Oscar nominations: final predictions, rants, musings — Page 2

"I didn't think "Tree of Life" was any more confusing or pretentious than "2001." "

That may be true. But neither was it any less confusing or pretentious. It was certainly a lot less interesting, and, unlike 2001, in no sense arguably groundbreaking.

I am mostly hoping Bennett Miller gets a much deserved directing nomination. Not that I'm expecting it. I don't know why the Academy wouldn't be crazy about Moneyball, or conclude it was one of the five best directed of the movies nominated for best film, but I'm not getting the feeling that they are or will.

I'm also getting the feeling, for the first time, that Close will be shut out and Theron will be in.

I don't see Bejo not getting nominated. She would likely not have been nominated in the leading category with this year's competition (already it appears that Dunst, Olsen, Mara and either Close or Theron will be left out), and while I do see her role as more of a lead, this doesn't strike me as a blatant instance of category theft. I think an argument can be made that Dujardin's role dominates the movie and everyone else supports him. I would argue that CZJ in Chicago was more of a supporting category steal than Bejo.

In any event, Chastain or Spencer is likely to win. Or McCarthy. That is, if she's nominated, which remains an if.

Tree of Life may or may not (arguably) have been "ground breaking" in its story-telling. I think it was, at the very least, enormously refreshing, in an era when so many films tell their stories by the numbers, if they even have cohesive and compelling stories to tell. (Yes, I thought Tree of LIfe had a fascinating story that "snuck up" on me. By the second half of the film, I was pretty overwhelmed by it.)

I also found the return to Douglas Trumbull's "old school" visual effects from 2-3 decades ago enormously refreshing (and brilliantly executed) in an era of endless "video game" CGI dominating movies.

But as the old saying goes, "To each his own."

---

Updated On: 1/23/12 at 12:47 PM

I doubt that there will be a split and Chastain would get shut out. I think it's pretty safe to assume she'll be nominated for THE HELP, since that's what she was nominated for at the SAG and GG.

---

I agree that Berenice Bejo should be nominated for best actress, but so should have Jennifer Hudson. I think there should be some kind of criteria as to what roles are supporting and what are lead. It seems ridiculous someone can be submitted in a less appropriate category just because they are certain to be ignored in the category they belong in.

Also, The Descendants is the most overrated movie of the year. The actors were good, but good, that movie was a bore.

I also think Jessica Chastain's performance in The Help is wildly overrated.

Updated On: 1/23/12 at 02:22 PM

I liked the performances in The Descendants but I really felt like there was no real high stakes in the whole real estate deal that felt like an afterthought while the coma issue ended exactly how you would expect.

I felt like Oswalt and Theron both walked away from Young Adult but that was pretty much it. The ending was abrupt, even though I liked that the character stayed true to herself and some of the other characters either felt under-developed or terribly performed (Patrick Wilson). I thought it was Cody's most mature and self-aware script, and I say that as somebody who tends to not get the hatred of her, but Reitman as a director just generally annoys me.

Gary Oldman and Tilda Swinton better be nominated, and that is pretty much all I care about.

I also support a separate, misc. category just for Jessica Chastain.

I thought Jessica was fine in The Help. Far better in The Tree of Life. If she's nominated for The Help, I think it's more for her body of work this year. I didn't see that work in The Help as an award-worthy performance, either. She was very good, though.

As for the supporting vs. leading, you can blame all the "For Your Consideration" ads and screeners. They're the ones who plant the bug in the ears of the voters. There are no rules and nothing is mandatory. The Actors Branch gets a ballot with five blank lines on it for each category. They can write in whatever name they want, in whatever category they choose.

The only rule is that if an actor happens to get enough votes in BOTH leading and supporting categories, they can only receive the nomination in one. It's wherever they got the most votes. (You can thank Barry Fitzgerald for that, since he was nominated in both categories for the same performance in Going My Way--1944. They added that rule the next year.)

Jennifer Hudson, Tatum O'Neal, Haing S. Ngor, and several others have won supporting Oscars for (in my opinion) leading roles. On the flipside, David Niven, Nicole Kidman, Anthony Hopkins, and Luise Rainer (The Great Ziegfeld) have all won leading Oscars for (in my opinion) supporting performances.

I also remember the big push to get leading actress Susan Sarandon nominated for a supporting Oscar for Atlantic City. They ignored all the ads, and (to everyone's surprise) she received a nomination in the leading category anyway. So sometimes it doesn't work.

And sometimes it confuses voters, and the votes are split for a performance, unintentionally shutting them out.

---

Phyllis, I totally agree about the Descendants. I was anxious to see it from the hype, but besides being boring I thought it was a stupid movie-that's the term I use when I don't see the purpose for making a film.

---

Good performances, and I was excited when Judy Greer wandered in about halfway through, but god, dull as dirt.

Again, I did love her in The Help, along with Spencer and did love how they portrayed their relationship.

I should say I dont think either role is oscar worthy. It's nothing against either actress. The same goes for McCarthy in Bridesmaids.

---

My first thought on seeing McCarthy in Bridesmaids was "Oscar". She maximized every second she had in that film and ran away with it.

---

I had a very complicated reaction to The Descendants, mostly due to the themes hitting too close to home. Though I probably would have thought this was Clooney's best performance regardless, my experience of the last year+ made me nearly scream 'YES!!!!' at the screen. Not triumphant. Just how very right he got the character's journey.

Just saw HUGO. What a marvelous 80 minute movie it would have been. Alas...it was so bloated, I thought it could have used a water pill.

Chastain is fine in The Help. I don't think Spencer was actually all that great. The only nom deserved by that film is Davis' Herculean work. And she deserves the win, as far as I'm concerned. McCarthy was very good, but I'll be surprised if she's nomm'd. I still contend that Wiig's performance was the revelation in the film, but I think she'll have to be happy with a screenplay nod.

I've yet to see The Artist...that's next on my list (after watching screeners of Shame and Beginners tonight).

I agree about your opinion of The Help, Robbie. I haven't rallied with enthusiasm behind Viola Davis, simply because I haven't seen any of her competition yet. She was absolutely terrific, though (best thing in the movie), and I would think she would be a front-runner for the Oscar, regardless of any precursor critics awards.

EDIT: I was hugely disappointed in Hugo. I've actually ranted about how misguided I thought it was. The 3D was good, though. A technically impressive film. That was it.

---

Updated On: 1/23/12 at 03:43 PM

Henrik, I thought I explained that I just dont think the roles are oscar worthy. Each actress a fine job with what they were given, but I just dont think they were challenging enough to deserve oscar contention.

I actually thought both films were enjoyable, but neither was great.

I also agree that Davis does the most with the material she was given, which I could say about every time I've seen her on screen or on stage.

I love how Streep simply cannot open her mouth without mentioning how great Davis is. She even mentioned it on Rosie.

---