Number Crunching & The Crowded Oscar Pundit-Sphere
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 10:20AM 
Nate Silver Sometimes, often even, I curse the heavens that I wasn't better at the business side of things when I started on my course as an Oscar pundit. I was one of the first handful to arrive and being 'first' (or among them) is helpful as any business major will tell you. The fabulous life I was meant to lead *sniffle*. But each year the small pond of Oscar prognostication grows ever more crowded with big fish. This is not to say that when Salon reached out to me to discuss famous statistician Nate Silver becoming an Oscar pundit I was all [rough translation] "grumble. grumble. sour grapes"-- so I hope my quote doesn't read that way! In fact I really respect the size of Silver's career (since he didn't scream natural TV presence at all when he first emerged and I myself am terrified on camera so points for perserverance!) Plus, as a matter of basic pride, I love it when out gay men who don't easily fit any particular mold make it big. But the truth of the matter is that long before Silver became the go-to statistician for everything, statistics have been my least favorite aspects of Oscar punditry.
Many people have tried pure numbers-driven predictions and obsessive formulas in the past. Those works to a degree (especially with eventual winners) but one area they're terrible at is "there's a first time for everything" excitement and, surely, navigating the ever changing rule book. Predict the temper of the race especially in the lead-up to nominations is the fun movie-loving part and it doesn't have much to do with numbers. In my mind you can separate true Movie-Lovers from mere Oscar-Watchers merely by observing whether they care more about nominations than wins. Even people in your office pool can predict the winner as well as professionals do because they become obvious a month or two out in the headline categories (the only categories professional pundits get asked about anyway).
But now that I've been forced to think aloud about the crowded punditry game -- with someone famous like Nate Silver in the mix I'll never get back on CNN, damnit! -- you should think along with me. Do you think there are too many of us? Who do you listen to in all the noise? What value do numbers hold over narrative?
Reader Comments (30)
I remember when I had to wait till just about a month before the nominations to get the Entertainment Weekly predictions issue! (Which was the most exciting magazine of every year.)
That said, it doesn't feel like a crowded field to me. There's you, and there's Kris Tapley. No one else works at anywhere near your levels.
I love Nate Silver for elections. He brought me a lot of relief leading up to the last one (even in Canada, we fear the GOP.) But Oscar predicting is definitely a different science.
I've always been an admirer of both entertainment itself and the awards that recognize it and now I find myself being a part of awards punditry in my relatively recent status as a contributor for Gold Derby. I like concentrating on outlets that mainly focus on the awards and awards prospects themselves rather than incorporating personal reviews into the postings. When you know that people are concentrating on the process and history of the awards being talked about, you know the source has a greater understanding and respect for the traditions of that award.
When it comes to numbers versus narrative, I think both have to be taken into consideration. Take the race this year for Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars. Some people started floating Michael Haneke as a possible frontrunner for "Amour". I pointed out at Gold Derby that while a nomination for a foreign film's script is not uncommon, a win is usually driven by a narrative of the film being robbed in some other area (like Pedro Almodovar's "Talk to Her" not being submitted by Spain for Foreign Film) and that "Amour" lacked that narrative.
Anyhow, that's my rant. Nathaniel, I love the site and love seeing an out and proud guy pouring love on these accolades that we care about so dearly.
there's something not quite right about moving from predicting the leader of the free world to predicting the freakin' oscars....but i guess it's all part of the non-stop babbling we've come to expect in a media driven world
you always remember your first time (finding a like-minded online prediction site) so the film experience will always be special to me, but i've got to admit when i was commenting on your best actress predix the other day i did think to myself "this is why there are so few surprises come february"
so i might try to ignore the hype this year - somebody wake me when the nbr announces....
I've been reading your site and trusting your Oscar expertise for 10 years now. Everyone else is just noise.
IMO, there are two major factors making statistical analyses of the Oscars imperfect. One, they're not based on the numbers that might give a statistician a firmer leg to stand on - they look at nominations and wins, rather than breakdowns of voting percentages. Two, there are intangibles at play in every Oscar race that I think are impossible to quantify - the perception that someone is "due," or multiple well-received performances in a year where an actor only gets nominated for one - and that's where narrative definitely trumps numbers.
I feel that punditry, and its ever growing expansion, is what is is. It's a joy to see genuine movie lovers talk about the Oscars (on sites like yours Nat), but those guys that show up on CNN or The Today Show on nomination morning often look down right silly. I, and I think most of us, have learned to weed out those who are simply playing a numbers game and just don't seem to "get it" on the level many of us would appreciate. Besides, things won't get back to being really interesting again until the Academy shakes things up and does something to either minimize the effect of the precursors or end up not always falling in line with them. Speaking of those things, tell me again, even with everything that was going on, how in the hell did Argo win the SAG for best ensemble!? To quote Holly Golightly, "the mind reels..."
par3182 -- yes that is an existential problem. Predicting means less surprises and surprises are beautiful. And predicting also means (inadvertently) encouraging groupthink which might also mean encouraging lazy voting which is a really unfortunate byproduct of obsessing over it.
I don't mind the (seemingly) ever growing number of Oscar pundits. I give the new people a read, stick by those who seem to have a clue and let the others fade away. Cream will always rise to the surface so just because new people jump in doesn't mean they will have any impact.
I'm also surprised Silver has moved on. I would have thought being a seriously watched predictor for the Presidency of the US would be the holy grail of his line of work.
A good question worth asking (and I admit, it may be answered already, I haven't done any research) is "Where will Silver be making these predictions?" Yes, I know ABC. Does that mean abc.com, or Good Morning America? The medium matters. The cult of Oscar following is a mainly online entity, and I'm not sure ABC/Disney/ESPN really has an online audience who cares for this sort of thing.
I think those of who are true movie lovers don't really pay any attention to statisticians who are in it just because they have a woody for math. The fun of predicting the Oscar nominees is the joy of appreciating the rich history of cinema, and the Academy Awards is a chronicle of that appreciation. We all have a stake in who wins, but beyond that, it's a historical record of who and what were cinematicly significant in a particular year. And that's fascinating, whether we agree with the winners or not.
This will be my second Oscar season at TFE, and I'm really excited. Nathan, your site is the Wyler of movie blogs.
Val--Argo won best ensemble at SAG because that's what it was, the best ensemble picture. People are wrong when they call the best ensemble award the SAG best picture award because it isn't and I would argue that if SAG had both a best picture and a best ensemble award, they would (putting on my best Nate Silver) agree only about 50% of the time or less. Looking back, the smallest cast to win best ensemble was Sideways but that is a rare (excellent) film with four leading roles in equal parts. Star vehicles rarely win best ensemble. Only three times has the SAG best actress winner been part of the best ensemble winner (American Beauty, Chicago, Shakespeare in Love--all of which are considerable ensemble films) ditto best actor (American Beauty, Traffic and King's Speech--same).
Ensemble films represent more work for more actors and they are going to be rewarded by an actors union.
Where SAG represents a predictor for the Oscars is that actors make up the largest voting block in the academy so the winner is important to note, but not definite. Only 9 (50%) of SAG ensemble winners have gone on to win best picture Oscar.,
Also, Sideways was four lesser known actors who had broken through in this vehicle, not stars, so the members of the union would be more inclined to support this film over others as it offers hope to all the members to be discovered.
There are too many of you. But it's nice to see who's the best, and I stick with reading them. Nat, Kris Tapley and Ann Thompson are my favorites, with Kris and Ann covering things from a straightforward, no bullshit journalistic approach (my BA is in journalism so I think I tend to gravitate toward that.) I love how Sasha Stone is so passionate even when I don't always agree with her. But some of these new sites like The Awards Circuit are pretty awful, honestly, and it's clear the writers don't know that much about Oscar history. I'll stick with TFE, HitFix and Thompson on Hollywood, thanks.
The comment about caring more about the nominees than the winners is a perfect, perfect assessment of the sorts of writers that I seek out when wanting to read about the Oscar race. The focus on the actual wins is less and less fun as there are fewer surprise wins (and when they do happen, they happen in a category like Sound Editing which most blogs don't talk about), and I hate when pundits hedge their bets too much, especially on relatively safe categories (the political junkie in me, which is as strong as the Oscar fanatic, is probably what drives this). But seeing Jacki Weaver make it in the fifth slot for Animal Kingdom or Terrence Malick being triumphant for The Tree of Life or that sigh of relief that comes when you kinow ParaNorman wasn't cut-those are the best moments for true Oscar fans, who are first-and-foremost movie fans.
As far as who I read, this blog is my Oscar go-to, also Nick Davis and Guy Lodge. With Nicks Flick and Film Experience, I particularly like that the comments section is so much fun-you don't see a bunch of people (by and large) getting into flaiming/trolling wars, but just people who love movies, awards, and the minutia involved in discussing them. I occasionally peak into Awards Daily, but it gets far too hyperbolic for me, especially when Sasha has picked her favorite film of the year (or her punching bag film of the year).
Henry O. - I hear you, but even with all that being said, I would dare say that all the other nominees could also be viewed as true ensemble pictures (even Lincoln with Day-Lewis firmly at its core) with arguably better performances. That's not to say that the performances in Argo were bad by any means, but I wouldn't say that any performer in that movie was asked to stretch a great deal. Of all the awards it won last year, that was the one that truly felt like a back peddle apology. Tirade done, sorry for taking things off topic.
Henry, Giamatti's Oscar snub still stings. As far as how ensemble is defined, I agree with you. But I'm with Val that Argo did not deserve this award. Yes, it was an ensemble picture. But there was nothing exceptional about any of the performances, and even with group acting, the level should still be superior, and certain individual moments should stand out in sharp relief. Nothing like this with Argo. The reliable hum of many sturdy actors hoping to elevate a merely above-average film cannot drown out the clarion call for an election probe. I cannot help but think this was SAG's way of standing up for its snubbed friend Affleck.
Brookesboy, I'm not going to argue with you that Affleck was rewarded by the union, but he was rewarded for giving more day player contracts to more actors than any other film that year--this represents a HUGE earnings boost to the membership at the expense of the producers, in this case himself. He produced/directed an excellent film (we can disagree on which film was better, but its splitting hairs and without ZD30 in the mix--their fault, not the union's--its sort of a mute argument plus Clooney was his co-producer and he is a staunch actor's advocate.). You can also argue that all the guilds are guilty of rewarding favorite sons over work that could be considered more deserving from time to time. You catch more files with honey than vinegar and Affleck & co spread a lot of honey around.
Henry, I'd rather not think about Affleck and Clooney spreading around their honey. Yikes.
And I do think that ZD30 should have had this in the bag.
There are indeed too many sites predicting who will be nominated at the Oscars. However, there is a very unfortunate shortage of sites suggesting what *should* be nominated at the Oscars.
Predictions are fun, but they're somewhat soulless. It's TFE's emphasis on what should happen (and therefore its personality) that keeps me coming back.
henry -- for the record i tried to catch flies with honey LITERALLY the other day (so many flies all of a sudden) and it didn't work. boo.
Evan-I agree, though there's always a fine line. There are sites (certainly not the Film Experience, which is fab), but other sites that say what should be as if it's what will be, which gets a little Fox News-y for me. By all means people should express their opinions, but don't masquerade them as facts unless they are.
While I don't think there are too many Oscar pundits, I think there are enough. So much of using the internet is just about finding which few people you like to listen to and after you experiment for a little bit, you find your favorites and that's the end of that. I guess what I'm trying to say is while I don't follow someone like... Steve Pond religiously, I am happy that he is out there, and if he writes a particularly interesting article, someone who I do follow will surely share that and I'll get to appreciate it too.
My favorites go hand in hand with many of the other favorites already listed. Kris Tapley and Guy Lodge are just the best and I have been rooting for them and the whole In Contention team for years. Anne Thompson is also a favorite since she approaches the game a little differently, and Oscar Talk is irreplaceable in my podcast lineup. I agree that I like Sasha Stone's passion and Ryan Adams doesn't get enough credit for his great contributions to that website. They have a very active community which certainly helps.
I do have a least favorite pundit, or at least pundit website. Jeffrey Wells on Hollywood Elsewhere has created one of the most toxic environments to discuss the awards race. His comment sections blow up into all out wars within seconds.
And of course, the whole TFE team. In a class I was taking with a bunch of internet-adverse hippies, I cited the wonderfully specific, unique, and overwhelmingly fun community here at The Film Experience as a reason I'm glad the internet exists. Keep up the good work!
I don't even watch the Oscars anymore but ill always read your blog just cause of your writing. you are just on point and funny about things and I love it.
I once had a geocities site with a statitiscal formula predicting the nominees (Sijmen's Oscar Experiment) I think we started around the same time, you were the Film Bitch back then.
I did that for two reasons:
1. Because I like math,
2. Because I live in Belgium, were Oscar movies are released just days before the Oscar ceremony. So I had nothing to hold on to, except the statistics.
I still like doing it, but I so much prefer the actual nominees to any prediction (statistical or pasionate).
And don't worry about other oscar pundits than you. There aren't any.
Keep up the great work!
Sijmen -- i remember your site well! didnt you also do the huge top ten list chart?
I used to distrust stats but I came to understand that it's just like words - the more refined they are the closer they come to expressing/predicting what they're trying to. With statistical formulas it's all about knowing which things to measure. So for instance, just as 'She is highly educated' expresses much less than 'She has a masters degree in sociology from Columbia', a statistical formula that accounts for a few obvious things is going to be much less successful at predicting than a formula with a more nuanced understanding of which things should be measured.
Which means that in order to create good formulas, the person needs to have an intimate understanding of the thing they're trying to predict in the first place.
I used to read Sijmen's site too; here's a chance to say thank you for all the hours you put into it!
I've largely stuck with a lot of the people I first found writing about the Oscars online in the late '90s: Nathaniel, Kris Tapley (remember Oscar Central?), Anne Thompson (who I used to read in Premiere magazine) and Sasha Stone, though I can be turned off her site now if she's barracking against something I like or passionate about something I don't like.
Of course all these writers now have fantastic teams working with them, but have still retained their individual expertise and passion in this field, so hats off to them all!
I'm just going to post this anonymously.
I like The Film Experience best, and have been reading it since it was The Film Bitch.
I admire Nathaniel's acute artistic sensibility, good taste, endless good ideas for discussion, innate courtesy, lively intelligence, literate writing, and the ability to reflect and reconsider ideas and opinions.
I also like Anne Thompson, who is thoughtful, well-informed, able to express a minority opinion, and keep a professional distance when needed.
I like Pajiba, because some of their writers are just hilarious and make me laugh. They also have women writers and sometimes I just get tired of groups of boys.
I like The Awards Circuit, they have a real enthusiasm and try to be friendly, but they need more women writers.
I admire Sasha Stone for being her own woman, but the format of her site doesn't come out well on my iPhone.
I like the In Contention trio, but sometimes it seems like Kris Tapley gets so attached to a mediocre movie for reasons that are inexplicable to me. However, he and Anne Thompson do great podcasts, short and pointed.
I love Mark Harris at Grantland.
I look for the perfect combo of information and personality/journalistic voice. Is this person's information trustworthy and interesting? And, frankly, do I like this person? I've been Oscar-watching since Silence of the Lambs. I think I was in 6th grade. I bought Damien Bona and Damien Wiley's Inside Oscar books. Then came Tom O'Neil (sp?) and E!, which changed my life. Years later, Tom became too sensational. I still appreciate his inside scoop, but can't stomach his writing. Sasha was my number one for a while, but she has gradually become more righteous and long-winded. InContention has good info, and I read it regularly, but I don't think I'd want to hangout with Kris Tapley. Maaaaybe Guy Lodge. Film Experience is so valuable in its understanding of film history and culture, yet always laid-back and down to earth. The gay sensibility adds a great layer of fun that I love as well. So for a few years now, FE has been my #1. Because of info and voice. In a nutshell, it's the one that I read the most during the off-season. :-)
jessica -- very well said! maybe that's my issues with statistics and Oscar?