Oscarweb Round-up: 'But we haven't seen it!'
Also: Gold Derby heads off on its own again and Charlie Kaufman's latest is unfortunately spoiled publicly
Jeremy Irvine (left) and Steven Spielberg on the set of "War Horse"
Are you a fan of Academy Awards?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
Linked in today's round-up is a piece from Nathaniel Rogers about the fact that there are simply no locks for Oscar in the earliest stages, certainly not for films that are still unseen. Though it wasn't his point, it nevertheless got me thinking of two spats I got into last week with people who were flabbergasted at the idea of considering "War Horse" at the top of a list of Oscar guesses. "It hasn't been seen!" No kidding. But the fact is, if you're asking me to take wild stabs, I'll take an unseen Steven Spielberg movie based on a hit play set during World War I over an Alexander Payne comedy that has played well at festivals -- all day long. It's like saying it's silly in week one to bet on the Packers to make it to the Super Bowl because they play on Monday night and we haven't seen what they're made of, while the Lions killed in the early game on Sunday. Or something like that. It's fair to bank it on pedigree because the fact is it's all a bunch of nonsense guessing until voters -- the people who matter in the equation -- actually see the film, and that's not usually until the holidays, anyway. So spare me the indignant, "But we haven't seen it yet!" It's okay if things change. Anyway, let's see what's going on in the Oscarweb today...
Nathaniel Rogers rattles off the ole' "there are no locks" logic, which is of course bulletproof. [The Film Experience]
Tom O'Neil severs ties with the LA Times and goes out on his own once again with Gold Derby. [Awards Tracker]
Anne Thompson on the Oscar potential of Roman Polanski's "Carnage." [Thompson on Hollywood]
Steve Pond talks with "Moneyball" director Bennett Miller. [The Odds]
Gregg Kilday, meanwhile, wonders if the film can overcome baseball's Oscar slump. [The Race]
Jeff Wells writes a love letter to Mexican foreign language submission "Miss Bala." [Hollywood Elsewhere]
A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis belly-ache the Oscar-ization of the fall festival circuit. [New York Times]
David Poland responds. [The Hot Blog]
Edward Davis decides to spoil Charlie Kaufman's latest publicly. [The Playlist]
Drew McWeeny talks to "50/50" star Anna Kendrick. [Motion/Captured]
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Makeup And Hairstyling
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Production Design
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Foreign Language Film
Latest Posts
-
'Traumatized critics exhale.'Monday, May 20, 2013
-
The prestige distributor also handled Asghar Farhadi's 'A Separation'Monday, May 20, 2013
-
Oscar Isaac is a revelation in melancholy study of arrested artistrySunday, May 19, 2013
-
Putting a bow on last year's awards season with a few laughsSunday, May 19, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupMaxim
October 3, 2011 at 11:43AM EST Reply to CommentAnne Thompsons's take on predictions (among some other things) is kind of irratating and frankly, doesn't make any sense whatsoever. She tends to put the films she hasn't seen last in her predictions charts simply because they haven't been seen yet.
So she is still technically "predicting" them just without the whole prediction part. I say either exclude these films altogether (just to be consistent) or base your predictions on some other intagible aspects. And I think it is perfectly understood that any set of predictions is made from the point of view of how things look now. Everyone gets that. I don't know why Anne seems so interested in fighting this very notion.
Kind of weird, especially considering on how she likes to brag on having cut her teeth on makiing early sight unsseen predictions for EW (at least I think it was EW).
pitypie I think there's inherently a different philosophy to what Kris does versus, say, what Anne does. I get the feeling Anne's main measurement tool is good old fashion talking to people, and so it's only natural she's not getting any word of mouth buzz coming to her on films that haven't been released. She's not so much predicting as reflecting what the consensus seems to be at a given moment, whereas Kris and many others try to get ahead of the ball by trying to actually predict what consensus WILL be in the future. Anne's insistence on word of mouth has worked incredibly well (cf. The King's Speech) but I think it's unfair to say she's playing in the same Oscar predicting/prognosticating/prophesying game as everyone else.
October 3, 2011 at 1:20PM ESTMaxim PITYPIE, I think you've missed the point I've been trying to carry accross. I wasn't commenting on her realying on the word of mouth (which, you are right, she does lean on, strongly, if incosistently - see "Jane Eyre".
October 3, 2011 at 2:37PM ESTI was just speaking to her insistence on being completely unable to predict things that weren't seen while *still* predicting them (but never ever putting anything she hasn't seen anywhere but in last positions). She is trying to have it both ways and I think she should just accept that the not-being-totally-sure or not-always-knowing-what-I-am-talking-about aspects are inherent in the prediction aspect and just accept them instead of trying to fight them or repeatedly point out the caveats that are, for the most part, obvious. Predictions are just that. Predictions. And they reflect nothing more than how things look *now*.
It's also worth mentioning that, while importnat, liiting oneself to only words-of-mouth is not enough in all cases.
Chase Kahn
October 3, 2011 at 12:18PM EST Reply to CommentI can't speak for everyone, but I would personally love to see a James Rocchi/Kris Tapley cagematch.
Laura Stewart I second this.
October 3, 2011 at 4:07PM ESTEvan
October 3, 2011 at 12:59PM EST Reply to CommentI'm left wondering if there's much of a difference between predicting what people will think of films that nobody's seen yet versus predicting what the public will think of films that only the cinephile elite has seen yet. I haven't paid a ton of attention to the festival circuit in the past, but I imagine that even now, there's still some amount of uncertainty with how films like The Artist, The Descendants, and Ides of March will fare with mainstream audiences and critics.
But what's funny to me is that this argument really doesn't matter because most of the time, being the site unseen favorite only sets you up for disappointment. Just ask the Cold Mountain or Dreamgirls folks.
Based both on my grasp of Oscar hype story arcs (such as those above) and on friends' review of the play (that it's all about the puppets, which will be missing in the cinematic adaptation), I seriously doubt that War Horse will be our winner come Oscar night.
Ben
October 3, 2011 at 1:27PM EST Reply to CommentThe thing I find most fascinating/irritating about "we haven't seen it yet!" is when it comes from people who make a good part of their living blogging/talking about awards season in the first place. If people didn't care about this stuff, you wouldn't have a job, so get off the high horse.
I think we pretty much know Transformers 3 has a decent chance for a FX nom without seeing it. Kudos for War Horse and Best Pic. and frankly, even if War Horse or J Edgar end up being duds, what's the harm in penciling them in now. No one is getting hurt here. And when you make your year ahead predictions (as many do), everyone is well aware its nothing more than educated guesses. I don't get what's being harmed by having some fun with it.
JJ1 exactly.
October 4, 2011 at 7:48AM ESTLaura Stewart
October 3, 2011 at 4:15PM EST Reply to CommentThis Kaufman script sounds epic. So wtf-worthy, in a very good way.
AndrewM679
October 3, 2011 at 6:25PM EST Reply to CommentI need that Kaufman script. But... I don't have any way to even come close to getting it.
ross
October 3, 2011 at 10:26PM EST Reply to CommentI agree entirely, Kris. When it comes to handicapping the oscars, all films have pros and cons, and the fact that one hasn't been seen should be considered a "con" but it shouldn't discount it altogether. Thus, if a film like War Horse has enough "pros", then it's foolish not to talk about it.
Put another way, if you weren't an oscar blogger, but an oscar odds setter in Vegas and you didn't install War Horse as your favourite, then I would be all over that bet.
DarkLayers
October 4, 2011 at 3:30AM EST Reply to CommentI'm wondering there is something substantive underlying this "we haven't seen it sentiment," though.
Some formal writers and commenters here noticed something about the big "King's Speech" win. A lot of it seemed to be about the 'Oscar' film finally having stuff like reviews, box office, and merit behind it in a way that promising projects of recent years didn't. This might have been of particular interest because during some of the preceding years we saw films that ran against some folks' stereotype of an Oscar film doing best in Awards Season. TKS success seemed to imply traditions are consequential when they have other stuff with them.
We've also seen several Oscar-movie disappointments. So maybe the natural desire to want to nail this down the pike and the dynamics of the past few years have just instilled into people a real sense of 'that right movie can do it for them, but it has to have the reviews, box office, and goods.' This, in turn, has made them particularly hesitant about saying, "War Horse" is number one when they could see it fizzling out. The key thing at that point is to "see the movie." It's not too difficult to imagine that War Horse might not be that good, and The Descendents getting pushed through with the end of the year lists, quality, and so forth. On the other hand, we can see War Horse trumpting The Descendents on what many people suspect about industry preferences.
Of course as Kris points out this is all fun and entertainment, and we should see it that way. But beyond backlash about the awards season buzz during festival season and the unfairness of making hay about movies we haven't seen, some folks just feel very twitchy about a replay of Nine or something.
JJ1 Here's a little mainstream movie-goer story. Last mid-December I went to dinner at a Greek restaurant. At the table behind me were two couples (I'd say in their 60s, maybe early 70s). They seem to be fairly regular movie-goers and they happened to be discussing the upcoming 'The King's Speech'. "Oh yes, I've heard good things". "Yes, I hear Colin Firth is wonnnnnderful". "I bet you he's going to win the Oscar". And then the direction of the conversation went to Best Picture. And I kept hearing them say, "Well, The King's Speech won't win. That's not the type that wins anymore. It's an Oscar play for Colin Firth". "Right, no I don't think that movie would win Best Picture". "It doesn't look like Best Picture, but ... well, it doesn't, does it?" "No, I've heard there are other films with better favor for Best Picture". "Well, surely it won't win Best picture". etc etc..
October 4, 2011 at 7:58AM ESTAnd I distinctly remember watching the Oscars and, at the moment TKS won, I thought back to that random group of 4 who were all jazzed for The King's Speech, but didn't think it would win (maybe it didn't look substantial enough for them). And that type of film would have been in their wheelhouse. It just shows that ... even 2 weeks before a film is released (whether it has enormous buzz, ok buzz, or no buzz), you never know if it will make an impact.