I’m here. Not for long, but I’m here. Not unexpectedly (after the major effort I made to get everything done in time for the Oscars), I just could not stop sleeping… In a number of spells. I got up, did some things, got too tired again in a few hours, went back to sleep, got up again, and so on. Repeated 2-3 times, at least. Got some work done and all of the other things in the meantime, but this week is still very busy.
I do have a bit of time now to put together this stats round-up I’ve been meaning to get to for many hours, then hopefully reply those who have written to me since I went off grid, a few hours after the ceremony – we’ll see if I can get that second part done today as well. If not, over the next few days.
Just one thing before I move on to the stats: I haven’t read what people are saying and I imagine that I’m still very much in the minority here, but for me the main takeaway from Oscar night was still WE HAVE TO BRING BACK THE HOST! (Ever since they moved away from that, the Oscars have just had no personality for me, as I’ve said many times.) The best parts of the night (which weren’t many – and apart from a handful of speeches) happened when somebody acted as a host for a few minutes. (Regina King, Lil Rel Howery, etc.) But this just didn’t happen enough, at least for my liking…
Worst Oscars I’ve ever seen, that’s for sure! Although the setting was brilliant. They just didn’t do anything with it. Most of the decisions were terrible. (I still enjoyed it, of course, because the main thing for me has always been celebrating the movies – which, even if not well, they still did, just about – and making history, which always happens, inevitably.) That’s about it…
Now, about the stats… There were certainly quite a few upsets – no fewer than five categories saw winners that were being predicted by under 30% of the experts, editors, top 24 and all-star top 24 (or whatever they’re called) at Gold Derby, and only one of those upsets came in a short film category!
That said, the only true stats-busting winner was “Fight For You” in song. (One could claim Colette was in that category as well, but not really, given how unreliable the stats are in those categories in general. More on that below.) These are all of the categories where the stats favorite (or at least what I, based on the data available to me and how I read it, had decided was the stats favorite) did not win:
Best Actor
Chadwick Boseman was probably the stats favorite here. Leaving out all things based on both Mulligan and McDormand losing in the other lead category (which did not end up being relevant, and it was always unclear whether they would), he was mainly up against:
- of the previous 26 Best Actor Oscar winners in years with 8 or more Best Picture-nominated movies, only two had failed to be in one (Jeff Bridges – Crazy Heart – and Fredric March – Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde -, who, however, only tied for the win with somebody who was in a Best Picture nominee);
- since 2011, no Oscar Best Actor winner whose movie had been seen by BAFTA (so, not McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club), and certainly none that was a BAFTA nominee, had failed to win the award there as well (9/9), and BAFTA significantly altered its voting procedure around 2012-2013, making this stat probably rather more meaningful than the average ordinary 9-year matching streak;
- and, finally, losing the Independent Spirit Award (not a very strong stat, particularly in that category, but a reasonably strong one overall
- not many Oscar-winners are nominated there and lose, in any category the two have in common, at least not since 2009, for some reason).
His stats looked mostly beatable to me – although the possibility of Davis (or maybe Day or Kirby) winning complicated things, bringing other, stronger stats into the fold -, only the BAFTA streak looking rather concerning. I guess it’s possible that voters realizing they were about to give a movie not up for Best Picture four Oscars, including both Best Actor and Best Actress (given their SAG wins), might have hurt their final tallies in both categories, so perhaps those stats were more relevant than they seem, even with both losing.
Anthony Hopkins was second-favorite, at worst. His issues were:
- not having won LAFCA/NSFC/SAG/Critics Choice, a stat on 100% (26/26) up until this year, in the SAG era (but a somewhat artificial one, and not one I trusted too much to begin with, despite the lack of exceptions – I’m glad there is now an exception, confirming this);
- not having won SAG or the Globe (an alternative stat, at best, since it also includes SAG), which was going on 17 years, but had witnessed several exceptions before that;
- being potentially the oldest Best Actor winner ever (not a very convincing stat, for the same reason Parasite being a foreign film wasn’t much of a stat either – but one can never be sure).
His stats looked quite beatable to me as well, although slightly more convincing (in the negative sense) than Boseman’s, but I can see how this could be interpreted differently, too… In any case, I was quite clear after BAFTA that I thought this was going to be a very close race and Hopkins could easily lose. The stats paint the same picture. At best, one is a marginal favorite over the other, depending on which stat(s) one gives more credence to – I honestly have no idea what the correct answer is, if there even is one.
Best Actress
Here, there were three roughly equally stats-valid possibilities, with Davis probably slightly ahead of Mulligan and McDormand. Again, setting aside the stats based on Boseman winning Best Actor, which did not come into play (and, given the above, were never anywhere near guaranteed to – though they of course needed to be kept in mind to some extent, even so, as I explained),
The roadblocks for Davis were:
- having only won SAG (not even also NBR, like Halle Berry), which put her in a-single-precedent-in-the-SAG-
era territory (Susan Sarandon, back when there was no AFTRA attached to SAG, which surely was an advantage for Davis there, with her TV background and all that, and back when BAFTA was post-Oscars, there was no Gold Derby Award and so on); - not having any particularly good excuse for missing the BAFTA nomination (which Mulligan maybe did, and McDormand, the eventual winner, in any case, didn’t need, since she was nominated and even won there), which is a must for all eligible, of course (the point is, while it’s hard to see Mulligan missing with BAFTA, had there been no jury system, it was never that hard to see Davis missing, either way but of course one can’t be sure);
- losing the Independent Spirit Award while nominated (McDormand broke this anyway, but it was on 11/11 all-time, before this year’s Oscars).
There was some precedent, at least, so I figured she maybe could beat these. I mean, I didn’t really think she would, honestly, which is why I didn’t predict her personally, but objectively it seemed and perhaps still seems like she had the least damaging stats, just about. BAFTA and its juries really did us in this year. Had McDormand won there fair and square, this would have been so much easier to call!…
Mulligan’s issues:
- not winning SAG or the Globe (34-year streak that was just broken by McDormand, but that could be argued to be all-time, since there was no SAG the last time there was an exception).
That was it. A big one, but clearly beatable, since McDormand had the same issue. (And, since I personally predicted Mulligan, I clearly thought it was beatable before the Oscars too, especially given that Davis also had big stats issues.) Any stat that’s based mostly on the votes of AFTRA and the 90 members of the HFPA is probably beatable. Still, of course, pretty strong.
Anyway, like I said, I’m just happy my two favorite groups (BFCA & Film Independent), at least, picked Carey as their winner. 🙂 As did many other groups. Pity that the industry didn’t get it… (In my opinion, of course.)
McDormand’s:
- the same no-SAG/Globe-win stat;
- the stat about losing the ISA;
- and the stat about losing 3/4 of the Globe, Critics Choice, SAG and BAFTA as a nominee, which was on 100% in Best Actress up until now (no winners had lost that many in the BFCA-SAG era), but had been beaten in the other acting categories more than once, so it never looked unbeatable, by any means.
Clearly, it’s not easy to make a case for any of these being in a much better position, stats-wise, than the others. I still think Davis had the easier stats to beat, and she had precedent for beating most of them. But who knows?! Objectively, their cases look about the same. McDormand is hardly even an upset – I didn’t think she would win anymore, I’ll admit it, after she lost SAG and beat nobody strong at BAFTA. But that’s got nothing to do with the stats. I guess AFTRA just keeps messing things up…
By the way, Andra Day was just a bad prediction, according to the stats. (Already over-explained this point, no sense going over the nearly interminable list of her stats problems again.) Even in a year with four different precursor winners, when each of the other three had their issues as well (though far, far fewer).
James Coburn was the only kind-of precedent, but even he was in a movie rather popular with critics that year, which had won an acting prize (even if not for Coburn) from NYFCC & NSFC and made the top 2 with LAFCA (in the same category). Also made the top 3 in Best Film with the NSFC & NYFCC and the top 3 in directing with the latter. It also had another Oscar nomination. (Nick Nolte, the aforementioned acting winner, in lead.) Coburn also had a SAG nomination – BAFTA only had four acting nominees and took place long after the Oscars, in those days. And he was in supporting, where it’s probably easier for such major stats upsets to happen, anyway. (Or was, prior to 2005. One can’t really get away with such anti-stats predictions anymore, above the line.) History suggests it.
It was nice to see most (though not all) of the pundits realized Day was just not a good call by the end – even if one thought they would want to make history, it was clear Davis, the legend, would be the one they would pick, not Day. (Another thing I argued for, earlier on.) I maintain Day was probably in fifth place. Maybe not a terribly distant fifth, I don’t know, but fifth nonetheless. The evidence is all there. The evidence to the contrary… not so much.
Best Adapted Screenplay
The only category where I, personally, went against the stats and got it right… Nomadland was the stats favorite over The Father because the latter, while eligible, had failed to be nominated for the Scripter, as well as the Gold Derby Award. There were precedents for these stats being beaten. (Individually, not together, of course, but that’s the case with most strong stats.) The main reasons I thought they would indeed be broken this year:
- Not being nominated for those two also meant Nomadland didn’t actually beat it in a final vote for either; it was probably not nominated (especially in the case of Gold Derby) mostly because not enough people saw it in time, therefore Nomadland only truly beat it at the Critics Choice, but lost to it at BAFTA (and I suspect, and have for a while, it would have lost at WGA too, had they been eligible there, which wouldn’t have affected its being the Best Picture stats front-runner anyway), which is a much better precursor for the screenplay win, it’s been established;
- In the 9 years in which I’ve run my preferential ballot simulation, the winners of that simulation (The Social Network, Zero Dark Thirty, Her, Birdman, Mad Max: Fury Road, Moonlight, Call Me By Your Name, The Favourite and Parasite) have always ended up with at least one Oscar win, often upsetting in at least one category in the process (Zero Dark Thirty tied for the sound win, Mad Max: Fury Road was not expected to win six, this much I remember, and beat The Revenant in a couple of tech categories the latter was a favorite in, Moonlight upset in picture, The Favourite upset in Best Actress, even though it also surprisingly lost in a number of categories, and Parasite upset in directing – and, from many people’s perspectives, picture), and, this year, screenplay seemed the easiest category for it to win (I of course knew it could maybe win actor too, like I said, but had decided to not predict Hopkins there – I believed Boseman’s narrative would prevail, somehow);
- Nomadland just didn’t make sense as an Oscar winner in this category, as many have said, it did not feel written enough (the old “most vs. best” rule for predicting Oscar wins) and I never bought that it would win just because it was winning picture (screenplay is not the category one “drags along” that way, most of the time – bizarrely, it ended up being Best Actress, which, however, was even easier to win, surely, requiring fewer extra votes gathered and a lower final percentage of the vote) – shout out to john smith, wherever he is! I bet he would have been arguing hard alongside me that The Father was the clear favorite for screenplay (stats or no stats), due to this and other reasons! (Well, I wouldn’t have said “clear” – but he might have.) This also played a part in my decision. He was right about Get Out and others. He was the screenplay wizard…
Best Cinematography
This was another marginal upset. Mank was always clearly in it. Its only issues were BAFTA’s 8-year matching streak in this category (since 2013, so this looked reasonably strong, despite the still-small sample) and having lost the Critics Choice (only 1/11 Oscar winners since the BFCA had introduced that category too had done so). These were clearly both well in the “beatable” range, especially since Nomadland wasn’t a 100% valid winner either, stats-wise, not having won any ADG prizes (13 of the last 15 cinematography winners at the Oscars had).
One other stat I discovered right after the ceremony makes Mank seem like an even better stats alternative to Nomadland in this category (which was probably always its best chance at winning a second Oscar, given the ASC result) than it already did: no lone nominations leader (as in not involved in a tie for the most nominations) at the Oscars since 1971 has failed to win at least two Oscars! (Before that year, there were 6 exceptions – so not many, anyway.)
Best Live Action Short
Feeling Through and The Present were maybe the stats co-favorites, having no issues, with Two Distant Strangers close by (its only “issues” being the length of its title – although it’s only three words anyway, plus this stat has obviously been overcome before, even recently – and the fact it didn’t have at least two other award wins listed on IMDb, but just the one – but I knew this might change post-Oscars – I’m curious to see if it does -, so this wasn’t even much of a valid stat, just a potentially valid one).
Best Documentary Short
This is probably the second-biggest stats upset, just about. All winners since 2003 had had at least a 7.4 score on IMDb. (Colette is on 7.2, so very close, anyway.) The 40 minute rule has also gone down again, but this was never a tremendously strong stat (again, none of the shorts stats I look at are, they’re just for orientation when I can’t decide otherwise – or should be, anyway, even if I sometimes have a tendency to overvalue them, purely out of habit, given that in the other categories stats actually do matter quite a bit) and it’s been beaten before, rather recently.
Best Original Song
“Fight For You” winning here was definitely the biggest stats upset, as I said. First of all, “Speak Now” had zero stats issues. More importantly, there were all kinds of rather strong stats going against the H.E.R. song:
- not winning at Critics Choice after being nominated for and losing the Globe (no exceptions in the BFCA era and, in fact, for the last 29 years;
- not winning at least one critics award for song (this was on an 8-year streak – there were exceptions before that, of course… no real 100%-all-time stats to be found for song, either);
- not winning the Globe and not being from an animated movie (only one exception since 1991).
This is one of those below-the-line wins stats just can’t explain. There are one or two every year. Can’t be helped. There just isn’t enough data, there aren’t enough strong precursors and there aren’t enough strong stats in these categories, like I’ve always said…
(For song, specifically, there is no corresponding BAFTA category, as well as no guild award and, therefore, there are no industry stats or clues for what is likely to win the Oscar. Only non-industry precursors, which makes the stats here automatically less reliable than even those that exist for other below-the-line categories.)
Bonus:
Stats broken by Nomadland in winning Best Picture:
- not having either the SAG Ensemble nomination or two or more SAG acting nominations.
That’s it. That’s the strongest stat based on the SAG Ensemble snub it was facing (any others that include that would just be “doubles”, basically) and it had no other snubs or losses (all season) that normally disqualify a movie from winning Best Picture. (The Artios “snub”, I guess, but that’s for the same thing and I don’t count those twice – anymore. Plus, its stat is pretty weak, anyway. Barely good enough to be mentioned. I’ll probably take it out of my table altogether, now that there’s yet another exception.) Fabulous run!
Evidently, all of the others had several such issues. Yes, even Promising Young Woman. In the critics phase, and not only. (Let alone Trial and Minari and the rest.) All of those stats held. The list would be far too long… Oh, and it was, it seems, indeed not premature to call a lock that Trial wouldn’t win Best Picture, even as early as just after Critics Choice. Further proof that, as much as people love to ignore them, their stats are quite solid, especially in Best Picture, where the stat I based the call on remains on 100% all-time…
I did fairly poorly overall with my predictions (even if I made a significant profit in Oscar bets, as usual) – I got killed by the shorts, 1/3, and only called one “upset” (The Father in screenplay). Didn’t find the path to calling any of the others. Plus that late switch to Trial in editing… Oh well. 16/23 (same as the stats-only picks), 15/20 if we don’t count the shorts. Not terrible, but not good. Congrats to all of those who did better! And I’ll see you all again in October! 🙂
And with that, I’m semi-officially on break – apart from reading the post-Oscars articles and comments (which I haven’t yet had time to do) and posting a few comments and replies of my own… I would normally stay on longer, but this year there just isn’t time. There’s still too much going on.
Here’s the tea: stats only matter when dealing with nominations, not wins.
Why? Because in the Academy the individual branches choose the nominees. Thus, by looking at performance at various guilds, you can get an idea of who is going to be nominated. However, since the ENTIRE Academy votes for the winners, all bets are off. It is more likely that a film nominated for below the line awards that is popular (re: actually been seen) by the major branches (actors, directors, writers, editors) will win those categories in the era of preferential ballot. Do I have stats to back that up? Nope but I’ve watched the Oscars and had enough “wtf that won?” moments to pick up on the clues.
Also, the Globes and various critics awards are basically advertising for nominees. They don’t predict winners, they just offer suggestions to Academy members about which films they may want to watch. And that’s directly from the lips of voters I know. We all like to think we have sway and power, but the Academy members are going to do what they want, critics and Globes be damned. Sorry, not sorry.
BRILLIANT! This should be pinned/highlighted/made into a thread.
And yet, amazingly, stats that indicate winners are just as strong as stats about what’s going to get nominated… 🙂 (Stronger, actually, I would say. It’s harder to predict nominations than the final win, in my experience – I’ve looked at both in-depth, at least for BP and BD.)
“Thus, by looking at performance at various guilds, you can get an idea of who is going to be nominated.”
The key part here being “an idea”… Not a clear answer. You almost never get a clear-cut top 5 (or top 10 or whatever) by looking at the stats for nominations. But you do almost always get a single stats favorite when you look at win stats.
“However, since the ENTIRE Academy votes for the winners, all bets are off.”
The stats favorite wins in most categories each year, though. At least 60-70% of the time, often a lot more. Even though there are 5 nominees in each category. Is that simply coincidence? The stats perform about as well as Gold Derby’s aggregate odds. Above the line, they perform better. Substantially better. We’re talking win stats here. Your theory isn’t really supported when you look at the facts.
I think the reason is when you have thousands of industry people voting for something (which is what happens in both the major guild award votes and the final Oscar vote), you’re going to get very similar results, even if one group is all-writers or whatever and another is as eclectic as the Academy. It’s still thousands of people who work in the same field (movie making) and interact with all kinds of people from that field, even if they all have different specialties…
Related to the second part of your post (the general idea behind that being precisely what prompted me to go into this research as well): I’m actually in the early stages of looking into an industry-only stats approach (which is what I do for BP anyway, and have for years) for all of the categories (using mostly data post-2012/2013, when a LOT of key rules changes at the Oscars and BAFTA’s happened in various categories), which already appears to promise a lot better results than even what I’ve been getting using all of the stats (so, including critics, Globes, BFCA, etc.) – which has been an average (for the stats picks) of 17-18/24 (haven’t done the math, just going on memory here) correct predictions per year, probably, clearly not something that will win any contests but way better than your theory suggests it should be, that much is very clear – which of course makes loads of sense.
The question is whether there’s enough industry data (particularly for the techs – besides song and the shorts, obviously) – I think there is, just about. I should be able to get this done soon and then use this approach next year to pick the stats favorites, rather than the one I have been. And probably only use non-industry stats where the industry stats are murky and can’t decide. Should have done this in the first place, but I guess I knew there was more work required (than just collecting all stats in one place and looking at all of them) and, since I spend 95% of my time during Oscar season focusing on BP, rather than anything else, it’s never seemed like enough of a priority. I’m more motivated this year, since I got into predicting stuff that’s not BP a lot more this year than any other and now, having put together tables and stuff, find it interesting-enough to look into it more closely. As time permits.
“It is more likely that a film nominated for below the line awards that is popular (re: actually been seen) by the major branches (actors, directors, writers, editors) will win those categories in the era of preferential ballot. Do I have stats to back that up? Nope”
Trust me, there very much are stats that express this as well! 🙂 (And there are more to be found, clearly.) I’ve just not been giving them the proper weight, in certain cases. But I like to learn from my mistakes. Let’s see how well I do at it in this case! The next 2-3 years should begin to clarify that question… (I may not stumble upon the right industry-only formula from the start and/or may need more of a sample than the 9-10 years I have to work with up to now.)
Awards Daily has their stats master for years now finally you get long overdue promotion to AD Staff my good buddy Claudio…as you soo deserve so will you be the let find special title Ryan and Sasha for our Stats analyst- there you have it ‘Master ‘ Stats Analyst- fantastic that it Claudio- i hererby (can only be valid if Ryan and Sasha agree) annoint you now and in future as AD’s MASTER STATS ANALYST..maybe you could also try a stint with the CIA or FBI? or whichever country intelligent agency? i thiknk you make a GREAT intelligence analyst maybe? they need someone with sharp eye for numbers to start catching major terror attacks before they happen?:P but i NOT being sarcastic hope you know that..
here another stat i want to touch on: you quoted this line:
“Pity that the industry didn’t get it… (In my opinion, of course.)” NOT JUST YOUR OPINION MATE the growing majority of the film going public online here and i tell you i been right as increasing scepticism and weariness grows by the year based on oscars ‘gun to aspiring contenders head’ mentality…the fact that Tenet, The Courier, The Little Things, The French Dispatch, The Outpost, News of the World and Greyhound did nto compete..well is it any wonder that ratings tanked as badly as they did? i believe if half of these films i listed competed , the ratings would not be as diabolically bad..as they were..i laughing at how oscar shot themselves totally in the foot…for they CHOSE to their deteriment to snub, and undermine and downplay the potentially more far reaching appeal by both critics and audiences of these films..if you do NOT nominate films that reach broader audience base..basically as oscar are about discover the hard way they are FUKED and frankly as you say ”pity the industry does NOT get it!”
Not on staff, like I said – just a volunteer contributor. But thanks for the kind words! 🙂
“maybe you could also try a stint with the CIA or FBI? or whichever country intelligent agency?”
:))
More like this please!
I noticed that Katharine Hepburn and Frances McDormand have a lot in common that I realized before.
They are not really chameleons (like Streep or Day-Lewis).
They bring an essence of themselves to each performance they give. Sort of like Jack Nicholson who also has 3 Oscars (albeit 1 in supporting).
They were never the ‘it’ girl like Sissy Spacek or Diane Keaton.
They have a public persona that can be defined as too-cool-for-school or often intimidating. Hepburn didn’t even show up to the Oscars, and McDormand is McDormand.
They both are not celebrities. While they had relationships with very, very famous men, their acting always came first.
They both experienced sophomore slump and had to kind of reintroduce themselves after their first Oscar win. Hepburn was labeled as box-office poison and it was difficult for McDormand to find juicy roles for a time like the one she had in Fargo.
Their second and third Best Actress trophies came pretty close to each other.
All this time, we were thinking Streep was going to catch Hepburn or maybe surpass her. But it might just be Frances McDormand after all, who pulled the upset of the year in my opinion.
Also, this is just me but the adjective I would use to describe their performances is ‘awesome’ instead of ‘heartbreaking'(Spacek) or ‘mindblowing'(Streep).
I honestly never bought the chameleon hype for anyone. All actors look like themselves some deglam/over-glam and accents aside. What they can’t control are mannerisms and voice inflection. Blanchette is famously hyped as a chameleon but her mannerisms and voice inflections are like a clock, you know exactly which one is gonna strike when.
The kind of Streep’s acting is one that is mostly appreciated by actors (or actors wannabes).
The kind of McDormand’s (and Hepburn’s) is one that is appreciated by the public at large. It is more connecting.
I like your assessment here Deniz. I was pondering the similarities too between Hepburn and McDormand. Neither was a typical representation of women in Hollywood. Neither projected a glamorous movie star image and their choices showed a point of difference to other big stars of their respective generations. To some extent (and it’s not a negative), Hepburn was always Hepburn in her movies and McDormand the same. Not method actors in the sense that a Streep or Blanchett, but perhaps more Helen Mirren and Judi Dench – strong, distinct women; whilst versatile, but still instantly recognisable. For me Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn were the greatest actresses of that early half century of movies.
For me, Bette Davis is probably still the greatest ever…
Yes my two all time favourite actresses – Bette Davis & Meryl Streep. As a kid i was fascinated by Bette Davis, then as a teen Meryl knocked my socks off and I have been a fan boy ever since.
Meryl has just never captivated me. She’s always brilliant but I guess maybe it’s just chance – I rarely seem to connect with her characters, really. Not sure why. Maybe it’s the parts she picks. My favorites are probably still Shirley MacLaine and Bette Davis. (Oh, and maybe Leslie Caron.) Some younger actresses like Emma Stone are getting there, slowly but surely…
Joel Coen also has four Oscars. They’ve got to be running out of shelf space at this point.
I wonder who will wind up having the more impactful career, when all is said and done. Not that it’s a competition, of course.
my instinctual response is Joel. The Coen brothers are just simply a unique creative force in storytelling.
It’s hard to tell. I adore the Coen brothers but actors have a better chance at a lasting legacy than directors mostly. Coens will/did influence the way films are made more than McDormand will/did but 50 years from now she might be the one who has become an icon. Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Audrey Hepburn, Bette Davis, John Wayne are all more famous now than John Ford, George Cukor, David Lean, Joseph L. Mankiewicz or Frank Capra. Yes there are directors who everyone knows as well. (Hitchcock, Kubrick) But they are rarer.
” no lone nominations leader (as in not involved in a tie for the most nominations) at the Oscars since 1971 has failed to win at least two Oscars!”
American Hustle (2013) went 10-0, and The Favourite (2018) wins only Best Actress outta its ten noms.
Mank is lucky it gotten ASC but Nomadland has a stronger stats in the Cinematography race
American Hustle tied with Gravity for most noms; The Favourite with Roma.
The key word is “lone”. As Dave pointed out below, AH and TF were not “lone” leaders.
What Idle Time said. It’s very different to be tied for first with one or more other movies and to be the one movie that got more nominations than any other (in Mank’s case, by at least four).
Brilliantly written!
Love your analysis as always. Some random assorted thoughts and questions:
1. How much do you (or anyone) win when you actually place bets? How many categories do you have to get right and how much do you to have to bet? I am never the winner anymore in any of these contests, but it makes me wonder.
2. Let’s add a new stat that the biggest singer-songwriter tends to win Best Song now. We should have studied that category more carefully. Seemed like it was going to H.E.R. as soon as she, rather than Odom or Husavik, closed the pre-show. It didn’t win, but was still nominated for, both BFCA and GG, which put it ahead of Husavik. We could sense apathy toward Speak Now/Miami and fractured support in general, combined with the snootiness factor against Husavik (and perhaps the opposite reaction to Seen). We just didn’t know where to go.
3. The Academy loves Frances! She is a stats-buster. But perhaps never again. Each of the other contenders (particularly Davis and Day) seemed to lack the support for their FILM and PERFORMANCE to win this time, but I just never strongly considered Frances as a contender, thinking they knew (better in the Academy than at BAFTA, and that they CARED more when it came to the Oscars) that she was a recent repeat winner and that they’d spread the wealth as they so often do in opposition to the great actors. In contrast to Frances, SAG/SAG-AFTRA really loves Viola, but the win has failed her twice now. Unprecedented, to think she and Renee (and anyone else?) have 3 SAG wins and only Renee has 2+ Oscars, while Frances has 2 SAG wins for film, yes, but not the 3rd for Nomadland.
4. Further on Best Actress, I really think the BAFTA jurists should come out and admit what now seems obvious: that they didn’t eliminate the nomination of any actor who was higher than [4th?]. I actually now believe Frances and Vanessa were maybe the top 2 there in the nominations phase. There was never reason for them to eliminate Carey over Frances – and now we see that the BAFTA and AMPAS both selected her, so I think maybe she was strong in the nominations phase as well, and Carey was less so (at least at BAFTA, which is still telling) than we thought. I think Andra Day was higher than Kirby in the Oscar votes though. Few were actually going to bank on Vanessa. I do think though that Viola and Andra split their votes (as they usually did) and that Carey was most likely the runner-up in the final tally, given the passion for PYW overall. I was surprised all season long not to see more support for Carey. Not because she is a beloved, ubiquitous starlet on the level of JLaw or Emma Stone, though she was a classy returning nominee. But because she carries the movie, as does Frances with Nomadland, as much as these films are truly highlights of their script and/or direction even more so. I thought the Best Actress would come from a Best Picture nominee but picked the wrong one.
5. Definitely adding your preferential ballot winner stat to my forecasts! I think if Zeller had been nominated for Best Director, I would have more likely gone for the Adapted Screenplay and MAYBE Chadwick predictions. In the last 12-24 hours, I felt the possibility of both upsets, so I was confounded and frustrated that they would close the show with Best Actor. But seems rare for the Best Picture winner to lose to a film without a Director nomination. In reality, though, The Father is ALL the screenplay and Hopkins. And then the editing and production design. The direction is nothing flashy because it’s just shot and counter-shot between Hopkins and his scene partners. Anyway, everyone said The Father overperformed in the nominations, but I basically expected it to do as well as it did, so that didn’t sway me, especially after we saw the BAFTA wins for The Favourite not amount to anything outside of Olivia Colman’s win (but sure, this was precedent for at least ONE major win by it, whether Hopkins or script, but I didn’t want to bet against Chad).
6. I wanted to hear your take on the Sound of Metal editing win. I know it was neck and neck and the consensus choice, but the flashier editing always takes it. Plus I never bought the idea that they name-check the sound winner in this category, because it just happens that we usually have a major tech player (a war film or actioner) dominating the sounds and editing. I guess I was wrong. Just as the VFX winner often (usually?) has a Production Design nomination, the Editing and Sound awards go together, while I now learned the Cinematography winner usually (at least recently?) has a Production Design nomination. I guess it makes sense to think that the below-the-line craftsmen vote together with major overlap.
7. A Concerto Is a Conversation was too short to win. Maybe Latasha too. Just my two cents. It was hard to predict the winner here, but I thought both of these had issues (kind of like Best Actress where I mostly wrote off Frances but had issues with everyone else).
“1. How much do you (or anyone) win when you actually place bets? How many categories do you have to get right and how much do you to have to bet? I am never the winner anymore in any of these contests, but it makes me wonder.”
:)) Well, I win small because I bet small… I bet $55 in total this year (which is on the large side for me anyway) and made a profit of about $20. Would have to look up previous years, but I remember only once, maybe, being in the red, due to getting BP wrong. As for what categories, I can of course choose what categories I want to bet on. (I choose whichever odds and contenders I think are value. If nothing seems like value in a category, I move on.) I bet at PokerStars Sports, but there are definitely better sites out there. But I already have an account there with money in it and I’m lazy, so…
“2. Let’s add a new stat that the biggest singer-songwriter tends to win Best Song now.”
I probably should. 🙂 I just need some way to quantify that. I’m sure there is one – I’ll look into it and see if the numbers confirm the biggest such contender wins…
“The Academy loves Frances! She is a stats-buster.”
No no, but she’s not, though, like I said. 🙂 She was in about the same position as Davis and Mulligan. She had some stats to contend with they didn’t, but nothing that killed her chances like Day’s stats, and they (Davis and Mulligan) had some stats to contend with she didn’t. It was a right mess, on this the stats agree with the pundits…
“I really think the BAFTA jurists should come out and admit what now seems obvious: that they didn’t eliminate the nomination of any actor who was higher than [4th?]. I actually now believe Frances and Vanessa were maybe the top 2 there in the nominations phase.”
Very interesting point! It’s certainly easier to see that being the case now… I still doubt it, but who knows?!
“I think if Zeller had been nominated for Best Director, I would have more likely gone for the Adapted Screenplay and MAYBE Chadwick predictions.”
Call Me By Your Name and Argo (other recent adapted winners) also weren’t up for BD. This has been called a stat before, but it’s really kind of not – not a strong one, anyway.
“I wanted to hear your take on the Sound of Metal editing win. I know it was neck and neck and the consensus choice, but the flashier editing always takes it.”
I almost included this, but it was all long enough already. 🙂 Sound of Metal was the stats favorite here. It was facing one or two fairly minor stats, whereas Trial was clearly not winning anything else (screenplay was close to a lock for ProYo) and thus was very, very likely to be facing the stat that only 1 BP nominee had ever won just editing before. 85+ years. A clearly stronger stat than anything in Sound of Metal’s way (which is basically its having been snubbed by Gold Derby, a stat that already had an exception in the 18 years of its existence, and its lack of either a DGA or Oscar directing nod, another stat on the weakish side, around 90%). BAFTA also trumps ACE and the sound nomination stat of course helped. I went against the stats here because the many Trial wins (and even surprise nods – ASC) in minor guilds threw me off, as well as this whole “flashy editing” argument. I didn’t really ever personally believe Sound of Metal’s editing wasn’t also flashy (I mean, that opening scene alone), but I deferred to others, for lack of time, and chose to give that theory at least some credit. But it was mostly the SAG/ACE/MPSE wins, etc.
“I never bought the idea that they name-check the sound winner in this category, because it just happens that we usually have a major tech player (a war film or actioner) dominating the sounds and editing.”
Of course, that’s pretty silly. That’s a streak, nothing more. Clearly, there’s correlation there, but it’s not unbeatable or anywhere near it. (And the only stats I really consider anywhere – except the shorts, I guess – are those that are at least close to being unbeatable. 90% or more, preferably 95%. And the larger the sample of years, the better.) The sound nomination stat is the one to pay more attention to here. That’s strong enough to be a very good clue. And Sound of Metal was the only movie up for both of those categories, sound and film editing.
“A Concerto Is a Conversation was too short to win.”
I thought this from the start, as well! Too short and too slight. But the Ava DuVernay thing, though… And Latasha just didn’t feel right to me either, for various reasons. (The 5+6 IMDb win-loss record, in particular. Colette was 3+0, by the way. Far more favorable.) Nor did Do Not Split, the stats favorite. Hunger Ward I did not see and it seemed too poorly-received, somehow. I really didn’t have very good reasons for not picking Colette, which was by far my favorite. Its stats were very beatable – and almost all others were facing them too, anyway. Do Not Split and Hunger Ward seemed pretty unlikely to me, and they were the only ones that weren’t facing both. I guess I just didn’t want to go quite so much against Gold Derby. I regretted it in Live Action and had had that problem in other short races over the last few years…
Definitely asking you which gambling sites to use next year when things become more predictable, yeah, right. Maybe for the Best Song stat, you can compare Oscar wins to (above-the-line) Grammy wins. Or even album sales. I wasn’t in the mindset to predict H.E.R. But with hindsight being 20/20, (1) she’s the only major recording artist in the running (sorry, but we’ve got to stop looking at the wunderkinds like Odom and Erivo as if they are respected recording artists just because they won Grammys for Broadway recordings; (2) she just won the Album of the Year Grammy; (3) even in a field of similarly situated protest songs, this one was more in-your-face about BLM and tied to a film with passionate support; (4) this song was also more sophisticated lyrically and in terms of the music composition. Even if not my choice, I can see how enough people went with this as being the closest to something you would hear on the radio these days.
On The Father winning 2 Oscars without the Best Director nomination (and I meant to say MAYBE I would have predicted Hopkins if it had been): yes, understood that that’s not a dealbreaker. Especially with a fluke like Argo. Again, The Father is not a heavily/flashily directed film. Call Me By Your Name though had weak competition. I guess you could look to Jojo Rabbit last year beating Joker for a similar outcome (Joker not being seen as a screenplay film, but nominated for every above-the-line category like PYW this year). I just think it’s a bit unusual statistically for a late-breaking British film like The Father to swoop in and win 2 above-the-line Oscars (the only film to do so other than Nomadland, which it beat in 1 major category) without also having the Director nomination. That’s an analysis for another day.
:)) But that’s what I’m saying, I’m so lazy I’ve never even bothered to check what sites have the best odds. I could look into it, of course, shouldn’t take too long.
Yup, all of those are valid reasons for why H.E.R.’s song might have won. I just wish there was some stats path to predicting it. 🙂 A set of stats that explained that, as well as all/most other song winners. Maybe there is, but it clearly requires A LOT more work to find… (If there’s even enough data out there, in this category, I mean.)
“I just think it’s a bit unusual statistically for a late-breaking British film like The Father to swoop in and win 2 above-the-line Oscars (the only film to do so other than Nomadland, which it beat in 1 major category) without also having the Director nomination.”
True… Maybe it’s the play adaptation thing Sammy mentioned. Or just the fact that, like you say, it’s not a flashily directed movie.
“Carey was most likely the runner-up in the final tally, given the passion for PYW overall. I was surprised all season long not to see more support for Carey. Not because she is a beloved, ubiquitous starlet on the level of JLaw or Emma Stone, though she was a classy returning nominee. But because she carries the movie, as does Frances with Nomadland, as much as these films are truly highlights of their script and/or direction even more so. I thought the Best Actress would come from a Best Picture nominee but picked the wrong one”
I totally agreed with you. I think the lack of a campaign trail due to the Covid situation diminishes her chance significantly. In a normal year, where she could appears on various talk shows/events to promote & raise her profile, she’d probably able to snag more support, esp when her actual closest competitor i.e. McDormand loathes campaigning and publicity. Its no surprise tt the latter din even bother to attend the Zoom awards show of Golden Globes, CC, SAG & BAFTA! lol
Yes, for sure. But it must be said that (1) Carey still appeared on a lot of talk shows and promotional interviews, one-on-one roundtables, etc. and (2) sometimes Carey seemed dour! Her personality and energy level this year were not always in her favor.
“sometimes Carey seemed dour! Her personality and energy level this year were not always in her favor.”
Yeah, I got that impression as well. She doesn’t have an awards winner kind of personality. (Not a slight, by the way.)
I’m in the camp that says that if the Father had been released two months earlier it might have caught Nomad at the finish. I also think if Judas had been released two months earlier, the Stanfield category fraud wouldn’t have happened AND Shaka King would have landed in Director.
Nomad had teaser trailers making the rounds BEFORE Toronto, even before anyone knew if Oscar was even going to happen. Searchlight was simply quicker than everyone building their campaign narrative that was much more compelling than its competitors (little film that could, the most AMERICAN subject matter even with the immigrant director, and then finally ending with the humble auteur Zhao). Their press strategy was basically flawless and immunized the film from the dirty campaigning that has marred the last ten years of Oscar campaigning. And as much as *some* people pulled out their spleens over her Oscar haul, McDormand is BELOVED in the industry. She always has been, and her decision to join the PGA was quite brilliant in retrospect.
You are on the money that Boseman’s stats were signaling an upset. It certainly didn’t help that the film just didn’t land when people finally saw it. To me the other sign that Hopkins was charging fast was that he pulled Colman into the Supporting Race. Doesn’t it seem like a million years ago when Seyfried was the odds on favorite?
Good points. The way The Father “caught on” – but late – I also think a director nod for Zeller would have been on the table, and a possible BP win. Hard to tell, though.
🙁 I probably just missed out on that prediction, by the looks of things… (I had Zeller in for directing.)
But there’s also talks that the reason The Father did well at the Oscars is b/c the season was so long and since it was released late, it peaked at the right moment, whereas the others were fatigued. I think The Father did as best as it could, given the subject and nature of the film.
But The Father had such CLASSIC filmmaking. I’ve been banging on “narrative” so much and frankly Nomad’s competitors generally ran lousy campaigns. Except for the Father, Metal, and Judas, with the Father having the strongest “traditional” case for the win. It didn’t do a lot of press as far as I could tell.
Recent BP wins trend toward artsy than classic though. TF is certainly polished but its scope still too limited for an Oscar BP I think.
I agree that the Father is probably too intimate a film for BP but Nomadland is very far out of the box for AMPAS so maybe The Father was more Oscar friendly as a film?
Nomadland looks exactly the typical critics champ that fails at AMPAS but this year it didn’t, it just kept steamrolling through.
Another hint that The Father was strong among the Academy members was the Production Design nomination. It’s not typical for a contemporary film like that gets nominated. But PD branch knew better and deservingly nominated it over the likes of the superficial Mulan and the also deserving Emma..
I’m not sure how representative Twitter is during the campaign and voters insights but I have seen and read filmmakers and critics talking about how they love The Father either as a film or Hopkins performance when it was released this year and thought it’s coming strong entering the the BAFTA and Oscar nomination period.
I agree but, on the other hand, a similar argument can be made for Trial’s cinematography nod, no? And that led to zero wins…
“I’m in the camp that says that if the Father had been released two months earlier it might have caught Nomad at the finish.”
Possible. It won the simulation I ran during Oscar voting. Pretty comfortably. Oh, that reminds me, Nomadland also beat that stat. 🙂 About finishing second in my simulation… A stat based on a 9-year sample, of course, so not a big deal, but still, probably should have mentioned it. Forgot.
“the most AMERICAN subject matter even with the immigrant director”
The old “reacting to the previous winner” (Parasite/foreign) theory strikes again… 🙂
I agree with all your points, Pete. For me, what is also significant, although not an exclusive ingredient for a win – but for Hopkins being ‘The Father’ and it being such a complete character and title figure, his performance is simply too big to ignore by the Academy, and its BP and screenplay nods and Colman showed its strength. Likewise McDormand WAS Nomadland. Whilst Mulligan was the Promising Young Woman, it didn’t seem to elicit the sort of passion that was needed for her to sweep or take the necessary pre-cursors. Maybe it was the subject; maybe it was the tonal shifts in the film. AMPAS clearly loved the screenplay but i never for a moment felt it could win BP – way too divisive a subject and style to win on a preferential. Maybe her performance was divisive too. I loved it and think it should have won.
Despite Davis being the title character in Ma Rainey, her role sat squarely in an ensemble sized role; something that perhaps hurt her chances with AMPAS. McDormand – like her or not, is an actor that always pulls focus and in Nomadland she gave one of her least mannered, but equally powerful performances in her career. I have not always been a fan, but there was a quiet beauty and sadness to her work in the film. And she was the only actor really depicted fully.
I advocated strongly for Hopkins, but was also really passionate over Chadwick Boseman’s extraordinary work, but perhaps at the end of the day, this year, bigger was better – and AMPAS went in 3 of the 4 acting awards to front and centre performances and characters. Youn was a true supporting performance, but Kaluuya and McDormand and Hopkins all larger than life figures on the screen. Ma Rainey, like Chicago 7 and One Night In Miami were ensemble films and perhaps AMPAS goes for those less often.
I loved Boseman’s performance, but it should have been in Supporting, and I think he could have clipped Kaluuya.
I really am kicking myself not factoring how iconic Hopkins is and the unspoken reality that he’s not going to be working forever.
that’s spooky Pete, that was truly going to be my next comment. What was the difference between where Chadwick sat in his movie and where Daniel and Lakeith were in theirs? It does make the mockery of the categories and how much of a publicity machine it is. Seeing both the co-leads in support for Judas was such a false note in the Supp Actor category. I would have voted for Colman Domingo there instead. On second viewing i loved his performance in Ma Rainey even more.
So if Netflix or the producers of Ma Rainey had submitted Viola and Chadwick in Support – they might have won there! Certainly Chadwick would have had the narrative for a win.
Stanfield deserved better than that.
BTW, look at all these actors blasting on to the scene from projects led by Jordan Peele and Donald Glover.
They need to stamp out category fraud, this year the supporting race was the worst I’ve seen. Having the 2 leads of Judas in supporting is ridiculous and should not have been allowed.
How many supporting actor wins is it for lead roles?
Viola Davis. Alicia Vikander, Mahershala Ali, Daniel Kaluuya off the top of my head in recent years.
It needs to stop
Jennifer Connolly and Marcia Gay Harden come to my mind from the previous decade.
Thanks all!
So updated list of category fraud supporting winners:
Viola Davis- Fences
Daniel Kaluuya- Judas
Alicia Vikander- Danish Girl
Jennifer Connelly- A Beautiful Mind
Marcia Gay Harden-Pollock
Christop Waltz-Django Unchained
Keep them coming!
Perhaps there needs to be an actor of the same gender with more screen time to get nommed? This would rule out films that are gender heavy & have smaller roles for the males or females.
Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects, if we’re going back that far.
Jessica Lange in Tootsie. Tatum O’Neil in Paper Moon – going back nearly 40 and 50 years respectively. Arguably Leading Roles.
Catherine Zeta-Jones is co-lead in Chicago. Though I’m happy that they’d put her in supporting because her Velma Kelly should win an Oscar.
Waltz for Django. Co-lead if there was ever one. He and Ali won their 2 Oscars exactly the same way – first win for undisputed supporting turn, second win for co-lead frauded into supporting less than 5 years since the first win.
I think you could make an argument for Waltz being supporting. There’s still quite a bit of movie left after his character dies off.
Tommy Lee Jones should have won that year, though.
yes but he was very much central to the plot and not just there to support Foxx.
Awesome information!
Best Actor didn’t seem like a huge upset IN RETROSPECT. Yes, Boseman won GG, CC and SAG. But while he was fantastic in the role, I think the Globes mainly just kickstarted his narrative. Critics Choice are Oscar predictors. And SAG/AFTRA (and their 160,000 voters) loved him/Viola/Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom more than any other voting body. Hopkins was brilliant in his role and his BAFTA win shows how a large body (across every branch) would go for him. It didn’t hurt that AMPAS dug The Father a lot more than Ma Rainey.
Best Actress still boggles my mind. I never thought Day had a chance with only the Globe win, no nominations with SAG or BAFTA and her film being blanked by AMPAS. I had doubts (no pun intended) about Viola Davis because she only won SAG. Though SAG is a biggie, that voting body loves her and for all we knew, it was just a “SAG thing”. For all we know, the actors branch in the Academy either loved her or Frances best, regardless of what SAG voters felt; and then you had all the other branches chiming in. I just didn’t see apparent evidence elsewhere that her performance or the film was beloved. Even though Mulligan only won CC/AACTA/Indie Spirits, I believed that her critic wins + the strength of that film with BAFTA and with AMPAS would carry her to a sneak win. BUT, love for Nomadland and love for Frances McEverlovinDormand won the day. She is just too beloved to ignore, and the splintered race made her nose ahead.
I was the only one to correctly predict The Father for Screenplay at the party I went to. BAFTA + this feeling that AMPAS might get down-the-line ballot fatigue for Chloe Zhao made me think The Father would take this one; also being that it is a very literate script.
As for Song, I am just flummoxed. In no way did I think anything other than the big favorite, Speak Now (with Leslie Odom Jr. campaigning his butt off and charming along the way) or the soaring epic Husavik or Globe winner Diane Warren (and her own narrative) would win. I suppose … Best Picture nominee + some kind of industry awareness/love for H.E.R. won the day. I think that it the most distinction-less song of the 5. It’s a win on the level of the Ex Machina upset, for me.
Was never sure what was the right pick between Boseman and Hopkins. I had to go with one and didn’t have time to second-guess too much this year. Hopkins is barely an upset, indeed, and it was always clear – post-BAFTA, of course – he was very much in it. 🙂
Definitely looks like Viola was just a SAG thing. Otherwise, she would have won some other precursor, at least, even if not the Oscar.
” It’s a win on the level of the Ex Machina upset, for me.”
Yeah, probably comparable, stats-wise.
I truly believe that if one crunched the vote totals, McDormand’s PGA win is what pushed her over the top in Actress. SAG is skewed because it has ten times the number of people voting than even belong in the Academy. I think McDormand quietly took the lead when PGA happened and never actually fell behind the rest of the way. Get ready for a LOT of elite actresses getting their PGA card in the next few years.
For the record,, there was a time when both ”Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” and ”One Night in Miami” were held in higher regard. They each scored 98% at Rotten Tomatoes, and both made the top 10 for the Producers Guild of America and the American Film Institute. And both scored SAG Ensemble nods (and Davis and Boseman even won). Based on the precursors, they were widely expected to be Best Picture nominees, too. Unfortunately for them, these films didn’t score as highly with Academy voters.
It just seems like both films peaked very early and couldn’t sustain post January.
It also looks like ”Ma Rainey’s” and ”Miami” were displaced by ”The Father” and ”Judas,” both of which opened later (in February) and closer to the Oscar deadline.
Precisely. We all know that late-breakers make a dent every year.
Judas and Sound of Metal I’d say. The Father has always been a surer thing and for much longer. SoM started to peak later like Judas and Minari.
Key factor: McDormand seems to be universally liked by her peers. When she gives a great performance that gets tracktion, nomination is almost assured and win is possible and even likely. And Nomadland’s probably a career-best, so it was almost a no-brainer that she could take it, as Directing was locked and Picture was almost locked as well.
Mulligan… oh my, I would still vote for her, over McDormand, but I can see why they gave it to Frances, and Carey will probably for whatever she does next that brings her back to Oscar night.
Out of the “losers” from yesterday, I think several are in extraordinary position to win, IF nominated again in the next three years: Ahmed, Mulligan, Kirby, Davis, Sacha Baron Cohen, Leslie Odom, Jr (both ot them lost TWO Oscars in one night), Bakalova (but needs a dramatic role), Seyfried, Colman and above all of them, Close, which seems in direct collision course with a Leading Oscar for Sunset Boulevard in 2022, at this point… even if the film bombs. For those who have problem reading, I repeat it: IF + next 3 Years.
What they have coming next (IMDB):
Ahmed – Invasion (sci-fi thriller about an alien invasion, costarring Octavia Spencer) seems unlikely, but he has in pre-production another adaptation of Hamlet. So, unlikely at this point.
Oldman – The Woman in the Window, along Amy Adams… huge expectations, Joe Wright direct… however, I am not sold on this one at all.
Yeun – The Humans, listed as drama but reading the synopsis seems more like a thriller or horror (impressive cast: Richard Jenkins, June Squibb, Beanie Feldstein), and the new Jordan Peele horror, alongside Kaluuya.
Mulligan – A sci-fi drama with Adam Sandler and Paul Dano, Spaceman of Bohemia… the genre doesn’t scream Oscar, but Sandler, Dano and Mulligan are all previous snubbees, and certainly are an intriguing combination of talents.
Kirby – Italian Studies – a drama with amnesia involved. Could be baity, but she’s the only prominent name. Oh, and 2 Mission: Impossible sequels. TWO.
Davis – a drama with Sandra Bullock starring – she seems supporting – about a woman getting out of prison; the new Suicide Squad movie
SBC – Mandrake, only that. Unless he’s making something as memorable as Johnny Depp’s Sparrow, I’d say that the closest he may be going to Oscar would be another Golden Globe nomination in Comedy/Musical.
Odom Jr. – The Sopranos’ prequel, The Many Saints of Newark (Supporting) and Needle in a Timestack, a sci-fi film
Stanfield – The Harder they Fall, a western with an impressive cast, Lindo, Regina King, Idris Elba and Zaziee Beeetz.
Seyfried – A Mouthful of Air, she’s maybe supporting in this drama, on paper could be and an horror film, Things Heard and Seen, and we all know that horror is poison for most performers in their ambitions for Oscar (there are exceptions, though)
Close – sci-fi with Swan Song (impressive costars, though) and Sunset Boulevard.
Colman – count her coming back, both The Lost Daughter and Mothering Sunday sound that they could help her back at Oscar night.
Bakalova – both a Bulgarian drama (Women do cry) and an american Judd Appatow comedy (The Bubble, which she’s currently filming). The Bulgarian film is warranted to attract some attention now, to see what she does after Borat, and the role seems it could be baity… however, a Bulgarian film, a foreign language performance and unless it excells, it won’t be coming anywhere Oscar…
Andra Day and Paul Raci haven’t got upcoming projects listed
So I’d say that only Davis, Colman and Close are coming back in the next 3 years, and Close is out of the three, the one with a greatest chance of winning.
Yeun (and winner Kaluuya) are in the new Peele horror but maybe IMDB didn’t list it yet.
editing it, thank you.
I said this on Oscar night, but Riz Ahmed has IT…Capital I, Capital T. And he campaigned like a pro for his film and I think garnered a ton of goodwill from below the line types as well.
i almost expected him to do an Adrien Brody and come out of virtually nowhere to win. He was just exemplary in his film. The greatest surprise of the season for me.
He’s got it all, charisma, intensity, and professionalism. And people really need to get excited when LEGIT TALENT arrives. He’d make an unbelievable Bond villain if you think about it.
I have to admit i had not noticed him before in anything. Sound of Metal simply blew my mind. And it will be a hard choice between Hopkins, Boseman and Ahmed for me for my favourite leading actor for the year. I don’t think i can easily choose, so i can see how difficult a decision it probably was for voters in all the guilds this year. Despite naysayers, I think we were served up some really special movies and performances this year.
I might rewatch Sound of Metal tonight if I have time.
He’s great on a zombie limited series Dead Set (Netflix). That’s his old series for he was in his 20s.
Oh, he was in Dead Set?! I never made the connection. I LOVE that series!…
he played the boyfriend who was outside and tried to get back to his girlfriend who was in the studio. It took me a bit to make the connection as well. I was like, is that Riz? and then Yes it’s young Riz lmao!
No, I know, once you mentioned it I immediately remembered who he was in it. Like I said, I probably noticed this around the time Nightcrawler came out (or maybe it was pointed out to me then, as well), because I vaguely remember having known about it at some point – had definitely forgotten, though.
(Maybe I did make the connection and forgot.)
Nightcrawler was where I first saw him. (Obvious pick, I know.) He was pretty unforgettable in that. 🙂
I rectify: I did see him in Dead Set (which is awesome), I just forgot it was him. 🙂 Thanks to manwe for reminding me!…
Well, we all knew she could take it – that was the easy part to figure out… 🙂
By the way, community. I think the whole lot of you should take a bow for your work in a difficult year. It’s no secret it’s been rough around HERE for a while, but watching how everyone responded to that “Critical Thinker” video really impressed me. Instead of freaking out and getting overly personal and partisan, everyone by and large argued the merits and flaws of the post itself. And from so many different angles and argued very thoughtfully. People didn’t take the bait and really showed their love and passion for movies, even if the Oscar ceremony itself was a faceplant. Appeals to the better angels of our nature don’t always work and in some cases shouldn’t work, but by not assaulting Sasha for posting the thing it showed a capability for disagreeing without being disagreeable. Maybe that showed something to Sasha that she’s been kind of hard on people or judging with too broad a brush.
Ideally in a few years we should be able to laugh about the strife. But yesterday’s discussions really made me happy.
Since there are 1500-2000 actors in AMPAS, who is to say that the voters within SAG and AFTRA who vote for the ultimate winner at SAG (160,000) are those same AMPAS voters? There could actually be very little crossover. This is why I don’t put much as much stock in the “SAG Award winner”, in general.
I’m not sure if I understand the point. Are you saying that there are Academy members who are actors and are not in SAG? That I don’t really believe. Or are you saying that the 158000-158500 voters who are not in the Academy throw the vote off? That can be fair but we should remember that not only the actors in the Academy vote for the Oscars in acting and this complicates the situation. It can even be extremely useful to actually have data about who won a vote of 160000 people since that’s an extremely large sample of how the population in and around the film industry votes, and we often have no reason to think that this population vote of the actors is that different from the population vote of the Academy voters. Of course there are exceptions where there might be differences in taste and availability of the films but in general I don’t think SAG’s ability to predict the Oscars would be considerably better if fewer people got to vote
“Or are you saying that the 158000-158500 voters who are not in the Academy throw the vote off? That can be fair…”
Yes, that is the point I was trying to make, but perhaps, did not properly convey.
I agree that the overall population (160,000) of SAG actors and AFTRA voters may not be all that different from (9,000+) industry people within AMPAS. But I still find it an iffy correlation. There’s a lot of wiggle room that can happen between both voting bodies and the composition of those voters.
THIS
This is underrated for no reason at all. It’s the truth and the main reason why they tend to be off. Do you have the number of BAFTA members in AMPAS since that one emerged as the more accurate predictor?
I think it was around 500, but my memory could easily be failing me. Somebody needs to confirm or deny this.
Yes, Deadline has twice estimated a 500 member overlap between the BAFTA and the AMPAS
Jan 2, 2017 — “The BAFTAs have upwards of 500 voters in common with the Oscars …”
Mar 9, 2021 — “BAFTA and the Motion Picture Academy have about 500 or so voters in common…”
remarkably stable number and remarkably similar phrasing! 🙂
that’s obviously a rough estimate but it sounds reasonable and there’s no reason to doubt it.
Thanks. I’ll write that down somewhere closer at hand. 🙂
I care about stats too but people should read stats carefully. 🙂
It was quite obvious that McDormand has bigger chance of winning than Mulligan (even despite the fact that she lost Spirit Award) simply because she had stronger film. And people should remember that almost all previous Oscar lead female winners that won Spirit Award had won SAG and/or Globe too (Mulligan lost both so it did not matter that she won Spirit Award, that was obvious). “Almost” because Geraldine Page had lost Globe back in the 80s but SAG awards did not exist then so…
I had 19 categories correct (exceptions: song, short documentary, cinematography and lead actor so I predicted McDormand correctly). And I wanted to change Boseman to Hopkins after Boseman lost Spirit Award because in his case it was far more telling and important than McDormand losing. I haven’t changed it – my mistake. 🙁 But the Hopkins’ win only solidifies my previous thinking that Ahmed winning Spirit Award meant that Hopkins will win Oscar.
All in all, this year’s Oscars were pretty clear to predict. I was 94th at Goldderby (from more than 9 thousand people) and I did not spend as much time as you for the stats. 😛 And still – I had more categories predicted correctly. 🙂
“And people should remember that almost all previous Oscar lead female
winners that won Spirit Award had won SAG and/or Globe too (Mulligan
lost both so it did not matter that she won Spirit Award, that was
obvious).”
McDormand didn’t win SAG or the Globe either. So, Mulligan’s win at ISA over her, specifically, is still relevant. And, since McDormand won the Oscar, Mulligan’s win there is, therefore, relevant for the whole Oscar race. How relevant – who knows?! But it’s not irrelevant.
“All in all, this year’s Oscars were pretty clear to predict.”
🙂 It always seems that way when you get things right… (And luck never plays any part, right?! Like, just happening to believe more in the arguments that end up being in favor of whoever won – as opposed to other years/or categories, when/where the opposite happens, even though the logic seemed just as sound to you then/there. No, whoever got it right saw the whole thing perfectly from the start, it was all so obvious and everybody else was just too dumb to realize the same things. That’s why the same people win the large contests all the time – oh, wait, they actually never do…) I’ve been guilty of thinking that way in the past too. I try to stay away from it – breeds subjectivity and carelessness. But maybe I’m wrong…
Anyway, well done on your score – whatever the reasons, you did very well and you fully deserve the credit!
Post Mortem
AMPAS voted for who they thought was the best, not for the artificial narratives that only matter to awards-predicting stans who create them to justify why their weak champions have a chance to win. “Narrativing” is Oscar watch version of stanning and is a massive waste of time and energy. Instead, put yourself in an average AMPAS members shoes. Those guys don’t care about stats such as who had how many wins or lack thereof in order to award/sabotage contender #1,2,3,4,5. They don’t care whether someone’s going to have another chance or not. They award the right now, not the past, not the future. Right now. Whatever they think is the best right now, they vote for it. That’s all.
Yeah, when one’s favorites win it’s the Oscars vote who they think is the best. But when the others win, it’s politics.
Define favorites. Neither Hopkins nor McDormand were social media favorites. Social media is the key. Too many pundits went with trending and that blew up in their faces. Also, HFPA almost completely messed up acting predictions (only Kaluuya stick) and SAG-AFTRA is shakey too. BAFTA had the best score here.
Mulligan played an avenger so that was going to do well with social media. But AMPAS? Not a performance in their wheel house plus her movie buzz started to shift to Fennell (who was the movie’s only win). I stanned Bakalovatoo but I understand why didn’t win – comedy bias, unique performance not in AMPAS wheelhouse, Borat fading fast vs Youn’s dramatic turn, role in AMPAS wheelhouse (mother/grandmother courage) and Minari peaking at the right time.
The favorite (or non-anti-favorite) of anyone who writes such a statement.
They don’t care, but they’re responsible for them. 🙂 Their winners over the years decide what the stats are. Hence, said stats are clues to their tastes. Big clues…
and as the resident stats expert you cherish that. 🙂
🙂 Oh, I love it, for sure!…
I want to echo Jerm’s lovely comments and Dominik’s too, Claudiu – you are such an integral part of this site and this family. It would simply not be the same without you. I have learned so much from you, and continue to be in awe of the way you work the content with the numbers and always have fresh perspectives to add to the commentary. You and I have conversed since the Birdman year, and it is great to see your development as a writer and as a film lover. Bravo, my friend.
This. Big time.
Wow, thank you so much! A warmer send-off for this year I could not have wished for… 🙂
Claudiu,
I have thoroughly enjoyed our conversations over the past few weeks. You are so appreciated around here, and are filled with so much knowledge!
I agree with all your sentiments of the Oscars—definitely needs a host. The whole thing felt joyless. I always love when it feels like a celebration, but Jimmy Kimmel was right when he joked about The Oscars being an elaborate funeral—I certainly hope not. I loved back in the 2008 Oscars when they brought out previous acting winners to introduce the nominees—it was my first Oscars ceremony and I LOVED it. It felt like and looked like an honor. They tried to replicate it in 2009, but they weren’t previous winners just friends of the nominees—and then they never tried that again. Bring it back and the hosts!! Make it a celebration. The glitz. The glam. I want it all!
**side note, I definitely think Hopkins benefited the most from the awards season being so long. Someone mentioned that in the podcast and I totally agree. If the Oscars were held in February, Boseman would have Oscar winner attached to his name.
Anyways, enjoy your time off and get some rest! See ya down the road 😉
Couldn´t have said it better – all the best to you, Claudiu – hope to see you back next season!
If it’s up to me, you will. 🙂
Wow, thanks! I love you guys too! 🙂 This place is awesome – and all of you are the ones that make it so…
Kimmel was SUCH a great host, by the way!
“I definitely think Hopkins benefited the most from the awards season being so long. Someone mentioned that in the podcast and I totally agree. If the Oscars were held in February, Boseman would have Oscar winner attached to his name.”
Agreed. Maybe Hopkins wouldn’t even win BAFTA, then… 🙁
“See ya down the road ;)”
Very nice!…
Macdormand was nominated for a SAG. That is probably all that mattered for ‘Nomadland’. I have not seen ‘My Octopus Teacher’ but it seems to have moved people like ‘The Artist’ which now looks like a not so good BP winner. This year predicting song was tough. Next year Billie Eilish? She has already won the Grammy for the Bond song. Bond songs win a lot of Oscars from what I understand. But ‘In The Heights’ could also win for song.
For the BP win yes, for sure. It was enough. The ensemble stat has become way too unstable, post-AFTRA merger. Whether that’s the reason or not. But zero SAG nominations is still not something you want at all…
I love “No Time To Die”, by the way. I would love it if Eilish won for that. (Pending other, even better songs entering the race.) I’m also a fan of her work in general.
I think that three of the four Daniel Craig’s Bond Movies have won the Oscar for song. Great track record. One of them beat a song by Diane Warren and Lady Gaga. And billie Eilish is the IT girl. Maybe having 10 nominees will help the viewership go back to 20 million.
Both the pre show and the main show started an hour early. A mistake was showing the songs on the pre show. Just one more thing. When Macdormand and hopkins won the response was so flat. No standing ovation. Polite applause. Compare that to when Macdormand won her previous two Oscars.
Yeah… in short, it was just all weird… 🙂
Another year and our Globe Screenplay stat holds! Since ‘09 (expanded era), no film has won Oscar Best Picture without snagging one of the 5 nominated slots for the Golden Globe Screenplay award.
Watching Collider’s FYC “Recapping the 93rd Academy Awards” and when discussing why Netflix failed yet again to win Best Picture, it’s said that they always put the money on the wrong horses and say that “The Irishman” and “Roma” aren’t great movies (sacrilege!). But they have a point in saying that this year they put the money on the wrong horses, and I kind of agree. Both “Mank” and “The Trial of the Chicago 7” met some opposition at their release while “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” and “Da 5 Bloods” could have had better narratives to beat “Nomadland” all along. They also said that probably they never saw their very own “My Octopus Teacher” winning – but if you look at the competition it kind of makes sense, as it is the “lighter” of the competing docs… had “Dick Johnson is Dead” been nominated, I kind of doubt that we would have the same winner there.
Overall, other than My Octopus Teacher winning over the competition and Husavik losing, I can’t really complain at all.
No matter how hard they might have pushed it, Ma Rainey was too stagey for them and they didn´t like it. You can offer them the meal, but they decide to eat it – or not.
I agree completely. It’s a great film, but it never made me think I was watching any other thing than a play transferred to the screen, like, for example, The Boys in the Band, this very same year. Miles, galaxies away from the feeling that Adam Shankman’s Hairspray or John Cameron Mitchell’s Hedwig and the Angry Inch, two amazing cinematic achievements – and both, soooo underrated – did with other two plays… the camera moved continuously, the landscape changed again and again, and while I think that Ma Rainey couldn’t really escape – and actually needed – the claustrophobic environment, that was a huge handicap… for more info, check out what Rodrigo Cortés made with just ONE COFFIN as set, in “Buried” (one of the most challenging and underrated film achievements of the century, and a tour de force performance by Ryan Reynolds… I am still pissed they snubbed this one in favor of the similar but less creative “127 Hours”, a great film nevertheless).
The moment I knew that Ma Rainey wasn’t landing with me was when I was watching it I kept thinking what a fascinating movie could be made out of the 1920’s/1930’s “race record” industry, where the tension between commercial sales, musical innovation, and the obvious exploitation of the artists blended into some of the most fascinating records in American history.
Hell, Paramount Records, the leading blues label at that time, was founded and operated by a FURNITURE COMPANY who thought offering records for sale would move a few end tables where people placed their Phonograms. Good condition Paramount 78’s are the most valuable records on the entire collectors market.
When I’m thinking about a movie that doesn’t exist while watching a different film, than the film being watched didn’t work.
I was put off by the really obvious lip synch in the opening number. It jarred. And whilst i don’t expect all actors to sing their songs, there was something so manufactured about the audio, it took away for me from Viola’s performance, And i never got on board with her. Whereas Chadwick was electric from start to finish.
Viola’s performance confused me I just couldn’t get a sense of what the takeaway was supposed to be, why were we supposed to care. I fault the script and the direction. That’s where not being so welded to the source material hurt the film.
yes i’ve seen it twice and i only had marginally more empathy for Ma or for Viola’s performance. I wonder if the character was more front and centre in the original source material.
And it was why the SAG win was so weird to me, that Davis won over Kirby, McDormand, Mulligan there – much more fully rounded and depicted characters.
It’s almost as if the film needed an extra act to flesh out the themes a little bit more. Lose the subplot where the kid with the stutter can’t do the intro. POSSIBLY give an indication of Boseman’s temper (that stabbing absolutely came out of freaking nowhere with me). Explain the financial tensions that really were at play (back to my observation about the exploitation of blues artists by white owned labels). I get it, can’t fault the movie for not being the movie I would have made. But something just felt off, and might have been more glaring if Boseman’s death weren’t hanging over the thing.
Without Boseman’s intensity, the film would have been so much less than it was. Yes there was a lop sidedness to the structure of the film. Little to no backstory on Ma at all didn’t help engender connection to the plot. The interaction between the band was the strength of the movie and Chadwick at the centre. Perhaps his death before the release gave the movie more cache than it warranted, we will never know. It was a powerhouse performance by him; a full bodied, impassioned turn by a man who knew it was his last hurrah. So poignant. Arguable as to whether he or the movie would have been as noticed as it was.
I didn´t like Ma Rainey too much I´ll have to admit, but thanks for recommending “Buried” – I´ll put it on my watchlist.
Narratives don’t exist among AMPAS members. They are just a tool for influencing and wishful thinking that media, social media, pundits, stans use and/or believe in cause convenient. But they don’t exist where it matters.
Of course there are always alternative explanations, but there’s no actual proof as to whether narratives do or don’t exist and influence things. Who knows?! Personally, I think they’re overrated (particularly for Oscar predictions) but do play a part and can lead to at least some votes going in different directions than if they hadn’t been there.
I think that there’s a difference between what we call narrative as in something that we talk about or media creates and then we talk about, and what goes on within AMPAS membership. But since we don’t know what they think, we can only assume/hope that they care about the same “narratives”. Still, I think that when someone who is supposed narrative contender wins, it isn’t to do with narrative but that they liked their work the best. I don’t think that Hollywood was clamoring for Zellweger comeback, they were simply blown away by the performance and likeness she strike with Judy Garland. They weren’t blown away by The Wife and they very likely don’t really care whether X is due or not. It’s us who care about such stats, not them.
One can probably find examples to support both points of view here. 🙂 Like I said, we’ll just never know… I guess if we talked to a few hundred Academy members and they all claimed they didn’t care about narratives, we could conclude they probably don’t really influence anything. We could look at some anonymous ballots with fresh eyes, looking for that in particular. From memory, I think I remember some thinking like that seeping through those, but I’m not sure by any means. Would have to study this further.
I think that people who believe in narrative give it much more significance than performance itself. basically, we know that X didn’t give the best performance but we believe that X has the narrative to overcome it. Narrative is in most cases used by stans to justify why a shaky favorite will win in their opinion. Like, everyone knew that Boseman and Davis weren’t even close to the best in their categories and that their movie had less support than previously thought, but they still insisted that AMPAS wouldn’t miss a chance to pay a tribute to the former (why? he wasn’t a legend…oh wait stans tried to rewrite that history and make him one retroactively) and award the latter because only 1 black actress ever won the Actress. Or that AMPAS wouldn’t miss a chance to award Close because she’s due even though they knew her movie was shit with zero support and her performance wasn’t undeniable. Mark my words but Zellweger didn’t win because of her comeback but because they were blown away. Very doubtful that the industry clamored for her return, they probably forgot about her but loved her performance in Judy. So comeback didn’t hurt but it didn’t win it for her (and speaking of, comeback “narrative” didn’t do shit for Eddie Murphy and Adam Sandler in a movie that was lost in Netflix shuffle and an inaccessible one respectively).
I think there’s a difference between “aware of but not essential” and “focused on and essential to decision-making”. For example, Boseman. Everyone was aware that he would never have a chance to win but that was essential to his stans while not essential to the voters at least majority that voted for Hopkins.
Oh, for sure! But I, for one, think to at least some voters it might be essential, in certain contexts. Anyway, as I said, there’s just no way to settle it, so this seems like a classic “agree to disagree” situation… 🙂
I think that some voters is misinterpreted as all voter or majority of voters. At least circles that want to influence the Oscar race (pundits, media, social media) take it as that narrative drives all votes and therefore if someone’s narrative was “was sick while making a [shitty] movie [and the performance isn’t career best let alone best in the category], will never have a chance to win” than that narrative would resonate more than “a masterful portrayal of illness in a strong movie that is also career best and best in the category”. But that wasn’t the case. It’s the performance of illness that resonated while real life one didn’t because that wasn’t what they vote for. And while few might have, most didn’t.
Same goes for “overdue for a win [even though her current work isn’t her strongest and the movie is quite a turd]” will resonate more than “career best performance in a strong movie”. It didn’t.
Yup, it might be that pundits do that… To be fair, if the race is close, some voters could be enough for that to be the right approach. Could be enough of an edge. But, if it’s not, you’re right. (However, this race very likely was close. The narrative just either wasn’t strong enough with voters or wasn’t strong with enough voters.)
In Boseman case, narrative was weak because they tried to rewrite history and build him into a legend which he absolutely was not. He was one of many actors who were liked but who didn’t leave any particular career mark (and no starring in a big franchise like half of Hollywood does not count as leaving the mark). So that they had to try to put him up with Denzel/Smith/Freeman/ Poitier was a sign that the narrative of illness and death wasn’t enough to tide him over. And ultimately it wasn’t. He wasn’t all those thing they tried to build him into and he didn’t have the right performance and movie to change most minds. I think that Close fans also don’t want to accept that many AMPAS members don’t see her as due for the Oscar and having the wrong movie and role certainly didn’t help. She needs career best to have a shot and The Wife and Hillbilly weren’t that.
I agree – I never thought his narrative was that strong either, especially early on, but it seemed like he had just about won enough to prove that it was strong enough. It was particularly surprising to me that he even won Gold Derby, reasonably comfortably… I had thought Ahmed, at the very least, if not also Hopkins, was a favorite over him there…
Does winning any Oscar watch site’s poll proves anything? Also, aren’t experts overrated? They all do influencing rather than real predicting.
No, no, that’s not a poll of pundits and what they’re predicting. I meant the Gold Derby Awards, voted on by around 2000 people (or more) each year. They correlate very well with the Oscars, in general. They’re voted on late and by a large group.
2000 people probably means silent majority or people who don’t make 20-30 regular posters who stan for X or Y. Like any site with comments section really. I’m sure that AD polls have different results from what 20-30 regulars here (wishful) think will happen.
Yup – and the Academy has its silent majority too, clearly…