Oscar History

The Film Experience™ was created by Nathaniel R. Gemini, Cinephile, Actressexual. All material herein is written and copyrighted by Nathaniel or a member of our team as noted.

Powered by Squarespace
Don't Miss This!
Comment Fun

New Q & A - Actors who should be more famous and more...

"For the life of me I will never understand why Audra McDonald isn't bigger outside of Broadway." - Brian

"I will add to that list Irfhan Khan; he gets roles steadily, but in my mind he should be a household name." -Rebecca

"I'll also echo that Rosemarie DeWitt is one of the most talented working actresses, full stop. There is no other Best Supporting Actress of 2008." - Hayden

Keep TFE Strong

We're looking for 500... no 470 Patron SaintsIf you read us daily, please be one.  Your suscription dimes make an enormous difference. Consider...

I ♥ The Film Experience


What'cha Looking For?
« Ladies of Sundance, or: I know her! | Main | Dear Sundance: You Make Me Want To... »

Podcast Nom Reactions Pt 2: All Category Run Through

I've had bizarre trouble in getting this last two-part podcast up! I am technologically inept I suppose. I never can explain / figure out what happens when things go wrong but nevertheless here is finally part two of that Post-Nomination discussion. In Pt. 1 Joe, Katey, Nick and I (Nathaniel) discussed the big eight categories and answered reader questions.  

Pt 2:  Animated Feature, What happened to The Impossible?, Best Pictures, Small Pictures and Craft Categories, Best Makeup (and Hairstyling!), Costumes, Best Actor,  is Cinematography the "Supporting Actor" of the craft categories this year?, and lots of praise for Amour.


You can download the podcast on iTunes or listen right here at the end of the post. 


Category Run Through

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (35)

Thought (came randomly to me just now, and hence why I'm just putting it on a random post comment section!): if the number of BP nominees was still five, which ones would've made it? Methinks it would've been ARGO, MISERABLES,LIFE, LINCOLN and PLAYBOOK.

January 22, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterWellington Sludge

Great podcast as always!
Cinematography and Score are definitely the "supporting actor" of the technical categories and the biggest (and toughest to crack) clubs in the Academy.
Robert Richardson for Django? Thomas Newman for Skyfall? I really don't understand.
Every technical (and major) categorie has its own WTF nomination and its own "how could they snub this?" and that's part of the Oscar game. Sometimes the weird nominations are easy to spot right after the nominations, but what I really love is to go back and see the out of nowhere nominations. House of Sand and Fog for Score? Snow falling on cedars for cinematography? I could go on for hours listing past "crazy" nominations

January 22, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterVictor S

The thing that is most flat out bonkers about the Lincoln sound nomination is that there is incredible, best of the year work being done by legend Ben Burtt (of Wall-E) in sound editing. Here's an interview with him talking about recording sounds from artifacts in museums and at the White House itself, and it's amazing stuff: http://soundworkscollection.com/videos/lincoln

But the crazy thing is, they didn't nominate sound editing. They nominated sound mixing, which buried all of the minute painstaking detail of Burtt's work under John Williams's mediocre score. Ugh! So frustrating.

January 22, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterTB


January 23, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterstjeans

I think the Les Mis was a fitting makeup nominee. The work on the whores by the docks was excellent and there were tons of wigs that really helped define characters. The death makeup was good and so was the dirt and grime on the prisoners. It's a case of most=best that actually reflects reality. It was a lot of very strong makeup. There's also some subtle stuff, like removing Eponine's beauty makeup when she puts on the hat and coat or the exaggerated colors on the angel figure in the finale, that really stands out when you follow makeup.

Snow White and The Huntsman was almost all CGI. Everything else was basic film makeup. You could tell the aging effects were special effects rather than special makeup effects because they so rapidly changed.

Hitchcock seems obvious, but it also comes down to the wigs. One of the subplots involved intentionally styling a character poorly as revenge. Then there's all the day to night makeup transitions for Alma and Janet Leigh. And there's also the John Wayne Gacey scenes where Hitchcock was made up differently to better suit the lighting in those scenes.

As for Silver Linings Playbook, the fight scene and the big dance scene were beautifully done. They covered for very basic fight staging and the limitations of Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence's dancing ability. Then there are all those moments where Jennifer Lawrence appears to pop out of nowhere because they literally cut two different takes together to hide where she came from on the runs.

Forget Marion Cotillard being snubbed (again, grumble grumble Nine). Whatever happened to the groundswell of support for Audrey Tautou to get nominated for any and everything she did after Amelie? I'm still waiting on her first nomination.

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterRobert G

snow falling on cedars was maybe robert richardson's greatest achievement ever and it should have won?

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered Commentercal roth

The cinematography branch loves its westerns. That, plus the fact that Richardson won last year, is how I explain that nomination.

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterEvan

I agree with Cal Roth that the Cinematography nod for Cedars is the opposite of crazy. In general principle, though obviously nothing is true all the time, I think technical nominations that arrive as part of big sweeps for Best Picture or high-profile acting nominees are often the weakest ones. When a technical branch sticks its neck out for a movie that's not getting a lot of attention elsewhere on the ballot, they're often acting on a solid principle, and Cedars is an example of that. (I thought Richardson was equally deserving that year for what he pulled off in Scorsese's Bringing Out the Dead.

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterNick Davis

Since the topic is cinematography, I must again restate my firm support for Fred Koenekamp's controversial victory in 1974 for The Towering Inferno against GF2 and CT. He certainly deserved the Oscar for his old-style Hollywood elegance and for smoothly driving an epic narrative with compelling movement and bristling energy.

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterbrookesboy

I silently hoped that Trintignant would get it just like Von Sydow did for Pelle. It would have been so classy to recognize his status of European movie icon with a nomination.

I also loved Amour's apartment, but those branches are never brave enough. I also miss The Master in cinematography and art direction. The Impossible totally deserved sound and make-up.

PS I think Pi's Lullaby gets my vote.

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterPeggy Sue

Wow, I didn't know ScarJo has such a beautiful voice

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterRic

I just watched Lost In Translation again, and OMG, what happened to the talent of Scarlet Johanssen? You're right, Ric, in this movie, her voice is like buttery, velvety caramel sauce.

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterbrookesboy

It is strange to say that about a three time Oscar winner, but I am so sad about what these Oscars are doing to Richardson's reputation. He is such a gifted cinematographer have done Oscar-worthy work at least five times and now everybody thinks he is overrated!

Same goes for Colleen Atwood. Why are you people tired of her? It is not her fault to win a lot but her work is always top-notch!

And just because nobody was very enthusiastic about him, I just want to say very loudly that Denzel Washigton iin Flight gives the best performance of this category and maybe every category, give or take Rachel Weisz. Oops, she was snubbed...

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered Commentercal roth

@ cal roth:

Denzel's collective dismissal is outright hypocrisy. Never hear a peep about the nominations Streep didn't deserve—just the cries of criminality for the ones she missed.

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered Commenter3rtful

What's Meryl Streep got to do with it? Denzel is not a filler. He did a hell of a job here. It is not some Julie and Julia bullshit. He did deserve the nomination and even the win. I don't know where this comparision is coming from.

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered Commentercal roth

Ric -- i know. i love her singing voice. I really should get that Tom Waits cover album she did.

January 23, 2013 | Registered CommenterNATHANIEL R

Also can i just add to this comments section that Joe saying "Get outta here Jessica Tandy" is like my new favorite soundbyte ever.

January 23, 2013 | Registered CommenterNATHANIEL R

@cal roth

there is a blogger who has an innate hatred for Streep and this blogger constantly mentions her name in practically all of his blogs ... I think he may be her jilted lover!!!????

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterrick

Don't be mean! She was a stage legend. If I've learned to forgive Marlee, you can do the same ;)

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterPeggy Sue

What's Meryl Streep got to do with it? Denzel is not a filler. He did a hell of a job here. It is not some Julie and Julia bullshit. He did deserve the nomination and even the win. I don't know where this comparision is coming from.

She actually deserved to win for Julia and Julia but that wasn't why she was brought up. I used her as an example of a name brand who gets in generally because of their name whether they earned the nomination or not. Washington deserves his for Flight but to the naysayers he's expendable and I'm calling them out for the hypocrisy.

January 23, 2013 | Unregistered Commenter3rtful

Hmmm... I'm not sure where I fit into the Cal Roth/3rtful dialogue, but I'll just say for the record, I think Washington is superb in Flight, as is Cooper in Silver Linings; I think Day-Lewis and Phoenix are even slightly more superb, but any one of them would be a fantastic winner. That is by leaps and bounds the strongest of the four acting derbies this year. As for Robert Richardson, I think he has started to pick up more and more nods just as the overall trend in his work became less reliable and interesting; I honestly don't see any good argument for Django coming anywhere near his best efforts, or approaching the level of Oscar-worthy photography, but I'd be happy to hear a good case.

Re: "hypocrisy," I can't quite work out if 3rtful means Nathaniel -- I hope not, since our host has been very clear in several of these podcasts about his admiration for Washington in Flight, and very nuanced in his reactions to Streep over the years, though people inexplicably paint him as a 100% lover or objector at different times. The rhetoric is dialed up kind of high hear, but neither the point nor the target is clear to me. Is there a way to clarify what you're saying without labeling anyone as anything in particular along the way?

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterNick Davis

I'm agreeing with Cal that Washington is a worthy nominee and that Flight is essential Denzel. Where my usage of Streep comes from is the frequency she's nominated for less than essential or above average work, and there's no resistance there, she gets a free pass while, Washington receives the questions. I know he's not most people's favorite actor when discussing the truly great ones, but he's solid and much more interesting than given credit for generally.

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered Commenter3rtful

Thank you. These podcasts make my commute something I look forward to in the morning. Too bad you don't make more of them :-)

Can u all do a post-Sundance one?

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterTroy

@3rtful: Got it. Thanks!

@Troy: We'd be better equipped to do that if 3 of the 4 of us weren't stuck at home during Sundance. But Katey's writing bunches at her site. Thanks for the nice things you said about the podcasts!

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterNick Davis

On Richardson, I would never say he's been dropping the ball. Of course there was Lubezki, but his use of 3D in Hugo is really really great and his work wows. His previous collaboration with Scorsese was Shutter Island, in my opinion, an Oscar-worthy job in every level: light, mood, camera movement, style, references... With Tarantino, you're right about Django, but he was aces in Inglorious Basterds too. The first sequence only, with that light and the camera helping Waltz to torture us, would sell me a win (but I'd vote for The Hurt Locker).

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered Commentercal roth

I liked your discussion of the supporting actress category. In years like this one, I miss Stinky Lulu's always insightful take on the performances.

I went to a screening of Silver Linings Playbook this week, and my reaction was... wtf? I don't understand why that movie is in the Oscar talk, I don't understand why half of the performers were nominated. Jacki Weaver, seriously? for putting a face to concerned mother/worried mother/understanding mother through the movie? And Jennifer Lawrence? She's got charisma in spades but that part... I'm just ok with the nomination for the guys. I didn't like the movie on the whole, if felt like the kind of movie where the writer just gives voice to the characters with his own opinions, no matter if they fit the character or not. And all in all, I just found it angry which probably doesn't make any sense.

So, my point was, is there a recent year in which Supporting actress was such a slam dunk (?) for a performance that's not universally praised as Monique's? I mean, Hathaway has it in the bag, but on her merit alone or for lack of better opponents? The only one that might be an threat is Field, and they're not going to give her a third one. Adams and Weaver are not threats, and similarly to Field, I don't think they feel they need to award Hunt a second time. The only one actress missing in this category with a more debatable previous win would be Swank to pave Hathaway's way more easily. ;)

However, I think in the best actress race the favourites Lawrence and Chastain will lose to a surprising winner. I'm not sure AMPAS will go with Riva because, do they actually see Haneke's movies? So, my take is the only Hollywood veteran seen as due of the bunch, Watts. If she could overcome the lack of love for her movie, being its sole nomination, it means there's a lot of love for her.

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered Commenteriggy

I don't want to make blanket statements about the cinematography branch. They have been disappointing of late, what with Richardson winning last year for lavishly photographing some very narratively unnecessary settings in Hugo and his default nomination for Django this year (which I could also see him winning). I will stick up for them somewhat in saying that there are years where they will go off the beaten path in really interesting ways. In 1999, for instance, when it would have been easy for them to throw in unworthy Best Picture nominees like The Green Mile or even The Cider House Rules they went with the aforementioned Snow Falling on Cedars and (one of my favorite nominations from this branch) Sleepy Hollow. I'm not a TIm Burton fanatic by any means. The slew of tech nods for Alice and Wonderland was kind of ridiculous. However, I actually think that Sleepy Hollow is an example of the below the line categories doing an excellent job of highlighting really stellar aspects of a movie that's otherwise problematic. The art direction win, plus the costume and cinematography nods for that film remain for me really inspired choices. And of course there's 2006 when the cinematography nods were totally absent any Best Picture nominees, the result being another superbly considered shortlist. With that in mind, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Regarding Denzel, I certainly understand Katey's impulse to remove him from the roster, considering the film surrounding that performance. Plus Denzel, as talented as he is, is very emblematic of how the Hollywood star system makes it nearly impossible for actors to be "movie stars" and also adventurous and artful in their choices. This was touched on in an early podcast when discussing Leo DiCaprio, but it just seems like Denzel is not even remotely interested in doing any projects or working with any directors who are risky/interesting and don't totally reinforce the mainstream status quo of American filmmaking. This even comes through when he steps behind the camera to direct. That being said, he is really good in Flight and I wouldn't kick him out of the roster for John Hawkes. Even Hugh Jackman, who I think by far has the least mandate to be in this lineup...I wouldn't throw him out for Hawkes. I think Jackman, despite my misgivings about the film and performance, really stretched, committed and took a risky project, whereas Hawkes didn't leap out to me in terms of a fully realized performance or even building on what I already know he's capable of.

Last bit (sorry for the length) I agree with Joe that I seriously doubt whether Joaquin has the cajones to skip the show altogether. In terms of having integrity about one's outlandish, misanthropic comments about Hollywood, I wager he's a notch below Sean Penn. Both actors I love, but Penn only shows up for nominations he thinks he can win (he was no show for I Am Sam, Sweet and Lowdown and Dead Man Walking, most likely because there was no chance in any of those cases). As miserable as Joaquin says the experience was, there was always the option to not show up if it was really that bad. Especially since he was never going to win for Gladiator or Walk the Line. The fact that he still showed up both times tells me he's probably going to show up this time.

Phoenix attends these televised award ceremonies with his mother. He does this partially to give her an equivalent to a graduation coronation to witness.

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered Commenter3rtful

Just finished listening to your guys' podcast this morning on the drive to work (yes, traffic really does slow down my commute, although I just had the chance to listen to only ONE of the Best Original Song nominees) and I really enjoyed it. For some reason my automatic download subscription on iTunes did not download Part 1 (the BIG EIGHT!), so I guess I'll have to do that manually later this week. BUT, anyways, thank you guys for the fun/amazing commentary and I really hope you consider expanding it perhaps on a monthly basis rather during Oscar season?

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterGeorge P.

After all these years, yall are still tallking shit about my girl Marion. Keep hating and find a new and tired horse to beat. She'll still have an Oscer for one the best performance of last decade. You'll still be you.

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJ.B.

J.B., sorry bro, but that Oscar belonged to Julie Christie. Sigh.

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterbrookesboy

No it doesn't.


January 24, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterKyle

Kyle, sorry, the overwhelming consensus was for La Christie, who was chosen Best Actress by SAG, GG, BFCAA, NBR, NSFC, NYFCC, Online Film Critics, Genie, DC, Toronto, Southeastern, San Francisco, Dallas and Phoenix. No doubt about it, that Oscar was hers.

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered Commenterbrookesboy

Don't care. Marion Cotillard was the best that year and fully earned her Oscar win.

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterKyle

@JB: As impressive as that Actress roster was, still no way I'd vote for anyone but Marion...

... but in general, especially in years with stiff competition, surely we can acknowledge that votes would go lots of different ways.

January 24, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterNick Davis

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>