Careful to disguise the identity of his source, Roger Ebert reveals a clandestine rendezvous with a Hollywood Insider he calls Deep Vote, who slips him tips about how the Academy might be leaning. [Thanks to Cahiers for the tip.] It’s a fun read and the Must-Click of the day. Here are some highlights:
“Best Picture, ‘Slumdog Millionaire,’ ‘Frost/Nixon,’ ‘Doubt,’ ‘Revolutionary Road,’ ‘The Reader.’ Maybe ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.’ Extremely strong possibility of ‘The Dark Knight.’ ‘WALL-E’ is good enough, but voters will cover it in the best animation category. ‘Synecdoche, New York’ is easily good enough, but they’re embarrassed you had to explain it to them.”
‘Best director, Jonathan Demme for ‘Rachel Getting Married.’ A lock. Ron Howard for ‘Frost/Nixon.’ Utterly fascinating. David Fincher for ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.’ Danny Boyle for ‘Slumdog Millionaire’–looks like it was a tough location shoot. Gus Van Sant, for ‘Milk.’ Very powerful.’
Topping the column, Deep Vote seems most certain of one category:
“Best Supporting Actor,” he writes, “will be won by Heath Ledger. Period. For the other contenders, the nomination itself will be their reward.”
See, I’m thinking a lack of precedent doesn’t means much in this heartbreaking instance. Sure, a posthumous Oscar is exceedingly rare. But naturally it would be. A posthumous Oscar requires two incredibly difficult things: (1) a career-capping performance, (2) to be obvious and blunt: the death of the actor who gave that performance. The first prerequisite is difficult enough to fulfill. The second is crushingly tough beyond words.
I’ll ask the same question I raised when I went through my rationale five months ago. Of all the actors who are frontrunners for Best Supporting Actor, which name read from the stage of Kodak Theater is assured an emotional standing ovation? What actor’s wife or best buddy accepting his award will bring the biggest lump to the throats of those of us watching? Won’t a win by anyone else seem almost disrespectfully callous and cold?
52 Responses for "Ebert meets with Deep Vote"
…it would be one of those rare, historical moments in the academy history that I hope to see…
I hope so, too, filmboymichael. If the Oscars aren’t about these astonishing emotional moments, then where’s the drama the movies are supposed to embody and awards are meant to celebrate?
It might’ve once been said that 10-year-olds don’t win Oscars. Well, yeah, because (A) you have to be brilliant, and (B) you have to be 10.
That rare alignment doesn’t happen every year, or even every 50 years. But it happened for Tatum O’Neal.
And she didn’t win it because she was 10. She won it because she was the best of the 5 nominees. Heath won’t be winning because he died either. The award won’t be for his death; it’ll be for the last amazing thing he did in life.
Curious how little overlap there is in his Best Picture/Best Director shortlists. It’d be fun to see only two films nominated in both categories, to shake things up.
Sasha,
Thanks for article
Have to wonder about such comments , if it is not ’seed planting’; creating the reality rather than it actually being a ‘reality’
I can’t believe I am excited for a damn Ron Howard movie. That’s how meager this year is, I guess. But don’t previews for his films always turn out to be better than the actual film?
so what is the game now, everyone is discounting the dark knight so it will suddenly become the underdog and score 10 nominations? not on this side, it has been a lock for all the majors since the summer.
Yeah, I don’t buy that. “Maybe” Button or TDK? But perhaps Button needs to just be seen by more people. I just don’t think the Academy is going to go bonkers for middle-of-the-road material, they haven’t in a while now.
And Demme locked for a nom? Yeah, I don’t think so.
As for Wall-E, come on, push!
I will point out that neither Michelle Williams, Matilda, nor anyone in his family will accept it. The Academy forbids second parties from accepting it. (Thank you Brando for this.) Tilda will make a quick announcement and take it off-stage. The Academy will need to make a change in their policy to do otherwise.
And also, it looks like some deserving performances and women who are seriously due for accolades will be nominated for once: Kristin Scott Thomas, Debra Winger, Melissa Leo, Viola Davis, Marisa Tomei — these are hard-working women who deserve this recognition!
It looks like Australia is going to get screwed…
I just got back from seeing Slumdog Millionaire and I have to say I loved it. Definitely a feel good film. It was a while before I could wipe the smile from my face. I normally dislike happy endings as well but the payoff in slumdog felt good.
That was absolutely the Must-Click of the day. And it’s actually how I’m starting to see the race unfold. I’m still hesitant about saying TDK is a lock, mostly because I want it to be nominated so badly. But it’s good to know it’s not just AD bloggers who think it’s easily among the 5 best of the year. FROST/NIXON seems to be picking up steam after reviews a few months ago that made it seem forgettable. It’ll be interesting to see that unfold. If THE READER plays out as good as it looks, I’d watch out for that one. AUSTRALIA never, ever struck me as BP material. I may see it during Thanksgiving break to see if my initial thoughts were correct, but it looks like an extravagant, big, bold romantic epic that, despite those adjectives, doesn’t inspire a lot of interest.
Won’t a win by anyone else seem almost disrespectfully callous and cold?
-I agree completely. Who would want to be the guy winning what many have felt should have been Heath’s since before the movie was even released? Further, aside from maybe Michael Shannon, what other name (not names, name) have people been talking about? If nothing else happens come Oscar night, I hope Heath wins. And while this shouldn’t be the only reason for doing it (because he would earn it if he did win), think of how titanic (pun intended) those ratings would be.
We can thank “Cahiers” for bringing Ebert’s article to our attention.
I think the only reason I’m reluctant to get behind Frost/Nixon is that I already have 5 favorites in mind. Not a very good reason, so I’ll try to relax my expectations.
I doubt very seriously Demme gets in. Other than Hathaway’s performance, that movie is totally forgettable. Possibly where Clint gets in? I am very excited about Frost/Nixon. I will also be shocked if Melissa Leo actually won. The only way I see that happening is if Kate Winslet splits her vote and gets snubbed altogether. Not going to happen. Anybody else notice that Leonardo Dicaprio is conspicuously absent? I wouldn’t read too much into this article. Everyone has had a pretty good feeling that Heath was going to win. That’s not news to anyone.
I noticed that DiCaprio isn’t mentioned.
And I’m thinking Deep Throat is actually Eastwood!
To Rob Y:
The Academy allows family members of the recipient to accept the award, only when the winner is dead.
Remember in 2003, the Oscar for Cinematography went to Conrad L. Hall (who died a few months before), his son accepted the award.
Don’t forget that Demme does a stylistic departure from everything else he has ever done — other directors will appreciate his willingness to change and stay artful in new, unexpected ways…
I’m going to take a wild guess that this is a joke, a made up person who doesn’t exist. Also, the last paragraph doesn’t make sense. Did he follow EW and therefore got everything right? I like that he singles out Melissa Leo – that was cool. After many years at this, though, people who have confidence in their ability to be accurate almost always learn their lesson the hard way, after a really bad year or a bad choice, etc. Nobody knows anything. Trust No one. The trick is not minding. These are the Oscar watching rules to live by. I liked his article but I think he’s yanking our chain.
Wow. The thought that this “Deep Vote” was anyone BUT Ebert never even entered my head until I came on here. It’s clearly his alter ego, his Dr. Jekyll, his consciousness. It’s NOT an insider people.
“A posthumous Oscar requires two incredibly difficult things: (1) a career-capping performance, (2) to be obvious and blunt: the death of the actor who gave that performance”
yeah… i guess there is no chance that an iconic making performance will make any difference in the decision making, nor the fact that he was already robbed for Brockeback… Heath is as much of a winner right now as Javier Bardem was last year, almost no competition…
Just went to R. Ebert’s site, did not see Angelina Jolie’s name for Best Actress. Very shocked…could she get snubbed again? I guess all the obvious campaining for her may not work.
It’s doubled up satire because Ebert, if it is Ebert, is riffing on this idea of not being able to predict movies one hasn’t seen but basing those predictions on some kind of insider info, which many people are doing of late, including this site.
“I think he’s yanking our chain.”
I think he’s playing with the idea of all the subterfuge, and the whole silly scene in the backroom stacks of a video rental joint is obviously concocted for his own giggles (and he hopes to give us a giggle too). But if these are Ebert’s own guesses, then a few things make no sense.
For example, why would he tease that some invented person thinks Eastwood has a trick up his sleeve, and taunts Ebert with:
If Ebert is yanking our chain with that, then he’s apparently yanking his own chain as well. I don’t see Ebert as being that much of a Fight Club fan that he would be keeping secrets from himself about his own dual identity.
The two different Eastwood teases alone seem to prove that there really is someone he knows who’s seen Gran Torino while Ebert himself has not.
Likewise the cryptic last paragraph about the mystery man indicating that he got all the winners right from EW. I took this to mean the EW centerfold ballot that they print every year so that people can keep score of how they’re doing at home. Deep Vote marked his EW ballot as a record of his choices, and this is proof that he knows his shit.
It can’t be Ebert referring to himself that he guessed everything right. If he thinks he can pull that trick over our eyes, he’s… prevaricating. Because we know what Ebert’s predictions were last year, and we know he got some significant categories wrong (Ellen Page for Best Actress, for one.)
So yeah. I think Ebert’s playing with the mystery man aspect of the story for his own amusement. But no, I don’t think the conversation is complete fiction either.
Unless he’s flat-out lying, he knows somebody who claims to have seen Gran Torino. That much seems obvious. He claims this person guessed all the winners correctly last year, and Ebert knows we know that he wasn’t right about everything last year.
(And if he’s flat-out lying, what a stupid waste of his time and ours.)
I think you guys are reading way too much psychological game-playing into all this. If these are Ebert’s own guesses, when has he ever been coy about taking credit for how clever he is?
c’mon he comes out and says straight up: “I haven’t seen four of Deep Vote’s picks, so I don’t have an opinion.”
What an enormous dick Ebert would have to be to claim 4 movies will be nominated that he openly admits he hasn’t seen yet.
You guys are acting like Ebert is a blogger.
“I doubt very seriously Demme gets in. Other than Hathaway’s performance, that movie is totally forgettable.”
That sounds more like your personal opinion of the film to me. And (I don’t mean this as an insult) your opinion doesn’t really mean anything. Rachel Getting Married has been getting a nice amount of buzz all around, not just for Hathaway. Rosemarie DeWitt and Debra Winger have decent shots at supporting actress nods, there’s a campaign growing that trumpets Bill Irwin for supporting actor (which sadly is unlikely to end up getting him a nomination), and Demme in particular is getting praise for making a comeback of sorts after leaving Academy-friendly fare for docs (Heart of Gold), flops (Truth About Charlie) and commercial fare (Manchurian Candidate) in recent years. The attention to detail down to the smallest roles was pretty noticeable in Rachel Getting Married, and the documentary style of the film will give Demme a shot, though I’m not sure about the film.
(I thought Rachel Getting Married was plenty memorable, by the way)
I think Ryan hit the nail on the head with the subterfuge comment and that ties into Sasha’s chain-yanking theory — but at least he is doing it with cool and deserving candidates, for the most part.
I get excited when people in his position start to trumpet a great little turn like Winger’s in Rachel.
“It’s doubled up satire because Ebert, if it is Ebert, is riffing on this idea of not being able to predict movies one hasn’t seen”
If so, then how lame. It fails the first purpose of satire: It’s not funny. Plus, if that’s his intention then he’s pissing on the heads of Woodward and Bernstein, by suggesting they just made stuff up. Again, pointless and not funny.
I’m not saying the theory is wrong. Just if it’s right, then Ebert is really losing it. What a total waste of time. He should get a screener or two and, you know, review the damn movies.
Instead, I’m choosing to give him some credit for inventing a clever fictional premise to describe an lunch date or an email exchange with somebody who’s actually seen Gran Torino, The Reader, and the other movies in question.
Quote——————–
“Best actor,” he writes, “Frank Langella as Richard M. Nixon in ‘Frost/Nixon,’ a lock. Mickey Rourke in ‘The Wrestler,’ also a lock. Sean Penn in ‘Milk,’ another lock.” He mentions Brad Pitt, Josh Brolin, Richard Jenkins, Ralph Fiennes. Can’t say. He opens a fresh pack of 3×5s and writes down five words: Clint Eastwood in ‘Gran Torino.’
——————————
I think this is the first time I have seen Fiennes mentioned in the Best Actor category. With all the talk about Winslet and category confusion b/w her two roles, I am even more concerned that Fiennes will get overlooked for all his amazing work this year. There are at least 2 excellent supporting performances that we know of ( The Duchess and In Bruges)….and if his work in The Reader is Lead than maybe he will be nominated in that category. Seriously folks…he is way overdue and it will be too painful to see him in the supporting category, only to lose once again….most likely to Ledger…even if it is the sentimental favourite. Maybe his chances are better in the Best Actor category.
“What an enormous dick Ebert would have to be to claim 4 movies will be nominated that he openly admits he hasn’t seen yet.”
Ha ha.
If it’s a “real person” then I don’t believe he got everything right — I believe he thinks he got everything right or that he sells himself that way or if he did he got it one year on a fluke. I’ve never met anyone who gets them all, five for five, every year. EW’s Karger has come the closest, missing usually only one out of each category – but other than that it’s hit and miss. I do think Ebert is toying with the reader much the way he did with the Creationist piece that stirred up some trouble.
I think he could allude to movies Deep Vote hasn’t seen if he’s talking about an alter ego, why not? He’s seen one but he’d predict the others he hasn’t seen. Word just got out yesterday about Ebert in Gran Torino (per Hollywood-Elsewhere) where supposedly five top critics said he was a lock….If Ebert is writing something satirical, it’s very funny and sharp. If it is a real person, I’ll toss it on the pile.
I liked Rachel Getting Married a lot. I liked the drama of the family (which reminds me of another BP movie that I love). The cast is a standout, particularly Debra Winger and Bill Irwin. I hope they win the SAG ensemble award.
But, I do not think it will make BP or BD. For the scale of the movie, it peaked a month ago. Should have been released in Dec for maximum Oscar impact.
On a lighter note, I’m waiting for America to do a Full Monty with all of these terrible, terrible lay-offs.
Also, Deep Vote has nothing on AD prognosticators. Pshaw!
Ebert says Deep Vote says:
hmm, this makes me wonder because it feels like something Ebert would think. It must be killing him that there’s no equivalent of Crash or The Great Debaters this year.
ok, you guys have shaken my confidence. I’m fully willing to accept that Roger Ebert wrote this in some sort of… let’s be generous and say “fugue state.”
In which case, it’s adequately amusing and pleasurably meta.
Moreover, if that’s what this is, then Ebert has now “meddled with the primal forces of nature” and effectively erased any remaining boundaries between what we do here and what ‘professional critics’ are supposed to do.
And for that, he does deserve the Tyler Durden Primal Forces Meddling Medal of Merit.
“Word just got out yesterday about Ebert in Gran Torino (per Hollywood-Elsewhere) where supposedly five top critics said he was a lock…”
alright, now you’re all just fucking with me.
I saw Gaslight too, I’ll have you know.
Yeah totally. What Oscar predictor with a good track record would write that, lol. I love Sophie Okonedo.
Wait, my bad writing, bad grammar – meant to say, word got out on Hollywood-Elsewhere about Eastwood in Gran Torino!!!
OMG Ryan, I love “meta”
And Sophie was the best thing about that lame-brained Dakota Fanning crap-fest.
“c’mon he comes out and says straight up: “I haven’t seen four of Deep Vote’s picks, so I don’t have an opinion.”
What an enormous dick Ebert would have to be to claim 4 movies will be nominated that he openly admits he hasn’t seen yet.”
Well, Ebert already reviewed a movie he didn’t fully see, so this seems like par for the course.
I don’t believe in actors/actresses vote-splits anymore what it comes to nominations. Kate Winslet is in the race.
In recent years, Leonardo DiCaprio was going to get off the race by having two great performances – didn’t happen. Cate Blanchett did great etc…
It does affect winning, though. Since Sigourney Weaver’s double-loss, there have been a few Julianne Moores.
I see the supporting roles going for Ledger and Winslet. Though, I feel like Winslet should win lead and not supporting, it’s better than nothing (Cate Blanchett-effect).
I see actress going for Streep. In fact, I see Oscars 2009 being more mainstream than most of this decade. No Melissa Leo, then. Actor, I don’t know – Penn should be a good bet, but he just won a few years ago and is not a big fan of award shows like these. Academy does love gay characters in this category, though. Maybe it’s DiCaprio’s time or is he still too young? Is Adrian Brody still the youngest to win best actor? Langella was “robbed” just last year, so maybe? I’m gonna go for DiCaprio, as of now.
People seem to vote with reason what it comes to nominations and the actual winners are voted with heart. Still:
People have told me that Academy will vote for Ledger, because he’s dead. I think, it’s just the opposite. They will not vote for him for that. They need to ask themselves “is the role really so good that no-one will accuse them for voting a dead guy? Sympathy vote.” In the end, I think he will win cause so far he IS the best. No matter what happens, this category is probably the most discussed after the show.
Dead giveaway:
Quite possily Kristin Scott Thomas in ‘I’ve Loved You So Long.’ She’s now starring on Ibsen on Broadway. That never hurts. Academy voters can’t stand Ibsen, but they like to be associated with him.
Ebert knows it’s Chekhov (The Seagull) not Ibsen and would have commented on this in an aside. He is so pulling our legs with this.
Gaah! Who confuses Ibsen for Chekov!!!????
Deep Vote is absolutely a real person, and is absolutely an insider. I do not entirely agree with him or her, but I only sometimes make predictions myself (because, after all, what do they really mean?). Yes, the last paragraph is a joke.
Oh shit. Ryan was right as usual. Thanks for clearing it up, Roger. The Reader AND Revolutionary Road on the slate would be interesting.
I hope Ebert updates us on Deep Vote’s predictions as the season unfolds.
THE DARK KNIGHT not in the Top 5?
I’m sorry, but unless DOUBT blows my dick off this side of the poor frontman for Three Dog Night, I don’t buy it.
That trailer got NO response from the audience in the 3 times I’ve seen it in the last few months, and it sells itself off as an Oscar bait retreading of Arthur Miller’s work.
Don’t worry, RRA. Doubt is great, I was very engaged and I can see it as a potential SAG ensemble winner, but there’s something too small about it for Best Picture. Then again, Million Dollar Baby and Driving Miss Daisy were small too.
Yvette
November 19th, 2008 at 9:24 pm 21
Just went to R. Ebert’s site, did not see Angelina Jolie’s name for Best Actress. Very shocked…could she get snubbed again? I guess all the obvious campaining for her may not work.
____________________
I don’t want to belabour the point – so I’ll be brief. “Obvious campaigning?” Isn’t she like the only star (or one of the VERY few) in Hollywood who does not have a PR agent or agency?
Are you confusing the act of promoting a film, with ‘campaigning?’
Who would be doing this ‘campaign?’ The studios?
It seems like Angelina Jolie is treated unfairly – she doesn’t have PR agents campaigning like mad to rack a nomination up for her (some of these agencies actually hire a whole new seasonal staff for the awards season) – but even if she did, I’m sure, unlike other peers, she alone would be criticized for it, as some already call her even BEING in the film, ‘Oscar baiting,’ (would it be the same if Rachel Weisz, Jen Connelly, Hilary Swank and/or Reese Witherspoon had been cast)?
But we’re really skating on the edge of ridiculous, when the reality is Jolie hasn’t ‘campaigned,’ for jack.
No wonder you have actors wanting out of this game – this whole awards part is silly, superficial and deceptive as f*ck.
Nope, Jolie doesn’t have an agent/publicist, this is a well known fact. She is promoting the movie in England as part of her obligations with the studio but unlike last year, she only gave one TV interview in America (Today show) a press conference, and various print interviews.
Who cares if she doesn’t get nominated?OSCAR or not she did a decent job with a weak script. Most of the people that I have spoken to, said that it was a great movie, even if many critics said otherwise.
I would love to see Jolie nominated but I have little faith after last year’s snub.
It should be enough that Heath’s Joker is the years best performance, so far, in any category, for him to have the win. The only true competition is either Robert Downey Jr, who has been losing some steam for his incredible ebonics performance (a character never leaving character) in Tropic Thunder, and of course, the dangerest competition: Michael Shannon.
Go Heath Go! My god. Just remembered Brokeback’s loss to *vomit* Crash
PS: I’d like to add that this is the first time I actually look forward to a Ron Howard movie.
PS.2: The Dark Knight is a Top 5 contendor. End of story.
PS.3: Doubt will be good, not great. So I don’t think it will be in the main category.
PS.4: I’m betting on Slumdog or Benjamin Buttom for the win. The Dark Knight as the underdog.
The other thing that I find curious is how and why some films and actors get the immensely charitable and generous treatment before their movies have even been reviewed or seen. That HAS to be all PR too. LOL What I find so deceptive about this PR generated press and media buzz for films that aren’t released, is that you’ll essentially have these 11th hour films and performances that haven’t even come out — so there are no reviews anywhere, just ‘word of mouth’ from other industry people(PR? Studios? etc) — and they just automatically get slotted by press and others as Oscar nods, sight unseen. Not that these predictors can’t be accurate and true – but what it looks like from the outside is that all the really good films, have been backlogged to December, not taking into account that the films and performances that may actually be undeserving have too. Meanwhile other films have had to do the work, promotions, establish box office, get the reviews (some of them sterling way in advance of award season), and THEN have critics weighing in and dissecting their chances – it’s like they are put thru all kinds of hoops before passing and getting slotted. It’s an odd and biased dichotomy.
“….what it looks like from the outside is that all the really good films, have been backlogged to December, not taking into account that the films and performances that may actually be undeserving have too.”
The sad thing is that because of the short memory of AMPAS members,
film fans have to sit thru a desert for several months and then all of a sudden the the quality films are unloaded. There has to be a better system than this. Its as if the art house audience who actually buys the tickets to these films have been totally taken out of the equation.
BTW It’s great to see Mr. Ebert joining us.
Welcome, Roger! Great to be literally on the same page!
Thank you for being on my show a number of years back at Toronto.
However, it’s Chekhov, not Ibsen. But you knew that right? Who wrote “The Seagull.” Still it’s THREE HOURS. I don’t have the time…
And Melissa Leo, who I know from the Actor’s Studio where we’re both members….I’d love it. I loved the movie…but nobody’s watching it…
And there’s Kate and Kate and Cate…The Story of the Best Actress Race this year “Kiss Me Kate”….But which Kate…or Cate?
And no Sophie Okenado this year either, I’m afraid…It’s all about the Supporting Actresses in “Doubt” and “Rachel” and Penelope is winning that one…
I saw THE READER in an advance screening a couple months ago and we actually were one of the first audiences to see it and let me tell you unless they made some big changes to the movie it is in no way worthy of a Best Picture nomination. I also don’t understand why there is any debate about KATE WINSLET being nominated in lead. She is the HEART of the film. Her performance is fantastic. All the performances are very well done, but the version I saw just didn’t work at all. It had some wonderful moments near the end of the film when it really became a heartbreaking love story, but before that and after that the film ultimately was disappointing. I really hope they fixed it.
Did Roger really say that he “whispered” something to Deep Vote? I thought the man was unable to talk? I haven’t seen anyone else mention that part, unless I missed a comment.
Leave a reply