There are rumblings over at Hollywood-Elsewhere, discussed on the latest episode of Oscar Poker with Awardswatch’s Erik Anderson wherein both Jeff Wells and Anderson were saying Michael Fassbender was not going to get nominated. This after Fassbender topped the Gurus and Gold Derby’s latest predictions. Not at number two, but topped the chart – as in, right on top. It has so surprised me that these two are down on Fassbender that it’s inspired me to write a bit about Best Actor. Of course Michael Fassbender continues to be among the strongest contenders for Best Actor. It’s absolutely ludicrous to think otherwise, based on nothing so much as a box office surprise that has been below expectations. Join me, won’t you, for a little fireside chat about Best Actor.
Best Actor is almost always tied to Best Picture. This has been especially true since the expansion of Best Picture to more nominees.
Birdman – Michael Keaton
American Sniper – Bradley Cooper
Boyhood – Ellar Coltrane
Grand Budapest Hotel – Ralph Fiennes
Imitation Game – Benedict Cumberbatch
Selma – David Oyelowo
Theory of Everything – Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones
Whiplash – Miles Teller
For every Best Picture contender last year, there was a corresponding Best Actor contender, at the very least. Four out of five were nominated. The only other nominee from a non-Best Pic nominee was Steve Carell for Foxcatcher (a strong enough BP prospect that it was nominated for Best Director).
None of the films last year had a lead actress contender to even nominate.
The year before, it went like this:
12 Years a Slave – Chiwetel Ejiofor
American Hustle – Christian Bale, Amy Adams
Captain Phillips – Tom Hanks
Dallas Buyers Club – Matthew McConaughey
Gravity – Sandra Bullock
Her – Joaquin Phoenix
Nebraska – Bruce Dern
Philomnea – Judi Dench
The Wolf of Wall Street – Leonardo DiCaprio
There were three films with Best Actress contenders in them. All five Best Actor nominees were in Best Picture contenders.
The year before that:
Argo – Ben Affleck
Amour – Emmanuelle Riva, Jean-Louis Trintignant
Beasts of the Southern Wild – Quvenzhane Wallis
Django Unchained – Jamie Foxx
Les Miserables – Hugh Jackman
Life of Pi – Suraj Sharma
Lincoln – Daniel Day Lewis
Silver Linings Playbook – Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence
Zero Dark Thirty – Jessica Chastain
Only two Best Actor nominees did not star in Best Picture contenders – Joaquin Phoenix in The Master and Denzel Washington in Flight.
The Artist – Jean DuJardin
The Tree of Life – Brad Pitt
The Descendants – George Clooney
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close – Thomas Horn
The Help – Viola Davis
Hugo – Asa Butterfield
Midnight in Paris – Owen Wilson
Moneyball – Brad Pitt
War Horse – Jeremy Irvine
There were, once again, only two not included – Demian Bichir from A Better Life and Gary Oldman for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
The King’s Speech – Colin Firth
127 Hours – James Franco
Black Swan – Natalie Portman
The Fighter – Mark Wahlberg
Inception – Leo DiCaprio
The Kids Are All Right – Annette Bening, Julianne Moore
The Social Network – Jesse Eisenberg
Toy Story 3
True Grit – Jeff Bridges
Winter’s Bone – Jennifer Lawrence
Only one left out, Javier Bardem for Bitutiful.
The Hurt Locker – Jeremy Renner
A Serious Man – Michael Stuhlbarg
An Education – Carey Mulligan
Avatar – Sam Worthington
Inglorious Basterds
Precious – Gabourey Sidibe
The Blind Side – Sandra Bullock
Up
Up in the Air – George Clooney
This was an odd year where three out of five of the Best Actor contenders were in non-Best Picture nominees – and that might be because of the female-driven films in the race. Colin Firth, a Single Man, Morgan Freeman in Invictus and the winner, Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart.
With more male driven Best Picture contenders, there is a better chance of matchups with Best Actor. A year like this one, however, with potentially four films getting in that are female driven, there is a pretty good chance there will be actor nominees included whose films may not factor in the Best Picture race.
A talked-about performance is a talked-about performance. Some give such memorable, astonishing performances that their place in the race is secure. To my mind, Michael Fassbender as Steve Jobs is one of those performances. People who aren’t actors might not understand why Steve Jobs might do well with industry voters, especially SAG and the actor’s branch of the Academy. The film is actor- and writer-driven. All of the actors in Sorkin’s high drama are given an opportunity to showcase what actors can really do when given the chance. It is one of the few films that features actors doing what they do best. Why would the actors not choose one of the hottest tickets in the industry right now in one of the most buzzed about performances? I’m not seeing any negatives here. If I had to come up with one, I’d say someone else who might be pushing harder could take that spot if it were vulnerable. It doesn’t seem vulnerable to me.
What Fassbender does with his role in Steve Jobs is nothing short of one of the most vibrant, exciting works by any actor this year. You can say he doesn’t resemble Steve Jobs. You can say you don’t like the character. But you can’t say it isn’t one of the best performances of the year. He’s brutal. He pulls no punches and you can’t take your eye off of him. So if you’re going to say he isn’t even going to be nominated? I’m going to need a little more reason than box office.
Another actor who’s being doubted by the Gurus, and a bit by the Gold Derby pundits is Johnny Depp in Black Mass. Again, it seems to me only non-actors are the ones doubting his appeal in this role, which is easily one of his best, if not his very best. This is a good example of the internet bubble thinking it’s running the show. On the other hand no one can say any performance is for sure in, but I would not bet against Depp, even if Black Mass itself doesn’t make the BP cut. Though it would certainly help both Fassbender and Depp if their films were surefire Oscar contenders. On the other hand, with so many films about women dominating the race, and Spotlight having no lead actor performance, there probably will be maybe two or three at the most Best Pic contenders with lead actors also nominated.
If I had to guess who those two would be – as in slam dunk Best Picture nominees with corresponding lead acting performances, I’d go with:
The Martian – Matt Damon
One of the most captivating performances in what will be the biggest hit in the race – unless Star Wars sneaks in there or Inside Out makes it. Either way, Matt Damon has charmed his way into the hearts of many with his portrayal of Mark Watney: Botanist.
Second most likely based on what people have heard but still not having seen the film:
The Revenant – Leonardo DiCaprio
Not enough is known about The Revenant or Leo’s performance but there is no doubt that he is overdue for an Oscar win and from the looks of it he goes deeper and darker and harder than he ever has.
Other films coming up that could shake up the race but haven’t been widely seen enough to make that call:
Concussion – Will Smith
Creed – Michael B. Jordan
The Big Short – Steve Carell
Kurt Russell – The Hateful Eight
Add to that, other performances that could be tied to Best Picture include:
Bridge of Spies – Tom Hanks
The Danish Girl – Eddie Redmayne (which could get in with or without a Best Picture nomination)
Youth – Michael Caine
My own prediction for the category without having seen Concussion, The Big Short or The Revenant would be:
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant
Johnny Depp, Black Mass
Matt Damon, The Martian
Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs
Michael Caine for Youth or Steve Carell for The Big Short
This entire list might change after the next slew of films upcoming. I was one of the holdouts on Bradley Cooper and Christian Bale for American Hustle and to some extent again on Bradley Cooper for American Sniper, so there is the chance that I could be very wrong about this race. This is just how I see it now and Fassbender is not the one I suspect is vulnerable.
Take our poll!
[polldaddy poll=9173663]
Leaving out Bryan Cranston who plays a Hollywood icon and just swept back to back nominations making him a serious contender was not a smart move. I always knew Cranston had the ability to be a viable candidate, I just wasn’t sure how much but I do now. I believe three maybe even four slots are unanimously locked up and good to go. It’s that fifth and final slot that’s hard to predict as any one of these actors performances could easily sneak in at the last second. Currently I have 10 actors who all have a strong chance with two to three looking in the outside having to campaign extra hard.
1. Leonardo DiCaprio-The Revenant (locked)
2. Michael Fassbender-Steve Jobs (locked)
3. Matt Damon-The Martian
(could get knocked out in favor of someone else but if The Martian becomes a serious Oscar contender I say he’s in)
4. Eddie Redmayne-The Danish Girl
(Sure thing)
5. Michael Keaton-Spotlight
(If Spotlight is the front runner for Best Picture, it’s going to get acting nominations across the board. The Supporting category is far too stacked to include both Keaton and Ruffalo, therefore I believe Keaton will be moved to lead to nominate both)
6. Will Smith-Concussion
(Movie is coming out at the right time and I could see Smith in favor of Damon and Depp)
7. Steve Carrel-The Big Short (This film is going to get some nominations and be a surprise hit. I already have a lock for Christian Bale in supporting and I think Carrel could get enough votes to pick up a final slot)
8. Bryan Cranston-Trumbo (This is your surprise dark horse contender who could easily turn momentum his way and with back to back nominations it’s very likely he could be one of two nominations maybe even three who’s nominated for a film that will not be nominated for Best Picture.)
9. Johnny Depp-Black Mass (I currently don’t feel Depp has as strong of a chance as I once did. The Globes choosing to ignore him is not a good sign for his campaign. He hasn’t given a great performance in a long time and I think what happened to Tom Hanks will happen with him and he’ll miss the cut and have to earn his way back with more great performances. I do however still think he’s in the thick of the race and wouldn’t cut him out completely.)
10. Michael B Jordan-Creed (Creed has a very real shot to go the distance. Stallone I feel is already a sure thing for Supporting and he shares all his screen time with Michael who easily have one of the best performances of the year. I would love to see a fresh young actor like Michael have his name announced as a nominee. I think it would be a huge accomplishment for younger actors to build off of. He has a shot.)
Other contenders looking outside)
Michael Caine-Youth
Tom Hanks-Bridge Of Spies
Geta Storhl-Son Of Saul
I find it hard to believe Eddie Redmayne won’t be nominated even if the film is met with controversy and muted praise.
Johnny Depp’s performance ain’t “all that” and is stuck in a mediocre, muddled film that won’t appeal to a large segment of the Academy. But he can still happen.
Michael Caine may not be in a powerhouse or transformative role, but I think it’s ridiculous not to predict him sight-unseen.
Fassbender may not win for a film that hasn’t bowled everyone over, but he is going to get nominated. Jobs can still win script if nothing else, and the Academy doesn’t care that its actors, particularly its male actors, star in the most B.O.-friendly films.
Speaking of B.O., Matt Damon isn’t going to get in just because Sandra Bullock was nominated for Gravity. This isn’t as impressive a film or performance.
Bullock’s performance was more emotionally one dimensional. Variations on desperation throughout. That’s what was called for in the script, and she did that beautifully. Damon’s performance is a masterpiece of layering. Joy, fear, triumph, resignation, dogged determination. Plus the dude was flat-out funny. That performance nails pretty much every emotion in an actor’s toolbox. Sometimes all at the same time. And, like Bullock, he did it almost totally alone. Actors appreciate how hard that is. It’s still early but unless some jaw dropping performance comes from left field I expect him to win. The only hesitation I have is that he’s working abroad and can’t campaign.
No way he’ll win. They vote for the character and the stretch, not the actor. Sandra had a one-dimensional role but in a better-received film. They would sooner pick Eddie again for that role. This is the Academy, not the People’s Choice. They look for transformations more than range.
No transformation in Bullock’s role, which I think we agree is in some ways similar to Damon’s, but less demanding. In fact, that similarity could make it easier for people to appreciate the depth what he’s doing. I wouldn’t be surprised if Redmayne is nominated because they do like their transformations. But a back to back win? Doubtful. You’re not exactly consistent. If it’s the role in the better received film that wins, then the advantage certainly goes to The Martian, both critically and in terms of box office. Whatever happens it’s an interesting category, for sure!
I get what you are saying, but to my ears the praise for Gravity was bigger — it was more of an unprecedented technical marvel (which got Cuaron the Oscar), and it made more money than Martian has so far. Also I think it’s dangerous to make too many comparisons between lead actor and actress races. Sandra was in a Best Picture favorite and seen as the big reason for its box office success. It’s always a big deal when a woman leads a solo effort to box-office success, but the Academy cares less when it comes to the Lead Actor race (I think of Richard Jenkins beating Clint Eastwood a few years ago). Sandra also had Clooney’s power behind her and a trio of British veterans splitting support. Finally, Sandra’s character was at least wisely given a backstory (dead daughter, nothing to return home to). The Martian feels more basic, even if the script is more involved and Damon’s turn is rangier as you said.
Again, you’re not consistent. First you compare Bullock and Damon’s performances and when I point out that Damon’s is (unquestionably IMO) much meatier, you backtrack and say comparisons can’t be made. I think the Academy will do what it usually does and select a best actor winner from among the top few films. We don’t know how things will progress but right now that obviously points at Damon. And please don’t resurrect the infuriatingly manipulative, phony, old-fashioned Hollywood chestnut, dead child gag. To me that’s the single biggest reason why the film hasn’t aged well. In terms of depth, Gravity is a survival tale told very well – for IMAX. I enjoyed it the first time I saw it and have no interest in ever seeing it again, an experience that is very common. Because it’s a spectacle. Nothing more. The Martian has both depth and breadth. In twenty years it will still be terrific.
I’m just saying I still think Sandra had more going for her then than Matt does now, but that of all factors, box office shouldn’t be compared across gender lines when it comes to acting Oscars. The Academy usually ,doesn’t give a shit that a great actor/meaty performance didn’t make a huge amount in theaters. Yes, box office can help an A-lister get nominated, like Sandra each time and Denzel for Flight. And Sandra and Julia Roberts actually won their Oscars in large part due to being undeniable B.O. queens and the consensus that this was their one chance. But Matt already has an Oscar for writing, and as a box-office star, I don’t think he’s in the same position as Julia and Sandra were, or even Matthew McConaughey in his season. Matt is supremely well liked, but not considered a fantastic or overdue actor or a box-office titan. Hell, just last year he was the most heavily bashed part of Interstellar, which itself was a more clever narrative than The Martian and Gravity put together! So if it’s a weak year, then sure, Matt may be nominated. But I’m not going to discount Eddie or Leo for the win, and I will still bank on Fassy and Caine for nominations.
Inconsistency is your hallmark. In one sentence you proclaim that it doesn’t matter how successful an actor’s film are, and in another sentence you bash him for not having enough box office (Martian just crossed $210 m). Obviously you’re looking for any pretext to bash Damon’s chances. Some real pretzel logic there. The reason Interstellar had so much blowback from fans was because they tried to mismarket it as a hard science movie, when it was really a metaphysical quasi-Christian treatise on the nature of love. I liked it, because I enjoy quasi-Christian theological treatises on the nature of love. It was heartfelt, and I respected it for how heartfelt it was. But it was not clever. Clever is The Martian’s bailiwick. We’ll see who gets nominated. But considering Sasha’s frequently repeated opinion that lots of academy members love The Martian, and Damon had a fantastic performance in it, he looks strong.
I don’t know why you’re carrying on. I was merely replying to your implication that Martian is making more money than Gravity. It’s not, and it’s not making the Avatar/Titanic level of money where it has to be taken seriously in all races. Therefore, my original, underlying, and steadfast argument remains: money doesn’t matter as much in the Lead Actor race, at least not for the win. Sure, he can be nominated, and sure, the film is smart. But it’s not that smart or unique. The plot structure is unoriginal, not that Gravity’s was any less so, and that still won 7 Oscars — but not Picture. And that’s my point. I saw the film. It’s well made, witty, and endearing. I wouldn’t begrudge it top nominations, at least at this point. But I don’t see it or Damon winning. Stronger films are on the horizon, and there is still a lot of time left for all of them to develop into the next Miss Hot Young Thing of the Moment, as happens every year for the five months or so leading up to nomination morning.
I think Michael Fassbender is an acting GOD. He should have won Oscars, not an Oscar since his performance in Shame. He is so talented, it is disgusting! Not just talented, he has a range unmatched by any other actor. He does not chose easy projects and because of that I feel that he is very respectful of his art and the audience. Actually, he convinced me that Cinema is an art form.
http://l.wigflip.com/a/kFvckkHC/roflbot.jpg
Actors will do the campaign for him and will be going head over heels for Fassbender because he is an actor’s actor. Critics already love him but it will be the actors will say, “wait a minute, this guy is on a different planet to the rest”.
He really is on a different planet! When I first knew him, I thought:”He can’t be this good.” So I went looking for when he started to be good. You know how some actors are perfect in one movie but not so much in others? He blew me away! He was good everywhere!!! Even when the series was cheesy or the movie was bad! He was “perfect”! You forget you are watching Fassbender. He is that convincing! He raised the bar for everyone else. In fact he brings them up a level or two when they are opposite him. Frankly, I think we deserve that kind of talent, those kinds of movies.
Why hasn’t Richard Gere been included in this discussion for “Time Out of Mind”? According to some critics, he gave the performance of his career this year. Not strong box office. But who cares? If the performance is worthy, recognition should follow.
An interesting point. Pundits focus on the A-list stars but I think there’ll be at least one, maybe two, nominated performances out of left field his year.
With Michael Caine and Tom Hanks both having 2 Oscars each on their respective mantels, and I know this is somewhat arrogant to say, but AMPAS just may nominate the “unrewarded” this year. And with DiCaprio-Depp-McKellen-Fassbender in the running, I have an inkling, regardless of the quality of the performances, that Caine and Hanks are the ones who are in jeopardy.
Well, the Academy criminally overlooked Hanks for his performance in “Captain Philips”, and that’s why I think he has little chance for his performance in Bridge Of Spies is not as strong. They could try to shoe him in an attempt to make up for their error and that could cost someone, most likely Michael Cain..
Yes, I thought Hanks was a shoe-in last year as well for Captain Philips.
While his performance in Bridge of Spies is not as “showy”, I tend to think it is a better one . . . it’s much more subtle. It seems the likeability of Hanks, though, is certainly evident. He has become the “James Stewart” of our generation. He’s certainly one of the more gracious actors around.
2013 was a more competitive year in the Oscar category, and his being snubbed last time maybe offers reason for predicting him this time around. I also think it’s all around a better performance than CP and very sentimentally/classically old cinema.
This is hilarious. At The Hollywood Reporter’s Producers Roundtable (just posted online) Revenant producer Steve Golin said this:
“He didn’t actually sleep in any animal carcasses [as DiCaprio said in an interview]. There’s a scene where he sleeps in an animal carcass, but it wasn’t a real animal carcass, and he didn’t sleep in it. He was in it for about two hours.”
LOL
OMG
Leo, Fassbender, Will Smith, Depp, and Damon all competing in one category is thrilling. Such movie stars.
oh man, imagine if Fassbender wins for Steve Jobs… Leo will have lost to the role he passed up on in favor of The Revenent! Damn he’s gonna regret it.
He will lose again, am afraid! If he wants to win, Leo has to follow the example of recent winners and play famous/real person or someone with a disability or illness.
….the Revenant is about a real life person who was mauled by a bear so I fail to see the point you’re making. He hits all those tropes on the head.
2 of his 4 nominations come from playing somebody real (The Aviator) and one with a disability or illness (again, The Aviator and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape). Didn’t work then, not even for J. Edgar, but thank Christ he wasn’t nominated for that.
He played a real life person in Wolf of Wall Street too
exactly…he’s played many real life people and people with disabilities throughout his entire career
I am rooting for Leo this year like some people root for their favorite team at the superbowl! I want to see my favorite actor FINALLY get his due. Just imagining how amazing his speech and moment would be makes me want jump up and down. You can also tell Leo is gonna campaign hard for it this year. However, if Fassbender takes it, I can’t be too mad.
I guess the fame and hundreds of millions and the supermodels just aren’t enough. He needs a little statue and then he will FINALLY be complete.
Sight unseen, this just “feels” like Leo’s year. He’s perceived as pretty overdue (more so than Depp, whose career has been faltering lately, and whose movie hasn’t gone over as well as had been hoped) and the performance looks deep and intense from the trailer. It’s not a super strong year and I don’t think there is a Dallas Buyers Club emotion-hitting transformational type of performance that could stop him this time (maybe Redmayne could have, if he hadn’t just won last year). I do think Fassbender will take a hit for Steve Jobs bombing, but will still get nominated.
So, Fassbender performance which has already being acclaimed will be hit because the film bombed? If you are going judge the performances of an actor on box office, you might as well give the award to Leo. Better still, give it to the Shia Lebeuf for “Transformers” and Kristen Stewart for “Twilight”. Keep the Best Actor award about best performance by an actor in Motion Picture otherwise it will lose its all meaning. It should not be about popularity, Leo should win on merit. I believe he will win someday not jus 2016. Faasbender is an excellent actor and has the best performance out there this year.
People are doubting Ian McKellen and it’s typical. The online crowd rarely taps into what’s popular with the over-60s. Mark my words, he’ll be a contender.
How could anyone see Ian McKellen’s performance and NOT nominate it? And if he is nominated, he’ll win. Yeah, the online crowd consistently sticks to box office names. Anyone else is beyond or beneath their concerns, and they assume the Academy members feel likewise.
Was that performance nominated in the British indie awards or was it not eligible?
Looks like he was “snubbed” in the parlance of Oscarwatchers. Because Milo Parker (the little kid) got a nomination, it looks like McKellen was eligible, but passed over. Their bad
Interesting. The best thing he, Caine, and Redmayne having going for them (other than, yes, their talent) is that they’re British. The British have become such a powerful voting block that it could be that no Amercian actor has a chance unless two Brits are nominated and the Brit vote is split.
So the British have such powerful voting block that no American actor stands a chance? Do the Brits out number the American voting block? it’s just an absurd claim.
There far four influential voting blocs that matter for noms. Director favorites (For example, Scorsese), genre preferences (lately it’s “art house”), the Guilds, and the British bloc. They only make up about 4.5% of the Academy with members, but that alone is almost all the votes necessary to get a movie past minimum 5% threshold for nomination. They have lot of influence when it comes time to pick a winner, too.
It’s xenophobic to make the British a single voting block while divide the American into different blocks. If you are talking national voting blocks, then the American are the most influential when it comes to choosing a winner.
It’s not a matter of outnumbering it’s a matter of nationalism that the rest of the people don’t seem to share. Suppose it came down to a British actor and an American and most people were split 50-50 on who they’d choose based on the performance. Well let’s say the Americans were fair and judged the performance itself, then each actor would get half of the Americans’ votes. But the way I see it, the British don’t play fair and no matter what they think of the performances all the British will vote for one of their own. That way the Briton always wins because he gets all the British votes and some objective thinking Americans. I hope that this year, the Americans lean toward their own because of this. If the Brits are going to always root for the home team, then so should we.
So did all the Brits get in a huddle last year and decide to vote for Eddie Redmayne over Benedict Cumberbatch? I don’t know which is dumber – blind Anglophobia or blind Anglophilia. And how do you explain Peter O’Toole losing 8 times — 6 times to Americans? Zheesh
So you’ve seen the votes and know who they have voted for? A block of less than 5% is not a powerful voting block. They might be able to tip the balance only if it is very, very close but otherwise it’s mostly the Americans who decide the winners.Some Americans are always rooting for their own despite their performance not being the best and that is why Americans win the most awards. The Oscars are an American awards show, and they tend to favour American performers just like BAFTA favours British performers.
That was in the old days. Now they huddle around one gigantic cup of tea to determine who’s the Englishest and then they vote for him/her. Extra points for being “posh”.
Ian McKellen will be nominated. I am sure of it. It’s a beautiful performance by a well-respected actor. He’d get my vote, that’s for sure.
I really wonder. It’s a great performance in a film that received some lovely reviews and did surprisingly well with box office. I really hope it does come back around in some way.
Yes, that would be a good. I hoping and am confident Michael Cain will be nominated for “Youth”, but if he somehow misses out, I hope McKellen takes his spot. I don’t want popular actors Leo, Damon and Depp getting all the nominations. Leo is a good actor and if his performance is as the Trailer indicates, he will get nominated. Damon is an okay actor, but not Oscar winning actor. Depp is capable but needs to show he can act without makeup and masks because he likes to hide behind them.
I think Damon is a great actor, but you’d have to turn to The Talented Mr. Ripley, The Departed, or Behind the Candelabra for award-worthy work, not The Martian. Please no Damon or Depp. Yes to McKellen and Hanks.
I tend to agree with your remarks about Damon. He gave a good performance in The Martian – actually, he really held that movie together. But Best Actor? Nyahh. Don’t think so.
I tend to disagree with your remarks about Johnny Depp in Black Mass. I thought he gave the best performance of his career in this movie. It still haunts me, and I can’t get it out of my mind. His portrayal was as creepy as Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs.
The Martian is the greatest performance of Damon’s career, both technically and emotionally. Yes, even better than Behind the Candelabra, The Departed, and the Talented Mr Ripley. Better than his last nomination, Invictus. And, yes, even better than his first nomination (when he should have won) for Good Will Hunting.
Leo for the win!
Damon.
Fassbender for the win
If you meant Razzie win for his hammy misfire for capture SJ than we agree.
While I anxiously await to see The Revenant, and I know Leo will be great as usual, It is my civic duty to vote for Fassbender because his Steve Jobs is out and he’s simply brilliant. Also consider his Macbeth, he’s THE actor of this season.
Completely 100% objective POV. (points at siggie and ID). 🙂
he is the FLOP of the season. Macbeth is gonna make SJ look like Jurassic World’s boxoffice.
He said Fassbender is “THE actor of this season” not “THE Box Office draw of this season”. Huge difference.
She.
Sorry for the mistake.
well, my statement is correct – that he is the FLOP of the season – while Fassy’s self-praise is incorrect. Tom Hardy is the actor of the season (3 movies, 2 performances already acclaimed, don’t see why he would screw up in Revenant). Domhall Gleeson is the actor of the season (he’s in everything). Etc.
Correction, Tom Hardy had good performance in Legend but sadly, for him, the film hasn’t got good reviews. Mad Max: Fury Road was acclaimed, not the performance of Hardy, which was alright and he wasn’t even the lead. Michael Fassbender is the lead of two acclaimed films and his performance drives both films.
He also sunk those movies cause people clearly don’t buy him and Oscars should move away from critical bubble and start listening to people again. I seriously don’t get the argument that he was acclaimed even though PEOPLE DON’T BUY HIM AS STEVE JOBS. that’s a failure right there.
Apparently what has sunk it was that people don’t know who he is. So people didn’t see the film in the cinema to judge whether he was convincing enough or not, but they somehow made up their mind that they don’t buy him? He doesn’t look like Steve Jobs, I agree, but to say he is no convincing, is just absurd. The film, and especially Fassbenders performance, is acclaimed, but that has nothing to do with how the film did at box office. The public just didn’t want to see it. Perhaps it was the concept or the star of the film, or maybe both.
What’s popular isn’t necessarily good and what good isn’t necessarily popular. Some of best films ever made bombed at the box office and some of the highest grossing films are utter crap.
And crap sometimes wins the awards, too.
The best film or performance may not always win the awards, but they are certainly not crap. The Worst films which have won the Best Picture at the Oscars are still way better than the likes of “Transformers”, Twilight” and similar big box office juggernauts.
If you want some entertaining light reading google “worst Oscar wins”.
people saw what a crap Steve Jobs he is in trailers and stirred clear. Those who saw the movie clearly didn’t spread positive buzz. remember, the movie was in theaters before expansion so some WOM had to form. And when it finally hit 2400+ theatres, it dropped 62% in its second weekend. That means WOM is toxic. In comparison, Burnt, which is critically panned, opened just as low but had only 42.3% meaning that WOM is better than critical reception.
Fassbender is crap Steve Jobs. I don’t care how great his performance is isolated form SJ context, just ability to memorize 197 pages of text and then read it in rapid fire, he’s a crap Steve Jobs. Steve Nobs.
So “Steve Jobs” is like “Life of Brian” to you. Oh, I get it now! Relax, it was just a story.
Maybe subject was the problem, because they made a film about Steve Jobs three years ago with his look alike, Ashton Kutcher, playing the title character but the public didn’t seem interested in that one either. Like it or hate, but the film and especially Fassbender’s performance was acclaimed by the critics. The public doesn’t get a vote on the Oscars and other big awards, and that is where Fassbender is rated and what matters. Steve Jobs was not the Messiah, he was just a naughty boy.
AMPAS is closer to public and I hope that they’ll reject that Sorkinese-spouting automaton and award an actor who is the whole package = raves + resonance. Fassbender didn’t resonate at all. His performance only works isolated from the context that he’s playing Steve Jobs – hits all technical points which regular movie goers don’t care about critics put overt emphasis on. But he is terrible Steve Jobs, completely missed the mark. if Grammy’s have no problem giving Best Artist awards to singers who aren’t technically proficient as some of their competitors but resonate much more and make great music, Oscars can too.
You are not a fan of Fassbender, we get that. Eating you up inside, that he might win a Best Actor Oscar. You seem to think people can judge a film and an actors performance by watching a couple of minutes trailer. You also claim to know more about a good film and performance better than film critics and film makers. I have news for you, Fassbender is an accomplished actor who has won acclaim for his role in “Hunger”, “Shame”, “12 Years A Slave”, “Steve Jobs” and “Macbeth”. He is the top actor at the moment and is set to crown it all with an Oscar.
No, he will not win. I know that he could cause snobs want him to win but I hope that reason will prevail and this awful, miscast performance won’t be awarded. The year may be weak but not that weak.
I think he will get two nominations at the BAFTA awards, “Steve Jobs” and “Macbeth”, and that will seal his slam dunk win at the Oscars too.
You mean BAFTA that awarded taxi driver when frontrunner Leto was absent from nominations? OK. I could see scenario where he only gets in for Macbeth. By the way, BAFTA nominated Scarlett for LIT and Girl with the Pearl Earring. we know how that one ended.
But lets say he wins…in the weakest year ever because it was the weakest year ever. ironic isn’t it? we hear all the hype about powerhouse and what not yet he won in the weakest year ever cause the field was so weak and someone had to win so AMPAS went with the baitiest role. LOL.
I saw the film on opening day based on how excited the trailer made me. And I had serious doubts about Fassbender choosing another biopic picture. But then I am a writer, and I appreciate Sorkin’s wordsmithing. I also appreciate actors who are able to do it justice.
And Fassbender was able to do that in spades. I couldn’t take my eyes from him. I completely bought him as Jobs. And as soon as I wiped the tears from my eyes at the end of the film, I started spreading the word about the unique success of this film. It was spellbinding without one fight scene, one CGI, or any naked women. It was an adult story told in a compelling manner which explored the strengths and weaknesses of genius.
It’s not a film for everyone. But the performances are fierce and fearless.
Have to disagree 100%. He isn’t Jobs. he’s some Sorkin character but not Jobs. And considering lack of interest in the movie and disastrous drops, WOM is toxic and your evidence is purely anecdotal. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, just saying that he missed with more people than he hit. Also, what does fearless even mean? he speaks tons of dialog, OK, many actors do that, big deal. I’m sick of words brave and fearless attached to him every time he burps. In the age of easily downloadable porn, he appears in an NC-17 movie and that’s fearless and brave? LOL, hyperbole much. Talks a lot in the movie, that’s “brave” but when 1000+ other actors do that it’s not. Etc. No wonder he doesn’t resonate with general public. Too remote, too overrated (most people don’t get the hype cause starring in borderline porn doesn’t impress them nor it should), too cold.
We’ll agree to disagree but I guess he’s winning in the end cause rumor has it that industry likes his movie and doesn’t care for Bombgate, that’s Internet thing. But then, Nat didn’t speak to thousands of people and whoever he speaks to feeds him whatever agenda they push.
You obviously know a lot about the industry. Can you unpack that last paragraph for me? I don’t understand the references to ‘bombgate’ or who Nat is. Thanks!
And I guess we will have to disagree because I thought Shame was a searing look at the modern life of addiction in many forms. The vehicle was sex addiction, but it could have easily been about alcohol, drugs, or other drugs like shopping or gambling. Plus the film is interesting to look at. Definitely art house fare.
Shame was boring and awful. Incestuous sister, WTF? That’s your modern life of addiction? really? Borderline porn that doesn’t impress anyone with brain because porn is everywhere.
Nat of The Film Experience Net. He does Oscar gossip/buzz.
BombGate = Steve Jobs bombage that launched thousand think pieces.
The incest is implied at best. It’s never stated explicitly not is it mentioned in veiled comments. They could as easily be discussing an abusive parent or other adult figure in their childhood. They are definitely very damaged.
The modern addiction story is excess. Addiction to an excess of anything because Western culture lives in excess. It’s become the norm unfortunately. Brandon is a sex addict. His sister has an addiction to men who treat her like shit. The boss fugure is addicted to feeling powerful. And too much of our modern world is set up to cater to excess and addiction instead of moderation and self-control.
Oh, and calling Shame porn is like saying rush hour traffic is an amusement ride. It’s sex devoid of anything sexy or sensual. Not that porn aims to be good, but Shame is almost clinical.
Clinical is best description of fassbender, his screen presence and acting. Totally devoid of resonance which is why artificial intelligence was his most perfect blend of actor and role to date.
So people don’t know who “the actor of the season” is? Sorry, but you’re kicking your own ass at this point.
Michael Fassbender isn’t yet a big name in the US, even though he starred in the Ex-men franchise. That was one the reasons given why people didn’t bother seeing “Steve Job” in the cinema. This hasn’t nothing to do with his performances and the acclaim he received from critics. Taking huge money at the Box office isn’t based on good performances and good performances aren’t based on huge box office takings either.
smh
I’m smh at such self-promotion, Fass. You must be truly desperate with so bombs to your credit.
LOL! you are such a moron and are truly threatened by Michael Fassbender’s genius in Steve Jobs, a film, you probably haven’t even seen. Come visit my blog at http://www.fassinatingfassbender.com, I’ve been here at AD since 2009ish.
LOl, his genius flopped the movie and didn’t get career best or “give him Oscah” reviews. And yes, I think his win would be terrible because he was like a motor mouth puppet in the movie. Not Steve Jobs.
Girl, you are trolling hard for Leo. Continue to masterbate in his honor.
I don’t have to troll for anyone. Fassbomb detonated himself when he decided to act like Oscar begging Fassbender and not like Steve Jobs. And my pick is Damon cause it’s about time that great genre performance in a great populist genre movie wins. hasn’t happened since Gladiator. of course, if Leo’s iconic I won’t complain cause winning for fighting a bear is also unheard of.
BTW, I read your blog and the blog about SJ expected to top the boxoffice had me rolling on the floor. Thanks for pointing it out. I’m gonna check it on regular basis for more comedy gold.
I wish “Legend” had better reviews because Tom Hardy is getting extremely high praise for his dual performance (with the odd critique thrown in here & there) and I think the film will do decently with the box office.
Lead Actor really IS a fun clusterf*ck.
It will get trickier yet when CRITICS weigh-in with notices for people like Rohrig/Attah/Trembly/Caine/Carell, etc. and realllllllllly shake-up the pre-destined Fassbender/Redmayne/Depp trifecta.
The you have seemingly safe-bets like DiCaprio and Damon. Late-breaking Sam L. Jackson may make waves. And Hanks/Smith/McKellen/Cranston won’t go away quietly.
Who the heck knows!!!??!! Fun times.
well, Smith is getting alright reviews at the moment so that one’s on the bubble too. he is a big campaigner, though.
Does anyone think The Big Short will be remotely award-worthy?
Some think it will be in acting (Carrel, not much buzz for others except that bale is great but too small role to make a dent). I’m not convinced because it looks like Poor Man’s WOWS to me. But trailers can be deceiving.
So hard to tell just yet
Agreed on that lol. Such a clusterf**k every year and the most fun to discuss every year.
Lead actor is good fun to discuss!
Oh, also. You should add Bryan Cranston. He’s working HARD for Trumbo and he’s a sure-bet nominee for the Comedy Globe and could possibly beat Damon for it. That’ll raise his heat in the Oscar race, especially if he continues to campaign as hard as he is.
I love Cranston and Trumbo looks like a fun film. I wold love it if he could pull off a nomination but I haven’t seen any buzz about Trumbo at all and I feel like we would have heard some if he was gonna make it in.
I think there will be a surprise or two, but I don’t think it will be Cranston.
disappointed to not see Geza Rohrig and Tom Courtenay among the choices in the poll. Both are far more likely than Tobey Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal and John Cusack.
TWC is pushing Samuel L. Jackson as Lead, not Russell.
This is true
Ugh are they fucking dumb. Well that just blew my original predictions for supporting actor and put a wrench in a lot of things. Dammit back to the drawing board that is so annoying ruined my day
Didn’t Theory of Everything have Felicity Jones for Best Lead Actress?
Otherwise, great article!
For Golden Globes, Lead Actor in a Drama feels crowded, suddenly:
Leo DiCaprio – they love him.
Michael Fassbender – I believe he’ll be in. They’ve nommed him several times.
Eddie Redmayne – I still think he’s in a strong position. Feels like a HPFA film.
Johnny Depp – a star who happens to be a HPFA fave in a decent drama. No brainer nom?
Matt Damon – Or is it going Comedy? a star and HPFA fave in a massive, well-reviewed hit.
Tom Hanks – a star who happens to be a HPFA fave. Are we just underestimating him???
Will Smith – feels like he will show up here, if anywhere. A star in a heavy drama.
Michael B. Jordan – Could surprise in a nice way.
Steve Carell – Or is it going Comedy?
Caine/McKellen (are these films Drama?) – HPFA faves, the Brit vote, the veteran vote?
Will this be the year that there’s a random “6” nom field at the Globes?
I personally find it fairly difficult to narrow down a definitive “5” there.
Martian will def be pushed to comedy. and Damon will win that.
Damon will be in comedy at HFPA, but I think he will have cometition from Cranston and Carrell (the bigger threat).
Tom Hanks is out there working it in his Hanksian way. Probably the only one electioneering as hard as Leo.
Redmayne is again Remarkable in his role, no way he is not in, Fassbender probably should’ve won supporting already, and deserved one or two lead nominations that he was over looked for, He is a great actor and deserving this year for jobs, he’s in. Leo is a good actor, but his best performance to date was for Wolf of Wall Street, and he is not a given, he has been over looked several times before is he isn’t spot on, and sometimes he isn’t! Cranston deserves a spot and is Fantastic in Trumbo, Damon is a VERY likable actor, who is not a GREAT actor, just good, he has won already and doesn’t deserve anything else unless he truly floors us. Depp did very well with another of his great Characters, but sometimes he boarders with over the top characters, rather than relatable REAL people performances. Greatly overlooked so far is Tom Hardy, who is FABULOUS playing twins in Legend, Terrific performance and Definitely should be in the mix. Ian is a great actor who makes any role he does better. Tom Hanks is Always good, and sometimes great, He’s good in Lies, the Killer performance there is the finely nuanced Mark Rylance who owns that movie. Michael Caine is also always good, and he is fine in a movie that a lot of people won’t like or get. So Fassbender and Redmayne should be LOCKS, Hardy deserves to be in there, and the last slot goes to either Leo if he’s great, Depp, McKellen, Hanks, or Caine.
Michael Fassbender in Steve Jobs
Eddie Redmayne in The Danish Girl
Bryan Cranston in Trumbo
Tom Hardy in Legend
and either Leonardo, Depp, McKellen, or Caine
lol at some of those predictions,
I like your way of thinking.
Not for nothing but Sasha hasn’t been overlooking Tom Hardy. Trust me, I’ve been watching her like a hawk. lol
Will Bradley Cooper be going lead or supporting for Joy ?
Supporting and he ain’t getting in. Too small a role, no character arc. if anyone gets it it’ll be DeNiro but now that the movie’s officially Pg-13 instead of R as intended, it’s possible that his role was trimmed too. It’s Jlaw show, she’s the stand out, everyone else deeply in her shadow.
Supporting, 100%
The film is all about J-Law. She’s the only lead.
Best Actor is so weak this year. The majority of the contenders seem like fillers and would not be in conversation in a better year, like last year. I continue saying that Leo can win this with no hard work, with his eyes closed. And a lot of people finally saw that this year is dry: that’s why Tom Courtenay and Samuel L. Jackson were switched to Best Actor category: because there’s room for them! I hope the same happens with Jacob Tremblay.
Having said that, of the ones being considered for a nomination, the one lead male performance I love this year is Michael Caine in Youth. Depp is good in Black Mass but it is trying too hard to make this a legit Oscar worthy performance.
It’s so frustrating that Jake Gyllenhaal, David Oyelowo and Miles Teller performances came out last year. They look so superior to the ones of this year.
I had that thought recently, that if ‘Selma’ and ‘Nightcrawler’ had been released this year they definitely would have been nominated. This year isn’t as competitive as previous years as far as ‘Best Actor’ goes.
No. Movies and people that aren’t meant to win aren’t meant to win in any scenario.
Oh please.
Birdman would not have won most years, that’s awfully clear.
well, it won so what’s the point? I think it’s total sour grapes when people try to validate their failed winners with “in so and so year, so and so movie/actor/director would have won” or “so and so came in second in voting process.” They wouldn’t have won because when you change one thing, you change everything. if lets say Selma was released this year, something else that would prevent it from winning would be released. or maybe it already is released/will be released in December. Same goes for actors. Etc. Wishful thinking (and “what if” is classic form of wishful thinking) doesn’t change the fact that they didn’t win. And they didn’t win cause AMPAS felt something else should win for whatever reason (liked it better, felt it was important, etc).
Birdman won last year because its team knew like a master how to play the game in which they were inserted. They figured out how the year was shaping and had a good strategy to face the conditions. It did not win due to a weak year, which wasn’t the case of 2014.
I would agree concerning Selma for sure. More time for buzz-building for many categories, Oyelowo would have bigtime buzz, almost assured of a nom.
Not sure about Nightcrawler. I’d love to think that Jake and Renee would have had a better shot this year. But I don’t know if it would have struck the iron hot this year like it freakishly did last year.
Completely agree with your last statement!
What are you talking about? I thought recently the Oscar were rewarding impersonation or characters with disabilities or illness. The exception is Marion Cottilard in “La vie En Rose”, which was beyond acting. Fassbender doesn’t impersonate or look like”Steve Jobs”, and just plays the character. How many actors who were rarely lauded for their performances or nominated got Oscar by impersonating famous/real people in recent years?
Samuel l. jackson should of stayed his ass in supporting actor where he would of been a sure nom. Now that he switched I see no chance of him being in this race.
Have faith. I think it’s a good move. They’ll have a career to award there. Think about it.
Good point. You might be right: Cherry/Antoinette.:p
I just want Michael Fassbender to win that Oscar so badly. He couldn’t possibly deserve it more, he’s a genius of an actor with so many extraordinary performances worthy of this award throughout his astonishing career thus far that the thing is just ridiculous. And of course, to say that that’s something that could be said as well for DiCaprio is actually an undestatement. Leonardo DiCaprio should have won much more than just one Oscar already. Watching him winning for The Revenant will be amazing but I have my doubts. There’s been a couple of months since I saw Justin Kurzel’s Macbeth with Fassbender and I’m in awe of what he achieved there and even though Steve Jobs is clearly the film that might finally earn him at least a nomination in the Lead Actor category, the possibility of him winning feels really exciting. He’s clearly phenomenal as always in Boyle’s film and I really can’t wait to finally watch it.
I love your support for Fassbender, because he’s not a blockbuster A-lister well known actor like Leo, he is being dismissed by Leo’s stans and rival studio puppets. I have a theory that his performance in Macbeth will help seal the deal for Michael Fassbender this year. He does deserve that Oscar, he should have been nominated and WON for Shame, but AMPAS couldn’t deal with male nudity. Leo could never do full frontal, but Michael Fassbender will do whatever it takes to get the job done. And considering he pulled out for Steve Jobs, it couldn’t be more apt for Fassbender to take the Oscar. Like I said, I love Leo too, he should have several Oscars, but… I really think Fassbender got this!
Exactly, couldn’t agree more with everything you say here. It’s a real SHAME that he wasn’t even nominated for his electrifying turn in Steve McQueen’s masterpiece of the same name, I mean Jesus Christ, the man is just incredible and although I fully support Leonardo DiCaprio I think The Revenant might be too grim and therefore possibly not that Oscar-friendly (I’m always furious even with myself when I say things like that because I wish those stereotypes would finally be erased when it comes to rewarding the best in any respective year from the Academy). In the end, it doesn’t matter, both Fassbender and DiCaprio will go down in history as two of the greatest actors of all time, but I’d really love to see one of them finally winning this year. Fassbender looks amazing in Steve Jobs, I really do wish I could watch the film immediately.
Too bad Fassbender refuses to campaign… while Leo is gonna pull out all the stops in terms of campaigning and be very visible this season.
That’s true. But at the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. You watch a performance like the one Fassbender gives in Hunger, Shame or Macbeth and you go “Man, he’s just such an insanely great actor it doesn’t really matter if he wins an Oscar or not because he’s earned his place among the greatest actors of all time.” Still, it would be amazing to watch him winning. Obviously, watching Leonardo DiCaprio finally as an Oscar winner would be fantastic. If The Revenant is the film that will allow him to do that, it would be great.
campaigning does matter tremendously if you want a win
I almost always find Di Caprio Oscar worthy but I want to wait and see the movie. Right now I would vote for Michael Keaton for best lead in Spotlight. It is not a supporting role even if Spotlight is an ensemble piece. I really hope Keaton can bring home lead or supporting anyway because his truthful subtle work in Spotlight is a towering achievement in acting.
Leo can’t touch Michael Fassbender in “Steve Jobs” and if someone else wins, it will be the biggest Oscar robbery ever. Michael Keaton should’ve won last year but lost to generic acting. Play someone famous or disable and you are sure to win. Fassbender performance is not an impression of Jobs, he brings his character to live only through his performance. It’s a whole new way of playing famous people. Fassbender acts, not do impersonation.
Fassbender and any other performance in Steve Jobs is not worthy of a nomination in my opinion. Characters poorly written and 0,5 dimensional. Steve Jobs portrait is the most disappointing in the film, together with his daughter. Both Jobs and the daughter are not a well developed character, not at all! She is just the daughter!!!! That is bad on so many levels, especially when you are telling the story of real people and the title of the movie is the first and last name of the father of that particular daughter. For me everything in this film became even more irritating because of the unfortunate repetitive structure: Sorkin kept repeating and repeating this father daughter gimmick relationship during the entire film not even bothering giving this poor real girl a fictional personality! Fassbender performance is not helping this flat uninspiring relationship father daughter, it felt the whole time like: scene done, what’s the next one to play?
I’m such an Aaron Sorkin fan. the Social Network, the West Wing, A Few Good Men are among my all time favourites, but this Steve Jobs movie is just wordy and irrelevant in the most disappointing way
This is interesting AkuMax. I haven’t seen the film and going on what everyone else has been saying, or better yet not saying, I haven’t had Keaton on my list. He’s already been on talk shows this week promoting the film and of course he’s hilarious. I hope you’re right about this. *does ‘the side dish’*
I guess the camp of another actor must agree that Damon’s in. Hence, the recent – utterly unfounded – tabloid smears attacking his marriage. Classy.
This is Leo’s. He will finally be lucky to be a strong contender in a weak field.
I’m curious about Will Smith. He could come out like Bradley Cooper for American Sniper in the end.
Preach..Leo should win this time.
Leo doesn’t have a right to be nominated let alone win it. He has to ear by giving the best performance out there. Like every year he was nominated, there is a better performance and this time it is Michael Fassbender in “Steve Jobs”,
Smith reviews are in and they are good but not undeniable. But no actor’s got undeniable reviews yet this year so the race is still wide open. he’ll campaign, though, and concussion has good boxoffice prospect.
Coming out of Steve Jobs, I put Fassbender as my #2 Best Actor, behind the dual performance of John Cusack and Paul Dano. But after reconsideration, I bumped to #3, behind Ian McKellen. It’s a very good performance but not quite a resonant one.
Micaelh Fassbender has the best performance and he will win. Fuck the box office.
Fuck the box office and the people too stupid to be bothered with a film like Steve Jobs. There is also Macbeth where Michael excels and will only help in serving additional proof of his leading man status. Yes, Fuck the box office and watch the goddamn movie instead.
What I just don’t get — didn’t Tom Hanks clearly turn in a better, more accomplished, nuanced, and elegant performance than, say, Matt Damon? (Okay I guess some people here would say no. It seems awfully clear to me anyway.) Isn’t it an astonishingly professional and classical role that the Academy would respond to? And isn’t he in a movie that is pretty universally liked? Thus don’t we have reason to expect his name to show up in the major precursors?
I guess the counter-argument would be, it’s too Hanks. It’s Tom Hanks through and through. To which I would respond: no one else can be Tom Hanks. Others try but don’t succeed.
Hanks is good, unimpeachably so in BoS. But not in a way that may be surprising for Hanks. He was even more memorably brilliant in both Captain Phillips and Saving Mr. Banks, in ways that were more indelible, or had more unique facets or “moments’. And yet he got nominated for neither. This may not be fair, but maybe the Academy sees Hanks as well enough rewarded and takes him for granted?
Yes, seems right. Though I wonder if there’s also the sense that he’s been snubbed for his later performances (notably, Captain Phillips). I mean, he’s been rewarded, but that was also over 20 years ago.
Plus, it’s a weak year for actor, and predictors may be thinking back to those snubs and assuming that’ll happen again, not seeing just how widely and profoundly admired he is by AMPAS actors.
I think of Brad Pitt’s understated very-much-himself performance in Moneyball, which he played perfectly and for which he was rightly awarded a nomination. Why? Because actors appreciate those kinds of graceful performances. That’s how critics have talked about Hanks in BoS, and I believe fellow actors see this performance that way as well. So if there was a betting market, I’d definitely buy on Hanks now.
I don’t think that Tom Hanks will not be nominated this time since he didn’t get nominated for a much better performance in “Captain Philips”.
Hanks and Damon have the same issue — they’re less playing roles than they’re playing versions of their own established persona. Hanks is playing yet another decent man trying to do the right thing and be fair to everyone; Damon is playing a laid-back, funny yet smart guy. It’s possible voters could be both as ‘nothing special’ and not very ‘actor-y,’ though at the end of the day, I suspect Damon is indeed getting nominated.
They are believable as their respective characters unlike Fassbender who totally fails as Steve Jobs and comes off as someone putting on a stage show that you wouldn’t know was about SJ if there wasn’t title card with the name. You can call Hanks and Damon “versions of their established persona” but people buy those “established personas” as characters at hand. They believe in Mark Watney. They don’t believe in Fassbender’s Steve Jobs. There.
Critics bubble needs to go away. Oscars are in dire need to award a great populist movie and a great populist performance since critics bubble wins earned them bad rap and people watch less and less. The Martian, Scott and Damon are worthy contenders.
BTW, disappearing into character is a myth. I hear over and over what a chameleon Blanchett is but I always predict all her mannerisms and gestures and dramatic pauses, etc because they are always the same. She has certain formula that stick to every time. For me, she also plays versions of her persona and every actor/actress does, really. It’s just that it works when they are cast well and doesn’t when they are miscast.
I LOVED Michael Fassbender’s performance in Steve Jobs (and in the bound-to-be-overlooked Macbeth) and I would be very pleased if the Academy at last recognised him as a leading man, but I must admit, I am definitely afraid the film is in trouble : BO is utterly awful and below the lowest of expectations, fuelling a bunch of articles that identify “studio flop” with this film (not exactly what you would want your “winner” to be known as), there is also some controversy (“he was an asshole but how dare you say that he was”) and the fucking lazy though unfortunately probably effective to an extent, notion that “he doesn’t look like him therefore his performance is not impressive at all”. There is no doubt in my mind that Fassbender absolutely DESERVES to be nominated, unfortunately I have serious doubts that the Academy can look past the kind of damaging factors they tend to run away from.
BLIND GUESS
1. Leonardo Dicaprio (The Revenant) – Widely and infamously considered long overdue + epic role/film ?
2. Matt Damon (The Martian) – The film and the role is just too popular to be ignored.
3. Johnny Depp (Black Mass) – Iconic role + already annoying though nonetheless effective “comeback narrative”
4. Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl) – After month of fading buzz, the film is now poised for a mini-comeback.
5. Ian McKellen (Mr. Holmes) – Living legends playing iconic roles in well-received films rarely get ignored
MAJOR THREATS : Michael Fassbender, Tom Hanks, Will Smith
DON’T COUNT OUT JUST YET : Bryan Cranston, Geza Rohr
WATCH OUT FOR THE UNDERESTIMATED UNSEENS : Chris Hemsworth, Chiwetel Ejiofor
Underestimated unseens are not happening cause there’s ZERO buzz. At this point some buzz has to build and they have none.
I think that Smith has better shot than Depp and Redmayne since the former’s buzz died down somewhat while the latter’s in the shadow of Vikander and didn’t get too great notices from TIFF. Also watch out for MBJ in Creed, SLJ in H8ful 8 and that guy from Rempling movie. They are all going lead. I wouldn’t write off a crazy surprise such as Tremblay either. He’s a co-lead in Room and AMPAS likes to throw a bone to kids sometimes (though that mostly worked for girls).
Creed needs raves to be taken seriously and SLJ has to campaign if he want to get a lead (!) nod for a controversial Tarantino pic. I think Courtenay is going supporting and so is Tremblay, clearly both are category frauds, ones the Academy could correct if they wanted to (they rarely do, though). We disagree about Depp and Redmayne : former is a huge star willing to campaign for a critically acclaimed, VERY flashy performance and latter did get great notices out of TIFF, it was his film that got a mixed bag.
Courtney is officially going lead. So is SLJ. You are behind with news. 🙂 Also, Creed is getting stellar insider buzz including “Could Sly upset in supporting?” We’ll know soon enough. But yes, 2 critics said it was fantastic.
No, you can’t link an actor’s performance with how well his film does at box office, his performance whether good or bad stand on its own.
I couldn’t because I wouldn’t want to. That doesn’t mean the Academy won’t. It’s not like they haven’t before…
Oh FFS enough with attempts to keep Fassbender in the race. SJ isn’t one of his better performances, he was just doing Sorkin rapid-fire line readings without becoming the character. Just stop pundits, critics, bloggers, etc. There are other contenders who captured their characters. If Fassbender misses out it won’t be a shame cause someone worthier will get in. Only reasons why predictors are holding onto him despite toxic buzz are a) weakness of BA field, b) assumed baitiness of his role (though with very loud drumming that nobody cares about SJ I don’t see how the role’s still considered baity) and c) inability to get over his snub for Shame (this performance is NO Shame, get over it, it’s NO Shame, it isn’t even his Top 20, there!).
That photo is a proof that he shouldn’t get a nomination let alone win. He isn’t SJ, end of. That’s why the movie bombed.
Oh, he doesn’t look like Steve Jobs….. blah blah. Stop crying and watch Fassbender win it all.
he’s not winning unless he shamelessly camapighns for that lame performance. But, hey, Redmayne is campaigning despite blah reviews so I’m not underestimating thirst.
He doesn’t look like SJ and doesn’t act like SJ. You wouldn’t know he was playing SJ if there wasn’t SJ name in the title. he’s acting like Fassbender trying to impresses critical circle jerk. Audiences are right for rejecting him.
My predicted five:
1. Di Caprio
2. Damon
3. Redmayne
4. Fassbender
5. Smith
Good list. Looking likely. DiCaprio seems strong. Redmayne will campaign a lot and has a good narrative. Damon may coast on through. Fassbender is clinging on. Depp is sorta trying for the nom, but may fall right out. McKellen should make it, but he and Caine seem at a low boil right now. That leaves the 5 you mentioned, as far as I see it.
Hahhahahha. It’s Micahel Fassbender all the way! It’s not even close. Leo Dicaprio cannot touch Fassbender.
I don’t know if The Martian will be that beloved. If my dad’s girlfriend is asking silly questions like “Why would they send several astronauts to save one person.”, who knows if the Academy will be asking the same thing. Hopefully they would be sane enough to realize the shitstorm that Daniels would go through after saying “Nah we’re just gonna let him die.”
I don’t think this is the most interesting year though. Sometimes they will make inspired picks like most of 2011’s slate and most of 2013’s slate, but last year was playing in safe in the actor nominees. I’d like to see an actor hold a screening for Ben Mendelsohn’s work in Mississippi Grind or for Jason Segel in The End of the Tour. Probably won’t happen and I don’t think putting Segel in supporting will do him any favors.
I like Mendelsohn and Siegel’s performances, but they’re the type that seem like good contenders in September. Stick them in an actual competitive category and I don’t think they’ll hold up so well.
After seeing the last trailer for CONCUSSION, I feel like Will Smith could be flying under the radar a little. I also was happy to hear that Samuel L. Jackson is going to be Lead for THE HATEFUL EIGHT. Otherwise, I personally think the only two safe bets are Johnny Depp and Matt Damon. I like guessing Tom Hardy for LEGEND because the trailers have made it look like he should be nominated based just on personality and showmanship and then he’s playing two roles. I love Leonardo DiCaprio as much as the next person, and would love for him to win an Oscar, but I don’t understand why he’s a given at this point. The trailers remind me of a previous Leo performance just placed in a different setting. I don’t know what a TRUMBO is exactly, but Bryan Cranston is everyone’s favorite person. And we all love Jake but why in God’s name is he up there for the damnable SOUTHPAW?
Tom Hardy will probably put all his efforts behind The Revenant so he won’t be nominated for Legend. Southpaw had a bad script, but Gyllenhaal was good. I don’t think he’ll go farther than the Globes, though.
I am surprised SLJ is going lead. Oscar voters will only put 1 African American in a category and Smith’s role looks more bait-y.
Couldn’t Hardy campaign for both films? Lead for Legend and supporting for Revenant?
I don’t agree at all that “only one black actor can be nominated,” that’s silly. I think SLJ is an under-the-radar contender since he’s so universally respected and some might think he’s overdue for at least another nomination, if maybe not the win. In my opinion, Jackson should have at least one Oscar on his shelf already after being snubbed for Django Unchained.
Hardy can campaign for both. I just think Legend will be a nonstarter in the US. He has never been nominated for an Oscar. Voter favorites like Innaritu and Dicaprio might finally make Academy members notice him.
Oscar voters will only put 1 African American in a category
2001: Denzel Washington and Will Smith
2006: Forest Whitaker and Will Smith
In fact, it looks like Will Smith ONLY gets nominated when another African-American will be joining him in the lineup. Great news for Samuel L. Jackson!!
Good point. I didn’t go back far enough.
I am the only one not overwhelmed by The Martian?
I was just saying to all the people of the universe earlier today, “That poor George Golden. He doesn’t know. tsk, tsk.”
It’s not an overwhelming movie, it’s just that everyone likes it because it’s happy and it’s good. Like the Beatles. Everyone likes the Beatles, but probably most people would pick a different group as their personal favorite if you asked them out of the blue. But if they made a definitive list of the best groups of all time I think most people would expect the Beatles to be number one and next to no one would argue about it. I even like the Monkees better myself, but hey.
Hey.
Except plenty of people would argue that in the scheme of things, The Beatles deserve to be called the greatest. Plenty would understand that to be the proper judgment. My skepticism about The Martian is that people might say “I loved it!” or “It was great!” But not “It is a great film.” When you ask people to evaluate it (and Oscar-voters take this job seriously), I don’t think they argue it deserves the highest honors. That’s my view.
‘My skepticism about The Martian is that people might say “I loved it!” or “It was great!” But not “It is a great film.” ‘
True. But I think that The Martian is a particularly well-conceived and executed film in that it allows that type of response from certain sections of the audience while still maintaining an integrity and depth for those who are disposed to engage at a different level. I’d cite Kubrick’s 2001- A Space Odyssey as another example. Lots of people just let it wash over them and ‘loved it’ … but you’d hardly call it lowbrow or popcorn fare because of that.
I don’t understand the comparison. One is clearly groundbreaking high art while the other is crowd-pleasing mass entertainment which, I agree, is smart enough to not be considered lowbrow, but it’s familiar enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I don’t think that the crowds who let 2001 wash over them and loved it are the same crowds who did the same with The Martian. I really don’t get how they’re similar at all beyond taking place in space.
Read again. I didn’t say that they were the ‘same crowds’, but rather that the audiences for both films comprised ‘certain sections’ who could appreciate the material on a basic wash-over level, as well as others that could tap in to something deeper.
Both films share the quality of being appealing to the crowd while also being capable of appreciation on a deeper level. In the case of Kubrick’s film a much deeper level. Kubrick’s film is, of course, superior to The Martian, but it’s easy to dismiss The Martian because some people can easily get attracted and preoccupied by its surface. Yes – I could have chosen another film to make a similar comparison (e.g. Birdman, Sunset Boulevard..), but why not this?
I understood all of that. I mispoke. By same crowds I meant same reasons. But I still think it’s a surface level comparison because of how much deeper and greater 2001 is compared to The Martian. I get what you’re going for; my complaint is just that I believe you could have picked literally any basically great movie, which all should have the same properties you’re attributing to The Martian, but to compare The Martian to an actual masterpiece hurts my delicate sensibilities. Argo, for example, is a much better comparison. In the grand scheme of things, I just don’t think The Martian is going to make much of a dent.
Not saying it’s a masterpiece – very few films, plays, sculptures, whatever, really are. Just like the term ‘genius’ we use the description far too readily. However, Ridley Scott does some masterly things here and would rightly be a contender for BD. As for the comparison with Argo – surely not. Argo is more to be compared with The King’s Speech.
The comparison stands. Like you, I prefer 2001 to The Martian but that doesn’t mean that the relative comparison of surface v depth doesn’t hold true. You are arguing for something different i.e. which is the better/greater/more meaningful film.
I get you, and I agree that both films can be appreciated for their surface as well as their depth, but I’m not arguing about what you think I am, though maybe I’m doing a poor job of getting my point across. What I feel I’m actually arguing is that all great movies – whether they’re masterpieces or merely great movies – most likely can be enjoyed by different viewers for their surface or their depth or both at once. I just think of that as a given. So if that is true, then my reaction is that bringing 2001 into the conversation is like bringing Citizen Kane or Vertigo or anything of that stature into the mix (i.e., why do it when it’s a given?) when something more middle of the road like Argo would be a much more apt comparison that displays that not all crowdpleasers are super-stupid. Regardless of our personal thoughts on Argo, I surely think that many
could easily argue that it has a nice surface as well as potential
depth. PS – I like Argo enough, but don’t care for The King’s Speech.
This is a pointless conversation because all I’m really saying is that I’m very uncomfortable with the comparison. The part of your original statement that I suppose I’m uncomfortable with is the last sentence about not calling it lowbrow or popcorn fare just because some people purely let it wash over them. There’s an obvious reason why you wouldn’t do that with 2001 but might do that with The Martian, and that reason doesn’t rest with their difference in quality but with their aspirations, their tone, etc. That’s where I’m coming from.
I hear what you’re saying but I disagree for reasons already stated – however, I think we’re fated to keep on ‘talking past’ each other on this one, lol. Over and out.
I couldn’t stand Matt Damon’s smug self.
Just came across this article after hearing that Steve Jobs has today been pulled from over 2000 theaters. I think this film is practically done at this point in terms of winning anything, and I agree with a poster below that the buzz around the movie has become very toxic. Except for critics, everyone has completely bypassed the merits of the film and is now dissecting what went wrong with it. When the mainstream discussion about a film centers around why it needed to be made in the first place, there is something wrong. This has now become the popular narrative of this film going into awards season- not the story or the man, but the failure of the film itself. That to me is not BP or BA material (or anything else for that matter).
Sasha, that’s not what I said at all. I said he was vulnerable and that I have at #5. I didn’t say he wasn’t getting nominated. I said I think the film isn’t.
I remember when the internet had Fassbender being Oscar nominated for Shame and he lost out. I think the SJ flop may mean Universal puts more money/effort behind Straight Outta Compton or Trainwreck (The Danish Girl is also theirs through Focus Pictures). Fassbender still has a chance, though, because the category is so weak. Gyllenhaal is doing the best work of his career but he keeps getting overlooked by Oscar voters.
I am trying to pay attention to the campaigns so right now my list would be Dicaprio, Depp, Redmayne, Smith, and Hanks.
Great read! I must say, I have a very hard time seeing Redmayne miss. This category is pretty empty and afterglow nominations happen a lot. He’s campaigning hard (even got Laverne Cox to attend a screening and be interviewed with him, lol), has good reviews and a baity role. Also, I don’t think Danish Girl is as dead as some are saying– despite buzz around the film not being as strong as expected, it still has good reviews and will likely be pushed as Focus’s number one priority. and if Vikander+ Redmayne get nominated, and the film gets those inevitable tech noms (Costumes, Production design, makeup, and possibly score) that seems like more than enough for a Best Picture nomination.
Yep and Redmayne is well liked by his industry peers. In a year where gay and trans rights made so much news he definitely has a strong narrative.
“THE 33” will be at least a strong contender for BEST SCORE, that’s from my point of view.
Even so does Scott Feinberg – HollywoodReporter.
HI Sasha, …..
I am actually missing on your list ANTONIO BANDERAS who is acting in “THE 33” a Chilean miner drama.
Based on the real-life event, when a gold and copper mine collapses, it traps 33 miners underground for 69 days.
I think you are SEVERELY overestimating how universally beloved The Martian is. Every reaction I’ve heard has ranged from I hated it to “I kinda liked it”. I don’t know one person in real life who loved it. Personally I was not into it. It’s cheesy, vanilla and boring and devoid of tension or suspense. It’s full of groan worthy humor and things that have been done before. It only made a bunch of money because the competition was weak. The Oscar buzz for it on here is super shocking to me.
So when you won your office Oscar pool last year was the grand prize a lifetime supply of haterade?
No, you are severely underestimating The Martian. Also, competition wasn’t weak. There were many movies that targeted the same audience but people stuck with The Martian due to stellar WOM. You know, they can always stay home if there’s nothing interesting. One of those competitors that couldn’t break The Martian spell is Steve Jobs.
Anyway, The Martian dropped only 22.5% in the wake of Spectre. Are you saying that Spectre is no competition?
you’re an idiot
I am not! I’m v v smart. And fun!
are you kidding? it’s adored.
I’M SO CONFUSED BY THIS
A question for clarification from the assembled knowledge. How strong an effect does campaigning have, and how strongly does that effect both nominations and winning? I agree that Damon not being nominated would be, well, an outrage. But he’s in Europe shooting a Bourne movie. How does that influence his chances to win, assuming he’s nominated?
I was in line at the grocery store today and one of those rags was all about how he’s such a big slut now that he has to go out partying with Ben Affleck. I immediately knew that the competition clearly sees him as a big threat and put that crap out there. It’s started and it’s sort of important. If it comes down to 5 likeable guys, you’d probably get the one with the least skeletons and best campaign winning. Clearly, it’s already game on.
I’m very much in agreement with Wells/Erik Anderson that Fassbender is going to be snubbed. I don’t have any particular bias against him; I think he’s great in the part. But I don’t think Steve Jobs will be a BP contender, and Fassbender isn’t a movie star and isn’t campaigning. The buzz around the film is toxic. On top of that, the actual performance isn’t particularly “actory”. He takes a prickly, austere approach to an unsympathetic character. The performance isn’t full of movie star fireworks and isn’t a character actor transformation. Dicaprio, Redmayne, Damon, Hanks, Smith all have stronger films and/or bigger names or baitier characters.
You sort of had me until “On top of that, the actual performance isn’t particularly “actory”. — and there I’d disagree strongly.
Yep, I also find Fassbender’s performance extremely “actory”, but down through the years those performances get nominated a lot. And I don’t find the buzz around Steve Jobs toxic. It bombed. It happens. And it’s hard to know how baity Concussion and Revenant will be, since pretty much the only info is coming from their sponsors at this point.
Leo in Revenant is very much comparable to Ejiofor in 12YS as far as acting style goes. That’s what I’ve heard. Very internalized, lived-in performance. Not the walking show like some of his previous roles or Steve Jobs if you like.
Really not impressed by what a star’s boosters have to say when I can’t see the movie for myself.
Star boosters? I didn’t even like Ejiofor in 12YS so that’s that. Passive, boring performance from my POV. I was just quoting the source.
People who put out those sorts of statements have agendas. Maybe Leo’s great, maybe he’s not, but I prefer to judge for myself. I find it ludicrous that he’s on these lists. It’s like people refuse to think for themselves.
Everyone was on the list sight unseen. Some drop after they are seen. Some should drop but are stubbornly kept on it. Some should be taken seriously but are not. I remember that, not so long ago (read: before festivals), Suffragette/Gavron/Mulligan were predicted winners. Not just nominees but winners. Than the movie was seen. yeah. same goes for beats of No nation. That was the frontrunner at some point and Elba shoo-in for the win. Happens all the time. isn’t Joy everyone’s frontrunner now?
FASSBENDER won’t go away, he won’t be snubbed. You know what, Actors have to act and Fassbender is exactly doing that in magnetic awesome perfection.
LOL, his problem is that he acts too much. SJ is such acting that you don’t see the character. You only see performance. Not Steve Jobs but performance. Acting. No wonder audiences don’t care for Fassbender and his movie. They don’t buy him as the character precisely because he’s just Sorkin lines and no SJ person.
I’m still processing YOUTH and Caine is gold; no surprise there, but right now I don’t think I’d nominate him for the Forestieri over McKellen.
So Johhny Depp is in, isn’t he? Can this be helped?
I hope this is not inevitable. Give Depp an Oscar when he plays a human being, not another cartoon character.
He’s in. It will Johhny’s Hollywood homecoming after years of teetering on caricature. But he shouldn’t be. His WB is too broad and it may as well have been a mask.
I don’t see a situation where he IS in actually.
Michael Fassbender has an issue, and it is called Macbeth. Why no Tom Hanks? Pleased you included Toby Maguire.
“Michael Fassbender has an issue, and it is called Macbeth.”
What do you mean?
split votes between Macbeth and Steve Jobs. Regardless, it’s Johnny Depp’s year.
Hmmm… Well, for now, I hope you’re right! That would mean Macbeth is at least being considered for some nominations…
Hi Sasha you forgot FASSBENDER please hurry up !
I went with Leo, Depp, Damon, Smith and Carell. But yeah, you left out Fassy. Had you included him i’d be tempted to swap him with Depp. Though i’d personally rather see Depp nominated.
You left out Tom Hanks in the poll.
And Fassbender!
I’m not voting until you add Michael Fassbender
“None of the films last year had a lead actress contender to even nominate.”
Felicity Jones was nominated for The Theory of Everything.
But yeah, I don’t understand why everyone is suddenly writing off Michael Fassbender because of poor box office. It’s not like A Better Life or Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy burned up the box office either (although I do understand that Steve Jobs was anticipated to do better). I also think Fassbender will rack up the most critics awards at the end of the year, which will boost his favor.
Sight unseen, I do think this actually may be Leonardo DiCaprio’s year finally, barring the possibility The Revenant is a complete disaster, which is highly unlikely.
Yeah, I was gonna note the Felicity Jones admission as well.
It’s because Fassbender is singled out as the reason for flop – no star, nothing like Jobs. Moreover, Sony leak revealed that Sony honchos and Sorkin anticipated bomb if he was cast. And Sorkin didn’t even know who he was. So all the talk about how respected he is in the industry…not really.
Plus, Variety conducted a poll well before SJ bombed that showed drop in interest for the movie (and MacBeth) when polled audience was told that he was in the movies.
I asked my 23-year old niece, who has excellent taste in movies, if she was going to see Steve Jobs, and she said, ‘No, I don’t like Michal Fassbender..
he isn’t likeable at all and is yet to be in the movie and role that people love (by that I mean more than 3 cinephiles). X Men franchise simply isn’t that because the stand out is Wolverine and nobody really cares for the rest of the gang.
His name was mentioned along with other names like McAvoy,Cotillard and Radcliffe. It’s not because he’s unlikeable. He’s not a popular face,that’s all. People don’t know him.
He is VERY unlikeable. He’s chilly and has the face of a typical movie Nazi villain. especially with glasses. They always cast the same type in those roles. People will never warm up to someone who looks like movie Amon Goeth’s twin.
And can we stop with “people don’t know him”? He’s a co-lead in X Men franchise and Prometheus franchise. Media was hyping him as the next Brando so he appeared on many magazine covers. he was nominated not so long ago. There’s exposure. people simply don’t care.