There have been enough times now when Golden Globe and Oscar voters have surprised pundits by choosing films way outside the groupthink circle, so we should always consider the possibility It’s nearly impossible to break free from because humans, by nature, don’t want to take risks and look ridiculous. But groupthink limits choices pretty quickly and leads to what many see as a depressing, suffocating ritual.
First, we have to remember what the Oscars are and what they aren’t.
— The Oscars aren’t pieces on a chess board, though we in the business of predicting them sometimes behave as though they are. We think, well, they’ll give this person Director and this person Picture and then that person can have Screenplay. We know from experience it doesn’t quite work out that way.
— The Oscars are supposed to be about celebrating the highest achievements in film. That means different things to different people but the bottom line is that, ideally, they are films and filmmakers that stand apart from the rest of the offerings in a given year. Either they moved the needle in culture, or they made a lot of money, or they represent milestones, or they were highly acclaimed, or all of the above.
— The Oscars aren’t meant to be symbols that right the wrongs of society. They aren’t meant to be “virtue signals” to make Academy members look good, though it often seems that is what they are. If that is true every year it is especially true this year, with the new inclusion standards hovering overhead. No doubt there are members who are annoyed by it and thus they will likely want to prove themselves inclusive regardless. That might mean this will be a record year in terms of awarding women and non-white actors and filmmakers. It’s important to remember, though, that this isn’t the only thing to consider when second guessing how the Oscar voters will vote. There will still be a contingent of voters left that holds onto the idea that great art is great art is great art, regardless of who made it or who stars in it.
— The Oscars at their best are meant to embrace diversity, not just in terms of non-white nominees, but in terms of audiences everywhere. Movies are not just made for the progressive left. They are supposed to be an industry that speaks to the entire country, and now, the entire world. While storytelling is always the anchor to any good film, the smaller and more insular the Oscars get, the more irrelevant they become. They’re already most of the way to this point but it’s always important to try to step back and broaden one’s perspective. This year there just aren’t enough movies to make this argument – we’re basically dealing with only a handful of films – but even still, within those parameters, can we not broaden our scope even a little bit?
— The Oscars aren’t meant to do as pundits demand. We sometimes inflate our own importance and pretend like we’re the ones in charge of everything. The best we can do is present possibilities to voters who then make their own decisions. Since almost all pundits are now advocating rather than predicting, it’s more important than ever to have a broader idea of what the Oscars might mean.
So with that in mind, I took a trip over to Gold Derby (I am not participating in Gold Derby this year, FYI, for reasons I will keep quiet about for now) to see where they are headed in terms of their predictions. But in fact, I already knew what I would find. There are a few narratives taking shape and the pundits reflect that.
The Narrative
By almost every measure, Chloe Zhao’s Nomadland is top of the list for Best Picture and Best Director. Why I think this narrative has momentum is mainly due to the critics’ love for Zhao, but also spring-boarding off last year’s fury over the lack of women directors, which led, in part, to the inclusion standards about to be introduced by the Academy. When you think about how only one woman has ever won Best Director and Best Picture, and when you factor in the historic election of Kamala Harris as the first female Vice President, you can see how the momentum is with Zhao.
Though it’s worth mentioning that the rise of Nomadland is at least partly driven by the honorable and appealing narrative of a woman – and woman of color especially – winning Best Director. I expect the momentum will grow for the film and for her, with a caveat being that there is still the SAG ensemble and Producers Guild to contend with. It seems like a pretty good bet for the producers, but when you are dealing with 160,000 voters in SAG/AFTRA — most of them living outside Hollywood, as opposed to 7000 members of the PGA, we can’t yet be sure how they will vote.
Still, if the headlines and Twitter help drive the race, these will be the juicy headlines the industry will want, rather than the opposite – which would be all negative, all critical. What isn’t yet known is whether it will be Nomadland, and not another film directed by a woman, to take the lead. If you go by what the pundits are predicting, the biggest competition will be One Night in Miami, directed by the beloved Oscar winner Regina King.
It’s also worth mentioning, since we’re on the subject of inclusion, making history, and driving headlines – to date, no black filmmaker has yet won Best Director. While 12 Years a Slave and Moonlight both won Best Picture, their directors — Steve McQueen and Barry Jenkins — did not win.
In addition to Zhao’s role as writer/director, several other women are coming into the race as hyphenate nominees — as the authors of original screenplays they also directed: Sofia Coppola’s On the Rocks, Emerald Fennel’s Promising Young Woman, Eliza Hittman’s Never Rarely Sometimes Always, and Kitty Green’s The Assistant. Whether they will land in any of the major categories — Picture, Director or Screenplay — remains up in the air.
The “buzz” is with Zhao and King at the moment.
The Actors
When we think about Best Picture and the Oscar race we generally think about actors and directors. Which films will the directors like for the DGA or Oscar Best Director, and which films will the actors like?
I imagine the following films might be strong for SAG ensemble:
The Trial of the Chicago 7
Mank
One Night in Miami
The Father
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom
Maybes:
Hillbilly Elegy
Minari
Da 5 Bloods
Not yet known:
News of the World
The United States vs. Billie Holiday
The Prom
What we know about the actors is that there is a good chance that the frontrunners in the category might also make it into the Best Picture race. So we’ll keep that in mind.
The Directors
The last holdouts, the true elite, and those with the absolute highest standards in the Oscars remain the directors. You can pretty much figure actors will go along with anything. Producers are only slightly more discerning, but directors remain a frustration for those looking to change up the Oscar game to be more inclusive. The AMPAS Directors Branch are extremely picky. Even more picky than the Directors Guild – a large body that includes 16,000 members who work in the industry as assistant directors or directors, many of them outside the realm of feature films.
Thus, this is a little bit tougher to predict.
For the DGA, I would imagine it would go something like this:
Mank
Nomadland
Trial of the Chicago 7
News of the World
One Night in Miami or Minari or The United States vs. Billie Holiday
For Oscar it gets a little bit more complicated and I can only say for sure that two will get in:
Mank – David Fincher
Nomadland – Chloe Zhao
Beyond that, it’s hard to say and much will depend on films we haven’t yet seen before we can make that call.
To me, the Academy’s directing branch is harder to predict because they have so few members, something like 500 – 600.
However, given these considerations, here are my very early predictions for now.
Best Picture
Nomadland
Mank
The Father
News of the World
One Night in Miami
Minari
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom
The Trial of the Chicago 7
On the Rocks
The Outpost*
Waiting on: The Prom, The United States vs. Billie Holiday
*The reason I’m including The Outpost where no other pundits are is that I think, if it got enough publicity, it is the kind of “meat and potatoes” film that voters sometimes go for. What that means to me is that it will get a lot of number one votes, particularly from people who might not be down with the kids about other films on offer – very progressive, in other words. War films are popular in general with the Academy – and just because it is currently being blanked by Gold Derby does not mean it isn’t a film worthy of Oscar attention. So I’m including it. And if it gets publicity I could see Rod Lurie being in strong consideration for Best Director, along with Sound, maybe Editing. So keep this film in mind.
Best Director
Chloe Zhao, Nomadland
David Fincher, Mank
Florian Zeller, The Father
Regina King, One Night in Miami
Lee Isaac Chung, Minari
Alt: Rod Lurie, The Outpost; Sofia Coppola, On the Rocks
Best Actor
Chadwick Boseman, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom
Anthony Hopkins, The Father
Gary Oldman, Mank
Tom Hanks, News of the World
Riz Ahmed, Sound of Metal
Maybes:
Kingsley Ben-Adir, One Night in Miami
Ben Affleck, The Way Back
Delroy Lindo, Da 5 Bloods
Best Actress
Frances McDormand, Nomadland
Vanessa Kirby, Pieces of a Woman
Viola Davis, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom
Carey Mulligan, Promising Young Woman
Amy Adams, Hillbilly Elegy
Waiting on: Andra Day, The United States vs. Billie Holiday
Supporting Actor
Arliss Howard, Mank
Leslie Odom, Jr., One Night in Miami
Frank Langella, Trial of the Chicago 7
Bill Murray, On the Rocks
David Strathairn, Nomadland
Supporting Actress
Glenn Close, Hillbilly Elegy
Olivia Colman, The Father
Amanda Seyfried, Mank
Yuh-Jung Youn, Minari
Ellen Burstyn, Pieces of a Woman
Original Screenplay
Trial of the Chicago 7
Mank
Promising Young Woman
Da 5 Bloods
Soul
Maybe: On the Rocks, Never Rarely Sometimes Always
Should be: Spree, Eugene Kotlyarenko, Gene McHugh
Adapted Screenplay
Nomadland
News of the World
The Father
One Night in Miami
The Outpost
Editing
Nomadland
Mank
Chicago 7
The Outpost
Soul
Costumes
Mank
Chicago 7
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom
One Night in Miami
The Prom (?)
And that, my friends, is all I have for today. The bottom line is that the two strongest films right now appear to be Nomadland and Mank. The driving narrative will be inclusivity, in all likelihood. Broaden your scope because it could be an unpredictable year. And, as always, nobody knows anything.
Jodie Foster is entering the supporting actress race! Hey ya!
https://variety.com/2020/film/awards/the-mauritanian-oscars-jodie-foster-tahar-rahim-oscars-release-1234838153/
That project has been a real anticipated one for me. The actors and the director with an universal appeal of the theme.
So we may get a situation that Anthony Hopkins wins best actor and Jodie Foster wins supporting actress in 2021. 30 years after the release of The Silence of the Lambs.
I really don’t get still a push for Adams/Close when the rest of their movie is being ravaged by critics. I get the narrative of them winning and such just seems harder now.
Ammonite is really good – I loved it. I don’t understand why people are calling it cold. I thought it was the opposite. Ronan is phenomenal as always, but this is one of Winslet’s best performances.
I agree it’s among Kate Winslet’s best performances and walking away with the film despite Saoirse being expectedly brilliant and sharing amazing chemistry with Kate. It will be more than deserved seeing Kate getting her 8th nomination for her bravura work here. And I loved the film overall as well.
That´s great to hear, definitely one of my most anticipated films of the season, now even more!
Anyone who might have seen the movie and remembers or just knows, what widescreen format does Mank claim to have been shot in?
2.20:1
Of course (format was probably an incorrect phrase for me to use) but next to Messerschmidt’s cinematography credit there was this line that said something along the lines of “shot in glorious…” about some widescreen process that I would have wanted to know more about just in order to know whether Fincher shooting the movie in widescreen had any historical basis or if it was just a lack of comfort with Academy ratio. I can’t quite remember what the name of this process was. Maybe NaturalVision (which would have some historical basis)?
Hey Ferdinand, I think I can answer your question.
First, let’s acknowledge that Fincher and Messerschmidt and Netflix set out to recreate much of the visual and audio feel of a movie made c. 1940, but naturally they didn’t let themselves be restricted by tech from that era. Instead they’ve taken full advantage of state-of-the-art camera and sound equipment to not just replicate but amplify and enhance the lustrous black & white images for all of our 4K-Ultra home theaters.
You’ll notice in the very first frame of Mank over the title it says: “Netflix International Pictures Presents” in stately serif font. That’s of course not what Netflix calls itself — but for the purpose of evoking the late-1930s studio era, Netflix becomes an imagined rival of Selznick International.
It’s playful. It’s a charming affectation, yes?
Same thing is going on with Messerschmidt’s cinematography credit in the opening scroll.
It says:
Photographed in HI-DYNAMIC RANGE by
Eric Messerschmidt, A.S.C.
And for a dash of extra panache, “Hi-Dynamic Range” is framed in a retro-looking box, shaped like a CinemaScope bow-tie.
Same way mid-century studios once proudly proclaimed their new VistaVision, CinemaScope, Cinerama, Todd-AO technologies, right?
Of course no Hollywood movie would be in VistaVision until 1952 or CinemaScope in 1953 — so putting Hi-Dyanamic Range (what we all commonly call HDR) inside a vintage-looking logo is a bit of alternate universe fun.
(We shouldn’t neglect to say that Abel Gance did his famous 3-camera 3-screen triptych “Polyvision” process for the climax of Napoleon in 1927, with an astonishing aspect ratio of 4:1 — so it’s not as if filmmakers had never fantasized about panoramic widescreen films before the ’50s.)
If my description of the box around “Hi-Dynamic Range as a “bow-tie” is hard to visualize, the retro frame in Mank’s credit for Messerschmidt’s “Hi-Dynamic Range” is shaped like this:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/633fb0523dff479047e402313b63134faa3c0ddea019c647062132d6da858707.jpg
*(…and that SuperScope logo? I lifted it from the 1956 Invasion of the Body Snatchers. But SuperScope was originally developed for RKO… so, ta-dah!)
Ryan, this entire exchange between you and Ferdinand has been elegantly and eloquently argued. It’s a delightful learning opportunity for someone like me, who’s pitiably weak on technical movie matters. I’m now even more eager to see Mank.
Thanks for the answer!
I hope you don’t mind if I ramble about something based on a few of the things you noted, mainly the following notion “First, let’s acknowledge that Fincher and Messerschmidt and Netflix set out to recreate much of the visual and audio feel of a movie made c. 1940, but naturally they didn’t let themselves be restricted by tech from that era. Instead they’ve taken full advantage of state-of-the-art camera and sound equipment to not just replicate but amplify and enhance the lustrous black & white images for all of our 4K-Ultra home theaters.”.
I understand that but something that kind of frustrated me about the visual style of the movie was that I found Fincher, Messerschmidt and Klyce to go in some regards to extreme detail in recreating things in ways that were really not necessary (reel break marks being the one that baffled me the most as in a movie shot on digital those marks don’t tell anything, and thus the obsession seems to be with a patina of film without proper context and the imitation seems to be of a digital restauration of a classic movie shot on film rather than of actual film), the notion that the film would be shot in 2.2:1 feels like a choice made for comfort on an extremely basic level. Of course there had been films shot in widescreen before the 1950s (I was particularly wondering if the box in the opening credits referenced one particular process of those, not realizing it was just general HDR stuff) but to say that something like Mank and Gance’s Napoleon are similar is a little extreme in my opinion as Polyvision from what I’ve understood was literally three cameras next to each other shooting material, then that material was shown on three projectors, in parts each tinted with one of the colors of the tricolor to form the French flag on screen. These were not all just to create a larger and wider image but to in some cases also present three images at the same time on screens. That was someone dreaming big in a movie that had at the point that sequence starts done all sorts of experiments for five hours (at least from what I’ve understood, I’ve been meaning to watch Gance’s Napoleon but haven’t gotten around to it yet). Also, Gance sunk so much money into that movie that to think of his Napoleon as something that a Hollywood studio would even consider riffing on feels weird. Mank instead is a small chamber drama and doesn’t even seem to particularly use widescreen for any other reason than Fincher being the most comfortable using that type of aspect ratio (this seems to at 2.2:1 have the most boxy aspect ratio of a feature film in Fincher’s career).
Let’s compare that to An American in Paris. I rewatched that movie in maybe April and went “of course, this was shot in 1951 so it had to be in academy ratio” but I had forgotten that because it’s so full of life and energy and the amount of visual information was so large that it rivals any film shot on widescreen in the following years when widescreen film was started to be used widely in American cinema. Of course Minnelli started shooting his movies in widescreen when that opportunity arrived and he made many of his best films using widescreen (for example I’d argue Some Came Running is second only to The Band Wagon of the films I’ve seen from him) but he got the same thing through in academy ratio when he needed to. So if Minnelli could do An American in Paris in academy ratio, most films could be shot in academy ratio. Mank could have been shot in academy ratio if Fincher’s obsessive interest in details would have made him want to do that.
I’m not saying that Fincher shouldn’t use widescreen if he feels comfortable with it but if Fincher decides to go modern in something as basic as the canvas he chooses to make his film on, to me it’s kind of odd that otherwise he mostly is obsessed with extremely literal details that seem to interest him only because “this is how these things were made in Hollywood in the 30s”. To me such an argument is rarely a relevant one, as it’s merely an act of mimicry and almost impossible to actually achieve fully, but if one is to do that, I feel like there’s an issue if someone as stupid as me goes in the first two seconds of the movie: “Well, that seems a little off”. To reference another Eric Roth script (he apparently did rewrites on Mank), I don’t expect grace and consistency from ordinary people under extraordinary pressure but if they themselves underline how well they’re doing under those conditions when they’re only doing a solid job, I feel slightly annoyed.
I never said anything about Napoleon and Mank being similar.
I only meant that as long as we’re taking a broad look at the various screen ratios that broke from Academy ratio that we would be remiss to forget what Gance did.
Primarily though, I only wanted to answer your question about the process that was named in the opening credits.
I’ve seen Mank 5 times and it caught my eye. I was able to freeze frame it and take note of it. So I knew what it said. And its my opinion that the process was named as a wry nod to the way new cameras were given star billing in the ’50s. Nothing more than that.
We all know that HDR did not exist in 1940 so it seems to me nothing more than a wink from Fincher.
But i gotta say.. I don’t know why we should think it strange that a modern movie is shot in wide-screen ratio. No matter when the story takes place and no matter what the subject.
For instance, how is Mank a “chamber movie” but Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf — which takes place virtually in a single cramped living room — is okay in wide-screen? (As far as compositions, I mean.)
It would actually be odd and almost annoying to me if a director was so stuck on replicating a 1940s movie that he or she would affect a boxy screen ratio.
Mank is not The Artist. Thank god.
As always, you explain your position well, Ferdinand. In this case, I just don’t happen to share your concern.
Would we want Mank to be shot in 1:1.33 ratio? Speaking for myself, I absolutely would not. It looks gorgeous to me the way it is.
“We all know that HDR did not exist in 1940 so it seems to me nothing more than a wink from Fincher.”
That is fair and I don’t mind winks but while Fincher seems to treat that as a wink, he seems very literal about a lot of other such things.
“It would actually be odd and almost annoying to me if a director was so
stuck on replicating a 1940s movie that he or she would affect a boxy
screen ratio.”
Of course but it would be odd and almost annoying to me to try to mimic a lot of some other element of an era in filmmaking as well but if one is doing it, one should go all in
I guess I’m the ideal audience for artists who just enjoy doing things according to wherever or however their inclinations and inspirations lead them.
For example I like the way Mank is lit like a movie from 1940. I like to see deep focus and focal length effects deployed that Toland would appreciate.
And I also like to imagine that Toland would not be annoyed by HDR; he would be thrilled with it.
[Editing out 3 paragraphs here that I fear verge on sounding argumentative]
No problem with that, more with the sound mix and the reel change marks.
Ferdinand, this entire exchange between you and Ryan has been elegantly and eloquently argued. It’s a delightful learning opportunity for someone like me, who’s pitiably weak on technical movie matters. I’m now even more eager to see Mank.
About the reel change marks: for some reason I can’t quite explain those really annoyed me, the movie treats them like hallowed objects by including them when in fact they are just a way of giving information to the projectionist. I don’t know if it’s because a week where I actually watch 2 film prints isn’t an unusual one for me so to me those things just are a normal part of the experience of watching something on film or that I find it to be a staircase that leads nowhere but for me reel changes are a) not that special and b) have an actual purpose.
And if you’re willing to add these things when they’re not necessary (I could even say pointless) and going in that deep, I feel like you genuinely care about recreation and imitation of the moment in cinema, you’re beyond just a casual relationship with the era, and thus cohesion would only be achieved by either cutting down on the obsessive stuff or by using academy ratio. I’d prefer the former but the latter is an option as well.
Also, I wouldn’t mind friendly argumentative text.
Also, by saying that Mank is a chamber drama, I meant that it’s mostly just set in a collection of dark rooms and alleys of power. That’s not a bad thing in any way, it just isn’t anything that’s lost by not choosing widescreen
I know you didn’t mean chamber drama in a disparaging way.
But Mank in my memory took place in the sprawling lounges and vast dining room at San Simeon, lavish executive suite offices, outdoor shots of the bustling RKO lot, vistas of exterior scenes at Mank’s desert retreat, grand ballrooms on election night 1934.
Yes, much of it also took place in a few dimly lit rooms. But I’m glad Mank had places like that where he could be safe from sunlight before noon 😉
Wow, thanks Ryan – this film looks sexy (and I´ll have to wait until December to see it on the small screen, damn)!
I’m not aware. Surely there will surely be a comprehensive Mank feature in American Cinematographer at some point. The magazine is such a great resource I encourage you to subscribe to the digital version if you haven’t.
If you’ve seen the film, I’d love to read your general thoughts on it. I probably won’t be able to catch it until the Netflix premiere… (cinemas are closed here).
When it’s a political drama, it’s one of the best things Fincher has ever done. When it pushes the themes of that section into the script of Citizen Kane, it’s mostly just solid and often doesn’t feel like it has anything genuinely unique to say (the only real exception being one note concerning Welles’ point of view in telling the story compared to Mankiewicz’s). Basically the further it’s away from Kane, the better it is. The film perhaps is a little meandering and the structure doesn’t always benefit its points in my opinion. Techs from the cinematography (which to be clear I think is really brilliant and beautiful, what’s below is mostly just me complaining about Fincher falling in some weird area in terms of being obsessed with details, too obsessed with some details to pretend that others don’t matter as much) to the design to the score are exceptional. In terms of acting, Oldman looks like he hasn’t slept in a week and is incredible, Seyfried is very good in the only interesting movie star performance she’s ever given, Arliss Howard is maybe my MVP of the cast, Lily Collins is terrible.
Good to know you enjoyed it, really looking forward to seeing it myself! I’m moderately depressed that I won’t be able to see it on the big screen though, it does look like that sort of movie 🙁
Okay, I get you are talking about a certain kind of star-making performance. But apart from that, I think she was amazing in “First Reformed”. I hope she get´s her first nom!
Oh, I think she’s exceptional in First Reformed and especially in Twin Peaks: The Return but I feel like besides those roles that that show her more as a character actress, her filmography is filled with a lot of “movie star roles” like the Mamma Mia movies or Les misérables or In Time.
I don’t quite mean “star-making performance” by that but rather parts that demand a certain charm and an effortless energy from the performer playing the part. This notion of a movie star role doesn’t necessarily require one to go into the deepest parts of their soul on screen, instead what matters the most is that watching them is compelling. Simply put, these are the parts that demand a movie star rather than a character actor. For example, Brad Pitt in Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood is one of the purest examples of a movie star performance in recent years whereas Brad Pitt in Ad Astra is very much a character actor performance.
I’ve felt like Seyfried has been doing movie star roles for about a decade now and they clearly haven’t worked. She has no energy and the films don’t seem to care about her characters. As a result I had always considered her a bad actress. Then when those character actress performances started popping up, I thought that maybe she just wasn’t a movie star. So I was slightly surprised that her role in this is especially in parts very much a movie star performance, and that she’s really good in those moments. I guess she just needs a good director that actually cares about her performance and the character she’s playing
Agree, a good director plus a good screenplay. To be true, I really noticed her for the first time very late in her career, in “First Reformed”, because her filmography didn´t really matched my preferences before that. I just remember, I did see “Chloe” many years before but wasn´t impressed by the movie and forgot about her performance (well, she was pretty sexy in it, that I remember LOL).
Sure, Cliff Booth is a movie star performance par excellence – no surprise Brad Pitt did win for this.
In terms of Oscars, I feel like this movie could win best picture in theory but it would have needed to be advertised very differently. I’ve always felt that the movie’s Oscar chances were hurt by a lack of some narrative that would make voters feel like they need to vote for the movie or that would keep the movie in the conversation on levels beyond “it’s got techs”. I didn’t feel that voters would go for a movie that’s “just” about the writing of Citizen Kane. The thing is, it’s actually very current and could cause such narratives if those narratives were pushed. Instead I feel that Netflix is leaning on a traditional prestige tone which really doesn’t help anymore these days in my opinion. Thus people go in expecting a movie about the writing of Citizen Kane and a lot of them will probably come out saying: “That was a movie about the writing of Citizen Kane. And then there was some stuff that didn’t have to do with that, maybe they could have cut that stuff, it’s kind of boring”. The voters might ignore the movie because of this while also continuing the myth that Fincher is a “cold” filmmaker.
Besides Oldman’s obvious nomination, in terms of acting I’d say that Howard is a possibility for supporting actor, Burke would be as well if he’d have maybe 10 minutes more of screen time. Seyfried is probably going to get a nomination but somehow I don’t really see her winning (which I feel like has been discussed as a possiblity by many, including me before watching the movie) because her best scenes are somewhat small
Streep looks marvelous in the new Soderbergh. Absolutely adored her turns in Laundromat. Is that ineligible or something?
I just don’t think people trust Soderbergh anymore (which is of course absurd)
Insane…and Aaron Sorkin gets out on Oscar contender lists before his so-called motion pictures get seen.
Some keep him in these lists *after* they witness “the work.” Based on what? Do not ask me. The “talk of the town,” perhaps?
Isn’t it a TV movie? So an emmy contender? Even though I find the distinction silly and feel like emmy TV movie category shouldn’t exist
It’s in Oscar contention.
Good Oscar Predictions tho:
The Academy needs an audience (Best Pop Film hasn’t dissipated) & they haven’t forgot that. TENET is about to cross 400M$ worldwide & HILLBILLY ELEGY seems like a streaming hit with lots of viewers. If these films aren’t nominated who is going to watch? Honestly ask yourselves that Oscar watchers.
And as far as Best Picture & Actor Go it looks like Ma Rainey is going to sweep in Picture & win Actor unless Hopkins wins & they feel Ma Rainey winning Picture is a tribute to Chad.
Movies are not just made for the progressive left, but the narrative is the critics’ love for Zhao,
but also fury over the lack of women directors…..period…..nomadland has it in the bag
Palm Springs?
Ma Rainey’s 100% RT and 86 MC… looking REALLY good, and given that Boseman and Davis are ultra-raved… Netflix is going to have a really hard time choosing which film they’re going to push for Oscars with more effort. This, or Mank. If they push both equally, a 3rd film may steal the fire (just check out The Irishman vs Marriage Story: 0 wins our or 10 and only 1 win for the latter.
Netflix seems safe to win:
Director – Mank
Actor – Ma’ Rainey
Cinematography – Mank
… I think those three are looking EXTREMELY safe bets for wins.
Btw I’d like to say that at this point if Carey Mulligan, clearly once again INCREDIBLE in Promising Young Woman, gets snubbed even in the nominations once again when by that time she should have been a multiple winner, let alone nominee, there should be a riot. Like honestly, wtf, one loses count trying to think of the times she should have been nominated since her one and only nomination for 2009’s An Education – essentially every year since then (Never Let Me Go, Drive, Shame, Inside Llewyn Davis, Far From The Madding Crowd, Suffragette, Mudbound, Wildlife, oof! )
She has always been such a captivating presence on screen… I remember a scene she had really young playing a tiny part in Jim Sheridan’s Brothers next to Natalie Portman the year she ultimately went to be nominated for a Lead Actress Oscar for her exceptional work in An Education and she just knocked it out of the park. She’s been killing it for the last decade and she clearly has a meaty role and then some in her latest film, delivering the kind of performance that wows everybody in Sundance and remains in the conversation since then. I truly hope she at least earns the ridiculously overdue second nomination she deserves because a win for an indie film of such subversive nature / subject matter seems sadly still practically impossible. Oh well…
No lies detected, she would have been a very deserving nominee on a total of 10 occasions already, her body of work is astonishing considering how young she still is.
LEAD
2009 – An Education
2010 – Never Let Me Go
2015 – Far from the Madding Crowd
2015 – Suffragette
2018 – Wildlife
SUPPORTING
2011 – Shame
2011 – Drive
2013 – Inside Llewyn Davis
2013 – The Great Gatsby
2017 – Mudbound
Hi Phantom old friend! I would agree on Sufragette and Shame and Inside Llewyn – all under appreciated, but not the others. Carey should definitely have been a multiple Oscar nominee by now (BAFTA haven’t been much better tho have they?)
Hey Dave, long time no read !
All three films should have been in much more serious consideration in major categories, too. Oh, well, the Academy does kinda suck sometimes.
Indeed they do! Glad to see you are in top form and geared up for a LONG season! It’s a marathon this time around. I always enjoy your assessment and predictions and passion for great acting especially. Very infectious. (Oops maybe wrong word to use). Stay well my friend.
Stay safe and healthy, too ! Shit year all around but us AD peeps will persevere 🙂
I mean right? I’ve been dying to see Promising Young Woman after the reviews released at Sundance and the first trailer and to think of the amount of work and range she has displayed since her sole nomination for An Education, man, it will be flat-out criminal if voters snub her even on nominations day again. Still pissed about her snub for Wildlife. Both her and Gyllenhaal should have made it.
Putting together a queue as I catch up on the year’s offerings. It is…slim. Please recommend me films that didn’t play in Sundance/Cannes/Venice/TIFF/NYFF.
News of the World looks bad to anyone else?
Not sure if you’ll consider all of these to be 2020 but:
Bait
Just Don’t Think I’ll Scream
Labyrinth of Cinema
The Portugese Woman
She Dies Tomorrow
World of Tomorrow Episode Three: The Absent Destinations of David Prime
And yes, News of the World looks really dull
For purposes of list assembly, I’ll consider anything from the lat few years that I haven’t seen as 2020. How far back you ask? Depends on the release pattern of the film itself. Possibly a limit of 2-3 years. The Portuguese Woman is beautiful. Had it been directed by Albert Serra, the cool kids would have talked about it as a aesthetic revelation or “radical” or something.
In that case also Sarah Plays a Werewolf, Season of the Devil and This Is Not a Burial, It’s a Resurrection.
It’s absurd how people have ignored the obvious impressiveness of The Portugese Woman.I’ve never been closer to falling asleep during a movie than I was at that screening (I had gotten up at about 3:30 in the morning that day so that I could get tickets to The Souvenir) but even then the movie was screaming to me to keep my eyes open and focus because something exciting was happening on screen.
I honestly feel Mank is the biggest frontrunner in both Best Picture and Director categories and rightfully so. There’s not a doubt David Fincher is among the greatest filmmakers of his or frankly any generation and calling him overdue for an Oscar win feels like an understatement. The film looks like a modern classic and the raves it’s garnered already, combined with Fincher’s status and the strong push it seems to be getting from Netflix might lead to a Best Picture win for a film that looks nothing short of phenomenal.
I could be wrong but I honestly don’t see Nomadland happening. If I hadn’t seen the film I might have thought otherwise. Zhao’s film is absolutely brilliant, the kind of human, intimate, deeply moving indie that personally I adore and one would expect from it to garner raves in the festival circuit but is so “wildly anti-Oscar” that I’m frankly impressed reading about its BP and BD frontrunner status. If it does, I’m all for it even if I feel Mank looks even superior than Zhao’s wonderful film. I think Nomadland’s best chances are in the Screenplay category. Also Mcdormand’s extremely recent last win, along the nature of the film and her performance (so understated, so quietly powerful, so anti-baity) and in a seriously competitive year for the Best Actress category might prevent her from a third Lead Actress win (an honor I also feel like a lot of people would be much more appropriate to someone like Meryl Streep or Cate Blanchett, despite Frances being always terrific). My money at the moment are on either Vanessa Kirby or Viola Davis and I feel like the latter wins in the end.
The Hillbilly Elegy situation I also don’t get when it comes to Sasha’s predictions. Both Amy and Glenn among the top 5 nominees in their categories for a film as critically butchered as this and with Glenn as the frontrunner? They’re both such exceptional and extremely overdue for a first win actresses but both ending up as nominees and Glenn winning doesn’t feel like happening at the moment. A strong campaign and their overdue status might change that, obviously.
I agree on “Nomadland”, which – based on the reactions from other AD readers like Ferdinand for example – might be too low-key and restrained for the Best Picture win. It will likely get 5 or 6 nominations, mostly above-the-line, but will end probably empty-handed.
I kinda disagree about Hillbilly Elegy: The Academy didn´t really seem to be shy in honoring films that got critically butchered. Glenn Close´s role looks like the most cliché Oscar role one could think of. Transform yourself into ugliness, and you will shine even brighter on Oscar night! 😉
“It will likely get 5 or 6 nominations, mostly above-the-line, but will end probably empty-handed.” This or maybe a sole Screenplay win is my prediction about it at the moment. Wouldn’t be surprised seeing it win Cinematography as well, the work there is truly mesmerizing.
As for the Hillbilly Elegy case, there’s no question that Academy members haven’t been shy in honoring films and especially performances in films that critics loathed and especially on Glenn’s category I wouldn’t be surprised to see her name pop up, even as a winner. I just don’t think Amy makes the cut at the moment if Glenn makes it and especially if she is about to win Supporting which is kinda sad because I adore Amy, she should have won that damn award multiple times already. The competition this year in the Best Actress category makes it tricky. If they’d like to make up for criminal snubs for Enchanted and especially Arrival they could obviously go all the way and honor both ladies. Craziest things have happened in the past so yeah, wouldn’t be surprised my friend if you were to be proven right. One thing is for sure. The Academy members should be ashamed for not having honored with a single win neither of those two magnificent actresses. Like what the hell…
But to be true, I would rather like to see both winning for different, more respected films. In case of Glenn Close she might not have too many good choices left but Amy Adams will have many great roles in better films in her future career.
So damn true. I think of the complexity and the understated, challenging nature of an Amy Adams performance like the one in Arrival or The Master or Doubt and I don’t know, the prospect of seeing her nominated or win for subpar work in such a shameless Oscar-bait soap opera type of a film feels disappointing. And Glenn, that legend of an actor giving one chills in that final mirror scene in Dangerous Liaisons and Fatal Attraction and that quietly heartbreaking one woman show two years ago with The Wife, being probably left out of many choices in her future and possibly finally getting the Oscar win she deserves for the last 40 years or something of her illustrious career for something seemingly so caricature-ish… Ugh.
The Best Actress race is starting to crystallise a bit; I think McDormand, Kirby, Davis, Mulligan are looking strongest out of the gate with the fifth slot probably down to someone from the Zendaya-Streep-Day-Winslet-Loren-Pfeiffer-Adams septet.
I don’t think it’s possible for 4 nominees to be white, not this year.
I do think we over state things like this. Most will vote for what they like and sometimes the contenders they like are white and sometimes they aren’t which is why we will often get lots of people of colour one year then all white the next… I think it is fully possible to get 4 white nominees in almost any category
I put the question this way then: do you think it’s possible to have 5 white nominees this year, or do you think the Academy will do whatever it can to prevent another #Oscarssowhite in the year of BLM?
In a single category yeah probably. I know many voters will be thinking about putting people of colour on their ballot and it’s very unlikely that we will get a #oscarssowhite across all acting categories or anything but I think it’s quite possible voters will all push people of colour to the front in most categories but the one where there aren’t as many prominent person of colour performances they will just vote for who they like and in that category that could be all white.
I don’t think this will be even close to an #Oscarssowhite kind of season since all four acting categories already have near-locks of colour (Viola Davis, Chadwick Boseman, Yuh Yung-Youn, Leslie Odom Jr.) and many other acclaimed performances from actors of colour are very much still in the conversation, too (Andra Day, Zendaya, Delroy Lindo, Kingsley Ben-Adir, Steven Yeun, Riz Ahmed, Daniel Kaluuya, John David Washington, Priyanka Chopra, Yahyja Abdul-Mateen II, Lakeith Steinfeld, Chadwick Boseman (D5B), Colman Domingo).
Still not ideal but compared to recent years, there is definitely progress in Hollywood as far as prestige projects from and about people of colour go.
I am low key expecting this quintet :
Viola Davis / Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom
Vanessa Kirby / Pieces of a Woman
Frances McDormand / Nomadland
Carey Mulligan / Promising Young Woman
Zendaya / Malcolm & Marie
With no clear contender for that fifth slot, sight unseen Zendaya has the most potential to surprise : she is an it girl, fresh off a history-making Emmy win for dramatic work with big franchise plays on her horizon for the next few years (Spider-Man, Dune). Add that this role / film was written and directed by the same guy who created her breakthrough Euphoria role and she may just become a late entry in the Oscar race, too. Especially if the film gets the kind of reviews that would warrant consideration in picture, director, writing, editing, cinematography, as well. Apparently it is a Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf for our time … that’s intriguing enough for me already.
The other presumed 5th slot players have their own set of unique challenges to overcome : Winslet, Loren, Pfeiffer and Adams are all great in films that weren’t nearly as well-received as their performances and Streep is in Mamma Mia-mode (light musical comedy fare) WITH internal competition (Jo Ellen Pellman was confirmed to be getting a lead campaign, too). I am not saying that none of these six will make the cut, I’m just saying that for now Zendaya seems like a stronger bet, even sight unseen, than anyone from this sextet.
Hmm…Streep/Soderbergh/HBO or Steep/Murphy/Netflix?
Ma Rainey starts with 86 on Metacritic:
https://www.metacritic.com/movie/ma-raineys-black-bottom/critic-reviews
Interestingly (or not, perhaps), virtually all excerpts are about the actors and the performances. And we all know that actors rule the Academy. It’s a much stronger MC start than I expected, and probably cements this film as a strong Best Picture contender.
I find it interesting that based on the reactions people didn’t expect the reviews to be glowing… Even if they all mentioned the acting first if you looked further at pretty much every traction they all went on to say the movie is great too. I really do think this could end up being a top tier, contender across the board. Including being a potential picture winner. It really has that feel to it. Even though I know reviews aren’t everything.
Quite the interesting year with so many worthy contenders. My guess (for now) :
BP / BD
Mank – It feels like the early frontrunner now, for better or worse.
Nomadland – Buzz died down a bit but I expect it to pick up steam soon (NYFCC).
Minari – So far it looks like the big surprise of the year.
News of the World – A classic “MOVIE movie” with a classic movie star.
One Night in Miami – Regina King is an awards circuit darling and the film has great buzz.
Filler BP
The Father – Not quite seeing that BD nod yet but could happen. Near-lock in writing / acting.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom – Ditto.
Promising Young Woman – Ditto.
Soul – Animated so BD isn’t really an option but I still expect a memorable masterpiece here.
Most likely to surprise
The Prom – In this depressing year, star power + feel good factor could do the trick.
Malcolm & Marie – Early whispers compare it to Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Nuff said.
The United States vs. Billie Holiday – Super late entry, a strategy that is always a risk.
Cherry – I would watch out for this one, this could be the late surprise of the season.
Judas and the Black Messiah – Ditto.
Everybody’s Talking About Jamie – IF The Prom is a mess. I don’t see both making the cut.
Tenet – A “thank you for helping save theatres” nod ?
Wonder Woman 1984 – Ditto especially if it gets strong reviews.
Da 5 Bloods – The June release would have been early in a regular season let alone this one.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 – I think in the end Netflix will simply have bigger fishes to fry.
Ammonite – It may be too quiet, too small, too early and too divisive in the end.
Happiest Season – Solid reviews but way too broad of a comedy for the Academy.
The Midnight Sky – I’m not feeling it just yet but I could be way off, no doubt.
On the Rocks – Nice film just not a very splashy one. Better for it for the record.
Palm Springs – Ditto.
Pieces of a Woman – Probably more about the performances.
Supernova – Ditto.
Music – Sia’s debut could be an epic mess or an epic hit. We’ll see soon enough.
Wild Mountain Thyme – Adaptation of a Tony nominated play so maybe writing + Blunt
You should add Sound of Metal as most likely to surprise too. Riz in Actor and Sound nom are looking good.
Virtue signaling can’t be denied in the nominations, but I think we’re neglecting an important 2020 reality. With big budget and typical studio pictures sidelined, smaller films and streamers are filling the gap. As with television, these films tend to allow for more inclusive and representative storytelling that is often lacking in studio Oscar fare.
Interesting that you have taken Ammonite out entirely, though not surprising, after all: must…take down…LGBTQ film… (e.g., Carol)
I don’t think Minari will figure anywhere except screenplay and supporting actress. We’ll see!
Ammonite’s tepid response didn’t help.
Indiewire didn’t help with that, with a cis-gender, straight woman writing a lazy review in which she complained about the film being “chilly” and offers up this nonsense—whatever it is supposed to mean:
“Lee and his stars may love these characters, but they never understand them. Neither can we.”
Incidentally, when I commented about the unfairness of the review, it was promptly deleted, so Indiewire edits its comments, FYI.
The reviewer was clearly waiting with knives drawn, so were many others.
Are you suggesting it was a hit job?
100%
Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. While the idea of a cabal of evil cisgender film critics cackling in smoke-filled rooms is a tempting one, the most logical answer is that the critic just didn’t care for the movie.
I dont know the critic at Indiewire. But I doubt that she has admin access to delete comments that disagree with her review. That’s the job of a moderator.
Most good moderators don’t delete dissenting opinions unless they cross the line in some other way.
One thing that might rub a moderator the wrong way would be for a reader to claim “a cis-gender straight” critic is too incompetent or “too lazy” to properly review a gay-themed film.
A moderator might protect hardworking staff from insults like that.
I’m only speculating.
I didn’t think it was the writer, but it was someone at Indiewire. My comment said nothing about the writer being cis or lazy.
I’m sorry what? Sasha loved and pushed hard for Carol. People are all leaving Ammonite out because they realise it is probably too cold for Oscar voters (accirding to those that have seen it). Also as far as quality Sasha wrote a big article praising it (and nomadland) a while back… Also look at her contributors – many (I’d maybe even say most) of them are lgbt so to accuse Sasha of wanting to take down a film just because it is LGBT feels really disingenuous.
Unless the must take down LGBT film comment was meant to be aimed at the industry rather than Sasha in which case it probably shouldn’t have been framed me Sasha removing it…
Of course she did! Sorry, but my comment wasn’t about Sasha, just a regular comment on pundits who must..take down…LGBTQ+…film…, happens all the time, and I have said this repeatedly.
There is no doubt in my mind re: Sasha’s advocacy for LGBTQ+ and other films, it is why I value her opinion above most others in the awards watching game.
With that said, I commented because I saw (for the first time this year) that Sasha did not include Ammonite in her predictions.
Hope that clarifies.
Can I suggest that the absence of Ammonite is less a dismissal of Ammonite (which Sasha and I both loved) and more because she simply likes a few other movies better this year?
To include Ammonite in Actress or Supporting Actress in this year’s choices would mean kicking another choice out, yes?
And then someone might come along and say: “must… take… down… Asian film” or ” must… take… down… Black film.”
How would that look?
In fact, we don’t care “how things look.”
We each name our favorite movies without thinking, “oh shit, we’d better include one film of every type or else someone will accuse us of “taking something out.”
We don’t think that way. We hope nobody else does either.
As I say, I love Ammonite. But Ammonite is no Carol.
Can I suggest that the absence of Ammonite is less a dismissal of Ammonite (which Sasha and I both loved) and more because she simply likes a few other movies better this year?
To include Ammonite in Actress or Supporting Actress in this year’s choices would mean kicking another choice out, yes?
And then someone might come along and say: “must… take… down… Asian film” or ” must… take… down… Black film.”
How would that look?
In fact, we don’t care “how things look.”
We each name our favorite movies without thinking, “oh shit, we’d better include one film of every type or else someone will accuse us of “taking something out.”
We don’t think that way. We hope nobody else does either.
As I say, I love Ammonite. But Ammonite is no Carol.
You can suggest it, and it is fair. But it is also fair that I ask, considering that until now Sasha has had Ammonite in her predictions.
Re: “must…take…down…”I feel I am being misunderstood here. My comment is not on Sasha, as I have said, but on the industry as a whole. To deny that takes place quite often is to do a great disservice to LGBTQ+ films and the LGBTQ+ community.
Have you evidence of the “must…take…down…” phenomenon happening to the other types of films you described in your response? I do not, but I have the receipts for LGBTQ+ films, and I have written about it at length.
My view of the race is still unchanged: Nomadland is this year’s Roma and will lose Best Picture to a much more Oscar-y film. I’m as of yet unsure what exactly that will be.
I have the exact same feelings and I’m so impressed (especially having seen the film almost two months ago) to read about it being a BP and BD frontrunner. It’s a magnificent film but I don’t seeing it winning either category. It’s so anti-Oscar that I’ll be pleasantly surprised if it does despite wanting Mank to sweep everything (and expecting it will frankly).
I think it’s still a frontrunner in BD, for a multitude of reasons. But Best Picture is not happening.
I agree its chances are far better in the Director category (even in frontrunner position for the moment) but snubbing a filmmaker as brilliant and celebrated as David Fincher once again, clearly in another artistic triumph, might feel too much. Too early to say how it goes.
I agree its chances are far better in the Director category (even in frontrunner position for the moment) but snubbing a filmmaker as brilliant and celebrated as David Fincher once again, clearly in another artistic triumph, might feel too much. Too early to say how it goes.
I agree its chances are far better in the Director category (even in frontrunner position for the moment) but snubbing a filmmaker as brilliant and celebrated as David Fincher once again, clearly in another artistic triumph, might feel too much. Too early to say how it goes.
Fincher and Zhao narratives will clash in Best Director. THE narrative about both films is in Best Directing. I can’t see a David Fincher film winning Picture without him taking Directing. And I don’t see a path for Nomadland at Picture If Zhao is not the force in Directing. I could, though, see either winning Directing and something else like One Night in Miami or Minari taking Picture.
You’re probably right. It obviously remains to be seen and you made me realize the prospect of Fincher finally scoring his long overdue Best Director win and a film as clearly incredible as Minari winning Best Picture is fine with me.
So going with that thought, do you have Nomadland down to win director?
I’d probably say it’s the frontrunner, but could easily lose.