As we head into the Oscar year that will go down as “The 2020 Oscars,” with all that might one day imply in the context of history, no doubt there will be reasons why some films and performances resonated while others fell flat. How a film does in any given year with a consensus doesn’t necessarily make it “Miss Right.” Instead, it’s “Miss Right Now,” to borrow a Robin Williams joke. Miss Right Now speaks to the mood of the moment, tells us much about how a certain demographic was thinking about the world the artists have offered up and mirrored back at us. To figure out what will resonate, one has to understand that demographic: Your Typical Academy Voter. You can broaden it a bit to understand other factions: Your Typical Golden Globes Voter and Your Typical Industry Voter. Your Typical Rotten Tomatoes Critic and Your Typical Mainstream Critic (they are not the same).
This is how I’ve come to see these factions in my meditations about them over the years, in chronological order of when and how the awards come down:
1 – People who influence the Oscar nominations:
Your Typical Mainstream Critic: votes in the LA or New York circle, or the National Society of Film Critics. They are the “cream of the crop” on Rotten Tomatoes or those better-known names who get aggregated on Metacritic. This is an elite group driven by high status critics who are sometimes able to influence those of lesser status, so much so that it becomes uncomfortable for dissenting voices to go against the status quo, though some do if they’re feeling bold.
LA tends to be more “inclusive” and often wants to make bolder, off brand choices (as in, diverging from New York or the status quo). In New York it is less about “shoulds” and more about their bizarre voting process — where there are rounds of voting, with debates and discussions between rounds, and odd winners can emerge as the result of something resembling negotiation. In this circumstance there are often status quo voters and rebels. The rebels, if they are high status, can sometimes win on the strength of the cases they make for their favorites.
Both New York and LA like to be “shock and awe” awards people, as opposed to lemmings who go along with the status quo.
Influence power of New York Film Critics: HUGE. Their choice of film almost always becomes a strong frontrunner. Going back 20 years, only 4 films have not gone on to be nominated at least.
Influence power of Los Angeles: Pretty good – not as big as New York but they can push a contender into a long-lasting spotlight with their occasional quirky choices.
Influence power of National Society: Minimal, but that’s only because they announce so late. NYFCC has so much power because it announces early.
Influence power of all other critics groups: Minimal individually, powerful iif they align in a consensus. What the critics think often runs counter to what the industry thinks because the sheer number of movie makers can override the choices of a few dozen movie writers.
What drives critics, no matter where they are, whether Twitter or in groups or on Rotten Tomatoes, remains status. What David Ehrlich thinks seems to matter a lot. What Mark Harris thinks seems to matter a lot. What AO Scott and Manohla Dargis think seems to matter a lot. They carry with them a lot of influence because their readership includes a lot industry voters. So if you want to understand the critics group, first find the high status people and go from there.
What might win Best Picture at New York? Magic 8-Ball says:
(leaving off 1917 and Little Women for now)
The Irishman
or Marriage Story
or Parasite
What might win Best Picture at LA?
Magic 8-Ball says probably Parasite.
What is likely to sweep the critics groups across the country? Parasite.
Your Typical NBR voter is not really a critic. In fact, it’s hard to know who they are, really. Many people have tried to figure them out over the years, and have accused them of all manner of corrupt behavior, from being bought off by studios to having favorable ties to a certain studio.
Influence power (despite their dubious reputation): HUGE. It doesn’t matter what people say about the NBR, they remain influential because they announce early.
What might win the NBR?
I know my savvy Oscar peeps would say: Richard Jewell and Clint Eastwood
2. People who influence Oscar wins:
Your typical Hollywood Foreign Press – or Golden Globes voter: They are treated to exclusive perks by the industry with screenings and parties and access to famous people. They work at various outlets across the world. There are about 90 to 100 individuals, and you’ve never heard of any of them. They are made fun of by almost everyone, respected by no one, and yet all of Hollywood KISSES THEIR ASS because their influence factor is HUGE. Why, because they have a glitzy show that is almost as big a deal as the Oscars, and they’ve been around since forever. 77 years. Was a time when high status Oscar contenders wouldn’t show up at the Globes. That time is long gone.
The Globes can either be the kiss of death for Oscar or they can be a predictor of the Oscars — it’s always a tough call on that front. Last year’s winner was Green Book, which went on to win Best Picture at the Oscars. They can be hit and miss. The Shape of Water didn’t win at the Globes. Spotlight didn’t win. The Hurt Locker didn’t win. They function best as an audition for winners – how do spectators feel when the GG winners take the stage? Good? Or should someone else have won? Is there satisfaction after we hear the acceptance speech? Or buyer’s remorse.
What films will do well with the Globes? Magic 8-Ball says maybe:
The Irishman
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
1917
Marriage Story
Little Women
Dolemite Is My Name
Rocketman
Cats
Jojo Rabbit
Bombshell
Questions to ask: can Parasite break into the Best Picture circle at Globes? (Factor in the fact that the Globes voters will call any movie a comedy if it can elicit a single chuckle.) Can any woman director breakthrough at Globes?
Your typical industry voter — PGA and DGA
Both the PGA and DGA are very large consensus voting blocks. By the time the PGA comes out with their list of 10 nominees (unlike the Oscars, PGA voters have 10 nomination slots and 10 nominees, where Oscar has 5 nomination slots and a random number of nominees), we have a pretty good idea of what the consensus is. There are roughly 8,000 PGA members and they employ the preferential ballot to determine the winner.
The DGA has around 16,000 members, and the director with the most votes wins. Neither the PGA nor the DGA has an exclusive membership, not like the Academy. If you work, and pay your annual guild dues, then you’re in. Producers tend to pick movies they like, regardless of who directed them. The DGA is all in for the director as star and less often picks the director whose movie they simply liked (sometimes it happens, like The Artist).
What might the PGA pick?
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Parasite
The Irishman
Marriage Story
Jojo Rabbit
Waves
And perhaps:
Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Ford v Ferarri
Then maybe:
1917
Little Women
Other potentials:
Us
Uncut Gems
Hustlers
Queen & Slim
Influence factor: HUGE, off the charts huge, like couldn’t be more huge.
Your typical SAG/AFTRA voter: by far, SAG has the most diverse membership. They were much easier to suss out when they were just SAG. Now they have folded in AFTRA members, and have a massive membership of around 150,000. The nominating committee remains small, as around 2,000 randomly selected members each year get to pick which films get nominated. They tend to be the more inclusive (and let’s say populist) of all of the groups because their membership is more inclusive.
Influence factor: Pretty good
SAG Ensemble is looking good for:
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Dolemite Is My Name
Bombshell
The Irishman
Little Women
But don’t count out:
Marriage Story
Hustlers
Motherless Brooklyn
Parasite
Your typical Oscar blogger, journalist, pundit — people like ME
Some of us know the race better than others because some of us have been around a really long time. And just as we were when I started back in 1999, we are still a game of wishful thinking vs. reality. Like the critics, we are often driven by high status people in our midst — Mark Harris is a big one — but our clan falls into two camps: advocates and predictors. Predictors often see themselves as objective when in fact, they aren’t. Most are in it not for the game but for love of movies. Some are simply in it because they like to be right (raises hand) or they need the money (raises hand) or they think predicting the Oscars is fun (raises hand). Others are in it because they believe the Oscars are important and that they matter — and to them, it is all a very serious business.
There are various cliques and/or tribalism in the Oscar blogging world — where people sort of take sides and pick teams. They can advocate strongly for a movie or against a movie. This was true in the worst way with Green Book last year. The age old crossover between movies and politics means that the Oscar race itself becomes political, as it’s one thing the people on the left can still control. (Since they can’t control Trump; only Putin and other global blackmailers can do that.) There is recently increasing pressure on the Academy to right the wrongs of society and that’s how we ended up last year with NO HOST! Nothing is ever going to be enough, though, to right the wrongs of society. That much I know for sure.
To predict how the Oscar race is going to go you have to have a healthy understanding of the groups and of yourself. If you are too deep inside the cocoon of any of the various groups online, you might emerge with a slightly distorted vision of the race. The early predictions are often made by people who are trying to check the boxes of inclusion, for instance. It can’t just be all five white men in the Best Director race. Among this type of pundit, it’s tough to agree on one woman. Ideally, it should be a woman of color, and even then it can’t be a black woman unless there’s a black woman AND an Asian woman. Their lists defines who they are. If you make a list of Best Director candidates and choose five men (still the most likely scenario any given year) you risk being mocked and shamed and blamed. [Cue the shaming for the writing of that sentence.]
So there you go, a quick and dirty guide to the fundamentals of Oscar watching.
I am sure some of you are wondering: Why are you underestimating Joker? I simply don’t know which way it is going to land with voters — not critics, not industry, not Globes. It is incredibly divisive — just because it made a lot of money doesn’t mean it will be rewarded. Rewarding something is an endorsement of it. A lot of people might feel comfortable endorsing and a lot of them might not. So for me, Joker is… a wild card. It’s still a “wait and see.”
That goes for the “Netflix factor” too. Since each of those movies would be included anyway I have included them. But yes, the biases are the biases and we don’t know yet know what they will be.
Finally, know your Oscar voter – they split, more or less, into three major groups.
1) The old-timers – aka “the steak eaters” – they are older, 60s and 70s, who have been there, done that and are the easiest voters to predict because they have a very specific kind of taste.
2) The actors – they make up the majority of the Academy, with a category that doubles almost any other. Actors tend to like films with a big cast — 4 or more main characters. They tend to like actor-driven films, rather than director driven or effects driven.
3) The newbies – these folks are brand new and unpredictable. They are often brought up when people think the Best Picture winner will be unpredictable. They are younger, a lot of them non-white, and some are new to the game of film awards. But for the most part, a consensus is a consensus is a consensus.
The total membership is not known. In 2017 it was 6,687. But that number has likely increased. What we do know is: “32 percent of its members were female (up from 25 percent in 2015) and 16 percent were people of color (up from 8 percent in 2015).”
Well, it’s a mess, ain’t it Sheriff.
If it ain’t, it’ll do til the mess gets here.
Watching Zhang Yimou’s “Shadow”. If promoted, it is a surefire nominee at Costume and Cinematography and Production Design. Like really, 1917 seems to be the only competitor… Cinematography, to me starts taking shape…
1917 (winner)
The Lighthouse
Pain and Glory
Shadow
(and some one else) These four really stand out.
JOKER had some damned good cinematography, but it’s divisiveness could hinder it’s nods beyond Phoenix. (as we all know already)
Indeed Joker is a contender for a nom at cinematography. I just can’t see anyone defeating Deakins for 1917 given the inmense challenge of having cinematography under control for a long take of 2 hours. Think about Lubezski’s win for The Revenant using natural light in long takes…
From what I’ve understood 1917 isn’t actually in one take, but rather built of several shots that are faked to be an individual one. Of course this doesn’t take anything away from the movie but it might hurt Deakins’ chances a little bit (although it’s not like there’s anyone who is actually shooting whole movies in one take in competition this season so Deakins still probably gets the “biggest achievement” talk)
It is not a one take, obviously. Just like Birdman. Many hidden cuts.
But Deakins will win anyway, and – without seeing the movie – if any cinematographer deserves two, it is him.
The more Deakins the better please! He was always #1 on my NEEDS and Oscar list until he finally won for BR2049 (thank science)
I said it before and i will say it again here, Shadow is Zhang’s return to form. Too bad it wasn’t Sony Pictures Releasing who picked up its US distribution rights. More people would have seen it and how ingenious the action is and not just some small limited theater run and VOD release. Stunning in every sense of the word!
No wonder I can’t remember Shadow – I saw it at TIFF 2018 almost 14 months ago. The Lighthouse would be a worthy nominee (though I’m not sure it will happen).
I remain convinced for now that Pain and Glory will only receive two nominations. But it’s really good.
I am convinced that P&G is only warranted a great shot at a nomination at Acting, nothing else, and possible win, depending on critics awards.
BUT, if Critics Awards start championing the film along Parasite, it can really, really break through into even more categories than Parasite, because has Oscar consideration quality in so many aspects (Picture, Director, performances, Original Screenplay, Score, Cinematography, Film Editing and Production Design, along International Film which is ALWAYS unpredictable)
I think Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Two Popes, and/or Joker could well factor in at the Globes. If Two Popes is placed in Comedy, I think it’ll certainly show up.
I’m a bit surprised you have Waves at the PGA.
Also a bit surprised Marriage Story isn’t in your Top 5 at SAG, over say, Little Women — they tend not to favor late release films.
I think that SAG could go more populist and reject some current Picture favorites for choices such as Endgame, Hustlers, Knives Out since Ensemble doesn’t equal Picture. It doens’t hurt to win but it isn’t the same thing. Also, AFTRA dilutes crossover with AMPAS so it’s now more its own thing than accurate predictor.
Knives Out would be fun to see at SAG 🙂
I think it has a very good chance. It’s a big cast so what Ensemble is made of.
By the way, M. Night Shyamalan raved “Queen and Slim” in his twitter. Compared it to “Boyz in the Hood”.
Best Picture in the English language is what they should call GG BP awards, because that’s exactly what it is. Being the only major award ceremony with two Best Picture categories is bad enough, but discriminating against foreign films is very embarrassing. There will be more of the likes of Parasite and Roma, because I think we will see at least one FLF in BP every year in the future. We always said it was nonsense that the ten best films are all in the English language, but it is harder to defend that now in this era. I think it is right that there should be at least one FLF every year in BP.
Here’s to hoping Parasite at least gets the same three noms as Roma did there. Though, I doubt they’ll give it a Director win like they did Roma (though, that’d be awesome).
Let’s hope, but I am not holding my breath. Parasite is a crowd pleaser, though, so it could appeal to them. They should just put in Comedy/Musical and be done with it.
I feel bad for not knowing this, but FLFs are not eligible there, right? At least in terms of Picture? (Just guessing since Roma won Director but wasn’t up for Drama).
No, they are not allowed to be nominated in either of the Best Picture categories, so they are ghettoised in FLF category.
Seems like for Parasite to have a chance to win Pic or Director at Oscars (which is probably still doubtful), would need to win FLL and Director at GG, since Crouching Tiger and Roma both did, perhaps the two FLL films that have been strongest over the recent years.
I don’t think it will happen, to be honest. The other films you mentioned were big names and Hollywood centric directors. If they couldn’t do it, I don’t Parasite can.
That’s my take, even though it’s my fav so far. Crouching Tiger was a $100m phenom. Parasite getting $10 or $20 in art houses would be stellar. And all this in a year with major players and major Hollywood Directors.
Yes, the quality this year is much higher than last year. However, 2001 were stellar years. Crouching and Roma were films of great visual direction and their directors were always favourite to win. I have not seen it , but Parasite seems to be more about its screenplay and performances than the direction, not Joon-ho isn’t great either.
Hard to say. Crouching was visionary for Westerner audiences in terms of amazing style and something new. So, it’s not that. But I think Parasite is comparable to Roma in terms of directing vision (awesome framing, very intense, stellar performances, style, etc). All that’s missing is B&W choice, but it’s edge of your seat aspect is noteworthy in terms of direction.
But, again, doesn’t mean I think it’ll beat a Tarantino, Mendes, or Scorsese, unless they all divide votes throughout the season.
Well, I am very excited to see it. It will be difficult for it to win, but it seems like a great film.
Watching it, I did wonder who I could recommend it to among my less cinephile friends. It definitely bends genres in ways that mainstream American audiences are less used to. But its showing at audience awards has made me think it appeals to a wider audience than I initially guessed.
And he does it so effortlessly. And to think some struggle to make a coherent film in one genre.
assuming Bong is as charming as Cuaron, I don’t see why he would miss.
He seems charming 😉
Good, gooood. Everything proceeds…
They are a bit confusing. Inglourious Basterds was over 70% in foreign languages and it was nominated in Drama.
Babel was mostly in foreign too, and it even won.
I guess if Brad Pitt is in it, that is fine 🙂
First Cronenberg. Now Netflix getting Fincher back to direct a film! KING SHITTT!! I’ve irredeemably become their stan.
(p.s. this decade kinda sucked because it feels like forever since the last Fincher)
Now do John Carpenter lol
John Carpenter is a God of filmmaking and storytelling and it is a shame he hasn’t been nominated yet (nor have been awarded an Honorary Oscar by now).
Nominations owed (in my book) to John Carpenter
Halloween – Director, Score, Screenplay
Escape from New York – Screenplay
The Thing – Director
They Live – Screenplay
In the Mouth of Madness – Director
I love Halloween as much as the next guy, but… Screenplay? The dialogue is awful.
think about the whole movie overall… it was groundbreaking. Screenplay is not just dialogue.
I love PRINCE OF DARKNESS as well… THE THING not getting any tech nods/wins is a travesty… HALLOWEEN’s score for sure should’ve been nominated. So iconic.
The Thing was the best film of 1982. It is as close to perfection as it can be. Blade Runner was 2nd best, then Missing (Costa Gavras). I really don’t know what was going on critics and AMPAS mind that year… ET is a classic, of course, but while a key film in Film History, in my book can’t hold a candle to the achievement these three films portray…
And Gandhi… a wonderful epic, but too by the numbers at some point. I think they thought they were rewarding the person portrayed, that is the only explanation… even the director agrees, he didn’t deserve to win Picture and Director over ET and Spielberg…
I also absolutely adore Tarkovski’s Stalker (released in the US in 1982) and Demy’s Une chambre en ville. Both utter masterworks
can you believe I never saw them? Never got the chance! And Cinefix is always naming The Mirror and Stalker among the best films ever!
Well, it’s not like I’ve seen The Thing (or really any other Carpenter than Starman, which I don’t really remember anything about) or Missing
Missing is a masterpiece of political cinema and an eye-opener about US ways worldwide. The Thing is simply put, probably the best horror film ever made and one of the extremely rare occasions in which producers trusted a filmmaker to have full control on his vision of the film. The less you know about the film, the better, in advance… but I will just tell you, do not get distracted by practical effects and gore, the film is one of the best character studies ever put to cinema, and 37 years after, is still being debated about what and how actually happened. In my book, the only horror film that comes close to its excellence is Kubrick’s The Shinning
Btw- Is The Lighthouse dead? Or does anyone think it could be alive in acting or cinematography, etc? Sasha notes it still as a possibility in her list, but it seems it hasn’t been much in the discussion.
It depends of critcs groups that are way more likely to go for Parasite, Irishman or Pain and Glory, on the auteur side. On the horror side, I still think Us is the one we all are underestimating
I think it has a chance of becoming a The Florida Project style Willem Dafoe supporting push.
Shame, that deserves to be the big A24 push – Cinematography/Actor/Supporting Actor/Screenplay/Director/Picture would slap
Looks like 1917 is locked and done, since it just received its MPA rating. Some screening feedback coming soon then?
I finally hope to see Joker this weekend. Other than Once Upon a Time… (which I will have to probably watch on digital release), that should get me caught up on most of the major contenders released so far. Hasn’t been a bad year of films so far, IMO. I’ll have to start thinking about what ballot would look like.
I wonder what’s the hold up with both 1017 and Little Women? The longer they wait, the less time they have to get their films in the race.
Especially if the film is complete. Like, at least Bombshell has started its screenings, even if it missed the festival circuit. Late films can do ok, but it tends to take them out of SAG, which is still arguably far too early in its nominating process, creating a major missed opportunity.
I think 1917 can still doo huge damage if it’s good, but I would have though Little Women be looking to get in SAG and get momentum.
Agreed. Little Women seems like the type of film that needs SAG. 1917 is more of a Dunkirk – but if it’s good, it could still win at DGA and PGA, even if it doesn’t seem a SAG film.
I agree. Little Women has big names but late arrival struggle because they don’t have big buzz in time to get heat. I am not too hopeful, to be honest.
I could see it as a player for nominations still, but in terms of winning Pic, seems more and more doubtful.
I think it might struggle with noms let alone winning. However, it is an Oscar bait and if it’s good it will get in. A win would be very hard for a film that’s an adaptation that’s been done many times before.
Yea. Even if it wasn’t late, I’ve always viewed it, at best, as A Star is Born type. Been made many times. May get several noms, helped by below-the-line period categories. So, like you, I’m a bit skeptical on how much a player it’ll be.
And unlike ASIB, I wonder how well it’ll do at the box office in a busy season…
Some people are hoping it’s as good as Sense and Sensibility because Gerwig is good, but how many adaptations were there of that novel before Emma Thompson adapted it? It will have to be unique and stunning to win anything big. It can still win for acting, of course.
Actress is still weak in terms of five noms, but I actually think Zellweger is a strong front runner with ScarJo in decent shape if not. So winning there will be hard. But Supporting is more open to me (though, others on here give it to Dern to lose – which I’m still not in agreement on).
The fact you didn’t think Dern is a solid frontrunner is a big worry. Some are saying the role isn’t big enough, but they have been wrong before. Some thought Ali’s role wasn’t big enough, but it was more than good enough. Is it close to Ali’s in Moonlight or Harrelson’s role in 3 Billboard?
Don’t get me wrong, atm, if you made me bet on what’s been seen, I’d bet on her as the frontrunner. I just don’t think it’s a lock.
If Zellweger sweeps Actress, I think ScarJo may be even odds with Dern in Supporting, in that they may want to reward her in a great year. And ‘if’ JoJo is strong, I could see that race a toss up.
Tough to say on Dern, for me. She’s great. And I think the film will be popular with Academy types. She’s also overdue. It is a smaller role, but she steals some scenes. I’d compare it more to a Judi Dench in Shakespeare. It’s a little less showy, but also a bit bigger of a role to that. But closer to that, from my perspective. I think she’s overdue enough, the film is strong enough, and it’s ‘just’ showy enough of a supporting role, that I totally get why she’s a frontrunner. But it’s not quite enough, a la Whoopi in Ghost, Janney in Tonya-type supporting, for me to say, “duh, it’s hers.”
But, again, if that ScarJo lane doesn’t happen, I don’t see anyone else yet but Dern. But that’s where Bombshell and Little Women could really shake up the race.
You think Johansson is strong enough to win for JOJO? or is it more of a consolation prize after losing in lead, and the double nominations will do the trick? I don’t think there are enough raves for her to win for JOJO and many critics hate the film. Still, she could fall back on that one if she loses in lead. If there isn’t another clear favourite, I could see her winning. I think Dern and Robbie are more likely at the moment, and the latter has two top performances this year, let’s not forget.
I think it’s a combination.
Her role isn’t huge, but it’s central. And it’s a VERY likable role and character. I don’t think she’d win unless it’s both a consolation for her great year (i.e., doesn’t look like she’ll win Actress) AND JoJo wins Picture, or at least gets close to it (which, I still think it might. But, we will see. It’s the type of film I could see winning hearts, despite critics, or its perceived diviseness will kill it). I think the film remains an unknown Wild Card in terms of how actual voters will respond.
Her role is crucial to the film, which helps. She’s great and gives the film an emotional core, which helps. I wasn’t thrilled with her accent, but hey. But, yea, I think it just comes down to consolation prize and love of the film question marks. Why I’m not saying likely but possible.
Robbie does seem like the lurking threat…if that doesn’t pan out or the above for ScarJo doesn’t happen, yea, probably Dern.
The tricky thing is we can’t tell which film they will like the most as that could help point us towards the likely winner. I think MS could be BP winner and that is likely to drag Dern with it even if her role isn’t that big. You think JOJO is a threat in BP? Sasha thinks that too and she is rarely wrong. We will have too see, but I have huge doubts about it.
I currently think OUATIH or JoJo are most likely to win, of what I’ve seen (so, Irishman and 1917, withstanding. Meaning, I agree with Sasha who has OUATIH #1 and JoJo #3 with Irishman in between, currently). OUATIH makes perfect sense as a film about Hollywood by a classic director that was a box office hit and not from Netflix. JoJo is the unknown – could sink or be a Green Book (which only had a 78% but made audiences laugh and cry). Last I checked, JoJo was at 80%. JoJo is a film you ‘feel.’ It’s a classic Oscar topic with a very unclassic satire telling of it, hence Wild Card. But, I don’t think its Toronto showing is an anamoly. It’s a film I could recommend to many people I know, which is the type of film that can win, even if it’s often not my fav. (But, in this case, JoJo is actually in my personal Top 5 this year).
It’s known I’m not an MS fan, but it seems more the type of film that wins Screenplay and Supporting Actress to me. And throw in the Netflix angle…then again, it is about Hollywood/Artists types, so many voters will relate to it, as films relating to Hollywood or artists have won a lot lately. But I’d still put it third (like Sasha, after OUATIH and Jojo – though, she has Irishman #2, but, again, haven’t seen it, so not in my current rankings). It just doesn’t seem like the type of film that could break down that Netflix barrier, whereas, perhaps a Scorsese 3.5 hr epic could. But, hey, I don’t know more than anyone else 🙂
I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that Joker and Avengers: Endgame will be nominated at PGA. Outside possibility of Us. That leaves a very narrow margin for your more typical Oscar fare. PGA will be very interesting this year.
Great piece by the way. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this one, Sasha.
I think that Us is dead. It’s forgotten outside of Lupita performance. Peele is Shyamalan 2.0 minus overseas appeal. The movie fizzled once people saw the stupid twist. It made tons of money thanks to big opening weekend but left no lasting mark.
Endgame might get SAG Ensemble too.
Yea. I think Us is dead, other than Lupita and perhaps SAG.
Agreed on chances of Joker and Avengers at a place like PGA.
What is interesting here is that Us did not “fizzle”. It’s domestic and worldwide box office is identical to Get Out. It left a lasting mark. You are incorrect.
It fizzled in the sense that it opened with double the Get Out opening number but had much worse legs and ended up 1M short of Get Out (175M vs Get Out’s 176M) while overseas was less than 1M better (80M vs Get Out’s 79.3M). So obviously Get Out had longer impact and was talked about as a contender at this time while Us is barely mentioned. I’m a fan of Us but I know that a lot of people thought it was dumb and I see no reason for AMPAS to somehow take to it when normies didn’t.
They are perfect examples of what they like to nominate… If DEADPOOL and WONDER WOMAN can get in then JOKER and especially ENDGAME deserve to.
Well, with impressive 8,3M at box office on Monday, “Joker” just reached 200M domestic and 556M globally. The film is on its path to reach 1Billion.
IT IS STILL A COMIC BOOK MOVIE..I DON’T SEE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JOKER AND AVENGERS END GAME. Remove the name joker from the movie and it will bomb.
https://media0.giphy.com/media/3o85xFGjUBlUw4XEek/giphy.gif
https://media0.giphy.com/media/pjnfNhaFmkhxu/giphy.gif
If Joker doesnt make it into best picture… Will the Academy announce a new expanded ballot with 20 slots for 2021?
Just asking…
Ha ha, I just wanted to ask for a friend too! 🙂
Haha… Up to 20 BP’s but you can only list 7 on the ballot for nominating because Academy.
By the way, about NBR voters, this might be very well-known but I’m not sure whether it is so I’ll just state this: I’ve heard one notable critic mention on a podcast that they vote for the NBR. So how many voters are there (I understand that getting an exact amount is difficult but does anyone know approximated numbers), and how much can we deduce from one voter’s opinion?
Scott Feinberg, “National Board of Review Chief Responds to Claims of Favoritism and Murky Membership”, The Hollywood Reporter, January 05, 2016.
Their relatively random picks and tendency to go all in for one film also seem to indicate a very small group.
Thank you
We would very much like to know though who that « notable critic » you were speaking of might be and what his opinion on this season’s crop could tell us about the race at hand. Please let us know!
David Ehrlich
You know, we can see the name if we point at it with cursor? Why hide it? I didn’t think he would be one of them. His taste seems very different from their usual picks.
Yes, I know that. I hid it because I wanted to stylize the text, in some ways it felt like the right thing to do visually
“The DGA is all in for the director as star and less often picks the director whose movie they simply liked (sometimes it happens, like The Artist).”
I think you meant The King’s Speech. The Artist was well directed. On the other hand, Only god knows how in the world Hooper won over Fincher. That one is an all timer, almost as bad as Crash winning over Brokeback Mountain.
That was back in time when Picture/Director splits didn’t happen and they really loved TKS feel-gooder.
I agree with that reasoning, even if it’s not merited. They clearly loved TKS more and it was going to win BP, so it made perfect sense to award Hooper. There are only three directors who failed to win Oscar despite their films wining BP. They are directors of Shakespeare In Love, Gladiator and Chicago.
yep, and you can see the pattern. Directors who won had “important” movies but winners were crowd-pleasers. So pretty much Picture wins were voting for what they loved and Director wins were honoring craftsmanship even if the movie wasn’t that loved.
If you loved a film enough to give Best Picture, then the credit has to go to the director. That’s how it has always been. I mean, who the heck directed it? What has the changed the prevalence of the writer/director/producer. You can now award almost any director of BP winner without giving him BD. They usually win for writing and or producing.
Preferential ballot crap changed that.
Saw The Kings Speech half way through not long ago, and yikes, it does not hold up in second view. I had to stop
I strongly disagree. For me personally, Hooper’s direction of TKS and Danish Girl and to an extent Les Mis is a masterful work on both aesthetics and techniques of cinematic composition. Whether it’s mise en scene, irregular framing or close ups, they all create thematic virtues that give context information and subtext to the characters and scenes that become a vital component of storytelling as the films move along.
I know it’s an aspect that most people doesn’t realize watching films and most often been neglected but the way Hooper uses it in his films I mentioned shows how he is in command not just of his vision but also of his audience without them knowing. Some or most people find this clumsy but for me it’s simplistic, yes yet purposeful.
It has been a talking point most of the time since TKS vs TSN but I humbly couldn’t say the same thing with Fincher’s direction in TSN but there I see the discrepancy between the two films. So I choose Hooper’s TKS and Danish Girl direction over TSN in a heartbeat and a deserved Oscar.
Whatever floats your boat. DGA and Oscar were virtually alone in their decision. I expect they will be teaching Hooper in film school soon.
Because David Fincher is not liked in Hollywood. He has reputation for being very difficult. For the Social Network, it was Aaron Sorkin who was out in front with the media and campaigning for the film.
I get that awards are about likeability as well as talent. The greatest directors never won. And Scorsese only won because he mellowed and toned down his style somewhat.
This might be one of the most essential pieces ever written on this site. One of the first things one should read if interested in the Oscars.
“Questions to ask: can Parasite break into the Best Picture circle at Globes?”
Foreign Language films are forbidden to get a Best Film – Drama or Best Film – Musical or Comedy nomination at the Globes.
I wonder why that is? It’s the most ridiculous rule I have heard. The Globes are the only major awards ceremony that disqualifies films because of their language. It’s stupid. They should change it. It’s 2019, for heaven’s sake! Is it because they are foreign journalists and that’s why they shun films not in English because they don’t want to be biased or accused of being biased? Can they not trust themselves to vote for what they think is best? It’s very strange and well past time they changed this stupid rule. Cinema is become global and the Globes will be a laughingstock if they don’t change this rule. I mean, they have ten slots for BP so it’s not like they don’t have room to fit one film not in the English language.
At least it’s not like it used to be, that a film needed to be American in order to compete for best picture awards. And their whole basic idea seems to be that no film can recieve more than one best picture nomination because the same rules also apply to animated films.
The reason I always explain the weird ignoring of non-English language films by is that these are not just foreign journalists, they’re the journalists who have come from all over the world to Hollywood to cover Hollywood movies because they are interested in these movies and love them. Thus they are the only awards group left that treats Hollywood as “hallowed ground” and their interests are strongly shaped by this attitude. As much as their show is about getting stars into a room and as much as they are an Oscar precursor, they’re secretly an organisation in love with the old idea of Hollywood in a way that even the Oscars really aren’t anymore. And that’s kind of charming in its own way, even if it does lead to the snubbing of several very deserving films each year over completely dull films
Wait – when did the rule for animated films kick in?
Cause I know Toy Story 2 won Best Comedy or Musical & The Incredibles was nominated.
I can’t find any more recent examples (I didn’t do a very thorough check), so maybe the rules have changed since then?
It’s a bit silly, but then again their qualifying criteria for comedy vs drama is so arbitrary at this point, who really cares (other than their clear influential powers).
I’m not sure if it happened after The Wind Rises was nominated in foreign language film but at least these days the rules state: “Animated motion pictures are not eligible for the Best Motion Picture – Drama, Best
Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy or Best Motion Picture – Foreign Language awards”
Beauty And The Beast and The Lion King also won GG Best Picture Comedy/Musical. They didn’t have animated Feature category until 2007 and that’s when they changed their rules to exclude animated feature from Best Picture. It’s dumb, because they have ten slots and FLF and animated films are rarely good enough to be nominated or at least have enough buzz.
It’s more stupid than charming. I think the real reason is to expand the people they can invite to their show. They are literally throwing nomination and awards as many as they can. They are the only major group to have more than one Best Picture. Excluding foreign films is going to look very dumb as we will see at least one FLF in BP in the future as global cinema takes over.
Of course it’s stupid, but I guess I find something a little cute in what I consider to be the reasoning behind it since I don’t think it’s because of some sort of hatred towards non-English language films but because of believing in the dream of Hollywood. Being stupid because of believing in a dream that’s kind of beautiful feels rare in this world so I mind it less
Great analysis but where is BAFTA? They have pretty good track record and now may turn more accurate since AFTRA diluted SAG/AMPAS overlap. or is it that they announce after the voting period or something?
Thank you Sasha for your expert analysis ..I’m a little less confused now, but I did notice how eerily prescient the GGs were last time by awarding Greenbook the exact 3 Globes it eventually got at the Oscars
The upcoming ceremony should be referred to as the “2019 Oscars” since they’re dealing with the best movies of 2019. It’s a real pet peeve when people refer to the Oscars by the ceremony’s year rather than the year of the films involved.
See, I think the opposite is right. It’s not when the films are released but when the ceremony is held. You can refer to season in the same year films are released, but the ceremony is held the year after the films are released.
This. I’m always confused if it’s next year predictions or this year ones.
This is why I go by ordinal numbers. This’ll be the 92nd Academy Awards or 92nd Oscars.
Good thinking!