Some of the films that stand out as the year’s best, which we’ll be digging into soon, might not even get into the Best Picture race. Cary Fukunaga’s uncompromising masterpiece, Beasts of No Nation sits atop that list. Perhaps too “difficult” for a consensus group that really needs to feel good about what it’s voting for, Beasts will perhaps be set adrift in the collective consciousness, destined to appear in film discussions for years to come. All the same, it gets down to the horrors of war without imposing morality or bowing to sentimentality – refusing to ever let up on the viewer. Right up there are other less accessible films. Like Black Mass, which dares to paint the mob as it really is, in all of its ugliness. The Big Short might be too wonky and weird for some Oscar voters but it gets to something about the American psyche that no other film has touched this year.
Before the overall landscape of the race can be assessed, however, there are still three big films by three big directors as year draws to a close, and that’s not even counting the last minute entries Creed and In the Heart of the Sea. Our attention is instead drawn to Alejandro G. Inarritu’s eagerly anticipated wintry survival epic, The Revenant; Quentin Tarantino’s wintry western, The Hateful Eight; and David O. Russell’s first film centered entirely around a woman, Joy. All three films have passionate support heading into their debuts and the heat is on. The heat is not only on, the pressure could not be more intense.
Now that the majority of the films have been seen, the Oscar race appears to be down to a handful of movies liked by audiences and expected to be liked by the industry voters as well – if not always by all the critics. That doesn’t mean the best films of the year will be rewarded with a nomination. It just means we’re circling the films that most people like best among the pile of films that have been anointed “Oscar movies.” It’s getting easier to tell them apart from Hollywood’s usual fare, as those movies evenly divide into their own genres and therefore can largely be written off for major awards, as a whole group. Slasher movies, for instance, or buddy comedies. Or even most romantic comedies. The Oscars are about films that get great reviews, are well liked and generally inhabit the straight up “drama” category, with a few exceptions.
We’re heading into the last two weeks of November which means the people who will vote for the National Board of Review, the New York Film Critics and the AFI Ten Movies of the Year will have to be making their decisions within these next two weeks. Once December rolls around, it will be one city’s critics award after the next, until either a consensus emerges, or it splatters all over itself. What we know is that those films favored by the critics are only sometimes favored by the industry. We won’t know what Best Picture is likely to be until the Producers Guild announce their winner.
The early awards groups that will be voting soon include the Hollywood Foreign Press (Golden Globes), and the Screen Actors Guild. The reason films do better if they’re shown earlier in the fall is that tit allows time to built momentum and consensus. One nomination from the Golden Globes can beget another. It can build hype and publicity and most important “buzz” around a contender. Does that mean everything? No, it certainly doesn’t. But it helps.
So, to recap – here’s what’s coming up:
National Board of Review – Dec. 1
New York Film Critics – Dec. 2
SAG ballot deadline – Dec. 7 / SAG nominations announced Dec. 9
Golden Globes nominations due – Dec. 7 / Golden Globe nominations – Dec. 10
AFI Top Ten Announced — Dec. 7
When the Oscars were held in March, these awards often seemed too early to matter. Even now they sometimes can seem off track from the path the eventual Oscar contenders will follow. Award fatigue sets in at some point and people just start getting bored seeing the same winners. Ever since the Oscar dates were pushed up a month, however, the Globes and the SAGs have tended to matter more because they are the first big voice in the race.
Of the three more important prospects still upcoming, only one filmmaker has won Best Director and Best Picture before. That’s Alejandro G. Inarritu. To win this year, Inarritu would have to become only the third Best Director in Oscar history to win back-to-back Oscars. It first happened in 1940 and 1941 when John Ford won back-to-back for The Grapes of Wrath (the year Rebecca won Best Picture) and then again for How Green was my Valley, which also won Best Picture (beating Citizen Kane). Two consecutive Best Director wins happened again in 1949, when Joseph L. Mankiewicz won for Letter to Three Wives (Best Picture went to All the King’s Men), and then Mank won again in 1950 for All About Eve, which also won Best Picture. In both of those cases, the director won but the picture didn’t, and the following year both the director and picture won. It would be as though Alfonso Cuaron had won for directing Gravity then came back the next year with a Best Picture winner. He might then be seen as “overdue” for a second chance since his movie had failed to win Best Picture. Such is not the case with Inarritu. Does that mean it’s impossible? No, it just means it’s a different situation and could pose a potential obstacle.
Quentin Tarantino has had much luck getting his films into the Oscar race. He’s already overdue for a Best Director/Best Picture win. He came closest with Inglourious Basterds, which had the added benefit of being about World War II. Like Tarantino, David O. Russell is also a director favored by the Academy and is overdue for a big win. Unlike Tarantino, Russell has never won an Oscar at all. Both directors bring a universe with them – audiences know what they’re going to get, or thereabouts. They know it will be a film full of surprises but also encased in each director’s recognizable style.
Still, it’s hard to push through at the last minute, even with a well-known, Academy-favored director. In the past ten years, I’ve seen one or two at the most sneak in at the end for a nomination. Always by a well known director – David O. Russell and Quentin Tarantino have both done it, as has Martin Scorsese. I’ve never seen one come in at the last minute and win the whole thing. That would be something to see. Surprises can happen in the Oscar race. You can’t plan for them but they have been known to happen.
Thus, if you are predicting The Revenant, Joy or The Hateful Eight to win Best Picture you are betting on an extreme long shot. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen; just that it’s by no means a safe bet. Long shot predictions pay off better than the safe ones, however. Go big or go home.
Kris Tapley and I were shooting the shit the other day over email and we were spitballing which films might get in for PGA, DGA and SAG. It’s too soon to say, of course, because those Big Three have yet to be seen.
Predicting the New York Critics or National Board of Review throws the whole thing into flux because of Second Level Chaos theory. Once you predict what the critics will do, half the time they seem to do the opposite out of spite.
I’ll divide the contenders into two groups – films that have been seen and films that haven’t.
DGA – ballot deadline January 4, 2016, nominations January 7, 2016
The DGA has roughly 14,500 members, as opposed to the Academy’s 400. You can see how consensus building early can help in this regard. For the past 3 years, the Directors Guild has been announcing their nominees after the Academy’s nomination ballots have been turned in, so their influence has been diminished. Therefore the consensus must be relied upon if there is to be any match-ups. And even then it can be unpredictable, as it was in 2012 when Kathryn Bigelow and Ben Affleck got DGA nods but were left off the Academy’s list.
The notoriously macho group will be the perfect place to test the “female driven” films that might figure into the Best Picture race. It’s entirely possible all four films – Joy, Carol, Brooklyn and Room – might get into the Oscar race but their directors might not. If any of the four wind up on the DGA’s list, however, you know it’s a very strong film with the industry consensus in evidence. Thing is, by the time the deadline has come around for the big guilds, the late breaking films will have saturated the voting communities.
A rough guess as to how they would go without the big three coming up:
1. Ridley Scott, The Martian
2. Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
3. George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road
4. Steven Spielberg, Bridge of Spies
5. Lenny Abrahamson, Room
If we then predict the DGA with the Big Three factored in:
1. Ridley Scott, The Martian
2. Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
3. Alejandro G. Inarritu, The Revenant
4. Steven Spielberg, Bridge of Spies or Lenny Abrahamson, Room
5. David O. Russell, Joy or Quentin Tarantino, The Hateful Eight
As for the Academy, things might be a bit different. There could be some big surprises there, like Cary Fukunaga for Beasts of No Nation or Lazlo Nemes for Son of Saul – but for the DGA you are looking for the most popular films of the season within the context of the Oscar race.
The Producers Guild announces January 5
The PGA members are roughly 6,500, nearly equal in numbers to the Academy. They use the same preferential ballot system as the Academy. Unlike the Academy, however, they give their members ten nomination slots to fill, as opposed to five. that usually means the PGA have slightly more diverse choices than the Oscar voters will settle upon.
A rough guess before the big three show up:
The Martian
Spotlight
Room
Bridge of Spies
Mad Max: Fury Road
Steve Jobs
Carol
Black Mass
Brooklyn
Inside Out
Maybe: Beasts of No Nation
After the Big Three show up
The Martian
The Revenant
Spotlight
Bridge of Spies
Mad Max: Fury Road
Steve Jobs
Joy
Room
Brooklyn
Carol or The Hateful Eight
Finally, SAG ensemble is the earliest bellwether – voting happens the first week of December and the nominating committee has to rely on screeners. If enough screeners for a late-breaking film don’t make it into the hands of voters, SAG members will not see the movie.
Of all three of these groups, I find the SAG ensemble nominations the most difficult to predict. That’s because it’s hard to tell where the consensus is going when there is no visible consensus yet.
Traditionally, the SAG has shown a preference for the kind of movies Tarantino and David O. Russell make. But it’s still a crapshoot at the moment. I would think it could go something like:
Spotlight
Suffragette
Steve Jobs
The Martian
The Hateful Eight or Joy or Carol
SAG feels like a crap-shoot at the moment.
But let’s do a few polls, shall we?
[polldaddy poll=9183475]
[polldaddy poll=9183498]
[polldaddy poll=9183516]
Everyone predicting THREE late-breaking films for SAG ensemble has no clue what they’re doing. The nominating committee is 2,000 strong, and ballots ARE ALREADY OUT. There’s a tremendous advantage for films that already have widely distributed screeners. Plus, I’ve heard Hateful Eight isn’t even sending out screeners because Tarantino thinks they diminish the film. So, for it to be the #1 choice is stupid, stupid, stupid. Sure, it’s got a perfect ensemble, but Django Unchained missed under similar circumstances.
I’m also thinking The Revenant’s not really that much of an ensemble-y, actor-y film. If any of the final 3 make it, it’ll be Joy, but given that Russell’s reportedly STILL editing it, there are reasons to be concerned.
I think Spotlight and Martian are shoo-ins, and then Brooklyn and Room get in due to their popularity. the last spot’s up for grabs, but in spite of box office disappointment, Steve Jobs seems like a good bet. Or Bridge of Spies. Or Carol, or maaaaaybe Black Mass or The Big Short.
I can’t speak for others, but I am predicting these movies because they are made by/staring people the Hollywood industry loves. SAGs are union awards given by their peers. All 3 could end up being disappointing. Right now we don’t know much.
The problem is that you’re focusing on those aspects while refusing to take into account that SAG voters already have their ballots. Some of them will have already sent them in. Additionally, I’ve heard Hateful Eight is only doing screenings, not screeners. The SAG nominating committee is 2,000 people. PLUS, there have already been a few screenings for it, and the reported reactions have been fairly unfavorable. So even if a significant percent of the nominating committee sees it, that may not mean anything. The Revenant has just started screening, but the Thanksgiving holiday is almost upon us. And for Joy, it’s even worse because it’s not screening until this weekend. By then, a significant chunk of the ballots will already have been turned in.
Is anybody else suddenly getting enormous ads popping up all over the home page in this previously very well organized and handsome site? I can hardly see the actual links! Is it just me?
Stop the Presses! The Force is strong, dismiss at your own risk. AFI is delaying awards announcement to wait for SW7:TFA!!!
“the American Film Institute has pushed its awards announcement over a week, from December 7th to December 16th, so that its voters can see Star Wars before turning in their year-end lists.
”
Source: Collider
YES!
That’s interesting.
I’m starting to wonder if it’s actually a 10 movie Best Picture nomination year. There may be fewer nominees and these 3 sight unseens are likely to be in there. They also have a good chance at taking several acting/screenplay nomination spots.
I bet the Academy wants to avoid another #Oscarssowhite embarrassing fiasco which could bode well for Straight Outta Compton, Beasts, and Concussion. Not to say these movies aren’t worthy, its just that the Oscar voter white male gaze may be a little more broad.
The Big Short and ITHoTS are unlikely to be a part of the Oscar or SAG conversation. Globes are possible.
Creed has better chance than Beasts and Concussion. Raves are coming and boxoffice will rival Comption. Also, Coogler is getting some serious buzz for camera work. Showy direction and all that jazz.
Creed is very, very good 😉
I hope it does well because Coogler and Jordan were snubbed for Fruitvale Station.
year’s weak, they could get in. Coogler over Russell, MBJ over Fassbender. Would be fair.
DGA records…
Scott is 0-3 (nominated for T&L, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down)
Russell is 0-2 (Fighter, American Hustle)
Tarantino is 0-2 (Pulp Fiction, Basterds)
Inarritu is 1-2 (won for Birdman, lost for Babel)
Golden Globe records…
Scott is 0-2 (Gladiator, American Gangster)
Russell is 0-2 (Fighter, American Hustle)
Tarantino is 0-3 (Pulp Fiction, Basterds, Django)
Inarritu is 0-2 (Birdman, Babel)
Tarantino and Inarritu both have Golden Globes for screenwriting, btw
Wasn’t Russell also nominated for Silver Linings Playbook?
Nope. 2012 was an unusually strong and competitive year for directors. DGA and Globe nominations went to Affleck, Spielberg, Bigelow, Ang Lee, and Hooper/Tarantino (DGA/Globe). But Russell made it in for the Academy Awards (along with Haneke and Zeitlin).
Any idea when “the Big Three” are gonna be first screened? can’t WAIT to hear how they’re received.
Star Wars is the elephant in the room (and it will not be screened before its official opening). What if it is really, really good and is a huge hit?
It’d still have to overcome the stigma of being the seventh installment in a franchise, it’d still have to transcend the Academy’s distaste for sci-fi, it’d still have to push past another sci-fi film which has already amassed major momentum in the race (The Martian) and it’d still have to break into a race that’s well underway. So that’s a probable no for Star Wars, even if it is rly rly gd and is a huge hit too.
I posted about this in another thread, but is ‘The Martian’ really science fiction? Its picture of space exploration is more or less realistic, even if a few decades beyond what we’re able to do now. I think most Academy voters would consider “science fiction” to be more “aliens and robots” type of stuff than an astronaut figuring out a way to get back to Earth.
Star Wars has a solid shot at a nomination since I’d argue it’s seen as not just a franchise film, but as THE franchise film. Scores of Academy members grew up on the movies and may well have been inspired to get into filmmaking because of them. If Abrams succeeds in making an actual good movie that lives up to the hype and erases the bad taste of the prequels, then Force Awakens may even be a longshot candidate to win Best Picture. (Though it’d have to be REALLY good and flaws would have to emerge for other contenders.)
The definition of ‘science fiction’ varies depending on whom you ask. For all intents and purposes, The Martian functions as a sci-fi film. It bears distinct similarities to many other sci-fi films, from topic to tone to target demo. Also, it’s fiction (check) that’s based upon science (check), albeit currently semi-fictional science. Kinda like Gravity. You’re right, most Academy voters probably wouldn’t immediately think of The Martian when prompted to come up with sci-fi titles, more like Star Wars maybe, but they’ll definitely consider them at least movie cousins. Unlike, say, comparing The Martian to Son of Saul.
In my eyes, The Martian is sci-fi, because of what that term means to me. In AMPAS’ eyes, it probably also means sci-fi, but that term means something rather different to them. By and large, it means ‘fuck this, let’s watch the new Stephen Daldry film instead’.
Except, as reported by Sasha, lots of Academy voters love The Martian.
I’ve heard people call The Martian “science faction” because of how emeshed it is in real science. That’s why space nerds and NASA love it so much. So it is what is termed “hard sci-fi”. It is unrivaled for its authenticity since the classics by people like Arthur C Clarke. Star Wars is “soft sci-fi”, or could better be described as “fantasy”. Logic is simply ignored – it is basically a western set in a space which cannot exist. There is no such thing as weightlessness in a Star Wars movie. Not that that makes it bad. It just makes it fantasy.
I could see multiple noms, a BP nom, maybe a win or two. I don’t envision a BP win.
I don’t envision the win either but they probably want to save that for the third one. Nomination will be enough to give the trilogy the clout needed to pull off a win in 4 years.
If any movie could crash the party without any precursors, it’s this one. Everyone’s gonna see it when it comes out. It’s one of those events that doesn’t need screeners. priority viewing if there was ever one.
Calm down…not to ruin the party, but remember how cool were the trailers for Phantom Menace? Let’s wait for the film…
TFA will deliver as a movie and its trailers already show something that TPM trailers never did – likeable characters.
So Steve Jobs and Mad Max are better bets for PGA nominations than Carol?
I know I keep going on about it, but AD’s remarkable ignorance of the status of this film in this awards season just doesn’t stop astounding me. I’m pleased (and shocked) to note that users disagree, and have placed Carol higher than Mad Max on the PGA poll… which doesn’t even include Steve Jobs for some reason.
It’s gotten to the point of utter ludicrousness.
does the PGA have rules that would deem Youth ineligible?
No no they nominate shite fairly regularly
I would like to believe that SPOTLIGHT would be in the lead amongst the movies that have been theatrically released thus far. It is head and shoulders above the rest of the Oscar contenders that the public has had a chance to see for themselves, although ROOM, BRIDGE OF SPIES and BROOKLYN are also quite worthy of consideration.
CAROL comes out Friday and then the “three” discussed here (I’d also hold out on passing judgement until SON OF SAUL and Sorrentino’s YOUTH get widely shown). But, right now, for me, those six movies would have to be truly exceptional to be superior to SPOTLIGHT.
NYFCC: Carol
LAFC: Carol
Like they’d dare agree! But yep, if they’re all gonna reach a consensus around one film, it’s probably Carol. None of the other contenders have it in them.
but wouldn’t it be the ultimate disagree to actually agree?!
I was checking the member lists of both groups the other day and there’s a healthy set of Carol supporters in both cities so idkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
You know you know tho, you just don’t wanna admit you know cos you know then you’d know you’d gotten your hopes up, you know?
PGA:
Bridge of Spies
Brooklyn
Carol – winner
The Hateful Eight
Inside Out
Joy
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Martian
The Revenant
Spotlight
DGA:
Haynes – winner
McCarthy
Miller
Spielberg
Tarantino
SAG:
Carol
The Hateful Eight
Joy
Spotlight – winner
Steve Jobs
Are you aware that late-screening films have a severe disadvantage at SAG? The ballots were mailed out today! So a lot of people will be voting as soon as they get them or over Thanksgiving weekend after a screener binge.
I can’t wait to see Joy and The Revenant! I think they are leaving the best for last. First screenings of the Hateful Eight indicate that there will be some controversy with it, so I don’t know how well it will do with the Academy…
The “controversy” so far is one female journo who left at half mark but claimed the movie was misogynist from beginning to the end (that “end” that she didn’t see). Ridiculous accusation considering the movie takes place in 19th century when women rights, or those of convicts, in particular in Wild West, weren’t like today. So what was QT supposed to do, change history where rough men of the West hold the door and buy flowers and chocolate for the convinced murderer just because she’s a woman? Seriously, SJW plague needs to end now.
Also, another woman (HFPA member) criticised it for being overlong rather than anything else. It looks like it’ll play big with dudebros only which is just how it is with most QT movies (and he snagged 3 Picture noms for that, 2 Director noms, 2 script wins). In short, a contender.
‘Seriously, SJW plague needs to end now.’
So a woman observing misogyny in a work of art amounts to a phony crusade? Or maybe that’s just how she feels and it’s entirely legitimate. Yet again, you show your ass on these threads by churning out another sexist whine.
‘So what was QT supposed to do, change history where rough men of the West hold the door and buy flowers and chocolate for the convinced murderer just because she’s a woman?’
Or maybe he could just have made a film in which there was more than one woman in the top eight roles? Maybe he could have done what he did with Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Death Proof and Inglourious Basterds instead of sidelining the female parts in his films. Sure, this journalist’s accusation is ridiculous given that she didn’t even stay until the end to make an accurate, reliable assertion on it, but your bilious attacks on equality are far more ridiculous.
You’d sooner this so-called ‘SJW plague’ end than misogyny? At the very least, we ought to take all accusations of sexism in art seriously until we’ve had the time to analyse them for ourselves. But I wouldn’t expect such reason from you, fishnets. Not when you’re so busy ranting on about the very existence of films directed by women.
“So a woman observing misogyny in a work of art amounts to a phony crusade? Or maybe that’s just how she feels and it’s entirely legitimate”
LOl, how is what she feels entirely legitimate when she LEFT HALFWAY THROUGH while claiming that the movie was misogyny from beginning to the end (which she didn’t see, heck, she missed second HALF of the movie, not just the end).
“we ought to take all accusations of sexism in art seriously
”
Only from people who actually see the whole movie. This woman is a typical SJW who cries wolf without having all facts. Like Joss Whedon trying to sabotage Jurassic World with sexist accusations because he didn’t like a single slip (in transaltion: figured out JW would make more money than his turd sandwich Ultron and tried to use SJW card to discredit competition).
You have truly, truly driven the letters S…J…W to death. I agree, she shouldn’t have left the movie. But just because she doesn’t approve of the film’s misogyny, whether or not it was warranted, does not mean she should get called a SJW by you. It’s become a word, or phrase, to use to put someone down when they stand up for others. It’s now become, thanks to you, a “stop your whining”. It’s dismissive.
I dismiss her as SJW because she didn’t stay to the end yet expressed her opinion that the movie, which she didn’t finish, was something from beginning to the end. To me, SJWs are shit disturbers for the sake of shit disturbing and that gives them bad name. What they stand for isn’t bad but the execution is terrible because it has become the prosecution of everyone and everything who deviates from their concept of right and wrong. So much so that it looks like they want to abolish freedom of speech and (artistic) expression and force people to say only PC phrases which itself is dangerous since repressed opinion hides real opinion and therefore actions cannot be predicted.
No, we ought to take all such accusations seriously because they could all turn out to be legitimate. What this journalists observed, she interpreted to be misogynistic. That’s valid. Maybe none of the rest of us will agree with her, whether we stay until the end of the film or not. But you can’t dismiss everything that she claims to opine about The Hateful Eight because you haven’t seen the film.
Ok, so your suggestion is to reshoot the movie in order to make it PC or what? or “we should take accusations seriously” is strictly about potential Picture win/nom-sabotaging buzz? I’m not sure what you’re aiming at.
Eh no not reshoot the movie, just don’t make it at all! Just stop making misogynistic movies! Stop making movies where almost the entire cast is male and you call all the black characters niggers! That’s not ‘PC’ as you dismissively put it, that’s not being overly sensitive, that’s just being responsible and reasonable and respectful.
No indeed, you’re not sure what I’m aiming at. I couldn’t give a tiny shit about sabotaging Oscar nominations bitch plz
So no more movies that take place in the past when people were certain way? OK. Been a bigger fan of sci fi anyway.
“So no more movies that take place in the past when people were certain way?”
I don’t know this women who walked out of The Hateful Eight, … but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that she hasn’t been walking out of movies that “take place in the past” all her life. I’m going to assume that there was something about this ONE movie that bothers her more than all the other hundreds and hundreds of period-piece movies that she has been able to tolerate.
Fine, let not make movies that upset assumed abuse victims who chose for their profession to sit thought and review movies that could range from Disney to Human Centipede. I rest my case. Ban all movies cause at this rate everything will have something that offends someone and triggers some childhood trauma or whatever.
I haven’t seen them, how many significant speaking roles are there for people of color in Brooklyn or Carol? Because looking from the outside they look pretty color specific.
They are, but at least they offer complex roles to women and, in Carol’s case, feature two lesbian characters as the film’s leads (and three out of the main characters overall). They cover some sort of base; I’m not gonna start complaining that they don’t cover every single base, or else nothing will satisfy me except films about pansexual genderfluid mixed race less-abled elderly little people lbr
Maybe you won’t start complaining that Carol doesn’t cover every single base, but somebody who loves it less, will. Sigh.
please don’t feed the troll. I’ve seen fishnets EVERYWHERE across the internet, he’s an insanely dedicated #gamergater. In general, people that use the term “SJW” are not interested in a rational dialogue, so why try? They’re using coded hate speech.
shit, are u kidding? fishnets is a gamergater? cos fuck every single gamergater on or off the web, they’re all cunts. and you’re 100% spot on about coded hate speech, that’s a much smarter statement than I’ve ever been able to spin out of my ramblings.
So what was QT supposed to do, change history
yes, we all know how Tarantino hates to tamper with history in his “history” movies. He’s a goddamned Doris Kearns Goodwin about historical accuracy and he abhors anything remotely anachronistic, right?
If QT can invent something as viciously repulsive as “mandingo wrestling” out of thin air, then I think he should be capable of inventing a situation in which not every man born before 1900 treats women like shit.
Except that the lady in question didn’t see the movie to the end so maybe there’s a payoff to all that shit treatment?
Not even a valid response to what Ryan just wrote. Like, that’s almost 100% irrelevant.
We’ll agree to disagree whether seeing the movie in full is relevant or not.
That’s not even what I’m referring to. You have a peculiar habit of being obnoxiously evasive. Ryan’s comment isn’t about the validity of this particular journalist’s opinion, it’s about the historical accuracy of Quentin Tarantino’s films and his cherry-picking adherence to it.
@paddymulholland:disqus @disqus_XeR5lOSBTf:disqus @disqus_ThwzGkHfEH:disqus this whole “rewrite history” thing is an interesting topic because I saw The Danish Girl last night and one thing I was specifically impressed by was their ability to adhere to the type of language people would have used in the 1920s when discussing transgender and other queer people while at the same time not being offensive by our contemporary standards.
The truth is that filmmakers CAN and SHOULD find a balance between historical accuracy and not offending modern POVs.
Interesting take! Thanks for sharing!
The dudebro faction, blechh.
Dudebros rule. if dudebros’d had their way, Wolf of Wall Street would have won and that movie holds up better than other Oscar 2014 nominees and winners. Winner’s worth is proven years after release not during the Oscar campaign momentum. WOWS is aging well.
Most December releases tend to miss out on a lot of precursors that it could of won like sag globe both etc. That’s why we always seem to end up with some late surprise nominee because by the end of the year someone will have finally sat down to have watched the movie. Like I think rooney mara for tgwtdt and bradley cooper for AS could of been nominated for a lot more things had their movies not of been released near the end of the year. .needless to say they still scored the nom. I honestly think they should change some of these deadlines from December to January. If we’re gonna judge the full year why start voting on winners for movies you haven’t even seen yet. Makes no effing sense. Anyway im rooting for hateful eight to clean house and actually get some damn frontrunner performances in this race.
Star Wars. They won’t screen it to precursors to avoid spoiler but once it’s out, it’s going to be too big critically and boxoffice-wise to ignore. It won’t win Picture but it’s a rock solid “super late surprise nominee” type of a movie.
The last few years have had a number of late-breaking big films get nominations but none have won for various reasons (there was already a favourite locked for BP, or the late-breaking film just wasn’t good enough). If the race isn’t settled by late December and we get an actual amazing movie, it could very easily carry the wave through Oscar night, especially given the smaller voting window.
When do Joy / revenant , hateful 8 start screening ? Will they be ready in time to make the deadline to secure nominations ?
H8ful already screened for HFPA and SAG. Revenant screens for HFPA on 22d, not sure about SAG. Joy screens for HFPA on 29th (was supposed to screen or 18th or something) and for SAG beginning of December (they just released the schedule).
I heard that Joy is stil being edited. Russell probably has his ear to the ground and will try to edit the movie into whatever shape seems to currently be the most academy friendly. Also maybe trying to stuff in more comedy bits if he really, really, wants that comedy globes category.
I don’t think so. I think they know and have the final version but they are doing experiments to see what they can change and if those changes bring improvement…Normal David O. Russell process. The will make it for the deadline.
NBR Day is like my Christmas.
Me too! Whenever I hear that Christmas song, it’s the most wonderful time of the year Im not thinking about Christmas, it’s award season! And we have nyfcc on November 30th, omg!
Really? Shiiiiiiiiiiiit
That’s pretty dang depressing.
Everyday when we go to this site in December there are 2 new critics groups handing out awards. That coupled with my birthday, Christmas and New Years Eve…is December not the best month ever (for me at least)?
It’s up there.
Does Oscar campaigning even work? One Oscar MARKETING consultant replied,
“Does it make a difference?” Absolutely !
Can it make no difference at all? Absolutely !
But Another consultant –
“It might not be that campaigning works so much as NOT campaigning is a great way to NOT win.”
AWARDS Tactic No. 1: Show your hunger & you’ll win.
I agree with consultant #1. Depends on the circumstance. Mo’Nique absolutely refused to campaign and still won. Generally it doesn’t seem to have that much impact on who gets nominated, but does have some impact on who wins, especially in a close race.
Refusing to campaign = campaign. She refused to campaign by pretty much making a press conference out of it. She didn’t simply quietly stay home without broadcasting her decision.
There’s no shame in campaigning because it’s your responsibility to bring success to your movie, and many Oscar movies need awards legs to become profitable. So the more awards a movie wins, the more people see it, more reason to stay in theaters, get higher theater count. IMO, refusing to do that is selfish and I never viewed anti-campaigners as anything but. They want to win (hence why they show up at every ceremony instead of staying home like Woody Allen) but they don’t want to look like they were asking to win (even though saying “I won’t campaign” and then hitting every precursor red carpet in town = “I want to win!”) . When Joaquin Phoenix, Michael Fassbender, Mo’nique and other “I sooo loathe campaigning” actors STFU, stay home and are invisible and silent from September to the day after Oscars are handed out, than we can talk. otherwise they are two faced campaigners as opposed to sincere ones.
That said, people like Melissa Leo and other thirsty types, who cross the line between good taste campaigning and tacky, give campaigning a bad name. In general, trying to win sympathy votes by milking some family tragedy (a star “opens up” about some “tragic secret” just when race heats up) or indulging in OTT attention seeking tactics (Consider this) are considered too much.
I get what you’re saying, that, depending on the movie (not all movies need it) sometimes an actor campaigning helps himself win, and therefore (maybe) helps a movie make more money. That also reflects what The Oscars were invented for. They were a promotional tool. But I also think that, because it’s now so massively reported on, the public sees through this and it undermines the legitimacy of the whole thing. When Oscar predictors say, “So and so will win because she’s campaigning like crazy” or “so and so was great but won’t win because he’s not campaigning” it really shoots down the value of the entire enterprise. Then “best actor” “best actress” doesn’t reflect anything of real value. And I understand and respect when actors say, “acting is not a competitive field.” It stands up against the corrupt American practice of monetizing everything. So I think there’s a balance that needs to be achieved.
I agree about a balance but don’t think that people who campaign should be shamed. You want voters to see your work and they may not do that if they aren’t convinced they should. Voters are like general audience – they don’t read reviews – and when you have many movies to choose from, it’s easier to pay attention to something when you met actual people who made it. Just my 2 cents.
If all three films make it in, it signals to me that all 3 of these Directors have entered an Oscar pantheon similar to Spielberg and Scorcese. For now, I say that The Revenant emerges as Spotlight’s biggest competitor and takes the DGA. I’ll probably eat my words in a month, but I’m going big.
A small but important correction: NYFCC is actually voting on December 2nd this year, so the NBR will return to its historical roots as the leadoff hitter in the critics awards lineup.
I think BROOKLYN could surprise at both the DGAs and the SAGs. I also think irrealistic expectations (and way too late debuts) will doom two of the Hateful-Joy-Revenant trio which will surprise the many who at the moment sight unseen are predicting all three to make the cut. And I also have a weird hunch about WB playing it cool (and smart) with IN THE HEART OF THE SEA. We’ll see, we’ll see !
Muscles is pretty bad in the trailer, but the FX look decent.
Being a huge fan of Westerns, I’m really looking forward to The Revenant, which is based on the story of frontiersman Hugh Glass, starring Leonardo Dicaprio, Tom Hardy and Domhnall Glesson.
The 1971 Man In The Wilderness starring Richard Harris, Dennis Waterman and John Huston (playing the ‘same’ characters) is loosely based on the same story. Although not in the same class as the epic, The Last Of The Mohicans nor Robert Redford’s wonderful Jeremiah Johnson, it’s still an enjoyable frontier adventure movie.
With the talent involved with this ‘reboot’, I’m expecting The Revenant to be one of the best films of the year.
I liked the Richard Harris version. It wasn’t anything great but it was interesting. Part of Harris’s “Indian period”. Not impressed that this time they felt the need to toss in a phony dead kid story to hype the melodrama. It says the didn’t have enough confidence in the real story, so they shoehorned in some Hollywood guff.
Dead kid is well incorporated into the script. It explains Glass’s connection with Pawnee tribe and how he learned their ways of survival. It’s really people of nature vs people who destroy/don’t understand nature story. Moreover, it gives motivation to Fitzgerald (who isn’t inherently bad guy, just someone who gave in to fear and let his prejudice blow up because of it).
DiCaprio is not playing a real person if they go out and invent a totally phony life for him. They’re just saying the real story wasn’t strong enough so they shoehorned in some guff. Like I said.
“It’s really people of nature vs people who destroy/don’t understand nature story.”
So, it’s Avatar?
It’s Avatar. Except that there’s no romance with a blue Pocahontas but it’s Avatar. Except that it’s filmed on location and without green screen. But it’s Avatar. Also, they never said it was based on the true story but inspired by it. That allows for much more liberty.
One the reasons people give for DiCaprio getting a nom is “because he’s playing a real person”. Except he’s not, really.
real, unreal, the role isn’t slam dunk AMPAS thing by any stretch. Ultra violent, silent for good portion of the movie, sympathetic but not likeable, not a showy part. I could see them go for something more business-as-usual in acting such as that rapid-fire dialog gimmick Steve Jobs or Damon’s charismatic, super-likeable star turn in The Martian.
Yeah, I don’t think Di Caprio will win, unfortunately…of course anything could happen but I don’t know.
Like everything Revenant, we’ll have to wait for reviews. We should have some word this week when it screens (Sunday for HFPA but supposedly Fox has something up tomorrow…this or Joy).
Everyone expects The Rev to be just a revenge story but the new script embellished it with much more (clear allusions to Native American genocide, destroying nature, etc). I’d say that it’s only real drawbacks are realistic violence that doesn’t pull any punches and darkness of its characters (everyone goes to darkest places psychologically due to negative emotion consumption). I think that people place too much emphasis on Inarritu’s fresh win. If the movie doesn’t fly, it won’t be the win but darkness, gore, violence, lack of optimism.
Which just makes THE MARTIAN more powerful. If everything else is bleak, then it’ll shine out like a diamond.
My point exactly.:)
I don’t get the impression that Spotlight or Joy are bleak… Are they?! OK, Joy we don’t know yet…
They actually are supposed to be both uplifting, so they will do very good. They are two American success stories in a way.
That’s what I thought… 🙂
I didn’t even know it was a reboot/remake/refurbishment. I’ll have to search out the Richard Harris one. Thanks for the heads up.
Here’s my theory on Spielberg. We all know I dislike BRIDGE OF SPIES, so I’m admitting that. But my thinking is people won’t “waste” a nomination on him unless it’s really truly their first choice and they intend for him to win. Because there are enough worthy directors this year who don’t own the hardware that he has and some that are just due for nominations, that they should want to nominate people who haven’t made it to the show before. So that the nomination is the award for them. For him a nomination would be like change found in between couch cushions.
Imagine if Ridley Scott is our winner and then the other nominees are QT, Inarritu, Spielberg, and Russell. That’d be kinda dumb in a been there done that sort of way, except for Mr. Scott’s win. Imagine if he was the obvious winner for like a month leading up to the show. Why should those other guys even get out of bed that morning? lol Especially Mr. Spielberg. But if Mr. Scott isn’t the presumed winner and he’s one of the nominees, I think that means he’s the winner.
I think Bridge of Spies is old fashioned in both good and bad ways, but old fashioned is comfortable, especially to people of “a certain age”. I enjoyed Bridge of Spies but the idea of Spielberg winning over Scott actually makes me queasy. It would make the little Sally homemaker emphasis in BOS more cringeworthy.
Spielberg’s not winning, but I for one think Bridge of Spies deserves a director nomination more than The Martian does. It’s yet another Spielberg film where, throughout, I think to myself, wow, he is easily the greatest American director.
I agree in that Spielberg is right now my #2 and Scott is my #4, but I hope they both get in.
My #1–by a mile–is George Miller.
Mine right now:
1. David Robert Mitchell, IT FOLLOWS
2. Olivier Assayas, CLOUDS OF SILS MARIA
3. Steven Spielberg, BRIDGE OF SPIES
4. George Miller, MAD MAX: FURY ROAD
5. Danny Boyle, STEVE JOBS
Haven’t seen Spotlight, Carol, Brooklyn, Room.
A fair list. I didn’t really think Assayas did that much, but otherwise I think they all make my top 20.
Spielberg has 11 DGA nods and only 7 Oscar nods. I figure he’ll show up at the DGA but at the Oscars someone else will take his place.
I might sound crazy predicting this, but I think we might get this, and these are my predictions.
PGA – The Martian
DGA – The Revenant
SAGA – Spotlight
3 different winners
Possible. I think Spotlight dominates the critics’ awards then the guilds start highlighting something like Joy or Brooklyn.
At the moment, it’s a three horse race with the critics: Spotlight is 97% with 113 fresh and 4 rotten. Brooklyn is 99% with 100 fresh and 1 rotten. And Room is 96% with 116 fresh and 5 rotten.
You’re probably right Jerry. I have a feeling Spotlight will take the “early lead” and then peter out too soon. I can see Joy taking over and ending the race too. It’s so hard to know for sure right now.
Or The Martian.
I don’t get what’s so special about The Martian…
And I don’t get what’s so special about David O Russell. he was nominated and never came close to winning. Exactly where he should be IMO. Filler spot in BP and BD.
I get that people are in different places in their lives and have different areas of interest. And since a lot of Oscar-bait movies tend to target one particular niche audience, I get that some people will feel passionately about one movie or other. But I honestly don’t understand a person who doesn’t appreciate The Martian. It manages to be simultaneously beautifully crafted, deeply humane, highly intelligent, and fun as all get-out.
what critic group is going to anoint The Martian? please tell me.
Also, I agree with @paddymulholland:disqus, Spotlight is an unlikely critics group pick, too–it’s not the type of film you really feel strongly about, is it? I think we’re looking at Mad Max, Carol or Son of Saul to dominate the major critic polls.
Mad Max is the type of film to win LAFCA honestly (picture, director, production design)…(runner-up for music)
I agree! I think the larger critics groups are likely to single our Carol, Mad Max, Son of Saul or Brooklyn for top prizes.
“… OUR Carol, Mad Max, Son of Saul or Brooklyn…” Freudian slip? 😉
“what critic group is going to anoint The Martian? please tell me.”
you’re right, a group that anointed American Bullshit (original title for American Hustle that turned out to be perfect for that movie’s quality) wouldn’t go for something infinitely better.
But sarcasm aside, I didn’t notice the talk was about critic groups.
The critics wouldn’t dare let Spotlight dominate their awards. You have to be a clear favourite among the critics in order to do that any more. If there’s any indecision amongst them as to which film is their consensus pick, it’ll be a year like the three between 2011 and 2013, where they were relatively all over the place. And this looks to be such a year atm.
Why not SPOTLIGHT?
After all, many of these critic either write for newspapers, or have in the past. These are their colleages, fellow writers at the very least. SPOTLIGHT is a veritable advertisement for the written word.
Plus, it’s a superb movie.
Because, in terms of overall critical reception, you generally need to be in The Hurt Locker / The Social Network / Boyhood territory in order to dominate the major groups like those films did. And Spotlight isn’t there. It also has to compete with a number of other films in a similar league, which none of the above three did. It’ll likely win at least some awards, and could be their overall favourite of the season, but I doubt it’ll dominate.
First of all, we don’t know that yet, since no critics groups have started voting. Second, you are factually incorrect about “overall critical reception”: Hurt Locker – 98% on RT. Social Network – 96%. Boyhood 98%. Spotlight – 97%. All essentially equal, not even factoring in margin of error.
Am I predicting a SPOTLIGHT sweep? No idea. Like I wrote, there are still at least 6 more major contenders that haven’t dropped yet for the general public. But, as of now, SPOTLIGHT deserves to be the top contender. Of course, we know that being best doesn’t necessarily correlate to awards.
‘First of all, we don’t know that yet, since no critics groups have started voting.’
Well yeh, I know about as much as you do…
‘Second, you are factually incorrect about “overall critical reception”‘
lololol factually incorrent, k sure. And anyway, Rotten Tomatoes scores barely mean shit when it comes to the Oscar race. Metacritic is their arena – that’s where to look when considering the critics awards. The vast majority of ‘critics’ featured on RT aren’t members of any significant critics groups.
‘But, as of now, SPOTLIGHT deserves to be the top contender.’
Ahh, now I get it. You’re just a stan!
Even on Metacritic, the scores are virtually equal for all the movies you cited. And, that goes for Top Critics as well.
Admit it, you got your numbers wrong. It’s good for the soul. It’s ok, happens with the best of them.
A “stan”?? I have nothing to do with the making, marketing or awards play of SPOTLIGHT. It’s just my judgement based on the movies released commercially thus far. No more. No less. Not that it should matter, but I am a former film critic and a member of the filmmaking community for 3 decades. I’m not an overzelous fan. I stand by my comments 100%.
Not gonna admit to something I didn’t do. Spotlight has 93 on Metacritic. That’s not indicative of a critics sweep and never has been.
‘Not that it should matter, but I am a former film critic and a member of the filmmaking community for 3 decades.’
la-di-dah
So, getting a 94 or 95 instantly vaults a movie into “critic sweep” level? One or two points? Uh, huh.
la-di-dah – about as cogent a dodge as you can muster up, eh? And, 30+ years in the industry. La di dah squared?
Admit it. You don’t have the numbers to back you up, but, like all bullies you will never admit that you are wrong.
‘So, getting a 94 or 95 instantly vaults a movie into “critic sweep” level?’
No, only that a Metascore of 93 is not indicative of one. Read what I wrote and stop twisting it to fit your argument. Not once on this thread have I claimed that Spotlight categorically would not sweep the critics awards.
The numbers? Spotlight has a lower Metascore of The Hurt Locker, The Social Network and Boyhood.
Also, I was cool with it when it was once, but three times now? Normally, I’d just let it run off me, but I’ll admit this much: you’ve called me a bully thrice over and it’s hurt me. It’s an insulting and inflammatory term, the likes of which I’d plainly never use against you, and it stings pretty bad for me rn given that I’d utterly never set out to bully anyone. I know I’m not wrong, but I have no intention of attempting to intimidate or threaten anyone on this site, no matter how certain I may be on a given topic. I hate it when real bullies claim to feel attacked when people call them out on their behaviour, but I have never once bullied anyone on here.
Fuck this then, I’m done.
The first to use profanity loses.
Thank you.
And, honestly anybody who understands statistics can see that your argument that Hurt Locker getting a 94 indicates a possible sweep but that Spotlight with a 93 doesn’t is nonsensical if not downright comical. One point is well well within the margin of error when it comes to something as inexact as Metacritic. All I asked was some quarter on the numbers (I also ran them for RT. They are virtually identical.).
I take your word that you didn’t intend to be mean, but, it is indicative behavior when one is given stats that contradicts at least part of one’s argument, and you refuse to accept that hard data.
truce?
There’s no beef Joe cos I couldn’t hold a grudge if I was fucking paid to. But that was not my argument – The Hurt Locker had a clear advantage over the competition in its year, something which its Metascore signified. When a film sweeps, you can often sense the momentum behind it prior to the start of the season. THL picked that momentum up in early-December, but The Social Network and Boyhood were both there long before. Spotlight is not. There does not appear to be the critical impetus to support it like The Hurt Locker, nor the extra-high score like Boyhood, nor the superiority over the competition, like all three of those films.
Also, don’t try to call me out on profanity. It’s just a word. My argument carries the same level of validity whether I choose to embellish it with profane expressions of my emotional state or not.
PGA – The Martian
DGA – The Martian
SAG – Spotlight
I wouldn’t complain about those results. The Martian was such a great mix of fun meets good filmmaking.
Yep, The Martian isn’t going anywhere and those who hope that it’ll be dropped by Fox the moment remaining Fox movies screen are in for a surprise. Not gonna happen. But it’s only one fandom that is vehemently against The Martian cause it ruined their plans. It was supposed to be Russell who’d get “overdue” narrative yet Scott is building his and industry is responding as they should. When Russell gets Alien and Blade Runner (true classics that stood decades of time) on his resume than we can talk.
But anyway, lets say Joy and Russell won. That’s Shakespeare in Love 2.0. Backlash would be inevitable and it would forever be labeled “that movie about mop” even though mop really isn’t that big thing (unless final cut changed something). But when you beat Legend Scott, Star Wars, epic American revenge story-cum-how-West-was-won, Tarantino, that’s what you get. And I think it’s fair.
but the only place I read about an overdue narrative for Scott is here…………..
No. Anne Thompson mentioned that in her podcast. So did Hammond. Etc.
I hate podcasts 🙂
Me too. Also video reviews.
If Joy ends up being as good as Shakespeare In Love, I will be doing cartwheels down the theatre aisle and won’t care about any ‘backlash’ if it wins Best Picture since it’ll be totally deserving.
But it won’t be cause it’s Russell so…:)
It makes no sense for DGA to go with Inarritu again if PGA went with the Martian. The Revenant/Scott split make sense or The Martian/Scott or Revenant/Inarritu wins but Martian/Inarritu split makes none.
Though both movies are such classic examples of director’s virtuosity that guilds would either go Film/Director or split director with less showy film that feels important (lets say, Spotlight/Scott).
I wouldn’t rule out Martian surprise at SAG too. Yes, it’s a movie focused on Damon but it has pretty big supporting cast made of working actors.
I could see The Martian taking the PGA but I don’t buy Innaritu as our DGA winner. The film needs to be spectacular for him to be able to overcome being last year’s winner. That’s why I expect either Scott or McCarthy to take the DGA. And I believe it’s going to be McCarthy. The directing Oscar is strangely unsentimental. Sentimental winners have occurred in the past – Scorsese – but he won for a film that was such a joy to watch and is one of the most non-traditional best picture winners. They loved the film. Altman had a shot at a sentimental Oscar. He was extremely deserving. The film was gorgeous but they didn’t respond to it and voted for Ron Howard. I believe that in the end we’ll have Spotlight taking DGA, WGA, SAG and probably the Cinema Editors Guild.
For DGA, I have:
1. Thomas McCarthy – Spotlight
2. Ridley Scott – The Martian
3. Lenny Abrahamson – Room
4. Steven Spielberg – Bridge of Spies
5. George Miller – Mad Max: Fury Road
At the same time, I believe Nemes and possibly Sorrentino will make it at the Oscars ahead of Spielberg and Miller.
I’d bet serious money that IF Spotlight wins the DGA and SAG, it’s also winning the PGA. The alternative seems beyond unlikely to me…
Save for, possibly, the Scorsese, you are absolutely correct about the Best Director prize. If the Academy likes the movie, they nominate the Director (except when it’s Affleck!).
Such immortals of modern cinema as Tom Hooper and Michel Hazanavicius have won recently, that’s why I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that Thomas McCarthy wins if SPOTLIGHT takes the prize no matter how many heavyweights like Spielberg and Inarritu or ‘sentimental faves’ like Ridley Scott and George Miller are in the race.
Unsentimental is a good word Zooey. Perhaps, if you’re right, then I can see Tom McCarthy, or even David O. Russell for Joy.