Oscar season 2012 has begun!

[Equipoise]

@MovieMogul

No offense intended; I work in the film festival circuit now so I know plenty of people who have seen the Kidman pic and don’t know anybody who had a nice word to say about the film.

Whether they liked the movie or not, we’re talking about Kidman’s performance specifically. And forgive me for saying so, but a lot of film festival people are snobs, and I wouldn’t expect them to like The Paperboy for all the reasons I listed above. Being a film snob isn’t always a bad thing, I’m guilty of it myself at times, but having eclectic taste is way more fun.

Listen, now you DO know somebody who has a nice word to say about the film, Me. But that doesn’t matter. It’s Kidman’s performance that’s being recognized here, not the movie itself.

@MovieMogul

Given the absence of Adams or Weaver (among others), the selection seems on paper an obvious beneficiary of name recognition (today’s Golden Globe nod notwithstanding).

Notwithstanding? Kidman is nominated twice in two days for the same role and it’s only because of name recognition? Ok, if it had been a Golden Globe nod only, I still wouldn’t have agreed with you but I wouldn’t have argued. But the Screen Actors Guild too? You’re actually accusing the Screen Actors Guild of nominating someone just for name recognition? Try this instead: it’s a complex role unlike any she’s ever played and enough voters recognized her skill and wanted to reward her.

@MovieMogul

I could be wrong, of course, but that phenomenon does exist you know–Meryl Streep (great actress as she is) has been on the receiving end of it with Oscar for years. Propping up familiar names in unremarkable parts (Mirren over Riva, Weisz, or Wilson) is usually a product of laziness and unadventurous thinking, IMHO.

I liked Mirren in Hitchcock but I understand. Btw, Wilson? My mind is blanking for some reason. I keep thinking Rita Wilson but she hasn’t been in anything this year. I haven’t seen the Riva performance. Are you talking about Rachel Weisz in The Deep Blue Sea? I saw that (with the director there) and was very impressed, but what can you do? Lots of people every year get left behind. I’m still bitter about Courtney Love and Bjork.

In any case, Kidman doesn’t play an unremarkable part and name recognition has nothing to do with her nominations.

Thanks for posting the SAG and GG nominations. I forgot that the GGs were announced today. I’m so thrilled about Jack Black. I never paid much attention to him before. I’d seen a few of his movies but, yeah, whatever. I skipped many more because they just looked stupid. I fell so in love with Bernie though that now he’s one of my new favorite people. Not enough to go back and watch the stupid-looking movies, but enough to root for him to continue taking interesting roles and working with great directors. Too bad Bernie was knocked out of the Comedy nominations because of…Salmon Fishing In The Yemen? Bluh.

I’m obviously happy about Nicole. I’m happy for The Master nominations. It’s funny that Maggie Smith was nominated for Quartet (which I’ll be seeing in a couple of weeks) instead of Marigold, but Judi Dench got in for Marigold and not Skyfall. I’m very happy that A Royal Affair was nominated. It and The Intouchables are the only foreign language films I’ve seen so far.

[MovieMogul]

@Equipoise

Notwithstanding? Kidman is nominated twice in two days for the same role and it’s only because of name recognition? Ok, if it had been a Golden Globe nod only, I still wouldn’t have agreed with you but I wouldn’t have argued. But the Screen Actors Guild too? You’re actually accusing the Screen Actors Guild of nominating someone just for name recognition?

Why not? In 2006, the Emmy awards (which have a similar nominating process to SAG, but with a much longer history and more exclusive membership) nominated Ellen Burstyn for a part that was less than 30 seconds long total screen time. Why? Everyone agreed that it was because she was Ellen Burstyn, and few people had actually seen the film, but rather responded to the name.

I’m not saying Kidman is exactly analogous. But to say that SAG is completely impervious to these same impulses and biases is ridiculous.

@Equipoise

And forgive me for saying so, but a lot of film festival people are snobs, and I wouldn’t expect them to like The Paperboy for all the reasons I listed above. Being a film snob isn’t always a bad thing, I’m guilty of it myself at times, but having eclectic taste is way more fun.

Boy, talk about a broad brush! So I’m a film snob? Because I’m no different than my colleagues. You call them that and you call me that, too.

I’ll say this–I’ve worked in the film industry for the last two decades, dedicating my life to preserving and celebrating motion pictures of all stripes and varieties, and I am no different than valued colleagues I know personally on four continents, many of whose service and influence is far greater than my own. But, two film degrees notwithstanding, I guess my tastes aren’t “eclectic” enough to walk that fine line that you so skillfully balance. Too bad I’m just not that goddamn special.

My opinion is my own. I’ve never claimed it to be better than anyone’s. There are people whose opinions I trust or respect more than others, but I know I’ve come to you defense more than once here, recognizing enthusiasm where others saw “elitism”.

Well, I accept your “apology”. There are a lot of cool, interesting, funny, and incredibly smart people here at the Dope, so I wanted to thank you for reminding me of the tone and attitude I don’t miss, and the reason why I don’t frequent here much anymore. So while I’ll continue to participate in this thread (and others periodically), I’m afraid that I’m through with you.

[Equipoise]

:eek: Good lord, you’re taking my stupid posts way too seriously. I clumsily try to defend a performance I liked and why I was happy with the nominations and look what happened. I fucked it all the way up one side and down the other. Please forgive me. I am truly, deeply sorry. You and your posts are 1000 times more important to threads like this, and the Dope in general, than I could ever hope to be. Be done with me and my idiocy, I accept that, but please please please do not post less or be done with this message board. Your insights are far too valuable and interesting.

[Maserschmidt]

Anyhoo, getting back to the topic at hand, it’ll be interesting to see how the controversy plays out for Zero Dark Thirty. The Christian Science Monitor issued a strong negative view (the only one so far) because of the ambiguity in its presentation of torture. There’s also been a lot of Twitter noise and condemnatory blogging about it as well, and yet the critics are almost universally in love with the film. But Academy voters? Hard to say…this may play out like The Social Network.

Zero Dark Thirty

[MovieMogul]

The 7 finalists for the Best Makeup category have been announced by the AMPAS. The final nominee slate (prob. 2-4) will be exclusively from this list:

 “Hitchcock”
 “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”
 “Les Misérables”
 “Lincoln”
 “Looper”
 “Men in Black 3”
 “Snow White and the Huntsman”

Two conspicuous absences are HOLY MOTORS and CLOUD ATLAS, but this branch has a reputation for being unpredictable in this category sometimes.

Similarly, the Visual Effects branch have narrowed their selections to a final 10, out of which the 5 film nomination slate will be pulled:

 “The Amazing Spider-Man”
 “Cloud Atlas”
 “The Dark Knight Rises”
 “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”
 “John Carter”
 “Life of Pi”
 “Marvel’s The Avengers”
 “Prometheus”
 “Skyfall”
 “Snow White and the Huntsman”

Not as many conspicuous absences, though LOOPER would’ve been nice (it wasn’t as full of FX as some of these, but what it had was quite good)

[MovieMogul]

@Maserschmidt

Anyhoo, getting back to the topic at hand, it’ll be interesting to see how the controversy plays out for Zero Dark Thirty. The Christian Science Monitor issued a strong negative view (the only one so far) because of the ambiguity in its presentation of torture. There’s also been a lot of Twitter noise and condemnatory blogging about it as well, and yet the critics are almost universally in love with the film. But Academy voters? Hard to say…this may play out like The Social Network.

Zero Dark Thirty | Rotten Tomatoes

Andrew Sullivan, who has been extremely vocal about the war crimes committed in the US’s name under the Bush administration. came out with a cogent and interesting defense of the film here. There are some details about the film that might constitute Spoilers to some, so reader beware.

I’m looking forward to the film a great deal.

[Maserschmidt]

@Maserschmidt

Anyhoo, getting back to the topic at hand, it’ll be interesting to see how the controversy plays out for Zero Dark Thirty. The Christian Science Monitor issued a strong negative view (the only one so far) because of the ambiguity in its presentation of torture. There’s also been a lot of Twitter noise and condemnatory blogging about it as well, and yet the critics are almost universally in love with the film. But Academy voters? Hard to say…this may play out like The Social Network.

Zero Dark Thirty | Rotten Tomatoes

@MovieMogul

Andrew Sullivan, who has been extremely vocal about the war crimes committed in the US’s name under the Bush administration. came out with a cogent and interesting defense of the film here. There are some details about the film that might constitute Spoilers to some, so reader beware.

I’m looking forward to the film a great deal.

I’m also looking forward to it. It’s been interesting to watch the public furor over this, including a condemning letter to Sony from three Senators. I also noted that user scores ramped up on IMDb and Metacritic before the movie was even released; IMDb for example was at 6.6 this morning, driven essentially by 2/3 10s and 1/3 0s.

My guess is that will hinder voting in Hollywood.

[Rollo_Tomasi]

@MovieMogul

The 7 finalists for the Best Makeup category have been announced by the AMPAS. The final nominee slate (prob. 2-4) will be exclusively from this list:

 “Hitchcock”
 “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”
 “Les Misérables”
 “Lincoln”
 “Looper”
 “Men in Black 3”
 “Snow White and the Huntsman”

Two conspicuous absences are HOLY MOTORS and CLOUD ATLAS, but this branch has a reputation for being unpredictable in this category sometimes.

It is ridiculous that Holy Motors is not there. Cloud Atlas I can understand, because while a lot of the makeup was very good (especially in the postapocalyptic section) and more than worthy of a nomination, I wouldn’t be surprised if voters refused to spring for it based on the terrible Asian makeup. But Holy Motors has so much fantastic work in it that’s impossible to miss. Hell, you even see the main actor removing and applying the makeup at some points. I have to assume that it’s such a low-profile movie that voters didn’t bother watching it (even though foreign movies have made the shortlist and nomination list in the past).

[MovieMogul]

@Rollo_Tomasi

It is ridiculous that Holy Motors is not there. Cloud Atlas I can understand, because while a lot of the makeup was very good (especially in the postapocalyptic section) and more than worthy of a nomination, I wouldn’t be surprised if voters refused to spring for it based on the terrible Asian makeup. But Holy Motors has so much fantastic work in it that’s impossible to miss. Hell, you even see the main actor removing and applying the makeup at some points. I have to assume that it’s such a low-profile movie that voters didn’t bother watching it (even though foreign movies have made the shortlist and nomination list in the past).

Agreed–it’s a film that celebrates the transformative power of make-up in the interest of story-telling. And while it’s true that the branch has recognized foreign language films before, they were still typically biopics or period films, not something as truly bizarre and experimental as the Carax. Still, sorry to see its exclusion.

As for ATLAS, I didn’t find the pseudo-Asian faces any more offputting than the terrible old age work from the nominated A BEAUTIFUL MIND. These nominations are determined from a submitted clip reel (IIRC) so maybe the assembly didn’t work to the film’s advantages–since while some work is quite good and unpredictable, not all of it is (Hugh Grant’s old age make-up was genuinely terrible)

[MovieMogul]

@Maserschmidt

I’m also looking forward to it. It’s been interesting to watch the public furor over this, including a condemning letter to Sony from three Senators. I also noted that user scores ramped up on IMDb and Metacritic before the movie was even released; IMDb for example was at 6.6 this morning, driven essentially by 2/3 10s and 1/3 0s.

My guess is that will hinder voting in Hollywood.

The film sounds like it’s turning into quite a Rorschach test. For some liberals, it’s pro-torture because it refuses to explicitly condemn it. From some conservatives, it serves as a justification for torture, connecting the dots between those scenes and the film’s climax. While to others, the film’s depiction of torture does not put us in a favorable light at all, regardless of whether it helped or not (which they’ll read as ambiguous).

How this impacts voting remains to be seen (and will always remain speculative).

As for the horse race, ZDT and ARGO lead the critics awards for Best Picture, while THE MASTER is now on 3rd. Because of how the preferential balloting works (and the fact that there are up to 10 Picture nominees), enough #1 votes for the PTA film will be enough to get it in the top tier. The amount of support it has will be more easily deciphered (as well as if it pulls in only 1 acting nod or as much as 3). Still, the two films most likely to get the most nominations (and by association, the best shot to pick up the top prize) are LINCOLN and LES MIZ, neither of which have pulled in any in these categories (though plenty in acting)

For Actor, it seems DDL’s to lose–except that this would be his 3rd lead Oscar, something no male has ever done before, and Katie Hepburn took a decade longer before she received her third (the only other performer to accomplish this for lead categories). Still, it’s hard to imagine any other single performance accumulating enough support to pose a threat. If so, it will be the first acting Oscar for any Spielberg film ever.

That is, unless Tommy Lee Jones wins earlier in the evening. Having seen all the contenders (including DJANGO) now, Robert DeNiro’s is by far my favorite and the most moving. But it would be his 3rd Oscar, too (though his first nomination in 2 decades). But TLJ is great fun, and between Arkin, Waltz, Hoffman and Bardem, this category seems well-positioned to have someone definitely getting a repeat award.

Supporting Actress seems like a two-person race, with Field having a slight disadvantage in having two already (besides Hepburn, only Ingrid Bergman and Streep have 3) and Hathaway having a gangbuster year with Batman as well (plus, she’s hot, which never hurts). I haven’t seen LES MIZ, but I wonder if she has any other “money shot” Oscar moments besides the one being pimped out in every trailer for the film. Even if she doesn’t, it is pretty powerful and may be enough.

Best Actress is most up in the air, with the most uncertain final slate, no potential nominee with more than one previous nod to their name (diluting the “owed” impulse that sometimes persists), and the actresses with the most screen time being in the smallest and most obscure of the films. If Riva (AMOUR) and Wallis (BEASTS) both get nominated, it will be the widest age gap between competing nominees ever (around 70 years)

[MovieMogul]

The Foreign Language selection committee has narrowed the field for that category down to nine (from which the final nomination slate of 5 will be pulled)

• Austria, “Amour,” Michael Haneke, director
• Canada, “War Witch,” Kim Nguyen, director
  Chile, “No,” Pablo Larraín, director
• Denmark, “A Royal Affair,” Nikolaj Arcel, director
  France, “The Intouchables,” Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano, directors
• Iceland, “The Deep,” Baltasar Kormákur, director
  Norway, “Kon-Tiki,” Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, directors
• Romania, “Beyond the Hills,” Cristian Mungiu, director
  Switzerland, “Sister,” Ursula Meier, director
  What immediately stands out is that no films from Asia or Africa are represented (though WAR WITCH takes place in the latter).

Our Festival showed 5 of these (the ones with an *) and our theater will be playing 3 more before the Oscars, and while the Romanian film is very good, it’s also a challenge and (for some) a bit of a slog. And while the French film has been, relatively speaking, a box office smash overseas, 2012 Cannes Palme d’Or winner AMOUR seems the one to beat (it will be surprising if it doesn’t score another nod or two in other categories)–especially since the film is perfectly suited for the Academy’s significant demographic of older voters.

[Maserschmidt]

@MovieMogul

Best Actress is most up in the air, with the most uncertain final slate, no potential nominee with more than one previous nod to their name (diluting the “owed” impulse that sometimes persists), and the actresses with the most screen time being in the smallest and most obscure of the films. If Riva (AMOUR) and Wallis (BEASTS) both get nominated, it will be the widest age gap between competing nominees ever (around 70 years)

The only thing about that ‘owed’ impulse is that Jessica Chastain may get some carryover from her insanely impressive 2011.

[Maserschmidt]

@MovieMogul

The Foreign Language selection committee has narrowed the field for that category down to nine (from which the final nomination slate of 5 will be pulled)

• Austria, “Amour,” Michael Haneke, director
• Canada, “War Witch,” Kim Nguyen, director
  Chile, “No,” Pablo Larraín, director
• Denmark, “A Royal Affair,” Nikolaj Arcel, director
  France, “The Intouchables,” Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano, directors
• Iceland, “The Deep,” Baltasar Kormákur, director
  Norway, “Kon-Tiki,” Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, directors
• Romania, “Beyond the Hills,” Cristian Mungiu, director
  Switzerland, “Sister,” Ursula Meier, director
  What immediately stands out is that no films from Asia or Africa are represented (though WAR WITCH takes place in the latter).

Our Festival showed 5 of these (the ones with an *) and our theater will be playing 3 more before the Oscars, and while the Romanian film is very good, it’s also a challenge and (for some) a bit of a slog. And while the French film has been, relatively speaking, a box office smash overseas, 2012 Cannes Palme d’Or winner AMOUR seems the one to beat (it will be surprising if it doesn’t score another nod or two in other categories)–especially since the film is perfectly suited for the Academy’s significant demographic of older voters.

I agree that “Amour” is a distinct front-runner.

[Sleeping_Synapse]

If The Dumb Knight Rises receives any nominations, let alone gongs, the Academy Of Motion Picture, Arts and Zionists might as well euthanase.

[twickster]

@Sleeping_Synapse

If The Dumb Knight Rises receives any nominations, let alone gongs, the Academy Of Motion Picture, Arts and Zionists might as well euthanase.

Antisemitic remarks, especially gratuitous antisemitic remarks, are not appropriate at the SDMB. Don’t do this again.

twickster, Cafe Society moderator

[MovieMogul]

Well, most of the critics’ awards are out and so now come the Guilds.

The Producers Guild announced their 10 nominees (expanded to match the Academy’s wider Best Picture slate). And the contenders are:

Argo
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Django Unchained
Les Miserables
Life of Pi
Lincoln
Moonrise Kingdom
Silver Linings Playbook
Skyfall
Zero Dark Thirty

Of last year’s 10 PGA nominees, 7 of them went on to earn Best Picture nods from the Academy. The ones most in danger here are, I’d guess, Beasts, the Bond, and (sadly) Moonrise, my favorite film of the year. The others have plenty of money and/or momentum behind them.

Speaking of Bond, it’s worth noting that there are quite a few franchises with previous Oscars contending this year: Middle Earth, Alien, Batman, Bourne, Bond, Spider-Man, MIB have all won something previously (only the Avengers franchise hasn’t). It’ll be interesting to see which remain in the running next week.

Nominations announced January 10.

[Rollo_Tomasi]

I’m a little surprised that Skyfall made it over The Avengers. There’s usually one big moneymaker on the list, but I thought they would go with the highest-grossing one of the year. No matter, since I don’t think it’s going to matter for Best Picture, but this is definitely good news for Moonrise and Beasts. It’s all down to both of them getting enough #1 votes at this point.

[MovieMogul]

Well, the Oscar nominations come out tomorrow.

In the meantime, some heavy guild activity

American Society of Cinematographers

Anna Karenina, Seamus McGarvey, ASC, BSC
Les Miserables, Danny Cohen, BSC
Life of Pi, Claudio Miranda, ASC
Lincoln, Janusz Kaminski
Skyfall, Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC

Cinema Audio Society

Motion Pictures – Live Action:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Les Misérables
Lincoln
Skyfall
Zero Dark Thirty

Motion Pictures – Animated:

Brave
Frankenweenie
The Lorax
Rise Of The Guardians
Wreck-It Ralph

Writers Guild of America

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Flight, Written by John Gatins
Looper, Written by Rian Johnson
The Master, Written by Paul Thomas Anderson
Moonrise Kingdom, Written by Wes Anderson & Roman Coppola
Zero Dark Thirty, Written by Mark Boal

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Argo, Screenplay by Chris Terrio; Based on a selection from The Master of Disguise by Antonio J. Mendez and the Wired Magazine article “The Great Escape” by Joshuah Bearman
Life of Pi, Screenplay by David Magee; Based on the novel by Yann Martel
Lincoln, Screenplay by Tony Kushner; Based in part on the book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin
The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Screenplay by Stephen Chbosky; Based on his book
Silver Linings Playbook, Screenplay by David O. Russell; Based on the novel by Matthew Quick

Directors Guild of America

Ben Affleck, Argo
Tom Hooper, Les Miserables
Ang Lee, Life of Pi
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty

[MovieMogul]

@Equipoise

:eek: Good lord, you’re taking my stupid posts way too seriously. I clumsily try to defend a performance I liked and why I was happy with the nominations and look what happened. I fucked it all the way up one side and down the other. Please forgive me. I am truly, deeply sorry. You and your posts are 1000 times more important to threads like this, and the Dope in general, than I could ever hope to be. Be done with me and my idiocy, I accept that, but please please please do not post less or be done with this message board. Your insights are far too valuable and interesting.

Thank you for the very gracious note, Equi. No harm, no foul. Looking forward to tomorrow morning. Should be interesting what transpires.

Be well.

[JohnT]

A film that isn’t in wide release by the end of the year truly has no business being nominated for best film of that year. I understand that the Oscar nomination rules state that a film has to be shown, just once if need be, in LA County, CA in the nominating year, but even if it’s the greatest film of all time, Zero Dark Thirty truly isn’t the best film of 2012 because nobody saw the goddamned thing in 2012. Hell, the ZD30 “I’ve seen it!” thread didn’t even begin until 5 days into 2013.

Ranting done, you may continue on…