Welcome to Oscar Talk.
In case you’re new to the site and/or the podcast, Oscar Talk is a weekly kudocast, your one-stop awards chat shop between yours truly and Anne Thompson of Thompson on Hollywood. The podcast is weekly, every Friday throughout the season, charting the ups and downs of contenders along the way. Plenty of things change en route to Oscar’s stage and we’re here to address it all as it unfolds.
Going into the holidays and with the critics’ awards in full swing, we’ve brought In Contention’s own Guy Lodge on to discuss the goings-on of the season so far. After taking a break from the usual last week, the last 14 days have given us plenty to chew on. Let’s see what’s on the docket today…
• The critics’ awards circuit has revealed a clear, predictable frontrunner in “The Social Network.” We discuss what that really means for the Oscar race.
• The Hollywood Foreign Press Association announced nominees for this year’s Golden Globes ceremony, a number of them more embarrassing than normal. We discuss those, because I guess we have to.
• The awards that matter in an Oscar race, given crossover membership, are those on the guild circuit. The Screen Actors Guild kicked that wave off yesterday with a list of nominated actors. We dig into that.
• This promises to be the week of The Dude as “TRON Legacy” opens today, “True Grit” opens next week and Jeff Bridges hosts Saturday Night Live this weekend. We use that as an opportunity to talk about those two films.
• And finally, after a week away from them, reader questions! We address queries about the “zeitgeist” classification of “The Social Network,” the awards potential of “Burlesque” and and personal faves with no chance at Oscar recognition.
Have a listen to the new podcast below, with a tip of the hat to the late Blake Edwards, who passed away yesterday, leading the way. If the file cuts off for you at any time, try the back-up download link at the bottom of this post. And as always, remember to subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.
[display_podcast]
Back-up download: Oscar Talk Episode 45
Comments
58 responses to “OSCAR TALK: Ep. 45 — Critics’ pick their frontrunner, HFPA speaks up with doosies, the guild circuit kicks off and the week of The Dude”
Right off the bat, big props for using “The Pink Panther” theme to tribute the great Blake Edwards!
YESSSS!!!
Okay, must keep listening now…
I started bobbing my head at work, and I am not ashamed of the quizzical looks I see over the edge of my cubicle!
Hearing Anne reply to Tapley’s comment about preparing to see Tron: Legacy for a second time over the holidays with a resounding, “Yikes!” was priceless.
Still listening…
OMIGOD, they’re full on discussing Hawkes right now.
I NEED TO BRING AN EXTRA SET OF PANTS TO WORK EVERY FRIDAY!
Glad to see that I’m not alone concerning “The Social Network.” Great film, but I don’t see where it defines modern culture either.
I’m pretty sure I just heard Tapley begin to say “East Coast,” but then change his mind and say “Elitist” instead. Awesome.
Woohoo! Thanks for answering my question.
Re: Blue Valentine and SAG. With it still being unreleased, could it simply be a case where voters just didn’t see it in time, didn’t get screeners? I mean, to cover all bases of the randomly selected SAG voters they would’ve had to send out screeners to all of SAG, do we know they did that? Like Guy said, it’s strange for such an actor’s movie to miss out with SAG, even if the lead acting categories are fierce.
I think Guy’s on the money about Burlesque and Costume Design. This branch always goes for female-centric films, the more women in beautiful dresses the better, and it’s been a pretty poor year for that kind of typical stuff they nominate. Burlesque might not be a lock, but it certainly stands a very good chance at a nomination. Inception on the other hand, as stylish as it was, is male-centric and contemporary, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what they nominate 9 times out of 10.
From what I heard, the awards team behind Blue Valentine botched things pretty bad by not getting the film out to people or doing screenings with the right SAG crowds. Hopefully there’s still a shot at Oscars.
Oh, and about the Golden Globes’ comedy nominations, I think most of us would agree that it was just a terrible year for (mainstream/successful) comedies. The biggest hits were Grown Ups, The Other Guys and Jackass 3D. They certainly managed to do even worse than they could’ve, but I don’t think anyone should call for the category to be retired simply because of one really bad year.
Yeah, it’s critics and journalists who have foisted this “generation-defining” label on The Social Network. The film is great on its own merits and isn’t claiming to be a grand statement. The fact that people are able to draw many possible interpretations from it, however, is a sign of how and why it works as well as it does. In short, don’t blame the movie for not living up to the blurbs that have been lobbed at it by mere spectators.
@Guy:
The fact that you feel Burlesque should be seriously considered for Best Costume Design is part of the film’s problem: TOO MANY CLOTHES!
Dave Karger seemed to propose the theory that the three Social Network boys split votes at Social Network. Hopefully that won’t happen at the Oscars at-large, and with the large overlap of BAFTA voters in the actor’s branch of the Academy (Garfield already has a BAFTA to his name) that that won’t happen, but I could buy the theory that vote-splitting was an issue at the SAGs. I think John Hawkes will get in, I’m less sure of Jeremy Renner. I think The Town desperately needed that Ensemble nomination, it’s all it needed, and it not getting it showed a lack of support for his film that neither John Hawkes and Andrew Garfield suffer from.
Also, I must say that Kris’ argument of The Social Network’s lack of contemporary relevancy is much more flimsy than Anne’s points. I think the messages of the dehumanizing aspects of the way this generation interacts and competes on a new global platform of business and competition, and though it might not be the single most central point I think it’s definitely one of those most important aspects of the movie that’s woven into the movie’s screenplay as well as Fincher’s direction (as airtight, fast and efficient as the technological age we live in now) and the performances (the contrast between Zuckerberg and Serra emotionally) throughout.
Great show, but how dare you not mention John Hawkes in the above synopsis of this week’s episode. This was totally the John Hawkes show, and should be acknowledged as such. Shame on you.
@Kris: I have yet to see Exit Through the Gift Shop, but was happy to discover that it’s now on Netflix streaming. However, is this a film that demands to be seen in a slightly better quality than streaming can offer? Should I just rent it instead, or will it not have a significant effect on my viewing experience?
@Guy: Is it your cold or your accent that makes you sound so much better than Tapley and Thompson? Also, what exactly did you say about John Hawkes, just before saying you wanted to have that on the record? All three of you were talking at once or there was a background noise of some kind that made it a bit difficult to hear your remark. I’m assuming you said either “I love John Hawkes,” “I worship John Hawkes,” or “The only thing that could have made Burlesque any hotter is John Hawkes.”
In other news, I agree with Anne’s disdain/disappointment toward the music branch of the Academy. I would say that I can’t imagine Reznor’s score NOT being nominated, but then I think back to other great ignored scores like Waking Life and The Assassination of Jesse James, and I grow despondent.
And finally, I think the real indicator of Social Network’s front-runner status will come in the form of its presence or omission from the Best Costume nominees. Merchant Ivory only WISHES they’d had the forethought to incorporate hoodies and f–k you flip-flops into their films.
Also, who says that the year’s winner for Best Picture HAS to define a particular year or generation?
And if it does, why the hell is The King’s Speech still at the top of the Gurus chart? Stuttering is so five minutes ago.
*wow, Saverin, not Serra (lol).
“I’m pretty sure I just heard Tapley begin to say “East Coast,” but then change his mind and say “Elitist” instead. Awesome.”
Nope.
ibbs: I was having trouble making my point, which is a fairly subjective one anyway. Didn’t plan on going that deep on the discussion, honestly. Happens.
Aw, c’mon, Tapley. You KNOW you were about to say it. Or if you don’t, go back and listen to it. I don’t even care, by the way. I’m from Texas and still think my taste in music and film is superior to any guy I might meet at a Starbucks in the Hamptons.
Anyway, all kidding aside, I hope you enjoy your holidays. I’m glad I discovered this site this Fall, especially since MCN has really gone downhill. Thanks for all your hard work.
My crazy theory: Fincher’s masterpiece was Zodiac. There was so much deeper meaning, layering, and subtext that he infused into that film. However, it didn’t perform well and didn’t get the critic attention it deserved getting totally shut out at the Oscars. With Benjamin Button and The Social Network he has arguably even improved on his visial story telling style and “coolness” factor BUT they are both (in my view) almost devoid of any real meaning behind them. HOWEVER they are crafted in a way that opens them up for people to be able to PROJECT meaning on to them. That screenplay for Benjamin Button in no way shape or form gives any insight into aging, but because that was the topic and because of Fincher’s direction, people attributed their own ideas to the film. It’s the same thing with The Social Network. Everybody today has their own ideas about what social networks mean to our society. The film DOES NOT address this issue, but because it is so well made and “of the moment” all these critics are claiming it as a landstone. Fincher has obviously found a model for success, but I wish he would return to making movies that actually have merit for what they actually are as films like Zodiac and Fight Club.
Anne is right about Cotillard.
Re: SAG. I’m a member who goes to a lot of screenings and waits to see most of the contender films until the fall, so that they are all fresh in my mind. (Inception was an, er, exception this year because I saw it as an event rather than an sctors’ showcase.)
So since the end of September I have been seen Another Year, Blue Valentine, Winter’s Bone, The Fighter, Black Swan, The King’s Speech, The Kids Are All Right, Animal Kingdom, The Social Network, The Town, Barney’s Version and Company Men, among others. Before the end of next week I’ll be able to add True Grit, 127 Hours, Biutiful and Harry Potter to the list.
All of these films have been screened (on both coasts) a dozen times or more each, no exaggeration, in large Guild screenings with Q&As; in pre-release sneak previews; in Academy screenings, also with Q&As; in small screening rooms; and on DVD screeners. Most of the time, if I didn’t RSVP within minutes of being invited via e-mail, I was out of luck. This year it seems people are flocking to these screenings more than ever. Every one I’ve attended has been full.
All that is to say, if the SAG Nominating Committee “snubbed” any films or performances this year, I think it’s basically because they didn’t like them, not because they hadn’t seen them yet. And by “like” I mean love, as opposed to respect or admire. When it comes to filling only five slots in each category, I generally expect SAG to nominate crowd pleasers over the downbeat. Winter’s Bone has a “happy ending,” where Another Year and Blue Valentine do not.
I wouldn’t say calling the Best Picture race over is a knee-jerk reaction, rather it’s being a realist. How many awards and accolades does The Social Network need to rack up before the nonsense about The King’s Speech or The Fighter winning goes away?
Hell, Schindler’s List had a worst pre-Oscar showing than The Social Network. It’s winning, full stop. In the immortal words of Hudson, “That’s it man, game over man, game over.”
I also think Catfish has more to say about the zeitgeist than The Social Network. Actually, I think all three of the “fake” documentaries of 2010 (Catfish, Exit Through The Gift Shop, I’m Still Here) have more to say about the zeitgeist than any of the films in contention for Best Picture this year.
And add me to the list of True Grit admirers. I’m no Coen Brothers fan but I really enjoyed the film. The only thing I didn’t like was the use of rear projection during the nighttime horse ride at the end of the film. Very odd choice stylistically, especially when you think about all the great Roger Deakins shots throughout the film.
True Grit is actually my favorite film of the year, so I must be the only person! Here’s my review – http://filmstudiesandothershenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/12/i-do-no-entertain-hypotheticals-world.html
I agree that The Fighter is building a lot of buzz in the right places at the right time. It could very well be this late season spoiler that has enough auteurist flair in an unconventional, gritty take on a conventional story/genre, plus, let’s face it, the performances are incredible, and Bale has this in the bag, with Melissa Leo closing in on Supporting Actress. It sounds like a compromise between the progressive filmmaking of The Social Network and the traditional beats of The King’s Speech (haven’t seen the latter so I can’t comment on it). It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
@Dean: There’s nothing crazy about your theory. Zodiac remains my favorite Fincher film as well (despite Gyllenhaal’s attempts to rob it of masterpiece status with his mediocre performance).
I think it’s still wide open as to what might win Best Picture at the Oscars. The Social Network has certainly increased its odds by sweeping the critics awards the way it has, it certainly doesn’t feel like it’s going to be a slam dunk for The King’s Speech the way it maybe felt a while back. I think it could absolutely go either which way, but we still have quite a way to go until it’s all said and done. I mean, what if The King’s Speech wins the BFCA and Golden Globe? Then all of a sudden all the momentum will shift. So there’s no need to get ahead of ourselves just yet.
As for The Fighter, even though it’s picked up steam lately, I just don’t feel it for Best Picture. It wasn’t very long ago that Kris and Anne talked about how unlikely it would be for David O. Russell to get a Best Director nomination, and even if he did get a Golden Globe nomination, what if he doesn’t at the Oscars? What was the last Best Picture winner not nominated for Best Director?
Speaking of Best Director though, I gotta say in that category it seems all but sewn up for David Fincher. Even if The King’s Speech, or even The Fighter, wins Best Picture I can’t imagine anyone beating him unless there’s a massive change in momentum away from The Social Network.
Great to hear Guy again. Good podcast.
Does anyone have any idea whatsoever of a guesstimation at what The King’s Speech’s US box office will be like?
10 million? 20, 30, 40, more? I know it’s not going “wider” til next week, but still. And is this going to get 1,000 screens? 1,500? 2,000? etc. We know the guilds will/love it, we know the reviews are great, but what about the public?
Oh, and Anne. Richard Jenkins? Umm. OK, he was good in Let Me In. I just have absolutely no idea why she brings him up in that role of that movie every single podcast, lol.
Great podcast. Loved hearing Guy, again. Great discussions.
And I, too, kinda wince when ‘The Social Network’ and “zeitgeist” topic comes up.
I see it, but I don’t.
@JJ1: To be fair, they were mentioning character actors that you see often, but whose names aren’t widely known and who haven’t received many awards. Jenkins certainly fits in that category, despite some mild buzz that surrounded him after The Visitor was released. I loved Let Me In, and Jenkins was great as usual, but I’m not sure he would make my Top 5 Supp. Actor nominees for the year. Still, any Academy love for Let Me In would be welcome.
doozies
“The Social Network” is a film about the founding of Facebook. Where’s all this confusion about it being a “zeitgeist” movie coming from? I think it’s pretty obvious.
Funny you didn’t mention Hans Zimmer when talking about cutting edge scores. Zimmer was a major influence on Daft Punk’s Tron score. Daft Punk even had Zimmer help them.
Keil, you’re right, within the confines of the question (overlooked in the season) she was definitely entitled to bring him up again, I suppose. But she really has mentioned him in about 4 podcasts this season (haha); and I just didn’t think it was AS ‘stand’out’ as she goes on about. That’s all. Didn’t mean to be instigatory. :)
I just saw a Hollywood Reporter article that mentioned the salaries for the How Do You Know people.
Brooks – $10 mil.
Witherspoon – $15 mil.
Nicholson – $12 mil.
Wilson – $10 mil.
Rudd – $3 mil.
So that’s almost half of the ridiculous huge budget for just these 5 people. It makes a little more sense then. But it doesn’t make it less offensive…
The Social Network according to me is about friendship, greed, ambition and enterprise. All these themes of the zeitgeist and the state of modern youth and virtual communication are thrust upon the movie rather than something that originate from the movie itself. Its “zeitgeist” by association and not by inherent quality.
This conversation about modern society and virtual vs real interaction has been going on for a long time, there was just nothing to reflect it in the movies. Up comes a movie about the creation of Facebook and everybody attributes it to be the source, originator of this conversation. The Social Network is just the prism through which some of this conversation got focused, it was just refracting Facebook’s light, not shining its own. There is a difference.
Keil: I struggle to listen to myself at the best of times, so I’ll just give myself the benefit of the doubt and say I always sound this good. As for Hawkes, I’m pretty sure I said something along the lines of “I love John Hawkes” — have been a fan ever since “Me and You and Everyone We Know.”
I really disliked everything about Winter’s Bone but I agree John Hawkes was great in Me and You and Everyone We Know (Deadwood as well).
The popularity of The Social Network and Winter’s Bone is one of those great award season mysteries that come around once every 12 months. The Social Network wins everything under the sun, Fincher’s vastly superior Zodiac gets nada.
Not such a mystery: “Zodiac” came out in the spring and didn’t rake in the dollars. A shame, but it was ever thus.
I so agree with Kris about the “film that defines a generation” comment about The Social Network. That is so far and away from being true. I’m not even sure its a film that defines Mark Zuckerberg. It’s a good film that’s both thought provoking and at times entertaining, but it certainly doesn’t come close to summing up a whole generation of people let alone most entrepreneurs from this generation as Anne suggested. Her suggestion of the films meaning is exactly the kind of thing that makes me question whether most critics are getting behind it for the same reasons. It’s a good film, but to go on to win every single best picture award from every critics circle seems like a huge stretch to me. I think it’s clear without a doubt, that some critics get behind some films and toss others to the side as way to either become part of a rolling cultural movement, as Kris stated, or to maintain their own credibility. Reading some reviews, they use some of the exact same phrases to describe a film, which makes you wonder whether they arrived to that notion on their own or were heavily influenced by others. I’m not saying that occurs with every film, but you see it more and more every year around awards season and practically every critics top 10 best pictures of the year contain the same films, most of which were released in the last quarter of the year. Anyway, I didn’t mean to go off on a tangent or anything but I think its pretty clear the “zeitgeist” is always evident every year when awards season rolls around. The Social Network isn’t the first film to represent that and it certainly won’t be the last.
Also as far as Burlesque goes I’m sure it will end up getting musical nods, at least one for Cher’s song. That song and “I See the Light” from Tangled were the only two songs that have received both Critics Choice and Golden Globe nominations. Also unless I’m mistaken there have never been performances at the Golden Globes, so I don’t think Cher will be at the ceremony to perform. I think Guy could be right though about a Best Costume nomination given how empty the field is and I think Michael Kaplan is loooooong overdue for some recognition so it would actually be nice to see him get a nomination. I know they already have or had (I’m not sure if they are still there) a lot of the costumes from Burlesque on display at the ArcLight theater in Hollywood and they all looked great in person. The frontrunners are what? Alice in Wonderland and the King’s Speech? Both Colleen Atwood and Jenny Beaven are already winners and have been nominated umpteen times. I would love to at least see Kaplan finally get a damn nomination already. He deserves it.
Wow, didn’t realize that first paragraph went on for so long, haha. Sorry in advance for the eye sore.
I think I’ve decided on what I think The Social Network is about: The will to succeed.
I just have to say, this was a particularly wonderful and entertaining podcast. Well done.
Concerning “The Social Network” and the zeitgeist stuff, I’m a bit confused here. Would it be any less of a film if it didn’t “define a generation?” Like Keil said up above, this has been something projected onto the film by critics – the film itself never claimed to be so much. Whether it truly encapsulates an era or not, it’s nonetheless a beautifully crafted, thematically rich film.
However, even you said this when you initially reviewed the film in September:
***And there is something to be said about a film that manages to distill an era while profoundly conveying a character study within.***
I have to say that The Social Network being chosen as best film over and over again just shows a lack of imagination on the part of these critics. A.O. Scott managed to ignore the film on his 10 best list but then he doesn’t vote for the NYFCC awards.
Kris’s mention of the shift in the kind of film being chosen by the Academy as best picture made me wonder if Brokeback Mountain if it had come out the past few years it would have had a much better chance of winning. The year it lost it was the older guard like Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine that hurt that film. Related to that, remember the sensation that Crouching Tiger caused? Where is the foreign film that could get 10 nominations now?
I’m curious still as to why you guys still consider Inception a bottom-half contender. It hasn’t missed a BP or BD lineup when critics announce one nor at the HFPA or BFCA. SAG snub was a bit of a blow, but it was already not considered an actor’s showcase, it’s always been a director’s showcase. I’d arguably say it’s in a better position than True Grit, 127 Hours, or Kids Are All Right (The Coens and Cholodenko have been largely absent so far).
My thoughts on Inception lie somewhere between what Kirs/Anne/Guy say and what Hans ^ says.
I think it’s in the 5-6 range. Not in the top echelon (SAG snub hurts a bit). But my goodness, not hanging on to a 10 slot. It hasn’t missed anywhere else, yet.
And on The Social Network. I love the film. I think it’s a “great” film. But the ‘zeitgeist’ label irk me to no end; and taints my love for it, a bit. Critics need to stop exaggerating/embellishing. I think it’s off-putting.
I’m not sure why some are getting hung up on the SAG omission for Inception. When all is said and done, it’ll have PGA/DGA/WGA/ADG/ASC/ ACE/VES/CAS/MPSE noms, along with around 10 Oscar noms, it will have appeared on many year end top 10 lists, and it earned over 800m at the box office.
That’s most certainly a Top 5 contender in the BP race, probably more like Top 3/Top 4.
“Concerning “The Social Network” and the zeitgeist stuff, I’m a bit confused here. Would it be any less of a film if it didn’t “define a generation?” Like Keil said up above, this has been something projected onto the film by critics…”
Not at all. In fact, that’s partly my point. It’s critics losing their shit and jumping to hold the film in a light I don’t think it quite inhabits. But I still think it’s a brilliant piece of work.
Oh, and regarding my “distilling an era” quote. I stand by it, but I was speaking about something specific, while the critical consensus I’m reacting against is speaking about the film in these “generation defining” terms, transcending the minutiae, elevating it to a level I don’t think is completely there.
I know you put it in your top 10 of the year Kris, but you’ve been awfully critical of the film as of late. What were the reasons you put it in your top 10?
It is called ‘loving with reservations’ and is a rather more mature way of looking at films rather than loving each and every single aspect of it, that is just fanboyism.
There are plenty of films which I would give my penultimate rating but could still discuss the various ways it doesn’t succeed.
I’m not saying you need to love and embrace every aspect of a film to give it “top 10” approval. but I was surprised to hear Kris put it in his top 10, because he was critical of the sound design, the sillicon valley sections of the film, and it’s social signifigance. I was just wondering what worked well enough for him that those detractiors didn’t hold the film back.