When we say a movie is an Oscar contender now, it’s usually because a movie has been carried like a precious egg through the season. It launches at a film festival, or there is another reason for it to be a “strong” contender — usually for identity politics reasons (a female director of color, for example), then it is carefully managed by adept publicists who lock arms with the bloggers who mingle with the talent and keep the movie and its players on their lists.
Those lists then inform the bigger lists — the Golden Globes, the Critics Choice, the Producers Guild, the Directors Guild, and from thence — with very very few exceptions — to the Oscar Big Ten.
But an “Oscar contender,” as such, doesn’t actually exist. All that means is “high achievement in film.” Does Weapons meet that baseline? Yes, it does. It is an original movie that opened big, dazzled critics and audience, for the most part. That doesn’t mean, as I saw on Twitter, that Weapons will “sweep” awards season. There are a few hurdles for what is classified as a “horror” film.
The first hurdle is what I call the “Number One Rule.” This is what hurts animated movies, too. A decent share of voters have to put the film at number one — best of the year. If it isn’t number one, it would be number two. That’s what’s required to get in.
Best Picture
If all 9,905 eligible voters cast ballots in this category, it would take 901 No. 1 votes to guarantee a nomination. But while it’s unrealistic to expect many films to have that many first-place votes in the initial count, contenders will probably have many rounds to pick up additional votes as other films are eliminated.
That doesn’t mean it comes with 901 votes, but after counting and eliminating ballots, it ends up with 901 number one votes.
A Popular Contender
Oppenheimer is probably the most popular film to win Best Picture since Gladiator. Return of the King was popular, but its Oscar wins had more to do with the previous two films and how successful they were. It was the “it’s time” Oscar. The King’s Speech was driven by passion, as was Argo, strangely enough. And it was indeed time for Christopher Nolan, but Oppenheimer won because it was popular.
Top Gun Maverick got in because it was popular. If it had not saved Hollywood that year, there is very little chance it would have gotten in. Because the Academy is largely disconnected from general audience favorites now, it’s harder for a popular movie to get in unless there is something extraordinary about it. If Weapons makes $500 million or something like that, it would have a better shot as a popular film getting in.
The Passion Choice
If Weapons has passion behind it, like if the film critics rally around it as their number one choice for the year, there is a chance it could find its way to a spot. But more likely is Amy Madigan in the supporting role of Gladys that will drive the passion vote because she is such a beloved acting vet (wife of Ed Harris) and had this great scene in Field of Dreams that is one for the ages:
And yes, I will have to add here that the Left sees the Right this way even still, though the Left has had so many pro-censorship activities in the past five years, I’m not sure they have room to talk. Either way, it’s a great scene, and Madigan is remembered for it.
She’s also, I’m guessing, political, and that could drive her through the season if she makes those kinds of speeches that make the crowd leap to their feet in a fury of teary self-righteousness. I could see that happening and Madigan taking the whole season. What I love about her is her untouched face. I love the lines and wrinkles. I love that she shows her age. That gives her depth of character. That will be a strong selling point – to have a career high at this stage of life, a little like Demi Moore last year (and would have won in the supporting category).
Jeff Sneider says there’s likely screenplay talk, and ordinarily, I would agree, but lately, in the past 5-10 years, all of the heat is in Original Screenplay now as more directors write their own scripts, or at least co-write them.
Original Screenplay this year is already packed with Sinners, Sentimental Value, and those not seen yet like Ballad of a Small Player, Jay Kelly, Bugonia, Marty Supreme, A House of Dynamite, It Was Just an Accident, etc. But who knows?
What will help Weapons enormously will be the Critics Choice nominations. There is no way that movie doesn’t get in for the Big Ten, I figure, and that will help push it to maybe the Producers Guild. Then, you have to contend with the group that drives the Oscar race for Best Picture, the actors. They are still the largest voting branch.
Here are the numbers as of 2023:
Actors: 1,294
Executives: 740
Documentary: 680
Animated Feature: 677
Visual Effects: 637
Marketing and Public Relations: 630
Producers: 652
Directors: 587
Sound: 556
Writers: 522
Production Design: 403
Music: 394
Production and Technology: 378
Film Editors: 377
Makeup Artists and Hairstylists: 242
Short Films: 202
Casting Directors: 158
Cinematographers: 293
Members-at-Large: 194
Costume Designers: 172
So, if the magic number is around 900 for all voters, it really matters what the actors think (they tend to be identity politics driven, social justice virtue signalers), executives (who even knows), and Documentary Branch voters — maybe they’d be down for Weapons.
In the final analysis, Oscar voters vote with their hearts. That’s why a film has to find its way in, whether it’s because of social justice or pure love for the story. Or maybe they want a female director to do well (Anatomy of a Fall) or they want Demi Moore to do well (The Substance). There has to be something other than it just being a good movie that pushes it over the top.
That is what punishes films that don’t rely on emotion and are called “cold” or “indifferent.” Those movies can still win, like The Departed, No Country for Old Men, and The Hurt Locker. We just haven’t seen it in a while. With ten slots, there should be room for a film like Weapons but remember, it has to get those number one votes or it ain’t gonna.
