There’s some fuzzy Oscar reasoning in this Guardian piece on Paramount’s two-pronged stab at the Best Picture race, but the essential point it makes is an interesting one: with “True Grit” having been produced in-house and “The Fighter” something of an adopted son for the studio, does Paramount have a favorite child in this race?
Writer Jeremy Kay believes they do, and in the light of the precursors thus far, isn’t sure they picked the right one:
While [The Fighter’s] $12.2m gross is nothing to write home about from 2,503 theatres, it’s no disgrace either – especially when you consider Paramount hasn’t thrown as many marketing dollars behind The Fighter as it has invested in True Grit. That’s because the studio’s top brass made an early bet that True Grit, a Paramount movie, would ultimately be more successful than The Fighter, which the studio is distributing for a fee on behalf of the movie’s backers Relativity Media.
While it’s true that “True Grit” seems to have been more lavishly marketed than “The Fighter” so far, I wonder if that’s because they know an arch period Western is always going to be a tougher sell than a rousing, feelgood sports drama. It’s curious that Paramount decided to unveil both their major Oscar plays (which were always set to be as such) in December, where they stand to compete with each other for attention.
Right now, one seems to be gaining more momentum than the other, and it isn’t Paramount’s own baby: it’s difficult to know how much to read into “True Grit”‘s Golden Globes shut-out at this stage, but SAG, the more significant bellwether, also favored “The Fighter.” The most crucial test will come when the DGA announce their nominees: will they make room for the in-the-club Coens, the outsider David O. Russell, or both?
A little over one month away from Oscar nomination day, “The Fighter”‘s Best Picture berth appears to be more or less booked, while “True Grit,” with its box office still an unknown quantity, strikes me as a slightly less certain prospect. No honest-to-God Western has been nominated for the top prize since “Unforgiven” in 1992, and I wonder whether voters might feel they’ve recognized the Coens enough in recent years. Paramount could be forgiven for campaigning harder for “True Grit” at this stage, but with some (myself included) now talking about “The Fighter” as a dark horse for Best Picture, will they be forced to prioritize the latter?
[Photo: Paramount Pictures]
Comments
15 responses to “On Paramount’s dueling ponies”
That’s weird, I feel like Fighter has been far more marketed than True Grit. Especially here, where it seems to be every other post.
Oh no! Another post related to The Fighter! Hope that’s ok with some people!
Certainly okay with me. I don’t think I’ve seen a film this year that blew my expectations away like The Fighter did, and usually the opposite’s happened this year.
If A Serious Man can get in the ten I have no doubts about True Grit. Both Paramount films will get in but Fighter is clearly the film with a better chance to compete for the top prize.
True Grit was quite the swing and miss from the Coens for me, whereas I came away loving The Fighter, and if it weren’t for Inception or The Social Network, it would be my favorite film of the year.
This is a rare instance where I think that Lodge makes some very good points.
Honestly though, in all likelihood, The Fighter, heat and all, won’t win Best Picture and, because of that isn’t likely to be at an advantage over True Grit.
Moreover, if Anne Thompson is to be trusted, unlike Coens, David O. Russell is not really in the directors race and considering that the two movies aren’t going to split each other’s votes in the categories in which they are respectively strongest, I don’t see why Paramount really should choose between the two, especially if both can add to the prestige.
I agree Matthew Starr, the Coens can do no wrong with the Academy these days (except maybe Burn After Reading). I’m sorry but A Serious Man is certain one of the most bizarre Best Picture nominees of the past decade. I have no qualms with saying I think it was worse than The Blind Side.
I have no qualms with saying that you are wrong.
Coens deserved every single one of their nominations this decade and then some. Number of awards is all people can look at these days. Hardly do people stop and think that it comes with the territory with being among the absolute greatest, which they are. And they can edit with the best of them, too.
I agree with others that if A Serious Man can get in, so can True Grit. Though I happen to love A Serious Man. I was thinking though that True Grit would be the surge in December to make the race more competitive. I guess its The Fighter though that is really picking steam.
That’s the last thing I have to say on the matter but I think that people are drawing parallels between “True Grit” and “Serious Man” are being foolish.
You are looking for a causation where it doesn’t exist. If “True Grit” gets nominated it would be for vastly different reasons and with a whole different bouquet of nominations. That both should come from Coens is a testament to their work and not because either was a given. Quite the opposite:
Just think, just a couple of months back there was hardly anyone predicting the film for anything. This site too, wasn’t taking it as given until the film was seen.
“A Serious Man” WAS one of the most bizarre Best Picture nominees of the last decade… and all the better for it. The fact it was nominated is downright miraculous, and shows you the Academy can – and does – care about real quality.
There’s no doubt in my mind that both will get in. I haven’t seen either yet, but if The Coen’s can get in with A Serious Man (which I also love), I have to agree that this should be a given. And if The Blind Side can get in with one big ‘great’ performance, then I find it hard to believe that The fighter won’t get in on the 3 supporting nominations alone, let alone the fact that it is an uplifting sports story that is well made in all other aspects as well
I’m pretty sure they’re both in, but I would be more confident if I had already seen True Grit in a movie theater.
Leo vs. Adams vs. Steinfeld, there’s the Paramount problem.
The “If ‘A Serious Man’ got in, ‘True Grit’ will too” argument is an idle one — it’s like saying, “If ‘The Aviator’ got in, ‘Shutter Island’ will too.” Circumstances are different every year.
Plus, “A Serious Man” played to quite a specific demographic within the Academy, and it’s not necessarily the same one that would vote for “True Grit.” I’m not saying the latter isn’t in — it probably is — but the reasoning isn’t that simple.
Re: demographic. Awfully simplistic logic, Guy. Doesn’t explain the written nod vs directing miss. Doesn’t really reflect reality. Already covered above. Just like King’s Speech doesn’t just play (or as case may be, don’t play) to a British branch.