This is a really weird time to be covering the Oscars. It’s a real weird time period. Just as with the rest of the country, there seems to be a massive disconnect between the silent majority and the very activist minority that is driving much of the dramatic changes across all cultural landscapes in America right now, up to and including the film awards race. Twitter is very heavily involved in activism where films and awards are concerned. This is a year where corporations have had to reshape their messages to accommodate Generation Woke. But honestly, they are still the same powerful people and they’re still running the country – they just have to also pander to make sure they hold onto power. They do that by making big moves like ebay banning the resale of some Dr. Seuss books, or Amazon refusing to list certain books, or Disney firing Gina Carano. No one is valuable in this system unless it props up the people in power who hold all the cards still and always.
One of the biggest ways to make it seem like actual change has taken place is to ensure that the right people get nominations. But the problem with that is the consensus vote. With the exception of the critics and BAFTA a consensus cannot be so easily curated to satisfy the growing demands for anyone but a white man to be nominated for and win awards.
A consensus vote is a consensus vote. It can’t pander. It can’t curate nominees to suit an agenda or to right the wrongs of the past. It can only reflect the preferences of its membership. It can only mobilize the films that lots and lots and lots — thousands and thousands — of people like.
Now we know the five directors whose films are the most admired by roughly 18,000 of their peers who rang in this afternoon:
Chloe Zhao, Nomadland
Lee Isaac Chung, Minari
Emerald Fennell, Promising Young Woman
David Fincher, Mank
Aaron Sorkin, The Trial of the Chicago 7
That’s your DGA five and your strongest Best Picture contenders. These are the five films the most voters picked when given just the title of the film and not the director (I think that’s how they still do it anyway). Of course, sometimes it might mean they just really like the director and not the movie so much. But in general, as the awards go, and as the consensus goes, these are the strongest heading into the race.
Timing might matter and it might not matter. These five have been, more or less, the consensus for a while now. But the DGA is comprised of 18,000 members, and the Academy’s director branch is roughly 500. There is heat on the Academy to be inclusive and though they have never voted any other way they might this year because this year it will be a big deal if they, you know, pick all white men and Chloe Zhao.
Ballots are due tomorrow but how many people voted already? Will all five of these directors get in for Best Picture? Usually. Only one time since 2009 that a director nominated by the DGA didn’t get in for Best Picture and that was David Fincher and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
In 2012 the Oscar ballots were turned in before the DGA announced – readers of this site will remember that. Only Steven Spielberg for Lincoln and Ang Lee for Life of Pi got into the Oscars but all five DGA nominees had their films in Best Picture, including the winner, Ben Affleck’s Argo.
Two directors were nominated for the Oscar without a corresponding Best Picture nomination since 2009 – Bennett Miller for Foxcatcher and Paweł Pawlikowski for Cold War. Neither had a DGA nomination.
Given this strange year — with so many films in the mix, so many potential narratives that have to be worked through, so much history to be made, and inclusion and equity to be considered — it’s hard to predict what the Best Director lineup will be.
These five films each say something different about America in 2021 – its past, its present and it’s future. Minari takes place in the early 1980s, and the Trial of the Chicago 7 straddled the cusp as the ’60s spilled over into the ’70 — though they are worlds apart. Taking place in 2011, Nomadland feels up-to-the-minute and is infused with the same kind of populism that threads all the way through Fincher’s Mank and our country this year. Mank takes place over a span of the years that led out of the Great Depression, until shortly before the United States entered World War II – not enough people saw the threat of Hitler back then but the fear of Communism, which would grip the country during the Red Scare a few years later, was definitely on the minds of Americans and Hollywood. And Promising Young Woman, featuring a central character who is a trans woman and is about the victims of sexual assault is very much about what is on the minds of so many young women in 2021. Sorkin’s Trial of the Chicago 7 is about rising up against a corrupt government at a time of mass protests, just like now.
There are other films that resonate and other directors who could get in. If the BAFTA is any indication, we’re looking at three possible: Florian Zeller for The Father, Kevin MacDonald for The Mauritanian and Thomas Vinterberg for Another Round, which could also land in the Best Picture and Director category. Remember Michael Haneke showed up in the BAFTA race before the film showed up for Oscar.
There is just one more day of Oscar campaigning of this, the longest season in their history. After that, it’s a week until Oscar nominations. After THAT it’s just a few more weeks and the end is here at last.
Here are the current charts:
2019-2020
2017-2018
2015-2016
2013-2014
2011-2012
2009-2010
@disqus_ipJT47kaYq:disqus @claudiucristiandobre:disqus @disqus_RIlO4uyKTN:disqus
Hi gang, that Letterboxd Oscar simulation is way cool! I wonder what branch you decided to vote for. I chose writing since we already did directing and acting here at AD. Looking forward to discover the results!
I’m always happy to see more ballot simulations and places to vote for stuff and in particular with that ballot I love the branch structure (I chose directing, writing, editing and cinematography).
Which do you mean? I didn’t get anything in my inbox about it and couldn’t locate it via searches once I saw this post. Do you have a link? I’m very interested, needless to say… 🙂
I saw it in the « Activity » tab⚡️of the Letterboxd app. Ferdinand and Dominik liked a post about it. Here’s the link to vote:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe00RnCJo-5UjlzGdI0aMmWnhwskibwZtLoFq7qwuB-fw8ESQ/viewform
You have until tomorrow 12pm(noon) GMT and you’ll need to enter your username at the end.
Brilliant! Thank you so much!
I figured I could do the most “damage” (support the most people I’m rooting for) by picking acting. Definitely tempting to pick writing (or directing, to help Ms. Fennell get in). Pretty brutal to have to pick just one. 🙂 (I mean, could pick more, but I’d rather pick myself than let a draw do it for me.) Can’t wait for the final vote and getting to pick in all categories!
It makes a lot of sense and I was tempted to do the same, but then I figured acting categories may be the most popular, which would dilute the impact of each vote. I wonder how many voters there are overall? I hope they’ll let us know, though I doubt they’ll show us the detailed numbers as they do here.
Yeah, didn’t consider that… Maybe I should have picked something else. 🙂 Gotta be a close call, either way.
I’m sure they’ll at least tell us how many voted. Is this the first time they’ve done this? (I’m new to Letterboxd.)
I’m new to it too. Unless there were tens of thousands of voters, your vote will surely have an impact. The fact that there are 4 acting categories would compensate the higher participation I guess.
I didn’t vote in the categories I didn’t see 10 nominees in. 🙂 Sucks I can’t support Colectiv and such, but it’s only fair…
Awards Daily Ballot
Deadline Extended until 3/12, Friday 10 PM
https://www.awardsdaily.com/2021/03/11/13th-annual-awards-daily-oscar-ballot/
This image just makes me even more annoyed by Fincher and GWTDT’s snubs at the Oscars. 2011 was WAY too weak of a year for those 2 nomination to not happen.
I think it maybe won editing as a compensation. Had there been 10 nominees it may have made it in.
Couldn’t agree more…
ASC nominees:
Nomadland
Mank
Cherry
News of the World
The Trial of the Chicago 7
Spotlight:
Swallow
Two of Us
Dear Comrades!
Amy Adams, Kingsley Ben Adir, Mark Rylance, Zengel!!!
I wonder if Kate Winslet, Stanley Tucci and/or Morfydd Clark could’ve been nominated if all the members were allowed to vote.
And Quo Vadis, Aida? might be the best movie of the year. I was lucky to watch it last night. Impressive movie – wow!
Can Vinterberg pull a Pawlikowski? Thoughts?
I rather see Marder pulling a Pawlikowski (in case this is meant as a suprise entry not specifically reduced to a foreign language film). There seems to be some passionate support behind that film, based on what is written here and there.
But I´m not sure if Sorkin is our logical cancel candidate, as speculated by many readers here. If “Chicago 7” is popular enough, Sorkin is in.
Agree about Marder.
Honestly what the BAFTA stuff tells me is that UK and Euro talent has grown tired of Americans bigfooting the BAFTA awards as part of Oscar campaigning.
Regina King and Florian Zeller could get Oscar director nominations. Sorkin and Fincher could both be left out.
I can’t see the directors branch going all-in for 5 folks in their 1/2/3rd films. It’s not how they usually go. The only category I remember as this inexperienced would be in 1995. And that’s it.
I currently have Zeller making it in to the 5 for the Oscars. He feels like a Zeitlin, Haneke, Miller to me.
Which of the DGA Five have you left out?
Sorkin
Me too. I think Fincher could also get left out but I hope not. Darius Marder is a dark horse for a nomination.
Combine “Zeitlin” and “Miller” and you get “Zeller”? 🙂
Mind. Blown. Lol
Wow, so the five Golden Globe nominees for Best Supporting Actress all missed at BAFTA! I hadn’t even realized. Bet that’s never happened before!…
And I think the Globe winner doesn’t miss since 76.
Crazy…
Bafta was crazy. Despite that ‘Nomadland’ did not miss anything. This surely solidifies its march to a Best Picture Oscar win.
Seems that way, but who knows, these days?!
I assume the obvious takeaways from today’s announcements have already been discussed to death. 🙂 I don’t have time to read the comments (it’s been a long and busy day and there are still some other things to do), but here are my takes on anything I’m not absolutely sure has been discussed already (or on which I have something to say I think may well not have been covered yet):
– Nothing to really say about the DGA, it was the expected five, the strongest films/directors in the race (and the five I had predicted); glad ProYo didn’t miss.
– BAFTA, though, was nuts… so many weird outcomes… the new system is messing everything up, the Gold Derby podcasters were right about that…
– The only other times since 1992 that no movie had at least 10 BAFTA nominations were the years of Spotlight and The Hurt Locker (so, years in which the critical favorite – which this year would be Nomadland – won BP at the Oscars, and this might not be completely random, it might show lack of passion for any movie in particular, which might help the default pick, not to mention that Nomadland, like Spotlight and The Hurt Locker, was never likely to get more, missed nothing of any relevance AND is leading nominations, same as The Hurt Locker), but even then the leaders had 8/9. The leader(s) being on just 7 hasn’t happened since 1981, when there were 4 nominees per category and a lot fewer categories available to be nominated in, anyway (no supporting categories, no score, only one screenplay category, etc.).
– I keep telling you all Kirby will not miss that Oscar nomination, she’s so safe.
– Seyfried probably is too, still; most of the actresses that beat her to a nomination here are clearly non-threats.
– Is McDormand winning that third Oscar, somehow, now that the perceived top 3 in the category (including Carey – stupid jury) all missed here?
– Cohen’s miss for Trial (and he, too, was thought to be at least in the top 3 in that category, up until now) means both that movie and Promising Young Woman are now facing a stat only Parasite has broken to win Best Picture (at the Oscars) in the last 22 years (as usual, not counting Million Dollar Baby), although they have an obvious and pretty good excuse in this whole jury thing BAFTA are doing in the directing and acting categories – maybe this isn’t a big deal, but I would say it still doesn’t look good, their not being able to get their best bets for an acting nomination/win in here, so points for Nomadland, which missed nothing, it even got in for editing and sound.
– Is Bakalova really going to win the Oscar comfortably, despite genre bias – is it the new blood in the membership doing away with these biases? (I hope so. Not for Bakalova’s sake, just in general.)
– It seems The Father (which I also think has now most likely shown that it has too much support from the British voters to miss for picture at the Oscars) is Nomadland’s main rival for screenplay, now that both Ma Rainey and One Night in Miami missed here, even given the general drive for inclusion… and that’s not much competition, if that’s indeed the case.
– Sorkin’s miss in directing is normal, given that he’s a white male and given the new approach from BAFTA, but Fennell’s looks like a serious sign of weakness, I guess (which sucks). That said, this category is (of the relevant categories) the one where Oscar BP winners were missing the most often, even with five slots and a normal vote, with 3 of the last 5 (Green Book, Moonlight and Spotlight) doing so – true, no such exceptions for the previous 25 years… (Again, apart from Million Dollar Baby.)
– The nomination process for Best Film, though, is, if I understand it correctly, the same as it was before, so that category (which has the most relevant stat for the BP Oscar attached to it, with no real exceptions, ever, with even remotely similar rules and calendars) should still provide us with as valuable a clue as ever and, indeed, it confirms what was already clear, that it’s between Nomadland, The Trial of the Chicago 7 and Promising Young Woman at the Oscars. Not Minari, not Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, and so on…
– The other big stat here is tied to the screenplay nomination (the last 16 Oscar BP winners all got in for screenplay here), and that’s another “normal” category (well, two other normal categories), so Minari’s miss in this one (on top of Best Film) appears quite problematic (same goes for Ma Rainey). If nothing else, because I’m pretty sure this is stats-relevant for the screenplay win at the Oscars. Also, this is industry, folks! We were asking to see industry weakness from Nomadland’s opposition… Well, I think we’ve just seen it, because every single (serious) challenger has failed to get at least one important nomination here. (More than one, in fact.) Trial and ProYo, it’s true, only in the “new rules” categories.
Stats wise, not sure why you are so confident in Seyfried, Claudiu. She only made it to the Globes. Bakalova, Youn, Close and Colman all have two precursors, including SAG. And Foster won the Globes. I think the last Golden Globe winner to miss the Oscars was Katherine Ross in 1976. Ironically she lost the Oscar nomination to… Jodie Foster.
You mention the three and three idea but I can’t seem to find a mention of that in the actual rules at BAFTA and it doesn’t really make much sense because the amount of BAFTA voters on the juries isn’t fixed and is varied by how diverse the juries would be without additional members. Thus a fluxuating amount of non-BAFTA voters voting for half the nominees and a fixed amount of BAFTA voters voting for half doesn’t really make sense to me.
Also, even if it is three and three, I don’t really see the point in emphasizing that since the three that get in aren’t really BAFTA’s choices either as much as they are the choices of 3-6 members of BAFTA.
And about the 10-nominee rule, I feel like that can’t quite be assessed in relation to this year: for all we know something like Mank could have gotten nominated for director, actor, supporting actress and casting with the previous system and thus recieved 10 nominations. The question of whether there would have been a film with 10 nominations is inherently unknowable and in my opinion shouldn’t be linked directly to other years simply because the information isn’t comparable.
Yes, I don’t know where I read that. I probably just misunderstood something. 🙂 The snubs are even more serious if it’s not like that… And you’re right about the 10 nominations thing too – I wasn’t making any claims there, though, really. I was just pointing out some facts and speculating on what they might or might not mean. It’s very clear that we can’t be sure of anything this year, when it comes to BAFTA. Except that the Best Film stat is still important (as is, probably, the screenplay stat). 🙂
I’m going to edit that part out. To avoid further confusion. The three-and-three thing.
Hmmm, maybe there was something to that 3 & 3 thing I had thought they were doing. Here’s what Ryan wrote earlier:
“it appears that as many as 3 slots in every juried category were filled in a way that is
disconnected from what BAFTA members (industry voters) would have chosen if left to their own devices.”
I’m discouraged by what you said (that you couldn’t find any mention of this anywhere else), or I would look for myself, to try and clarify. 🙂 (I’m also very short of time at the moment.)
Well, my sources were mostly the BAFTA voting rules but I don’t really seem to quickly find any mention of it anywhere else either. However there are two comparable structures, one of which people might have confused this with: in the longlist voting the list made of fifteen films is structured in two parts: 12 movies chosen by the members and three movies chosen by a special jury. The other implies the three and three structure has been used in jury voting in BAFTA before: in Best British Film in the old rules at least
Hmmm… Well, if it’s not in the rules, it’s probably not a thing. Curious that more of us got this impression, in any case. 🙂 Probably some misleading article somewhere…
I also thought that if it’s not in the rules, it probably doesn’t matter but I heard an interesting point from the person who does the Letterboxd simulated ballot about something like this: it’s not like the Academy rules express in detail how their best picture balloting works, it basically says preferential and 5% without much more knowledge about what the 5% means. Thus BAFTA could ahve the three and three structure but they just don’t say that out in detail.
Yeah, I thought of this possibility too. Somehow I feel like BAFTA, given they have a new system that’s so different, would have included it in the rules. But, yeah, the truth is we can’t be sure…
Stats wise, not sure why you are so confident in Seyfried, Claudiu. She only made it to the Globes. Bakalova, Youn, Close and Colman all have two precursors, including SAG. And Foster won the Globes. I think the last Golden Globe winner to miss the Oscars was Katherine Ross in 1976. Ironically she lost the Oscar nomination to… Jodie Foster.
I’m not confident in her stats-wise at all. (Although I will point out she also made BFCA – that’s also a major precursor, as much as a lot of people seem to want to ignore it.) I’m confident in her from a logical standpoint. But, if Mank’s failures here at BAFTA aren’t due to the voting system but rather simply a sign of industry weakness, then of course she probably doesn’t get in. For now, I still think Mank will get a ton of Oscar nominations and I find it quite hard to picture that coupled with a Seyfried snub…
I don’t disagree with you that BFCA is a major precursor. And all the four I mentioned made it there. I don’t see how statswise any of the four is behind Seyfried. They were all nominated by BFCA AND SAG. And you will have a bunch of cases of actresses that missed supporting actress at the BFCA and made it to the Oscars. You won’t have one single case of a Globe winner that was not nominated for the Oscars in 34 years, which necessarily puts Foster ahead of Seyfried statswise. I think objectively there is no stat to sustain Seyfried in the top 5. People may predict her on gut (like I did Leslie Manville for example). The stats don’t support that nomination.
I don’t disagree with you that BFCA is a major precursor. And all the four I mentioned made it there. I don’t see how statswise any of the four is behind Seyfried. They were all nominated by BFCA AND SAG. And you will have a bunch of cases of actresses that missed supporting actress at the BFCA and made it to the Oscars. You won’t have one single case of a Globe winner that was not nominated for the Oscars in 34 years, which necessarily puts Foster ahead of Seyfried statswise. I think objectively there is no stat to sustain Seyfried in the top 5. People may predict her on gut (like I did Leslie Manville for example). The stats don’t support that nomination.
Yes, but why are we still arguing about this? 🙂 I just said in the previous reply that I didn’t have any confidence in her stats-wise, but only logically, intuitively. I haven’t studied the stats situation (I don’t do that for nominations, apart from picture and director), so you may well be right. She could be 6th, stats-wise, for all I know. Or worse. It still doesn’t make sense to me that she would miss – again, provided Mank doesn’t underperform severely. Which I don’t think it will.
I am starting to feel Oldman might miss for Mads Mikkelsen (and I’m not saying that because of the BAFTA 7-12 committee nomination but for that Screenplay nomination), who will end up being the passion vote instead of Delroy Lindo. I think Rahim is actually safer than Oldman.
Last year people made the mistake to assume Leo was number 4 or 5. He never was. He was 3rd all the year. And Once Upon a Time is way stronger than Mank in terms of industry support. The comparisons between Leo and Oldman are plausible. But I think Oldman is 4/5/6… closer to the Bale for Ford v Ferrari territory.
If Oldman misses I’m even more confident Seyfried gets in. 🙂 (Same thing: provided Mank doesn’t underperform in the other categories.)
I get a lot the First Man vibes from Mank. A lot. The difference is that this is a weaker year than 2018 in the technical categories. Not necessarily in the above-the-line ones.
Claire Foy scored BAFTA, Globes, and BFCA. Missed the Oscars. One of the very few cases like that.
Yeah, but First Man did not lead both the Globes and Critics Choice. Neither, in fact. Not even close. It got murdered at the Globes. Personally, I only get The Irishman vibes from Mank. And that one got nominated for everything it was getting nominated for in the precursor phase, as far as I remember.
But it was the second lead at the BAFTAs, an actual industry award, unlike Critics Choice and Globes.
It’s probably gonna be somehow in between The Irishman and First Man. Fincher is safe because the directors branch will not nominate a bunch of people in their 1st/2nd/3rd feature film. That will anchor the BP nomination.
But First Man didn’t even really do that much better than Mank at BAFTA, honestly. It got one nomination more. 🙂 (And I bet Mank would have had at least 2-3 more, had acting and directing been voted on the same way as the other categories, like it was the year First Man was up. Its editing snub, a category First Man didn’t miss, is the only real difference – which clearly doesn’t compensate for DGA and PGA nominations, a SAG acting nomination – all industry and not voted on by a weird, small jury and with no British/European bias, which will obviously favor something like First Man, a universal story of one of humanity’s greatest achievements, over a very America-specific story like Mank – and three times as many Golden Globe nominations, including all of the big ones. As well as 2 extra Critics Choice nominations.)
Agree with you at least Oldman and Fincher would have been nominated.
It’s a First Man in a year you don’t have any other top-notch experienced director in the race with something that looks grand in scale compared to the rest of the field.
First Man would easily be nominated across the board this year (Box Office killed it… and in the pandemic people would wonder it would have made a lot money theatrically hahahah). If some groups nominated the blend News of the World… without gravitas, without the reviews, without the biopic factor…
I don’t buy Mank performing like The Irishman, which was the best reviewed American film of the year and didn’t miss a single nomination for Picture or Director anywhere. I think the weaker year for tech is balanced with early voting that truly concentrated the tech categories in those major contenders last year.
I think Mank is missing at least one big thing above the line. De Niro scored basically nowhere but Critics Choice for The Irishman but the other two did, unlike Oldman and Seyfried.
“It’s a First Man in a year you don’t have any other top-notch experienced director in the race with something that looks grand in scale compared to the rest of the field.”
That’s a good point. I still think you’re exaggerating how well First Man would have done this year and how strong its year was compared to this one. But we’ll never know.
“Box Office killed it… and in the pandemic people would wonder it would have made a lot money theatrically”
OK, but we’re talking about the First Man killed by box office, its performance when replacing the Netflix Mank in the pandemic year. It’s irrelevant what the First Man not killed by box office would have done. 🙂
“If some groups nominated the blend News of the World… without gravitas, without the reviews, without the biopic factor…”
Some bad/mediocre movies always get nominated. 🙂 Sometimes even in strong years.
“I don’t buy Mank performing like The Irishman, which was the best reviewed American film of the year and didn’t miss a single nomination for Picture or Director anywhere.”
I mean, apart from BAFTA, Mank (a movie with an all-White cast about American politics, basically) has done just as well or better at the important precursors. It’s not done well in the critics phase, that’s all. But that often doesn’t matter, certain movies (like BoRhap, for instance) can circumvent the need for that entirely.
“De Niro scored basically nowhere but Critics Choice for The Irishman but the other two did, unlike Oldman and Seyfried.”
Oldman has only missed BAFTA, right? As a white dude. And, again, I’m not arguing for Seyfried being in the top 5 stats-wise. I’m just saying I think she’ll get in even if she isn’t.
“ I mean, apart from BAFTA, Mank (a movie with an all-White cast about American politics, basically) has done just as well or better at the important precursors”
The Irishman – BAFTA, SAG Ensemble, PGA, DGA, WGA, GG (Picture, Director and Screenplay), Critics Choice
Mank – PGA, DGA, WGA, GG (Picture, Director and Screenplay), Critics Choice
One missed two key precursors. The other didn’t. No question here.
Fair enough – forgot about SAG. 🙂
Minari should have done better with the BAFTA, I guess. But I´m still not ready to give up hope it might end up as the “consensual choice”. 😉 Just based on my viewing experience and the assumption it´s emotional impact might relate to many viewers… the Nominations next Monday will provide some helpful informations, I guess.
Anyway, besides my sweet Minari wishful thinking I guess I have to prepare myself for the Nomadland landslide! 😉
🙂 Yeah, one never knows… Nomadland can still miss/fail to win stuff. There’s a path for Minari, still, most probably, but it just looks super-unlikely.
I’d put The Father ahead of Mank in the race personally.
I like to think BAFTA was cheekily pulling an Affleck director with the Mulligan/Colman snub. Jettisoning the American filler nominees for British/Euro/Australian stuff is rational though. The idea of America tut-tutting BAFTA as racist is laughable too, that’s equivalent to Trump calling Biden racist. The jury ain’t pretty, but let it be a blip.
“America” is not tut-tutting BAFTA
You might be surprised to learn that there are 330 million Americans and we are not all alike.
Besides, there is no American on this site that I’m aware of who is calling BAFTA racist.
The only thing this particular article suggests is that BAFTA itself was concerned about the image its all-white nominees last year presented.
Which Americans are you trying to claim are able to guilt-trip a Brit to do anything?
As far as your Trump/Biden analogy, you do realize that Biden is president because 80 million Americans voted for him, right?
How about let’s nobody here try to say BAFTA is racist and let’s also avoid sloppy facile slams insinuating that all Americans are racist too. Okay?
Fact remains, BAFTA seemed chronically unable to nominate very many black filmmakers until they arranged for a jury to help them do the right thing.
The central character in PYW is not a trans woman. Like, where did that even come from lol. It has the divine Laverne Cox but she’s not the central character. I’m so lost help.
“A” central character, not “the” central character.
Thank you for pointing that out and now I feel like an idiot.
Don’t feel bad, Arby. I proofread nearly every word ever published on the movie side of this site, and that phrase made me pause and go back to re-read it.
It momentarily threw me too. We always appreciate readers who speak up if anything ever looks or sounds off.
I feel kinda relieved since I also misread that phrase and was thinking about the main character played by Mulligan. 😉
No need to feel like an idiot; i didn’t understand the reference either. I interpreted it as Cassie who is clearly not transgender.
Even still.. I’d hardly call her “a” central character unless everyone with speaking lines in the movie is a central character. I think she’s onscreen for 6 minutes, tops.
Laverne Cox gets 6th billing in the main cast of over 27 actors with major speaking roles.
Her presence makes an memorable impression on most viewers.
I think Nomadlands strength with BAFTA of all places shows it’s pretty unbeatable
As I said before here, Nomadland is definitely not a film for the taste of the average film Twitter folk or for guys in the press that love to write hit pieces. But they won’t have the guts (or stupidity) to try to take down a film written, directed and starred by woman. Nomadland is winning Best Picture. As it should. It’s the best film among the presumed nominees.
Yep. Appears to be smooth sailing. There’s really no other narrative and I think we’re all ready to move on to 2021 films at this point.
The gag is if one were to ask Zhao she would flat out agree that her film isn’t for all tastes. She’s a very good interview and people who have worked with her seem to be incredibly loyal to her approach. Frankly that’s a perfect combo in a campaign.
If they go back to 5 nominees, that would be nice. These are the five best movies of the year. Having 5 make things more competitive and likeable and consensus. It also makes the other categories more easier to predict.
It also makes American Hustle, The Theory of Everything and Bohemian Rhapsody Best Picture nominees and not Her or Whiplash or Selma.
LOL Just look at things like The Reader getting over The Dark Knight, Good Night and Good Luck getting over Memoirs of Geisha or Walk the Line, Finding Neverland getting over Eternal Sunshine.
Bye bye 5 nominees.
“A consensus vote is a consensus vote. It can’t pander. It can’t curate nominees to suit an agenda or to right the wrongs of the past.”
I guess it depends who gets invited to be part of the consensus.
At this point, the makeup of the Academy more closely resembles the makeup of America, a lot more than it used to.
Forgot about that Paweł Pawlikowski nomination.
What a great call that was! Loved “Cold War”!
What a great call that was! Loved “Cold War”!
You can never know with the wily Directors Branch. Everybody though McDonaugh was a shoo in until PTA snuck in a few years ago
I think if something like that happens it’ll be Spike or Greengrass.
I don’t see News of the World getting in in Best Picture anymore even if we had 10 slots. That pretty much kills Greengrass for me. He is not perceived as an author, it’s not a passion pick… if the a lot less elitist guilds managed to snub News of the World, I have a hard time to see a path there.
He’s done it once before, only reason I cite him. Besides, we’re discussing “out of nowhere” Director nom possibilities. That’s sort of the point. But Spike is more likely.
He was the passion pick that time. United 93 was the best reviewed American film of 2006. The territory he occupied then was the Fernando Meirelles, Mike Leigh, Pawel Pawlikowski, Julian Schnabel, David Lynch, Terrence Malick (for Tree of Life), Lenny Abrahamson and Michael Haneke territory.
This time he is not at play at that territory. He will have to fight for, let’s say, the Mel Gibson (for Hacksaw Ridge), Ridley Scott (for Black Hawk Dawn), Todd Phillips, Nolan (for Dunkirk), and Coens (for True Grit) territory. Is he strong enough to push this? All the names I mentioned have received major precursor nominations. Greengrass didn’t receive one single Director mention this season. Not from critics, obviously, and not from the industry. It would be virtually unprecedented.