Best Picture Predictions: Selma & Budapest on the Rise...
Friday, December 12, 2014 at 8:02PM At this juncture in each film year, each week (hell, each day) brings another level of absurdity to the notion that anything is sure when it comes to Oscar. The awards table is constantly being shaken up and as soon as the pieces settle they're jostled again. All that and we're still almost three weeks away from actual Academy balloting for nominations.
you wish to have the curse reversed? get your screeners out first!
The tidal wave of awardage in early December reminds us once again that late December releases IF they are also late to screen can struggle. Still Alice and Cake, counter-examples, may be hiding from the public [ahem -grrr] but they premiered / screened regularly and early for the industry starting in September so their late arrivals haven't been a problem. Interstellar and Selma (both from Paramount) and A Most Violent Year (from A24) performed inconsistently without the benefit of awards screeners. Other late-to-screen releases (none of which have opened yet) including American Sniper, Into the Woods, Unbroken, and Big Eyes got screeners out but not in time for the SAG Nominating committee (from my understanding). Only Streep scored with a SAG nomination from those films.
And, let's face it, Into the Woods didn't even have to screen. Many many people in the world are willing to buy Meryl Streep on principal as Best even if they haven't yet seen whatever new character she's selling. (I wasn't joking when discussing her awards prospects on twitter when I said that only about once every 20 years do awards bodies en masse just decide to ignore her entirely in a given film year and we're not due for another one of those Brigadoon-like mystical occurences until 2024/2025. (If you're curious the last two times were Falling in Love in the 80s and Prime in the 00s)
Despite all the heat a Globe or SAG nomination or an LA / New York critics win can bring a film it's infinitely worth noting that Oscar balloting doesn't even begin until after Christmas so there are still important weeks ahead for all of these movies. In the end buzz only increases your likelihood that Academy members will watch your film. It doesn't necessarily mean that they'll like your film and vote for it. If you trust the precursors Whiplash isn't a threat for anything outside of Supporting Actor gold but I'm still willing to bet big on it in my predictions. At every industry event I've attended I've heard people speak of it with the kind of excitement that you can't buy with expensive PR pushes because the excitement is organic and personal taste driven. I'm not a huge fan of the film (though it has its moments and Damien Chazelle obviously has a big career ahead) but I hear actual love and not just respectful admiration when people talk about it and that is at least as good as, say, a Globe Best Picture Comedy or Musical nomination for Oscar heat, you know?
Best Picture is still something of a mystery, since we don't know how many nominees we will get or which of the 15 or so movies still in the running will be selected. We've had four completely consistent performers in the precursors that have already faced and won over both audiences and critics so you can lock them up: Birdman, Boyhood, The Imitation Game, The Theory of Everything. But beyond that? Anyone's guess.
The Globe love-in for Selma and that totally deserved but still a wee bit surprising SAG Cast nomination for Grand Budapest Hotel are arguably the 2 biggest deal awards occurrences this week. If AMPAS voters haven't yet decided to screen either of those films, you can be sure they're going to.
More questions: Can Foxcatcher, Gone Girl, or Interstellar reheat cooling buzz? Can Unbroken, Into the Woods, American Sniper, and A Most Violent Year rally their fan bases in the next two to three weeks? (Successful opening weekends definitely won't hurt if they can muster them.)
What other questions are you asking about the best picture race?
SEE UPDATED OSCAR CHARTS:
PICTURE | DIRECTOR | SCREENPLAYS
Reader Comments (32)
Who is the biggest (only?) threat to God winning her 2nd Golden Globe and 1st Oscar… Witherspoon, Aniston or Pike??
Unbroken gives off such an unpleasant War Horse-y vibe that I think it will manage to get a BP nomination after all, even though Jolie's chances are almost certainly gone. Sure, War Horse had the advantage of having Spielberg's name attached to it, but there seems to be a group of voters who always go for the dated, "inspirational" studio epic if given the option, and Unbroken would be their option this year.
I'm predicting nine Best Picture nominees as of now: the top ten in your chart, less Into the Woods. Waiting on wide release to decide on that one, and waiting on DGA before I decide whether or not to keep Gone Girl as high as I currently have it.
With all due respect, I wish we wouldn't have to read how Streep, Dench and Mirren are automatically checked off every time they are in contention for an acting nomination. Perhaps, they really are THAT good. It seems so unfair that so many conversations in Awards Season focus on the negative reaction some people have when their names appear. Should these women be disqualified because of their craftsmanship? Too old? Too British? Too well-educated? I look forward to a great film with any one of those three women. I haven't seen "Into the Woods," yet, but all I've heard is good things. Should Streep be written off because of her previous sterling work? Of course not. Should Jennifer Aniston or Sandra Bullock be written off because of their previous poorly received work? Of course not. It should be about the current work. Just my opinion, that's all.
Nat: I'd almost love the Academy to announce that the Lego Movie is completely ineligible for either screenplay category and give it a special award as the weird mixed format script that it IS. Too many entirely original characters and characterizations to fit in adapted (Lego is just a visual iconography, not an actual source material on the level of comic books or Transformers, after all), but too many pre-existing characters to fit in original.
Are the bean counters really so much in control that they can prevent a film getting screeners out (I understand that the campaigns are expensive, but still....) or do some producers not consider the chance of an Oscar loss not worth the risk of the investment? Do they sometimes decide to only push for one awards possibility over the others? I can understand a film with very little chance, but are they just going through the motions to satisfy a star's contract that guarantees a run by putting up a bare bones attempt? I guess I just don't understand the wishy-washy approach and wonder if it is more prominent than we(I) think or think it should be.
How often do you think AMPAS voters actually vote for what they really think was the best picture of the year? We all know the actors can win for lesser performances because of popularity/being overdue/timing/career resurgence, etc. But how much do those things affect the best picture race?
I hate the NINE Best Picture noms we've been having the past few years. It should be either 5 or 10...preferably 5.
My predix - if 5 - are BIRDMAN, BOYHOOD, THE IMITATION GAME, SELMA and THEORY OF EVERYTHING.
If 10 - here are my other 5 - FOXCATCHER, GONE GIRL, GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL PRIDE, UNBROKEN,.
Yep - I'm still hoping enough British and LGBT AMPAS members give it their Number 1 preference.
IMO - it is one of the best pictures of the year.
Bette -- i'm not going to argue against PRIDE being one of the best pics of the year (it'll be in my top ten list) but i question whether even the Brits and the LGBT members have seen it. it just never broke out big which i can't fathom since word of mouth was so strong. But it's hard for the little charming pictures nowadays. people jsut say "i'll be on netflix in a few months" and move on. which is aggravating.I maintain my belief that in the 1990s it would be an a) a reasonably sized actual hit and b) an Oscar contender at least for a couple of categories.
Nathaniel I hope I am right and you are wrong.
I would LOVE to see Pride amongst the Best Picture nominees.
I guess we should wait until the BAFTA nominations. Well I am assuming BAFTA will be a little kinder to Pride than the American awards givers.
BTW - thoroughly enjoy this site and am so JEALOUS of you. Keep up the great work.
Thanks for sharing your inside information on Whiplash. I do wonder, however, if there's some sampling bias there. I can get over the lack of a SAG ensemble award because the cast is almost all Teller and Simmons. And I can overlook the lack of a Globe-Drama nom given that there's so much competition on that side of things this year. However, assuming that the film doesn't strike it big with BAFTA (which, why would it?), it does seem a little weird to have a film without a SAG, Globe, or BAFTA nom as one of the six most likely. At this point, it's only really strong showings are the Satellites (do we care?) and the Spirits (legit).
I think the case for Chazelle is particularly surprising and really only makes sense if he gets a DGA nom. Benh Zeitlin happened, but that was a freak occurrence I would think.
I can't believe Nat wasright about Aniston all these years,seems to me she is steaming to a nomination,who'd a thought that early this year..
Never doubt the Oracle of Monty, people!
I also found the information about "Whiplash" to be fascinating; I love the fact that you are increasingly privy to these firsthand reports. I am somewhat puzzled by the admiration. I wonder whether there is a gender difference in the voters you've talked to about the movie. I know there are female and gay-male fans of the movie, but this gay male looked at it the way I imagine a straight man looks at a "chick flick," as something slightly out of his jurisdiction. It seemed melodramatic and sentimental in a straight-male way. All that macho blood that Miles shed, and all for his Art! When did his hands have time to heal?
I don't know who is correct about its award chances, you or Evan, but there are worse movies in the running. Though I wish Edward Norton were the frontrunner this year, I've always liked JK Simmons, who gives a strong but predictable performance. However, I do wish the awards story surrounding Damien Chazelle did not depend so much on his having gone to Harvard. Having gone there myself, I can tell you it means little or nothing in itself.
Depending on when Whiplash opens (or if it is eligible), I can see BAFTA going for it. The teacher/student dynamic is pretty universal so the story will resound where ever it plays. And the tough love approach is more common in Europe than here. Plus Simmons is a known quantity among actors and people in the business. His is a long and solid career which ups the " I want to see his work" quotient.
I don't see it getting a BP nod. Too many big dogs in the fight.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying it doesn't have a chance. It's just that two of the three predictors I most trust have it in their top seven and I'm not seeing where that confidence has been born out in its awards haul so far.
As for the movie itself, I'm one of those gay supporters of the film and I really don't see where the "the film is so straight" argument comes from. The suffering artist trope is a very old one, no? Is it really just because this particular incarnation is so bloody?
Evan -- i understand the concerns about 'sampling bias' as admittedly this is the NYC academy members and even then only random ones that go to parties and talk to jouirnalists and not the wider LA membership. but the important thing to note is that i am NOT asking about Whiplash. It's not a film i'm walking around advocating for. People just keep bringing it up to me. I'm not saying to them 'hey, have you seen whiplash?' they're saying to me "HAVE YOU SEEN WHIPLASH??? [INSERT SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF "I LOVED IT. IT WAS SO GREAT"]"
Gay male Los Angeles SAG member here, who LOVED Whiplash and talks about it all the time. (I'm also a singer-songwriter with a complicated relationship to both drummers and conservatories, so the subject matter was particularly compelling to me.) At this point, I see it as a Best Picture Number 11 kind of situation, so I would be shocked but not surprised if it made it in.
Patryck -- i meant to address your complaint. No, Streep should not be written off because of her sterling work over the years anymore than, say, Kristen Stewart should be written off for being awful in several movies before she was suddenly good. And I think most people would agree that I am very very very very into seeing classic actresses conttinue to work deep into their golden oldies years. In fact if i were a billionair producer that's the kind of movie i'd be suppporting since so few people will. I would be super sad if Meryl Streep quit acting (though i would be happier if she stuck to one juicy leading role per year so that we could see other people and miss her inbetween movies.)
but i'm just saying the bias, the supposition that anyone is worthy or best every time is really damaging to honest evaluation and to multiple talented people winning opportunities or honors for their best work. No one is equally inspired and the best of the year every time they do somethingt. no one. Not Streep. Not Nicholson. Not Hepburn. Not Hoffman. Not Leigh. Not Hitchcock. Not Fonda. Not De Niro. Not Spielberg. Not Moore. Not Chastain. Not Tilda. Not anyone who has ever had devout fans. Not anyone ever in the history of the medium.This laziness in worshipping people to the point where you can only see brilliance is also the reason terrible things happen like Jessica Lange getting endless nominations/wins for American Horror Story at the point when now she's just repeating herself and Sarah Paulson has completely surpassed her in the quality of what's happening onscreen.
SO I KNOW I'M TOO TOUCHY ABOUT THIS FORGIVE ME. but it really freaks me out that people (including from my estimations about 85% of TFE readers) \act like we should always assume that Streep is among the top 5 of her category every single time she steps in front of a camera. or that Burstyn is so good that she deserves nominations for 6 second roles on TV even if we haven't seen the six second role but voted on it anyway due to her name as was infamously the case that one year. ) Awards voting based on someone's reputation and not their work is frustrating and oppressive.
Dench is a classic example. She EARNED that nomination for NOTES ON A SCANDAL. Good god she was incredible in that film. But when you place it alongside the fact that she was also nominated for mediocre efforts like MRS HENDERSON or like CHOCOLAT the nomination is dulled. It's like "of course she was nominated for that. she always is."
fwiw i think Streep is really good in Into the Woods, her best performance since Julie & Julia maybe. She's a little too manic at times for my taste -- which i find increasingly the case with her as if she's forgotten how much the camera can actually pick up which is super duper weird for a performer *that* skilled with the camera who rarely does stage work but her "STAY WITH ME" is just sensational.
Nevertheless I feel oppressed that I'm supposed to think she's better than everyone else in Into the Woods and also better than everyone else who did supporting work who is a woman this year just because she's Meryl Streep. I hope that makes sense. I'm still moving people aroudn in my personal ballots (an agonizing process when you love more than 5 people in a category) to see who feels right but it's basically come down to this: I think Anna Kendrick and Chris Pine (yes, i'm completely shocked) are the standouts in that particular movie.
Evan, I was just speaking of my experience of the movie. It's nearly impossible to talk about gender/sex distinctions because they're instantly generalized and therefore stereotyped, but to the extent that you can I would say the following. (Spoilers.) For me, the "straight" tone of the movie comes from the lack of women at the Juilliard-like school (Juillard has plenty of women) and a patronizing refusal of female entrance into the story (the girlfriend story was just a character brushstroke for the male hero's desperate singlemindedness). It comes from the literal use of blood to indicate a very male, very combative notion of artistic passion, blood that becomes ridiculous in its melodramatic volume, and if that isn't enough, is then compounded by a bloody car accident at the precise moment that the hero needs to prove himself to his father figure. (The tire flat on the bus is also a hoary device.) I also just couldn't buy the playing out of their hysterical father-son tempest on stage in front of the most prestigious audience imaginable for their art; it simply would not happen, they both would have had too much to lose. Of course, if I were the Miles Teller character, the whole movie would have stopped early on, as soon as JK Simmons slapped me. Avoidance was almost always my approach as a gay boy in any competitive interactions with my father or with father-like teachers.
"Awards voting based on someone's reputation and not their work is frustrating and oppressive."
Has this not been the case throughout Golden Globe/Academy Award History for everyone?
It also sounds like you blame Streep for the actions/preferences of Oscar voters who hold this bias? If Oscar voters love her- then attack them and not her.
Jamie: I'm pretty certain that Nathaniel blames the voters.
Then if academy voters lover her... And 85% of the readers here love her....and the studios love her (a majority of her movies have made money and a Streep movie has become a thing).... And oversea audiences love her... And a majority of fellow actors love her... Then I believe it is a minority opinion- which is valid for him.
Re: Whiplash (which I haven't seen)...a lot of voters will watch it, because they've been tipped off to Simmons as a potential winner.
So....should we be looking at Miles Teller as having a chance at a Best Actor nom, since his performance will also have been widely seen?
Owen, I understand your reaction to the emotional and physical violence of the movie-- avoidance would be my reaction as well. But assuming that Teller's character's reaction is as it was because he's a straight guy in a battle with his father figure seems, as you say, like a gross generalization that is vaguely... homophobic? Unfair? Or maybe just irrelevant?
Evan, I guess I'm talking about deep-seated reactions that allow certain movies to be prized and others not. As I said, these reactions are nearly impossible to talk about, but it's necessary because they're the basis of what we prize in a culture. Age, race, sex, sexuality--we can try to see why these universal but varying aspects of people guide the reactions of, say, the Academy body or the body of critics, both of which are fairly homogenous. And people who are not in the dominant mode often need to be reminded when they've acquiesced in something that is actually alien to their own experience. I don't know how that's homophobic. I've probably failed to articulate clearly. Remember I actually don't think "Whiplash" is a *bad* movie, just not one I would nominate for Best Picture of the Year.
SanFran, I thought Miles Teller was excellent, in some ways better (certainly more believable) than Simmons. I don't think he'll be nominated (no mentions in the precursors), but I'll leave it to others to give the deep-seated reasons why.
Jamie & Mike -- yeah. I never attack Streep directly for the awards she wins just her occasional artistic choices. It's true that i have criticized a couple of performances (i think shes terrible in The Manchurian Candidate but that was a long time ago now) and a few of her career choices -- I think she is ultimately very distracting in The Homesman. some people are just way too famous to do cameos unless their fame is somehow commented on in the cameo --and I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that she shouldn't have taken on two opera singer biopics back to back, for example. especially since one of them was a dream project for another genius actress that we never get to see any more)
... my complaints about the lazy Streep genuflection that occurs each year is solely directed at fan hordes and awards voters who refuse and indeed get angry at the suggestion that their beloved cannot be perfect\.
Treating anyone like they are perfect makes things super weird and frankly makes appreciation of their work seem like preordained religious ritual and not genuine wonder. In many artists (not necessarily Streep) it also makes their work suffer. We've seen many directors collapse when suddenly surrounded by "yes" men. And does ANYONE say no to Streep any more. Frankly it's a miracle that she's still as good as she still is since no one dares question or direct her.
When the only time someone doesn't give you an award occurs only once every 20 years there is a wide spread sickness going on!
THAT'S ALL.
I promise i still love Streep. It's just awards season each year makes me feel completely backed into a corner and defensive. The next time something absolutely genuis comes along from her it will be so sad to not fully enjoy it because of the environment in which her work is viewed.
Nat: Do you think the European Film Awards will have any effect on nomination prospects outside of best foreign film?
Well, I do not like Streep's acting. I think she's a good actress but I don't like that kind of acting. I like Greer Garson but one is enough. Besides, I always see her making choices and I think they are the wrong ones half the time. Wrong for the character or the movie but right for getting awards. And she gets them. The only performance of her I've enjoyed is Postcards from the Edge. I do like her persona very much. So I don't mind her getting all the misrecognition she's gotten. And I hope she has a sex change operation and starts getting all the great male roles.
Well, I love Meryl and I'm simply astonished what she has archieved so far in her life and career. I've heard the songs "Stay with Me" and "Last Midnight" and her voice, her power, her emotions.... it's fantastic. She has never sung like that. Never. She also looks amazing in that film. (post transformation I mean)
That dress, that.... HAIR! I live for it. I'm sure I will enjoy ITW, I'm more positive to Rob Marshall films than anyone else. I even enjoyed Nine and I'm sure I'm the only one that did. *lol*
Nevertheless no one should feel forced to say "OMG! She's the BEST!" if they don't think so. But that's not alone for Meryl, that goes to anyone.
It's still impressive how much Meryl at the age of 65 is still in the conversation. I wish her all the best. The air is getting thinner for every actress over 50, there will be times where even Meryl will struggle to get good roles. Yes, you won't believe it now, but it WILL happen.
So... I'm confident she still enjoys the moments.
Sonja -- i actually kinda liked Nine, too. It had *a lot* of problems but there were a few moments that were quite good (which is more than one can say for some films that get a much easier pass from critics). . i always love hearing Meryl sing so her Into the Woods performance is my favorite of hers since Julie & Julia (i just don't think she's one of the five best this year is all). She has such a musical star's voice -- it's just infused with emotion but also true musicality. I will literally never forget the moment when I first heard her belt a song out ("HE'S ME PAL" in Ironweed). You had to pick me up off the floor afterwards i was so overwhelmed