The 83rd Academy Awards

Funny that I have the same view as you (I don't think Nolan was necessarily snubbed, either), but I disagree with just about every individual point you made.

Nolan is a great director, but he makes makes great pure entertainment films for the masses. "The Dark Knight", "The Prestige", and "Inception", none of them are deep, thoughtful, or make much sense on a dozen points.

But they're all riveting, exciting, look amazing, and are filled with terrific individual scenes. I think saying "The Dark Knight" was 40 minutes too long is laughable; the most impressive thing about that movie wasn't Ledger's performance, but rather, how perfectly the movie was paced and edited. Never repetitive, never a dull moment. That's extraordinarily hard to do for an action film where the fight scenes themselves suck.

As always though, the Academy Awards discount popcorn blockbuster films in favor of movies that attempt to be more meaningful. I can't really criticize that decision, although it is curious that Cameron got a Best Director nomination last year for "Avatar".

Oh, and I've never worn a trench coat in my life, but "The Matrix" was a freaking masterpiece.

 

Very true, but isn't that a common trait in many Nolan films? For instance, Michael Caine in either "Inception" or "The Dark Knight". Or Morgan Freeman in "The Dark Knight".

It's so pervasive that I think Nolan is simply giving actors he really likes free paychecks.

Yeah, having finally watched "True Grit", I don't see how her character could possibly be any more of a lead than she was in that film. The story was about her, and it was told from her perspective. Every important scene from beginning to end featured her character. It was not about Rooster Cogburn.

I guess this just proves that Portman and Steinfeld will win their respective awards.

Yeah, the only two films I have seen from that guy were completely awful. ("I Heart Huckabees" and "Three Kings")

But actually, I really wanted to watch "The Fighter" until hearing some surprisingly negative reviews from my friends. The consensus seems to be that it's a very generic, by-the-book, underdog sports story, (and the boxing scenes themselves look awful) except for an amazing performance from Christian Bale.

 

That was three weeks ago -- pretty damn impressive if you ask me. My take on the potential winners:

Best Picture
The King's Speech just won at the PGA's and it did get the most nominations, so there could be an upset in the making. Just watched it this weekend -- it's really good, and getting three acting noms (and one very likely winner in Firth) definitely helps its chances. That said, it's still The Social Network's to lose.

Best Director
Jesus fuck I've never seen so much whining about a movie. Inception fucking rocked. Christopher Nolan got fucking boned. David O. Russell over Nolan? Really? Do you think anyone would've seen The Fighter if Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Melissa Leo, and Amy Adams hadn't given the performances of their careers? No. Sorry I don't have a five paragraph essay prepared (seriously, it shocks me how much time people spend analyzing shit that they don't like). David Fincher's winning this one, by the way.

Best Actor/Actress/Supporting Actor
Natalie Portman, Colin Firth, and Christian Bale are all locks.

Best Supporting Actress
This one will be interesting. My gut is that it goes to Steinfeld, but Melissa Leo has won a bunch for The Fighter. Whoever SAG picks will likely end up being the winner.

Original/Adapted Screenplay
The King's Speech and The Social Network. If there's any justice in this world, Original will go to Inception just to piss all you film nerds off.

 

With your contrarian streak I would have thought that was impetus alone.

 

Yeah, one would think so. However, it's the same vibe I got from watching the trailer, and when it comes to David O Russell, expecting good things would be a serious mistake.

Anyways, I'm looking at a breakdown of the lines this year;

<a class="postlink" href="http://sports.bodog.com/sports-betting/tv-film-movie-props.jsp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://sports.bodog.com/sports-betting/ ... -props.jsp</a>

Everything is standard and obvious enough, with the exception of "Best Supporting Actress", Melissa Leo is a solid favorite at -200, and Hailee Steinfeld is second at a mere +350. Interesting and unexpected.

 

double post

 

I assure you all I am very alive and well, but I've been out of pocket for a few months as I've made a significant career move and am currently training to chase Mexicans through Southern California. But thanks for noticing I've been gone.

Unfortunately, I can't give my usual insight into this years Oscars since I'm fairly well removed from any sort of reputable cinematic outlet. The two-screen theater in this shithole town I'm in is currently playing Little Fockers and Tron, and the only outlet for quality rentals is a Redbox in the Wal-Mart lobby.

That said, I've still been following the indicators and this year actually looks to be pretty anti-climactic. Natalie Portman appears to be the biggest lock (though I haven't seen Black Swan) and the Academy has been pretty kind to "starlets" over the past 10+ years or so. Likewise, Christian Bale has a reputation in Hollywood as a someone who takes the craft super-seriously. Even the reaction to his taped outburst from a few years ago was met with a sort of reserved respect for someone who was "in the zone" and rightfully peeved that a crewman was fucking up his scene. Regardless, if the Academy has taken a turn towards rewarding actors that are less likely to turn into this century's Cuba Gooding, Jr. (i.e. someone likely to use the label "Academy Award Winner" in the trailer for straight-to-DVD schlock) than Bale is an ideal pick; the guy usually picks good projects and pretty much always acts way above the material.

Along those lines, I'd say Colin Firth seems like a safe bet as well. Best Actor is a little harder for me to comment on since I've only seen Eisenberg in The Social Network and Bridges in True Grit. But, Firth has the resume (including a recent Oscar nom) and the subject matter in his corner; rewarding actors for playing real-life people (and a royal to boot) is nothing new for the Academy.

Re: True Grit. The Academy is probably going to find it extremely difficult to justify giving a major creative award to a movie that is essentially a shot-for-shot remake. Sure, it was fantastic to watch and brought the story to a new generation, but the Coens didn't even "re-imagine" much of it. They just made a 21st Century version of the 1960s film. So you can count out Best Picture (hard to argue otherwise), Best Director (the Coens have hardware already), Best Adapted Screenplay (ditto, plus they didn't even change most of the dialogue), and Best Actor (Bridges won just last year, and the Bad Blake/Rooster Cogburn back-to-back is not nearly as impressive as what Tom Hanks pulled off with Philadelphia/Forrest Gump). However...I think the Academy will find it easy to give Hailee Steinfeld the statue since her performance is light years removed from what the original actress did in the first film. Plus - and this is something no one will admit out loud - it's a lot easier to give the award to a first-time actress with a decent future ahead of her. I mean, I personally like Gabourey Sidibe, but the knock that she'd never work in Hollywood again hasn't really been settled. But then again...the only pick I've gotten consistently wrong going back to the TMMB has been in this category, so take that for what it's worth.

And to answer the question about the difference between Lead and Supporting categories, the short answer is this: there isn't one that matters. Actors and actresses are nominated by their producers in those categories for purely subjective reasons and the branches either buy into it or they don't. The most recent example of this was Kate Winslet winning Best Actress for The Reader; she had been nominated and won several awards for the same role but in the supporting actress category (including the usually worthless Golden Globe).[/quote]

 

Excellent post, dude. While a slight tangent, since it's my own opinion and not what I think will happen at the Oscars, but this quote from the Filthy Critic basically summed up my thoughts on Hailee Steinfeld's performance;

It's a good performance working with really good actors (most of whom were even better than her, minor characters like the shopkeeper and Lucky Ned included) and legendary directors renowned for drawing out the very best from their cast.

While I didn't like the film, someone like Haley Joel Osmont in "The Sixth Sense" was light years ahead of her performance, in a tougher role, and without the caliber of director and fellow actors to work with.

 

The first thing people need to realize about the Oscars is that they are snapshots of a single year in film; each nominee is only competing against the other four candidates. So while it's easy to identify trends, it's also important to weigh each performance in context. That's what sucks for me this year, since I can't really do a good job of the latter. So while you might have a pretty good point about how she stacks up against relatively recent nominees, that rarely ever matters in a town with a short attention span.

However, that being said, it's been a while since the Academy has given a statue to a kid* and that kind of photo op doesn't always present itself, so my gut feeling is Steinfeld is going to be the lucky recipient of this decade's feel-good moment. You also have to consider that oOne of the things she has going for her is that she's got a single memorable scene (where she's negotiating with the horse trader) that makes it easy for members of the Academy to base their vote on something without having to watch the whole DVD screener.


*I use the term "kid" loosely, since she's a teenager and Osment, Breslin, and Paquin were all pre-pubescent crumbstealers. If anything, I think the Academy may view her in the light of a first-time performer instead of a young actress. That's a pretty wide net of sentiment that can only work in her favor.

 

Oh, I totally agree. She has a terrific chance of winning for a number of reasons. I'm just saying that the performance was good, but nowhere near great.

It is strange that Bodog only had her as only the number two favorite in that category, though.

 

That's what sucks about living on the other side of the world right now. A lot of voters have and/or will watch The Fighter to see Christian Bale, so Melissa Leo is going to get a great look and probably deserves to be the odds-on favorite. I just have no idea what kind of performance she gave. Leo's GG win is pretty worthless since Steinfeld wasn't nominated, so tonight's SAG awards should be a very good indicator of who will take home the Oscar.

 

That's an interesting statement; despite "True Grit" grossing twice as much as "The Fighter" at the box office, you're saying more Academy voters will have watched the latter over the former? How does something like that happen?

 

Studios send out DVD screeners both before and after the nominations* are announced, and they almost always stamp "For Your Consideration" during particularly good scenes in order to spoon-feed their intent to the voters. What I'm saying is that the Academy voters by this point have a personalized copy of every single film nominated** so it's certain that close to the entire membership is going to watch Black Swan, The Fighter, The King's Speech, True Grit, and The Social Network if they haven't already seen them for no other reason than to see if those films/actors are all they're cracked up to be. And I'm definitely not saying anyone is going to miss seeing True Grit over The Fighter, only that it's unlikely anyone is going to miss the latter.

* The way the nominations work is that each branch of the Academy votes for the nominees in their category. The cinematographers pick the nominees for Best Cinematography, the sound guys pick Best Sound, etc..., with the single exception of Best Picture (which anyone can nominate). So before the nominations are announced, the studios/producers make sure that the people that vote for nominees have a copy of the films. Then after the nominations are announced, everyone with a vote is going to get a nice, swanky, jazzed-up press kit with the movies that made the final cut. The entire Academy votes for the winners.

** There are a few categories where only voters that attend special theater screenings may vote for the winner. I think it's the stuff like Best Short Film, Best Short Documentary, Best Animated Short...basically the awards no one really cares about. Otherwise, there's really nothing to stop an Academy voter from just voting for shit he heard was good, or having his wife or kid fill out his ballot if he doesn't want to bother with it.

 

And on that note, Melissa Leo takes home the SAG over Hailee Steinfeld. The SAGs are usually a good indicator since their categories and slates of nominees match up well with the Oscars. Last year, the four SAG winners went 4/4 at the Oscars, but in recent years prior to that the SAG to Oscar ratios were 2/4*, 2/4, 3/4, 3/4, 4/4, 3/4, 1/4, 1/4, and 1/4.

Don't except the Vegas odds to change much, but if you want to bet on an upset Steinfeld is the best choice. No other category has a serious darkhorse that I can tell.


* That year, Kate Winslet won the SAG for Best Supporting Actress for The Reader and Meryl Streep won Best Actress for Doubt, resulting in two wrong picks by my scorecard. Just goes to show you how arbitrary the Lead/Supporting qualification is.

 

Not to break up the El Tee/KIMaster lovefest, but the PGA's (producers), DGA's (directors), and SAG (actors) awards have all come and gone, and it looks like The King's Speech is going to be the big winner. Tom Hooper won at the DGA's (uh, who?), and The King's Speech won at the PGA's and the SAG. Crazy. The Academy usually pretty closely follows those three awards, so it could be game over for The Social Network.

Can't say I'm excited about Hooper's chances at Best Director -- that movie would have been nothing without Colin Firth. Hopefully it'll go to Fincher, who definitely deserves it over Hooper on both an individual film basis and a career basis.

As for the Best Supporting Actress race, I'm still hoping it'll go to Steinfeld. I thought Melissa Leo was the fourth best actor in The Fighter, behind Bale, Adams, and Wahlberg, but I guess everyone really loved her performance. There's really no "career achievement award" at play here, since Leo hasn't really done anything that notable (I guess she was nominated for Frozen River a couple years ago, but no idea who the fuck saw that movie). And plus, no scene that she had in The Fighter was better than Steinfeld's negotiating scene. We'll see, I guess. This category will be interesting.

 

He was playing an Australian.