Craig, Ryan and I spitball the Oscar race currently.
Craig, Ryan and I spitball the Oscar race currently.
Sasha Stone has been around the Oscar scene since 1999. Almost everything on this website is her fault.
Better late than never! Barbie was placed in Adapted at the Oscars but is in the Original Screenplay category here,...
Read moreThe Academy should take a bow this morning for bringing back the Oscars, restoring them to their former glory in...
Read moreThe Golden Globes went off well enough this past year that CBS has signed a five-year deal with the Globes...
Read more
I need to to thank you for this great read!! I absolutely loved every little bit of it. I have you book-marked to look at new stuff you post…
I need to to thank you for this great read!! I absolutely loved every little bit of it. I have you book-marked to look at new stuff you post…
I need to to thank you for this great read!! I absolutely loved every little bit of it. I have you book-marked to look at new stuff you post…
I need to to thank you for this great read!! I absolutely loved every little bit of it. I have you book-marked to look at new stuff you post…
Where is part 2 already? Lol
Where is part 2 already? Lol
Where is part 2 already? Lol
Where is part 2 already? Lol
Lead Actor
Locks: Dern, Ejiofor, McConaughey, Redford
Likely for last spot: Leo, Hanks, Forrest, Bale (American Hustle)
Long Shot: Phoniex.
Lead Actor
Locks: Dern, Ejiofor, McConaughey, Redford
Likely for last spot: Leo, Hanks, Forrest, Bale (American Hustle)
Long Shot: Phoniex.
Lead Actor
Locks: Dern, Ejiofor, McConaughey, Redford
Likely for last spot: Leo, Hanks, Forrest, Bale (American Hustle)
Long Shot: Phoniex.
Holding my breath for Part II
Lead Actor
Locks: Dern, Ejiofor, McConaughey, Redford
Likely for last spot: Leo, Hanks, Forrest, Bale (American Hustle)
Long Shot: Phoniex.
Holding my breath for Part II
Holding my breath for Part II
Holding my breath for Part II
where the hell is part 2
where the hell is part 2
where the hell is part 2
where the hell is part 2
Whitaker is not happening. I feel like the Oprah of it all and the Lee Daniels of it all has him fading into the background like set-dressing when speaking of that movie.
Locks:
Ejiofor- Needs no explanation.
Dern- Dern has Jack campaigning for him and therefore a lot of the older sections of Hollywood who have known him for years in his corner.
Solid but Not Committing Them to Locks:
Hanks- Sony is horrific at campaigning (see: Its dealings with ZDT and The Social Network that made much more of a cinematic imprint in their years than Captain Phillips) and he can always slide into supporting in Saving Mr. Banks.
McConaughey- Critical momentum going back to last year and the ‘transformation’ performance piece help. But is his movie big enough? Will its themes and the fact ‘straight face on a story largely tied to the LGBT community’ aspect of the film be a non-starter for a lot of voters? Also, it seems the McConaughey imprint from last year was more on critics and, unfortunately, not on voters and SAG where he was so robbed of a nomination for Magic Mike.
Placement Inflation:
Robert Redford- He has an Oscar. It is not an acting Oscar but it is an Oscar. What movie did he really deserve an Oscar for all those years ago? If he had backing from Harvey Weinstein then I could see the spinning for his front-runner status but he just has Roadside Attractions. Roadside Attractions is small and known for getting the nominations but not the wins. I am sure there are segments for the Academy who love Redford (and probably stupidly voted for him over Scorsese all those years ago) but is the movie and performance accessible enough? It’s box office and not as raving reviews as it got at Cannes say no. But he’ll be helped by legacy that has little to do with what is on screen. Completely not convinced he wins when Best Actor-Picture is often tied together.
Still In It:
Christian Bale- Transformation role, in a DOR movie, in an appealing genre movie, helped by his completely different turn in Out of the Furnace showing range, but also competing with a fellow Sony film in the category, and in just a really tough category altogether. I see it more likely Sony has nobody in the Best Actor race than two.
Michael B. Jordan
Oscar Isaac- CBS films is small so he needs the critics/actors push.
Joaquin Phoenix- WB has Gravity a #1 priority but Phoenix getting a nomination does not interfere at all with that.
Forgot to include DiCaprio. Spoiler for the grouping, imo. It doesn’t need to be Marty’s best reviewed movie if the hook is that DiCaprio and Hill are giving some of their best performances.
Whitaker is not happening. I feel like the Oprah of it all and the Lee Daniels of it all has him fading into the background like set-dressing when speaking of that movie.
Locks:
Ejiofor- Needs no explanation.
Dern- Dern has Jack campaigning for him and therefore a lot of the older sections of Hollywood who have known him for years in his corner.
Solid but Not Committing Them to Locks:
Hanks- Sony is horrific at campaigning (see: Its dealings with ZDT and The Social Network that made much more of a cinematic imprint in their years than Captain Phillips) and he can always slide into supporting in Saving Mr. Banks.
McConaughey- Critical momentum going back to last year and the ‘transformation’ performance piece help. But is his movie big enough? Will its themes and the fact ‘straight face on a story largely tied to the LGBT community’ aspect of the film be a non-starter for a lot of voters? Also, it seems the McConaughey imprint from last year was more on critics and, unfortunately, not on voters and SAG where he was so robbed of a nomination for Magic Mike.
Placement Inflation:
Robert Redford- He has an Oscar. It is not an acting Oscar but it is an Oscar. What movie did he really deserve an Oscar for all those years ago? If he had backing from Harvey Weinstein then I could see the spinning for his front-runner status but he just has Roadside Attractions. Roadside Attractions is small and known for getting the nominations but not the wins. I am sure there are segments for the Academy who love Redford (and probably stupidly voted for him over Scorsese all those years ago) but is the movie and performance accessible enough? It’s box office and not as raving reviews as it got at Cannes say no. But he’ll be helped by legacy that has little to do with what is on screen. Completely not convinced he wins when Best Actor-Picture is often tied together.
Still In It:
Christian Bale- Transformation role, in a DOR movie, in an appealing genre movie, helped by his completely different turn in Out of the Furnace showing range, but also competing with a fellow Sony film in the category, and in just a really tough category altogether. I see it more likely Sony has nobody in the Best Actor race than two.
Michael B. Jordan
Oscar Isaac- CBS films is small so he needs the critics/actors push.
Joaquin Phoenix- WB has Gravity a #1 priority but Phoenix getting a nomination does not interfere at all with that.
Forgot to include DiCaprio. Spoiler for the grouping, imo. It doesn’t need to be Marty’s best reviewed movie if the hook is that DiCaprio and Hill are giving some of their best performances.
Whitaker is not happening. I feel like the Oprah of it all and the Lee Daniels of it all has him fading into the background like set-dressing when speaking of that movie.
Locks:
Ejiofor- Needs no explanation.
Dern- Dern has Jack campaigning for him and therefore a lot of the older sections of Hollywood who have known him for years in his corner.
Solid but Not Committing Them to Locks:
Hanks- Sony is horrific at campaigning (see: Its dealings with ZDT and The Social Network that made much more of a cinematic imprint in their years than Captain Phillips) and he can always slide into supporting in Saving Mr. Banks.
McConaughey- Critical momentum going back to last year and the ‘transformation’ performance piece help. But is his movie big enough? Will its themes and the fact ‘straight face on a story largely tied to the LGBT community’ aspect of the film be a non-starter for a lot of voters? Also, it seems the McConaughey imprint from last year was more on critics and, unfortunately, not on voters and SAG where he was so robbed of a nomination for Magic Mike.
Placement Inflation:
Robert Redford- He has an Oscar. It is not an acting Oscar but it is an Oscar. What movie did he really deserve an Oscar for all those years ago? If he had backing from Harvey Weinstein then I could see the spinning for his front-runner status but he just has Roadside Attractions. Roadside Attractions is small and known for getting the nominations but not the wins. I am sure there are segments for the Academy who love Redford (and probably stupidly voted for him over Scorsese all those years ago) but is the movie and performance accessible enough? It’s box office and not as raving reviews as it got at Cannes say no. But he’ll be helped by legacy that has little to do with what is on screen. Completely not convinced he wins when Best Actor-Picture is often tied together.
Still In It:
Christian Bale- Transformation role, in a DOR movie, in an appealing genre movie, helped by his completely different turn in Out of the Furnace showing range, but also competing with a fellow Sony film in the category, and in just a really tough category altogether. I see it more likely Sony has nobody in the Best Actor race than two.
Michael B. Jordan
Oscar Isaac- CBS films is small so he needs the critics/actors push.
Joaquin Phoenix- WB has Gravity a #1 priority but Phoenix getting a nomination does not interfere at all with that.
Whitaker is not happening. I feel like the Oprah of it all and the Lee Daniels of it all has him fading into the background like set-dressing when speaking of that movie.
Locks:
Ejiofor- Needs no explanation.
Dern- Dern has Jack campaigning for him and therefore a lot of the older sections of Hollywood who have known him for years in his corner.
Solid but Not Committing Them to Locks:
Hanks- Sony is horrific at campaigning (see: Its dealings with ZDT and The Social Network that made much more of a cinematic imprint in their years than Captain Phillips) and he can always slide into supporting in Saving Mr. Banks.
McConaughey- Critical momentum going back to last year and the ‘transformation’ performance piece help. But is his movie big enough? Will its themes and the fact ‘straight face on a story largely tied to the LGBT community’ aspect of the film be a non-starter for a lot of voters? Also, it seems the McConaughey imprint from last year was more on critics and, unfortunately, not on voters and SAG where he was so robbed of a nomination for Magic Mike.
Placement Inflation:
Robert Redford- He has an Oscar. It is not an acting Oscar but it is an Oscar. What movie did he really deserve an Oscar for all those years ago? If he had backing from Harvey Weinstein then I could see the spinning for his front-runner status but he just has Roadside Attractions. Roadside Attractions is small and known for getting the nominations but not the wins. I am sure there are segments for the Academy who love Redford (and probably stupidly voted for him over Scorsese all those years ago) but is the movie and performance accessible enough? It’s box office and not as raving reviews as it got at Cannes say no. But he’ll be helped by legacy that has little to do with what is on screen. Completely not convinced he wins when Best Actor-Picture is often tied together.
Still In It:
Christian Bale- Transformation role, in a DOR movie, in an appealing genre movie, helped by his completely different turn in Out of the Furnace showing range, but also competing with a fellow Sony film in the category, and in just a really tough category altogether. I see it more likely Sony has nobody in the Best Actor race than two.
Michael B. Jordan
Oscar Isaac- CBS films is small so he needs the critics/actors push.
Joaquin Phoenix- WB has Gravity a #1 priority but Phoenix getting a nomination does not interfere at all with that.
Part 2, please
Part 2, please
Part 2, please
Part 2, please
where is part 2
where is part 2
where is part 2
where is part 2
I like to give the Academy directors credit for their choices (Terrence Malick getting in 2011 when very few people were predicting him is a good example), but I just can’t do that last year. Yes, they wiped the slate, I understand that can be refreshing when bloggers, critics, and publicity narrow and pretty much set the lineup for the voters already. But leaving out Kathryn Bigelow just reeked, and was a great shame they didn’t recognize the superior direction of her film. The directors were wrong in not including her. AND she was/still is the Governor of the Director’s Branch.
Yes, KT, it is a shame Bigelow didn’t get in. But the directors gave MICHAEL HANEKE a nomination! That and Phoenix’s nomination made that oscar day for me.
Well, the Academy has usually given a foreign director a nomination, so Haneke wasn’t that big of a shock. For me, I would exchange any one of the five for Bigelow to be there.
There is a difference between taking shortcuts, relying too heavily on music or effects or an actor to tell the story, and what she did. Bigelow’s film showed such a great command of cinematic technique, editing, and direction. I was such in awe of so many sequences and how they came together.
I feel like Benh Zeitlin was helped by Fox Searchlight not having any other film on its slate so they went hard for Beasts. He was the shock nod, ‘welcome to the club’ nominee that frankly just did not belong with the competition. His whole nod and the movie was toothless by the end that it just came off, ‘Oh twenty something Sundance Lab’d the hell out of a live-action C-grade Miyazaki film. How cute! Less threatening that Bigelow and more humbled than Affleck’. To me he just sticks out as the WTF nominee that year. Haneke had momentum happening and his movie was less trying than other, DOR had Harvey, Lee was a lock (although I wish someone dug up his treatment of animals on the Life of Pi set much like all the crap came out about the other nominees), and Spielberg was a lock. Affleck and Bigelow probably split votes because same kind of movie that I noticed people had an either or choice-making plus Fox Searchlight having only one serious horse.
I’m glad I saw your post; I keep checking for the 2000 Oscar podcast, one of my favorite years that I’ve written about before.
I agree. And that’s always a good way to look at the Oscars–to break it down by company. Zeitlin should not have been nominated. Yes, it’s amazing how he got performances out of non-actors and did what he did on a shoestring budget, but it was wannabe Malick and in such a competitive year he should have be an also-ran. Of course, Harvey was going to get a horse in. And when Jacki Weaver hit, as well as the other three actors, it wasn’t a surprise when Russell was the first director announced. And Haneke has the cred, the foreign auteur with a strong pedigree, two Palme awards.
Of course, Bigelow would make any lineup and would be my winner. I wonder if she should’ve waited to unveil the film at Cannes and possibly competed for the win…but I shouldn’t argue, she became a two-time NYFCC winner and won several big critics honors. I think Spielberg’s and Lee’s direction of their films was significantly weaker. Spielberg let Lincoln run away from him, and definitely lost focus, the film could have been shaped better in the editing room. The real auteur of that film is Daniel Day-Lewis. And Lee’s film, as much as I appreciate his past work, now after seeing Life of Pi many times, it has the technical direction (there are some wonderful moments) but it doesn’t have a great execution of the director’s philosophy, the director’s overall vision and how it was achieved. The religion and God moments are told rather than shown, I feel, and there are tone balance issues. It doesn’t grab me until the boat sinks. I’ve now seen ZDT many many times (it’s been featured on Starz), and Bigelow’s direction still captures me.
ZDT is still my #1 American film for 2012. People have no idea how hard it is for Boal to make a script out of what is clearly a lot of government documents (forget the outcry of them getting access, some of those documents are usually 95% unreadable) and Bigelow to direct something that rigid. It is a remarkable achievement.
Lincoln is nowhere near my favorite Spielberg directing turn because to me it is such a writer’s movie. But I love film classicism and I can see why something like Cahiers du Cinema with their whole journal’s existence loving classicism like Ford, Ophuls, Welles, etc. were drawn to it too.
Amour is not my favorite Haneke either but long-time coming. I’ll just imagine he got this for Cache or The White Ribbon.
Lee would be out and yeah, I know he won but he was clearly the safe, most inoffensive choice. People were already put off by the Lincoln hype and Haneke and Zeitlin had no shot. DOR I thought had a shot but Harvey over-campaigned hard on that film.
If they were going with out of the box, I would’ve wanted Paul Thomas Anderson but then again, my choices for best ‘direction’ included Bigelow, Andrew Dominik, Soderbergh, PTA, and Leos Carax. Clearly the Academy and me were just not seeing eye to eye last year.
I like to give the Academy directors credit for their choices (Terrence Malick getting in 2011 when very few people were predicting him is a good example), but I just can’t do that last year. Yes, they wiped the slate, I understand that can be refreshing when bloggers, critics, and publicity narrow and pretty much set the lineup for the voters already. But leaving out Kathryn Bigelow just reeked, and was a great shame they didn’t recognize the superior direction of her film. The directors were wrong in not including her. AND she was/still is the Governor of the Director’s Branch.
Yes, KT, it is a shame Bigelow didn’t get in. But the directors gave MICHAEL HANEKE a nomination! That and Phoenix’s nomination made that oscar day for me.
Well, the Academy has usually given a foreign director a nomination, so Haneke wasn’t that big of a shock. For me, I would exchange any one of the five for Bigelow to be there.
There is a difference between taking shortcuts, relying too heavily on music or effects or an actor to tell the story, and what she did. Bigelow’s film showed such a great command of cinematic technique, editing, and direction. I was such in awe of so many sequences and how they came together.
I feel like Benh Zeitlin was helped by Fox Searchlight not having any other film on its slate so they went hard for Beasts. He was the shock nod, ‘welcome to the club’ nominee that frankly just did not belong with the competition. His whole nod and the movie was toothless by the end that it just came off, ‘Oh twenty something Sundance Lab’d the hell out of a live-action C-grade Miyazaki film. How cute! Less threatening that Bigelow and more humbled than Affleck’. To me he just sticks out as the WTF nominee that year. Haneke had momentum happening and his movie was less trying than other, DOR had Harvey, Lee was a lock (although I wish someone dug up his treatment of animals on the Life of Pi set much like all the crap came out about the other nominees), and Spielberg was a lock. Affleck and Bigelow probably split votes because same kind of movie that I noticed people had an either or choice-making plus Fox Searchlight having only one serious horse.
I’m glad I saw your post; I keep checking for the 2000 Oscar podcast, one of my favorite years that I’ve written about before.
I agree. And that’s always a good way to look at the Oscars–to break it down by company. Zeitlin should not have been nominated. Yes, it’s amazing how he got performances out of non-actors and did what he did on a shoestring budget, but it was wannabe Malick and in such a competitive year he should have be an also-ran. Of course, Harvey was going to get a horse in. And when Jacki Weaver hit, as well as the other three actors, it wasn’t a surprise when Russell was the first director announced. And Haneke has the cred, the foreign auteur with a strong pedigree, two Palme awards.
Of course, Bigelow would make any lineup and would be my winner. I wonder if she should’ve waited to unveil the film at Cannes and possibly competed for the win…but I shouldn’t argue, she became a two-time NYFCC winner and won several big critics honors. I think Spielberg’s and Lee’s direction of their films was significantly weaker. Spielberg let Lincoln run away from him, and definitely lost focus, the film could have been shaped better in the editing room. The real auteur of that film is Daniel Day-Lewis. And Lee’s film, as much as I appreciate his past work, now after seeing Life of Pi many times, it has the technical direction (there are some wonderful moments) but it doesn’t have a great execution of the director’s philosophy, the director’s overall vision and how it was achieved. The religion and God moments are told rather than shown, I feel, and there are tone balance issues. It doesn’t grab me until the boat sinks. I’ve now seen ZDT many many times (it’s been featured on Starz), and Bigelow’s direction still captures me.
ZDT is still my #1 American film for 2012. People have no idea how hard it is for Boal to make a script out of what is clearly a lot of government documents (forget the outcry of them getting access, some of those documents are usually 95% unreadable) and Bigelow to direct something that rigid. It is a remarkable achievement.
Lincoln is nowhere near my favorite Spielberg directing turn because to me it is such a writer’s movie. But I love film classicism and I can see why something like Cahiers du Cinema with their whole journal’s existence loving classicism like Ford, Ophuls, Welles, etc. were drawn to it too.
Amour is not my favorite Haneke either but long-time coming. I’ll just imagine he got this for Cache or The White Ribbon.
Lee would be out and yeah, I know he won but he was clearly the safe, most inoffensive choice. People were already put off by the Lincoln hype and Haneke and Zeitlin had no shot. DOR I thought had a shot but Harvey over-campaigned hard on that film.
If they were going with out of the box, I would’ve wanted Paul Thomas Anderson but then again, my choices for best ‘direction’ included Bigelow, Andrew Dominik, Soderbergh, PTA, and Leos Carax. Clearly the Academy and me were just not seeing eye to eye last year.
I like to give the Academy directors credit for their choices (Terrence Malick getting in 2011 when very few people were predicting him is a good example), but I just can’t do that last year. Yes, they wiped the slate, I understand that can be refreshing when bloggers, critics, and publicity narrow and pretty much set the lineup for the voters already. But leaving out Kathryn Bigelow just reeked, and was a great shame they didn’t recognize the superior direction of her film. The directors were wrong in not including her. AND she was/still is the Governor of the Director’s Branch.
I like to give the Academy directors credit for their choices (Terrence Malick getting in 2011 when very few people were predicting him is a good example), but I just can’t do that last year. Yes, they wiped the slate, I understand that can be refreshing when bloggers, critics, and publicity narrow and pretty much set the lineup for the voters already. But leaving out Kathryn Bigelow just reeked, and was a great shame they didn’t recognize the superior direction of her film. The directors were wrong in not including her. AND she was/still is the Governor of the Director’s Branch.