Last night, the BAFTAs showed that they did not want to spread the wealth and instead went all in with 1917. They showed pure patriotic love for the film about the war that means more to the British people, probably, than it does anyone else. World War I was a turning point for humanity in the modern era. It birthed TS Eliot’s greatest poem, The Waste Land, and altered the course of the most beautiful art before and after the war. No one really knew what the Great War would be like until the bodies started blowing up and piling up, leaving devastation in its wake. 1917 is a beautiful metaphor for the realization of what that war said about human beings. We’ve always been violent. We’ve always reinvented our tools to kill animals and each other. We’ve done terrible things throughout our reign on this planet, but nothing could prepare us for the combination of all of those things playing out like monstrous theater, theater that slaughtered millions and decimated Western Europe from 1914–1918.
It is not a coincidence that the three strongest films right now are 1917, Parasite, and Jojo Rabbit, which have broken away from the pack because their themes resonate with voters. 1917 is an epic — something which hasn’t won Best Picture since 2003. In fact, there hasn’t been a sweep at the Oscars since the ballot expanded in 2009. The last film to really sweep was Slumdog Millionaire, which won all the precursors en route to winning Best Picture and seven other Oscars. It swept the BAFTAs with seven awards. But the BAFTAs do not use the preferential ballot. The Oscars do.
Cutting into 1917 over here is undoubtedly Parasite, Bong Joon Ho’s captivating film about a class war within a class war. It manages to be, like Bong himself, charming and provocative all at once. It’s heartbreaking and brilliantly written, acted, and directed. Jojo Rabbit is similar to Parasite in that it’s a vibrant, wild satire with a beating heart at the end. Parasite is more tragic, even though Jojo is about the Holocaust. There is something about Parasite that feels a lot like right now — the Kim family clings to hope in a hopeless world. In Jojo Rabbit, there are heroes. The Americans are heroes, for starters. Jojo is a hero. By contrast, in Parasite, like in 1917, the hero is but a player in a much larger, endless tragedy playing itself out, regardless of what we do.
In this climate, it’s harder for a film like Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood to prevail, or Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman, or even Took Phillips’ Joker. They can’t quite get to where the three Best Picture frontrunners are because they are specific, much much darker, and offer very little in terms of a respite from the horrors of humanity. In The Irishman, Robert De Niro kills Al Pacino, his good friend. In Joker, Joaquin kills Robert De Niro. And in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Brad Pitt kills the Manson murderers. These films will likely find their place in the long history of American film, as they are among the best of the year. But finding a place in this year’s Oscar race has proven difficult.
What helps 1917 heading into final Oscar voting is the shortened season. There is no time for counter narratives to form, as they have done in years past with the rise of social media. There have always been whisper campaigns and on-the-ground buzz, but what we see now is new. Films can now be targeted not just by rival studios but by any rando online, any critic, any interested party beyond even those who mount the campaigns. It gets brutal.
But this year, the Academy was experimenting with a shortened timeline. At the same time, Universal waited until the last possible second to show 1917, and did so with as much impact as possible. They packed screening rooms, targeted voters in hopes there was enough time to break through to the consensus. Indeed, most of us had Sam Mendes’ place in the Best Director lineup held based on some very early word from a test screening. It sounded incredible just in what he was trying to do. Was it the winner? No, it couldn’t be, because it would defy the modern era of the late breaker having no chance to win Best Picture.
Why have late releases struggled with winning Best Picture since Million Dollar Baby? Because when a film becomes an Oscar contender or frontrunner, it becomes a target immediately. If the film has time to deflect the hits, it can rebuild itself and come back strong, like Argo did. But if there is no time with a shortened calendar, the negative buzz will come splashing back and hit right in the thick of Oscar voting, making it suddenly too divisive to win on a preferential ballot.
The best and most obvious example of this was La La Land, which won everything that 1917 has won and headed into Oscar night as the frontrunner. It had already been seen in Venice and Telluride and had a Best Actress winner. The only thing La La Land didn’t have was a SAG ensemble nomination. But that beats 1917, which had no SAG nominations. 1917’s lack of acting nominations can be easily explained in that the lead performance of George MacKay, whose acting gives the film its emotional impact, was simply not a big enough star to break through in such a competitive year for Best Actor. Even Christian Bale couldn’t break through. There were so many strong performances by men competing for just five slots. But still, stats wise, this omission does give one pause when it comes to the preferential ballot.
Three films have won seven BAFTAs since 2000, when they shifted their date to being before the Oscars. Since the BAFTAs only have five nominees for Best Picture, it is easier for them to have a single film that wins a lot of awards. Even still, the majority of the time they split their votes. You can also see from the below chart that sweeps were so much more common before the preferential ballot (Slumdog Millionaire) than after (The Artist, The King’s Speech):
1917 won at BAFTA:
Picture
Best British Film
Director
Cinematography
Production Design
Sound
Visual Effects
It is in hybrid territory with a film like Gravity, which won:
British Film
Director
Cinematography
Sound
Visual Effects
Score
12 Years a Slave won Best Picture at BAFTA and then at the Oscars.
But here’s the big difference. 1917, like The Artist, won the Golden Globe, the PGA, and the DGA. Gravity did not win the Globe, but it won the Globe for Director, half the PGA, and the DGA. That was a classic split year. So far we have no indication that this is a split year. So what did La La Land win at BAFTA?
Picture
Director
Actress
Cinematography
Score
It would go on to lose to Moonlight, which also won the Globe for Drama.
There is only one film in the era of the preferential ballot to win Globe, PGA, DGA, and BAFTA for Best Picture and Director and lose Best Picture, and that is La La Land.
Helping 1917’s chances is that it isn’t a film about a relationship. It isn’t a film about musicals. It isn’t a film about anything less than a horrifying, pivotal moment in humanity’s past. It is also about a filmmaker whose last Oscar run was American Beauty, exactly 20 years ago. It is also about cinema — taking a risk and hitting it out of the park. It is also about $119 million at the box office, which puts it at the level of the King’s Speech, Slumdog Millionaire, Argo, and The Departed. It is also about the Oscars themselves: a return to their former glory of the days when big epics could still win Best Picture.
For all of these reasons, 1917 does not feel weak heading into the final days of Oscar voting. If it doesn’t win Best Picture, it will be because of the preferential ballot. Without it, there is no chance it loses.
If it weren’t for the preferential ballot and having nine Best Picture nominees, 1917 would be an Oscar sweeper. Even Thomas Newman would finally win an Oscar after losing 14 previous times. But as it is, voters like to spread the wealth with an expanded ballot in place.
We’ve all become too accustomed to an Oscar race we mostly understand. The shortened season has upended that, at least it seems like it has. We’ll find out in a week if that’s true.
“…mostly understand”? Except for a couple of awards,this is one of the most predictable, boring seasons in history.
Since preferential ballot prefers (pun intended) movies with acting noms, either this rule will be broken with 1917 or Parasite win or Jojo takes it thanks to Adapted and Editing wins. It has a strong shot at taking both plus it has an all important Acting nom in SupActress.
P.S. That’s a very nice new image of AD’s top model George MacKay. 🙂
They don’t necessarily prefer movies with acting noms, but movies with good acting that evidently resulting in acting noms. They vote for what they instinctively like, not looking at the other nominations that the movie is getting.
Parasite winning SAG ensemble would suggest that it has fulfilled the acting requirements that AMPAS voters look for in a BP.
yes, SAG ensemble win kind of compensates for lack of individual noms.
That is in no way a pun.
lol
Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood could also win and uphold the rule.
Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood could also win and uphold the rule.
Interesting factoid. How many Palm D’Or winners also won Best Picture in the last 80 years?
One. Marty in 1955.
By the way, what a great list of winners, much better than the list of BP winners.
Yet another irrelevant, purely random fact. What does Cannes have anything to do with the Oscars race?
sorry to trigger you, it was an interesting observation. Including how much better the palm d’or winners are.
I await your orders on what I’m allowed to post about.
You’re mistaking me for someone else, dude. I don’t order anyone for anything. Secondly, that fact had already been brought up by someone else. So you’re late to the party.
Beg to differ, not interesting observation at all. You’re just randomly picking out fact to downplay Parasite’s chance of winning. That’s called cherry picking.
Care to find out how many times a winner in a May festival end up getting nominated for BP in the following January?
There have been a lot of near misses. The Pianist, Pulp Fiction, The Piano, and Apocalypse Now were all probably the runners up in their respective years, and MASH might have been as well.
Jojo Rabbit will not win adapted screenplay, mark my words
I’m predicting it. But historically, AMPAS votes in Screenplay for the film that is highly regarded by critics. LW – 90, Jojo – 58.
But also Green Book – 69.
Truuue.
And Little Women did win both Critics Choice and the Scripter… Which are almost as good at predicting screenplay at the Oscars as the WGA and BAFTA. Sometimes, more so.
And Little Women did win both Critics Choice and the Scripter… Which are almost as good at predicting screenplay at the Oscars as the WGA and BAFTA. Sometimes, more so.
The more time has passed, the less 1917 has stuck around with me, and the more Parasite has, even though I saw it before 1917. I’m not quite convinced (like others) that 1917 can be categorized as an “epic,” or that Irishman/OUATIH/Joker are “darker” than Parasite, easily for me the darkest movie of the year, but those are just minor disagreements. 1917 stood out for me mostly only in the second half – and there mostly only in two of the “set pieces”/scenes. Brilliant movie, but I think that it’s benefiting immensely from the shortened season. Thing is, I’m not sure which movie would have benefited from a longer season. Still hoping Parasite pulls an upset and wins
Yeah, it’s an action movie, not an epic. 🙂 Hopefully, voters realize that too!…
Yeah, it’s an action movie, not an epic. 🙂 Hopefully, voters realize that too!…
What you are seeing from the BAFTA and WGA results are Parasite and Jojo Rabbit positioning themselves as the #2 and #3 spoiler threats for Best Picture. If Sam Mendes is going to win Best Director, then Director is key to 1917 winning Best Picture. However, like Green Book, Moonlight, Spotlight, 12 Years a Slave, and Argo, their key to winning Best Picture was by winning Screenplay first and not Director. Obviously, OUATIH could still win Original Screenplay and thus position itself instead of Parasite as the spoiler for Best Picture.
Random thought I had earlier… List of movies that won SAG Ensemble without also winning any individual acting awards at SAG:
? Parasite
Black Panther (no editing nomination)
Hidden Figures (no editing nomination)
* Spotlight
* Birdman (no editing nomination)
American Hustle
* Argo
* Slumdog Millionaire
Little Miss Sunshine (no editing nomination)
* Crash
Sideways (no editing nomination)
* The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
The Full Monty (no editing nomination)
The Birdcage (no editing nomination)
Summary:
– 5/6 of the ones that had an editing nomination at the Oscars went on to win Best Picture there;
– 6/7 of the ones that did not have said editing nomination did not;
– Parasite, of course, has the editing nomination, thus falling into the first category.
[Edited after Ferdinand’s correction – from the other thread I posted this in.]
Fascinating statistics. Thank you. The editing nomination is so important and key.
You have to wonder why, though. Like. To me Directing, Writing, Cinematography … all very important to how a film works. Acting too, of course. What is it about Editing that makes voters go “oh now, wait a minute, WAIT A MINUTE … no editing nom? Nope. Not voting for it”. Editing is extremely important, but I don’t feel its that much more important than other top categories.
Editing is filmmaking. Ask any filmmaker and they will tell you that. A well-edited movie is a good movie. It’s not something that you have to notice. The proof is in the pudding, the result of the movie.
I get that Editing is crucial and very important. But I am surprised that so much stock is put into the category when it comes to BP wins with direct correlation to the power of Directing and Writing in particular. Several films have won BP without a Directing nom, for instance.
I would put editing in equal importance as directing, writing and acting, if not even more. It’s just not as “visible” as the other elements to the average viewer. Trust me, a bad editor can ruin good writing and acting and directing. And a good editor can turn sands into gold.
100% agree with this. I also think editing is huge, and not because of the stat. There are plenty of movies I’ve disliked mainly because of poor editing…
But sometimes the “most edited” movie tends to win Oscar rather than the best edited. Just like the “most elaborate” period costumes almost always win over brilliant modern costumes. 1917s edits are brilliant, but not noticeable.
Winning, yes. Because they are voted by people who don’t know much about editing. But not in the nomination phase as the editors themselves make the selection. Unlike Birdman, 1917 was snubbed at ACE as well.
For some reason, Film Editing is a stat that has endured over time, with the exception of Birdman in 2014 which was edited to look like a continuous shot, like 1917. I can’t really explain it. I don’t think that voters looked at Roma and said that because it didn’t have an editing nomination and Green Book did, that they were going to vote for Green Book instead. I think it’s a coincidence, but no editing nomination hints at a weakness in support behind the film.
I still feel like in terms of industry nomination stats you need to combine the most notable weaknesses of three different precedents to find 1917’s comparison: Million Dollar Baby for screenplay, Ordinary People for editing (because Birdman did so much better in terms of precursor support for editing, making me question the “it couldn’t have gotten nominated” point because Birdman did) and Braveheart for acting. That’s quite a stretch.
Instead what are Parasite’s problems? That it doesn’t have any acting nominations even if it won SAG ensemble, the previous precedent for which is Slumdog Millionaire. Nothing else in terms of industry nominations.
As for wins, it’s PGA+DGA against WGA+SAG, which so far has gone 2/2 to the SAG+WGA winner (Crash and Shakespeare in Love). Films have won with less, films have lost with more but here are the two precedents for something that’s more obviously comparable to what we’re going through now (further assessments are of course incredibly valuable, if someone has points of view on individual precedents, I’d love to hear them).
These really are the two things that matter: industry nominations and wins. Parasite not being in English is not a stat. It might effect the vote at least on some level but it’s not something you can formulate into a meaningful expression that can actually live with the film in awards season rather than be forced upon it at the very least the moment cameras start filming. It’s not based on how the film has done so far with precursors, it’s not an explanation of its failures or its successes so far and it’s not something that the film can make not exist or prove wrong by performing well. Yes, 92/92 winners so far have been in English or silent but how many non-English language films have done as well as this one has and lost best picture: 0/0. No matter what Parasite does, it’s going to have that stat against it if you make it into one and there’s no way around it. The point of using stats in predictions in my opinion is that they are descriptive of how people feel about the films of the year and thus how they’re going to vote at the Oscars and that they form a living structure, films can prove that even if they have things in them that don’t fit the traditional rules, every single other precursor can prove that it is the frontrunner despite it failing at something. If you put Parasite’s language as a “failure” like this and focus on it, you’re ignoring the actual data that describes how people feel about the films in order to keep a stat running or focus on something inherent to the movie, and that is not the point of stats.
1917 missing editing on the other hand is a stat as previous films of its kind (Birdman) actually succeeded at getting editing nominations at every single precursor and thus the film is most likely not as loved as Birdman.
Sure, Jan, the foreign language stat (0 out of 90 wins) is not a stat.
It is a stat.
Boost Parasite all you like. But be real.
Some Parasite fans seem completely incapable of acknowledging its weakness and losses.
It’s like you put your fingers in your ears and sing la la la when it’s losses (GG director, PGA, DGA, BAFTA film, BAFTA Director) are read out and are convinced of universal love for a film that lost all of these.
What is that about?
Sasha called it a cult on twitter, she’s not wrong.
As I’ve said before, if it’s not 1917, I’d love Parasite to win best picture, I just think it’s a fascinating aspect of this years race how fanatical some of Parasite fans have been.
You final point, that foreign language stat doesn’t matter but the editing stat does, using an example of Birdman, the other “one take” film that didn’t have an editing nomination and won BP, is the height of absurdity.
I don’t think anybody tried to disregard Parasite’s losses around here, certainly not me. That’s why I’m calling the race a coin toss, rather than calling Parasite a strong frontrunner. It lost way too many things to be a strong frontrunner.
But let me try to explain to you why I think your read on the 0/90 stat is fundamentally wrong. I will try to use an example.
Let’s say we’re playing a lottery. There are 100 numbers, you pick 5, and if your exact 5 get picked, you win.
It’s pretty clear that if you pick any specific set of five numbers, your chance of winning is abysmally low, virtually zero.
Now, we’ve played this lottery, say, 90 (or could be 90000) times already, and the combination 1,2,3,4,5 never won.
But, looking at the results, we also see that no combination including 1,2,3,4 has ever won.
From that, we can rightly conclude that combinations including 1,2,3,4 have a very low chance of winning, and that 1,2,3,4,5 specifically also has a very low chance of winning.
But now, let’s imagine that we are in the middle of a number drawing ceremony. And the first four numbers drawn are 1,2,3,4. This is clearly unprecedented! So what is now the chance of the ceremony picking 1,2,3,4,5? Well, it’s 1/96, which in terms of the lottery is actually very high.
To recap, the probability of the 1,2,3,4,5 combination is very low, but the conditional probability, conditioned on 1,2,3,4 already being drawn, is very high. This is the same concept with awards.
Substitute (1,2,3,4,5) for a foreign language film winning Best Picture, and (1,2,3,4) for a foreign languge film doing unusually well with precursors and nominations. The simple probability of a foreign language film winning Best Picture is low (0/90), but the conditional probability conditioned on it doing unusually well with precursors and nominations is fairly high. We just don’t have the data to determine how high, because no foreign language film has done as well at precursors as Parasite.
The editing stat matters more because the industry chose not to nominate it! The industry didn’t choose to make Parasite a foreign language movie…
The foreign language stat is as significant as the fact that no films with Mark Strong in the cast has ever won Best Picture. That goes against 1917. Some were nominated and got close, but not enough to expect any actual social correlation between AMPAS and Mark Strong films. In the same way that there haven’t been enough foreign language films that have been close to winning Best Picture to declare any actual correlation between AMPAS and foreign language films.
You can choose to follow this stat all you want, but it’s easy to prove that it’s useless.
“Some Parasite fans seem completely incapable of acknowledging its weakness and losses.”
I am aware of them and I’m not saying that Parasite is definitely winning best picture but you can’t base your whole system of stats for predicting on something that doesn’t describe the level of support the movie has (a.k.a stats). I’m also not the biggest fan of Parasite. It’s not in my personal top 10 and while I’d love it to win, personal opinions rarely interest me in predicting, I have my personal awards for that.
“It’s like you put your fingers in your ears and sing la la la when it’s losses (GG director, PGA, DGA, BAFTA film, BAFTA Director) are read out and are convinced of universal love for a film that lost all of these.”
Films that have lost all of those have won before, your beloved PGA+DGA isn’t perfect (and you know what did they lose to? SAG and WGA). And let’s put it like this: imagine that you’d have the exact same wins for each film that you have now but 1917 was in French and Parasite was in English. Which would win best picture? If your answer changes, the language stat carries WAY TOO MUCH WEIGHT in your predictions system.
And it’s “the height of absurdity” to ignore something that has no precedent for or against and notice when something has precedent for being more successful despite having the same excuse for missing a nomination? That’s an interesting read
No precedent means it hasn’t happened before, it means you have 90 wins against it.
That like me saying that no film won with no editing and acting noms before so there’s no precedent for or against it.
It’s absurd.
To answer your question, if the exact same wins were reversed, I’d say Parasite has the advantage.
And to say forget Parasite is foreign means you ignore its main problem- it has its own category to win.
Parasite and 1917 both have stat barriers to overcome. It’s strange that you’re trying to wipe the foreign language issue.
My preference is 1917 but I’d love what a Parasite win would represent. Parasite would be the best BP winner in years in my opinion.
I just think that the first foreign winner would need to have sweeping momentum, winning PGA and BAFTA and become the inevitable winner, rather than the current situation. But it can still win.
Andrew, many people on this site have clearly laid out the logical weakness behind your foreign language stat, including some excellent posts above this. Yet somehow you still manage to harp about it while saying things like “height of absurdity”…
Unintelligent people trying to use stats for arguments is the height of absurdity.
There is a lot of intelligent people that use stats for a living, economists, scientists, bookies, brokers…so to label them as unintelligent is kind of foolish (and disrespectful, btw). Arguments are great for a healthy discussion, but the fact is nobody knows what’s happening, no matter how hard you champion your favorite film (which is what Andrew implies, I believe). In fact, I pretty much share his opinion.
What is clear is that most likely whoever wins best picture this year, some kind of stat is bound to be broken…again (with the preferential era, we are watching one by one fall apart, to the point, I believe, in a decade or so, they won’t really matter). I believe any of 1917 or Parasite can easily win (and even another one could sneak in). I just wonder, is PGA+DGA+BAFTA stronger than SAG+WGA? (this is a sincere question). I tend to think the first is stronger, but we can’t just ignore the fact that each one has its weaknesses..so who knows. I have not personally seen 1917, and I didn’t like Parasite much.
Many times has one stat fallen at the Oscars, of the four main ones (directing, writing, acting and editing nominations, I mean), but do you want to know how often since 1950 two of those have fallen in the same year? Zero. Not even with Green Book, Argo, Braveheart, Driving Miss Daisy, etc. – they all had 3/4, and that’s the worst any BP winner has had in the 70 years or so since Hamlet. 1917 has 2/4. The only reason 1917 isn’t completely invalid in the stats department is that it’s got that excuse for the editing snub. That’s what its entire argument hinges on (if we ignore guild stuff like 0 SAG nominations), the shoddy Birdman precedent (a movie with acting nominations galore, a SAG ensemble win and the big favorite for screenplay).
“No precedent means it hasn’t happened before, it means you have 90 wins against it.”
There’s not only no precedent for a non-English language film that has done as well as Parasite has losing best picture, there’s also no precedent for such a film winning best picture (hence 0/0, that isn’t defined, we don’t know as no film has achieved this not in English). And we can also rephrase it: “Parasite is not a film where most of the dialog is spoken in English” at which point you have precedents (yes, they’re The Artist and two films from 90 years ago but they’re precedents) or change the stat to be: “A film that has no English language dialog has ever won best picture” which means that even with Parasite the stat would survive. It’s weird if you can phrase it differently and you can avoid missing the stat.
“That like me saying that no film won with no editing and acting noms before so there’s no precedent for or against it.”
I think the phrasing would be “no film with no editing or acting nominations that has done this well has ever lost best picture” at which point, yes, you’re correct. But with this we can find: “has a film with no writing win that has done this well ever lost best picture”, which has, “has a film with no writing win that has done this well ever lost best picture”, which has happened before, and the situation with 1917 is worse than that.
“And to say forget Parasite is foreign means you ignore its main problem- it has its own category to win.”
I think I should rephrase why I don’t think it’s a stat: every film has excuses for every single miss that they have. The winners are the ones that prove that those excuses don’t matter. You don’t have editing? You get precursor editing nominations (Birdman). You’re mostly a silent film? You get writing nominations (The Artist). And the ones that don’t win are often the ones that don’t misprove their misses. “The Revenant didn’t get writing nominations because it’s not a writing movie”, “La La Land isn’t going to win writing because it’s not one of those movies”, “Gravity didn’t win acting or editing because it’s such a technical movie”. Those are excuses that you need to jump over, and while of course Parasite has not won everything, 1917’s writing and acting and editing problems haven’t been proven wrong whereas Parasite’s language hasn’t seemed to effect as much but if you hold it as the definitive problem no matter what, you’re misrepresenting the precursors and how much people love the movie. Thus it’s not descriptive of the year and thus it’s a trivia fact and not the explanation of Parasite’s possible loss if it does lose because every film has its issues and if those issues matter, they’re going to show themselves. And with Parasite we don’t know whether they really have. With 1917 they kind of have popped up with those precursor nominations.
“It’s strange that you’re trying to wipe the foreign language issue.”
And I feel that very few people are actually talking about the editing, writing and acting issues of 1917, brushing it off with: “Well, it’s not like that” as if not having writing and acting that voters think is really impressive and not having that much editing isn’t a problem in the similar way that not being in English is a problem
0/90 is an absurd nonsense b/c it’s not really a stat.
How many times has a FL was *nominated* for BP? 10. So if you want to sound remotely legit, you should say 0/10.
Saying 0/90 is like saying Adam Sandler is 0/67 in BP.
2/2 for SAG and WGA winner? LOL
“Traffic”, “Gosford Park”, “Sideways” and “Little Miss Sunshine” also had those (“Little Miss Sunshine” even PGA too!) and lost.
So it’s rather 3/7 (because “Spotlight” had that too and won).
Still: DGA+PGA is far better precursor. 🙂
And yeah, being foreign language movie is a stat. Maybe not 92/92 but all previous nominated movies (10-12, depends on how you count them) all lost Oscar so…
I literally wrote the following because of those examples you mention: “Films have won with less, films have lost with more but here are the two
precedents for something that’s more obviously comparable to what we’re
going through now (further assessments are of course incredibly
valuable, if someone has points of view on individual precedents, I’d
love to hear them).”
But did Birdman need this Editing precursor support? I really don’t think so. It was the first mainstream awards contender with the one shot trick. I think the precursors hadn’t realized yet it doesn’t make a lot of sense nominating a movie like this in Editing.
Well, the editors’ guild of all things thought it was worthy, so…
I don’t think the problem is that it is in a foreign language. I think that many voters will not vote one film for two picture wins. Sadly.
BAFTA just did with Best British Film and Best Film. And it’s happened before Three Billboards.
Roma is a better example, it won both at BAFTA so it can be done. It still lost the Oscar.
Probably would have won BP with the old ballot. The preferential ballot makes things more interesting.
It might be imagination but I’m an awards junkie and watch every guild and association telecast every year and it seemed to me both the globes and BAFTA that although it won prizes, the reception for 1917 still felt a little tepid. Compared to the response each time Parasite was nominated or won, the Korean film seems to have engendered a certain spirit and passion that I felt both last night with BAFTA and obviously SAG where the standing O and the Best Ensemble showed passion and affection for the film it’s director and its cast.
I will probably (for now) still predict 1917 for both BP and BD but there’s a pulse to Parasite that no other film seems to have ellicited this year. And it’s done incredibly well to get this far.
There is undeniable sheer brilliance in every frame of 1917, labour of love and astonishing lead performance, technical mastery but there is something brilliantly unique about Parasite which shouldn’t be underestimated. I think it’s going to be an interesting end to this fascinating season.
If Parasite engendered so much spirit and passion and affection with BAFTA voters, why didn’t it win?
The British voters, who are very nationalistic, would never vote for an Asian film in a foreign language over their home grown British film, 1917, which is the frontrunner to win the Oscar for Best Picture and Director. It is literally the strongest British film since The King’s Speech and Slumdog Millionaire. 1917 is also predicted by multiple reporters to win as many as 7 Oscars, which would be the largest sweep since the preferential ballot started with the 2009 movies, and since Slumdog Millionaire won 8 Oscars. Why would they dent 1917’s momentum and reward one of its rivals? Also, before someone says BAFTA gave Roma Best Film/Director last year, let’s remember that its British rival The Favourite was never going to win Best Picture and would have walked home empty handed had Olivia Colman not won over Glenn Close.
I’m not a member of their Academy. Who knows how close the votes have been in all the major guilds. It’s just my observation as AMPAS voters get last votes in that there’s a lot of goodwill and excitement in the rooms when that movie is mentioned or rewarded. Just don’t be surprised if mire stats are broken as other factors shift the race at the finishing line. 1917 may well be a consensus vote more readily than JOJO or Parasite but it doesn’t have from where I am sitting the sort of pulse some other movies have.
I almost feel like Jojo Rabbit is more of a threat to 1917 than Parasite. But I wouldn’t be shocked at all if Parasite did win.
Jojo won WGA, BAFTA Adapted, ACE Eddie, Editing nom, CGA win, received 2 SAG noms (Ensemble included), DGA nom. It has a lot of support. More than Moonlight, yes?
No BAFTA BP or Oscar directing nominations. Never before has a movie won without both of those, to my knowledge – at least not in the years when BAFTA had at least five nominees in Best Film. (Not sure whether there’s an exception the rest of the time, either – I just didn’t write down the rule for anything other than the 5+ years. BAFTA only had 4 nominees in Best Film for a few decades.)
That said, BAFTA is weird and often diverges from AMPAS (even if a lot less often in the top category, specifically, in terms of nominating the Oscar winner), so this is perhaps not the most reliable rule. So there’s a slight chance, still… But it’s, stats-wise, definitely nowhere near a bigger threat than Parasite.
All of the movies deemed big BP stats upsets (not by me) in the past at the Oscars (Shakespeare in Love, Crash, Spotlight, Moonlight), even post-AFTRA merger, won at least one SAG award – Jojo didn’t. (Braveheart wasn’t considered an upset at all, going by what I’ve read about that year. The directing snub was considered too big for Apollo 13 to overcome.) Also, all of the directing-snubbed movies that have won BP so far in the preferential era won the PGA. (Driving Miss Daisy, Argo and Green Book.)
Also, definitely not more support than Moonlight: no SAG acting win, like I said, no directing nomination, 6 nominations to Moonlight’s 8, it didn’t actually beat the 3 strongest movies in the BP race at WGA (Parasite, 1917 and Once), but only a bunch of also-rans (of which maybe Joker is the least also-ran-y, and pretty much nobody is predicting that one to win BP), again, no BAFTA BP nomination and, if you go off-industry, no Globes and no Critics Choice win – in any category that’s also at the Oscars. Also not the critics darling – quite the contrary… All it has to show for those many negatives is an extra ACE win, in comedy, over Once, the weakest of the three movies ahead of it for BP. And BAFTA Adapted – same opposition as at WGA, basically. And some minor guild wins which have zero relevance to BP, at least in terms of correlation.
I think the 7% I gave it was quite justified. It would be a very big upset, given what’s gone on so far in the season.
I didn’t get the same sense of adoration for Parasite in the room at BAFTAs than I did for SAG.
I think we are overestimating Parasite. If it’s so loved it would have won GG director, PGA, DGA and BAFTA.
Let’s lose the ovation meter as a sign of votes.
It got the biggest ovation at DGA & lost. It lost BAFTA.
But it’s not like 1917 has had a perfect run either. There are several awards it “should have won” if it’s loved enough to win best picture
Not perfect. But winning GG director, DGA, PGA and BAFTA BP is better than losing them.
Yes or no?
Yes. Getting SAG, ACE, Oscar and BAFTA editing nominations and winning WGA, SAG ensemble, ACE and BAFTA screenplay is better than losing them, right?
They’re just observations Andrew, and like you I share perceptions and opinions as well as conclusions re stats. ‘We’ aren’t overestimating anything. And I do measure something out of those big room, big wig players and their reactions to films and actors . I’ve often found it telling.
You cling to stats, I prefer some gut instinct and room temperature for my measurement. I don’t decry you or others doing your own evaluation. Allow me mine, thank you. 🙂
I don’t have any horse in the race. I loved 1917, Parasite and Jojo as the best 3 of the 7 BP nominated films. You evidently keep arguing why 1917 and only 1917 can win.
I am not so confident in that prediction.
7 of the 9 best picture titles I’ve seen. Haven’t seen Ford v Ferrari or Little Women
I think Parasite could win. It has a very good chance in my opinion.
Would I give Parasite a huge ovation if it won an award. Yes I would. It’s so good to see how far it’s come. Doesn’t mean I’m voting for it.
That’s the first time I’ve read that from you. I’m putting off filling in my final predictions so I don’t knee jerk off BAFTA too readily. I’ve been burnt before. I’ll read a few different punters online as well as here.
I think 1917 is favoured over Parasite, I’ve said it’s close quite a few times.
I’m not knee jeeking off BAFTA but I think the parasite adoration is overblown and minimises it’s major losses.
It’s can’t be so loved if it’s losing the major director and film awards.
I would never accuse you of knee jerk reactions. You’ve been very clear and consistent re 1917 since you saw it. I see a lot on here knee jerk when something or someone wins that it always means something for the next award body. I try to not overreact or ignore precedent. Finding the balance between stats and intuition is the most challenging thing.
If I didn’t visit here, I would predict with only about 10 percent of what I know from the major televised awards. Frankly the more I feel I know the less i find I know. I am too swayed by the mind boggling stats you all rattle off. There’s a lot to be said for it, but not in biblical proportions, hence my gut instinct about Parasite. Others have it about JOJO Rabbit but I think the Race is 1917 and Parasite this year.
What comes before the oscars is important but not the entire story. Especially that preferential ballot. It has stuffed up my scores for a few years now. 🙁
I think I’ll put parasite in my Oscars night contest. That way I either win the contest or 1917 wins lol.
Smarty pants 🙂
That’s my logic when I’m torn… Either I’m gonna be right or I’m gonna be happy. But I’ll never be angry AND wrong.
A lot of AD readers would be alright with this year’s race for the top prize if they stop to remember previous seasons. It is true (i think most here would agree) that we are dealing with a serious bunch of nominees, each and every one worthy of acclaim, in their different cinematic ways, and that’s certainly a step ahead for the academy. Being optimistic, we can only hope for improvement in other categories. It would be perfect IMO if films like Uncut Gems, The Souvenir, Portrait of a Lady on fire were also represented. Some of you may add and have a case for a movie and a certain placing on acting, screenplay and below the lines nominations. Also, AMPAS certainly needs some help with the best song nominees (“Glasgow” missing is really a crime, in this field) ,this is something extra-serious to consider for the TV Show… I would add as problematic their “usual” snub of a great Doc each and every year. Well, one can only Hope.
Films such a Portrait of a lady on fire, the farewell and The nightingale, should be in there this year. But I’ll take 1917 and Parasite as a pretty good year.
When any big stats break, like with La La Land or Brokeback Mountain, you have to ask yourself was there some reason or explanation. For both, there was.
For the lack of SAG and acting noms for 1917, is there any explanation?
Surely late breaker without well known leads would really struggle to get into acting races, particularly this year when best actor was so packed.
The lack of editing noms?
Like Birdman, the one-take concept.
So if the snubs make some kind of sense, why not go with the PGA, DGA, bafta bp/director, globe bp/director winner.
Can parasite fans hand on heart honestly say they’d rather be in the position of SAGE/WGA/ACE than PGA/DGA/BAFTA bp/director/GG BP/director?
With a film that has to break a 0 out of 90 foreign language stat?
Really?
If we’re going to factor in BAFTA Best Film/Director, can we also factor in the Korean Blue Dragon Awards, where Parasite won Best Film, Director, Leading Actress, Supporting Actress, and Art Direction? Pretty please?
I’m slightly disappointed that Sasha, who always relentlessly hammers home the fact that Picture follows Screenplay, didn’t share her thoughts about 1917’s weakness in screenplay and Parasite’s strength. Even in her spreadsheet, there is the one key difference to this year’s situation: they all won the screenplay BAFTA, something 1917 wasn’t even nominated for. I’m afraid I’m going to be a broken record about this in this last week, but Sasha taught me well: If you want to figure out Best Picture, follow the screenplay.
The big difference with La La Land was not (only) that it missed SAG Ensemble, it was that it was a non-player in Screenplay. The only near-precedent in the preferential era for 1917 is The Shape of Water, but that had none of the other weaknesses of 1917: it had strong acting support and an editing nomination, and its main competition had a massive snub (Best Director), and was WGA-ineligible (which it might’ve lost anyway). Parasite has no such problems.
True, but I would contend that 1917 missing on screenplay isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s just a sign of how strong the other scripts were this year, coupled with how 1917 is more of a visual film than dialogue/story. The story was very simple, and dialogue sparse, which doesn’t make it any less effective, it’s just not as “worthy”, some may say, as the other films nominated.
The screenplay might not be “weak” for the movie’s own purpose (which is not very complicated), but it doesn’t have the ingredients that a BP tends to have… more intricate plot with more intricate characters going through intricate emotional journeys. While the backdrop is WWI, the storyline and setup is more akin to an action movie like Gravity and less of a The Hurt Locker. *That* is why it’s not contending for Best Screenplay. And that might be its potential BP downfall.
I found hurt locker quite cold, 1917 far more emotional and moving.
You seem to miss the word I used 3 times. “Intricate”. The emotional payoff in 1917 is a lot simpler. A (not so great of a) friend die and then a reaction of a (we don’t know very well) brother. I’m afraid that might not resonate as the voters throttling through a bunch of screeners in a short amount of time.
That’s a fantastic argument! Even in The Shape of Water there was quite a bit of complex psychological stuff going on…
The “problem“ Parasite has, that you don’t want to see, is it’s foreign language, that’s the biggest barrier to overcome, no doubt.
For a foreign language to be the first ever BP winner in my opinion, if needed to be sweeping big awards, to be the annointed and inevitable winner. It hasn’t.
It lost globe director
It lost PGA
It lost DGA
It lost BAFTA film and director.
BAFTA Film and Director are not relevant, as the British would never give an Asian foreign language film Best Film/Director over their homegrown British frontrunner and easily the strongest British film to compete at the Oscars since King’s Speech/Slumdog Millionaire. Had Parasite competed in any year without a British Oscar frontrunner, it likely would have won like Roma did, but just like Taron Egerton couldn’t win this year due to Joaquin Phoenix the steamroller, Parasite couldn’t win due to the homegrown steamroller.
Also, the last 5 BAFTA Best Film winners have not matched up with the Oscar for Best Picture. DGA is only relevant with regards to the Oscar for Best Director in the preferential ballot era, as Picture and Director have split 5 out of 10 times. The Globe Director is only relevant with regards to Director again, and I think most agree that Mendes is a lock. So the only precursor you have listed that is relevant with regards to Best Picture is the PGA.
La La Land wasn’t even a non-player in screenplay. 🙂 It won the Globe and tied for the Critics Choice. But it lost the two industry awards (to Manchester and Moonlight, respectively) and that was proof enough.
Guys, how do you think this predictions ballot leaking may affect the race? Pretty much all the guesses did seem coherent to me. It had Parasite winning BP.
I don’t think it will affect the race. Joker winning Editing on the ballot was the one that didn’t make sense to me as it didn’t win any major precursor (1917 – CC, Parasite/Jojo Rabbit – ACE Eddie, Ford vs. Ferrari – BAFTA). Pretty much everything else seemed in the realm of possibility, not counting the shorts which I have no idea about.
Was voting still open anyway?
Security wise, the ballots would need to be tabulated by price Waterhouse who put individual envelopes into 2 suitcases. AMPAS would not have a list of winners, even if the votes had closed.
More likely they put a sample ballot that was filled in as an example rather than a blank one, which was a silly mistake.
Voting is open until 5pm today.
Voting has closed or is the end of today? . It was supposed to be a sample of their new predictions ballot but it was filled in.
Surely it was an error to put an actual ballot on it.
It’s my understanding that AMPAS don’t know the winners so they couldn’t release them.
And voting closed today, I doubt anything has been counted.
Leaked ballot??
no just predictions posted on ampas twitter:
parasite (picture)
mendes
phoenix
zellweger
dern
pitt
parasite (foreign)
parasite (original)
jojo (adapted)
joker (editing)
joker (score)
lw(costume)
wait, what? spill the beans! who won what?
Never mind. Just their repdictions but not an actual leak.
I see a fair spread across the BP nominees this year, with token wins for some.
I can’t see how Ford V Ferrari loses editing and sounds, giving it three wins. Then Irishman for VFX, Little Women costumes, Jojo adapted screenplay. Joker score and acting. Marriage Story and Once supporting. Then 1917 BD, cinematography and maybe production design. Then, I’m sticking with Parasite for BP, Best original screenplay, and best international film. It might even get production design.
I think the preferential ballot isn’t going to matter and 1917 will be loved enough to win BP and possible sweep (with maybe losing score, one sound, and VFX cause that should go to Avengers).
Three things I learnt from the Baftas :
1. Rebel Wilson should host the Oscars.
2. Brad Pitt could write jokes for her.
3. Renée Zellweger has a bright future in baby name consulting, because she sure knows a lot of names 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTXfcFe4Tbc
Loved Rebel. She stole the show. And yes who knew Brad was so witty ?
It is rumoured that Pitt has writers for his awards speeches.
I much prefer that to him pretending that he didn’t expect to win and acting all shocked.
For the first year in… I don’t even now how many, I would be pleased with any of those frontrunners taking the top prize. Personally, I’d like Parasite to win since it’s so damn fresh and inventive, but 1917 is a masterclass in storytelling through visual and technical aspects alone (not to discount the acting etc). Jojo balances absurdist comedy with the tragedy of the Holocaust, what a brilliant way to comment on the effect of propaganda.
Any would serve well as a representation of the year in cinema, in my humble opinion.
Nice overview. I agree with your sentiments.
Yes,
We should be celebrating that for once AMPAS has landed on the two best contenders out of the field.
Very unusual for them.
Final percentages (figured at least some slight adjustments based on BAFTA – mostly the two screenplay categories – were in order):
Parasite – 38% (up 4%)
1917 – 34% (up 4%)
Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood – 14% (down 9%)
Jojo Rabbit – 7% (up 1%)
The Irishman – 4%
Joker – 2%
Little Women, Marriage Story & Ford v Ferrari – 1% combined.
I will not be surprised in the least if anything in the top 3 wins. Not even Once. I will be surprised if any of the other six do. Still, I’m only calling won’t win on the bottom 3, even though I don’t believe in The Irishman or Joker’s chances at all. But I can’t rule either of them out with close-enough-to-100% confidence via stats.
Clearly, what it will come down to on the stats front on Sunday is going to be PGA win in the preferential era vs. age-old unbroken combined nomination stats (with the validity of excuses for snubs coming into play as well, plus perhaps the very relevance of SAG and acting nominations in general), maybe also PGA vs. WGA, and, in Once’s case, non-industry precursors vs. not winning PGA, DGA or WGA (or SAG). Also some other, less important things, as always.
To reiterate: my final official Best Picture stats prediction is Parasite and so is the unofficial one. I will say that I can far more easily visualize “1917” being uttered after the opening of the envelope (which, however, could also have a lot to do with it having happened so much more often recently), but I’m unable to find the logical path towards convincing myself that the counterarguments to Parasite winning (which are, really, only losing the PGA, voted on by producers alone, and needing to become the first foreign film to win Best Picture – I guess maybe also that it’s less likely to move voters, but that one’s less convincing) are stronger than the arguments for it (which are greater in number, at least as convincing to me on the whole, and which I’ve already listed and argued about here many, many times). So, I will go with logic over gut this year, for my unofficial prediction. It’s not clear either way, but why should it be?! As for the stats prediction, there’s no internal debating going on there – it can only be Parasite.
And why “Parasite” is above “1917” because I can’t understand it. Only two movies EVER (“Brokeback Mountain” and “La La Land”) lost Oscar after winning PGA, DGA, Globe for picture (drama or comedy/musical), Globe for directing, BAFTA for film and BAFTA for directing.
Both movies (“Parasite” and “1917”) don’t have acting nominations.
“1917” has no editing nomination but that’s pretty obvious why and it doesn’t matter (like it didn’t for “Birdman”).
The only problem is the fact that it did not have any SAG nominations but which actually could it have? Maybe ‘best stunt ensemble’ and ‘best supporting actor’ but that’s it. ‘Best actor’ was too competitive this year and it has only two actors having roles that aren’t episodic so it could not have been nominated for ‘best cast’.
And it had late premiere so…
“Parasite” obviously can win but why “1917” isn’t the clear frontrunner?
It’s actually good that 1917 hasn’t been seen as the slam dunk frontrunner, much less backlash that way.
“Only two movies EVER (“Brokeback Mountain” and “La La Land”) lost Oscar after winning PGA, DGA, Globe for picture (drama or comedy/musical), Globe for directing, BAFTA for film and BAFTA for directing.”
Only two movies ever won the Oscar after losing Critics Choice BP, WGA and ACE: Million Dollar Baby and Green Book. Only one movie ever has won with 0 SAG nominations – irrespective of whether the various BP nominees were expected to get those or not. The two BP winners since Braveheart (said exception) that weren’t strong enough for Oscar acting nominations both were nominated for and won SAG Ensemble (Slumdog Millionaire, The Return of the King) – 1917 was snubbed, while Parasite won that. None of the last 15 BP winners except for the special case of Million Dollar Baby was snubbed for screenplay at BAFTA.
And this is ignoring the editing snub altogether. If you decide you don’t buy the excuse (Birdman didn’t need that excuse, it was the clear stats favorite even without having to use it, in the end – so why are we so sure that’s why it beat the editing stat and not because it won enough elsewhere, when the opposition didn’t?!) and add that one, then it gets even worse for 1917 – much, much worse…
Who cares about Critics’ Choice Awards?
They vote for Oscar frontrunners. If “1917” was an Oscar frontrunner at time of their voting they surely would reward “1917”. 🙂
This is not a proven theory. Just a long-standing assumption of the online community. May or may not be sound. Also, I’m pretty sure The Shape of Water was not the favorite before it won Critics Choice. It had even lost Globe Drama.
Anyway, if you want to exclude Critics Choice, here’s one without them: only 3 movies won BP after losing or being snubbed for SAG, WGA and ACE – all 3. (Green Book, The Shape of Water and Million Dollar Baby.) Just one more than for your stat.
And “1917” could not have won ACE. From obvious reasons.
SAG stats are only important ones working against “1917” this year.
All other simply do not apply for this Oscar season.
And “Parasite” has more problems: no acting nominations (more weird than in the case of “1917”), foreign language movie, no BAFTA, no Globe for directing (“Roma” and “Crouching Tiger” had that as well as DGA and still lost), no DGA, no PGA (and in the preferential era only “Spotlight” and “Moonlight” won without PGA).
“1917” is a clear frontrunner. Rather obvious from the stats perspective. Don’t lie to yourself. 🙂
Parasite doesn’t have acting nominations because of racism, #OscarsSoWhite, and #BAFTASoWhite. Let’s not forget that. If only 1 non-white person (Cynthia Erivo) got an Oscar nomination out of 40 slots at both Oscars/BAFTA, why would you expect the unknown Asian actors (in the West) of Parasite to get Oscar/BAFTA acting nominations? Also, other Best Picture nominees with all/majority Asian casts like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Slumdog Millionaire, and the Last Emperor also had zero acting nominations. I find it weird that people make excuses for 1917 missing editing/acting noms, but then turn that around on Parasite. Yes, I think 1917 is the clear frontrunner from a stats perspective, but we need to remember why Parasite has zero acting nominations.
I see – so you get to rule out the stats you don’t like… Isn’t that nice?!… Well, then, I, too, get to claim the foreign language thing isn’t relevant this year because a) Parasite is way more popular than Roma (the only recent evidence that this bias matters at all, and even that got 10 Oscar nominations and won 3 Oscars, while dealing with the Netflix thing at the same time) and b) it already beat that stat a few times to win SAG ensemble, WGA and ACE. You might have made the same argument before those and been wrong. Also, no acting nominations is NOT weirder than in 1917’s case – there’s literally no reason to say that. It’s just pure lack of objectivity. Of course a foreign film (with no clear leads, mind you) will struggle EVEN MORE to get individual acting nominations!… Do you want me to list all of the BP-nominated war movies with acting nominations in Oscar history vs. all of the foreign-language BP-nominated movies with acting nominations, to prove it? “No BAFTA” is bullshit too – all of the last five BP winners also had “no BAFTA”. And plenty before them, too. (Also, remember, BAFTA changed the way they vote for winners around 2013! So this recent streak of disagreement might be even more relevant than it seems.) “No PGA” is the only decent, yet still far from convincing argument: producers almost never go for movies like Parasite, yet they very, very often go for big, flashy productions like 1917. If you can say 1917 never had a chance for ACE (and get to pretend the very fact that it had no chance isn’t relevant), then so can I about Parasite at PGA. “No DGA” is also BS: 4 of the last 6 DGA winners lost Best Picture. Who cares about DGA?! They vote on the director these days. Not relevant for what will win Best Picture on a preferential ballot. Need I also point out how often Globe directing winners lost Best Picture?… (Both recently and historically, in that case.)
See – you can make up excuses and pretend like stats or precursors don’t matter no matter what stat or precursor we’re talking about!… EASILY. Meanwhile, the facts are the facts, the numbers are undeniable. I’ll stick to that, as always – you can stick to subjectivity, instead. I have no real interest in it. But don’t tell me fucking 1917 is the stats favorite!… (You can lie to yourself all you want, but don’t try to convince others, too! It doesn’t fly.) According to the numbers and history as they stand, it simply isn’t, unless you get to pick the exact things it’s done well in and ignore the ones it didn’t. Which you don’t. And even if you did, it would not actually be that clear, but that’s another story.
Here’s one more for the road: only 2 of the last 16 BP winners didn’t win screenplay at either the WGA, BAFTA, Globes or Critics Choice: The Shape of Water and Million Dollar Baby! Food for thought…
P.S.: Trust me, I have no reason to want 1917 to not be the stats favorite! Because then, if it wins, in spite of the stats as we currently interpret them (those of us willing to be objective about these things), I’ll have a heck of a time coming up with a reformulation of my system that explains why it did. (Which I’ll be forced to, if I want to keep my little project going.) And that’s not a task I’m relishing… So, yeah, no reason whatsoever. I tried, I really did – I did my best. It just hasn’t done enough to justify being the stats favorite in any universe I’m aware of as of right now.
And, yeah… Don’t think this whole people-trying-to-convince-me-movies-with-crap-stats-are-somehow-still-the-stats-favorite-just-’cause-they-won-more-shit is in any way new to me! Been dealing with nonsense like this for years. People tried just as hard (harder, in fact) to convince me movies like Gravity, The Revenant or Roma were the stats favorites in their years (which I never ever agreed with for a second), or that La La Land was some huge lock and Moonlight had no chance… and they all quickly came to learn that, yeah, my interpretation of the stats may not be perfect (it most definitely isn’t, and it remains a work in progress, especially with the preferential ballot just 10 years old), but it’s certainly a lot better than the brute-force PGA-DGA-BAFTA-Globe picture/directing winner blah blah blah one that treats snubs and the WGA like they’re not just as important (despite the lessons about that which history keeps banging us over the head with year after year), if not more so, and tries to come up with all sorts of excuses for those movies’ snubs. People tried to excuse La La Land’s SAG snub (and WGA loss) too, Roma’s 0 SAG nominations (and, again, WGA loss), Gravity and The Revenant’s SAG snubs, even their screenplay snubs, and so on. Haven’t seen it work yet – the one time it worked (The Shape of Water) was when the other contenders all had even worse snubs to deal with (directing, editing, etc.), but that’s simply not the case this year. And in Birdman’s year (when I was, of course, on the Birdman train myself, because Birdman HAD done enough), when nothing else won anywhere near enough to make up for Birdman’s Triple Crown wins and screenplay strength. Which, of course, included a SAG win and no WGA defeat, since it was ineligible. (And it eventually won the screenplay Oscar, which 1917 is most certainly not doing.) This is not the situation this year. 1917 has not dominated the big 5 guilds. Parasite has won more of those. BAFTA is a shit predictor (due to the British/European bias and other reasons) and the only way it will ever get it “right” again is due to random variance (it’s bound to get lucky every now and then), which may or may not happen this year. Won’t mean a damn thing… Didn’t mean a thing when they got the first 5 preferential years right – as they promptly got the next 5 wrong in a row -, and it won’t mean a thing now, either, if they accidentally get it right again.
The safe money would be on Parasite if it wasn’t in foreign language. The Academy is full of xenophobic people and 1917 is just too tempting for them. It seems my two most reliable critics stats have been proven right and they will go head to head. LAFCA screenplay (winner or runner-up) is a big clue on who will win screenplay AND BP. Dallas almost never misses BD winner (their top two wins). I thought they would be very wrong this year when they had 1917 as the winner and Marriage Story in second place. They always seem to know somehow. Just like that, Dallas is correct once again.
Wow, love that Dallas directing stat! 13 of the last 14 Oscar BD winners were in their top 3, I see, and 12/14 in their top 2, indeed. Very cool!…
The actors and writers SHOULD swing it in Parasite’s favour, but I think 1917 is bait-y and Parasite is foreign.
My hope for counterbalancing that is the preferential ballot. It really does seem like Parasite is unlikely to be ranked very low by people (even Academy voters – although this is less clear, of course, therein lying the problem), whereas 1917… I could see it… So, Parasite being foreign might not be as much of a problem as it was for a boring art film like Roma (I’m talking perception) or a genre film like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. We’ll know in a bit.
Do you think 1917 will get a lot of low ranked votes as well as #1s?
I think it might… There’s no backlash to Parasite but there might be to 1917. There are certainly signs… Of course, given the foreign language thing and/or the potential strong emotional impact of 1917 on most voters, it could also very easily be the other way around, and Parasite could prove more divisive. (Although emotional impact shouldn’t help as much with a preferential ballot as it would with a straight vote, unless it’s unanimously felt, in which case it doesn’t matter what voting method is used, that movie is winning anyway. Which kind of strengthens my often-stated theory – which is also, of course, supported by the various simulations run by various people, myself included, over the years – that the difference between preferential winners and non-preferential ones, were the two systems used separately on the same set of ballots, is only felt maybe 10-20% of the time. Meaning there should only be 1-2 different winners per decade, on average.)
But no, I don’t necessarily have a stronger argument for why 1917 would be more divisive than Parasite. It certainly is with the critics and online crowd, way more. Their RT/Metacritic prove it. But 1917 has the PGA win. However, I still think a movie like 1917 will always have a huge advantage over a movie like Parasite with that kind of a voting body, even beyond the foreign thing. Also, writers, editors and actors did not vote on that. And 1917 has shown itself to be clearly weaker than Parasite in all of those departments (0 SAG noms vs. an ensemble win, BAFTA screenplay snub vs. WGA and BAFTA screenplay wins, Oscar and ACE snubs for editing vs. ACE win and Oscar nom). If those branches all clearly prefer Parasite, it will not be easy for 1917 to win. On any kind of ballot. It did win BAFTA despite a screenplay snub, which it doesn’t even have at the Oscars – then again, Parasite didn’t have the editing nomination there and it does at the Oscars, not to mention the British thing. (I mean, come on, what was that nonsense about Parasite winning over a British PGA & DGA winner?! That was never ever happening and I never bought it for a second! Why, just because Roma did, facing no such British threat? Or because Parasite won big with the London Film Critics?! That theory just did not hold water on any front.) Which could be a big factor at the Oscars, too, the British support. I can’t imagine any British contender has ever won the DGA (and PGA, since 1990) and not gone on to win Best Picture – Gravity did, but it didn’t win BAFTA Best Film. Anyway, there’s the preferential ballot, too. The British/tech support should not be enough there. It has to be at least very well-liked by all (on which the evidence is, like I said, contradictory), or else it’s not winning. Or the opposition has to be very weak, which can only be the case this year if the foreign language obstacle is much bigger for Parasite than I and others make it out to be. That’s still my main concern. And even then there are Jojo Rabbit and Once, movies that are strong enough (according to the stats) to at least put up a serious fight on a preferential.
By the way, I remember somebody saying these last few years that the movie with the highest audience score on Rotten Tomatoes of the actual front runners pretty much always wins (at least in the preferential era). And that’s Parasite (93 to 1917’s 88). Jojo Rabbit is on 95. 🙂 But it’s debatable whether that’s one of the front runners. It’s certainly not seen as one, and it’s also not clear stats-wise. I’m going to look into this audience score thing more after I send this. I might return with a post about it, if I find said theory is confirmed.
Nope, it’s not a thing. The Shape of Water had a worse RT audience score than all but Phantom Thread (and much worse than most) and Moonlight had (or has, at least) a worse score than La La Land. No need to check further back – myth busted! 🙂
(In any case, Jojo Rabbit was the one with the highest RT audience score this year, 95 to Parasite’s 93 – of the movies that can win. Ford v Ferrari is on 98.)
I still have 1917 as BP winner, although Parasite is a lot closer than it was a few days ago. After the WGA, I thought Parasite will win BOS, even before it won BAFTA. Now it is almost certain to win the Oscar. It might win editing along with FLF. But I think that’s it. I think they will think that’s enough. It will win BOS just like the film that it’s most similar to me: Get Out.
If Parasite wins Screenplay and Editing, then it will Argo itself to BP.
I’m not sure winning Editing has ever been strongly tied to a Best Picture win.
Editing *and* Screenplay? For this year’s competition? Yes it will bode well for Parasite.
I should also have said… Crash its way to BP.
Editing *and* Screenplay? For this year’s competition? Yes it will bode well for Parasite.
I should also have said… Crash its way to BP.
Up until a decade ago, editing was almost always seen as the bellwether for Best Picture.
Terrible wording on my part. I wasn’t trying to imply that it has never been important (although that’s literally what I wrote) but that in the current era it is generally not seen as an important win, it tends to go to the “most edited” film.
So much about the Oscar race has become counter intuitive for me and have been following it closely since 1978! I vascillate between reading the stats to tuning in to my own gut and instinct on what is likely to occur. But everything changes. Sure there’s some reliable indicators and stats but their membership, their rules and the society surrounding them keeps changing.
When Driving Miss Daisy won Best Picture with Bruce Beresford not even nominated the headline rightly screamed ‘did Miss Daisy direct herself?’ Evidently so. A film has won as little as only one other award on its way to BP. That was Spotlight. Anything can happen with this lot.
That said I would be a little surprised if anything but Parasite or 1917 wins. A boilover would need to have taken place for Jojo Rabbit to prevail. But stranger things have happened. Ironically it has the happiest ending of the main contenders but it is quite out there. I wonder or wondered if it will fare the best on a preferential ballot. Dunno!
Editing *and* Screenplay? For this year’s competition? Yes it will bode well for Parasite.
I should also have said… Crash its way to BP.
I mean in the reverse. I don’t think winning editing is needed for Parasite to win Best Picture.
That wasn’t my point. John Smith predicted that it would win BoS and then reluctantly predicted for editing, yet he doesn’t think that it will win BP. I said if it won both, you can be pretty sure that it will win BP. I didn’t mean to say that winning editing will guarantee a win in BP in general.
Agreed it could do it with Screenplay alone, high probability of International too.
Plus, if 1917 can win on a preferential ballot like the PGA, why can’t it win at the Oscars? Just because more people vote? They clearly loved the film enough to have it tied at 2nd for most nods at 10nods. Despite missing Editing and Actor, I wasn’t expecting HMU or VFX or Production Design as a nomination.
Why does Sasha have 1917 fourth in Production Design and Klaus dead last in Animated? Aren’t they the frontrunners?
I think we have Best Picture narrowed to 3 films
1. 1917, the frontrunner. Still, it is uncertain how it could do on a preferential ballot.
2. Jojo Rabbit, showing everywhere in noms and some key wins, specially looking almost locked to win Adapted at the Oscar and with big chances to win another 2, Supporting Actress which is looking as an upset in the making (and the category is surely used to surprises), and Costume, even probably Film Editing. We would be talking about a 4 or 5 Best Picture winner, assuming Waititi is doing an Argo (and there is a feeling he should have been nominated over Phillips at Director)
3. Parasite. For many, the frontrunner, still, no acting nom and a locked up win in International, and likely at Original Screenplay, and that would be considered enough reward for a Korean film.
I think anything else, while I would never rule out anything in the age of preferential ballot, not even FvF, seems unlikely.
If I had to bet, I would be betting for Jojo to win Picture, Costume, Film Editing and Adapted and probably Supporting Actress, too.
Jo jo rabbits screenplay is shit.
PGA is a preferential ballot. 1917 won. You can say you don’t know if the membership will vote the same way as the producers, but it’s not correct to say it’s uncertain how 1917 would perform on it when it won one.
I think 1917 takes Oscars for BP and BD. And cinematography. Anything else, gravy! Other than Brad, I think Once is just that….Once. The 4 acting categories no wriggle room, BAFTA kept it consistent. Parasite two Oscars coming its way. Joker at least one maybe 2.
I thought Phoenix was electric. What will he say next. Brave fellow. Nothing to lose I guess. Laura started well but rambled, as did Renee (lovely shout out to Jessie) Brad via Margot was funny and humble.
Yes roll on next weekend. It may all go to plan , or go to hell in a handbasket. BAFTA and AMPAS not always kissing cousins.
I would love to see Thomas Newman win an Oscar. He has been so good for so long. His score for White Oleander is truly haunting and remains high on my soundtrack hitlist.