said...
That, and you also are bold in predicting Renner as well. I applaud your bold predictions Guy, if for nothing else than to offer some outside the box predictions. Whether or not you get it right, you show a boldness in your predictions that is often lost in predictable seasons like last year or even this year.
14 12-02-2009 at 7:09 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Kevin: The one constant amid the mixed reviews for “The Road” has been respect for Mortensen’s performance — if the film scores anywhere, it’s going to be there. Even if the precursors don’t help him or the film, I can imagine him landing a nod in a similar scenario to Tommy Lee Jones in 2007 — particularly if voters decide that Freeman and/or Day-Lewis aren’t doing top-tier work.
15 12-02-2009 at 7:13 pm
Glenn said...
I also predicted Linney for “The Savages” as well as Kate Winslet for “The Reader” in lead. I like it when I can do that, but then I turn around and predict something utterly deranged like Wong Kar-Wai for “2046″ :/
16 12-02-2009 at 7:26 pm
henry said...
I’m still bitter that Tamara Jenkins was robbed of her best screenplay award by the likes of Diablo Cody. Not that I’m trying to hate on Cody or Juno. But watch The Savages and Juno, one after the other, and see which one has more resonance. Cody played the game, she did all the interviews, went on the talk shows. She beat Jenkins with publicity and with her kitschy underdog story. But man, that Savages script was air tight and heavy like a stone. Juno was fluffy: a few good scenes, a few good lines, and then extra sugar and frosting. Shame on everyone involved for allowing that to happen.
17 12-02-2009 at 7:26 pm
Kevin said...
I think that honestly, Weinstein is going to play the overdue card in his campaign for The Road, which could really push Viggo through the season. Having seen the film twice myself, I can sort of understand why you and Kris didn’t respond to it, but for my money, it was the best film of the year (the only ones I haven’t seen yet are Nine, Invictus, The Lovely Bones, and Avatar) and Viggo not only deserves a nomination, but in my humble opinion, he deserves to win. I don’t see Daniel Day Lewis or Freeman getting nominated at all, to be honest. I’ve heard good but not great reviews for both of them, and I get the feeling that people feel the way about their performances that you and Kris felt about Viggo in The Road (great, but we’ve seen better kind of thing). Plus, Nine looks like it’s going to campaign the ladies way more than DDL anyways.
18 12-02-2009 at 7:29 pm
Simone said...
I couldn’t agree more with your assessment Kevin about Mortensen being overdue and possibly hanging in there for a Best Actor Oscar. And to have their cake and eat it too, I reckon Weinstein will play the old/newcomer card for Best Supporting for Waltz. That would rock so much if both of these well deserved actors win on Oscar night.
19 12-02-2009 at 7:44 pm
Kevin said...
Again, for me, The Road has been the best film I have seen all year, and one of the best films I’ve seen in the last decade. It will undoubtedly make it to my top 10 of the decade list next year. I don’t think any film has honestly moved me a haunted me the way The Road did. I think that Viggo not only gave a truly incredible performance, but it transcended performance. Viggo IS the father. And without his performance, the film would probably not have moved me the way it did. I think that is what Best Actor is all about. His performance doesn’t outshine the film as a whole, but rather, it drives and it guides it.
20 12-02-2009 at 7:54 pm
Pablo (Col) said...
I loved Departures winning last year. It was a very well deserved prize. The “frontrunner” there was boring to death and people thought it will win jus t because technically innovative.
21 12-02-2009 at 8:24 pm
Speaking English said...
Apparently you seemed to forget “A Serious Man” when compiling your predictions, which is odd seeing how much you liked it. There’s simply no way it can miss out on Best Original Screenplay. Just unimaginable.
And there’s totally no way “Ice Age” is going to be nominated. Ridiculous. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” has got this one wrapped up, and I’d also say is more likely for an Adapted Screenplay nomination than “Coraline” is.
I also still struggle to understand why anyone with eyes would predict “The Hurt Locker” for cinematography. If any movie has utilized the grainy shaky-cam to its nauseating worst, it’s this film. Just not good to look at at all.
22 12-02-2009 at 8:28 pm
Danny King said...
This is such a fascinating topic, and when you think about it, it makes a whole lot of sense.
I love the ides of “should-be” nominees as well. Not only does it provide interesting contrasts, but it helps reinforce the types of films the Academy goes for versus the types of films that they are turned-off by.
23 12-02-2009 at 9:08 pm
Maxim said...
I would not go as far as to leave out “A Serious Man” from ALL categories. We can argue about whether it will be among the “Best Picture” picks but I’d be really suprised if it misses out on “Best Original Screenplay” nod. Quite surprised.
24 12-02-2009 at 9:13 pm
Adam M. said...
“In this regard, I kind of sympathize with Jeff Wells, who recently wrote a plea to his fellow Oscar pundits to “lead a little bit” with their forecasts, to “mysteriously and inconsistently blend their predictions with some personal conviction of their own.” Wells drove home his point recently by leaving “Precious” out of his recent Best Picture slate for the Gurus of Gold – not because he doesn’t think it will be nominated (Wells is a sharp man, after all), but because he felt someone was duty-bound to resist it.”
Wow. Oscar bloggers are becoming more and more self-absorbed. Do you really think most Academy members pay any attention whatsoever to what “pundits” are predicting? I sure don’t. That’s why every. single. year. the bloggosphere has a collective conniption when one of their “locks” fails to score a nod.
Every Oscar blog could shut down right now and the eventual nominations wouldn’t change a lick. Bloggers can champion personal picks in their predictions as much as they please– but they are only engaging in irrelevant, smug self-gratification by doing so.
25 12-02-2009 at 9:40 pm
Baxter said...
Definitely agree, though the wishful thinking does sometimes pay off. In 2007, I stuck with Atonement all year, even when everyone else had swapped it out. I was glad to be right when it was nominated for Picture (though it didn’t the Director and Actor nods I also predicted and that it so richly deserved). Anyways, I hope it works out similarly this year for Bright Star and Abbie Cornish…
I feel like it’s the only film of that kind this year, the biopic, the period peace, the romance, which certain members of AMPAS love, though it’s certainly a departure stylistically in many ways. I like to think its what the older crowd will turn to (and then after you’ve seen the movie, how can you not vote for Cornish?).
26 12-02-2009 at 9:49 pm
Baxter said...
Also, @ Adam M. You know that’s just not true.
Yes, there are plenty of cases like Sally Hawkins, where critics, reviewers, and bloggers can pound the drum until everyone around them is deaf, but one of the things that’s come out of so many people being experts and making predictions on so many sites is that you get an inevitability aspect to so many nominations.
Most years, 4, if not 5, of the nominees for most categories, though especially Supporting Actor and Actress are, frankly, decided by the fall. Most pundits will agree on 4, or, again, 5, nominees and voila we have our lineup. People stop thinking about for whom to vote, and they just vote for whomever everyone’s predicting to win. It’s essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy.
27 12-02-2009 at 9:51 pm
Baxter said...
*everyone’s predicting to be nominated.
Sorry for spamming the comments.
28 12-02-2009 at 11:32 pm
Paul Outlaw said...
Guy, I was so hoping I would get through your predictions without a single Avatar sighting…alas, it was not to be.
But I am crossing my fingers for Viggo, just like I did the last two times he was in the race.
29 12-03-2009 at 3:09 am
Nathaniel R said...
i have to say that I kind of agree with Jeff Wells here. And Baxter.
Because the constant regurgitation of what is predicted DOES effect things.
and this is one of the reasons that Hollywood sticks so many things in December. Because perception is reality and Assumption of Merit ends up equalling merit. Even when it shouldn’t.
This is why a year later it’s always so puzzling to look back and think “wow, how did THAT get nominated over this?” after the heat of the moment so many things reveal themselves to be merely part of all that hot air.
so I don’t think every pundit shutting down wouldn’t change things ;) I don’t believe any pundit makes a difference but I do believe the chorus makes a difference — which is why Wells has a point and why Guy’s worry about hollow victories is so relatable — it’s the same concept as precursor awards. Get one citation, it hardly matters. Get all of them? You’re in.
30 12-03-2009 at 3:20 am
Matt said...
I guess I’m living your life in reverse as I’m now in South Africa for my 4th Oscar season. One nice thing about being here is that for some movies, if they are really bad, it’s already been sorted out and off my radar screen before landing on African shores. Another good thing though was the chance to see a screening of “Mugabe and the White Farmer” several months ago.
31 12-03-2009 at 3:21 am
Matt said...
sorry–”Mugabe and the White African”
32 12-03-2009 at 4:03 am
Guy Lodge said...
Nathaniel: Full agreement. To the power of ten.
Matt: “Mugabe and the White African” is jostling with “The Beaches of Agnes” as my favourite documentary of the year. Glad to hear someone else mention it.
33 12-03-2009 at 4:29 am
Guy Lodge said...
Speaking English: You’re blurring opinions and projections. Of course, that’s the very subject of my column, but “how much I liked it” is still never my top consideration when compiling predictions. (Even a hopeful call like “Bright Star” is based on theory first.)
I didn’t “forget” “A Serious Man” — I actually removed it from the Best Original Screenplay category. I have a hunch Academy voters won’t warm to it, but I could well be wrong. Was it equally “unimaginable” that the Spirits would snub it in the screenplay category? (Not, I hasten to add, that that’s the reason I dropped it.) Nothing is set in stone. Don’t get so worked up.
As for “The Hurt Locker,” you’re once more mistaking your personal convictions for consensus.
34 12-03-2009 at 6:16 am
Oscar Valdez said...
Hey, i know this may be a little bit ”off-topic” but all songs from ”Nine” are now avalible at their website.
Dont know if this is prohibited but here’s a direct link to the ”score” section of it: http://nine-movie.com/#/the-score
Enjoy!
35 12-03-2009 at 6:24 am
Hero said...
First off, great post Guy.
Living where I do, sometimes I can see a lot of the Oscar nominees and sometimes I can’t, which sometimes helps and sometimes hurts. A few years back, I was predicting Babel for Best Pic up until 4 days before the show when I finally saw it. I immediately switched my prediction to The Departed.
I do have to say I’m a little sad to see no mention of Lovely Bones here, although Kris put it back on his predictions list this week. This back and forth on the movie makes me a bit worried, because even sight unseen by me, I can’t help but hope for the best from and for Peter Jackson.
36 12-03-2009 at 6:39 am
Guy Lodge said...
Hero: Glad you liked the column. Just to be clear, I haven’t seen “The Lovely Bones” yet, so the absence of the film from my predictions isn’t based on any personal perspective.
37 12-03-2009 at 6:43 am
Hero said...
Guy: But doesn’t that mean you prediction might be more accurate?
38 12-03-2009 at 6:44 am
Hero said...
Also, an edit feature would be great for these comments. *smacks forehead*
39 12-03-2009 at 6:56 am
Guy Lodge said...
Hero: Who knows? Frankly, I’m a little confused by the buzz for “The Lovely Bones” at this point!
40 12-03-2009 at 7:01 am
aspect ratio said...
I’d agree that seeing all the movies doesn’t really make you a better predictor. In many cases, in particular if you really loved a movie, you get kind of blind thinking there’s no way it can miss. You let your own opinion get mixed in with being objective.
That said, while I don’t know how many Academy members actually visit Oscar blogs, I would definitely like to see more blogs plugging the small, overlooked films and performances more. They might not stand much of a chance, but if a few voters actually take notice and go check out a screener of that film, that’s a good thing. Things get too focused on the big ponies, too many films/performances are forgotten unfairly.
41 12-03-2009 at 7:59 am
DHE said...
Well, I think Oscar bloggers should go with their hearts and make cases. But they’re too worried about their “track records” or, heavens, being mocked next year by their fellow Oscar bloggers. So you have curious situations this year with films and performers whom everyone wishes would get a nod, but nobody wants to go out on a limb and be bold enough to talk them up.
42 12-03-2009 at 11:13 am
Anton said...
Agree a “should be nominated”-bar would be awesome and probably more interesting than the current: well we have a peter jackson that will be nominated and a clint eastwood, then there’s this nine movie with another many oscar winners – it just looks more like math than actually a representation of what feels to be the best movie of 2009
for example “nine” is already featured on a lot of lists – because of the “oscar potential” yet we haven’t seen anything except the trailers – whereas films like moon and d9 are not even close to getting predicted even though they already had their critical succes – and in the case of d9 will surely make movie history no matter if they get nominated or not
43 12-03-2009 at 4:12 pm
Bryan said...
I find seeing the films has helped and hurt over the years.
Some examples. I saw English Patient when I was 13 and rightly said Binoche would win because she was better than anyone else.
I saw La vie en rose 2 days before telecast and decided she has to win because she was too good to ignore and I hated Away From Her.
But on the flipside, I picked Rourke cause he was the best, but was blinded by that and Penn came out ahead.
Or the time I steadfastly refused to pick Jennifer Hudson because I thought she was terrible in the film and Rinko was the best that year. I think if I hadn’t seen the movies first the results would be different but balance out the same. It’s a tough racket.
44 12-03-2009 at 5:26 pm
Speaking English said...
Guy, I’m not letting my opinion of The Hurt Locker’s cinematography taint my predictions… I just seriously, genuinely cannot understand what anyone sees as so exceptional about that film’s look, thus why I can’t comprehend it to ever be nominated. I just want an explanation, really.
45 12-03-2009 at 5:37 pm
Guy Lodge said...
English: I’m interviewing Barry Ackroyd in the coming weeks, so I’ll get into the subject more then!
46 12-03-2009 at 6:11 pm
Me. said...
I remember my love for Marion Cotillard’s out of this world performance in “La Vie en Rose” was so big that, before the Oscars, when most persons were predicting Julie Christie to take the gold, I stood by Cotillard saying that the Oscar members aren’t blind and that the language barrier won’t be enough for them to not give it to her. When she won, I was so happy I screamed and runned in my apartment with all my family watching the Oscars. Great moment.
47 12-03-2009 at 7:35 pm
Kevin said...
I seem to have the opposite problem with prognostication as most people here (i.e getting emotionally invested in films and then stubbornly refusing to accept the idea that unlikely nominations won’t happen).
For example, for this year’s awards, I found Vicky Cristina Barcelona a terrible, terrible film (perhaps I was in the minority here but with Match Point, Cassandra’s Dream and VCB, we’re definitely not seeing vintage Allen work!). Despit e this, I held out on Woody nabbing a screenplay nomination because, well, he’s Woody and the Academy love him, right (evidenced by that strange nomination for the middling Match Point)? Wrong. Obviously, the Academy was mostly ambivalent about the film because Cruz scored the film’s only nod (and win, although I didn’t agree with this choice either).
What I’m saying is that actually seeing the movies in question can lead you to predict with an Academy member’s mindset when relying on personal instinct and gut feelings can lead to small victories – how many people actually predicted the Woody snub?
I sympathise with Nigel’s comments; as a fellow Australian, it’s quite difficult to feel confident about making abstract guesses when most of the films in the conversation aren’t even released here until early the following year. At the same time, it gives you a different, detached perspective that makes thing interesting.
48 12-03-2009 at 8:00 pm
Adam M. said...
I still think you’re applying causality to a very explainable correlation.
Oscar bloggers attempt to predict Oscar nominations. The nominations mostly come to pass as bloggers predict– not because bloggers predict them as such, but because the inherent purpose of predictions is to anticipate results. The results were anticipated, but they were not affected in any way by the anticipation.
You can say that bloggers lit the fire first underneath ‘Precious’ this year. But they only did so in anticipation of its eventual wider success. Thus far, they were right– but they didn’t create the success: they only predicted it.
49 12-04-2009 at 2:16 am
Ross said...
Yeah, I do this all the time and most of the time I’m disappointed, but in 2007 I got the whole best actress line-up (Linney at the expense of Jolie and Cate Blanchett still nominated), but the two times I was really proud and shocked it happened:
in 2006 I got the whole best directing line-up: Innaritu for Babel, Scorsese for The Departed, Eastwood for Letters from Iwo Jima, Frears for The Queen and Greengrass for United 93.
But the best, best was best supporting actress in 2003.
I predicted Aghdashloo, Clarkson, Harden, Hunter and Zellweger. And most considered Aghdashloo a possibility and neary nobody expected Harden to make it. I was reallyyy happy!
So stick to the bold predictions! Sometimes it pays off!
50 12-04-2009 at 4:00 am
Patricia said...
My Oscar predictions are always poor. Sometimes because of a great ennui brought on by the possibilities. Sometimes because of a passionate devotion to one choice or another. So I’ve decided over the years to just not give it too much importance. That there seem to be people, casual fans mostly, who seem to think the Oscars determine real greatness in films and performances is amusing to me. But I have to say that your site is now giving one of the Best Actress predictions to Sandra Bullock. That’s knocked Abbie Cornish out. WHAT!?! Weren’t the Oscars begun because great filmmaking doesn’t always lead the market and needs to be recognized? That and self congratulatory ego stroking? Sandra is a talented lady but that role is not best actress material except in some commercially christian imperative bizarro world.