• Is it really an honor just to be nominated? [CNN]
• Nathaniel Rogers notes that, despite the 10, we still ended up with a typical Oscar mixture of “a mix of message movies, epics, dramas and war films.” [The Film Experience]
• Of Apparition’s dueling period pieces, Anne Thompson wonders what went wrong for “Bright Star” and right for “The Young Victoria.” Her answer: momentum. [Thompson on Hollywood]
Well, I’ll start the good news selfishly, by noting that I didn’t entirely embarrass myself with my predictions: not counting the short categories (which I was too cowardly and uninformed to predict) I nailed 78/106, just two points behind Kris’s round tally of 80.
But while I was pleased to see at least one of my out-on-a-limb guesses come good — seriously, why didn’t more people call that Art Direction nod for “The Young Victoria?” — I was better at predicting what wouldn’t get nominated.
So, my season-long hunches that Julianne Moore would be frozen out in the supporting race, that “(500) Days of Summer” would be blanked, that “Up in the Air” would miss that crucial Film Editing nod, and so on, were all on the money. And my increasing sense that nobody really liked “Invictus” enough to put it atop their ballot proved right too.
Now, if I only I’d known what would land in their place. You can’t have it all, I suppose.
Right, there comes a point every year in predicting the Oscar nominations when you realize you’re just shuffling names to dodge commitment. I’ve reached that point, so it’s time to put myself out my misery.
Kris has already had his say — and stolen some of my best guesses from last week in the process. Okay, I kid because I love. It’s comforting, in fact, to have his very sensible company on calls like Diane Kruger for Best Supporting Actress, or “The Road” for Best Cinematography.
That said, however, there are still numerous areas of the ballot still driving me crazy. I discussed my uncertainties in last week’s Long Shot column, but the last few days haven’t given me any more confidence when it comes to those pesky final two Best Picture slots.
Though logic goes against me, I can’t shake the feeling that “Invictus” will miss — how many people are putting it at the top of their ballots? However, between the likes of “The Blind Side,” “The Hangover,” “Crazy Heart,” “Star Trek” and “The Messenger,” no one title emerges as a clear spoiler.
In so many words, this is it. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences unveils it’s slate of nominees bright and early tomorrow morning, and this being the first year with a 10-film Best Picture field, all eyes will be on the top category to gauge which way the wind blew on this AMPAS experiment.
Will populist entertainment reap the benefits of an extra five slots or will independent cinema finally get its foot in the door? That’s been the question all year long. The answers are around the corner, and less than 24 hours out, they still feel as elusive as ever.
I learned long ago that to forecast “surprises” is folly. They’re called surprises for a reason. All you can do is try to find the pulse on the season and make your judgment calls, and in most cases, that means understanding what the Academy is high on, and when.
For instance, is “The Messenger” poised to surprise in the supporting actress and original screenplay races, as well as Best Picture? Or did the discussion stir up a bit late (which it did), too late, perhaps, to register? The screener showed up earlier than most. Did members find time in that lull to pop it into the player?
Meanwhile, how will the BAFTA contingent affect the race? We see it every year. Contenders left dangling on the vine get their due from a membership that has considerable AMPAS cross-over. Just ask Alan Alda. With that in mind, could Alec Baldwin or Alfred Molina find themselves sliding into an incredibly fluid supporting actor category?
Thanks to Scott Feinberg for pointing us to this Newsweek actors roundtable discussion of “Avatar,” which is certainly illuminating. Morgan Freeman says performance capture is “basically cartoons,” while a more diplomatic Bridges says, “What we do [as actors] is the ultimate special effect.”
As I did last year, I’m preparing for Tuesday’s announcement of the Oscar nominations by running through my own favorites in each category — following on from the ideal ballots posted by Kris and Chad in the past few weeks.
“Preparing” isn’t quite the word: it implies a link between the processes of predicting and wishing, whereas I’m quite aware that most of my choices have scant chance of cropping up on Tuesday morning. But a guy can dream, can’t he?
Today I’m running through the technical races, while tomorrow I’ll get to the big ones. For the most part, I’m sticking to the same format and rules for nominations as the Oscars, with a few select exceptions.
Where some worthy 2009 U.S. releases are mysteriously absent from the Academy’s eligibility list, I’m not letting that stop me from giving them their due. Similarly, I’m happy to overrule some of the more inexplicable disqualifications of the arcane music branch.
My technical ballot after the cut.
*All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.
The self-proclaimed King of the World wiped the floor with the self-proclaimed King of Malibu as “Avatar” spent a seventh consecutive week at the top of the box office. A cool $30 million represents a drop of only 14% from last week and again sits only behind “Titanic” as the biggest seventh weekend tally ever.
The running total is now $594.5 million and it should pass the $600 million mark by Wednesday, joining “E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial,” “Titanic,” “Return of the Jedi,” “Jurassic Park” and “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace” as the only films of the modern era to do so. The success of this film has become so monotonous that I can’t even muster any energy to be snarky about it anymore.
Mel Gibson’s return to the silver screen proved to be no “Taken.” It proved to not even be a “Legion” as it debuted with a soft $17.1 million. That’s the lowest debut for a Gibson joint since the $17 million start for “Braveheart” in 1995 on 1,000 less screens. Blame it on fading star power, bad accents, generic advertising and a lack of 3D smurf-like things riding dragons.
I don’t want to be presumptuous and say something like, “It’s time to call this thing,” but it’s difficult to argue with the two biggest guild crowns ON TOP OF the critical sentiment “The Hurt Locker” is dragging into phase two.
Kathryn Bigelow has won the DGA award for her work on the film, becoming the first woman to be awarded by the guild to date and taking one step closer to the same designation on Oscar night. (Louie Psihoyos won the documentary prize for “The Cove”). Left in the dust with its billions, it seems, is James Cameron’s “Avatar,” with nothing but a Golden Globe to its credit.
Sometimes a winner just looks like a winner. Not to take the intrigue out of it. But seriously, the money thing, it’s just not hurting “The Hurt Locker,” and perhaps the Oscars will serve a purpose in a year the Academy became craven enough to expand its field to allow for critical successes. An independent that barely brought in $12 million at the box office will get the exposure it deserves on a global stage and perhaps reach a new audience.
The irony is unbelievable. On to phase two.
(Photo of Bigelow holding nomination plaque, not winner’s plaque.)
With less than 72 hours until Oscar nominations are announced, prediction lists are coming through thick and fast. Kris and I will have our final predictions up on Monday, while Gerard’s technical picks will be scattered throughout the weekend. (I’ll also enter dreamland for a while and offer up my fantasy ballot at some point.)
Roger Ebert, meanwhile, is the latest big name to join the pile. As we’ve come to expect from the critic, his predictions are a blend of the rationally reasoned and the borderline insane. (Werner Herzog’s “The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” has an outside shot at a Best Picture nomination, apparently. Right.)
Most interesting to me, however, is his conviction in “The Blind Side,” which he labels a can’t-miss Best Picture nominee. (He also calls Sandra Bullock a “sure thing” to win Best Actress.)
• In the biggest upset of the season so far, “The Hurt Locker” came up trumps at the PGA Awards.
• “Inglourious Basterds” took the top prize at the SAG Awards, which also gave another boost to Sandra Bullock.
• With Oscar nominations out next week, we listed some of the greatest nominee fields in Oscar history.
• Off the Carpet took stock following the weekend’s precursors, and Kris revised his winner predictions.
I have none, really. If I’m pressed for a prediction, I think James Cameron is going to pull off what will be perceived as an upset for reasons mentioned in today’s Oscar Talk and a number of weeks back when I said J.J. Abrams was a threat for a nod (and I’ve come to find out he was actually pretty close).
The answer is in the populist leanings of the guild, a vast, diluted membership that is TV-heavy, rules against sending screeners (which is a definite thorn for Kathryn Bigelow, whose film pulled down minuscule box office), etc.
So the race will be back and forth one more weekend and the real victor of the week might well be the film that ends up with the most Oscar nominations Tuesday morning. The epic of David and Goliath will turn one more page at that time as we make our way through February and, ultimately, Oscar’s stage, when the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will be asked to anoint a representative from the class of 2009 to represent the best in filmed art and entertainment.
But will it be art, or will it be entertainment? The saga continues…
Welcome to Oscar Talk, a weekly kudocast between yours truly and Anne Thompson of Thompson on Hollywood.
Two weeks since our last installment, Sundance is fading away and nominations announcement is a mere four days away. In our last pre-nom discussion, we dig into the following:
• Fresh off of Sundance, we briefly discuss the success of “The Kids Are Alright” and “Cyrus” and potential awards prospects for the films next year.
• The PGA winner was a shocker last weekend as “The Hurt Locker” reigned supreme. We address the implications as the race moves into a David vs. Goliath frame.
• The Oscar nominations announcement is literally around the corner, and in the first year of “the 10,” surely there will be surprises? We talk a few possibilities.
• Has Sandra Bullock really pulled out ahead of Meryl Streep in the lead actress category? Is it actually neck-and-neck? We talk about, arguably, the year’s tightest race.
• With the DGAs on the way tomorrow night, we briefly preview the proceedings.
You can listen to this week’s podcast below, with a little of Michael Giacchino’s Golden Globe-winning score for “Up” leading the way. As always, you can subscribe to Oscar Talk via iTunes here.
[display_podcast]
*All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.
Lucky weekend number seven for “Avatar.” The top spot beckons once again and James Cameron will surely oblige. Another slim drop of 20% would give the wild blue wonder $26.2 million and put $600 million within it’s grubby little grasp.
The only thing remotely standing in the way is the return of Mel Gibson, after an 8-year hiatus from leading roles. His last time in front of the camera and above the title was in “Signs,” which grossed $292.7 million and happens to be the biggest hit of his entire career. So technically, the man is on a roll.
In fact, not counting his small part in “The Million Dollar Hotel,” Gibson’s last 12 pictures have all crossed the $100 million mark, dating back to “The Man Without a Face.” Say what you want about his Jew-hating, but he is one seriously bona fide movie star.
“Edge of Darkness” bears more than a passing resemblance to both “Taken” and Gibson’s own “Payback.” Warner Bros. quickly pounced onto the release date of the former, which debuted with $24.7 million and then showed remarkable staying power through the Spring. The latter opened in February 1999 to $31.2 million. Splitting the difference would give “Edge of Darkness” $28 million, but I think Gibson’s star has fallen enough to make that impossible. I’m thinking more like $23 million and second place.
• Krista Smith sits down with dark horse Best Supporting Actor contender Christian McKay. [Little Gold Men]
• Pete Hammond reports on the town’s goings-on, including Jason Reitman’s program of films for the New Beverly Theater. [Notes on a Season]
• A master list of FYC screenplays available for download. [MovieCultists]
It’s time for me to go to the well one more time before next week’s big announcement. That’s right, six days and the mystery of the 10 will finally be answered. But first, some blind (since there are no nominations yet) guesses. Just trying to find the right balance here:
Best Picture: “The Hurt Locker”
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker”
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges, “Crazy Heart”
Best Actress: Meryl Streep, “Julie & Julia”
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds”
Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique, “Precious”
Best Adapted Screenplay: “Up in the Air”
Best Original Screenplay: “The Hurt Locker”
Perhaps I missed it, but I’m surprised there hasn’t been more online conversation about EW writer Mark Harris’s recent critical essay on “Avatar” and performance capture technology.As one would expect from the author of “Pictures at a Revolution,” it’s a thoughtful piece, but one that should stir up considerable dissent.
He begins by slamming James Cameron for suggesting that performance capture can be used to preserve an actor’s physical features: “Will Smith could still make an action movie when he’s 75 years old, looking like he looks now,” Cameron stated, a thought that makes me as uneasy as it does Harris.
But the beef of Harris’s argument comes when he turns his attention to “Avatar,” and the widely praised performance of Zoe Saldana, who some (including my esteemed editor) think merits Oscar consideration.
• Captain Kirk to host the Annie Awards. [The Independent]
• Roger Ebert writes a love letter to famed paparazzo Ron Galella in the course of reviewing “Smash His Camera” in Sundance. [Chicago Sun-Times]
• Carey Mulligan, self-deprecating British actress rejected by three drama schools who went on to star in An Education has Tinseltown at her feet. [The Times]
The stunning PGA victory for “The Hurt Locker” last night not only injected some more excitement into what was a coagulating Oscar race, but it also injected some intrigue and drama as well.
Some might want to say it wasn’t such a surprise, and if you called it, great. But it was an against-all-odds victory no matter how you slice it. The film’s $12 million box office haul is the lowest for a PGA winner, by $50 million, since 1992’s “The Crying Game.”
The competition we’re now seemingly faced with in “The Hurt Locker” versus “Avatar” couldn’t have been scripted. And it’s a battle of philosophies more intriguing than the one put forth by Owen Gleiberman a few weeks back.
It’s low budget, efficient, muscular independent filmmaking versus blockbuster, groundbreaking, high octane studio entertainment. It’s level-headed political realism versus archetypal political grandstanding. It’s character versus idea. It’s measured theatrical meditation versus visceral theatrical experience.
In a nutshell, it’s everything the cinema is about, it’s a Civil War of the medium, and it just happens to be a battle whose warring factions are led by former spouses. Drama doesn’t begin to say it.