Press Play and the Shoulds
Back in the early days of Oscarwatch we had a rule: it wasn’t about advocating; it was about predicting. It wasn’t about what SHOULD win; it was about what WILL win. But all of that changed as the Oscar watching industry grew. Now, just like internet dating, there is no stigma to it. The best way to write about the Oscars, I figure, is to advocate – the reason is that there are simply too many voices out there predicting so that it has become very nearly a pointless echo chamber. At any rate, most bloggers kind of sort of do advocate even when they’re trying hard to. You can see a bias coming from a mile away. But over at Indiewire’s Press Play they are doing a series on Should Wins – and they’re really wonderful. They make a good case here for Mr. Brad Pitt (the clips remind me of what a great, great movie Moneyball is):
Viola Davis for the win:
80 Comments
Leave a Comment
Tracker Pages
Recently on AD
Follow Us!
Tags
Gallery
Oldman, Streep FTW
Theese two nominees not gonna win. Clooney and Streep are the winners.
That is a good case for Pitt. I haven’t seen Moneyball yet but I do think he’s a fantastic actor, and if he did win, I’d be thrilled. However, I’m still a cheerleader for Gary Oldman. The scene in the middle of Tinker Tailor when he delivers that half-drunken monologue about Karla is a masterclass of acting. He picks up that chair and he doesn’t just see Karla, WE see Karla. Everyone who has accused it of being a sympathy vote should watch that scene. I struggle to think of better acting this year. From anyone.
I’m still rooting for Streep.
As far as Best Actor, the BAFTAs should tell us who has the best shot.
Agreed on both counts
Pitt’s performance in Moneyball is brilliant. He’s understated, interesting, and funny. Plus, he gets to say Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zallian’s dialogue, which doesn’t hurt.
Davis all but has the win the bag and deserves it. She turned a box office hit and overly generalized tale of racism into something more than just a crowdpleaser.
Liked all the shots of his back
no doubt in my mind I would vote for Pitt, even before this clip. knew it it right away when I saw the movie, that it was unlikely anyone would be near as good.
If Viola Davis will win on Sunday at the Bafta Awards for Leading Actress she will go home with the Academy Award two weeks later! For sure! But i have my doubts that she will! Because it is not a lead performance and i think her road ended at the SAG Awards! So i am pretty sure that the Bafta Award will go to Meryl Streep or Michelle Williams! And so also the Oscar! Viola Davis shouldn’t win this year! She should win a few years later! Because we haven’t seen that much of her talent as we have seen it by Meryl or Michelle! My personal choice and i cross my fingers for her is Michelle Williams! With soo many remarkable performances alone in the last few years like as Alma in “Brokeback Mountain” or Wendy in “Wendy and Lucy” and with her phenomenal and heartbreaking performance last year as Cindy in “Blue Valentine” she should win this year for her portray as Marilyn Monroe in “My week with Marilyn”. So with so much talent, so much heart and soul in every performance, she should win!
Yeah that’s a great tribute to Pitt and it would be something special to see him as the surprise winner. Though for my money like other’s have said Oldman should take it. He was a master above and beyond the rest of them in Tinker.
They make a poor case about Davis though, as every blogger who is obsessed with her performance does. She didn’t build the character from scratch, she had all these other actresses (two of them also nominated) to help The Help become the hit it is. All this “Davis makes a regular movie into something great” nonesense is going to die down so quickly in a few months/years after everyone forgets about this average film with a couple of great performances.
Here’s someone who is making a lot of sense (the rebutal for Davis is also much stronger than what Press Play did there) just so we can balance all this Viola love-fest a little bit. (I hope it’s ok to post a link from a “competitor” site, but if not then you can remove it I guess)
http://www.goldderby.com/films/news/2507/meryl-streep-oscars-movies-news-246809753.html
It’s a very tight race and like I commented on another article, it’s Justice vs. History. I hope justice prevails this time.
I can´t imagine that Viola Davis will win the Bafta and I don´t think that she will. The British are different.
I really hope Gary Oldman wins.
Actor
Will win: Clooney
Should win: Brad Pitt or Gary Oldman!!!! If this happen, i´ll be so happy!!
Actress
Will win: Viola Davis
Shoul win: Meryl Streep or Rooney Mara
Brad Pitt, as well as George Clooney, are deserving winners. They are not only Hollywood stars but great actors that have done a lot for movies. Having to choose one, I’ll go for Clooney. Both of them took a tear out of my eye in their respective movies. What a wonderful group of actors and performances the Academy selected. I was impressed also by Gary Oldman and the Dujardin. Demián Bichir makes people cry.
Meryl Streep will win BAFTA because she plays an English Character in English movie likes her last Bafta winner that in English film.
But Viola will get Oscar because of SAG momentum that the same members of Oscar and Oscar will make some new history.
in Best Actor, I think Gary Oldman will win BAFTA because British actors but in Oscar George will be winner. They love him.
@scary: I don´t think that the “Sag-momentum” still holds on for Viola Davis. There are a lot of other voters than actors in the Academy!
Because we haven’t seen that much of her talent as we have seen it by Meryl or Michelle!
Speak for yourself.
Thanks Sasha,
The piece on Davis is exactly the argument I was trying to make last night with friends who feel she doesn’t deserve to win….I’m directing them to the site to watch it.
GARY OLDMAN!!!!
It’s interesting … I liked Moneyball/The Tree of Life much more than The Descendents/Ides of March, but I’d vote for Clooney this year. To me, The Descendents was a “so what?” story expertly directed and acted. There’s no good reason to care about these characters other than the fact that the cast, and Clooney in particular, breathe such life into them. I think it’s the best performance yet in an Alexander Payne film and that’s saying a lot.
@ Simon
Havent seen enough of VIola Davis? have you heard of IMDB because you should try using it. VIola has been in plenty of good movies and to say williams deserves it more than davis is, in my opinion, ridiculous. But i do think davis and streep will split the votes and williams walks out the winner, but closely watch her performance in Doubt, she did the best job in that movie, better than both adams and streep.
VD is winning.
Oldman: ugh. There I said it. TTSS was one of the most painful theater experiences I’ve had in years.
Should win: Dujardin and Streep
Are going to win? Probably not
This clip just makes me think Brad Pitt should have won for 12 Monkeys, which I haven’t seen. But Kevin Spacey was terrific in The Usual Suspects.
Maybe Jean Dujardin wins for the same reason the pretty boys and handsome men NEVER win, until they’re old and sad or noble. You’d think they’d jump at the chance to award Brad like they did with Sandra Bullock. But even her performance was more of a stretch. Pitt is still playing himself and loses votes to Clooney because The Descendants has stronger lead-character development.
Just have to add that after watching that Viola Davis segment again, I really do think she should win, at least over Streep. I wasn’t her biggest supporter in the beginning, but this is what happens when you have a weak year for film and when Meryl’s movie is almost unwatchable. I always thought that good performances could exist in bad movies, but this year The Iron Lady and J. Edgar really tested my patience (and, to a lesser extent, Albert Nobbs, which ultimately works, I believe).
I would probably still vote for Rooney Mara – it’s not an “Oscar role,” but that’s part of what I find so thrilling about her performance. Then again, this year people like Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Jean Dujardin, even Jonah Hill (though I don’t think he was that special in Moneyball) – they deserve credit for getting mostly well-deserved Oscar nominations for less-than-stellar material!
Minus the budgets
Harry Potter: $131 m. Total = $1.07 billion
The Help: $144 m. Total = $180 million
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: $1 million. Total = $100.4 million
Moneyball: $25 m. Total = $57 million
The Descendants: $46 million Total = $91 million
War Horse: $11 m. Total = $52 million
Hugo: -$87.7 million Total = -$53 million
Midnight in Paris: $39 million Total = $131 million
Tree of Life: -$18.6 million Total = $22 million
The Artist: $6.2 million Total = $35 million
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: -$12,667,420
NO OFFENSE
Nobody loves Brad Pitt more than me, but I can’t get behind him winning for Moneyball. It’s a great ‘movie star’ performance, but not an actorly one, in my opinion. It proves why he is a star and why he should regularly be cast in big movie roles, but is not an endorsement for an actor at the top of his craft. (But, well, I guess when do the Oscars ever reward this?)
“Pitt is still playing himself and loses votes to Clooney because The Descendants has stronger lead-character development.”
And Clooney isn’t? girl, please. I’m not a fan of Pitt and I definitely do not want him to win. However, Pitt should be commended for making an effort to inhibit his characters. Take Burn after reading, Babel, Fight club and Inglorious Basterds for example. Four different movies, four different characters. They cannot be blended into one because they each have distinctive features.
Clooney, on the other hand, is a personality actor. Writers write for his personality, not the character. He can literally walk from one movie set (Up in the air, Ocean’s eleven etc) into another one (The Descendants, The American etc.) and no one would know the difference. I am honestly flabbergasted that Clooney has become a more critically-acclaimed actor than Pitt. I mean, how is that even remotely possible???
should win: fassbender for shame, but sadly, he wasnt even nominated.
that being the case, i would like pitt to get it, but i have a feeling dujardin is going to nab this.
Slightly off topic, but the Gold Derby email headline this morning declared Glenn Close as the “queen of the Oscar losers”!
This is really distasteful – how can anyone who has been nominated as many times as she has be considered a loser? She has not had the dumb luck to win the thing yet, but that’s all it is – luck – no skills necessary.
So this is what it has come to. I’m thankful that such low blows are not delivered by Sasha and Ryan (or most posters) here.
I’m in agreement that Viola Davis probably won’t win the BAFTA, but I’m not sure who will. I have a feeling about Michelle Williams for that one, which would certainly shake things up.
@Zach .. how you found The Iron Lady almost unwatchable and yet you think Albert Nobbs works is beyond me.
Wonder why Press Play didn’t use this Streep clip form the film…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSXYHqs0KPo.
To me, Pitt pulled out two career defining performances this year. I honestly would have liked to see a nomination for him in Tree of Life as well. What worries me is that he will lose his deserved Oscar this year, and then be given some career Oscar sometime in the future for a performance that isn’t deserved. Which is so often the case with overdue actors/actresses.
@steve .. I think you’re taking the “loser” part a bit too literally. I doubt they think she’s a loser, they use the word because she’s always lost the Oscar to another woman when nominated. But damn, reading that reminded me of how the Academy spat at the legendary Peter O’Toole every time he got a nomination. How that man didn’t win for Lawrence of Arabia I will never know..
Am I the only one rooting for a surprise win at Actress for Michelle Williams. She has deserved it in her past nominations and didn’t win, especially at Brokeback Mountain. And we know how the Oscars love to honor those who never won. Meryl won’t win, Viola will most likely be the victor here.
This is inevitable isn’t it? Meryl Streep losing yet another deserved Leading Actress Oscar. How can this be though? Don’t get me wrong, I loved Viola Davis in The Help, but it was NOT a lead performance. Yes, it was a co-lead along with Emma Stone, but the movie was driven to box office gold in large part because of the ensemble cast. I do believe that Viola Davis is one of the best working actresses of our generation. She will go on to be in many movies this decade, but I cannot agree with her winning an Oscar for this performance. I’m an avid follower of AD.com and I read every article and post, and I’m so appreciative and give kudos to Sasha and Ryan for their coverage this awards season. I moved abroad last summer and I rely heavily on online resources to keep me in the know. I’ve streamed all the award shows thus far.
I rarely comment though when I read a post. However, I felt the need to voice my opinion since I’m noticing more and more people forgetting about the unparalleled and impeccable performance given by the magnificent Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady. I left the theater in awe of how this woman had immersed herself into Margaret Thatcher. How someone is able to not only impersonate but perfectly execute every mannerism and tone of the actual person is beyond words of explanation. It is not only the best performance of the year, but a performance that rivals any role Meryl Streep has every played. For instance, remember the scene in the doctor’s office. An old and fragile Maggie sits and explains “what she is thinking” (YouTube clip, search: “The Iron Lady – Clip #1 What we think, we become”). This isn’t even acting anymore. This may very well be the real Margaret Thatcher. This is something only Meryl Streep did compared to all the other best actress nominees. Michelle Williams gave a career best performance as Marilyn, but I never forgot I was watching Michelle Williams as the blonde bombshell.
Meryl Streep’s performance as the Iron Lady will not only go down as the best performance by a actress in a leading role in my opinion, but the year Academy voters were blind as bats not to award such greatness should her name not be called on Oscar night.
signed.sealed.delivered.
Not talking about lead actress…
I don’t think Brad Pitt should win. I think Dujardin should. He was cute and adorable and likeable. And he does a great job. It’s not necessarily a tough role…but it’s tough to make it look Oscar worthy. And Dujardin pulls it off.
I don’t get the George Clooney hate. He did a beautiful job. The scenes where he’s talking to his dead wife are just…spectacular. I didn’t like Clooney in Up in the Air (nor did I like the movie), and I don’t REALLY think Clooney should have won for Syriana. But the Descendants is his best performance and I’d be happy to see him win…
But I’m mostly rooting for Dujardin, Oldman or Bechir. So…anyone but Brad Pitt
“For instance, remember the scene in the doctor’s office. An old and fragile Maggie sits and explains “what she is thinking” (YouTube clip, search: “The Iron Lady – Clip #1 What we think, we become”). This isn’t even acting anymore.”
That’s the clip I posted above. Great minds think alike eh?
She will most likely lose yet again for some politica/historical crap. It really is a shame. Ill still be on the edge of my seat before that Lead Actress envolope opens up though, because Meryl’s got a good shot here, probably the closest she’s come in a long time.
Ryan, does the acting branch of the Academy make up the British Academy voting branch? I’m just a little curious as to why people are putting so much credence into the BAFTA awards as they pertain to the Oscar race. Halle Berry wasn’t nominated for a BAFTA until the year following her Oscar win. Judi Dench took it, did she win the Oscar, no. Since 2000, 7 of the 12 Best Actress BAFTA winners have gone on to win the Oscar, 58%. While, that is over half, for me, the BAFTA’s don’t indicate much.
“Don’t get me wrong, I loved Viola Davis in The Help, but it was NOT a lead performance. Yes, it was a co-lead along with Emma Stone, but the movie was driven to box office gold in large part because of the ensemble cast.”
LMAO.
Co-lead = lead.
@ Nik Grape
No doubt about it.
I’ll be on the edge of my seat as well, but I think Viola Davis is going to take it home, only due to her SAG win.. but Marion Cotillard came out on top after losing her SAG to Julie Christie. I think the BAFTA win holds a lot of power this year. That will be the one to tell. I say Meryl takes it, but she never wins there either. If BAFTA awards Davis, then it’s all said and done, sadly.
I love how every Viola fan is forgetting the big part of the reason The Help was a smash is because of the popularity of Emma Stone, who is being compleltey overlooked (along with Bryce Dallas Howard who in my opinion gave the the second best performance in the film after Davis).
The film had no lead Dennis, it was an ensemble piece. Though Abileen is the “heart and soul” of the film, which is why I don’t particularly mind that Davis is in that category. If we compare her “leading” status to any of the other four though, she comes up pretty short.
Pitt in Moneyball was probably the most memorable performance from 2011 for me. It reminded me a lot of Clooney’s turn in Michael Clayton (which I still consider his best role) in the way the film took Brad Pitt’s appealing qualities as a star and used them to, in a way, almost deconstruct that very persona. It really is a role that I think only an actor like Pitt could have pulled off as successfully.
As great and charismatic Pitt was in reciting Sorkin/Zallian’s clever zingers, his quieter, subtler moments I think is where he truly shines (dat ending, man). I loved the understated quality of his performance, the way he portrays Beane as a man who puts on that no-nonsense exterior as a way to shield his truer, lonelier, self-doubting self mired by years of disappointment and unrealized potential. I think a lot of us have experienced those kinds of self-doubts in the face of failure at some point in our lives (Lord knows I have from time to time), so perhaps that explains in part why I gravitate towards his performance so strongly.
@ Nik Grape
totally agree.
Has anyone calculated how many minutes of screen time Davis has in The Help compared to others in the film, and other BA nominees? Just curious what the numbers are.
menyc: You are not alone…
Scott, I’d like to know that too, out of curiousity.
i don’t belive this. davis “should” win the oscar because of the “eyes”, her “voice”, the “character from a scratch”, the history of america…. NONSENSE. as a matter of a fact, the character and especially her role CANNOT be defined as LEAD. earlier in 2011 it seemed to me that everybody was having a hard time to decide whether her character is the lead or just supporting…. and now, all of a sudden her performance is soooooo awesome that she even overshadows the towering performances of Streep or Williams. Give me a break…. just another Academy FAIL. After all they awarded Bullock just recently(or not to mention Paltrow, or Washington over Crow…. =| ) and MANY MANY more snubs… i don’t even dare to comment the performance of Dunst in Melancholia which is by far the most revealing performance of the year (if not the best, then it surely is a revelation) and yet they somehow managed to overlook it. i really don’t know what to say.
Meryl Streep should and will win!!!! hands down!
Jean DuJardin will be best actor!
Great screen acting is not just about the hand wringing, tear-filled emoting (which in my younger days i thought it was). The sheer centre and poise with which an actor can hold a scene, pull focus around other performers and use his or her body to convey character and emotion with a minimum of words or fuss is just as powerful, but maybe harder to measure, especially if that measure is the subjective perceived intensity of a performance.
Reading the summary of the 5 women in lead – it truly is oranges and apples! It makes the entire contest such an arbitrary one – whether she inhabits, impersonates, transforms, produces fire from her belly or a quiet world weary truth – they all compel in their own way. So the winner is more about in whom they want to celebrate here and now, and
why. Some years they will go for a full bodied ‘out there’ dazzling
display – ala Marion Cotillard or Charlize Theron – other years a performance that relies not so much on utterance, as mere physical and emotional presence – Holly Hunter, Helen Mirren, Kate Winslet. They all build their performance from scratch – some from the inside out, others the outside in. 5 great women in 2011 – it will come down to sentiment for the win – invariably it does!
You better preach Mark. Truer words have never been spoken.
it seemed to me that everybody was having a hard time to decide whether her character is the lead or just supporting….
Wrong. A few people have tried to say it’s a supporting role. But nobody with any authority or any sense of proportion or justice has ever seen the role as anything but lead.
We’ve been saying it’s a lead role since last summer.
All the major awards groups have always nominated Viola Davis in the Lead Actress cateogory
It’s been this way for months. I don’t know where you’ve been that you’ve only noticed it “all of a sudden” right now.
@Ryan Adams:
You are 100% correct.
The very least you can say about Viola’s role is that is the co-lead.
@Ryan Adams
Didn’t Davis win a supporting award from some local group (I can’t remember the city)? I’m sure she did.
Should win: MERYL STREEP and Jean Dujardin.
I agree with Brad Pitt for SHOULD WIN! It is a lovely performance, understated, smart, passionate, and Pitt’s best.
“She (Streep) will most likely lose yet again for some politica/historical crap”……… and this is the RAW AND BITTER TRUTH. They’ll give the Oscar to Davis just because that’s the only way she could ever be “only the second black actress to win an academy award for a leading role” (@Ryan Adams don’t get me wrong but lately this is one the main arguments of Davis’ supporters and that’s, by my opinion preety lame). That’s all i have to say. (gone)
When I saw Moneyball, I thought Brad Pitt had finally won his Oscar. It’s so obviously a career-best performance for him, quiet, deep and effortlessly winning, mature work free of gimmicks. An admirable character, an underdog going up against big money, who in the end has the guts to turn down an offer most of us wouldn’t refuse. On principle. And it’s all true. Plus two previous nominations, one very recently, and another heralded performance this year in a major arthouse film. Give him the Oscar. It’s over.
Fast-forward four months and I am totally baffled by what has happened. I don’t see what everyone else seems to see in the serviceable work of George Clooney or the broad mugging of Jean Dujardin. It’s really a shame that they’re going to miss this opportunity to give Pitt Best Actor. Moneyball is a new classic in the American sports film genre, and Pitt is its MVP.
“We’ve been saying it’s a lead role since last summer.
All the major awards groups have always nominated Viola Davis in the Lead Actress cateogory”
My inkling tells me that this is the closest Davis got to a lead performance and because she’s been an under-appreciated talent for so long everyone jumped on the same bandwagon and declared her the lead right away. The way I remember the film being promoted was Emma Stone was plastered everywhere while Viola Davis always came second. I think if we’re all being honest here, we can agree the The Help is pretty much the definition of ensemble acting, 4-5 characters having more or less equal impact and contributing a specific yet equally important aspect of the story. The fact that Davis had the “meatiest” and most Oscar-baiting role, and worked it well, made her the lead for award pundits. But story wise, let’s not kid ourselves.
Meanwhile, Meryl can dominate every single frame she’s in (which is 95% of her film) and be on her way to lose Lead Actress Oscar to the above “it” girl. AMPAS: Academy of Motion Politics and Sciences.
Meanwhile, Meryl can dominate every single frame she’s in (which is 95% of her film)
Predicting Oscar winners would be a whole lot easier if all that mattered was word-count and a stop-watch.
As long as we got the whole “Davis is obviously the lead” silliness out of the way.
I disagree about the site choosing to advocate for the reason that others are predicting the Oscars. They are lousy–not because of their guesses, but the quality of their analysis. Quantity isn’t quality.
What they fail to do is analyse and scrutinize the CAMPAIGN, falling into the trap of who is better, a pointless red herring since beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Then they end up predicting stuff which will never happen, just to say, see I saw it didn’t I?
So far, no site seems to discuss at length what is said at Academy screenings and parties. Maybe they are scared–blacklisted? What is said by voters reveal not just the Awards race, it shows you their mentality, hypocrisies, vanity, self-absorption, ambition, insecurities. Look at George Clooney at his Nominees luncheon. A gesture and utterance speaks a thousand words. Understanding these aspects gives a deeper understanding, and it will save you tons of disappointment when those you champion for don’t get nominated or win.
If this is an Awards site, then look at the Oscar campaign, through a glass darkly. The POLITICS of the STUDIO SYSTEM, which people call the shots and dictate who gets employed (why do some stars disappear or end up obscure, or shunned of nominations thereafter?). What is the pecking order and who do they let in. This is the UGLY Oscar, it has always been since the 1920s.
The only thing golden about the Oscars–your agent can up your fee! That’s it. Not social betterment. You want that, go hound the Nobel Prize. Even the Oscar skin isn’t gold; it’s an alloy of brass that doesn’t rust, but don’t rub too hard, the coating is thin. Its heart ain’t gold either, to borrow an American expression.
But that doesn’t mean Sasha and Ryan shouldn’t advocate. Please advocate, but make sure your arguments are solid and well founded, because any loopholes appear glaring. Remember The Paper Chase? My hero John Houseman, we should all aspire to.
But SOUND prediction is harder (no not Best SOund, that’s physics, actually that’s a campaign in itself). Keep analysis-predictions SEPARATE from advocacy. What will win, what should win.
Inspired by the great Damien Bona who wrote Inside Oscar, never allow emotions to mar objectivity. And that will be Damien Bona’s legacy.
Your analysis of our analysis is lousy too.
We don’t do that.
We don’t do that either. That would be fun and satisfying, but I never do that.
Wrong. many careers actually falter after an Oscar. Show Cuba Gooding Jr. the money, because his fee did not go up
I hate that stuff. It has nothing to do with loving movies. What’s more, reporting on its ostensible importance only serves to validate it. Further empowers people who have too much power already.
You know what? I usually don’t care who wins the Oscar. That’s not why I’m here.
This is AWARDS Daily. Not Worship-the-Oscars Daily.
The critics and precursors, the BAFTAs, the AFI, the Spirit Awards — I look for my satisfaction outside the annual Oscar debacle.
I’m here to talk about the movies I love. That’s not advocating. That’s Talking About The Movies I Love.
@D…I think people are putting so much credence in BAFTA this year because many categories are so contentious this year, and oftentimes BAFTA can act as a good predictor. This year, we have Viola Davis, Meryl Streep, and Michelle Williams all winning major awards. Ditto with George Clooney and Jean Dujardin. Yes, someone like Sandra Bullock (who wasn’t nominated for a BAFTA) still ended up winning an Oscar but she had already swept BFCA, Golden Globe, and SAG. And there was no way in hell they were going with BAFTA winner Carey Mulligan (whose win wasn’t a surprise, considering she’s British starring in an acclaimed British film). BAFTA has been really telling in the past (particularly in 2007) when it was a dead heat between Marion Cotillard & SAG winner Julie Christie were in the running for best actress and the tide turned towards Cotillard when she won BAFTA. Same with Tilda Swinton who won the BAFTA and repeated at Oscar.
I still think Viola Davis will win the Oscar even if she doesn’t win BAFTA, but if Meryl Streep (likely) wins then it keeps things at least suspenseful. If someone like Michelle Williams pulls off a win here, then I may just hyperventilate on Oscar night because it really will be a nail-biter. Ditto with Jean Dujardin–I think if he wins BAFTA then he will win the Oscar.
“I hate that stuff. It has nothing to do with loving movies. What’s more, reporting on its ostensible importance only serves to validate it.”
The system, for good or bad, produces the art form which you love. The motivations behind it are just as compelling, the marriage of artistic aspirations with capitalistic gain.
I never said you did those things, but don’t fall into the trap which is a common habit.
Your agent does raise your asking price, that always happens. It’s Oscar’s leverage. That’s Oscar’s concrete reward. In Cuba’s case, whether you choose good roles thereafter affects your leverage. But Oscar is bankable, and more doors open, not just for the recipient, but for all the supporting players in that campaign. All are amply rewarded in the great game.
To advocate for an Oscar recipient is far different from to analyse the prospect of victory. My point is that emotion should not cloud one’s sense of judgement. One has one’s personal, emotional tug, but it should serve as one’s inspiration, not affect the logic of argument, in advocacy or analysis.
We must be talking about 2 different things, Aubrey.
Since you were dissatisfied with the Oscar coverage I thought you meant the power brokers who try to pull the strings of the Oscar race. I am bored with all that.
The Oscar system absolutely does not produce the art form I love. If anything, it’s a petty, flawed, reductive system that usually homogenizes the greatest films right off the stage, and more often harms the true artists more than it helps them.
I’m fascinated by the Oscars the same way I’m fascinated by the screwed up political system of the country, but I never kid myself that politics produces a better society. It only degrades the culture.
If you’re talking about the studio system — that’s another more interesting but equally faulty structure. 90% of studio output makes me cringe. I understand that the economics of selling massive amounts of junk enables the financing of a few gems every year — but the most interesting movies usually have the least connection to corner office decisions.
I love to read about the evolution of studios in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s… but honestly, since the 80s I find less and that’s very appealing about the studio system — so again, it does not interest me very much.
Fine if you’re into all that. But you can surely see that not many other people are. You say yourself: No movies sites cover that stuff. To me such obsessions feel more suitable to business interests rather than artistic appreciation.
If anybody cared about it, don’t you think you’d be able to find someone somewhere who writes about it? some site who covers that angle to your satisfaction?
I’m not going to write about it because I don’t care about it. If you do — them you should write about it.
Your agent does raise your asking price, that always happens. It’s Oscar’s leverage.
Sorry, no. I really don’t think so.
Maybe for ingenues and newcomers.
If George Clooney wins the Oscar, it’s not going to affect his asking price in the least.
If Scorsese wins another Oscar, he’s not going to be a bigger legend than he already is. His salary is not based on how many Oscars he’s got.
An Oscar can help a filmmaker upgrade the projects he’s approached to work on. I can see how an Oscar for a Sound Editor will get him offers of better movies.
But for somebody so obsessed with the economics of the industry, you surely know that very often the best and most interesting movies actually require filmmakers to work for reduced fees.
Unless you think the purpose of an Oscar is to get people hired to make more big-budget blowouts like Catwoman and Transformers 4… and if that’s your idea of how to cash in on an Oscar win, then UGH, ACK.
Do you seriously think Tilda Swinton started asking for more money after she won an Oscar? Get real. No. No. You are wrong about the value of an Oscar as a device to increase a filmmaker’s wealth. Only for the most crass of winners would that be true.
Again: UGH! I am not liking your implication, at all.
The Coen Bros’s salaries for subsequent movies will be based on the budget allowances of movies they chooses to do. They are successful and inventive because they are frugal. There’s no way I can see their agent demanding a bigger salary for them because they got an Oscar. It’s strange to think that would happen.
The Oscar — more often than not — is the classic What-Do-Get-for-the-Man-Who-Already-Has-Everything. It’s most often awarded to people already at the peak of their careers, at the pinnacle of their fame and fortune.
An Oscar is what millionaires bestow on each other — because you can get one from Tiffany’s.
In the words of a mathematician, Meryl Streep’s road to Oscar #3 is asymptotic. It will get closer and closer but will never reach it
Gawd, I really need to study. X_x
For Oscar fee, remember what Michael Caine said in his victory speech when he won for The Cider House Rules. Not just the surface, but between the lines. Damien Bona also commented about the system thereafter.
As for statue’s link with production of summer fare, unfortunately the linkage, ugly. I agree with your sentiment. Think of a studio’s bank loan for movies in a year, and how at the end of the day, money needs to be returned. There’s the Oscar market, there’s the blockbuster, both feed on each other.
Damien Bona’s coverage comes close, he was able to marry his analysis with the emotional magic of Oscar film. Wish there was more like him.
Win an Oscar, then ask for as much as you can (advised by your agent, accountant, lawyer) in a commercial exploit. Make your money whilst the sun shines on you (with money you can afford to do “prestige” or Oscar fare), because in Tinstletown, those who go on and on, definitely they do exist (Streep, Scorcese etc), but that’s the minority. Most fade out.
Speaking personally, my 2 relatives working in your country who are Academy voters, my skype conversations on the Oscar race with them, what they sometimes remark on who they vote for, ALWAYS sinks my heart, my soul, my lofty aspirations.
As you’ve said, it is a political game, but sadly, politics reveals the limitations of us as humans.
Oscars mirror the human condition, it may be judged by a handful, but their motivations are not far from us.
Imagine how an intelligent, qualified person has the ability to judge on 5 nominees based on merit, but ultimately is swayed by the cleverness of a campaign spin?
imagine how an intelligent, qualified person has the ability to judge on 5 nominees based on merit, but ultimately is swayed by the cleverness of a campaign spin?
but Aubrey,
being easily swayed by campaign spin is not behavior I associate with intelligence.
there again, the parallels with US politics. I don’t have much respect for voters who are swayed by misleading campaign spin, no matter how clever that spin may be.
Ihese things happen. But they depress me. I don’t enjoy seeing it happen, and I don’t feel that spin in itself is cleverness that merits my analysis.
you like examining these things, and that’s fine. If you wrote about these phenomena, I might like to read your thoughts. It’s just not what I like to focus on, ok?
Spin isn’t about movies. I’m here for the movies.
I saw THE HELP a few days ago.
After reading that some people considered her to be supporting, I was expecting a much smaller role. Something like Patricia Neal in HUD (Truly a supporting performance in the wrong category).
It’s without a doubt a lead role.
I don’t remember this “controversy” when Streep was nominated as lead actress for The Devil Wears Prada. A performance in the wrong category if I ever saw one.
In my opinion these are the worst examples of a performance winning in the wrong category:
Best Actor: Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs. This performance makes such an impression, that it is surprising to know that he’s on screen only 17 minutes. (Runner Up: Peter Finch in Network)
Best Actress: Patricia Neal in Hud. Even her called the role “tiny”.
(Runner Up: Luise Rainer in The Great Ziegfeld).
Supporting Actor: Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People. To make matters worse, Mary Tyler Moore was nominated as lead actress, when she clearly was supporting. (Runner Up: Walter Matthau in The Fortune Cookie)
Supporting Actress: Tatum O’Neal in Paper Moon. She literally is in every scene in the movie. (Can’t think of a runner up)
@Ryan
“But for somebody so obsessed with the economics of the industry, you surely know that very often the best and most interesting movies actually require filmmakers to work for reduced fees.”
I absolutely agree with this. Even George Clooney recently said in this year’s Oscar Roundtable that he never outsizes a film’s budget just so the producers can pay his “normal” fee (in this case The Descendants, which he said was made for under $20 mil, and most likely he himself is probably in the $20 million dollar club with Roberts and Will Smith). However, I’m sure he gets a back end deal of the film’s domestic/international gross, like Sandra Bullock did for The Blind Side. I do agree that discussing the mechanics and politics of the studio system is a bit disheartening and too technical and sort of takes away from the “art” side of films, but it is interesting to sort of dissect it.
“Your agent does raise your asking price, that always happens. It’s Oscar’s leverage.
Sorry, no. I really don’t think so.
Maybe for ingenues and newcomers.”
I disagree with this a little bit. I remember after Charlize Theron won her Oscar that her asking price went to up $10 million (for Aeon Flux…yeah). However, that was in the origins of her career and so maybe she would fall into the ingenue category you talked about. But I think it’s a bit naive to think that an Oscar won’t give you monetary profits. I’m fairly certain in saying that actors like Christoph Waltz and Marion Cotillard get paid a heck of a lot more now than pre-Oscar. There is a financial gain that comes from having “Academy Award Winner” so and so. Actors like Viola Davis, Melissa McCarthy, Demian Bichir, etc., would obviously benefit more from that title more so than George Clooney or Meryl Streep because they are more established and glued into pop cultural society. They already get paid a heck of a lot of money and an Oscar would simply be another treasure to add to their collection (which isn’t to take anything away from their performances or merit to win an Oscar). Even though Tilda Swinton (like you mentioned) is not the kind of actor AT ALL to demand a higher salary for the films she makes, don’t you think the fact that she had “Academy Award Winner” written before the headline piqued a few filmgoers’ interest in I Am Love and made it somewhat of an art house hit? Do I think if Michelle Williams wins the Oscar that she will resolutely demand $15 mil per film and headline an action film with Nicolas Cage? No, but a lot more people will be interested in Michelle Williams and her future films than before.
I must concur with Ryan and Aaron that leverage depends a lot on the recipient’s STAGE/PHASE of one’s career. I do know that for my 2 relatives in the technical branches, their nominations and a win have made much monetary difference in their fees.
Spin to me is a vice, but it seems that in our instant-information age, it’s a beast that runs untamed. Like Prometheus. Like during election campaigns. As an outsider faraway from America, the Oscar season feels more like our political election campaigns, the race/age/disability/social cause factor manipulated simultaneously with what is esentially, a RAW electoral fight by rival studios.
I’m a citizen of a country where for over a decade, under a Labour government which wasn’t quite Labour, it deployed spin as no other in every policy, taking advantage of the capriciousness of human perception. Slick, sophisticated spin doctors guided every policy.
Even the intelligent succumb. Voters succumb.
Manrico, I think the lead and supporting has also more to do with star power too. And also category conflict, you don’t want your 2 stars cancelling each other out if both of them stand nearly the same chances.
BTW, methinks the lead supporting debate on Viola…that’s been also talked about in the blogs, press….smells of a spin from a rival?
@Aaron, thanks for sharing your opinion in a very intellectual manner, that’s lacking in some of the posts by bloggers on this site.
Ryan: Sorry, no. I really don’t think so.
– Maybe for ingenues and newcomers.”
Aaron: I disagree with this a little bit.
We agree on the major points, Aaron, don’t you think?
I tried to look at the situation fairly, and I noted the very same exceptions that you bring up. I was careful to note “ingenues and newcomers” do stand to benefit. Just as I think it’s realistic to point out, most Oscar winners are not ingenues and newcomers.
You do a very nice job expanding on the same belief that I hold. You agree that George Clooney and Meryl Streep “already get paid a heck of a lot of money and an Oscar would simply be another treasure to add to their collection.” That’s exactly what I said in different phrasing, right? And it’s not only actors we’re talking about. How will an Oscar possibly raise the salary of Alexander Payne or John Williams? (In fact, “newcomers” Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross won an Oscar last year. Do we really think they demanded a much higher salary for Dragon Tattoo? I rather doubt it, don’t you?)
You expand really reasonably on the same feelings I sketched briefly (I was commenting from an Android keyboard yesterday, and it causes me to be brief — maybe blunt). You name a lot of actors who might benefit — Melissa McCarthy, Demian Bichir — newcomers, right? That’s what I said, so I think we agree.
The one exception you mention: Charlize Theron and Aeon Flux — that’s directly related to my one lament: Actors who go from a low-budget Oscar winning film to sign up for big-budget salary in a movie that would seem to be a waste of their talents. First of all, do we really think the producers of Aeon Flux and Catwoman thought to themselves: “We need an Oscar-calibre actress in this role!” Secondly, do we think the target audience for Aeon Flux and Catwoman even care that the stars won an Oscar? (furthermore, are most teenage boys even aware of it?) And finally — how can we assume that Charlize and Halle would not have landed those roles WITHOUT being Oscar-winners? They are simply right for the roles, Oscar or not. Physically they’re both a great match for the characters. It’s just really hard for me to imagine that anybody thought: “Yes! What we need for our action heroine is an Oscar-winner!” Why? Because the vast majority of superhero action movies based on graphic novels succeed just fine without Oscar winners.
====
I seriously doubt that Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman were hired to play Alfred and Lucius Fox because they had won Oscars, don’t you agree? There are no trailers for The Dark Knight that announce “Starring Oscar-winners Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine” — nobody buying a ticket to Batman Begins cares about that. Nor do the producers who hired him. After all, the man play God himself the year before he won an Oscar — and Bruce Almighty earn $240mil — so can we also agree that Morgan Freeman was collecting very substantial paychecks for year before he won an Oscar?
I think the big post-Oscar salaries for Halle, Charlize and Morgan have nothing to do with their Oscars — and everything to do with the fact they starred in blockbusters with lavish extravagant budgets — and I believe they would have been cast in those movies with or without an Oscar. (thought experiment: If Queen Latifah had won an Oscar, would her Oscar have put her in better position to be hired to play Catwoman than an Oscar-less Halle Berry? No. I think if the creative decision is made to have a Black Catwoman, then the choices for appropriate actresses narrows really quickly to 2 or 3 names. Whether they have an Oscar or not is totally irrelevant.)
And their salary demands are not contingent on possessing an Oscar. I have no doubt whatsoever that Halle Berry earned more for X-Men (before her Oscar) than she earned for Things We Lost in the Fire (after her Oscar).
Halle’s agent can try to demand anything he wants, try to use this imaginary “Oscar leverage” — but here’s that fact: Halle Berry was pretty much box-office poison after her Oscar. She made out ok financially based on roles that amount to little more than cameos in big-budget action movies. But I wouldn’t kid myself that she earned a nickel more for X2 than Rebecca Romijn earned. Do you not agree?
===
I’m not arguing with you, Aaron. Just the opposite — I’m seeing that we basically agree about everything we both say:
1) newcomers can (sometimes) benefit from an Oscar raising awareness that they exist
2) established veterans don’t need an Oscar to get great roles with big paydays
3) most fimmakers who win Oscars are already at the peak of the careers and earning amazing amounts of money long before they win an Oscar. (and if they want to continue working on prestige projects, they are not going to jack up their salary demands and price themselves out of consideration for the best jobs)
and my fourth point, maybe I’m alone in believing:
4) an Oscar is meaningless to producers casting a big-salary blockbuster (or at least it should be — because an Oscar-winner-as-superhero results in embarrassing disaster more often than not.)
and back to a point on which we appear to agree:
5) an actor who wants great roles will find those roles in movies with smaller budgets where it would be crass, crude and greedy to dream of demanding a huge salary “just because I’ve got an Oscar, you need to pay me $10mil — half the entire budget of your brilliant $20mil indie gem.”
No, that does not happen, and we all know it.
So Aaron, we agree on more points than we differ, don’t you think so?
Viola Davis will win. No need for “should”. She just will.
Come on, fellow Streep fans, she won’t win for TIL.
Maybe never… *sigh*
There is always something against her. The Best Actress curse I think. This simply might be hers, getting nominated but never win again.
But always look on the bright side of life: she’s still working and very successful.
A million actresses would KILL for her career today!
A bit off topic, but I thought this was worth checking out!
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6cddad07b7/jean-dujardin-s-villain-auditions
Thanks Castle Wilson,
We got tipped to that from another reader early this morning. I’m posting it now.
Hey Ryan. Yes, I do think we agree on many points, especially regarding the newcomer vs. established veteran scenario.
“First of all, do we really think the producers of Aeon Flux and Catwoman thought to themselves: “We need an Oscar-calibre actress in this role!”
Obviously the material for these films does not require Oscar-caliber acting by any stretch of the imagination, but I would have to think that HAVING an Oscar-winning actor/actress in these roles certainly (at least initially…history has not been so kind to these films) boosted the pedigree and/or interest in these films. Having recently crowned Academy Award Winners Halle Berry and Charlize Theron headlining these action franchise films certainly sounds more interesting and prestigious than Catwoman starring Rose McGowan and Aeon Flux starring Jessica Biel. I agree with you that funding a studio film with an Oscar winner does not assure box-office or critical success and that virtually any actress in Hollywood could have played these roles to the varying degree of success (I’m using that word very generously considering both these films were terrible), but it has to be enticing for producers to have someone like Berry or Theron commit to their films (particularly after their Oscar wins) because I’m sure it helps green light the production and adds a sense of interest in the project.
But yes, I agree with you that in the long-run that an Oscar does not assure success or respect, or even financial stability, at least in the long-run.
Good point, Aaron. I do see where you’re coming from about the extra gloss of prestige factoring into casting.
Any day I can get anybody to partially agree with me about anything is a good day indeed. Even if I had to grab you by the throat and wring your neck to get you to see it! Fun times, yes?
