Oscar Chart Updates ~ What's Happening to Jackie?
Monday, December 5, 2016 at 12:02PM As promised we're updating the Oscar charts more often. With the first avalanche of awardage the ground is shifting, if not quite seismically. It's been a very good week for three things in particular: Moonlight, Manchester by the Sea, and Isabelle Huppert ... and even a good week for, um, Hacksaw Ridge. And you'll see a new lock or two on a few of the charts.
Awards season giveth and awards season taketh away...
It's been not-so-good a week for Fences (not hip enough for critics? pshaw, it's wonderful) and definitely not a pleasant one for Pablo Larraín's potent Jackie. We had assumed its very obvious quality would diffuse its hostility and chilliness making it more palatable to conservative awards voters (in much the same way that Moonlight's spectacular execution is making it accessible to people that might not otherwise be all like "hey gimme that black queer film, now!". We may have been wrong in Jackie's case as awards groups haven't really embraced it. There also seems to be a bit of unexpected resistance out there to the beautifully cathartic adoption drama Lion. That's harder to fathom as its so easy to love in addition to being finely made.
Some of the craft categories feel especially quiet / foggy at the moment (like all the aural categories for example or hair & makeup) but soon we'll have official eligibility lists for scores and songs and more bake-offs in the craft categories which will focus people's attentions.
Updated Charts: INDEX | PIC | DIRECTOR | ACTOR | ACTRESS | SUPPORTING ACTOR | SUPPORTING ACTRESS | FOREIGN | VISUALS | AURALS | ANIMATION & DOCS | SCREENPLAYS
P.S. ABOUT CRITICS AWARDS
It's The Film Experience's policy to not cover all the regional awards (especially not when they do nominations before their wins... hmmm. you really think you're worthy of more press releases than the NYFCC and LAFCA and NSFC?!?). It was once fun but now it's too ridiculous with nearly 40 organizations (and new ones each year) and many of them not altogether professional entities. So we'll stick to groups with history before the late 90s OR groups which were needed (like the African American Critics) or whatnot. This is meant as no offense to any city or group -- I'm sure most of them have a great critic or three within them but we had to draw the line somewhere!
Groups We Cover
- New York Film Critics Circle (1935)
- National Society of Film Critics (1966)
- Los Angeles Film Critics Association (1975)
The Holy Trinity. When people talk about someone winning the critics triple or the trinity or what not - as people think Huppert will -- it's these three organizations they're talking about. It's difficult to win all three! - Kansas City Film Critics Circle (1966)
- Boston Society of Film Critics (1980)
- London Film Critics Circle (1980)
- Chicago Film Critics Association (1988)
- Dallas-Ft Worth Film Critics Association (1990)
- Southeastern Film Critics Association (1992)
- Broadcast Film Critics Association (1995)
- San Diego Film Critics Society (1996)
- Toronto Film Critics Association (1997)
- Online Film Critics Society (1997)
- African American Film Critics Association (2003)
- Women Film Critics Circle (2004)
- Gay and Lesbian Entertainment Critics Association (2009)
Reader Comments (66)
To think that The Revenant had 75 wins and 163 nominations and Dog Day Afternoon only 13 wins and 19 nominations! I always laugh to myself when I check that kind of thing on IMDB.
When is the new podcast gonna be posted?
You've seen it and I haven't. I typically trust your judgment in all things Oscar. So why am I still convinced that you're underestimating Hidden Figures and its three key actresses?
Looking forward to the new podcast!
Naomie Harris not quite a lock yet?
There is lots of room for movement still,maybe they want there Jackie O all smiles and not full of blood and tears,looks like it's Amy vs Emma now for the Oscar despite there sometime bias to Sci Fi,Arrival has done well with critics and BO.
Joel Edgerton sliding easily through the race is what's bothering me.
I haven't seen Jackie, but it sounds like it's in the same vein as Carol (beloved by NYFCC but otherwise basically shut out of early awards, including NBR) and Foxcatcher (shut out of early awards, including NBR).
I don't think Lion's absence is especially noticeable. It's more a populist play than a critics play.
Now, Jackie is definitely the sort of film that needs the critics on its side, so its poor showing thus far is a problem for it. More and more, I think the stars are aligning for Emma Stone, as the critical favourite of the year appears to be Isabelle Huppert, who I think would be a pretty tough lift to actually win.
I can't see Hell or High Water scoring two Supp Actor noms. Think one of those noms go to Lucas Hedges.
Is Garfield going to get the good year type of nod? Not a fan for his work in Hacksaw and he does look a bit iffy in the Silence trailer. But then he seems to be everywhere during the campaign season and is one the high profile late release. I guess it's good to make up for him missing for the Social Network.
Nathaniel. I saw JACKIE in LA this weekend and thought it was very impressive. Even if it's not holding up with awards bodies at the moment, I think it'll do well with Oscar a-la-Capote. That movie didn't get much attention outside of Hoffman, and look how well it did with oscar.
@ Suzanne
I haven't seen Jackie either, but as a well known South American, I can tell Pablo Larraìn is always a little bit too much for his own good. I found an interesting review By Nick Pinkerton (from Reverse Shot) and fearfully captured what I've been thinking since I saw the trailer: Natalie Portman is insufferable mannered in it. Manicured in mimicry. You can't, by any means, compare the restraint and blasè of CAROL and its protagonists to such thing. Or that Todd Haynes is an equal to Larraín, for heaven's sake! People up North tend to overhype every GRAND gesture of a biopic even if "some" critis are saying this isn't conventional.
For the life of me, I can't pass that trailer. Hope the movie it's so much better than it. Not really confident.
Jackie's our chilly movie that surprises on Oscar night,though I now think it's Stone's Oscar to lose.
I saw Jackie last night, and it's probably too off-kilter a biopic to be adored by the Academy. I think its best shots for nominations are for actress, score and maybe editing, costume and art direction. Picture and director are longshots.
RSLAKSJGOAIHS -- New Podcast coming tonight.
Nat: I'm still thinking Deadpool is probably sneaking into Adapted. Knowing writers, in general?
1. Fences
2. Love and Friendship (These first two are the "it's a respectable source" nominees, that would be LOCKED even if the film wasn't good. A Jane Austen adaptation is NEVER going to be a fifth slot. See also: Inherent Vice, from infinitely respected author Thomas Pynchon, in 2014.)
3. Arrival
4. Silence
5. Deadpool (It eviscerates the failings of it's own franchise. One of them adlibbed, but okay. Still, the writing is the most obviously noteworthy and laudable thing about it. It was mega popular, even if it was in February. The ONLY thing I can see really stopping this is a Moonlight switch.)
6. Lion (It's not impossible, but The Blind Side (another inspirational, triumph of the human spirit movie) wasn't an Adapted Screenplay nominee (And In the Loop (Another relentlessly profane/kinda juvenile comedy, like Deadpool) WAS) in 2009, so I think second place is a huge stretch.)
7. Julieta (Alice Munro is on the respectable end. So, of course.)
8. Sully (Leave aside Hanks' work, which absolutely elevates the proceedings. This is a NOTHING of a script, at best.)
9. Hidden Figures
10. Elle
Nathaniel. you are SO underestimating Sully in your Oscars Update. As well as Scorsese! Denzel Washington as director?? That would be a travesty of the highest order!! There is nothing in that film intrinsecally cinematographic! Perfs are phenomenal, though. But it's a poor man's MBTS. Lonergan knows to set his stage plays turning cinematic material with clever framing, at least:)
Does Hollywood have a grudge against Chris Pine? Strange for Hell or High Water to be in the conversation in so many categories but not even a little attention to Chris.
Chofer - Calling Fences a "poor man's Manchester by the Sea" is really an awfully worded and racist statement. I haven't seen Fences but the play is specifically annunciating the experience of a not wealthy African-American family struggling with their discrimination and poverty and internalized/externalized racism. Why scoff at that poverty and pin it against the overwhelmingly white Manchester? There is no comparison.
You're really still not predicting Lucas Hedges? Why? Again, we all know that they rarely (almost never) nominate young men but come on....please explain.
mario: And it's not even like he's forwarding the capital R Reason (rhymes with Sickman) why they wouldn't.
I feel like a Lucas Hedges will have a similar trajectory to Shailene Woodley in The Descentdants.
He's presumed to be a safe bet then ultimately come Oscars gets left out.
@John
Because I was comparing cinematic experiences not demographics! Sheez, when TFE has become so politically correct that one can't express his musings on a poor film out of a GREAT stage play. Is it unequivocally right that a great plly (or script) make for a great film? Who told you that? I think you totally misanderstood what I've said.
Any grudges on MBTS, also?
Wow, chofer.
x2
Yes, Portman is extremely mannered as Jackie, but if you've ever seen footage of the real woman, she was extremely mannered, not to the insane extent of her cousins, but in an extreme Grace Kelly way. And Portman nails it, especially the voice. On the whole, I thought the film was excellent and just the right length (only 99 minutes), because Mrs. Kennedy, while fascinating, is a chilly (there's that word again) protagonist to spend time with. And as good as Portman is at capturing her physicality and anguish, it's a bit like watching a Westworld Jackie.
@Paul Outlaw
Wow, Paul. That makes for a good point and an even better blurb! II'm just having my "Larraìn" reservations, as usual:) FWIW: I really hate what Lee's Strasberg has done to acting in films America. Mimicry and "whispering" be dammed! Maybe that's what I find the performance a little "off putting". Just from watching a trailer, tbh. I'll see the whole thing, for sure.
PS: I love what Helen Mirren did to QE II in THE QUEEN. That was her putting on a regal performnace (her bread-n.butter style) that I've never felt for a minute was a mimic! On the contrary, what Meryl Streep (The Real Queen) did with Margaret Thatcher was atrocious.
I hope Natalie has found "her inner Jachie" beyond the perfect mimicry, if you know what I mean:)
Jackie is getting the Carol treatment. Plenty of groups are willing to praise its individual elements (lead actress, score, costumes, cinematography, editing etc.) but somehow it's not getting the recognition it deserves as a composed piece.
It's how movies (ahem...Carol) wind up with six nominations and no Best Picture citation. I don't think it's a coincidence that these are stylish, psychological films about women.
OMG OMG omg Annette Bening is not a lock anymore? Why Nathaniel? What happened?
Portman won DC
Why do I get the impression that some people (critics even) are afraid Fences will steal Manchester By The Sea's thunder, and want to play down it's quality because of that threat? Both are domestic dramas about working class hard scrabbling individuals, but Fences is the one that's actually poised to be an "event" to audiences. From the starpower of Denzel and Viola, to the SAG screenings where audiences acted like the movie was an emotionally transformative experience.....fans of Manchester By The Sea seem to have gotten shook a bit. So why not play up the obvious "it's too stagey" critique. Or why not give almost every critic award out there to Affleck, even though Denzel is in many people's view, on career best form (or close enough). I read Nathaniel on twitter yesterday, and he was wondering why Denzel hadn't won any Best Actor awards so far. Easy answer. They want to make Casey look unstoppable, so it doesn't matter how good Denzel is. He's too much of threat to win the Oscar to give out awards to. It's called bias.
I think there feels like a fear in some corners that audiences and the industry will react like gangbusters to Fences and it's emotional heft and starpower, and that could overshadow the white Boston domestic drama. .So Manchester By The Sea and Affleck have to be overrated rewarded like crazy before the public get to judge for themselves, which movie hits them the hardest. Just a little theory of mine after reading the terrific Vulture piece by Kyle Buchanan and Jen Yamoto about critics, their biases and how they use their biases to try and shape the Oscar race.
In my opinion, Denzel has never been better than in Fences and Affleck has never been better than in Manchester. I think Manchester is a better film, but I think Fences is a better script.
My problem is Nate Parker...
Is FENCES as corny and sentimental and on the nose
as its trailer suggest?
Visually it looks very underwhelming - Denzel should've chosen a different DP - to better counteract the staginess.
I'm with Paul, here.
What saddens me is that we don't discuss films anymore. Just "agendas" or race or gender issues.Or Denzel. Absurd!! Pople turning into Sasha Stone's tiresome advocay of women and people of color won't make any film better for it! I'm sure some of "you" didn't even see the film in question. You know what? Everybody is entitled to their opinions. And I don't discuss people or "deserving material". Just filmmakers worthy of them. It's simple. MBTS is the better film, which by no means it's my favorite of the year. I have quibbles with its scoring. But it's better than Fences as a "film". Perhaps "you" mixed "message" with "filmmaking". That's "you're issue", not mine.
@Ready
I don't think Hollywood has a grudge, but I think critics are reluctant to embrace him. I know one of them tweeted, after seeing HOHW in Cannes, "I think we must finally accept that Chris Pine can act".
That sort of indicates that they don't want to.
It'll be painful if the awards bodies keep nominating the film for everything except best actor, but Pine's time will come, I'm sure. He is the real deal.
@ Ulrich
What was corny and sentimental in the trailers? (I avoid them on principle, so I've never seen one for Fences.)
In my opinion, Denzel has never been better than in Fences and Affleck has never been better than in Manchester.
Then as Nathaniel said, it doesn't make much sense why Denzel isn't featuring more in the critics awards so far, especally as he's the one regarded as an all-time great actor, not Casey. To be able to to himself with the career he's had is a pretty huge thing. Affleck doesn't feel like someone who should be sweeping all before him, when there a performance like Denzel in Fences staring right at us.
Like I said, I think it's mainly happening because the many Manchester supporters who vote for these things know it's the only way to get Casey to the oscar win (a critics sweep) and not because he's miles better than his competition. Denzel s getting stiffed because of this type of cynical advocacy.
I feel the same way about Isabelle Huppert. I love the woman and I hope she gets a nomination, but she's sweeping because of advocacy, not because she's the only great lead actress performance they can find.
I think Denzel is still absolutely the leading contender in Best Actor. In recent years, critics' awards have not been especially predictive in this category. Dicaprio, McConaughey and Redmayne did not win any major critics' awards before winning their Oscars. The more naturalistic performances that critics favor among leading actors tend to be shut out when it comes to the televised awards in this category.
It's amazing that the last time a NYFCC Best Actor winner or NSFC Best Actor winner was even nominated for an Oscar was 2012 (DDL in Lincoln - Redford, Spall and Keaton followed with NYFCC and Isaac, Spall and Jordan followed with NSFC), though I assume Affleck will be nominated this year.
CHOFER, PAUL ETCETERA... -- i get that everyone is very very touchy and worked up about identity politics and race and Oscar and how these things intermingle. And I get that those things can confuse discussions of issues of quality.
But I genuinely prefer FENCES to MANCHESTER BY THE SEA. And not because one is black and one is white or any nonsense like that. I am white of course but I get really tired of people thinking white people can't relate to narratives about people of color or vice versa and I especially hate the new notion that people can only write and director about themselves or their own "group" -- some of the best films about women ever made were made by gay men. Ang Lee made one of the most interesting films about New England society in the 70s and about gay men in the west -- and neither were things he in any way had ever experienced. Etcetera)
Anyway back to the topic at hand: quality.
I l-o-v-e that Fences *doesn't* try to be cinematic because when stage adaptations do they often seem desperate (see Doubt's canted angles and A:OC's extremely stupid attempts to "open up" its narrative with outdoor scenes constantly when the play is partially about the feeling of no escape from one's dysfunctional family and its history (so being inside the house is super important to its soul and its comedy)
I felt very outside of Manchester by the Sea. I think it's good but I'm confused by all the "masterpiece" stuff because it never really worked for me as a huge experience. I jsut felt sad for the people who had experienced these two tragedies and that was about the extent of it. I certainly don't think it's Lonergan's best or most nuanced or resonant movie (i'd rank it last of the three).\
SUMMER -- i only removed the lock on Bening because the Best Actress race just won't quit being competitive. Streep's movie is trying hard to get back in it, Adams movie is doing super well, and Negga's movie is chugging along and she's getting all the right attention for it. Something's gotta give so I don't really think anyone is safe... as much as I'd like Bening & Huppert both to be.
HAYDEN -- so true about the bias against narratives about complicated women. (sigh)
@Gena
I'm so with you on Pine. It's why critics and their biases and jealousies annoy me a bit. Pine is such a gifted actor. Underrated because he's Captain Kirk and devastatingly handsome. But not only does he deserve an awards run for HOHW....it would actually change his career. He could become another Leo or one of those star actors who use their power for good.
But they are acting like bullied nerdy teenagers in High school, because Pine looks like the guy who got all the girls in said High school. Anyone critic who has watched Pine in movies over the years who thinks he couldn't act before HOHW, shouldn't be in their job.
Paul Outlaw: Yeah, I know, some, are calling for Affleck to not win the Oscar due to those abuse/assault allegations. But 1. Those allegations, as far as I know, ONLY happened while he was making a movie like I'm Still Here. Debate the merit of making something like that (in my view: LOW), but acknowledge that doing so might temporarily make you a worse person than you ever were either before or after and 2. If Casey Affleck had ALSO made the kind of movie that tried to mythologize him as a saint? I'd also get the complaint more. Nate Parker. Ego the size of Eric Cartman. As would any white actor who really made something truly comparable. At least Braveheart has the mooning scene, sucking most of the wind out of the ego sails.
@ Volvagia
I'm not calling for Affleck not to win the Oscar, I'm just disgusted that he seems to be treated differently than Parker. Both films opened at Sundance and went on to multiple international festivals, the main difference being that Manchester opened in the US a month and a half after Nation. The discussion of Parker's rape case started in mid-August; the allegations against Affleck re-surfaced around the time of TIFF, but the story has had little traction. Without getting into judging the quality of the films, I wonder how things would stand if a) The Birth of a Nation weren't a film about this particular massacre of white people that the country (let alone the entertainment industry) has never been able or ready to deal with, and b) if Affleck weren't who he is and Parker weren't who he is not.
(Typo there at the end, should be: "...and Parker were who he is not.")
Glad to see Jeff Bridges getting love for Hell or High Water. I saw the film last night. He was excellent.
I get that people love La La Land, but why is Stone considered by everyone a lock and likely to win? Is she that good and is the role that showy? It seems to me that a win is a bad bet right now. Even the groups that awarded the movie generously have not given once Stone even a runner-up award, as far as I can recall. If she doesn't get in with SAG, I'm pretty sure she's out.
Still hoping for an Huppert win, though Bening winning would also be cool.
Quite some time ago I said I didn't think Natalie Portman would be nominated. It look like she might not be. We'll have to wait for the SAG and GG nominations!
@Greg
Hopefully he'll get better parts in better films as a result of HOHW, at least.
"Right place, right time," "coattails," "Oscar ingenue," "Miss Congeniality," take your pick. The fact that she's very good in the film and fulfills the director's vision doesn't hurt either. Currently #6 on my ballot, but whatever.
I'm really starting to think that this race comes down to Emma Stone vs. Isabelle Huppert, a sort of JLaw vs. Emmanuelle Riva, part deux. Two weeks ago, I wasn't sure Huppert could even get a nod. Now I'm beginning to think she'll win. Very exciting.
Paul: As far as the Affleck stuff goes, I'd hope they kind of laughed it off strictly because "In the middle of producing I'm Still Here" was a clause in the story. I'd treat a black person that got those allegations due to having made such a movie the same way. With a deep sigh and a thought of "most sexual harassment/assault stuff doesn't have that good a loophole and a lot of them STILL basically get off." How would I punish such allegations if involved in the production of such a movie? Just fines. That's the only punishment that gets the point across enough while ALSO highlighting that who people are while they make such a movie probably aren't who they are either before or after they do. Normal cases of sexual assault or harassment (which Parker's IS) should absolutely have much stronger minimums and a different standard for conviction than every other crime. (Unfortunately, except for murder-rapists, it's mostly a he-said/she-said crime.)
I still think you are underestimating Silence's chances in BP/BD/BS. I don't think its going to win, but the early word so far is fairly positive, if not universally rapturous and it has a heft and seriousness and epic quality to it that most of the other films in the mix lack this year. I certainly wouldn't say it was a frontrunner or a lock for any non-tech categories aside from Best Adapted Screenplay, but it certainly has a better chance of a nom at this point than Loving or Lion (which is tanking at the box office and feels more and more like a contender that was only a contender because Oscar bloggers decided it should be one) or honestly even Jackie (which is fairly polarizing and also has pretty much struck out at critics awards). I think Silence screened too close to the awards dates, resulting in a lot of critics not having time to fully process their thoughts about it (especially when they are embargoed from writing about it outside of social media). More than a few critics have mentioned that in their brief reports on Twitter.