I Am DB

January 15, 2014

Oscars 2013: Nominations Eve

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 6:30 pm
Tags: , , , ,

Gather round, one and all, and stand witness as I once again engage in the mysterious, socially-questionable practice of Oscar prognostication. It’s a little bit science, a little bit art, and a whole lot of hours spent watching and reading about movies. If you ever wondered how I maintain my pallid skin tone, wonder no more. Read on if you dare, and then talk amongst yourselves about planning my intervention.

BEST PICTURE
2011 was the first year that the Academy adjusted the Best Picture category so that it would include somewhere between five and ten nominees. Being a weak year, it was generally assumed that there would be seven, maybe eight, nominees. It turned out there were nine. 2012 was a much stronger year, so a full slate of ten films was expected. Once again, the tally came in at nine. And I’m guessing that’s where things will land this time as well. It’s been another impressive year with lots of viable candidates, but nine might be the magic number.

Surely that nine will include 12 Years a Slave, Gravity and American Hustle, which have been the dominant three movies on the circuit of precursor awards from critics and industry guilds. Although the former two have been the pair, ever since October, deemed to battle it out through the season, Hustle came on strong when it began screening in late November, and its stock has only risen. Over the weekend, it took home the Golden Globe for Best Picture – Musical or Comedy, while 12 Years won for Best Picture – Drama (its only award of the night).

Her has been a big hit with the critics as well, and earned nominations from the Producer’s Guild of America (PGA) and the Writers Guild of America (WGA). I initially thought it would be too offbeat for the generally conservative Academy, but now I think it’s striking a broader cord; broad enough to put it over the edge. The way nomination math works, a movie only requires a few hundred passionate supporters who name it their number one film of the year. I think Her will manage that. Nebraska is a safe bet, as is Captain Phillips, but neither are sure things. From there, it gets fuzzier. The old fashioned, feel-good Hollywood craftsmanship of Saving Mr. Banks was expected to play like gangbusters within the industry, even more so for being a movie about movies. But it landed a bit softly with the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), missing out on expected nominations for Best Ensemble and Best Supporting Actor for Tom Hanks. It was also overlooked by the WGA, leading some to wonder if the Academy will find a place for it. Also missing out with all the top guilds is the Coen Brothers critically adored Inside Llewyn Davis. Academy members have been kind to the Coens in recent years, but is this one a little too hard to love? I don’t know…if they liked 2009’s A Serious Man enough to nominate for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay, surely they like Inside Llewyn Davis enough. But this is a more competitive year than ’09, so maybe “enough” isn’t enough. The PGA nominated Blue Jasmine, but while Woody Allen’s latest is well-liked, I don’t know that it’s loved as much as his last Best Picture nominee, Midnight in Paris. It feels like a long shot to me. The Wolf of Wall Street is definitely in the running too, but I really have no grasp on where the consensus is falling.

The three remaining titles most likely to show up are Lee Daniels’ The Butler, Dallas Buyers Club and Philomena. Dallas, whose awards prospects initially seemed limited to the performances by Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto, has proven unexpectedly popular, earning a SAG nomination for Best Ensemble, plus nods from the PGA and WGA. As for The Butler and Philomena, both are said to play extremely well to the Academy’s older contingent, which remains a large voting bloc. I don’t know though; I have a hard time imagining enough people naming Philomena as their favorite movie of the year to secure it a nomination. The Butler seems more likely to hit those numbers. Neither film was nominated by the PGA, which was notable because their exclusion — along with that of August: Osage County, which has not made the splash once expected for a star-studded adaptation of a Pulitzer Prize and Tony Award winning play — meant that Oscar junkie Harvey Weinstein was shut out. Rare is the Best Picture slate that doesn’t include a movie from Harvey Weinstein. As in any other category, the guild nominees do not tend to line up perfectly with the Academy, so the PGA’s Weinstein-free slate doesn’t necessarily bode ill. I feel like The Butler, which has Weinstein’s muscle behind it and which hits the “sentimental epic” notes that will appeal to voters who loved Forrest Gump and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, will make it in. If it doesn’t, and if Philomena misses too, then that violent shaking felt across Los Angeles on Thursday morning won’t be an earthquake. It will be the wrath of Weinstein.

Predictions:
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Dallas Buyers Club
Gravity
Her
Lee Daniels’ The Butler
Nebraska
Saving Mr. Banks
12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
Before Midnight
Captain Phillips
Gravity
Her
Inside Llewyn Davis
Mud
Nebraska
Prisoners
12 Years a Slave

BEST DIRECTOR
Alfonso Cuarón pioneered new filmmaking techniques in an effort to realize his vision for Gravity, while Steve McQueen fearlessly plunged the depths of slavery in America for 12 Years a Slave. Both are almost guaranteed a nomination. I say “almost” because they occupy the same frontrunner status held last year by Argo‘s Ben Affleck and Zero Dark Thirty‘s Kathryn Bigelow. Need a reminder of how that turned out? Still, I think last year’s omissions were the unfortunate result of a collective honest mistake, with many voters choosing less obvious candidates because they figured Affleck and Bigelow would be covered by others. So those who truly want to ensure that Cuarón and McQueen are nominated might be more careful this year and cast their vote accordingly, rather than assuming that everyone else will vote for them.

David O. Russell, included last year for Silver Linings Playbook should find himself back again for American Hustle. All three of these gentlemen were cited by the Director’s Guild of America (DGA), along with Paul Greengrass for Captain Phillips and Martin Scorsese for The Wolf of Wall Street. The same quintet were nominated by the British Academy of Film and Television (BAFTA) as well, a body which, like the DGA (and other guilds) shares some membership with the Academy. But the Oscar nominations rarely align with the DGA’s selections, so where will the discrepancy lie? A few weeks ago, I probably would have said that Greengrass was in and Scorsese out. That could certainly be how it goes. But I also wonder if the controversy surrounding Wolf of Wall Street won’t rally those fellow directors who were impressed by the movie — and by Scorsese’s ability to still make vital, passionately-debated movies at the age of 71 — to throw their support his way. On the other hand, Greengrass doesn’t just impress for the skill and effectiveness of his usual intense and vérité approach, but also for drawing such impressive performances from the four Somali leads, none of whom had ever acted professionally before.

Still, if he or Scorsese miss (assuming it’s one of them, and that only one nominee is different between the Academy and the DGA), who gets the fifth slot? The Director’s branch often backs filmmakers with esoteric or unconventional visions, and I’m guessing that tendency will show up this year and boost Her‘s Spike Jonze, a remarkable and highly selective director, into the final five.

There are plenty of other worthy names in the mix. Some stand a strong chance of breaking in (Alexander Payne for Nebraska), others a less likely chance (the Coen Brothers for Inside Llewyn Davis, Woody Allen for Blue Jasmine, J.C. Chandor for All is Lost) and still others pretty much no chance, no matter how deserving they may be (Richard Linklater for Before Midnight, Jeff Nichols for Mud, Jean-Marc Vallee for Dallas Buyers Club).

I’m really unsure what to do about Greengrass and Scorsese. I don’t think Scorsese would be nominated if The Wolf of Wall Street isn’t also nominated for Best Picture, which I’m not predicting. Since the Best Picture race expanded beyond five films, all of the directing nominees have had their movie in the Picture race as well. But only directors nominate directors, whereas the entire Academy votes for Best Picture. So given the different voting contingents, it’s conceivable that a director could be nominated while his or her film is not. Right? Probably unlikely…but conceivable. Grrrrrr. I’m probably backing the wrong horse here, but I’ll stick with my initial sense that Wolf will miss Best Picture but Scorsese will make it for Director.

Predictions: 
David O. Russell – American Hustle
Alfonso Cuarón – Gravity
Spike Jonze – Her
Steve McQueen – 12 Years a Slave
Martin Scorsese – The Wolf of Wall Street

Personal Picks:
J.C. Chandor – All is Lost
Alfonso Cuarón – Gravity
Spike Jonze – Her
Harmony Korine – Spring Breakers
Steve McQueen – 12 Years a Slave

BEST ACTOR
Here’s where it starts to get bloody. Because while it has been a strong year for movies, it has been an extraordinary year for performances. All of the acting races are rich with contenders, and as usual, Best Actor is the most crowded. It’s going to be brutal.

Since as far back as October, most Oscar pundits — professional and amateur — have expected the lineup to consist of Chiewtel Ejiofor for 12 Years a Slave, Tom Hanks for Captain Phillips, Matthew McConaughey for Dallas Buyers Club, Bruce Dern for Nebraska and Robert Redford for All is Lost. That’s a goddamn beautiful list right there. But let’s pretend those five names are not in play. So maybe the category features Leonardo DiCaprio in The Wolf of Wall Street, Oscar Isaac in Inside Llewyn Davis, Michael B. Jordan in Fruitvale Station, Joaquin Phoenix in Her and Christian Bale in American Hustle (or Out of the Furnace, in which he is magnificent). Once again, a stellar line-up. Now let’s take those guys out of the picture too. How about Forest Whitaker for The Butler (nominated for a SAG award), Hugh Jackman for Prisoners (or Jake Gyllenhaal, just as good), Tye Sheridan for Mud (don’t discount him because of his youth; his performance is every bit as worthy of recognition as veterans like Redford, Dern and Hanks), Daniel Brühl for Rush (he’s being campaigned as a Supporting Actor, but that’s bullshit; he’s a lead), and Idris Elba for Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.

In a normal year, there would be somewhere between five and ten performances that are truly deserving. This year, you could fill the category three times over and, with any configuration, have a dynamite slate. So…yeah. The voters in the acting branch face an impossible challenge, and no matter how it shakes out, some people who were good enough to win won’t even get nominated.

Looking again at the five who have longest been considered the likely nominees, Ejiofor and McConaughey feel secure, while Redford appears to be the most vulnerable. He is the only actor onscreen in All is Lost, and he has barely any dialogue. It’s acting at its purest, from a highly respected industry legend who has only been nominated as an actor once, back in 1973 for The Sting. But surprisingly, he was passed over by SAG voters, with Forest Whitaker taking the spot he was expected to occupy. The only prize he’s collected is a Best Actor win from the New York Film Critics Circle, though he has been nominated by a number of regional critics organizations, and made the list for the Golden Globes and Broadcast Film Critics Association. Redford hasn’t played the campaigning game that can often make the difference, but he’ll have the support of his fellow actors.

Hanks could miss out too. The most powerful moments of his performance in Captain Phillips come at the very end of the movie, and they’re shattering. Up until that point though, his work is more subtle and contained. Excellent, but the kind of unflashy turn that could conceivably be overlooked. Still, the movie seems to be generating across-the-board support, and it’s the first movie Hanks has done in a long time that has that awards-friendly glow to it. His last nomination was for Cast Away back in 2000. It would be nice to see him back in the hunt.

Earlier in the season, I was unsure about Bruce Dern’s likelihood of going all the way, but Nebraska is holding strong, and Dern has been campaigning like a machine, appearing at countless Q&A’s and events to promote the movie and mingle with voters. At 77 years-old, Dern has been in the business a long time, worked with a lot of great people and collected an endless supply of colorful stories that have charmed audiences during all this promotion. His performance in Nebraska is low-key, but beautifully affecting. In the wake of the movie’s warm reception at the Cannes Film Festival, where he was named Best Actor, it was unclear whether Paramount would campaign him for Best Supporting Actor or Best Actor. He definitely belongs in the latter, but his chances of winning would be much better in the former. The studio made the right call going with the lead actor category, and Dern agreed, telling The Hollywood Reporter, “If I go supporting, I’m a whore.” He made similar remarks, in his typical, entertainingly frank manner, to Deadline. Dern should have a lot of support from the acting branch’s older members, many of whom he has worked with and/or known for years.

The last movie of the year to be seen by voters and critics was The Wolf of Wall Street, and by then the category seemed impenetrable. Yet many think DiCaprio can’t miss. Pete Hammond of Deadline wrote after one of the film’s first industry screenings, “It would be unthinkable to imagine he won’t be in the top five.” I have to disagree. Given the competition, it’s easily thinkable. And while I’m not counting him out by any means, the Academy has not sparked to DiCaprio of late. His last nomination was in 2006 for Blood Diamond. Since then, he’s been overlooked for J. Edgar (a superb performance, whatever your thoughts on the movie) and Django Unchained. Maybe voters will feel his time has come around again. Though even if they do, that doesn’t mean he’ll make the cut in such a competitive year.

Oh, and on a side note, can people please stop calling Leo’s performance in Wolf the best of his career? Because it’s not. It’s really good, and surely one of his most energetic and fun. It’s certainly a highly committed performance; he does so much impassioned screaming that it’s a miracle he didn’t permanently blow his vocal chords. But career-best? No. It’s not better than What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (will anything be?), and it’s not better than The Departed. So let’s everyone just dial it back a bit.

I do think DiCaprio, along with Forest Whitaker and Christian Bale, are the guys with the best chance of breaking the Ejiofor-McConaughey-Hanks-Dern-Redford stronghold. Whitaker’s win in 2006 for The Last King of Scotland is the only time he’s been nominated, so it would be nice to see him in play once again. (Personally, I think there are several stronger and more worthy performances that deserve inclusion, but I can’t deny I’d be happy for him). The SAG nomination means he can’t be discounted, but I’m unconvinced he’ll make the cut in the end. If Bale makes it in, he’ll have the momentum of American Hustle to thank. Not to suggest he isn’t great, because he is, but in such a fiercely competitive year, his chances would be lower if he weren’t in such a beloved movie (probably part of the reason that his buzz is all about Hustle instead of Out of the Furnace.) David O. Russell’s last two movies racked up seven acting nominations and three wins (Bale and Melissa Leo for The Fighter, and Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook). Silver Linings earned nominations in each of the four acting categories, and it’s possible that Hustle could do that same. But of the four actors likely to make that happen, Bale faces the steepest uphill battle. In his favor, he was nominated for a Golden Globe, a BFCA award and a BAFTA award. Keep in mind though, that the Globes have categories for Drama and Comedy, while the BFCA nominate six actors, not just five.

I wish Oscar Isaac stood a stronger chance for Inside Llewyn Davis, but despite impressing many voters even beyond the film with his performances at a few concert events celebrating the soundtrack, there’s simply too much competition. And I really, really wish — though this isn’t even in the remotest realm of possibility — that teenager Tye Sheridan had a chance for his wonderful work in Mud. 17 years-old now but 14 when he shot it, Sheridan gives a nuanced, emotionally bare performance that deserves as serious consideration as any A-lister in the running.

A lot could happen in this race, but having to commit to predictions, I think the biggest surprise might be that it plays out exactly how it looked at the start.

Predictions:
Bruce Dern – Nebraska
Chiwetel Ejiofor – 12 Years a Slave
Tom Hanks – Captain Phillips
Matthew McConaughey – Dallas Buyers Club
Robert Redford – All is Lost

Personal Picks:
Chiwetel Ejiofor – 12 Years a Slave
Oscar Isaac – Inside Llewyn Davis
Matthew McConaughey – Dallas Buyers Club
Joaquin Phoenix – Her
Tye Sheridan – Mud

(Even for me, whose picks mean absolutely nothing to nobody, the choices are impossible. I can’t sacrifice any of these guys, but I so badly want to include Bale and Hanks. What a year…)

BEST ACTRESS
Like the Best Actor race, this one has seemed inflexible for quite a while. Cate Blanchett is so certain to win this award for Blue Jasmine that filling out the rest of the category is pretty much just ceremonial. Michael Barker, co-president of Jasmine‘s distributor Sony Pictures Classics, told Deadline back in June that no matter what else came along, Blanchett had the Oscar in the bag. Not the first time studio execs have made such bold claims, but this one will probably play out. Still, since she can’t stand alone quite yet, the conventional wisdom has been that she will keep company with Gravity‘s Sandra Bullock (considered her strongest competition), August: Osage County‘s Meryl Streep, Philomena‘s Judi Dench and from Saving Mr. Banks, Emma Thompson. And like Best Actor, there was enough great work to fill the category a second time, if not quite a third.

Of the next wave of contenders, the only one likely to break through is Amy Adams for her multifaceted work in American Hustle. The dark horse candidates are Brie Larson, playing a director at a foster care facility in the acclaimed indie Short Term 12; Julie Delpy, continuing to amaze as she deepens her now 19 year relationship with her character Celine in Before Midnight; and newcomer Adèle Exarchopoulos as a young woman in the throes of first love in the French film Blue is the Warmest Color, for which she and co-star Léa Seydoux shared the Cannes Film Festival’s Palme d’or prize with the director — a first in that award’s history. The chances that any of them could hear their name read are slim to none, but they’ve received a lot of love on the critics circuit. Adams and Delpy earned Golden Globe nominations in the Musical/Comedy category, as did Julia Louis-Dreyfus for her terrific performance in Enough Said, and Greta Gerwig for Frances Ha. (I really like her, but I didn’t care for the movie.) The BFCA, with six available slots, found room for Larson alongside Blanchett, Bullock, Dench, Streep and Thompson.

Bérénice Bejo, a Supporting Actress nominee two years ago for The Artist, garnered some early talk for her role in The Past, from Iranian director Asghar Farhadi. He took home the Best Foreign Language Film award the same year, for the outstanding domestic drama A Separation. Alas, even the critics awards haven’t found room for Bejo, so any dreams of Oscar will have to stay that way. (Unfortunately, I haven’t yet had a chance to see The Past, or Blue is the Warmest Color, so I can’t factor Bejo or Exarchopoulos into my own picks.) And lastly there’s Kate Winslet, who starred in Jason Reitman’s Labor Day. The movie didn’t earn the kind of acclaim that usually meets Reitman’s work, and while Winslet is quite good in the role, the movie is pretty low on the radar. She managed a Golden Globe nomination, but that’s as far as she’ll go.

The category could definitely play out as expected, which is also how the SAG nominations went. But I don’t know…I have a feeling Streep might sit this one out. August: Osage County, with its grand pedigree and powerhouse cast, came into the season with high expectations, but it was met with mixed reviews and has not generated a lot of buzz. It did play well with SAG, who awarded it two individual nominations and one for Best Ensemble, so that counts for something since actors nominate actors. And this is Meryl Streep we’re talking about. She’s been nominated for lesser work than this, and she is revered and beloved by all. But she’s also not hurting for recognition, having won her third Oscar two years ago on her 17th nomination. It’s not impossible that voters could decide to pass her over this time around. If so, her loss would be Amy Adams’ gain. I’ve bet against Adams before and been wrong each time. Dare I underestimate her popularity with the Academy yet again? She could also make it in at the expense of Dench or Thompson, both of whom are safe but not certain bets. But if I go with a gut feeling that’s been building for a while, I’d say Streep misses.

Predictions: 
Amy Adams – American Hustle
Cate Blanchett – Blue Jasmine
Sandra Bullock – Gravity
Judi Dench – Philomena
Emma Thompson – Saving Mr. Banks

Personal Picks:
Cate Blanchett – Blue Jasmine
Sandra Bullock – Gravity
Julie Delpy – Before Midnight
Brie Larson – Short Term 12
Meryl Streep – August: Osage County

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
All of the advance buzz for Dallas Buyers Club focused on Matthew McConaughey, but when the movie hit, Jared Leto received as much acclaim and attention as his co-star, playing a transgender AIDS patient who becomes McConaughey’s business partner. Leto’s performance — his first after a six year absence from acting — has nearly swept the critics awards, and made him the frontrunner for the win. Expect him to be joined by Michael Fassbender for 12 Year a Slave. After missing out on a nomination for Shame (for shame, Academy), his previous collaboration with Steve McQueen, the magnetic Fassbender should be a slam dunk nominee this time around as a drunken, brutish plantation owner.

SAG rounded out the category with newcomer Barkhad Abdi for Captain Phillips, Daniel Brühl for Rush, and James Gandolfini for Enough Said. Abdi is a good bet to make it in. He’s been a consistent presence on the landscape all season long, earning Golden Globe and BFCA nominations in addition to SAG, and his inexperience as an actor makes his performance that much more impressive. Brühl’s chances are less assured. He too was nominated for a Golden Globe and BFCA award, which were pleasant surprises considering that Rush had largely faded from the conversation since its September release. The movie is said to have a lot of admirers, and while that support may not carry it into the Best Picture race, which once seemed possible, it could be enough to get Brühl nominated. However I should say, for what it’s worth, that by no stretch of the imagination is this a supporting performance. Brühl is without question a co-lead alongside Chris Hemsworth, and Universal’s decision to campaign him as a supporting actor is just a way to give him a better chance at getting nominated, since he would never be able to break into such an overcrowded Best Actor field. Bruce Dern must think him a whore. As for James Gandolfini, he is absolutely deserving of a nomination for his change-of-pace role as a tender divorced man entering into a new relationship. The SAG nomination is welcome recognition, but had he not passed away this year, I think he would have been squeezed out. He’s received plenty of nominations from critics groups, but I don’t think he’s going to make it into the Oscar race. Respected as he is, he’s still most associated with his television work, and Oscar voters aren’t necessarily sentimental about these things. He could make it, but I’m not counting on it.

Who else is waiting in the wings? Bradley Cooper and Jonah Hill deliver colorful, incredibly entertaining performances in American Hustle and The Wolf of Wall Street, respectively. Neither managed a SAG nomination, but that is likely because their films weren’t ready in time to be seen by enough voters. Cooper has Globe and BFCA nominations, but Hill missed out on both of those. Cooper’s chances may be better, since voters are expected to go big with American Hustle, whereas Wolf of Wall Street‘s popularity within the Academy is more of a question mark. Hill, meanwhile, is known to have done a lot of improv that provides Wolf with some of its funniest moments, so that could work to his advantage with his fellow actors.

Tom Hanks was considered a strong contender for his role as Walt Disney in Saving Mr. Banks, but after missing out on SAG, Globe and BFCA nominations, he would now appear to be a long shot. Another Best Actor frontrunner who has a chance here, though not as much as it might have seemed earlier in the year, is Matthew McConaughey for his work as a charming fugitive in Mud. Will Forte has received some love from critics for Nebraska, but I don’t see it cutting through the competition. Among the actors relegated to long shot/near impossible status but who are nonetheless worthy of consideration: Harrison Ford for the Jackie Robinson biopic 42; Woody Harrelson and Casey Affleck, both quite powerful in Out of the Furnace; David Oyelowo for The Butler; John Goodman for a small but excellent turn in Inside Llewyn Davis; the perennially overlooked Sam Rockwell in The Way, Way Back; and Chris Cooper for a standout performance in August: Osage County.

And then there’s James Franco. His Spring Breakers is far outside the realm of movies that Oscar voters pay attention to, but it’s a textbook case to demonstrate that their narrow box often excludes work that absolutely deserves recognition. There are a number of categories where Spring Breakers deserves to be cited (you already saw me include its director Harmony Korine among my personal picks for Best Director), and if Academy voters took off their blinders, how could they not stand up for Franco’s sensational work as a hilariously materialistic DJ and drug dealer for whom spring break is a state of mind? The film’s indie distributor, A24, has mounted a campaign for Franco, but they only have so much money to spend, and none of it is likely to penetrate the Academy’s bubble. If Franco had a shot, he probably would have needed a SAG nomination, and that actually seemed like a possibility. SAG voters, after all, nominated Nicole Kidman’s somewhat gonzo turn in The Paperboy last year. Unfortunately, Franco was passed over, and a similar fate awaits him tomorrow morning. But if he somehow manages to get a surprise nomination, expect the gathered journalists in the room to let out an enthusiastic round of applause, hoots and hollers.

Predictions:
Barkhad Abdi – Captain Phillips
Daniel Brühl – Rush
Bradley Cooper – American Hustle
Michael Fassbender – 12 Years a Slave
Jared Leto – Dallas Buyers Club

Personal Picks:
Barkhad Abdi – Captain Phillips
Michael Fassbender – 12 Years a Slave
James Franco – Spring Breakers
Jonah Hill – The Wolf of Wall Street
Jared Leto – Dallas Buyers Club

(Again, I agonize over my meaningless picks. Kills me to leave off Coopers Bradley and Chris.)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Lupita Nyong’o was in her final months at Yale Drama School when she auditioned for 12 Years a Slave, and at the moment she’s the frontrunner to win the Oscar for her debut film. Not a bad way to break into the biz. But first the nomination. She’ll be there. As will last year’s Best Actress winner Jennifer Lawrence, who tears it up in American Hustle. For many viewers, she’s been the standout. On the other end of the age and experience spectrum is 84 year-old June Squibb, the veteran character actress who steals the show as Bruce Dern’s outspoken wife in Nebraska. It’s hard to imagine she won’t make the cut. Another good bet, though not a lock, is Oprah Winfrey for The Butler. Winfrey doesn’t act too often, but when she does, she somehow pulls off the seemingly impossible challenge of embodying a character despite being one of the most ubiquitous figures in the world. No small task. She was nominated in this category nearly 30 years ago for The Color Purple, and I suspect she’ll be back.

That leaves one slot, and any number of people it could go to…all of whom could also land in the final five if Winfrey or Squibb should miss. 2011’s winner Octavia Spencer was touted as a likely nominee ever since Fruitvale Station came out in July, but her chances seem to have diminished in the season’s later days. She could still make it, but after missing out on SAG, the Golden Globes and even the BFCA, I’m not counting on it. All three of those groups did, however, nominate Julia Roberts for August: Osage County. Like Daniel Brühl, Roberts should be in the lead category, but The Weinstein Company didn’t want her and Streep to contend with each other. Can Roberts make it in? I’m not sure. But it would be nice to see her there again. Like Tom Hanks, her last nomination came in 2000, when she won for Erin Brockovich.

One nomination that almost certainly won’t happen, but should, is Scarlett Johansson for Her. Although she never appears on camera, make no mistake: she is the movie’s female lead, and creates a fully developed, three dimensional character with just her voice. Several critics groups have nominated her, including the BFCA, but that’s unlikely to make a difference. Although the performance is eligible for an Oscar nomination, I don’t see actors going there, no matter how much they admire the film and her work in it. Whether it’s Robin Williams voicing the Genie, or Andy Serkis being replaced by a creation of visual effects in The Lord of the Rings or Rise of the Planet of the Apes, if the performer doesn’t appear on camera, actors don’t seem to consider it an award-worthy performance. Too bad, since I would think actors would understand the challenges of this work, and should be all the more impressed when it connects so successfully. Maybe someday this barrier will fall, but I don’t think voters are ready yet. However, in this case, there is a way to get around it…sort of. Johansson’s work in Her was not her only great performance this year. She was also excellent as the jersey girl sexbomb with unrealistic notions of romance in Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s directorial debut Don Jon. That performance is worth consideration on its own, but could pull double-duty as proxy recognition for Her.

If there’s a surprise in this category that catches most people off guard, it may well be Jennifer Garner for Dallas Buyers Club. She is not considered a likely contender, and in fact hasn’t received a single nomination in all of the precursor awards except as a member of the movie’s SAG-cited ensemble. But that Best Ensemble recognition was itself a big surprise, and the movie has been faring well in general. Garner is good in it, but doesn’t get to do the kind of transformative work that benefits McConaughey and Leto. Still, The Hollywood Reporter‘s awards analyst Scott Feinberg thinks she has an excellent chance, and his logic makes good sense. He says that voters only have time to watch so many movies, and when they find something they really like, they tend to vote for it across the board. It was by that reasoning that he was one of the few pundits to predict Jacki Weaver’s nomination last year for Silver Linings Playbook. There is usually at least one big surprise on nomination morning that most people didn’t see coming, and given the popularity Dallas Buyers Club seems to have, Garner could be it. Plus, after all of the accolades her husband Ben Affleck collected for Argo last year — not to mention the strange comments he kept making in his attempts to thank her, which made it sound like their marriage was a daily struggle — maybe voters feel that Garner has earned some recognition of her own. I can’t bring myself to predict it; I think this is the one acting category that will match the SAG list five-for-five. But if Garner does score a nod, I’ll definitely be applying Feinberg’s logic to future races.

Another surprise could be Sally Hawkins, who played Cate Blanchett’s sister in Blue Jasmine. She’s received a smattering of mentions from critics, as well as Golden Globe and BAFTA nominations. Never discount an actress in a Woody Allen film. Other names that have popped up but would make for shocking nominations, however well deserved, are Sarah Paulson for her cruel plantation mistress in 12 Years a Slave; Julianne Nicholson and Margo Martindale as family members harboring secrets in August: Osage County; Melissa Leo as the caretaker of a young man suspected of abducting two little girls in Prisoners; and Léa Seydoux as a new couple’s more experienced lover in Blue is the Warmest Color.

Predictions:
Jennifer Lawrence – American Hustle
Lupita Nyong’o – 12 Years a Slave
Julia Roberts – August: Osage County
June Squibb – Nebraska
Oprah Winfrey – Lee Daniels’ The Butler

Personal Picks:
Scarlett Johansson – Her
Jennifer Lawrence – American Hustle
Lupita Nyong’o – 12 Years a Slave
June Squibb – Nebraska
Oprah Winfrey – Lee Daniels’ The Butler

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Expect to see American Hustle and Nebraska among this year’s crop. Her, whether or not it can manage recognition for Best Picture or Best Director, would seem like a given here as well. I would also have said that the Coen Brothers’ Inside Llewyn Davis was a sure bet, but its lack of a WGA nomination, or broad guild support in general, makes it a tougher call. But the biggest question mark is Gravity. While the movie is expected to be one of the most nominated of the year, its chances here are cloudier. Even many who love the film would say that the story is slight and that the movie’s screenplay is not where it stands out. Others would argue that it’s much weightier on the story and thematic front that it’s been given credit for. I suspect the writers will pass on it, but given its frontrunner status for other top awards, it could absolutely land here.

The indefatigable Woody Allen stands a good chance at his 16th writing nomination for Blue Jasmine. He got the WGA nod alongside Hustle, Her, Nebraska and Dallas Buyers Club, which is another strong but by no means certain contender. I’d say Dallas‘ chances depend on what happens with Gravity and Inside Llewyn Davis. Saving Mr. Banks could find some love here, but having not been the big player so far that it was initially expected to be, it’s hard to anticipate what the Academy will do with it. Enough Said and Fruitvale Station are also on the fringe, but I’m not expecting either to get this far. And if the writer’s branch decides to throw a curve ball or two, look out for Mud, All is Lost or Prisoners.

Predictions:
David O. Russell, Eric Warren Singer – American Hustle
Woody Allen – Blue Jasmine
Spike Jonze – Her
Ethan Coen, Joel Coen – Inside Llewyn Davis
Bob Nelson – Nebraska

Personal Picks:
Spike Jonze – Her
Ethan Coen, Joel Coen – Inside Llewyn Davis
Jeff Nichols – Mud
Bob Nelson – Nebraska
Aaron Guzikowski – Prisoners

[Update, January 26: My personal picks originally included Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg’s script for This is the End, but last night I remembered that script doesn’t qualify as original because it’s based on a short film: Seth and Jay vs. the Apocalypse. I removed it from my list and replaced it with Bob Nelson for Nebraska.]

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
The Writers Guild nominations aren’t as much of a guideline in this category since, as always, some scripts were ruled ineligible for guild consideration. This was true for Best Original Screenplay too, but the only disqualified movie in that field which is expected to be a contender is Fruitvale Station, and that’s hardly a frontrunner. Not so on this side of the fence, where 12 Years a Slave, which could well be the winner come Oscar night, did not qualify with the WGA. But you can bet it will be on the Oscar shortlist, probably joined by Captain Phillips and Before Midnight. Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke, the trio behind the latter, were nominated in this category back in 2004 for the previous film in the series, Before Sunset. They should repeat for this continuation which has been received just as enthusiastically, if not more.

Another strong possibility which didn’t meet the WGA’s standards is Philomena. With that and 12 Years out of play, the guild found room for August: Osage County and Lone Survivor. August still stands a chance with the Academy, but I wouldn’t bet on Lone Survivor. Not to take anything away from it; it’s a good movie. But a screenplay nomination seems like a stretch. The final WGA nominee, along with August, Survivor, Phillips and Midnight, is The Wolf of Wall Street, which I think will repeat here. Last summer’s beautifully spun teen romance The Spectacular Now collected a number of nominations from critics groups, but is a long shot to go the distance with the Oscars. Ditto the indie drama Short Term 12. These are the kind of wonderful small movies that, despite excessive praise from critics, never seem to attract the eyes necessary to lift them to Oscar-level awareness.

Predictions:
Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, Ethan Hawke – Before Midnight
Billy Ray – Captain Phillips
Steve Coogan, Jeff Pope – Philomena
John Ridley – 12 Years a Slave
Terence Winter – The Wolf of Wall Street

Personal Picks:
Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy, Ethan Hawke – Before Midnight
Destin Daniel Cretton – Short Term 12
John Ridley – 12 Years a Slave
Carroll Cartwright, Nancy Doyne – What Maisie Knew
Terence Winter – The Wolf of Wall Street

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
It has not been a strong year for animation. At least, not in the mainstream. Several of the 19 films submitted to the Academy for consideration are foreign entries that did not get wide release or promotion here in the states, so I can’t speak to those. But homegrown projects were not, as a group, the best we’ve seen. If at least 16 of the 19 submitted films are accepted by the Academy, the field will qualify for five nominees. Less than 16 will mean a field of four nominees, and less than 13 will result in three. A three nominee field could sport an impressive group. Five will be pushing it, at least based on what Hollywood turned out.

There’s also been a change this year to how the nominees will be selected. In the past, a committee of 100 Academy members had to attend special screenings of all the qualifying films in order to vote for which to nominate. Now the committee will be larger, and its members will be allowed to view screeners of the nominees at home. But according to The Wrap, it is unclear if the Academy would provide those screeners or if they expect the studios to do so. (I’m guessing the former.)

Disney’s Frozen, a huge hit and well-reviewed fairy tale, leads the way, while The Wind Rises, Japanese animation master Hayao Miyazaki’s final film as director (he says he’s retiring), is a good bet. If the category tops out at three nominees, I expect Monsters University will round it out. But there will probably be at least four, and knowing so little about the foreign contenders makes it hard to tell what might make the cut. Only the French film Ernest & Celestine, a hand-drawn tale of friendship between a bear and a mouse, has landed on my radar, and word is that it’s excellent. Despicable Me 2 was a massive hit, but can the sequel get nominated if the original couldn’t? I suppose so, but I just don’t get what the big deal is with those movies…not that my personal feelings have any place in the subtle art of Oscar predicting. I just have to imagine that some of the foreign offerings are better than Despicable Me 2, or The Croods or most of the other Hollywood options (though I’ll admit I did like most of Epic). Of course, better doesn’t always mean anything. Depending on how much larger the voting committee is, and how members see the movies, the final slate could favor bigger, well-known films, or instead offer some surprises from beyond our borders.

Predictions:
The Croods
Ernest & Celestine
Frozen
Monsters University
The Wind Rises

Personal Picks:
Epic
Frozen
Monsters University
The Wind Rises

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Moving into the below-the-line categories, expect to see a lot of one word in particular: Gravity. It should come as no surprise that the astonishing outer space drama leads the way in this category, where it is likely to be joined by 12 Years a Slave and Inside Llewyn Davis. Those three movies were among the nominees for the American Society of Cinematographers award, where a three-way tie resulted in a seven-nominee race, rounded out by Captain Phillips, The Grandmaster, Nebraska and Prisoners. Usually there are one or two differences between the guild’s nominees and the Academy’s, but does the guild’s larger field mean the five Oscar nominees will come from this pool of seven? If so, that eliminates the gorgeous lensing of Her, which I had hoped would be a no-brainer.

If the branch looks beyond the ASC’s seven, and beyond the limits of traditional Academy fare, they would be wise to recognize the stunning work on display in Spring Breakers. Other films from earlier in the year that would make deserving nominees but that are probably too far removed from the Academy’s consciousness, whether by time or beause they aren’t sprinkled with whatever pixie dust deems them Oscar worthy: the Tom Cruise sci-fi film Oblivion, the creepy Mia Wasikowska thriller Stoker; and Sofia Coppola’s The Bling Ring, the last film shot by Harris Savides before his untimely death.

Based on no evidence whatsoever, I feel like the branch will take the opportunity to celebrate a striking black and white film whenever one is an option, so I’m guessing Nebraska will make the cut. As for that fifth slot, I could see it going to the beautiful imagery of The Grandmaster, the cold, dark compositions of Prisoners, the contrast of character intimacy and scenic vastness in All is Lost, and the simultaneously warm and cool clarity of Her. I’ll go with The Grandmaster. But man, what a tough call. Some really excellent work this year.

Predictions:
Phillippe Le Sourd – The Grandmaster
Emmanuel Lubezki – Gravity
Bruno Delbonnel – Inside Llewyn Davis
Phedon Papamichael – Nebraska
Sean Bobbitt – 12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
Emmanuel Lubezki – Gravity
Hoyte van Hoytema – Her
Bruno Delbonnel – Inside Llewyn Davis
Roger Deakins – Prisoners
Benoît Debie – Spring Breakers

BEST FILM EDITING
Best Picture frontrunners usually land a nomination for Editing, so expect Gravity and 12 Years a Slave to be here, and probably American Hustle and Captain Phillips as well. The fifth slot could go to another movie from the list of usual suspects, with The Wolf of Wall Street, Her, Nebraska, Dallas Buyers Club or Inside Llewyn Davis standing the best chance. Or it could go to a well-crafted, action-heavy movie like World War Z, Lone Survivor or The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. But the best shot may be Ron Howard’s Formula 1 race car film Rush, once considered a strong possibility for contention in the top categories. Things didn’t work out that way, but if Rush can get some love anywhere, it might be here.

Predictions:
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Gravity
Rush
12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
Captain Phillips
Gravity
Inside Llewyn Davis
Spring Breakers
World War Z

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
12 Years a Slave will probably find a home here due more to its place as one of the year’s major players than because it’s one of the five best art/set decorated films of the year. Gravity has a good shot too, though its limited locations make me wonder if it will be overlooked. American Hustle is a possibility, but I’m not convinced. It’s 1970’s setting does make it a period piece — and the design branches love their period pieces — but it isn’t as elaborate or obvious as the kind of period pieces that usually score here, which makes me doubt its chances. I hope that the subtle futurism and wonderful color scheme of Her will be recognized, but for some reason I don’t feel confident about it. Moving beyond the big dogs, the dazzling excess of The Great Gatsby should land a spot, and since all of Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth films have been nominated, it would stand to reason that The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug will follow suit. It’s possible that the voters could be tired of these, but with all the new locations on display, the films aren’t necessarily repeating themselves. Still, the familiarity of the world casts some doubt at this point. Meanwhile, the elegant scenery of Stoker and Oblivion deserve consideration, and Saving Mr. Banks is a possibility here too.

Predictions:
American Hustle
Gravity
The Great Gatsby
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
The Great Gatsby
Her
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Oblivion
Stoker

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Again, chances are good that we’ll see 12 Years a Slave here even though, yes, again, there are more interesting and imaginative choices to be made. American Hustle is expected to score here too, although I’m a tad wary. While the 70’s always allow for some entertaining fashion selections, the Academy doesn’t always take notice. Then again, signature pieces like the white macramé swimsuit worn by Amy Adams should push Hustle to the final five. The members of this branch are always on the hunt for an 1800s or early 1900s period piece and the elaborate outfits that mark that era, and they will likely find their champion this year in The Invisible Woman, a film about Charles Dickens and his younger mistress that was directed by and stars Ralph Fiennes. The Great Gatsby will probably break through here too. As for other period films that might pop up, there’s Saving Mr. Banks, although I’m not sure there is enough variety to secure it a nod. Inside Llewyn Davis features nice work too. Amidst the desaturated camerawork, the colors worn by John Goodman, Carey Mulligan, Justin Timberlake and F. Murray Abraham stand out nicely.

On the less historical, more fantasy-based side of the closet, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a possibility. The previous Hobbit film missed in this category, but not for lack of worthiness, so perhaps it will happen this year. There’s also The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, which features a wide variety of creative looks. I was a little surprised that the first Hunger Games film didn’t land a nomination here, and wondered if its chances would have been better had it come out at the end of the year rather than in March. Catching Fire was a November release, so we’ll see if that makes a difference.

While not exactly fantasy, the clothes in Her do a lot to sell the concept of a near-future that is logically grown out of the present day. It’s probably not flashy enough to do the trick for these voters, but it would be a nice surprise if it showed up. And since contemporary clothing almost never gets recognized, no matter how well or uniquely designed and suited to its film it is, we will almost certainly be denied nominations for Blue Jasmine and Stoker, both of which would be commendable surprises from the costume branch.

Predictions:
American Hustle
The Great Gatsby
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
The Invisible Woman
12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
The Great Gatsby
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Inside Llewyn Davis
Stoker

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
This continues to be a frustrating category, not only because it is governed by some stupid rules, but because the evaluation process is flawed. Steve Pond lamented these issues last week in The Wrap. For starters, a song can only qualify if it appears during the course of the movie itself or if it is the first song during the end credits. If it’s the second song in the credits, it’s ineligible. That might not happen often, but it happens. Also, members are asked to judge the contenders — and for the second year in a row there were 75 eligible songs — by watching a DVD that contains clips of each number as it appears in the movie. This puts end credit songs at a disadvantage, since voters have to watch them over scrolling names, with no context for how they actually fit into their movie or build on the final scenes. Worse than that, clips are limited to three minutes. If a song is longer, it simply cuts off. How can a song be judged fairly if it isn’t even offered in its entirety? Okay, I’ll concede it’s unrealistic to expect voters to sit through every full movie that has an eligible song just to see how that song fits into the whole, so context may always be a problem. But since that issue may exist no matter what, why not send a CD which contains each song in full, so that members have a second option for listening to the many contenders? It might be easier to listen to all the options if they can take it in the car with them, or elsewhere on the go. At the very least, whether delivered on a CD, a DVD or both, it’s offensive to the process not to include each complete song.

So with all that said, what are we looking at? So many possibilities means a 100% accurate prediction is unlikely, but there are a couple of selections that are probably locks, beginning with “Let it Go” from Disney’s Frozen. It’s a fairly standard empowerment number, but Idina Menzel belts it out something terrific. U2 picked up the Golden Globe for “Ordinary Love,” their contribution to Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, and will probably be in the running here. In addition, there are five eligible songs from The Great Gatsby, including efforts by Jay-Z and Florence + the Machine. But the one with the most buzz is Lana Del Rey’s “Young and Beautiful.” Last month, there was an anonymous effort to mislead voters into thinking the song was disqualified, but there was no truth to it. Who knows if the trick was played by a rival studio, or one of the many Lana Del Rey haters out there, but the song is eligible, and in my opinion, deserving.

Unfortunately, my favorite song from a movie all year IS ineligible. “Fare Thee Well” from Inside Llewyn Davis, although new to me, is not new to the world. (If you’re a fan, check out some of its earlier incarnations courtesy of Vulture.) None of the wonderful songs from Llewyn Davis qualify, as they are all either older tunes being performed anew, or adaptations of previously existing ones. Several critics groups gave their Best Original Song award to the movie’s amusing track “Please Mr. Kennedy,” but the song borrows from a few similar pieces written during the era depicted in the movie, disqualifying it for Academy consideration.

One of the best songs of the year is not the typical studio-produced piece, but a bare bones rap clocking in at less than two minutes, performed by actor and musician Keith Stanfield, who plays a foster home resident in Short Term 12. It’s a song that would appear to perfectly encapsulate the intentions of the music branch, as it speaks directly to the character’s experiences and how he feels about his life. If the Academy’s goal is to recognize songs that are organic to their movies and have an impact on the story, than this isn’t just a nominee; it’s the winner.

Other songs that I really wanted to include among my personal picks were Ed Sheeran’s “I See Fire” from The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, José González’s “Stay Alive” from The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, and Kings of Leon’s “Last Mile Home” from August: Osage County. If you’re interested in an assessment of the full field by someone who actually listened to all 75 contenders, here again is The Wrap‘s Steve Pond with his thoughts. In the end, anyone taking a shot at predicting this category is bound to miss at least one. But that won’t stop us trying. Having not heard anywhere near all of the options, here are my dart throws.

Predictions:
Let it Go – Frozen
Young and Beautiful – The Great Gatsby
The Moon Song – Her
Ordinary Love – Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom
We Ride – Spark: A Burning Man Story

Personal Picks:
Young and Beautiful – The Great Gatsby
The Moon Song – Her
Oblivion – Oblivion
So You Know What It’s Like – Short Term 12
Becomes the Color – Stoker

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Gravity and 12 Years a Slave will show up again here, but this is a case where the frontrunners will earn below-the-line nominations on true merit, not just because voters are selecting it lazily and without consideration. Or…I suppose maybe that is why they will select them, but at least they deserve to be here.

I’m sure I’ve said somewhere on this blog before (feel free to look around for it) that my favorite film scores are those that do their primary job of serving the movie, of course, but are also memorable enough in their themes and motifs to stand on their own as listening experiences. I find such scores are tragically rare these days. The only one from 2013 that stayed with me in that way was Hans Zimmer’s music for 12 Years a Slave. Mark Orton’s score for Nebraska has been growing on me too, but is ineligible for Oscar consideration because much if it was used in an earlier movie. Even The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug didn’t offer up any new themes that resonated with me after the movie.

And yet there were a great numbers of scores this year that made an impression on me in the context of their films, even if most of them were not distinctive enough on their own to become essential additions to my soundtrack collection…other than to serve as nice background music. Which is relevant here because…oh right, it isn’t. I’m just saying, there was a wealth of excellent music that provided atmosphere and emotional resonance to their films, if not exactly classic themes that will become part of the zeitgeist. Alex Ebert, frontman for the band Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros, just won a Golden Globe for his beautiful music from All is Lost, which plays an especially important role since the movie has barely any dialogue. Ebert was just one of many musicians who successfully dabbled in film composing this year. Skrillex worked with composer Cliff Martinez on Spring Breakers, and Muse contributed to the World War Z score composed by Marco Beltrami — though neither result appears on the list of 114 eligible scores). M83 created the music for Oblivion, and Spike Jonze enlisted his friends from Arcade Fire to provide original music for Her, either of which would be welcome nominees. Perhaps there were additional examples that I’m unaware of, but I thought this was interesting.

Among other scores that impressed me were Prisoners, Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, Mud, Stoker, Philomena, Labor Day, The Grandmaster and Out of the Furnace (the latter two are also missing from the eligibility list).

John Williams, who is basically retired at this point except for anything directed by Steven Spielberg, as well as his impending return to the Star Wars saga, was apparently such a fan of the novel The Book Thief that he approached the producers and offered his services. Nobody’s going to say no to that, and the results are of course being talked up for a nomination. Williams is always a good bet, but the score didn’t leave much of an impression on me. There has also been some buzz for Hans Zimmer’s Man of Steel score. It was decent (certainly not better than the Williams score we all know and love, not that it was trying to be…or needed to be), but I don’t see that nomination happening. Zimmer could also be a contender for Rush, and his protégé Henry Jackman is in the mix for Captain Phillips. Once upon a time, Disney musicals were a given for score nominations, so Frozen could crack the list, and Saving Mr. Banks — a movie about Disney — might earn another nomination for Thomas Newman (though frankly, the only parts of that score that stood out to me were the moments that incorporated music from Mary Poppins). I didn’t get a chance to see Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom, but the fact that its music was among the Golden Globe nominees means it stands a shot at an Oscar nomination too.

It’s clearly a packed field this year, with many possible outcomes. But here goes.

Predictions:
Alex Ebert – All is Lost
John Williams – The Book Thief
Steven Price – Gravity
Alexandre Desplat – Philomena
Hans Zimmer – 12 Years a Slave

Personal Picks:
Daniel Hart – Ain’t Them Bodies Saints
Steven Price – Gravity
William Butler, Owen Pallett – Her
Clint Mansell – Stoker
Hans Zimmer – 12 Years a Slave

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
In December, the Makeup Artists and Hairstylists branch of the Academy announced the seven-film longlist from which the three nominees will be chosen. Focusing only on the quality of the work and not the quality of the film, their selections run the gamut from Best Picture contenders American Hustle and Dallas Buyers Club to box office hits The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The Great Gatsby and Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa (no, I’m not kidding) to a couple of movies that are most definitely not Best Picture contenders or box office hits: The Lone Ranger and Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (still not kidding). Like I said, the branch evaluates the work, not the film, and both Bad Grandpa and The Lone Ranger feature excellent makeup work. I haven’t seen Hansel & Gretel, but now that I’m Googling some of its makeup images, I gotta say: pretty cool. Nice to see that The Hunger Games got some attention, after the first movie didn’t even make it to the longlist last year. All in all, the seven options represent a nice cross section of hair-centric work, aging makeup and creature prosthetics.

Among the surprising omissions are The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (which may have been considered “been there, done that”), Rush, World War Z, Lone Survivor and Lee Daniels’ The Butler, which not only aged Forest Whitaker, Oprah Winfrey and other actors over several years, but also did a pretty nice job transforming Professor Snape Hans Gruber Alan Rickman into Ronald Reagan.

Predictions:
American Hustle
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
The Lone Ranger

Personal Picks:
American Hustle
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (What can I say? The stuff looks great.)

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Always one of my favorite categories, as visual effects and music scores were the two movie components that got me interested in the Oscars in the first place. Like the Makeup and Hairstyling branch, the Visual Effects branch narrows the year’s options down to a longlist, and chooses the nominees from there. The VFX longlist consists of 10 films, and that number will be cut in half for five nominees. This royal rumble features Elysium, Gravity, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Iron Man 3, The Lone Ranger, Oblivion, Pacific Rim, Star Trek Into Darkness, Thor: The Dark World and World War Z. While there are certainly other movies that might have made it, like Man of Steel or Ender’s Game, there isn’t anything missing that I would consider a glaring omission.

Besides, we all know what’s winning this award anyway.

Predictions:
Gravity
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Iron Man 3
Pacific Rim
Star Trek Into Darkness

Personal Picks:
Same

BEST SOUND EDITING/BEST SOUND MIXING
By now, I have figured out what each of these things mean, and I understand the difference between them. Yay for me. In simplest terms, the sound editors record or create sounds that could not be captured during filming, either because dragons are not real (so I’m told) or maybe because the location was too noisy to get a usable recording of a particular real-world sound. Sound mixers then take all the sound effects and the music and the dialogue, and blend it all together in proper relation to each other.

Unfortunately, that does nothing to help me understand or predict what the best achievements in these fields are.

But I can make some educated guesses, and the first is that Gravity will be nominated in both categories. Captain Phillips has a pretty good shot at both too. Inside Llewyn Davis recorded its many song performances live during filming, just as Les Misérables did last year, so that gives it a good shot in the Mixing category. Beyond that, we can look to almost any big action movie as a possibility for one or both of these, meaning we could see The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, Pacific Rim, Man of Steel, World War Z, Lone Survivor, Oblivion, The Lone Ranger or Elysium. Animated films sometimes pop up here, especially those from Pixar, which makes Monsters University a possibility, or by association, Frozen. 12 Years a Slave might slide in if voters fill it in down the line; Rush could find some traction here with its many car races; The Great Gatsby, with all of that music and party noise and excess feels like a contender; and All is Lost relies heavily on the soundscape to tell its story.

That broad array of options is about as specific as I can get, so here are the rest of those educated guesses.

Sound Editing Predictions:
All is Lost
Captain Phillips
Gravity
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Pacific Rim

Sound Mixing Predictions:
Captain Phillips
Gravity
The Great Gatsby
Inside Llewyn Davis
Star Trek Into Darkness

As for my personal picks, my limited understanding of these categories means I never have strong opinions, but I say each year that I think there should simply be one category, Best Sound Design, honoring a movie’s entire scope of sonic achievement. My picks for that imaginary category would be All is Lost, Gravity, Inside Llewyn Davis, Stoker and World War Z. I imagine if I had seen The Conjuring, that might find a place here too. But I didn’t, so it doesn’t.

With that, I think we’re done here. In keeping with tradition, I’m afraid I have no insight to offer for Best Documentary, Best Foreign Language Film or any of the short film categories. But since I’m sure I lost you somewhere around the sixth paragraph of Best Actor anyway, if not before, it’s just as well. The nominees will be announced tomorrow at 5:38am PT by Chris Hemsworth and Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs. And then tomorrow night, all the people who didn’t get nominated will try to put on a happy face when they attend the Broadcast Film Critics Association ceremony. The awards train stops for no one.

March 7, 2013

Oscars 2012: What Went Down

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 5:00 pm
Tags: , , , ,

As always, I like to take a little time before weighing in with my thoughts on the Oscars…partly so I can respond to all the knee-jerk reactions in the media. And this year, there’s been a lot of knee-jerking. The show has prompted quite an impassioned reaction, most of it directed at host Seth MacFarlane, and most of it negative. Even over a week later, people are still stating their objections to some of his material. So let’s start there.

For the record, this was not the worst Oscars ever, nor was MacFarlane the worst host ever. I’m confident that the people making one or both of those accusations have not seen every televised Oscar show, and are therefore in no position to say what shows back in the 50’s or 60’s, for example, might have been better or worse. Besides, you don’t even have to go that far back for a worse show. You need only rewind two years, to the ceremony honoring the best of 2010, hosted by Anne Hathaway and James Franco. I haven’t seen every Oscar show either, so I can’t say whether or not that was the worst ever. But it was the worst I could remember seeing, and not just because the hosts were not up to the task. In fact, I wrote at the time that I didn’t think Hathaway and Franco even deserved most of the blame. (Well…Franco may have deserved a good-sized chunk.)  As I said, it was “badly produced, badly directed, blandly written.” This year’s show wasn’t the best, but for the most part it was competently produced, so it’s already an improvement over two years ago.

THE HOST
From the moment he was announced last year, the chatter was that MacFarlane was an unusual and provocative choice, but an exciting one. Aside from the fact that he was largely unknown to the public and was not a major figure in the film community (though he was coming off the summer success of Ted, his first movie as director and voice actor), his humor was known for often being crass and edgy. But it was a good pick. It showed the Academy taking a chance, which is not something the esteemed old lady is known for doing, and MacFarlane’s combo of comedy and music skills seemed like they would serve him well at a gig like this.

Other than Team Francoway, who were simply the wrong people for the job, I don’t think I’ve seen a really bad hosting turn in my 25 years of Oscar watching (then again, I’m fairly easy to please). Billy Crystal was always great, though his schtick was a little warmed over by last year; Whoopi Goldberg and Steve Martin always did a good job; Hugh Jackman and Ellen DeGeneres both delivered in their years, as did Jon Stewart the two times he hosted. The hosts that are remembered less favorably are David Letterman and Chris Rock, but both were perfectly funny. They just weren’t the typical warm and fuzzy hosts who go down smooth. They pushed a few more buttons, and were true to their well-established personas instead of trying to become something else for Oscar night.

The same goes for MacFarlane. But the degree of vitriol in response has been high…and in several cases, a lot more mean-spirited than anything he dished out. The show, and its host, have been called sexist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, racist and anti-gay during the last week and a half. Amy Davidson of The New Yorker was one of many who was not remotely amused by MacFarlane’s performance. Two female California state lawmakers sent a letter to the Academy expressing their concerns, as if they don’t have more pressing matters to attend to that involve actually governing. Perhaps I have no right to comment on any of this since I’m not a woman, but at the risk of being labeled a racist, homophobic misogynist for not rebuking everything MacFarlane did, I have to defend the guy. His humor is known for sometimes being offensive, but like South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, MacFarlane is an equal opportunity offender. I don’t think this is a man who has it in for women. I may not be so attuned to things that women would find offensive, and yes, a line like the one about Jessica Chastain’s Zero Dark Thirty character tracking Bin Laden for 12 years being evidence of women never letting anything go was pointless and bound to piss off every female viewer, rightfully so. But I hardly think it was a setback to feminism.

As for charges of anti-Semitism, I can attest from my years of Hebrew school that the Jewish people have survived an awful lot; I think they can endure a couple of cracks about their influence and numbers in the entertainment industry. In fact, I find it more interesting that MacFarlane’s Oscar night humor pushed the envelope as far as what is considered venue-appropriate, while at the same time being as staunchly old-fashioned as including jokes about Jews running Hollywood. Also, I don’t recall there being a backlash three years ago after Steve Martin (co-hosting with Alec Baldwin) described Inglourious Basterds nominee Christoph Waltz’s character as a Nazi hunting Jews, then spread his arms wide and declared, “Well, Christoph? The motherload!” On the contrary, it was one of the best lines of the night, and received the laughs to prove it.

The joke about actresses giving themselves the flu to fit into their dresses bothered some, but did anyone make a peep after the Golden Globes, when Tina Fey described The Hunger Games as what she called the six weeks it took her to fit into her dress? If there were complaints, they sure weren’t loud. I don’t need to tell anyone that Hollywood celebrates beautiful women and sets unrealistic expectations when it comes to the female body image. That’s a problem, but as long as the entire red carpet tradition at the Oscars and every other award show continues, creating pressure for women to pour so much energy into selecting gowns and jewelery and to look amazing or be torn apart in fashion magazines, the culture will persist. Suddenly Seth MacFarlane is a misogynist for cracking a joke about it?

Yes, he joked about Chris Brown and Rhianna. So has every late night comedian, over and over again. I don’t see them getting raked across the coals. Yes, there was a song called, “We Saw Your Boobs.” Yes, it was silly and a little crude. But no, it wasn’t a statement that actresses are only worth paying attention to when they take their clothes off, nor was it indicative of a night where every introduction or comment on an actress focused on her beauty or looks – another complaint I read somewhere after the show, which was untrue. He introduced plenty of women without referencing their looks, including presenters Jessica Chastain and Jennifer Garner, saying “both have played government agents and both have kicked ass onscreen in every sense.” Nothing about their beauty, just their talent. And since Charlize Theron, Naomi Watts and Jennifer Lawrence were all willing to participate in the boobs number, can’t everyone just lighten up? (No, I suppose if that argument worked there wouldn’t have been any controversy last year about The Help or this year about Django Unchained. Just because certain members of a group take part in something doesn’t mean other members of the same group won’t take offense.) MacFarlane was accused of insulting Adele’s weight when he joked that Rex Reed would be coming out to review her performance, but I saw that not as knock on Adele, but a joke about Rex Reed being an asshole. (For those who didn’t get it, film critic Rex Reed made some obnoxious comments about Melissa McCarthy’s weight in his review of Identity Thief a few weeks ago. He deserved the scorn that came his way. MacFarlane doesn’t.)

It wasn’t just journalists slamming MacFarlane. Actress and Oscar night presenter Jane Fonda, as well as Girls creator and star Lena Dunham weren’t impressed, and just within the last couple of days, Jamie Lee Curtis and Geena Davis have weighed in as well. It’s particularly disappointing to see fellow artists bash MacFarlane in the media. While they, along with anyone else, have the right to be offended by his routine, artists know what it is to take risks and put yourself out there, so I would think they would at least refrain from airing their grievances publicly. All but Dunham are Academy members, and if they felt the need to voice their concerns, they could have done so in private communication to the Academy’s president. Their opinions are certainly valid. But people have varying barometers of what is and isn’t offensive. Curtis starred in True Lies, which faced charges of misogyny and furthering stereotypes of Arabs as terrorists. Dunham has been accused (absurdly) of racism and nepotism. They’re bothered by MacFarlane’s jokes? Fair enough. But I’m bothered that fellow artists who have been in his position can’t muster a little empathy. They don’t have to like what he did, but they don’t have to attack him in public for it.

I was happy to see some writers come to his defense, and female writers at that, like Victoria A. Brownworth in The Advocate (though I think she might go a bit far in the other direction when she describes the ceremony as “a veritable paean to women.”) Even better was this letter to The Hollywood Reporter from an anonymous female development executive, who discusses some of the ways that sexism is rampant in Hollywood, and says that the problem needs to be addressed in more fundamental ways than tearing apart Seth MacFarlane for doing what a comedian does. A similar argument about women in Hollywood was made by Katherine Lampher in The Christian Science Monitor, though she is less forgiving of the host.

MacFarlane is not a traditional stand-up comic or performer by trade. He has hosted Comedy Central roasts and private ceremonies like the Writer’s Guild Awards, but the global exposure of the Oscar stage is new to him. Still, the Academy leadership and the show’s producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron were willing to take a chance on him, and he took the chance too. Not only did he take it, but he jumped into the deep end. According to Zadan and Meron, MacFarlane was much more involved in all aspects of planning than most hosts. He attended every production meeting along the way, and threw himself into the process. Even at the show itself, he put himself out there more than the typical host just in the sheer amount of the proceedings that he participated in. I don’t remember another host being onstage as much as MacFarlane was. He introduced almost every presenter himself, a task that is usually more evenly split between the host and the anonymous, disembodied announcer. He also was there to throw to each commercial break with a tease of what was coming up. The guy was working it. Many critics described him as coming off smug, amateurish and self-involved. I disagree completely. I think he was comfortable, confident, and fulfilled a host’s duties admirably. He was enjoying himself, and wasn’t afraid to show it. Not every joke landed, but he was quick on his feet when something fell flat. After the off-color joke describing John Wilkes Booth as the actor who “really got inside Lincoln’s head” did little to impress the crowd, he swiftly recovered by expressing surprise that 150 years was still too soon, and that he had some Napoleon jokes coming up that would really make them mad. When his joke about the heavy use of the N word in the Django Unchained script being based on Mel Gibson’s voicemails elicited an uncomfortable reaction, he went with it by asking, “Oh, so you’re on his side?”

Critics were too busy sharpening their knives to notice many of his safer but still funny lines throughout the night, like introducing presenters Zoe Saldana and Chris Pine as “current Star Trek stars and future Priceline.com spokespeople,” or bringing out Daniel Radcliffe and Kristen Stewart with the line, “He’s a boy wizard and she’s a girl vampire. So together they’re pretty much everything the Christian right says is wrong with Hollywood.” He took aim at the Academy’s general failure to nominate blockbusters by describing The Avengers as “the most popular movie of the year, which is why it’s only nominated once.” And he had a great line about the cast of Prometheus coming out to explain “what the hell was going on there.” His bit about Daniel Day-Lewis’ immersive method being challenged by encountering signs of modernity like cell phones and a free-roaming Don Cheadle was terrific. And he got off to a great start with his opening line of the night, “The quest to make Tommy Lee Jones laugh beings now,” a reference to Jones’ stone-faced reaction to a hilarious Will Ferrell-Kristin Wiig bit at the Golden Globes. MacFarlane succeeded, as the side-by-side shows.

The fact is that much more of MacFarlane’s material worked than didn’t. Sure, there were some groans and a few examples of muted applause, but by and large the audience was with him. These critics who ripped his performance should try listening to the room. Perhaps the noises at their Oscar party, or the sound of indignation boiling in their own heads drowned out the consistent laughter of the crowd that followed most of his jokes. The same thing was true of Letterman’s hosting gig. People still talk about it as a failure, but if they actually go back and watch, they’ll find that Letterman was a hit with the audience. Hosting the Oscars is always described as a thankless job, and the reaction to MacFarlane’s performance goes a long way toward proving it. People complain when they think the host is too bland or safe, and they complain when the host pushes buttons and dares to slightly shake up an event which they describe, year after year, as dull and bloated. Make up your minds, assholes. Or better yet, shut up altogether. The Academy’s risk in hiring MacFarlane paid off with a show that accomplished two positive things: it got people talking, and scored the best ratings in four years, with a significant gain in the 18-49 demographic that is probably due, at least in some part, to MacFarlane. I’m happy to see they have defended him in the face of the negative onslaught.

For those who disliked MacFarlane’s performance and might see some victory in his post-ceremony tweet that he would never host the show again, they should know that he said the same thing before the show even happened, citing the amount of work and the time commitment. I hope that when it comes time to choose the next host later this year, the Academy leadership and show producers – whoever they may be – don’t play it safe as a reaction to this backlash, and instead once again choose someone interesting but still appropriate (i.e., a comedian). Last year, right after the Academy’s new president Hawk Koch was elected, there were rumors that he had reached out to Lorne Michaels to produce the show and Jimmy Fallon to host. ABC supposedly didn’t like the idea of Fallon, time-slot rival to their own Jimmy Kimmel, hosting a big program on their network, so it didn’t pan out. Or so the story goes. But Michaels and Fallon…now that’s an Oscar combo I’d love to see. As for Tina Fey’s insistence that she would never host? That’s kinda like what J.J. Abrams said about directing Star Wars. I’m sure she could be convinced.

THE AWARDS
Now with all of that out of the way, we can get to what the show is actually about. This year, the wealth was nicely spread around, with eight of the nine Best Picture nominees winning at least one award. Only Beasts of the Southern Wild went home empty-handed, but let’s be honest: for such an outside-the-mainstream, low-budget film from a 30 year-old first time director, just being at the Academy Awards with four major nominations was a huge victory. Life of Pi led the night with four awards, Argo and Les Misérables took home three, Lincoln and Django Unchained each won two, while Silver Linings Playbook, Amour and Zero Dark Thirty all claimed one. Non-Best Picture nominees Skyfall, Anna Karenina and Brave also emerged as winners.

-For my own part, out of 24 categories, I called 19 correctly, missed three (Supporting Actor, Makeup and Hairstyling, Production Design) and abstained from two (Live Action Short, Documentary Short). Better than I thought I would do in this unusually unpredictable year. Many of my personal picks missed out, but I was largely satisfied with the slate of nominations this year, so I felt good about how things unfolded. There were no travesties of Oscar justice or unexplainable headscratchers.

-Chief among the new records set and pieces of trivia inscribed was Daniel Day-Lewis becoming the first person to win three Best Actor awards. He also became the first actor to win for a Steven Spielberg movie. Argo became the fourth movie to win Best Picture without its director being nominated. At age 22, Jennifer Lawrence became the second youngest Best Actress winner ever, behind Marlee Matlin, who was 21 when she won for Children of a Lesser God. “Skyfall” became the first song from a James Bond movie to win, and George Clooney joined some elite clubs this year, as the person to receive nominations in more categories than anyone else, and only the sixth person to win in both acting and non-acting categories.

-Of all the awards, the one that surprised me most was Christoph Waltz’s Best Supporting Actor win for Django Unchained. Not because I didn’t see it coming at all (I predicted De Niro, but acknowledged that Waltz and Tommy Lee Jones both had a strong chance), but because it just seems strange that Waltz is now a two-time Oscar winner. He’s great, and I’ve enjoyed not just his winning performances, but those he gave in between in Carnage and Water for Elephants, but a two-time Oscar winner? After less than five years in Hollywood? It’s a neat, but slightly bewildering accomplishment, especially considering that his characters in Inglourious Basterds and Django aren’t that far apart. He joins an impressive roster of two-timers that includes Spencer Tracy, Bette Davis, Marlon Brando, Jack Lemmon, Elizabeth Taylor, Michael Caine, Jane Fonda, Gene Hackman, Jodie Foster, Anthony Quinn, Maggie Smith, Denzel Washington and Jessica Lange. Waltz’s win is a testament to how much voters obviously enjoyed his performance, and how expert he is at delivering Tarantino’s dialogue. It really is a match made in heaven with those two.

-The other big surprise of the night, though less high-profile, was the tie in the Best Sound Editing category. It was only the sixth tie in Academy history, and lent some unexpected drama to a category that doesn’t get its due from the average movie or Oscar viewer.

-The Best Animated Film win for Brave was a nice triumph for Brenda Chapman, who conceived the film based on personal experience and was Pixar’s first female director until she was replaced during production by Mark Andrews. It was a shocking development at the time, with almost no details given, though ultimately Chapman shared directing credit on the film with Andrews. Now she’s an Oscar winner, and whatever tension might exist between them, you would never know from the way they interacted on stage or in the press room, where they posed for some goofy pictures. (One thing, though: if I were Andrews, I’d probably have hung back so Chapman could speak first.)

-One of the other big stories that has emerged from Oscar night, though less visibly to the average viewer than the MacFarlane brouhaha, centers on the Best Visual Effects triumph for Life of Pi. As I had mentioned in my predictions post, this widely expected win occurred under a storm cloud: Rhythm & Hues, the primary visual effects house that worked on the movie, has been in financial trouble recently and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy a few weeks ago. When the quartet of winners took the stage, speaker Bill Westenhofer thanked Ang Lee, the talented crew and his family before bringing up the sad irony of winning the Oscar as the company – and the entire VFX industry – is in such dire straits.

As a former employee of a VFX company, with many friends still there, I hear about these issues often. In simplest terms, studios want to pay as little as possible for visual effects (and for everything else, no doubt). In order to secure business, facilities have to bid the work at numbers far below the actual cost. Compounding the problem, other countries offer tax incentives and cheaper labor to the studios in order to lure business (within the U.S., other states outside of California, where the industry was born and raised, also have tax incentives). The result is that VFX artists increasingly live migrant lifestyles, bouncing around from shop to shop, state to state, sometimes country to country in order to make a living, and even then they still have to put in impossible hours to complete the work on time as studios demand increasingly complex visuals at lower and lower prices on shorter and shorter delivery schedules.  The piece of the pie these companies and artists receive is small to nonexistent, and they are not represented by a union. Despite the fact that year after year, the highest grossing movies are driven by visual effects, the industry is being destroyed by the studios which are unsurprisingly fixated on their bottom line. Rhythm & Hues is just the latest company to go under, and everyone in the industry is feeling the squeeze. VFX artists organized a protest near the Dolby Theater on Oscar night to call attention to the problem, and newly minted Oscar winner Westenhofer tried to address the issue…until the orchestra started playing the Jaws theme to send him on his way, an obnoxious though not atypical move at the Oscars year after year. Then they cut his microphone altogether – more obnoxious, less typical.

When the winners arrived on stage, there was unusually loud applause and hooting from the audience. Maybe there were just a lot of Pi fans out there, or maybe people were happy to see this team win in the face of R&H’s financial difficulties. Either way, Westenhofer hadn’t been talking that long before the music started to play, and cutting off the microphone was a real bullshit move. I’ve said time and time again that whether it makes compelling TV or not, winners should be allowed to complete their speeches. Most are considerate enough not to drone on endlessly. Oscar night is first and foremost about the film community honoring its own, and so the honorees should be accorded the respect of having their moment.

All that said, the VFX community reacted harshly not just to Westenhofer’s treatment, but to two other speeches of the night, complaining that Ang Lee and Best Cinematography winner Claudio Miranda didn’t thank or acknowledge the work of the VFX artists. I’m less sympathetic to these rebukes. First of all, most people who take the stage to accept an Oscar are not used to being in that kind of spotlight. By all accounts, it’s an extremely surreal and disorienting experience. Even a pro like Jennifer Lawrence was quickly at a loss for words, and forgot to thank her director David O. Russell and the all-powerful Harvey Weinstein. When Hilary Swank won her first Best Actress award, she famously forgot to thank her husband. People are not always at their most eloquent or most focused in that moment. If you saw Miranda’s speech, the guy could barely speak coherently, and acknowledged as much. I’m not about to accuse him of slighting the VFX teams. As for Lee, he began his speech by thanking the 3,000 people who worked with him on Life of Pi. No, he didn’t call out Rhythm & Hues specifically, which would have been nice given what’s happening to them. But I don’t believe that not mentioning them was disrespectful or meant to neglect their invaluable work. I’m sure every contributor to the movie could make an argument for why their discipline should be mentioned. The problems in the effects industry are bad, but they are not singular. Plenty of other sectors of the economy, in and out of the film industry, face problems comparable to those the VFX industry is caught in. Members of the VFX community  should be upset about what’s happening, but they should also focus on the real problem and not lash out at people who didn’t thank them in an award speech. The industry could absolutely benefit from even just a couple of powerful, respected directors taking up the cause with the studios – a James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg, David Fincher or Tim Burton – somebody who understands the importance of VFX, uses them consistently and has made the studios a lot of money. But the difference is not going to be made by a quick mention in an Oscar speech, and VFX artists would do better to direct their ire elsewhere and cut these guys some slack.

-Not all the drama on Oscar night happened on stage. I liked this story, about a producer of Best Animated Short winner Paperman being temporarily ejected from the auditorium for throwing a few paper airplanes from her seat when the movie won.

-Poor Anne Hathaway. Some people really just don’t like that girl. I’m not one of them, and although I have described her before as sometimes coming off as over-the-top in her eagerness and enthusiasm, I usually find her to be a class act with a good sense of humor. She has been ridiculed by people throughout the season for some of her speeches (she’s given a lot of them), which have been called insincere and rehearsed. Rehearsed? She’s admitted to practicing her speeches, but how is that any different from writing a speech or a list of names and reading from it? It’s just a different way of being prepared in case you win. I think what people have called a lack of sincerity is actually an abundance of it; she’s so sincere that it bugs people. Throughout the awards season I’ve found her speeches to be gracious, warm and genuine. She’s consistently and eloquently acknowledged her co-nominees, her cast and crew, and she has impressively avoided breaking down in a fit of tears, which…c’mon, Hathaway totally seems like the type who might lose it when winning an award, especially an Oscar. But she hasn’t and she didn’t. So don’t let the haters harsh your buzz, Anne. (I will say though, I wish you had cracked a joke about being back on the Oscar stage for the first time since your maligned hosting gig. And it would have been funny if you thanked Susan Boyle. And it would have been cool for you to mention that your mother played Fantine years ago in a traveling production of Les Misérables, making your win for playing the same character even more special. Cause that does make it more special, right? Or have I crossed an inappropriate line from telling winners what they should say to telling them what they should feel as well?

-The best speeches of the night came toward the end of the show. I still think Lincoln writer Tony Kushner should have taken home the Best Adapted Screenplay award, but I really liked what Argo winner Chris Terrio said about using intelligence and creativity to solve problems nonviolently.

I also liked Quentin Tarantino’s speech, calling out the actors who bring his characters to such memorable life, as well as all the other nominated writers for doing such great work.

Daniel Day-Lewis, always great with a speech, was no different last night, and once again had the crowd rolling as he described how he and presenter Meryl Streep had swapped roles, Abraham Lincoln for Margaret Thatcher. I kept hearing comments from people who were surprised by his humor, but in my previous post I provided links to other speeches Day-Lewis has given throughout the season, all of which have shown him to be as funny as he is humble and appreciative. How great would it be to see Day-Lewis in an intelligent, highbrow comedy? Somebody needs to get him in a room with Alexander Payne!

Best Actress winner Jennifer Lawrence took a spill on the way to the stage to accept her award, but superstar that she is, she humorously and gracefully brushed it off and went on to deliver an appreciative speech, despite her spinning head causing her to forget a few key people (which she rectified later).

And when Ben Affleck got to make his speech for Argo‘s Best Picture win, he once again spoke from the heart, echoing his BAFTA speech by thanking the people who have helped him rebuild his career. It’s a shame that Affleck missed out on the Directing nomination, because he almost certainly would have won had he been there. But given the way his career is going, he may get another chance before too long.

THE PRODUCTION
The show may have been long and overstuffed this year, but the stuffing was at least well-made, and attractively presented. The sets were beautiful, and I especially liked the background that looked like hundreds of slender stalks of light. It was like an electronic-age update of the set for The Police video “Wrapped Around Your Finger.” I half expected to see Sting frolicking in between the rows of light.

(Click Image to Enlarge)

-Once again, the show was directed by Don Mischer, and once again he proved he sucks at this. To his credit, he did better than the last two years when it came to showcasing celebrities in the crowd, but he still failed to spread the wealth around and provide a sense of the famous faces in the room. There was a point in the show when MacFarlane acknowledged the show’s producers Zadan and Meron, and then director Mischer, calling the latter “masterful.” At that moment, the master cut away to his favorite thing: a wide shot of the middle of the auditorium, with no recognizable faces. Later, when MacFarlane said, “How great was Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty?” Mischer again cut to middle of the crowd, where we caught a glimpse of Renee Zellweger and Queen Latifah, but not Jessica Chastain nor anyone we recognized as connected to Zero Dark Thirty.  When Reese Witherspoon was onstage introducing the first three Best Picture nominees, the camera cut to the contingent for the first two, Les Misérables and Life of Pi. But for some reason, despite knowing where all the nominees would be seated, the cutaway that should have showed the Beasts of the Southern Wild camp instead found Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro. It would have been nice to have one shot all night of Beasts director Benh Zeitlin, to show the new kid on the block reacting to his first Oscar experience. But the only time Zeitlin was on camera was during the few seconds when the envelope for the Best Director award was opened. All the directors were on camera at the moment, except for David O. Russell, who was for some reason replaced with Emmanuelle Riva. It’s not like Mischer didn’t know where to send his cameramen to get the right person in the shot, but nevertheless he failed to do so. Throughout the night, he missed obvious opportunities to cut to certain audience members when they were being mentioned from the stage. Some of those mentions were spontaneous, and maybe a cameraman couldn’t get there in time, but others were during planned portions of the show, like the aforementioned Best Picture intros. He couldn’t have cut to the Lincoln or Zero Dark Thirty crews when their movies were discussed? This is the third year in a row that Mischer has directed the show, and the third year in a row that the show has been incompetently directed. When are they gonna dump this guy? I’m sure he’s nice and all, but maybe it’s time he hung up his headset.

-Speaking of those Best Picture montages, kudos to whoever put them together. They were nicely assembled, providing a good sense of each movie and not just looking like excerpts from the trailers.

-The majority of The Avengers cast – Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner and Samuel L. Jackson – took the stage to present awards for Best Cinematography and Best Visual Effects. After cinematographer Claudio Miranda had finished his speech and left the stage, the presenters returned to the mic and, as you saw in the clip above, Jackson started to announce the Visual Effects nominees before Renner and Ruffalo interrupted him and told him he had just skipped a bunch of text. Downey started to chime in with some words about it being a big year for effects-driven films, but Jackson comically argued that they should honor the artists by simply presenting the award. It was an awkward bit of business, since it wasn’t clear if Jackson really had skipped a chunk of the presentation, or if the jokey bickering was in fact planned and there was no skipped material after all. I still don’t know the answer, but if it was the former, then the visual effects community was slighted again…and this time it would be worth getting pissed.

-The James Bond tribute was a bit of a disappointment. The producers said in an interview before the show that the intent was always to focus on the music of Bond, in keeping with the theme of the night, and that there was never a plan for the six actors who’ve played 007 to unite onstage. There were still rumors that there had indeed been an attempt to bring the Bonds together, but that Sean Connery and perhaps Pierce Brosnan were holdouts, killing the whole deal. Regardless, even as just a tribute to the music of Bond, the presentation was lacking. After a nice intro by Oscar winner and Die Another Day Bond girl Halle Berry, we were treated to a run-of-the-mill montage accompanied by the James Bond Theme, and then an instrumental of “Live and Let Die.” Not even the actual song with lyrics, but just an instrumental. I did enjoy the way that dovetailed right into the arrival of Shirley Bassey, looking great at 76, who belted out an impressive rendition of “Goldfinger.” I applaud Meron and Zadan for getting Bassey onto the show, but the rest of the tribute was sub par. Why was “Live and Let Die” the only song featured, and why was it not even the actual song? Where was “For Your Eyes Only” or “Nobody Does It Better”? Could they not have gotten at least one or two more singers to come on the show and perform their songs, at least partial versions, if they were concerned about time? Why not fold Adele’s performance of “Skyfall” into this segment, with more Bond clips projected behind her? (And when she did perform later in the show, why was she set so far back instead of out closer to the audience? Bad staging, that.) The tribute was a nice idea, but it should have been better.

-Did anyone notice that as Seth MacFarlane began to acknowledge the orchestra, the music swelled so loud that he could barely be heard, then sharply pulled back before rising again almost loud enough to drown him out as he continued his salute to their contribution? No? Nobody? Well…it made me laugh.

-The tribute to recent movie musicals was another mixed bag. It was strange to begin with that only three movies were featured, especially when one  – Chicago – was executive produced by Meron and Zadan, and another – Les Misérables – was a nominee for Best Picture, giving it more attention than any of the competition. Why focus on recent musicals only? Maybe because the Oscars featured a big tribute to movie musicals just a few years ago, when Hugh Jackman hosted? Okay, so they wanted to spotlight musicals of the last decade, rather than the decades worth featured in that big number from the 2008 show. Even then, why just Chicago, Dreamgirls and Les Misérables? There were plenty of other movie musicals to showcase. How about Sweeney Todd, Nine and Moulin Rouge? The Producers, Hairspray and The Muppets? Even Team America and A Prairie Home Companion could qualify as musicals. But these movies were all ignored.

As it was, the tribute began with Catherine Zeta-Jones performing “All That Jazz”, but it seemed a bit pointless since the whole number was staged exactly as it was in the movie. Why not try to bring something new to it, at least? (I also read some comments online that Jones was clearly lip-synching, but if it was true, I didn’t notice.) She was followed by Jennifer Hudson belting out “And I Am Telling You”, her signature number from Dreamgirls. The power of her vocals brought the crowd to their feet, but I’m not crazy about the song, which lacks a compelling melody and just seems designed for an impressive voice to screech and roar. The best number of the tribute was easily the Les Misérables medley. I was concerned this would flop, as medleys always run the risk of being corny. But it turned out to be excellent. It started off with a solo Hugh Jackman performing the nominated song “Suddenly”, then nearly all of the film’s main cast joined in bit by bit for the soaring number “One Day More”, with a dash of “I Dreamed a Dream” for good measure. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen’s presence seemed to be for inclusion’s sake only, since neither got to solo or even duet, and they aren’t actually part of “One Day More” in the film. Still, the whole performance was stellar (even Russell Crowe, whose singing in the film has earned more derision than it deserves) and was the highlight of the segment.

-One of the coolest things the Academy did this year was hold a contest for film students asking them to make a 30 second video explaining what they would contribute to the future of movies. Six winners were selected and invited to the Oscars to help hand out the statues, in lieu of the nameless spokesmodel types that usually do the honors, and Academy president Hawk Koch even introduced them all by name. I could have done without that part; no offense to them, but that time would be better spent letting a winner complete their speech. But the contest and opportunity is a great idea, and I hope the Academy makes it a new tradition. The winning videos can be seen here. (I like the second and third.)

-Why do people keep asking Kristen Stewart to present awards? She’s terrible at it. Whatever charisma or talent she brings to her performances, she brings none of it to her real life public appearances. She mumbles, she fidgets, she looks down, over and around…if it’s an effort to court younger fans, there are plenty of others who can accomplish that.

-Why does Kristen Stewart keep agreeing to present awards? She has often admitted that she’s uncomfortable and awkward in the spotlight, which is fully apparent from the way she mumbles, fidgets and looks down, over and around as if she can’t wait to get off the stage. Maybe she looked so sullen because of her fresh Razzie win for the final Twilight movie. Nah…she always looks that sullen.

-Although the emphasis on Chicago was a sort of ego-stroking gesture on the part of Meron and Zadan, it was nice to see Richard Gere, Renee Zellweger, Queen Latifah and Catherine Zeta-Jones present together. Where has Zellweger been these last few years? And where was John C. Reilly? I hope his absence was due to unavailability, because if they failed to invite him, that would be an egregious oversight…not to mention an ironic one for the guy who sang “Mr. Cellophane.”

-It seemed a little odd and unfair that only three of the five Best Original Song nominees were performed live on the show. After Hugh Jackman sang as part of the Les Misérables medley and Adele got a big moment to sing “Skyfall”, Norah Jones was trotted out in the middle of the Best Song presentation to perform “Everybody Needs a Best Friend” from Ted. It’s not a long song to begin with, but even so it was a truncated version. And did Jones even have time to exit the stage before the envelope was opened declaring a different song the winner? (Not that Jones would have taken the Oscar had the song won, as she didn’t write it, but still…kinda makes her performance, which already felt like an afterthought, seem all the more pointless.) Then there are the other two nominees, which were only featured as clips. “Before My Time” from Chasing Ice was performed in the film by Scarlett Johansson, who wasn’t at the Oscars due to her schedule on Broadway, but they could have found somebody else to perform the song. And “Pi’s Lullaby”, performed by Bombay Jayashree, would have lended itself to a nice visual presentation if the producers had worked it into the show. Maybe there was a reason they didn’t…but like I said, it seemed odd.

-Only two things were less surprising than wins by Daniel Day-Lewis and Anne Hathaway: Iran complaining about Argo‘s Best Picture win, and idiots complaining about Michelle Obama. Yes, when Jack Nicholson came out to present Best Picture, he introduced a surprise co-presenter. The First Lady appeared onscreen via satellite from The White House (awkwardly flanked by a number of military personnel in what looked like the most uncomfortable reception ever). The First Lady, of course, was all class and elegance as she talked about the importance of movies and then opened the envelope to reveal Argo as the winner. The idea to have Mrs. Obama on the show came from Harvey Weinstein’s daughter, and Weinstein helped make it happen. I suppose this year was a fitting one for something like that, with a number of Best Picture nominees being so politically relevant (Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, Lincoln, even Beasts of the Southern Wild and Les Misérables), but really it was just intended as an unexpected treat. Of course, not everyone saw it that way. Blowhards who feel the need to politicize everything expressed their disgust at the First Lady’s appearance. I love reading through some of the comments mentioned in this article, because it demonstrates what imbeciles these people are. I expected them all to be conservatives, but I stand corrected: one of the quoted douchebags is MSNBC commentator Donny Deutsch, whose remarks include calling Mrs. Obama “uninvited.” Yeah, that’s right, dipshit. She just took over the satellite feed and inserted herself into the Oscars. Do you know what “invited” means? You should look it up, and then use it properly, because you can’t possibly be stupid enough to think that she crashed the Oscars. Then there’s conservative Jennifer Rubin’s comment about Mrs. Obama “intruding” and feeling “entitled.” Hey moron, it’s not intruding when you’re asked to be there, nor are you being entitled when you accept an invitation. And to the Fox News fuckwad, Todd Starnes, how did Mrs. Obama “make it about herself?” She was asked to be there, and she talked about movies – same as any other presenter. Surely the conservative critics would have had complete respect for the Oscars had Michelle Obama not appeared, because, you know, conservatives love Hollywood. And as the article above points out, other First Ladies and even Presidents, including Laura Bush and Ronald Reagan, have been involved in past Oscar ceremonies, either in pre-taped appearances or in the case of FDR, a live radio address in 1941. So get over it. I’m only interested in one narrow-minded, politicized Oscar critique, and that’s Stephen Colbert’s.

Anyway, my only issue with Mrs. Obama’s presentation was her overly worshipful talk about the impact of movies. Not her fault; I’m sure it was written for her, and that sort of inflated praise is a hallmark of Oscar night. The Academy loves to give presenters long paragraphs about the power of movies. I love movies like I love little else, but even I tend to roll my eyes at this. Other than that, I thought the First Lady’s involvement was pretty cool. And I’m glad to see she’s brushing off the criticism without a second thought.

THE DRESSES
While critics were busy tearing up Seth MacFarlane for demeaning women, others in the media engaged in the time honored tradition of passing judgement on dresses and gowns, and by extension, the ladies wearing them. Well who am I to question this practice? I appreciate a nice Oscar dress and the person inside it as much as anyone, and among those whose Oscar night looks jumped out for me were Halle Berry, Jennifer Aniston, Kerry Washington, Jennifer Lawrence, Sandra Bullock, Samantha Barks, Charlize Theron, Jennifer Garner, Helen Hunt, Naomi Watts and Jessica Chastain.

X

Ladies, kudos to your good taste and your designers’ skills. And you’re all damn fine actresses to boot.

THE INDEPENDENT SPIRIT AWARDS
As always, Oscar Sunday was preceded by the breezier, more casual Saturday celebration at the beach in Santa Monica known as the Independent Spirit Awards. I like to take a detour and mention these, since they can sometimes be forgotten in the shadow of the golden guy. Silver Linings Playbook was the big winner, with awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress and Best Screenplay. John Hawkes and Helen Hunt won Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress, respectively, for their roles in The Sessions, while Best Supporting Actor went to Matthew McConaughey for Magic Mike.

The Spirit Awards are typically a loose and irreverent affair, and there are usually some great moments to emerge, whether courtesy of hosts, winners or presenters. The highlight this year came with the first award, Best First Screenplay, which was awarded to Derek Connolly for Safety Not Guaranteed. Although he seemed a little shell-shocked when he took the stage, he spoke logically and coherently. Well apparently he was totally plastered and just kept going on and on. I don’t know what happened in the room, but the TV broadcast, which was an edited version of the show and aired later in the day, jumped ahead five minutes to an amusing effort by Bryan Cranston to help presenter Kerry Washington get Connolly off the stage. The blitzed winner seemed oblivious to their intent, but finally allowed himself, with a bemused grin, to be led offstage.

The clip below covers the first fifteen minutes of the show, which includes a great opening monologue by host Andy Samberg, and the announcement of Connolly’s category. It ends as his name is called, and you can click here for the next segment, to see the bizarre moment that transpired when he got onstage. Those who felt the Oscars were too heavy on jokes about women and decried the lack of dick humor would do well to watch Samberg’s opening.

And with that, the 2012 awards season finally comes to a close…unless you’re holding out for the MTV Movie Awards in April (nominations were just announced…and surprisingly, given their track record of late, it’s a solidly non-embarrassing line-up). It’s been one of the more unusual years on the awards circuit that I can remember, with the kind of excitement, tension and twists worthy of the movies themselves. I’m sure next year will go back to business as usual, with a bunch of frontrunners on an inevitable march to victory. But here’s hoping for some similar excitement.

X

February 22, 2013

Oscars 2012: My Annual Absurdly Long Predictions Opus

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 8:40 pm
Tags: , , , ,

On Sunday evening, the envelopes will be opened and one of the most unpredictable Oscar seasons in recent memory will come to a close. I can’t recall a year where so few categories had clear frontrunners…though I have a feeling that if I were to go back through the corresponding posts for years past, I would find that I made similar proclamations. But this time it’s really true. Really!

BEST PICTURE
Nine nominees grace the field this year, and right off the bat I’m eliminating Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and Django Unchained as movies that never had a prayer; the nominations were the prize. Next I’m scratching off Les Misérables and Zero Dark Thirty, which coulda been contenders had they proven less divisive. That leaves Silver Linings Playbook, Life of Pi, Lincoln and Argo. And really, it’s the latter two that are seen as the last pics standing. Life of Pi is more admired than it is loved (though oddly, will probably end the night with the most awards), and Silver Linings Playbook, as much as people adore it, will probably be considered too lightweight for the top prize. (I disagree, but to date the Academy has not consented to my repeated, unfounded requests for membership, so my opinion means jack.)

When Ben Affleck was overlooked for a Best Director nomination, Argo‘s chances seemed dead. But the night of the nominations, the movie took Best Picture and Best Director at the Broadcast Film Critics Awards. That weekend, it repeated those wins at the Golden Globes (in the Drama category for Best Picture). It looked as though Argo was only mostly dead…which as we all know courtesy of Miracle Max, means slightly alive. Argo soon went on to win Best Picture from the Producer’s Guild of America, and has basically been unstoppable ever since, with the Best Cast in a Motion Picture prize from the Screen Actor’s Guild being the strongest indication of the industry’s wide support. That award goes one of two ways: either it really is a celebration of the actors, or it’s a celebration of the movie itself. Argo‘s win fell into the latter group. Not to take anything away from its excellent ensemble, but when put up against the casts of Silver Linings Playbook, Lincoln and Les Misérables it’s not the most deserving. A vote for the cast of Argo was a vote for the movie, and solidified its standing as Hollywood’s favorite of the year. If Silver Linings or Lincoln really had a shot at Best Picture, the SAG award would have been the clue. As it is, Argo is likely to overcome the handicap of Affleck’s absence from the Best Director race to take home the night’s top award…which will make it only the fourth movie ever to do so.

Personal: Lincoln. I’m happy for Argo‘s success and have no problem with it winning, but as I posted earlier this week, Lincoln was tops of the year in my eyes, followed closely by Silver Linings Playbook.


X
By the way, that Oscar poster at the top is just one piece of a larger, incredibly cool design by artist Olly Moss, who tweaked each statuette to represent that year’s Best Picture winner. To see the whole thing, click here and then enlarge to see the details. Click here to see them even larger, along with the name of each movie. The poster was done in partnership between the Academy and the awesome, pop culture-centric Gallery1988. In addition to Moss’ official poster for this year’s Oscars, the Academy also commissioned a series of posters for each Best Picture nominee. Check those out here.

And now, back to the show…

BEST DIRECTOR
Argo‘s march to the top prize leaves the Best Director category in a rare, unsettled state. Two things usually hold true: the movie that wins Best Picture also wins Best Director, and the winner of the Director’s Guild of America award takes home the directing Oscar as well. This year, Ben Affleck took the DGA honor, meaning an automatic divergence between the DGA and the Academy. Since Argo‘s momentum for Best Picture practically guarantees a Picture/Director split, where does that leave us?

Benh Zeitlin, the young filmmaker behind Beasts of the Southern Wild, was the category’s surprise nominee, and he’ll have to settle for that. Despite admiration for Amour, I think Michael Haneke is unlikely to triumph here. So we’re down to Steven Spielberg for Lincoln, Ang Lee for Life of Pi and David O. Russell for Silver Linings Playbook.  When people watch Lincoln, do they think of it as a director’s movie? The writing and the performances are what stand out, and Spielberg himself has stated that the movie features his quietest direction ever. Not that such a thing makes it unworthy, but voters might not see the movie as a director’s showcase. Life of Pi, on the other hand, is a more obvious achievement in direction. Lee had a book that was considered impossible to bring to the screen; his star was an inexperienced young actor; his second main character was a CGI tiger; the bulk of the movie was shot in a tank, leaving much to be created outside of the practical shoot; and he was filming in 3D. Dude sure didn’t make it easy on himself. Working against his chances, Pi has felt like a somewhat lifeless contender all season. Even with 11 nominations, second only to Lincoln, it doesn’t seem to have generated much conversation. Does Lee have the momentum to go the distance?

That leaves David O. Russell, clearly admired by his fellow directors, who also nominated him two years ago for The Fighter. Furthermore, the fact that Silver Linings scored the rare feat of landing a nominee in each of the four acting categories speaks to the admiration that actors, who make up the largest voting block within the Academy, have for Russell. The Fighter had three Oscar nominated performances, and garnered wins for Christian Bale and Melissa Leo (who beat co-star Amy Adams). He’s probably the guy right now, more than anyone else, that actors are dying to work with. Comedies don’t fare well with the Academy, which hinders Silver Linings’ chances for a Best Picture win. But for all those Argo supporters who can’t vote for Picture and Director in lockstep, here is an seldom-seen chance to honor a comedy (which is really more than a comedy, let’s be honest) and still feel, with the Picture vote, that they’re backing something more substantial. (A stupid argument, really, but Academy history bears out that they like to give Best Picture to movies they consider substantial.)

In the end, I think voters will go with Lee, but with no precedent this year and no nominee whose movie is way out in front, this prize is up for grabs. Interesting Trivia, Part I: If Lee wins, he will have the bizarre distinction of being the only person to experience both the DGA/Oscar split and the Picture/Director split….twice: he won for directing Brokeback Mountain even as Best Picture went to Crash, and he took home the DGA prize for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon but lost the Oscar to Traffic director Steven Soderbergh. Interesting Trivia, Part II: If Spielberg wins but Lincoln loses Best Picture, it will be the second time he’s won for directing a movie that doesn’t capture the top honor (the other being in 1998, when Saving Private Ryan fell to Shakespeare in Love).

Personal: David O. Russell. Silver Linings Playbook could have been an entertaining but average rom-com. It’s Russell’s personal investment in the material, intense directing style and ability to bring out exceptional work from his actors that elevates it to something more.


X
BEST ACTOR
Not every statuette is up for grabs. This one is all-but-engraved for Daniel Day-Lewis, who is poised to carve himself a little piece of Oscar history as the first person to win Best Actor three times. He has steamrolled the competition all season long, and charmed crowds with warm and funny speeches at the Brittania Awards, Golden Globes, SAG and British Academy of Film and Television Arts ceremonies. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if he gets voted Pope when the bishops emerge from their conclave in the months ahead.

His performance as Abraham Lincoln is absolutely deserving, but it disappoints me that his win is such a given, because in a more just Oscarsphere, he would be engaged in a tight race with Joaquin Phoenix, who is equally mesmerizing in The Master. Denzel Washington, Hugh Jackman and Bradley Cooper (whose nomination makes me really happy) are all truly excellent, but Day-Lewis and Phoenix are in another league with their performances. It’s a shame Phoenix hasn’t been given the momentum during awards season to make this the neck-and-neck race it should be. As you may have seen via the link above, Day-Lewis even acknowledged Phoenix’s work in his SAG acceptance speech, remarking on his talent and wishing he were there with the rest of the Best Actor nominees. (Phoenix was passed over by SAG; his Oscar nod replaces SAG nominee John Hawkes, from The Sessions.) Some might argue that Phoenix hurt his chances with those comments last year about his discomfort with the whole awards machine, but I don’t believe the remarks made any impression on the many critics organizations who bestow awards, and if more of them had honored Phoenix, he might have emerged as a threat to Day-Lewis. (And for what it’s worth, Phoenix has attended all the major ceremonies at which he’s been nominated, including the Golden Globes and BAFTA awards.) Alas, it wasn’t to be. Phoenix is riding the bench with Washington, Jackman and Cooper. In the end though, they can all take consolation in the fact that if you’re not going to win an Oscar, losing to Daniel Day-Lewis is the next highest honor.

Personal: I’d have to call it a tie.


X
BEST ACTRESS
Like the rest of the contingent for Beasts of the Southern Wild, 9 year-old Quvenzhané Wallis (once again, that’s pronounced Kwah-VENN-Jah-Nay) will have to be content with her nomination. Naomi Watts is moving in The Impossible, but this isn’t her year (though I have to say, it surprises me that this is only her second nomination, after 21 Grams in 2003. Seems like she should have more than that).

As far back as late November, this category was shaping up as a race between Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook and Jessica Chastain for Zero Dark Thirty, who started to generate buzz even before the movie had been widely seen within the industry. When you factor in the many regional critics awards, Lawrence and Chastain have virtually split the precursor field, with both earning key wins along the way – Chastain took prizes from the National Board of Review, the Broadcast Film Critics Association and the Golden Globe for Drama; Lawrence won the Los Angeles Film Critics award, the SAG award and the Golden Globe for Musical/Comedy. Silver Linings and Zero Dark Thirty have helped establish Lawrence and Chastain as two of the brightest, most exciting new talents in movies. A win for either will cement their status; at the same time, voters know that both actresses will undoubtedly be back here again….which could pave the way for Amour‘s Emmanuelle Riva, who has been gaining ground in recent weeks. Riva is the oldest Best Actress nominee ever, and will be celebrating her 86th birthday on Oscar night. She’s picked up a few awards along the way, most notably and recently the BAFTA award (she also tied with Lawrence at the Los Angeles Film Critics awards). The BAFTA win gives pause, as it has occasionally marked a turn of the tide away from a frontrunner toward a less expected winner. However the BAFTA award has also been known at times to favor European actresses, and Riva’s strong performance in Amour may have been boosted by that continental pride.

Chastain’s hopes seem to have faded of late, along with the general fortunes of Zero Dark Thirty, and it’s now Riva who poses the greatest threat to Lawrence. She definitely has major spoiler potential, and Chastain could still pull it off, but I think Jennifer Lawrence will take it. She has the most well-rounded part, and she totally kills it. She’s young, yes – only 22 (Chastain is 35, for what it’s worth) – but this is already her second Best Actress nomination, and the Academy loves an ingénue.

Personal: Jennifer Lawrence. It’s such a dynamic, movie star role, allowing her to be funny, strong, vulnerable, angry, sad…she gets to do more than any other actress in the category, and she does it all perfectly. Plus, she’s generally awesome. Have you seen this girl do interviews? She’s offbeat, down to earth, poised, funny, she speaks her mind…she’s kind of a breath of fresh air. And her speeches at the Golden Globes and SAG awards have nicely balanced playful wit and genuine gratitude. That stuff matters to voters. (Then again, her Saturday Night Live monologue, in which she jokingly mocked her competition, was seen by some voters who have no sense of humor as being in poor taste. She could lose a few votes for that. Oh, and if you don’t get the Tommy Lee Jones joke from that monologue, or if you want to know why everyone was laughing at Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig when they read the nominee names in that Golden Globes clip, you should watch this. It’s worth it.)


X
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
One of the widest open, toughest-to-call categories of the night. If we want to look for patterns and signs, recent history might favor Django Unchained‘s Christoph Waltz, since the last three winners of this award all have names beginning with “Chris” (Christopher Plummer, Christian Bale and Christoph himself, for Inglourious Basterds). Then again, I’d rather base my prediction on something more solid…not that there’s much terra firma to be found in this category. All five nominees are past winners, and a legitimate case for why they could (if not why they should) win can be made for all. Still, the weakest of those cases is for Alan Arkin, whose role in Argo is too brief, albeit quite enjoyable.

Of the precursor awards I’ve counted, The Master‘s Philip Seymour Hoffman has collected the most wins, though only one – from the BFCA – is among the major bellwethers. Tommy Lee Jones has done well too, with a key victory under his belt in the form of a SAG award. Waltz emerged as a surprise winner at both the Golden Globes and the BAFTA awards, giving him unexpected momentum. And then there’s Robert De Niro, doing his most acclaimed work in ages in Silver Linings Playbook. He hasn’t won any major awards so far, but he’s been out there championing the film and doing a lot of publicity…something else that voters apparently like to see.

Against each of them? The Master doesn’t seem to have enough traction with Academy members to land Hoffman a win. He’s widely admired, but the movie’s status as a critics’ darling accounts for his success on the precursor circuit. With Jones, some people just find him too damn ornery and don’t want to honor him, which is stupid reasoning, but it happens nonetheless. (Not that they’re necessarily wrong about him being too damn ornery; seriously, did you see his face in that Golden Globes clip linked above?). He’s undeniably entertaining in Lincoln, but will people see it as kind of playing himself? Waltz is a hoot in Django Unchained, but having won so recently, and for a role that is arguably quite similar to this one, are voters ready to make him a two-time winner? And De Niro may be great in Silver Linings, but does the performance stack up with the best work of his career? It’s great to see him on his game again, but the fact remains that the movie is, for now, an anomaly in an otherwise unimpressive slate of films and performances over the last several years. An Oscar win might seem like an overreaction to seeing him do strong work again.

Waltz or Jones are probably the safe bets, based on the awards they’ve already won, but I don’t get the sense that those wins are necessarily as telling in this race as they might normally be. Things really could go any way, and I’m guessing – with no evidence to support me – that voters may use this as something of a career achievement award for De Niro, who hasn’t won since Raging Bull in 1980 and hasn’t been nominated since Cape Fear in 1991. Many of the Academy’s younger members have never had a chance to cast a vote for him, and however disappointing his output has been over the last decade or so, they might want to personally honor one of the all-time greats. (Point of interest: if he does win, he’ll join presumed Best Actor winner Day-Lewis in the three-timers club; prior to Raging Bull, he took home Best Supporting Actor for The Godfather Part II.)

Personal: It really is a tough choice; all the performances are so damn good…though I say again that Arkin’s part is too small; he doesn’t really belong here. I’ll be happy to see any of the other four get it, but if pressed, I guess I would choose Hoffman. His character is a great counterpoint to Joaquin Phoenix’s, and just as provocative. Then again, De Niro…the nice thing about that role is that he gets to do a lot of different things. Funny De Niro, angry De Niro, emotional De Niro, loving De Niro…in some ways it’s a different kind of character for him.


X
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Anne Hathaway has this race pretty much in the bag. Like Daniel Day-Lewis, she has dominated the field up to this point, collecting awards from BAFTA, SAG, the BFCA, nearly every regional critics group, and taking the Golden Globe as well. Jacki Weaver’s surprise nomination speaks loudly of the actors’ branch support for Silver Linings Playbook, but while she’s essential to the movie’s success, it’s not enough of a standout role to win. Sally Field, another nominee going for her third Oscar, is a respected industry veteran whose fight to be cast in Lincoln has probably won her admirers, but the performance has received mixed reactions. With her fourth nomination, The Master‘s Amy Adams continues to be a favorite of Academy members, but she hasn’t yet found herself in that magical role that can take her all the way. As for Helen Hunt, The Sessions may not have been seen by enough people, and the performance probably isn’t deemed flashy enough for her to win. None of the nominees get the kind of for-the-record-books scene that Hathaway gets in Les Misérables, singing “I Dreamed a Dream” in one shattering, close-up take. She should face smooth sailing to a win, unless she’s capsized by a wave of sentiment for Sally Field. It’s not out of the question that Field could pull an upset, but it’s unlikely.

Personal: Helen Hunt. I’m taking nothing away from how good Hathaway is, but as powerful a showcase as she has with her solo, her time on-screen is too brief for me to say it deserves the win. I’d go with Hunt, who gave a low-key but deeply felt, moving performance as a sex surrogate in The Sessions. She’s so open-hearted, and beautifully details the character’s complicated feelings about her work with crippled poet Mark O’Brien. Given the size of the part and the role her character plays in the story, she should really be in the Best Actress category, but the studio likely thought she stood a better chance here.


X
That’s the end of the acting categories, and I would be remiss not to include these latest episodes of Between Two Ferns, featuring Zach Galifianakis interviewing nominated actors on the day of the Academy’s Nominees Luncheon earlier this month.


X

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
John Gatins’ script for Flight is a smart and compelling piece of work that goes in some unexpected directions, but it was on the fringe to begin with, so the nomination is the win. I’d like to think Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola stand a chance for Moonrise Kingdom, as this category sometimes favors smart, touching and idiosyncratic comedies, but there isn’t a lot of chatter about the movie, and the fact that this is its sole nomination doesn’t bode well.

That makes it a three-way race between Mark Boal for Zero Dark Thirty, Michael Haneke for Amour and Quentin Tarantino for Django Unchained. And like so many categories this year, it’s genuinely up in the air. Boal took the prize from the Writer’s Guild of America, but neither Django nor Amour were nominated, having been deemed ineligible. A win for Boal would be a nice gesture of support in the wake of all the controversy that has unfairly dogged Zero Dark Thirty, and by extension it would acknowledge Kathryn Bigelow, whose surprising omission from the Best Director category has been overshadowed by Ben Affleck’s absence and the Argo momentum. Plus, the tide started to shift back toward more positive buzz for the movie right as the voting period was about to open, with endorsements from Leon Panetta and a coalition of 9/11 families. On the other hand, Boal won this award for The Hurt Locker just a few years ago, and voters might not be so quick to anoint him a two-time winner. Tarantino, meanwhile, seems due for a second screenwriting Oscar to join the one he already has for Pulp Fiction. He was expected to win for Inglourious Basterds (a better script) in 2009, but lost to Boal. He took home this year’s Golden Globe and BAFTA awards, neither of which were widely expected to go his way, so those help his case. But is the movie too controversial to amass enough support? In addition to its frequent use of the N word – era-appropriate but still troubling to many – the movie is incredibly violent. Voters were first exposed to it right around the time of the Newtown shooting, and it’s hard not to think about that and the subsequent debate over gun control, violence in movies, etc. when watching some of the movie’s excessively bloody moments. I have no idea if that will matter to voters, but I can see it being a factor for some.

Finally, there’s Amour, the unflinching depiction of an elderly couple dealing with the wife’s slowly fading mental and physical faculties. The movie was certainly powerful, but frankly it could have worked as a 40 minute short instead of a 127 minute feature. And I just don’t see it as much of a screenwriting achievement. But maybe that’s just me. Clearly it was admired within the Academy, in order to break out beyond the Best Foreign Language Film category and earn nods for Picture, Director, Actress and Screenplay. True, those are all branch-specific nominations, except for Best Picture, where the entire Academy votes for nominees, so it’s possible that the support isn’t as broad as it seems. Then again, a vote for Amour does allow those who loved the film but don’t get to chime in for Best Foreign Language Film (you have to see all five nominees in order to vote in that race) to have their shot at honoring Haneke.

I just don’t know. The pundits are split here. Some are calling it for Amour, others for Django, and a few still think Zero Dark Thirty is in play (I do too). The arguments for and against each make sense. I really have no idea which way this will fall, but I’m timidly going with Django.

Personal: Moonrise Kingdom. The detail and intricacy of Zero Dark Thirty is impressive, but I’m more drawn to the imaginative than the procedural. As I’ve said many times, Wes Anderson is one the most original filmmakers working today, and Moonrise Kingdom hit so many beautiful notes.

X
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Once again, Beasts of the Southern Wild is first to go, although I’m sure it will collect its fair share of votes from those who admired its originality. David Magee’s script for Life of Pi provided the blueprint for making the unfilmable filmable, but the criticisms people have with the final product tend to focus on its structure and thematic content. The movie is ultimately seen as more an achievement of direction and technical artistry, even if it all began with finding a way to translate the novel to the screen.

As with the Original Screenplay category, three nominees look to have a reasonable shot: Chris Terrio for Argo, David O. Russell for Silver Linings Playbook and Tony Kushner for Lincoln. Silver Linings Playbook is clearly beloved by the Academy, and they are more likely to honor Russell here than in Best Director. His BAFTA win was probably that show’s biggest surprise, seeing as the movie was not nominated for Best Picture or Best Director. There is crossover membership between this Academy and the British Academy, so is Russell’s victory a sign?

Not necessarily. There’s also crossover between the Writer’s Guild and the Academy, and the WGA gave their award to Argo. I would have thought voters – especially a body of writers exclusively – would be hard-pressed to pass over Tony Kushner’s exquisite script for Lincoln, but their choice of Argo is yet another demonstration of the industry’s unwavering admiration for that movie. Chris Terrio’s sharp script has (and deserves) legions of admirers, absolutely, but I’ll be a little disappointed if it triumphs here, just as I was at its WGA win. I agree that it’s a terrific script, but Lincoln strikes me as the more challenging feat of adaptation, and the more impressive accomplishment. Faced with innumerable ways to approach a figure as dynamic as our 16th president, Kushner carved off a slice of Doris Kearns Goodwin’s massive book Team of Rivals and shaped it into a full course meal all its own. Not only does his script make the legislative process exciting and even funny, but the language alone is a feast for the ears. Plus, if Director goes to Ang Lee, this is really the best shot Lincoln has to win anything other than Best Actor. With a field-leading 12 nominations, it would be nice for Lincoln to take home more than one trophy. A vote for Argo here feels a bit like falling in line with the presumptive Best Picture favorite instead of analyzing the category individually and honoring the best example of adaptation and writing.

Still, I suspect that’s what will happen. Kushner and Russell are definitely in the running, but I think Chris Terrio will claim the prize for Argo.

Personal: At this point, it’s probably clear – Lincoln.


XBEST ANIMATED FEATUREAnother tough category to call. There tends to be an obvious front-runner in this race, but not this year. It doesn’t help that all the nominees are well-made, genuinely enjoyable and each deserving. That said, I think the most easily eliminatable (not a real word, I know) is The Pirates! Band of Misfits, though it’s a pretty funny movie that’s well worth a watch. ParaNorman and Frankenweenie (which would make a great double feature) would each be an absolutely worthy winner. Although ParaNoman has collected the most critics awards to date, I give Frankenweenie better odds due to the Tim Burton factor. I think there are a lot of people in the Academy who would love to see Burton win an Oscar. Actors adore him, and when you think of how much his movies rely on elaborate sets, costumes, makeup and visual effects, he surely has a lot of support from members of the below-the-line branches. Plus there’s a nice personal narrative to Frankenweenie, a successful expansion of one of Burton’s early short films which helped to launch his career. His live action movies of late have been less original and personal than his best work, but this labor of love was a reminder of Burton at his best.

Pixar’s Brave, while not as acclaimed as many of their other films, still managed to nab the Golden Globe and the BAFTA award, proving that the studio can never be discounted at awards time unless their movie centers around talking cars. Rounding out the competition is Wreck-It Ralph, which took the PGA award. Brave and Ralph are probably the ones duking it out for the win, and I’m giving Brave the edge due to wholly unfounded speculation that it will appeal to a wider array of voters than Wreck-It Ralph. But really, I have no idea who’s winning.

Personal: Honestly, I’d be happy with any of these; we really have an abundance of riches in this category. But I guess I’d be especially happy for ParaNorman or Frankenweenie…the former because it would be a nice boost to fledgling studio Laika, and the latter because I too would love to see Tim Burton win an Oscar. And hell, a Wreck-It Ralph win would also be nice, as Disney has yet to win this category for a homegrown movie.


X
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Robert Richardson did great work on Django Unchained, but he won’t win this time. Neither will Janusz Kaminski, who lit Lincoln with only the kind of light sources that would have been available in 1865. A cool approach, but the results have received mixed reactions. The staging and choreography of Anna Karenina, which largely unfolds in just one space, set the scene for some creative work from Seamus McGarvey, but voters may have been paying more attention to the costumes and sets than the camerawork. That leaves Claudio Miranda’s work on Life of Pi, which took home the American Society of Cinematography’s award, and greatest-living-DP Roger Deakins – who somehow still has not won an Academy Award – for Skyfall. He has a fighting chance, but my guess is that he’ll once again miss out, with Life of Pi taking the award for what many voters will consider the more striking visual achievement.

Personal: I really, really want to see Roger Deakins win an Oscar. While I don’t think Skyfall is up there with his absolute best, it still boasts superb work that is certainly worthy of the Academy’s recognition. Check out this cool piece from Vulture in which Deakins comments on classic images from 10 of his movies. He’s shot every Coen Brothers film since Barton Fink, so lots of their stuff is here, but the list criminally omits his work in Martin Scorsese’s Kundun. I’d have asked him about that extraordinary shot that rises above the teenage Dalai Lama to reveal him standing amidst an unending mass of slaughtered bodies.


X
BEST FILM EDITING
Comedies don’t often get nominated for this award, so Silver Linings Playbook showing up here speaks to its Academy-wide appeal and the fact that it probably had heavy support in the Best Picture race during the nomination balloting. (Again, the movie is more than just a comedy, so maybe it’s not such a surprise after all if seen in a vacuum. But the fact that it was nominated over something like Skyfall surprised many…though I called it. Booyah!) Anyway, it won’t win, but it’s nice to see it here. Also out of the running is Lincoln, which likely got swept in on a tide of support for the movie over more deserving candidates like Cloud Atlas and, again, Skyfall. There’s a slim chance that it could go to Life of Pi, but the race is more likely down to Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. Either way, William Goldenberg will win an Oscar; he edited Argo on his own, and worked with Dylan Tichenor on ZDT. Conventional wisdom is that this award tends to align with Best Picture, though a look at the winners over the last 30 years, to pick a round and arbitrary number, reveals that in 16 cases, Editing and Picture did not match up. Still, in this case I think Best Picture-favorite Argo will take it.

Personal: Argo‘s editing really brings out the tension, smoothly blends the movie’s comedic and serious elements, and moves the story along at a brisk clip. Zero Dark Thirty moves more slowly, but I get the sense that there was much more footage and that the movie could have cut together in a lot of different ways. It feels like a movie that was made in the editing room more so than its competition, which gives it an edge for me. But I’m more than cool with Argo.


X
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
A tough category to call, less because it’s a tight race and more because none of the nominees scream “Winner” to me, at least not when you look beyond quality of the work and factor in how voters might feel about the movies in general. The work itself is all that should matter, but it’s rarely that simple.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey might stand a better chance if the Lord of the Rings films hadn’t been here before (all three were nominated; Return of the King took the prize). The recreation of the 1860’s White House and House of Representatives chambers for Lincoln is impressive work, but probably too unassuming to win. Anna Karenina could take the prize for featuring a variety of gorgeous environments yet making most of them work within a single theatrical space. Les Misérables could also score a win here, but most pundits who aren’t calling it for Anna Karenina are favoring Life of Pi. At first, Pi might not seem a logical choice since so much of the movie takes place in a single location without much variety. Then again, the production design works nicely in conjunction with the cinematography to create a storybook appearance throughout the film. There’s a really lovely, pastel color palette employed, which especially pops during early part of the film that takes place in Pondicherry. I’m guessing it will nab the prize here, but Anna Karenina and Les Misérables are not easily dismissed.

Personal: Anna Karenina. Aside from being visually sumptuous, it employs such a creative use of space. But I’d be okay with Life of Pi, too; its colors have really stayed with me.

X
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Lincoln, while again impressive, is probably too drab overall to win a category that almost always goes for garb that is colorful and elaborate. Both of the year’s Snow White films – Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman –  made the cut, and while they both show off some fantastic wardrobes, it could be that neither was seen widely enough to pull off a win. Then again, Mirror Mirror‘s designer Eiko Ishioka, who won this category in 1992 for Bram Stoker’s Dracula, died of cancer shortly before the movie was released, and that may have grabbed voters’ attention along the way. If it did, and if they observed her sensational, creative work on the film, she might be hard to deny. If not Mirror Mirror, then Anna Karenina most closely fits the mold of the typical winner in this category, though it’s possible that not enough voters have seen that movie either. That could open the door to Les Misérables…but if little-seen movies like The Duchess and The Young Victoria could succeed here in recent years, so can Anna Karenina. That’s my guess…but the quality of Mirror Mirror gives me pause.

Personal: Mirror Mirror. There’s really nice work throughout the category, and there were many more that deserved to be here, including Cloud Atlas, Moonrise Kingdom and Django Unchained. But none of them are as visionary as Ishioka’s creations.


X
BEST ORIGINAL SONG

The one good thing about the omission of so many worthy selections from the list of nominees is that nothing here can challenge Adele’s title track from the latest James Bond film. It’s easily the best song in the category. And even if some of those deserving songs from the likes of The Hobbit, Brave and Django Unchained had made it and created a much stronger group, Adele would still win. Because she’s Adele and everyone loves her. And because “Skyfall” is a great song in a great movie. And because no song from a James Bond movie has ever won, and this is  the 50th anniversary of the franchise and the stars are aligned. I think the sky really will fall if Adele doesn’t win. But she will. This one’s a slam dunk. I can’t wait to hear her sing it on the show.

Personal: “Skyfall”


X
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Alexandre Desplat, the hardest working composer in movies, (dude scored eight features in 2012) is here with Argo, but I doubt the Best Picture frontrunner’s reach will extend here. It’s a nice score, but likely too understated to get noticed. The same could be argued of John Williams’ music for Lincoln, though as subtle as it is, it does have a distinct and more memorable theme, which boosts its chances. Still, Williams has lost the award for scores much more famous and impressive than Lincoln, so it’s hard to imagine a victory this time. Then there’s Thomas Newman for Skyfall. Like cinematographer Roger Deakins, also nominated for the Bond adventure, Newman is one of his field’s most impressive talents. Yet he remains Oscarless after 10 nominations. He makes a great contribution to Skyfall, and if voters are checking the movie off in the song category, perhaps they’ll do so here as well?

Probably not. Dario Marianelli’s lush score for Anna Karenina will put up a fight. But the favorite seems to be Mychael Danna for Life of Pi. Danna’s been around for a while and is enjoying his first nomination here, so I’m happy to see him earn the recognition; he should have been nominated in 1997 for The Sweet Hereafter. But honestly, the score for Life of Pi didn’t register for me at all, despite the acclaim. I saw the movie twice, and don’t remember noting the music either time. I definitely can’t recall any of it after the fact, while unnominated scores such as Cloud Atlas and The Hobbit are lodged in my head. I want to go with a prediction for Skyfall (which won the BAFTA, by the way; Life of Pi took the Golden Globe), but the majority of pundits who actually talk to Academy members think the award will go to Pi, so I’ll follow suit. And actually, I’m not counting out Anna Karenina or Lincoln.

Personal: Skyfall. Similar to my feelings about Deakins this year, I consider Skyfall a notch below the very best of Newman’s work, but it’s still excellent, and I’m so eager to see him win. How happy would it make me if Deakins and Newman win their first, long overdue awards in the same year, for the same film? Extremely happy. Both should have won as far back as 1994 for The Shawshank Redemption.


X
BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
Let’s knock out Hitchcock right away; it shouldn’t even be here. That just leaves The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and Les Misérables. The Hobbit is the showier choice, with its 13 hirsute dwarves, plus long-bearded wizards, pointy-eared elves and curly-haired, hairy-footed hobbits. Les Misérables is more about wigs and hair, as well as making the poor and suffering of revolutionary France look appropriately haggard and sickly. There are strong cases to be made for both. As the Best Picture nominee, Les Misérables might have an edge. On the other hand, fantasy usually triumphs over realism in this category. But on yet another hand, voters may feel like The Hobbit is just treading familiar ground; two of the Lord of the Rings films won this award, and those were both Best Picture nominees. On a fourth hand, those earlier wins could bode well for The Hobbit. Grrrr….I don’t know. Pundits seem to be siding with Les Misérables, but I have a feeling the more obvious work in The Hobbit will win out. You should probably just toss a coin.

Personal: The Hobbit. Yes, this is a return trip to Middle Earth, but we have over a dozen new characters front and center, all of whom have elaborate facial hair, and all of whom had to look distinct from one another.


X
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Great accomplishments all around in this category. ILM had to do a wide variety of work on The Avengers, and it all looks superb and blends perfectly. WETA’s work on The Hobbit demonstrates the continuing evolution of motion capture, with Gollum looking even better now than he did a decade ago (and not just because he’s 60 years younger); Prometheus employs elegant effects to sell its futuristic setting; and Snow White and the Huntsman deserves credit for pulling off CGI-heavy bits without giving them the over-the-top, super-obvious CGI look that comes off as cheesy-fake. But one of the few sure bets of the night is that this award will go to Life of Pi. All of its creature work is excellent, but it boils down to the Bengal tiger Richard Parker, who is more than a special effect; he’s the co-star of the movie.

It will be a bittersweet victory; Rhythm & Hues, the visual effects studio that did the work, just filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They had to lay off hundreds of employees, some of whom are now suing them, and they are trying to get an influx of cash in order to complete the projects they’re currently working on. Another casualty of the sadly screwed up visual effects industry.

Personal: Life of Pi. There wasn’t a single second when it occurred to me that the tiger wasn’t really there, interacting with actor Suraj Sharma’s Pi. I left the movie wondering how they got the tiger to behave appropriately, and even when it dawned on me, “Oh yeah…the tiger wasn’t really there,” I still didn’t see how that could be true. Fantastic work.


X
BEST SOUND MIXING
I always talk about how my understanding of the sound awards is too unsophisticated to ever really make an informed guess of my own, so I usually look for consensus among the pundits and go with that. But this year, I actually feel like I can make a confident prediction in this category, and the fact that the pundits all agree just boosts my confidence. The Sound Mixing award usually goes to smart action movies or prestige dramas that have some action-y elements, like Apollo 13 and The English Patient. Unless, that is, there’s a musical or music-themed movie in the running. Victories in the last 25 years for Dreamgirls, Ray, Chicago and Bird provide the evidence. Of course, nothing is guaranteed; Walk the Line and Evita didn’t win the award. Still, the live singing factor that is so much a part of the behind-the-scenes narrative for Les Misérables should clinch it. Of the other nominees, Skyfall or Life of Pi seem the most capable of pulling an upset, while Argo and Lincoln are likely just along for the ride.

Personal: I remain too ignorant of how to judge sound work to really make an informed personal pick, but from what I understand of the task, I have to go along with Les Misérables.


X
BEST SOUND EDITING
I’m on less solid footing here, as the nominees all seem like plausible victors. We again have Argo, Skyfall and Life of Pi, along with Django Unchained and Zero Dark Thirty. The first problem with judging Sound Editing and Sound Mixing – and I say this every year – is that no one really understands what they mean…and that includes most Academy members. Last year, I linked to this article that helped explain the two disciplines, and this year I’ll add this video from an Entertainment Weekly series called “Behind the Ballot,” where sound mixers and editors weigh in on their craft and how they judge the work. The second problem – and I said this last year too – is that even understanding what the two mean doesn’t really help the layman evaluate what’s good, bad or best. So with that said, I’m guessing that Skyfall will be the victor here, while I fully acknowledge that any of the others could easily prove me wrong. (Pundits are split between Skyfall and Life of Pi.)

Personal: Django Unchained. After reading this article about Tarantino’s approach to the soundscape for Django, I took note of the movie’s sounds in a way I never would have otherwise. The whip cracks did sound different somehow. So while I have no real investment in the category, I’ll root for Django and be happy with whatever wins.


X
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Now we get into the categories that, as usual, I’ve been unable to keep up with personally and know precious little about. In this race, Amour is the only nominee I’ve seen…and it’s the only one expected to win. But let me just say this: as I often point out in these annual write-ups, only Academy members who have seen all five nominated films can vote in this category, and the only people who likely have the time to do that are older, retired Academy members. And Amour…dear lord, it’s a brutal movie that’s all about getting old and dying. I mean…okay, that’s a bit glib. It’s a powerful film, moving, expertly made, wonderfully acted, and as the title suggests, it’s about love…what love looks like between two people who have built a life together and now have to face the end of that life. But it’s also a painfully up-close and extended look at the end of a life. So…it could hit awfully close to home for the people most likely to vote in this category. I still think it will win – apparently no foreign language film that was also nominated for Best Picture has ever lost in this category – but heavily favored films with multiple nominations have been overtaken here before. If Amour loses, it could well be because voters found it like looking into the world’s most truthful mirror and didn’t want to face what they saw.


X
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
All five nominated films are excellent, from what I’ve heard, but the buzz strongly indicates that Searching for Sugar Man will take home the gold. One of the nominees is 5 Broken Cameras, co-directed by Emad Burnat (a Palestinian) and Guy Davidi (an Israeli), about non-violent protests in a West Bank village that is being absorbed by spreading Israeli settlements. Earlier this week, Burnat and his family arrived at LAX, where they were held by immigration officials and threatened with being sent back if they could not produce papers explaining their business in America…even after such documents, including their invitation to the Oscars, were shown. With a little help from Michael Moore, they were finally released. It would be pretty awesome if Burnat won the Oscar and could then pull it out next time he gets detained. “You want to see my invitation? Here’s my invitation, motherfucker. Suck on that. PEACE!”

X
BEST DOCUMENTARY/ANIMATED/LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
I’m not seeing consensus around a single winner in any of these three categories, but I am seeing pundits narrow each of them down to about two or three. For Documentary Short, Inocente, Mondays at Racine and Open Heart keep popping up. For Live Action Short, people expect it to go to Death of a Shadow, Buzkashi Boys or Curfew.

I’ve seen two of the Best Animated Short contenders – Disney’s charming black-and-white Paperman, and Maggie Simpson in The Longest Daycare. As the two higher-profile, studio-produced nominees, they’ve received more mainstream attention than their competition (Paperman played in theaters with Wreck-It Ralph, and The Longest Daycare with Ice Age: Continental Drift), but that doesn’t mean much when it comes to winning an Oscar. Since 2000, nearly every time a short from places like Disney or Pixar has been nominated, it has lost to something independent. However…for the first time this year, voting in this category (and in Live Action Short and Best Documentary Feature) has been opened up to the entire Academy. Before, as with Best Foreign Language Film, members had to attend special screenings and sign in, verifying they had seen all the nominees if they wanted to vote. With a much larger group able to cast a ballot this time, do the more recognizable titles stand a better chance? Some pundits are already liking Paperman‘s chances, and the expanded voting pool could make it happen. If you want to let history be your guide and choose a lower-profile pick, Adam and Dog and Head Over Heels are the ones popping up among the pundits. I’m going with Paperman.


X
Interested in making more informed decisions in these always tricky categories? Click on the links to learn more about the nominees for Best Documentary Short, Best Animated Short and Best Live Action Short, courtesy of Entertainment Weekly.

PREVIEWING THE SHOW
Okay, for better or worse, those are my predictions, and I’m not confident about many of them. But that makes it an especially exciting Oscar year, and I’m even more pumped than usual for Sunday’s ceremony, to see how these many unpredictable races play out. It also promises to be an interesting show. Producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan have said that the theme of the night is music and the movies. There will be a tribute to movie musicals of the past decade, with performances by Jennifer Hudson, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and several cast members from Les Misérables. There will also be a tribute to 50 Years of James Bond, featuring Dame Shirley Bassey, who famously crooned the title tracks for Goldfinger, Diamonds Are Forever and Moonraker. Fans have been speculating and hoping that all six actors to have played Bond would appear on stage together, but Meron and Zadan recently said that was never in the game plan. Barbra Streisand will sing on the show, for only the second time, and after the Best Picture award is handed out, the show will have a proper close with some kind of musical number performed by host Seth MacFarlane and Kristen Chenoweth. (Yes, Seth MacFarlane can legitimately sing. He even put out an album of 1940’s and 1950’s standards.)

That’s a lot of production numbers…and it doesn’t even include performances of the nominated songs. Adele will treat us to “Skyfall” – her first time singing live since her baby was born in October, and her first time singing on TV since last year’s Grammys. Norah Jones will sing, “Everybody Needs a Best Friend” from Ted, (co-written by MacFarlane), and I assume that Hugh Jackman will perform “Suddenly” from Les Misérables. There’s been no word on who will perform the other two songs; only that they will indeed be represented. Scarlett Johansson sang “Before My Time” for the documentary “Chasing Ice,” but she can’t attend, as she’ll be in New York performing on Broadway in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. And what about the fifth song nominee, “Pi’s Lullaby” from Life of Pi? It isn’t really your typical, performance-friendly song, so I’m not sure what they’ll do with it.

With the Skyfall and Les Misérables songs possibly being incorporated into broader tributes, will the other song nominees be given the same treatment? Maybe A Tribute to Climate Change for the song from Chasing Ice? How about A Tribute to Talking Bears for the song from Ted? They can work in “Bare Necessities” from The Jungle Book, “Movin’ Right Along” from The Muppet Movie, some Winnie the Pooh, those polar bears from The Golden Compass…I don’t know what to do with that Life of Pi song, though. Ugh, why did they nominate that?

I’m also excited to see what MacFarlane does as host. I’m not really a Family Guy guy (nothing against it, I just don’t watch it), but I enjoyed the hell out of Ted, and find him to be funny in general. I hope he doesn’t rely too much on character voices (I don’t think he will), but that he brings a streak of irreverence to the show. He has a take-no-prisoners sense of humor, but his love of old timey music also demonstrates a more traditional side. So in a way, he could be the perfect guy to host, especially under producers who are trying to modernize the show (as other producers have in recent years, with varying degrees of success) at the same time that they look to its past by incorporating lots of musical numbers, which can really be hit or miss. Plus, MacFarlane has his work cut out for him after Tina Fey and Amy Poehler threw down the gauntlet with their kick-ass stint at last month’s Golden Globes.

With all these tributes and production numbers, plus performances of the nominated songs, this could be one of the longest Oscars we’ve had in a while. Meron and Zadan have pretty much acknowledged that this ship ain’t coming in at three hours, though of course they hope to keep it close. I may be setting my DVR to go 20 or 30 minutes beyond the listed stop time. But this could also be one of the higher rated Oscars in a while. Not only is it possible that performers like Adele, Streisand and MacFarlane will draw in viewers, but the Best Picture nominees are actually a successful crop. The years with the biggest ratings are always the years with the biggest hits in the Best Picture race. 1997 – Titanic. 2003 – The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. 2009 – Avatar. Nothing this year is that massive, but six of the nine nominees (Argo, Django, Les Mis, Lincoln, Pi, Silver Linings) have grossed over $100 million domestically; some of them well over that. (Amazing to me that Lincoln, a 2.5 hour movie about passing an amendment, has made $177 million dollars…and without 3D jacking up the prices. How awesome is that? Only Spielberg, I swear…) A seventh Best Picture nominee – Zero Dark Thirty – is likely to cross the $100 million mark soon. (The Wrap.com’s Steve Pond, ultimate Oscars number cruncher, takes a closer look at how the ratings have related to the Best Picture grosses in recent years.) It all bodes well for a successful telecast.

One thing I’m not looking forward to? Don Mischer is returning to direct the show. So expect a few cutaways to the movie stars in the front rows and a shitload of cutaways to the middle of the auditorium with people who nobody recognizes. Just like you want from the Oscars. (Yes, I realize that the Oscar show director even being on my radar is a sign of how sad my life is, but if you remember how weirdly directed the last two shows were, you too would have wanted to know who was responsible). We’ll see if Mischer gets it together this year.

Alright, one last thing, and then I swear I will bring this excruciating write-up to an end. This is my 150th blog post. Now, that’s a bit misleading, because the blog has only existed for a little over a year and I’m nowhere near that prolific. Most of the content on this site existed in e-mail form prior to my putting it on the blog as I was getting it ready to launch. But it’s fitting that I should hit a milestone number while writing about the Oscars, since they were the subject of my earliest bloggish scribbles.  I’ve been writing Oscar predictions in one form or another since at least 2000, possibly earlier. The earliest such e-mail I could find was the one with my 2004 picks, and that’s now the oldest post on the site. Not sure what my point here was…I guess maybe to say thanks to anyone who actually reads the blog…especially these painfully long Oscar write-ups, which I really do for myself, without any expectation that anyone else could possibly be interested enough to read it all. If you try and succeed, you deserve a medal.

That about wraps it up. Enjoy the show, and good luck with your Oscar pools. If you go with my predictions, I hope I don’t steer you too far off course. Just remember: it’s all a guessing game. Hopefully you win big, and/or see your personal picks take home the gold…unless they conflict with my personal picks, in which case you can go to hell. Cheers!

January 13, 2013

Oscars 2012: And the Nominees Are…

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 9:45 pm
Tags: , , , ,

Complete List of Nominees

We established in the previous post that Oscar was breaking with tradition this year – announcing the nominations earlier in the month, and on a Thursday instead of the usual Tuesday, offering electronic voting, and having the host participate in announcing the nominees, without the usual involvement of the Academy president. And to go along with all of these shake-ups, the nominations themselves turned out to be some of the more surprising we’ve seen in recent years. If you’ve never seen the nominations announced – and unless you live on the east coast and see it on Today or Good Morning America, or are a freak like me and wake up at 5:30 PST to watch, you probably haven’t – here’s the clip to sate your curiosity. The presentation usually consists of the Academy president and a co-announcer – a past winner or nominee – standing at a podium and just going through the top categories. This time they had a little fun with it.

Overall, I fared decently in my predictions. Of the 19 categories I covered, I was 100% in four (Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Original Score) and only missed by one in six others (Actor, Actress, Supporting Actress, Animated Film, Editing and Visual Effects). I thought there would be 10 Best Picture nominees, but there were only nine, and I missed on one of them (Amour).

And now, some comments by category, where I have something to say…

BEST PICTURE
I failed to even mention Amour as a possibility even though I knew that it was in the running. I didn’t think it would break into the top category, but I should have brought it up nonetheless. It becomes the first foreign language film to be nominated since the category expanded past five movies, and the first at all since 2000’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

If I have one disappointment here, its the omission of Moonrise Kingdom. It seemed like Wes Anderson was finally going to get his due from the Academy. Moonrise seemed to have this year’s Midnight in Paris slot all sewn up: the crowd-pleasing, auteur-driven indie that came out in early summer, became an unexpected box office hit and endured throughout the year to become a consistent presence on the awards circuit. But other than a Best Original Screenplay nomination, the movie was passed over. Still, can’t really complain about any of these nominees. They’re all really good films. (Well, jury’s still out for me on Amour; I haven’t seen it yet.)

BEST DIRECTOR
Wow. No one saw this category coming. In my predictions, I declared Argo‘s Ben Affleck and Zero Dark Thirty‘s Kathryn Bigelow as the two locks…an assessment shared by everyone in the Oscar predicting world. But the Director’s branch really went its own way this year, passing over the two favorites – the two that most people were expecting to contend for the ultimate win in February – and went with not one, but two idiosyncratic choices. Amour director Michael Haneke was already favored by many to crack this list, but few saw 30 year-old Benh Zeitlin scoring a nod for Beasts of the Southern Wild, his debut feature. Les Misérables director Tom Hooper missed out as well, but he was considered vulnerable anyway, while David O. Russell was right on the edge for Silver Linings Playbook and made it in. I thought he’d just barely miss, but I’m thrilled he didn’t.

I know that Les Misérables has received mixed reactions and that its detractors have issues with Hooper’s direction, but honestly, many of the complaints about his style – things which drove me crazy in The King’s Speech and his HBO miniseries John Adams – didn’t bother me at all in Les Misérables. It’s not even that they didn’t bother me; it’s that I didn’t notice them. I was so caught up in the story, the music and the scale that his trademark flourishes were invisible to me. Who knows why Hooper missed out this time around; it may have nothing to do with those annoying-to-many stylistic choices. Perhaps he missed a nomination by only a handful of votes. But as I still can’t believe he won the Director’s Guild award and the Oscar for The King’s Speech (seriously, he SO should not have won those awards), it puzzles me that now, for a movie where I think he made some bold and interesting choices that served the material (the live singing chief among them), he’s been left out.

Still, his omission is not all that surprising. But the branch not recognizing Affleck or Bigelow is bewildering. Argo and Zero Dark Thirty are both movies marked by excellent direction, and the way they have dominated the awards circuit so far made them obvious choices. It’s particularly disheartening to see Bigelow overlooked so soon after making history as the first woman to win Best Director, and only the fourth to be nominated. It’s almost as if the Academy had to curb any appearance of becoming too progressive by denying what seemed to everyone like an obvious nomination. Some critics and pundits are attributing her non-nomination to negative press Zero Dark Thirty has attracted over its depiction of torture, but I’m not buying that argument at all. The movie was still nominated for five awards, including Best Picture, Actress and Screenplay. If anyone was going to be held to task for potential inaccuracies, it would be screenwriter Mark Boal, but he was nominated. True, his nomination comes just from fellow writers, while only directors nominate directors, but I think it highly unlikely that directors would allow their opinion to be swayed by any argument that an artist’s creative freedom should be stifled.

Whatever the reasons for Affleck and Bigelow being no-shows, their absence may also be a potential game changer for the Best Picture race. Argo and Zero Dark Thirty were widely seen as the two films to beat for the prize, but without nominations for their directors, both movies take a huge hit. Only three times in Oscar history has a movie won Best Picture without its director being nominated. The last time was Driving Miss Daisy, in 1989. Prior to that it hadn’t happened since Grand Hotel, in 1931-32.

I’m not counting either film out just yet; they’re still showing plenty of life. The evening of the Oscar nominations, the Broadcast Film Critics Awards were held, where Affleck won Best Director and Argo was named Best Picture. (Affleck earned a standing ovation when he took the stage to accept. Similarly, Kathryn Bigelow received loud and hearty applause when Jessica Chastain paid tribute to her while accepting her Best Actress award.) Affleck and Bigelow are still in contention for the British Academy of Film and Television Arts award, the Director’s Guild of America award and the Golden Globe (which, actually, has been handed out while I’ve been finishing this post. Perhaps one of them won? I’ll be settling down in front of the TV and DVR shortly). Depending on how they, and their films, continue to do over the next month and a half, their Best Picture chances are not necessarily dead (and as producers of their films, both still have a chance of personally taking home the gold as nominees in the Best Picture category).

When asked about the Oscar omission, Affleck was gracious and good-humored, focusing instead on the Best Picture nomination and the other seven categories in which the film was recognized. Zero producer Megan Ellison could take a cue from Affleck; she tweeted a less diplomatic reaction to Bigelow being overlooked. At the end of the day, however much we assume or perceive that certain spots in each category “belong” to certain people, and that in this case Benh Zeitlin and either Russell or Haneke took the spots that were expected to go to Affleck or Bigelow, these spots don’t belong to anybody except the five people that get the nomination. And this year, the director’s branch had some different ideas from the rest of us about who those people would be.

Another point of interest: the nominations marked an unusually wide divergence between the Academy’s nominees and the DGA’s nominees. There tends to be one, maybe two differences, but three is nearly unheard of. And here I thought this year the would have a rare 5-for-5 match.

BEST ACTOR
I’m glad to see Daniel Day-Lewis here, but there was no question that he would be, so my excitement is directed more at the nominations for Joaquin Phoenix and Bradley Cooper. As discussed in the previous post, there was speculation that Phoenix’s chances may have faded, but I had faith that the actor’s branch of the Academy would be unable to ignore such a powerful, magnetic performance. As for Cooper, there’s no question that he deserves the nomination, but I was worried that voters might not feel he had yet earned an honor like this one, or that they might simply take for granted how good he is, because his performance appears so natural and effortless. I’m happy my doubts were all for naught. I do feel badly that John Hawkes missed out. Although he wasn’t among my personal picks, he comes off as a humble, cool guy and its always nice to see a character actor like him move into the spotlight the way he has in the past few years.

BEST ACTRESS
So Quvenzhané Wallis did it. Many thought she would, but I had my doubts. Now the little girl at the center of Beasts of the Southern Wild is the youngest Best Actress nominee ever (while Amour‘s 85 year-old Emmanuelle Riva becomes the oldest Best Actress nominee ever). Wallis is adorable, no doubt, and she is compelling in the movie, but I can’t get behind her nomination. She holds the screen with a natural charisma, but that’s the extent of what I got from her performance. I don’t mean that as a criticism; only that the movie doesn’t ask much more of her. It’s a story seen through the eyes of a little girl, and so her performance consists of appearing open, curious, observant….which are natural states for someone of her age. That doesn’t mean any kid could have done it, and there are still technical requirements of any performance that need to be achieved – lines to memorize, marks to hit, etc. But for me, the Best Actress nomination is out of proportion to her achievement. Child actors have been nominated before, but few quite as young as Wallis (only Kramer vs. Kramer‘s Justin Henry was younger, and technically 1931 nominee Jackie Cooper  as well, but only by a few days). Justin Henry, or Abigail Breslin in Little Miss Sunshine, or Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense, or Tatum O’Neal in Paper Moon, all give fuller performances that require more of them as actors than Beasts does of Wallis. She’s a pleasure to watch, but it’s a far leap to Oscar worthy.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
It was no surprise that Alan Arkin was nominated for Argo; he’s been a favorite ever since the movie was released. But I’ll take this opportunity to say that I think it’s a wasted nomination. It’s not that Arkin isn’t good, but that the role is so small and asks little of him. He’s at the center of some of the movie’s funniest moments, but it’s not a performance that allows him to go particularly deep…which would be fine with me if his part were at least bigger. But his time in the movie is brief, and is all about surface pleasures – a combo that doesn’t merit awards recognition. There was another actor who, like Arkin, is an older gentleman and a former Oscar winner, who also provided much of his movie’s comic relief, but who was featured more prominently and had a bit more opportunity to dig into his character (or characters, as it were). That would be Jim Broadbent in Cloud Atlas. That’s a nomination I would rather have seen.

As for the other contenders, all are fully deserving. Prior to seeing Django Unchained, I had hopes that it would offer a role that might bring Leonardo DiCaprio some Academy recognition. It was something I focused on when naming the movie among my most anticipated of 2012. DiCaprio would be a deserving nominee, but I can’t argue in the slightest with Christoph Waltz, who once again proves himself a master scene stealer and a total treat to watch. I don’t know if anybody has ever delivered Tarantino’s superb dialogue as colorfully and joyously as Waltz has in both Django and Inglourious Basterds. He seems able to coil his tongue around it like a python savoring a victim. It’s also nice to see De Niro back in an Oscar race; as I wrote about previously, it’s just nice to see De Niro giving a really good performance again.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
I feel foolish for not even mentioning Jacki Weaver as a possible nominee for her role as Bradley Cooper’s loving mother in Silver Linings Playbook. Not many people were expecting her to be nominated, but she was enough on the periphery that I should have included her as a possibility. And it was a nice surprise to hear her name called. Unlike her co-stars Cooper, De Niro and Jennifer Lawrence, she has no big moment or obvious “Oscar clip” scene where she gets to take center stage. But in essence, hers is a performance that defines the category. She provides pitch perfect support to the story, and even without the kind of showcase moment that’s usually required to get an actor nominated, Weaver adds indelibly to the fabric of the movie. Her performance goes a long way toward making the family dynamic believable and relatable.

Her longshot nomination is the most significant indicator of the movie’s popularity with the Academy, particularly the actor’s branch. Add to that the directing nomination for David O. Russell, and Silver Linings Playbook becomes a much more formidable contender for Best Picture than anyone would have thought, especially now that Argo and Zero Dark Thirty have suffered unexpected blows. With Weaver’s nomination, Silver Linings also becomes the 14th movie to earn recognition in all four acting categories, and the first since 1981’s Reds. (Others include Network, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, Bonnie and Clyde, Who’s Afraid of Virgina Woolf, Sunset Boulevard and A Streetcar Named Desire. That’s a hell of a list.)

Elsewhere in this category, Amy Adams managed a nomination for The Master, so I’m glad I didn’t underestimate her again…and I’m glad to see that the actor’s branch gave due recognition to all three of the film’s stars. They were the only branch that did, answering my question of how the movie would fare with Academy. Not too well, obviously. It’s too bad that Ann Dowd couldn’t break in for Compliance. It was never likely to happen, but it would have been a great victory if she had overcome the odds. She’s certainly the kind of performer who would most benefit from the high profile recognition of an Oscar nomination. But it wasn’t to be, nor was Nicole Kidman’s impressive, uncharacteristic turn in The Paperboy.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
After all my talk about animators championing foreign and independent animated films from specialty distributors like GKIDS, they went with an entirely mainstream slate, opting for The Pirates! Band of Misfits where many of us expected something less well-known to stake a claim. In such a strong year for animated films out of Hollywood, this may end up a tough category to predict.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
In reaction to the nominees put forth by the American Society of Cinematographers, I adjusted my initial picks, removing Django Unchained and Zero Dark Thirty. I was half right. Django did get the Academy’s nod, while The Master was my pick that they overlooked, in favor of Anna Karenina. This surprised me, since The Master‘s beautiful 70mm images were the subject of much acclaim. But as I said when making predictions for this category, these below-the-line races – particularly Cinematography, Production Design and Costume Design – each offered a cup that runneth over with amazing work, and no matter how it shook out, some deserving movies were going to miss.

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
That said, there were some pretty glaring and disappointing omissions. Again, I have to bring up Moonrise Kingdom. Film after film, Wes Anderson’s vision provides some of the most gorgeous, exquisite, intricate and original production design, cinematography and costume design in movies today, and never once have these achievements been recognized by the Academy. It seemed as if Moonrise was primed to change that at long last, but it didn’t happen. Meanwhile, something like Lincoln, which, okay, is wonderfully designed but has none of the imagination required by films without a history book at their disposal, scores a nomination because voters too often just go with the prestige period piece instead of daring to honor something slightly outside the box. And where is Cloud Atlas, whose designers had to create six films within one, with settings that range from a ship at sea in the 1800’s to a futuristic metropolis to a post-apocalyptic wilderness? I know I was just saying that there was too much good work for all of it to be honored, but it would have been nice to see some of the less obvious choices recognized. The camerawork, production design and costumes in Lincoln are all impressive, but none really deserved to be included among the five best examples of those disciplines from the year. Yet because Lincoln is such an Academy-friendly kind of movie, it gets swept into these categories that would have done better to honor work that was more varied, bold or unique. Happens all the time, but the quality and quantity of the alternatives make it especially frustrating this time around.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Kudos to the costume designers for not forgetting about the early year release Mirror Mirror, which featured an extraordinarily imaginative collection of outfits courtesy of Eiko Ishioka, a previous winner for Bram Stoker’s Dracula. She died of cancer shortly before Mirror Mirror‘s release, making this nomination a bittersweet final testament to her vision. The competing Snow White film, Snow White and the Huntsman, also made it into the category, most likely on the strength of the elaborate gowns worn by Charlize Theron’s evil queen. But here again, the branch opts for Lincoln instead of the more creative, stylish and original threads on display in Moonrise Kingdom, Django Unchained, Cloud Atlas, Dark Shadows, The Hunger Games or The Hobbit. I don’t mean to pick on Lincoln; I love the movie and have nothing but appreciation for its sets, costumes, etc. But other than a couple of elaborate dresses for Sally Field, we’re talking about a lot of black suits. The work is surely well-researched and impeccably made, but does it deserve to be feted over any of the movies I mentioned? The Academy thinks so. I’m sure many others do too. I don’t.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Unlike in the Best Director category, the two contenders here that I said were safe bets actually made the list: “Suddenly” from Les Misérables, and the title track from Skyfall. The other three nominees make for a so-so slate. “Before My Time” is from the documentary Chasing Ice, about melting polar ice caps. It’s a stark, pretty piece, but not all that memorable or distinctive. The most interesting thing about it is that, randomly, it’s performed by Scarlett Johansson. Oscar host Seth MacFarlane earned a nomination for co-writing the jazzy tune “Everybody Needs a Best Friend” from his movie Ted, which is performed by Norah Jones. “Pi’s Lullaby” is the final nominee, a gentle tune that accompanies Life of Pi‘s opening credits. It’s nice, but…really? Best Song? Out of the 75 possibilities? It really surprises me that the majority of the music branch’s members named these three songs among their five favorites of the year. I would toss any of them aside in favor of the songs I predicted and/or named as my personal picks in the previous post, not to mention others like “Cosmonaut” from Lawless; “Strange Love” from Frankenweenie; or if they wanted to be daring, “100 Black Coffins” from Django Unchained.

Oh well. These are our nominees. Now the question is whether or not they’ll be performed during the show. Best Song nominees always were, until a few years ago when producers decided to eliminate that tradition. However, with a huge star like Adele among the possible singers, and the Academy’s unconcealed desire to increase ratings, will they be able to resist the chance to lure additional viewers to the show? The producers already announced – before the nominations were unveiled – that Oscar night would include a tribute to 50 years of James Bond. Whatever they have in mind, perhaps they would work Adele into the program. And if that happens, surely they would need to include performances of the other nominees as well. With Norah Jones, Scarlett Johannson, and Hugh Jackman among the singers, it could be a reasonably starry (translation: ratings-friendly) affair.

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
I was right about The Hobbit, but missed on the other two. The makeup in Hitchcock successfully gave Anthony Hopkins the same physical build as the famed titular director, but failed to make Hopkins look much like him. I guess that wasn’t a consideration. As for Les Misérables, I thought it would miss out in favor of Lincoln, which employed similar work (wigs, facial hair, etc.), but if I recall accurately, featured more variety – and more in quantity – than Les Misérables. C’est la vie.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM
I’ve only seen one of these shorts – Disney’s Paperman – but I just wanted to acknowledge that Maggie Simpson in “The Longest Daycare” is on the list. After unforgivably failing to nominate The Simpsons Movie for Best Animated Feature in 2007, the Academy has done right to recognize America’s greatest family ever. Now if the Oscar producers can get Krusty the Klown and Rainer Wolfcastle to present the award, that will be a real coup.

So that’s all I’ve got to say for now, much to your deep, deep relief, I’m sure. But fear not! I’ll have my equally interminable, exhaustively considered predictions shortly before Oscar night, Sunday, February 24. That leaves you plenty of time to see some of the nominees, or unsubscribe from this blog and flee far, far way, off the grid, where you never have to be subjected to anything like this ever again.

January 9, 2013

Oscars 2012: Nominations Eve

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 7:03 pm
Tags: , , , ,

It hardly seems possible that it’s been a year since I was fretting over whether or not to predict Best Picture nominations for The Tree of Life and Moneyball, but here we are again, and The Tree of Life and Moneyball have been replaced by The Master and Django Unchained. If you actually tried to read any of my Oscar season posts last year, you probably only finished a month ago, not just because they are tediously long and detailed, but because you inevitably tried to gouge your eyes out or inflict some other sort of bodily harm that required months of physical and psychological therapy to overcome. Let me just say that I’m glad you’re doing better. You were foolish to bother reading. I’m really just writing these things for myself. But if you’re a glutton for punishment, then this post is for you.

A couple of interesting things about this year’s Oscars before we get started. First, the Academy shifted their timeline this year. Nominations are usually announced later in the month, but this year’s date was set for January 15, then pushed up to January 10. It might not seem like a big deal to move the nominations up by two weeks or ten days, but when you consider how crowded the end of the year is with pedigree films, the condensed timeline puts increased pressure on Academy members to see all the movies in even less time. It was challenging enough before, just given the glut of contenders that come out of the gate in November and December (an exasperating problem in and of itself, which I’ve talked about before), but now with ballots due back to the Academy on January 3, voters would have to cram even harder…or just not bother seeing all the contenders. It’s the smaller, lower-budget movies that will be neglected, as more members probably sought out the hyped late releases like Django Unchained and Les Misérables. The award ceremony itself will still take place at the end of February, creating a much longer period between the announcement of the nominees and Oscar night. Voting for the awards won’t even start until February 8. The Academy justified the move by saying that voters and the public will now have more time to see the nominated films. But doesn’t it make more sense that voters be given time to see as many movies as possible before selecting who they want to nominate? Ideally, by the time the nominees are announced, Academy members should already have seen the nominated films…because they surveyed the field and decided what to nominate. But alas, I should know better than to invoke logic when it comes to Hollywood. As the Grande Dame of awards shows, the Oscars rule the season, and any changes to its timeline set off a chain reaction among other award-bestowing bodies.

The other unknown this year just reared its head recently. This is the first year that the Academy has offered e-voting as an alternative to paper ballots, and word emerged over the holidays that voters who had opted for that system were experiencing serious technical difficulties. Comments from Academy members collected by The Hollywood Reporter indicated that some of them might just give up out of frustration and not vote at all. Older voters who are less computer-savvy might be in this boat, although a follow-up story in the Reporter cited younger members like Morgan Spurlock as running into problems. This may be blown out of proportion and turn out to have little impact, but if it is legitimate, and if significant numbers of members skip voting, it could change the dynamic of the race, especially if those voters are the older faction who might tend to sway the nominations away from edgier material like The Master and toward more traditional fare like Les Misérables. Either way, the Academy extended the voting deadline by a day, to January 4. And I’m making my predictions on the assumption that this won’t be a big issue…that is, that the Academy will be just as old-fashioned as ever.

So with that said…here comes the hurt.

BEST PICTURE
Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Les Misérables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
The Master
Moonrise Kingdom
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

Best Picture remains a particularly tricky guessing game since there could be anywhere from five to ten nominees, depending on how many people vote and how they rank their selections. According to Steve Pond, the expert Oscar data guru who writes for TheWrap.com, a small but passionate group of supporters can be enough to lift a movie into the Best Picture race (though actually winning the award takes broader consensus). Given that last year saw a field with nine nominees, and it was widely considered to be a weak year for movies, I’m betting that the stronger slate from 2012 will max the category out at the full ten. Then again, Pond proposes that with so many viable choices, the votes could be so spread out that fewer films will hit the number they need to secure a nomination.

Back in the days of five nominees, we’d almost certainly have Argo, Les Misérables, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook and Zero Dark Thirty. I figure that Life of Pi and Moonrise Kingdom are close behind, which leaves three potential nominees and six movies that would seem to have a reasonable shot. I’m uncertain how Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master will fare with Academy members. It’s a critical darling, but is it too esoteric for the Academy? They embraced There Will Be Blood, which was tonally and even thematically similar, but The Master lacks that film’s catharsis, and its ambiguity has frustrated many viewers. Still, I think the contingent of voters that rallied behind The Tree of Life last year will also place The Master high on their list.

James Bond’s latest adventure Skyfall earned a surprise nomination from the Producer’s Guild of America, but that body tends to include a few smart popcorn movies that did big box office. Admired as Skyfall is, I don’t see the Academy embracing it as a Best Picture nominee. Nor are The Dark Knight Rises or The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey likely to make to the cut, even though the Academy’s failure to nominate the former’s 2008 predecessor is understood to be one of the reasons the category was expanded to more than five nominees in the first place, and even though the latter’s trio of predecessors were all nominated for Best Picture. Neither 2012 entry in these respective series were quite as admired, and without the PGA nomination, chances for Best Picture recognition from the Academy are slim to none.

Django Unchained has been a consistent presence on critic’s awards lists, and though it doesn’t seem like typical Academy fare, the same was true of Inglourious Basterds, which did extremely well in 2009. We’ll see if controversy over the film’s depiction of slavery derails its chances here. There’s also last summer’s low budget indie sensation Beasts of the Southern Wild, a highly original fable that has captivated critics and, like Django, been a fixture on critics’ lists.

I’m neglecting to include The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel among my final picks. This sweet but slight early summer release has apparently remained a favorite of many Academy members and could displace The Master, Django or Beasts (I think the other seven are safe). It managed Screen Actor’s Guild nominations for Best Ensemble Cast (the guild’s equivalent of a Best Picture award) and a Supporting Actress nomination for Maggie Smith, as well as Golden Globe nominations for Best Musical/Comedy Picture and Best Actress in a Musical/Comedy for Judi Dench. With actors making up the largest voting branch of the Academy, the SAG nominations can be a good indicator, and Marigold did well there whereas Django and Beasts went un-nominated. But Beasts was ineligible for SAG recognition due its use of non-SAG actors, and Django, as one of the last films of the year that was ready for screening, may not have been seen by enough SAG voters in time for their mid-December nominations. So watch out for Marigold.

Personal: Argo, Django Unchained, Les Misérables, Lincoln, Moonrise Kingdom, Silver Linings Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty

BEST DIRECTOR
Ben Affleck – Argo
Kathryn Bigelow – Zero Dark Thirty
Tom Hooper – Les Misérables
Ang Lee – Life of Pi
Steven Spielberg – Lincoln

Affleck and Bigelow are the two locks here, and most would probably say the same about Spielberg and Hooper, though I could see either of them becoming the category’s big “snub” – Hooper because Les Misérables seems to have as many detractors as it does supporters, and Spielberg because as good as Lincoln is, his guiding hand might be overlooked in favor of the movie’s stellar acting and writing. Lincoln is sure to be a big player this year, but if Spielberg were left out in the cold, it wouldn’t be the first time; famously, The Color Purple‘s 11 nominations did not include one for its director. Just this morning, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts announced their nominees, and although Lincoln led the field with 10 nominations, Spielberg was passed over. But I don’t think he’ll be shut out tomorrow. (Incidentally, Les Misérables followed Lincoln with nine BAFTA nominations, but like Spielberg, Tom Hooper was overlooked. Instead, Tarantino and Michael Haneke joined Affleck, Bigelow and Lee.)

So if I’m right about Spielberg, Hooper, Bigelow and Affleck, who gets the fifth spot? I’m going with Ang Lee for his admired tackling of a story that was deemed by many to be unfilmable. But there are a few others in play for a nomination. David O. Russell is nipping at the edges for his assured work on Silver Linings Playbook, and the strength shown by Django Unchained places Quentin Tarantino in the conversation. In a category that often recognizes a Hollywood outsider or someone with a less mainstream, more challenging or intellectual film to offer, do not count out German director Michael Haneke for the French film Amour, about an elderly couple coming to grips with the wife’s impending death. Unfortunately, Amour is one of the few movies in contention that I haven’t been able to see yet, so I can’t speak to it myself. (It opens in the Bay Area the day after the nominations are announced, and I didn’t have access to an early screening.) But based on the critical acclaim and awards its received so far, and the history of the Director’s branch, Haneke has an excellent chance. There’s also a possibility that Paul Thomas Anderson could nab that “auteur” spot for The Master. I’d love to say that Moonrise Kingdom director Wes Anderson has a shot too, but I don’t think he’s got much hope here.

My Best Director commentary would have ended there, but the Director’s Guild of America announced their nominees yesterday, and wouldn’t you know it, they chose the same five that I did. That gives me pause, since the DGA and the Oscar nominees rarely line up exactly. What to do? Nothing, I think. I’m taking my chances that this will be one of those uncommon years when the DGA and the Academy are aligned. But I’m probably wrong.

Personal: Ben Affleck, Wes Anderson, Tom Hooper, David O. Russell, Steven Spielberg

BEST ACTOR
Bradley Cooper – Silver Linings Playbook
Daniel Day-Lewis – Lincoln
John Hawkes – The Sessions
Joaquin Phoenix – The Master
Denzel Washington – Flight

The no-brainer nominee here is of course Daniel Day-Lewis for his astonishing performance in Lincoln. In a just world, he would be duking it out with The Master‘s Joaquin Phoenix when it comes time to pick a winner, but Phoenix’s once-assured nomination is now significantly less assured. That may be because the unfiltered, self-deprecating actor, previously nominated for Gladiator and Walk the Line, had some harsh things to say about the awards circuit back in October. The initial reaction to his comments was that he had just blown his chances (not that he cared, obviously). But almost immediately after that, there was a second wave of coverage pointing out that Phoenix’s comments might not be so harmful after all, since most of his fellow actors probably agree with him even if they wouldn’t say so quite as publicly or bluntly. I will add that Phoenix never mentions the Oscars specifically in his comments; rather, he was addressing the whole idea of campaigning for awards, and there are many stops on that trail before arriving at the Kodak Theatre. And while those remarks do include a point about the absurdity of pitting actors against each other, his general point was, again, more about the campaigning process. (And for what it’s worth, direct criticisms of the Academy Awards and the idea of actors competing against each other were voiced by Dustin Hoffman early in his career, as well as Sean Penn all throughout his; that didn’t stop the Academy from honoring each of them twice…nor did it stop them from accepting.) In another interview a few weeks later, Phoenix didn’t back away from this statements, but he did clarify them, acknowledging the benefit his career has received from past Oscar nominations. Phoenix wasn’t the only actor to decry the process this season; Anthony Hopkins had similar things to say while promoting his film Hitchcock. But although there was a point a few months ago when Hopkins was thought to be in the mix for a nomination, his chances have faded away, and his remarks don’t appear to be a factor.

When the awards season began in early December, I expected Phoenix to collect a fair share of Best Actor mentions, but so far he’s only been cited five times (though several groups have nominated him or named him as a runner-up), whereas Daniel Day-Lewis has been recognized 23 times. Not that Day-Lewis is undeserving by any stretch, but I did expect Phoenix to come up more frequently, especially since his comments would have little bearing on how critics vote. Then when he was left off the Screen Actor’s Guild list of Best Actor nominees, that was shocker. Who knows if his comments came into play or not, but in the end, I think the Actor’s branch of the Academy will find his incredible performance hard to resist. Or maybe I’m just too hopeful to admit defeat.

Whatever happens with Phoenix, Best Actor spots for John Hawkes as a disabled polio survivor seeking to lose his virginity in The Sessions and Denzel Washington’s troubled pilot in Flight are safe bets. Vying for the remaining slot (or slots) are most likely Bradley Cooper and Hugh Jackman, who joined Day-Lewis, Hawkes and Washington on the SAG list (and both of whom, along with Phoenix, were nominated for the other three significant precursor prizes – the Broadcast Film Critics Association’s awards, the Golden Globes (given out by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association) and now BAFTA. If the other four performers make the cut, it’s tough to say whether Cooper or Jackman will be the lucky fifth. Both Silver Linings Playbook and Les Misérables have a lot of support and admirers. I worry that Cooper isn’t taken seriously enough yet as an actor to get the nomination, even though his performance easily deserves it. Jackman, on the other hand, has shown a command of drama, comedy, action, musicals…he can do it all, and his peers know it. He seems more “Academy-friendly,” which probably makes him a safer bet than Cooper. But I’m taking a chance – perhaps foolishly fueled by my own hopes for Cooper – and predicting that Jackman will just miss out.

A few other names have been floating around as possibilities, including Jack Black for Bernie and Denis Lavant for the French film Holy Motors, but I think the only person who stands a chance at a surprise break-in is Richard Gere for his captivating, understated performance as a wealthy financial manager under severe personal and professional pressures in Arbitrage. Gere has been around a long time, has never been nominated (he was the only major cast member of Chicago to miss out), and is highly regarded by his fellow actors. I don’t think he’ll be able to muscle into such a competitive category, but it’s not out of the question.

Personal: Bradley Cooper, Daniel Day-Lewis, Richard Gere, Joaquin Phoenix, Denzel Washington

BEST ACTRESS
Jessica Chastain – Zero Dark Thirty
Marion Cotillard – Rust and Bone
Jennifer Lawrence – Silver Linings Playbook
Emmanuelle Riva – Amour
Naomi Watts – The Impossible

This is a tough category to predict. Jessica Chastain and Jennifer Lawrence are sure things, but the other three are all vulnerable. They all come from films that are difficult to watch at times (or so I’ve heard about Amour, given its subject matter) and may not have been at the top of Academy members’ must-see lists in December…cause nothing says “holiday cheer” like tsunamis, leg amputations and the encroaching death of the elderly. Both Amour and Rust and Bone are French films, and performances in foreign languages often face an uphill battle. Of course, Cotillard won Best Actress a few years ago for a French film, so she has history on her side, not to mention the trifecta of nominations from the Screen Actor’s Guild, Broadcast Film Critics and Hollywood Foreign Press Association (and now BAFTA too). Plus she’s an international star by now, with a presence in Hollywood films like The Dark Knight Rises and Inception. Emmanuelle Riva has few of these advantages. She’s unknown in America, and she was overlooked by SAG and the HFPA (which is surprising, since you would think the Hollywood Foreign Press Association would be particularly attuned to performances in other languages). In her favor is that Amour has received a lot of attention, her performance has been universally hailed as a moving and beautiful piece of work, and she too got a BAFTA nomination today. If enough Academy members see the film, they may not be able to deny her.

Naomi Watts, like Cotillard, also has nominations from the BFCA, HFPA and SAG on her side, and she is certainly a known and respected actress in Hollywood. Her performance as a mother battered by the 2004 tsunami in Thailand has won several prominent admirers. Reese Witherspoon wrote a letter of praise to Watts, which was published in Entertainment Weekly, and Angelina Jolie hosted a screening of the film, applauding not just Watts, but also Ewan McGregor and the young actors who play their children. Such efforts by one actor on behalf of another can sometimes do the trick. Javier Bardem can attest to this; his longshot Best Actor nominations for Before Night Falls and Biutiful were likely both helped by support from such Hollywood luminaries as Winona Ryder and Jack Nicholson for the former, and Julia Roberts, Ryan Gosling and Sean Penn for the latter. On the other hand, Watts’ character spends a fair portion of the movie immobile and inactive. I don’t know if that will matter much, as she’s certainly moving and strong in her other scenes. But I could see it working against her, with voters perhaps feeling she doesn’t get to “do” enough.

So if any of these ladies don’t come through, who else are we looking at? Top of the list is Quvenzhané Wallis (pronounced Kwah-VENN-Jah-Nay), who floored critics as Hushpuppy, the six year-old protagonist of Beasts of the Southern Wild. With no previous acting experience, Wallis anchored the film with an honest and natural performance that has had many predicting an Oscar nomination since the summer. I could definitely see it happening, but I have reservations. Her age, for starters. Child actors have been nominated before, but she would be the youngest ever, and at six years-old (when she made the movie; she’s now nine), will some voters feel that her performance, engaging as it is, isn’t acting so much as simply existing in a state of vulnerability and innocence that goes along with her age?

With SAG and Golden Globe nominations (and now BAFTA) to her credit, Helen Mirren has a shot for her performance in Hitchcock, but I don’t see it happening, maybe because it just seems undeserved to me. Mirren is solid in the film, but there’s nothing about her performance that stands out as one of the year’s best. If she makes it at the expense of Riva or Cotillard, it will be more about voters not seeing those actresses’ films than about Mirren’s actual work. Rachel Weisz received glowing reviews from critics for her work in The Deep Blue Sea, and she even won a couple of precursor awards and a Golden Globe nomination, but it’s a small film lacking the necessary buzz to attract enough viewers to carry Weisz to a nomination. Still, she could be one of the morning’s big surprises. It’s also possible, though unlikely, that Helen Hunt will sneak into this category for The Sessions. Fox Searchlight is promoting her as Best Supporting Actress, but several critics groups have nominated her in the lead category, and voters here could do the same. They tend to stick with the studio’s recommendation, but will occasionally go another way, as they did in 2008 when they nominated Kate Winslet for The Reader in the lead category rather than supporting.

Personal: Jessica Chastain, Marion Cotillard, Helen Hunt, Jennifer Lawrence, Naomi Watts

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Alan Arkin – Argo
Robert DeNiro – Silver Linings Playbook
Philip Seymour Hoffman – The Master
Tommy Lee Jones – Lincoln
Christoph Waltz – Django Unchained

The list of nominees in this category could easily match my predictions, but there is so much strong work in the running that plenty of other names could work their way in as well. Arkin, Hoffman and Jones have each been nominated by SAG, the HFPA, the BFCA and BAFTA, and the bulk of the critics awards so far have been split between Hoffman and Jones. So those two are well positioned, and Arkin is almost certain to be there as well. The remaining two slots are fairly open. DeNiro was left off the list of Golden Globe and BAFTA nominees, but scored with SAG and the BFCA. Waltz, meanwhile, only got the Golden Globe nomination, but has been cited by several critics groups as the season has gone on, and scored BAFTA recognition today. Waltz is also competing with his co-star Leonardo DiCaprio, who also got a Golden Globe nomination and could just as easily make the final five. Javier Bardem surprised many with SAG and BFCA nominations for his playful, determined villain in Skyfall, and while I don’t expect he’ll make it in the end, Bardem should never be written off. (He got the BAFTA seal of approval today as well.) Then there’s Matthew McConaughey, who had a banner, career-resurrecting year with excellent performances in Bernie, The Paperboy, Killer Joe (or so I’ve heard; haven’t seen it yet) and the one for which he’d most likely be nominated, Magic Mike.

That’s the pool from which the final five will probably be pulled, but there are a number of other actors who could conceivably pop up, either fueled by widespread critical acclaim or general admiration for their movies. That list includes Dwight Henry for Beasts of the Southern Wild, John Goodman for Argo, Jason Clarke for Zero Dark Thirty and Ewan McGregor for The Impossible. None of them have the momentum they would surely need to break through, but they have just enough spoiler potential to keep things interesting. In addition to all the actors mentioned so far, I could name another half-dozen, at least, who are worthy of recognition in this category. Michael Fassbender in Prometheus, Jim Broadbent in Cloud Atlas, David Oyelowo in The Paperboy, Benicio del Toro in Savages, Guy Pearce in Lawless, Scoot McNairy in Killing Them Softly, Ezra Miller in The Perks of Being a Wallflower…none of them have a chance in hell, but along with all the people with better odds, their work shows that when it comes to Supporting Actors, there’s been an abundance of riches this year.

Personal: Jason Clarke, Robert DeNiro, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ewan McGregor, Christoph Waltz

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams – The Master
Sally Field – Lincoln
Anne Hathaway – Les Misérables
Helen Hunt – The Sessions
Maggie Smith – The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Despite minimal screentime, Hathaway has dominated the critics awards so far, and is a sure bet here. (Her well-reviewed performance in The Dark Knight Rises doesn’t hurt.) Sally Field and Helen Hunt are on equally solid footing, allowing for the small chance that voters will elevate Hunt to Best Actress. There’s also the possibility that if enough votes do place her there, she could fall short in both categories and wind up out of it altogether. But I expect she’ll make it, and that she’ll remain in the Supporting category. Amy Adams has been a mainstay on critics’ lists of nominees, but her performance is subtle and comes in a movie that, as I mentioned in the Best Picture section, may or may not find favor with Academy members. Her omission from the SAG nominees also makes her a bit vulnerable. Still, the Academy loves Adams. She’s been nominated three times since 2005, and in two of those cases I incorrectly predicted she would be overlooked. I won’t make the same mistake again…which probably means she’ll be overlooked. But I’m sticking with her anyway. She got a boost today from BAFTA, and could also be helped by the good notices she earned as Clint Eastwood’s daughter in the baseball drama Trouble with the Curve.

That just leaves Maggie Smith, who is by no means a sure thing. She did get a SAG nomination, and as I said, I’ve read that The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel has been resonating with actors, a fact that is also evident from the SAG nomination for Best Ensemble Cast. On the other hand, the SAG voting body is much larger and more eclectic than the Actors branch of the Academy. And Smith’s performance, while entertaining, is really just a variation on her Downton Abbey character. But people love her on Downton Abbey, so…

All eyes are on two actresses in particular for filling out this category: one is a big name and past Oscar winner, the other is a longtime working actress with little name recognition. The big name/past winner is Nicole Kidman, who plays a saucy sexpot in director Lee Daniels’ southern-fried drama, The Paperboy. Although the movie was generally derided, it did have some avid supporters (it received an extended standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival), and Kidman was mentioned even that far back as a possible contender. But the movie’s poor reviews upon its US release in October seemed to knock Kidman out of contention…until she got surprise SAG and Golden Globe nominations. Now it’s just a question of whether the movie – or at least Kidman’s committed performance – are to the Academy’s tastes.

The other contender everyone is curious about is Ann Dowd, from the small indie movie Compliance. She plays a fast food restaurant manager who receives a phone call from a policeman claiming that a young, pretty employee at the restaurant has stolen from a customer, and that she must help him interrogate her until he can come to the location personally. As it turns out,  something far more sinister is at play. Dowd has worked steadily since the early 90’s, appearing in such films as Philadelphia, Marley & Me, Apt Pupil and Flags of Our Fathers, and TV shows including Freaks and Geeks, The X-Files, Louie and, like every working actor under the sun, Law & Order (multiple versions, multiple times). I remember Dowd best for her brief but wonderful performance as Natalie Portman’s mother in Garden State. She won rave reviews for Compliance, but it was a surprise to everyone when the National Board of Review – considered to be one of the five major critics organizations handing out awards – named her the year’s Best Supporting Actress. Then the BFCA nominated her, and several other regional critics groups have done the same. Because Compliance was such a low-budget and low-grossing film, its distributor Magnolia Pictures could not afford to send DVD screeners to guild and Academy members. But seeing an opportunity to take her career to a new level, Dowd is self-financing a campaign in the hopes of getting voters to see the film and consider her work. Such efforts, when backed by notices from critics, do sometimes pay off. In 1987, Sally Kirkland landed a Best Actress nomination alongside Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Cher and Holly Hunter for her film Anna, and in 1991 Michael Lerner’s efforts on his own behalf got him a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Barton Fink. A lot of people are rooting for Dowd, but she faces a steep uphill battle. (Compliance just came out on DVD this week, so I watched it last night. It’s a disturbing, thought-provoking movie, and Dowd is indeed excellent.)

Beyond the ladies mentioned, few other names are in the running. Academy darling Judi Dench has earned some deserved recognition for Skyfall, and newcomer Samantha Barks has been cited by some critics groups or Les Misérables, but both face long odds for an Oscar nomination. There’s been some talk around RoseMarie DeWitt for Your Sister’s Sister and Kelly Reilly for Flight, but that talk has been too quiet. Ditto for Emma Watson, who garnered a few nominations early in season from regional critics groups for The Perks of Being a Wallflower, but has lost what little steam she had. I wish the conversation included Salma Hayek for Savages, Susan Sarandon for Arbitrage and even Emily Blunt for Looper, but those are just wishful thinking.

Personal: Ann Dowd, Sally Field, Anne Hathaway, Salma Hayek, Susan Sarandon

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Michael Haneke – Amour
Quentin Tarantino – Django Unchained
John Gatins – Flight
Wes Anderson & Roman Coppola – Moonrise Kingdom
Mark Boal – Zero Dark Thirty

Mark Boal, who won this award for The Hurt Locker, and Wes Anderson, who hasn’t been nominated since The Royal Tenenbaums (and shares credit with Roman Coppola, son of Francis) are the category’s locks, and the only thing that keeps me from saying the same of Quentin Tarantino is Django‘s controversial subject matter. But I do expect QT to make the cut. Acclaimed foreign language films often find recognition from the writer’s branch, so Michael Haneke could be celebrated here rather than in the Best Director race (or in addition to a Best Director nomination). But I’m not convinced of his chances, nor of John Gatins’ for Flight.

The most likely alternates would be Paul Thomas Anderson for The Master and Rian Johnson for the crafty sci-fi film Looper. Flight, The Master and Looper were all nominated by the Writer’s Guild of America (as were Moonrise Kingdom and Zero Dark Thirty), but as always, it’s important to remember that the WGA deems films ineligible if they fail to meet certain criteria. Tarantino has never been a member of the guild, so his scripts never qualify for recognition. Shouldn’t be a problem for his Oscar chances. Haneke was also out of the running for the WGA. These notable ineligibilities  allowed scripts dancing on the edge to slide in. The question is, of Flight, Looper and The Master, which is most “on the edge?”

Paul Thomas Anderson has been Oscar nominated for his Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood scripts, and with all the critical acclaim, The Master might seem like a no-brainer. But I question its chances for the same reasons I brought up in the Best Picture section. With only five slots as opposed to Best Picture’s ten, I’m not sure where The Master will fall. I’m really intrigued to see how the Academy reacts to it. Meanwhile, Rian Johnson is considered one of the more original filmmaking voices working right now (he deserved a nomination in 2006 for his debut film, Brick), and Looper has received a number of wins and nominations from the critics. But is it really the Academy’s taste? They don’t often go for sci-fi, and when they do, the stories tend to have weightier issues than Looper offers (see District 9, Inception, Children of Men). I could see Looper being this year’s 50/50 – a film that garnered a lot of screenwriting honors last year, including a WGA nod, but was ultimately passed over by the Academy (sorry, Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Still the script is clever enough, and Rian Johnson admired enough by fellow writers, that he could easily earn his first nomination. Flight is probably the clearest “fringe” candidate here, an admired film all all around, but one that just doesn’t have quite enough muscle to punch through in most races other than Best Actor. In a weaker year, it would be firmly in contention for Best Picture and Best Director. So if it stands a chance anywhere else, this is the place. What would seem to be the story of a plane crash and its aftermath is really a deeper character study of a flawed man fighting his demons, and it’s an impressive piece of work.

There are some smaller, independent films that might have stood a better chance in a different year, including Damsels in Distress, Safety Not Guaranteed and Your Sister’s Sister, but they aren’t in play as things stand. The only film I could see popping up out of left field is Arbitrage, Nicholas Jarecki’s carefully-plotted dramatic thriller/character study. It’s set in the same world of financial power players as last year’s surprise nominee Margin Call. But although that film was considered a longshot, it was discussed as a possibility. I’ve heard little mention of Arbitrage as a contender here. Too bad.

Personal: Arbitrage, Django Unchained, Flight, Moonrise Kingdom, Zero Dark Thirty

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Chris Terrio – Argo
Lucy Alibar & Benh Zeitlin – Beasts of the Southern Wild
David Magee – Life of Pi
Tony Kushner – Lincoln
David O. Russell – Silver Linings Playbook

Argo, Lincoln and Silver Linings Playbook are sitting pretty here. Life of Pi stands a strong chance, considering that the book has long been called unfilmable. However that may have been less a case of it posing challenges as an adaptation, and more about the technical challenges of having a tiger as a main character, interacting in extremely close proximity with a human. Will voters assign substantial credit to screenwriter David Magee for making the story work on film? I’m guessing yes, but I could be wrong. I haven’t read the book, but from what I understand, one of Magee’s major changes was the expansion of the story’s framing device, and the addition of a new character within that device to whom the adult Pi tells his story. I’ve seen even a few positive reviews of the movie describe these scenes as a bit clunky, so I wonder if that will matter.

Beasts of the Southern Wild is the other selection I could see going either way. It was not eligible for the WGA award, but I figure that its power and originality will impress fellow writers. Should voters decide against Pi or Beasts, they may turn to The Perks of Being a Wallflower. Stephen Chobsky adapted his own acclaimed, popular novel and directed the film, which received terrific reviews and has been cited by several critics groups so far, as well as the WGA. But again, I sense another 50/50 situation here – a movie that critics rally behind but that just doesn’t resonate with enough Academy members to land it a spot. It’s got a good chance, but it’s no guarantee.

Les Misérables could get swept up in what is sure to be a wave of nominations, but is it really seen as an achievement in screenwriting, especially when the dialogue is almost entirely sung? Another possibility – though a real longshot – is Cloud Atlas. Like Life of Pi, it was considered an unfilmable novel, but those who appreciated the film would probably praise Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski for the creative choices they made in reworking the book’s structure for film.

Personal: Argo, Cloud Atlas, Lincoln, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Silver Linings Playbook

BEST ANIMATED FILM
Brave
Frankenweenie
The Painting
ParaNorman
Wreck-It Ralph

21 films were eligible for the award this year, meaning we’ll get a full slate of five nominees. And while there were enough strong offerings distributed by Hollywood studios to fill out the category, it’s likely that at least one of the nominees will be something from the foreign market that most American audiences have never heard of. Two such films – Chico and Rita and A Cat in Paris –  broke into the race last year, displacing the mighty Pixar’s Cars 2. The previous year, France’s The Illusionist made the final list over hits like Despicable Me and Tangled, and The Secret of Kells came out of nowhere the year before that. With members of the animation branch clearly in touch with what’s happening in the broader field, expect one or two of the nominees to come from the world of indie animation (which usually means foreign). Kells, Chico, and A Cat in Paris were all distributed by a specialty company called GKIDS, which has four films on the eligibility list this year. InContention.com’s Kris Tapley provided a nice gallery-style rundown of most of the eligible films, and based on his descriptions and comments, my guess is that The Painting and The Rabbi’s Cat stand the best chance of breaking through. Beyond the GKIDS offerings, one promising contender could be A Liar’s Autobiography: The Untrue Story of Monty Python’s Graham Chapman, just due to universal love for Python. But given all these indie and foreign entries that I’ve never seen or heard of, I’m pretty much just throwing darts.

As for the films I’m more familiar with, there’s a chance that the similar ground covered by Frankenweenie and ParaNorman could result in one of them being left out. They’re both really good and I can’t imagine either being omitted, but if one is, and/or if another more mainstream film makes it in, Rise of the Guardians, Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax and The Pirates! Band of Misfits are the best bets. I found The Lorax to be muddled and disappointing, but it was nicely animated and a huge hit. Rise of the Guardians had its moments, but I don’t think it’s as good as any of the other movies I’m betting on. Pirates was amusing, and will appeal to branch members who like Aardman’s unique visual style, but I’m not sure it can go all the way.

It’s a shame that Studio Ghibli’s The Secret World of Arietty is not eligible, due to its 2010 release in Japan. Ghibli has another film in the running, called From Up on Poppy Hill, but it hasn’t yet received a wide release in the US.

Personal: Brave, Frankenweenie, ParaNorman, The Secret World of Arietty, Wreck-It Ralph

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Danny Cohen – Les Misérables
Claudio Miranda – Life of Pi
Janusz Kaminski – Lincoln
Mihai Malaimare, Jr. – The Master
Roger Deakins – Skyfall

As we move into the below-the-line, crafts-oriented categories, it becomes apparent what a gorgeous year it’s been for film. This category, as well as Art Direction and Costume Design, boast a wealth of outstanding work that make it difficult to predict what will make the cut, and assuring that no matter what does, there will be excellent, deserving films left off the list. Life of Pi and The Master are probably on solid ground. Skyfall is a good bet too. I’m not sure about Les Misérables. The movie’s detractors cite the camerawork as one of their major problems with it, and initially I left it off my list. But this morning, the American Society of Cinematographers weighed in with their nominations, citing Anna Karenina, Les Misérables, Life of Pi, Lincoln and Skyfall. I originally included Django Unchained and Zero Dark Thirty among my five predictions, but that meant my list and the guild’s only had two films in common. It’s unlikely there would be that wide a gap, so I’ve adjusted my list. We’ll see if I should have stuck to my guns.

What else is in the running? Batman Begins and The Dark Knight both scored nominations in this category, but did The Dark Knight Rises add anything or raise the bar? Probably not. Beasts of the Southern Wild, Moonrise Kingdom, Cloud Atlas, The Impossible and ASC-annointed Anna Karenina all feature excellent work that could score here. I favor the latter two, and would also love to see Silver Linings Playbook under consideration, though I don’t think it will nab many votes. This category favors visually impressive work, whereas the camera in Silver Linings is more about bringing the audience into intimate proximity with its characters in a way that helps the storytelling but isn’t concerned with what’s “pretty.” (The same could be said of Zero Dark Thirty, but the section of the film that depicts the Navy SEAL raid raises its chances.)

Personal: Les Misérables, Life of Pi, The Master, Silver Linings Playbook, Skyfall

BEST FILM EDITING
Argo
Les Misérables
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty

Argo and Zero Dark Thirty are in for sure (and happen to have an editor in common – William Goldenberg, who edited Argo solo and shared duties on Zero Dark Thirty with Dylan Tichenor). This category tends to largely coincide with Best Picture nominees, and in the days of five nominees in that category, three or four of them would usually land here too. Musicals also do well here, so Les Misérables is probably in. It could go either way with Lincoln and Silver Linings. I would love to see Cloud Atlas earn a spot, but there’s little reason to expect it will happen given the mixed reviews and poor box office. Skyfall could break in – well-respected and assembled action films sometimes do. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey should also be mentioned, if only because all three Lord of the Rings movies were nominated. But they were all up for Best Picture too, which probably won’t happen here. Their prestige status and potential as Best Picture nominees also puts Django Unchained, The Master, and Life of Pi on the list of possibilities.

Personal: Argo, Cloud Atlas, Les Misérables, Silver Linings Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Anna Karenina
Cloud Atlas
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Les Misérables
Moonrise Kingdom

Previously known as Best Art Direction, this category has been more accurately renamed as Best Production Design, since the award is given to Production Designers and Set Decorators…but not Art Directors. Still, the types of films recognized are unlikely to change, which is good news for period pieces and sci-fi/fantasy films. Meaning that at last, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and Cloud Atlas have a chance. Cloud Atlas, in particular, scores on both counts thanks to its varied settings and time periods, from the mid-1800’s to a decaying urban metropolis in the year 2144.

Voters could decide that The Hobbit doesn’t offer enough from Middle Earth that we haven’t seen already, but I’m banking on it nonetheless. Wes Anderson’s movies always have a unique look, yet have never been nominated here before (The Life Aquatic‘s omission was the most glaring). The Art Directors Guild passed over Moonrise Kingdom in its nominations last week, but I have a good feeling that the movie’s lasting appeal and potential Best Picture nomination could help it here.

Although my guesses all have good odds, there’s some excellent work that could just as easily make the list. I’m probably making a mistake not including Lincoln, but I’m operating on a guess that it will take a backseat to flashier, prettier options. The Master and Argo are period pieces, but they’re relatively contemporary compared to the more ornate period films that tend to draw nominations like moths to a flame. Still, either one of them could slide in, as could the interstellar look of Prometheus. Life of Pi has a colorful storybook quality that might charm voters, and although no one else is talking about it, I would be remiss not to mention Dark Shadows, as Tim Burton’s movies are almost always Design contenders. The Shadows sets looked a bit fakey to me, and not in a deliberate, stylized way, so I don’t expect them to go the distance, but Burton films will always be considered.

Personal: Anna Karenina, Cloud Atlas, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Moonrise Kingdom, Prometheus

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Anna Karenina
Django Unchained
Mirror Mirror
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Les Misérables

Once again, Academy members are faced with a wealth of great work and the inevitability of several films that deserve to win falling short of even a nomination. As with Production Design, period pieces are catnip to these voters, so Anna Karenina is the year’s champ when it comes to Oscar-friendly period frocks. If voters can remember all the way back to March, the colorful and elaborate costumes from Mirror Mirror should land a spot, and  Snow White and the Huntsman stands a strong chance as well. Argo, A Royal Affair, Lincoln and Cloud Atlas all have a hat (or a ball gown or a tweed suit) in this tight race, as does Moonrise Kingdom. This is also another category where Tim Burton movies do well, so Dark Shadows is in the mix again, and probably has a better chance than it does for Production Design.

Personal: Django Unchained, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Les Misérables, Mirror Mirror, Moonrise Kingdom

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Learn Me Right – Brave
Freedom – Django Unchained
Song of the Lonely Mountain – The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Suddenly – Les Misérables
Skyfall – Skyfall

This has been a troubled category in recent years, hitting bottom last year when the absurd rules resulted in only two nominees. Responding to the negative feedback, the rules were changed last summer. Whereas the category had been operating under a point system so bizarre that a team of the world’s brightest mathematicians cried “bullshit” when asked to explain it, the music branch simplified things by reverting to an earlier system: members of the music branch will simply vote for up to five selections from the list of eligible songs, and the five songs with the highest tally will be nominated. Members will still judge the songs based on the clip from each movie in which the song appears (if it plays over the end credits, that’s the context in which voters will hear it), but now a DVD with all those clips will be sent to them, instead of the members having to attend a special screening.

So we have an assured slate of five nominees this year, which will be chosen from a whopping 75 eligible tunes. Don’t worry; I’m not about to cover all of them (although if that would interest you, TheWrap.com’s Steve Pond went through them all and offered his thoughts). With such a long list, trying to guess what five songs the music branch will go for is a fool’s errand. The only choices I feel safe with are “Skyfall” and “Suddenly.” New songs written for film adaptations of musicals by the original composers, as “Suddenly” is, almost always land a nomination. It happened with Evita, Dreamgirls, Chicago, The Phantom of the Opera, Little Shop of Horrors…and I expect it will happen here too.  As for Adele’s seductive title track from Skyfall, I’m thrilled to see it qualify. Many pundits thought it wouldn’t, given that it incorporates traces of the original James Bond theme. The rules clearly state that a song’s words and music must be written specifically for the movie in question, so “Skyfall” was feared ineligible. But the branch came through…I’d like to think because they said, “Screw the rules; maybe Adele will perform at the Oscars!” Only three James Bond theme songs – the title tracks from Live and Let Die and For Your Eyes Only, and The Spy Who Loved Me‘s “Nobody Does it Better” – have been nominated before, but it would be a surprise and disappointment if “Skyfall” didn’t join them. Still, knowing how this branch has operated in the past, either song could miss the boat.

Rather than attempt to cover a small sampling of the 75 potentials, I’ll just mention two ineligible songs that I would really have liked to see here. The first is “The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre,” a great little rock tune written by E Street Band guitarist and Sopranos star Steven Van Zandt, from the movie Not Fade Away. Unfortunately, Van Zandt gave the song to a Swedish group called the Cocktail Slippers in 2009, when he produced their album, so it’s already been recorded and released. (Spotify users can listen to the movie version here.)

The other ineligible song that deserves to be here is “Safe and Sound,” the Taylor Swift/Civil Wars collaboration from The Hunger Games. This one is out of the running due to yet another of the music branch’s bonehead rules: a song which only plays over the end credits has to be the first song over the credits to qualify. In this case, “Safe and Sound” followed Arcade Fire’s “Abraham’s Daughter” (which is eligible, and is a cool song, but probably not the Academy’s taste). Seriously, this makes no fucking sense. If the song is written for the movie and is actually used in the movie (not just on the soundtrack album), it should be eligible. Period. Who gives a shit if it’s the second song in the credits?

Apparently the morons in the Academy’s music branch do.

The biggest problem with my predictions is that I like all the songs. Plus, the odds of three of my personal selections making the Academy’s list are slim. It’s almost certain that at least one overly earnest, sentimental or forgettable song will be included, so I should pick one from a higher profile movie just to boost my odds. Then again, if I’m bound to miss a couple anyway, I’d rather miss by predicting something good than something crappy.

Personal: Freedom, Who Did That to You (Django Unchained), Song of the Lonely Mountain, Safe and Sound, Skyfall

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Dario Marianelli – Anna Karenina
Alexandre Desplat – Argo
Mychael Danna – Life of Pi
John Williams – Lincoln
Thomas Newman – Skyfall

With Best Original Song, voters will often go with tracks from an obscure or lesser known film, but the Original Score nominees are always more mainstream and high-profile, so although there are 104 eligible scores, most of them can probably be discounted. Those I’m predicting, as well as the unduplicated choices on my personal list, all have a legitimate shot at the final five. Beyond those, I’d guess there are three strong possibilities, starting with Jonny Greenwood for The Master. His wildly original score for There Will Be Blood was disqualified for containing too much previously existing music, but The Master – while similar in style – hit no such obstacles. It’s definitely unique, but perhaps too much so for the music branch’s taste? I’m not sure. Danny Elfman’s Hitchcock score pays playful homage to an older era of Hollywood films (so does his Frankenweenie score, for that matter) and Hollywood itself, which could appeal to voters’ sense of fun and nostalgia. And Alexandre Desplat created another subtle but distinctive score for Zero Dark Thirty…not unlike what he did for Argo. I’d be surprised if both were nominated, and Argo‘s score has received more notices and attention. But maybe that’s just because it’s been out longer.

I’d like to think Cloud Atlas is a sure-fire nominee, but I have a feeling it won’t make it. I hope I’m wrong.

Personal: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Cloud Atlas, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Lincoln

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Lincoln
Men in Black 3

The name of this category has been changed from Best Makeup, to reflect that hairstyling is also supposed to be considered, and although that has always been the case, the nominees tend to focus more on the makeup and prosthetics. We’ll have to see if hair becomes reflected in the nominees more often as time goes on. I’m not sure it will.

As always, the Makeup and Hairstyling branch announced seven semi-finalists in December, and the three nominees will be chosen from that list through a bake-off event. In addition to my three guesses above, the remaining contenders are Hitchcock, Les Misérables, Looper and Snow White and the Huntsman. More consideration of hairstyling might have earned The Hunger Games a spot on that list, but no such luck. It also would have been nice to see The Impossible here, for the creation of wounds and injuries suffered by tsunami victims. Still, the most shocking omission is Cloud Atlas, which radically transformed all of its principal actors with multiple looks and styles, including different ages, races and genders. Sure, there were a few that looked a little awkward, but overall the work was fantastic, and boasted incredible variety. A disappointing oversight.

Looper‘s main use of makeup was making Joseph Gordon-Levitt look a bit more like Bruce Willis, but I’d be surprised if that’s enough to net a nomination. Transforming Anthony Hopkins into Alfred Hitchcock is more dramatic work, but really it just looks like Anthony Hopkins if he were heavier; he didn’t look anything like Alfred Hitchcock. Still, it’s a drastic enough alteration that it could make the grade. Snow White and Huntsman and The Hobbit feature the same kind of work – a lot of it used for dwarves – and there’s also a lot in common between Les Misérables and Lincoln. I think in the case of each pair, the latter will win out. The most fantastical contender of the bunch is Men in Black 3, which featured a wide variety of impressive creature designs from legendary artist Rick Baker. He’s won seven times, and will probably add a 12th nomination (13th, if you count one for Visual Effects) to his tally.

Personal: Cloud Atlas, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Lincoln

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
The Avengers
Cloud Atlas
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Life of Pi
Prometheus

As is the case with Makeup and Hairstyling, the Visual Effects branch selects a list of semi-finalists, then holds a bake-off to showcase the work so members can vote for the nominees. In this case, there were ten shortlisted films, which will yield five nominees. In addition to those above, The Amazing Spider-Man, The Dark Knight Rises, John Carter, Skyfall and Snow White and the Huntsman are in play. The branch tends to overlook subtle or practical effects, which will probably eliminate Dark Knight and Skyfall. John Carter‘s effects looked a bit silly and overly CG, so I’m guessing that’s out too.

As for what’s in, The Hobbit and Life of Pi should be locks. The Avengers had a lot of different kind of complicated effects, and the work was top notch, so I’m sure it will make the list. While none of the work in Cloud Atlas or Prometheus breaks new ground, they both look great and the effects are nicely integrated into the respective stories. Still, either could conceivably be swapped out for Spider-Man or Snow White. If I recall, The Lizard – Spider-Man‘s villain – had a similar problem as John Carter‘s aliens; it looked too CG-fake, and might drag down the movie’s chances. But two of the three previous Spidey movies made the cut, so it has a shot. Snow White could go either way, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it come through.

Personal: Same

BEST SOUND EDITING
The Avengers
Django Unchained
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Skyfall
Wreck-It Ralph

BEST SOUND MIXING
Argo
The Avengers
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Les Misérables
Zero Dark Thirty

Not much to say here, other than my annual declaration that I know little about sound editing and sound mixing, and even less about what members of this branch will be looking for or excited by. In the most basic and simplified terms, Sound Editing involves the creation in post-production of sounds that could not be captured while filming, and Sound Mixing involves the blending of all aural ingredients – from sound effects to dialogue to music – into a final package. Movies with a lot of action tend to dominate both categories, while musicals almost always find a place in Sound Mixing, along with prestige dramas such as past nominees Moneyball, The Social Network and The King’s Speech. Animated films – especially from Pixar – often land in both categories too, but if they only nab one of the two nominations, it’s usually Sound Editing. So Brave could wind up in one or both races, but I’m leaning toward Wreck-It Ralph, which has the more diverse soundscape when it comes to animation this year. Who knows. Based on past nominees, my own gut feelings, and a few other magical ingredients, these are my best guesses. I’m bound to get lucky on a few of them. But there are plenty of others that could find love in one or both of these categories, including The Dark Knight Rises, Lincoln, Prometheus, Looper, The Impossible, The Hunger Games, Life of Pi, Cloud Atlas, Flight or a dozen others I’ve failed to mention.

Personal: Every year, I advocate – to nobody in particular – for the sound categories to be combined into one, recognizing overall Sound Design. In that fantasy of mine (and in lieu of personal choices for the categories as they exist, since I wouldn’t know what to judge on), I’d go Argo, Django Unchained, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Les Misérables, Prometheus.

If you’ve made it this far, you are a disturbed individual, but I congratulate you.

There we have it. As usual, I’m not discussing Best Documentary, Best Foreign Language Film or any of the Best Short Film races, since my intake has been pitiful. As for everything else, we’ll see how I did when the nominees are announced by Emma Stone and this year’s Oscar host Seth MacFarlane tomorrow morning at zero dark thirty PST (actually about 5:38, but it will be dark enough).

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.