2017 Awards Season

[Silver Raven]

I decided to start this topic because Entertainment Weekly this week came out with their lists of early Oscar contenders.

 

Best Picture:

La La Land

Moonlight

Manchester By the Sea

Sully

Hell or High Water

Silence

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk

Fences

Rules Don't Apply

 

Best Director

Damien Chazelle, La La Land (they call him a shoo-in nominee)

Kenneth Lonergen, Manchester By the Sea

Jeff Nichols, Loving

Barry Jenkins, Moonlight

Tom Ford, Nocturnal Animals

J A Bayona, A Monster Calls

Pablo Larrain, Jackie

Denis Billeneuve, Arsenal

 

Best Actress

Natalie Portman, Jackie

Emma Stone, La La Land

Ruth Negga, Loving

Jessica Chastaine, Miss Sloane

Annette Bening, 20th Century Woman

Viola Davis, Fences

 

Best Actor

Casey Affleck, Manchester By the Sea

Joel Edgerton, Loving

Ryan Gosling, La La Land

Denzel Washington, Fences

Tom Hanks, Sully

Michael Keaton, The Founder

Dev Patel, Lion

Jake Gyllenhall, Nocturnal Animals

 

Though they say that everything may be moot once Fences comes out

[Princess Sparkle]

Isn't Denzel directing Fences too?  I thought there'd be a decent shot he'd end up a double nominee with Director/Actor, so I'm surprised not to see him on their short list for director.

[raezen]

Oh God, that time again. ;)

[Ohwell]

I hope Hell or High Waters wins something.  I don't care what it is.

[Silver Raven]

On 10/15/2016 at 2:06 PM, Ohwell said:

I hope Hell or High Waters wins something.  I don't care what it is.

Writing, I hope.

[vibeology]

I just saw Sully and I love Tom Hanks, but come on. No. This could easily slide into Meryl Streep territory. There wasn't enough movie there for Tom Hanks to really do anything. He was good at what he did, but he didn't have to do much. It's a 90 minute movie that shows the same controlled water landing sequence three times.

Just give it to Denzel or Dev or Ryan! I haven't seen many of the award movies yet (because I'm not an important critic who gets invited to festivals) but I don't want to see Casey win. I don't like sexual assaulters.

And apparently Hidden Numbers is getting a limited Christmas release meaning that Taraji has to be on some short lists for a best actress nomination too. Best Actress is going to be a brutal category this year. The media is going to be extra-gross about the actresses competing, I'm sure.

[Shannon L.]

1 hour ago, vibeology said:

I don't want to see Casey win. I don't like sexual assaulters.

Woah....what?  What did I miss?

[vibeology]

6 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

Woah....what?  What did I miss?

http://www.eonline.com/ca/news/193156/casey-affleck-now-accused-of-routine-instances-of-sexual-harassment

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/sep/15/casey-affleck-settles-harassment-lawsuits

I'm just saying...

[SeanC]

As far as Best Picture goes, of the things that have already debuted, I think La La Land is clearly in pole position.

The X factors are the as-yet-unseen Fences and Silence.

[Shannon L.]

11 minutes ago, vibeology said:

19 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

Woah....what?  What did I miss?

http://www.eonline.com/ca/news/193156/casey-affleck-now-accused-of-routine-instances-of-sexual-harassment

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/sep/15/casey-affleck-settles-harassment-lawsuits

I'm just saying...

Ok, thanks. That's disturbing. 

In regards to the list, only a couple of these are on my "must see" list so far.  I'll have to look at some trailers for the others and see if they make me interested.  I don't know what Fences is about, but, while the trailer looked really good, I'm afraid it might be one of those really sad, emotional movies that I have a hard time with.  I'll need to see other previews for that one before I decide whether or not to see it.

[Dejana]

Critics got their first look at Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk...47% Rotten with 17 reviews. There will be more added when it's released in theaters to boost it a bit, but so much for the Best Picture hopes. 

 

On 10/18/2016 at 3:48 PM, Shannon L. said:

In regards to the list, only a couple of these are on my "must see" list so far.  I'll have to look at some trailers for the others and see if they make me interested.  I don't know what Fences is about, but, while the trailer looked really good, I'm afraid it might be one of those really sad, emotional movies that I have a hard time with.  I'll need to see other previews for that one before I decide whether or not to see it.

Fences is a Tony and Pulitzer Prize-winning play by August Wilson. It debuted in the 1980s and had a 2010 revival on Broadway, in which Denzel and Viola starred. They both won Tonys, as did the actors who played the roles in 1987 (James Earl Jones and Mary Alice). Mary Alice won for Featured Actress while Viola won Best Actress in a Play, so there's precedent, either way the studio decides to campaign Davis. I haven't seen the play but people have compared it to her role in The Help in terms of bordering between lead and supporting. The awards bloggers/reporters hint at behind the scenes...discussions, about the studio wanting Viola to go supporting, while she is firm about being in lead. If she does make the cut in the latter category, she'd be the first black woman to earn multiple Best Actress nominations.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Dejana

[AshleyN]

On 10/18/2016 at 2:58 PM, vibeology said:

Best Actress is going to be a brutal category this year. The media is going to be extra-gross about the actresses competing, I'm sure.

You're probably right there, and I'm not looking forward to that. On the other hand, it's kind of exciting to see Best Actress as hands down the most competitive category of the year, given how in some years it feels like they're struggling just to find five names to fill it out. It's nice to see Hollywood finally getting serious about female-driven films. And even with the films that have two leads (La La Land, Loving), it's the women who seem to be getting the standout reviews.

Even though she won't win,  it'll be interesting to see if Isabelle Huppert can get a nomination for Elle. On the one hand, the European arthouse nominee has become a somewhat regular occurrence in this category (Charlotte Rampling, Marion Cotillard, Emmanuelle Riva) and Huppert is practically worshiped by a lot of actors. On the other hand, the category is so competitive this year that there might not be room, and the film seems to have a pretty...difficult subject matter, which could turn some voters off.

As for Best Picture, being the early frontrunner is kind of a dangerous spot to be in, but I think La La Land has two big things working in its favour to help it overcome the inevitable backlash. One, it's about show business, which is the only subject that Hollywood loves more that World War II. And two, it looks to be a huge crowdpleaser. I think the problem for some of the early favourites is that they tend to premiere at festivals and get blown up by critics and cinephiles, but when it comes time for general audiences to see it, they don't respond the same way. I think Best Picture winners generally (though not always) need to appeal at least a little bit to both crowds and everything I've read about La La Land makes me think that it fits that category perfectly.

On a related note, Damien Chazelle is only 31. If I'm not mistaken, should it happen, that would make him the youngest Best Director winner ever.

Edited October 23, 2016 by AshleyN

[SeanC]

On 10/21/2016 at 0:49 AM, Dejana said:

Fences is a Tony and Pulitzer Prize-winning play by August Wilson. It debuted in the 1980s and had a 2010 revival on Broadway, in which Denzel and Viola starred. They both won Tonys, as did the actors who played the roles in 1987 (James Earl Jones and Mary Alice). Mary Alice won for Featured Actress while Viola won Best Actress in a Play, so there's precedent, either way the studio decides to campaign Davis. I haven't seen the play but people have compared it to her role in The Help in terms of bordering between lead and supporting. The awards bloggers/reporters hint at behind the scenes...discussions, about the studio wanting Viola to go supporting, while she is firm about being in lead. If she does make the cut in the latter category, she'd be the first black woman to earn multiple Best Actress nominations.

Speak of the Devil, it's not confirmed that Davis will be running in the Supporting Actress race, which probably makes her, sight unseen, the favourite in that category for the moment.  Best Actress is Stone v. Portman, for the moment, with various others jockeying for position.

[Dejana]

3 hours ago, SeanC said:

Speak of the Devil, it's not confirmed that Davis will be running in the Supporting Actress race, which probably makes her, sight unseen, the favourite in that category for the moment.  Best Actress is Stone v. Portman, for the moment, with various others jockeying for position.

I hear the other main contenders in Supporting Actress have much less screentime in comparison, which will probably work in Viola's favor. Still, every once in a while voters will reject a studio's supporting placement and nominate a person as a lead anyway—Winslet in The Reader, Castle-Hughes for Whale Rider—though they usually play along. I wonder if there will be a sort of backlash if Viola is in her movie for more than an hour, while everyone else tops out at 15-20 minutes. Last year, you had multiple category frauds and IMO each one helped justified the other.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Dejana

[SeanC]

2 hours ago, Dejana said:

I hear the other main contenders in Supporting Actress have much less screentime in comparison, which will probably work in Viola's favor. Still, every once in a while voters will reject a studio's supporting placement and nominate a person as a lead anyway—Winslet in The Reader, Castle-Hughes for Whale Rider—though they usually play along. I wonder if there will be a sort of backlash if Viola is in her movie for more than an hour, while everyone else tops out at 15-20 minutes. Last year, you had multiple category frauds and IMO each one helped justified the other.

I don't think it'll be an issue, since the movie has Denzel in it as an old-fashioned movie star lead.  People are used to voting for the male lead's wife in supporting.

[JBC344]

For me, I'm not always a fan of "counting" the minutes of screen time in order to determine eligibility.  Especially now since movies can range from an hour and a half to two and a half hours.  I'm much more inclined to take the actual "percentage" of screen time as well as factor in the character's motivations and actions on screen.

You can also be a "supporting" character and be in most of a movie. 

I always use the examples of Brokeback Mountain and Thelma and Louise as two great examples of how you can go either way but both were ones that I agreed with.

With Thelma and Louise, both Geena and Susan were both nominated for Best Actress and IMO deserved it because they were both leads not only in screen time but also in character motivations, actions, and points of view.  That movie was a perfect example of two leads who worked in conjunction with one another.  Now of course the prevailing thought is that they cancelled each other out when it came to voting but nonetheless I agreed with them as both leads.

Now with Brokeback Mountain, Heath was nominated for Lead and Jake supporting.  Now both had a lot of screen time but I agreed with that decision.  I felt that Heath had more screen time in the movie than Jake did, but I also believed that the movie was told more from Heath's point of view than it was from Jake's because in the movie Heath is the inexperienced one who is coming into his true sexuality while Jake is the more experienced one who isn't grappling with the same feelings that Heath is exactly.  Now there are a lot of people who feel they should of both been lead, but I actually agreed that there was a valid reason to have one lead and one supporting.

Edited October 24, 2016 by JBC344

[Dejana]

23 hours ago, JBC344 said:

For me, I'm not always a fan of "counting" the minutes of screen time in order to determine eligibility.  Especially now since movies can range from an hour and a half to two and a half hours.  I'm much more inclined to take the actual "percentage" of screen time as well as factor in the character's motivations and actions on screen.

You can also be a "supporting" character and be in most of a movie. 

I always use the examples of Brokeback Mountain and Thelma and Louise as two great examples of how you can go either way but both were ones that I agreed with.

With Thelma and Louise, both Geena and Susan were both nominated for Best Actress and IMO deserved it because they were both leads not only in screen time but also in character motivations, actions, and points of view.  That movie was a perfect example of two leads who worked in conjunction with one another.  Now of course the prevailing thought is that they cancelled each other out when it came to voting but nonetheless I agreed with them as both leads.

Now with Brokeback Mountain, Heath was nominated for Lead and Jake supporting.  Now both had a lot of screen time but I agreed with that decision.  I felt that Heath had more screen time in the movie than Jake did, but I also believed that the movie was told more from Heath's point of view than it was from Jake's because in the movie Heath is the inexperienced one who is coming into his true sexuality while Jake is the more experienced one who isn't grappling with the same feelings that Heath is exactly.  Now there are a lot of people who feel they should of both been lead, but I actually agreed that there was a valid reason to have one lead and one supporting.

Oscar campaigning has come a long way since the early 90s. Awards blogging is a cottage industry where people make a living, and studios bring in consultants for the season to handle all aspects of PR for specific movies. There were always publicists but I think the way that the awards show subculture/industry has evolved is part of why category placements have become so strategic. Studios want to maximize the nomination count for advertising purposes and to improve the odds to win.

I really doubt that if Thelma & Louise were released today, both actresses would be campaigned in the lead category. Maybe the studio would float out the idea of pushing Geena and Susan for Best Actress in the summer to see how it would go over in the larger Oscar watching bubble, but ultimately they'd submit one as supporting and one as lead, with some justification that Thelma is the real lead because her character drives the narrative and compels Louise into life-changing actions and her name comes first in the title. Some awards groups would resist, but unless AMPAS voters were feeling especially rebellious, IMO they'd go along.

Apparently, it's impossible now for an Oscar movie to have two leads of the same gender, when it never seemed to be a problem from the 1930s to the 1990s. I honestly don't see how Jack Twist is any less of a lead in Brokeback Mountain than Jack Dawson was in Titanic. If you look back at any number of romantic dramas in cinematic history, it could be said one person in the couple has more screentime than the other, or one character has more of a journey while the other is more "static" and inspires the less experienced/mature character to evolve. Still, to my mind, that doesn't make one half of the pair secondary and no one really thinks of it that way with an opposite sex couple. In the past no one would have said, "Well, you know, Gone with the Wind is more Scarlett's story, with Rhett going in and out of her life, Leslie Howard is kind of terrible here, and Best Actor is so competitive, so maybe there's a case for Clark Gable in supporting?" It would be ridiculous but this sort of logic is routine when used to explain why these two men or these two women can't both possibly be leads in a prestige film.

It's not just with same-sex romances but awards bait about friendships or rivalries, like Rush. Non-Oscar movies are largely immune to this phenomenon, though. Did anyone debate whether Anne Hathaway or Kate Hudson was the true lead of Bride Wars? People also seem perfectly accepting of the idea of two male or two female leads when it comes to buddy cop movies. Yet with Oscar hopefuls, there can only be one.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Dejana

[Ms Blue Jay]

Hey guys, 

I recently saw The Girl on the Train.  Now, I've read the book, and I loved it.  Unfortunately, critics didn't seem to, and I'm going to assume it's because the majority of them did not read the book.  It seems like when I really like a film adaptation of a book I adored, the critics do not like the film, which annoys and bothers me, because I feel like they are not judging the film correctly.

I bring this up because I think Emily Blunt's performance was Oscar-worthy.  It's too bad that this is not getting talked about at all.  (This is me making an assumption though, based on me not hearing anything yet.)

Although maybe I'm wrong?  Rotten Tomatoes has the film at a horrible 44% but:

Quote

Critics Consensus: Emily Blunt's outstanding performance isn't enough to keep The Girl on the Train from sliding sluggishly into exploitative melodrama.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[Babalu]

I love Emily Blunt, and the one reviewer I read (in The New Yorker) loves her, too, but hated the movie and thought Emily wasn't able to shine because of the limitations of her character and the plot. If I were to see it, it would only be for Emily because I didn't like the book at all. The reviewer had tried to read the book but couldn't get through it. I thought it was funny that he also mentioned Bridges of Madison County as a successful bad-book-to-pretty-good-movie adaptation because I think that's the worst book I've ever read.

[Dejana]

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 0:06 PM, Ms Blue Jay said:

Hey guys, 

I recently saw The Girl on the Train.  Now, I've read the book, and I loved it.  Unfortunately, critics didn't seem to, and I'm going to assume it's because the majority of them did not read the book.  It seems like when I really like a film adaptation of a book I adored, the critics do not like the film, which annoys and bothers me, because I feel like they are not judging the film correctly.

I bring this up because I think Emily Blunt's performance was Oscar-worthy.  It's too bad that this is not getting talked about at all.  (This is me making an assumption though, based on me not hearing anything yet.)

Although maybe I'm wrong?  Rotten Tomatoes has the film at a horrible 44% but:

I don't think critics should have to know the source material to give a proper review to a film; an adaptation should work its own merits and be able to stand alone as a coherent narrative, even to people who've never read the book. I haven't read The Girl on the Train but for all that it was a bestseller, it also has detractors and at times gets knocked as a lesser Gone Girl. And GG (an adaptation with much better reviews and box office than TGOTT) got fewer nominations than expected Oscar morning, so even in a less competitive year for Best Actress, Emily Blunt would probably be out of luck. Blunt's personal reviews are very strong but Tate Taylor directing a lurid thriller always made me wary. It's one thing for a so-so biopic or family drama to get nominations anyway, but other genres have a higher bar to clear, given the biases about what sorts of movies are truly "Oscar-worthy".

Edited October 29, 2016 by Dejana

[Ms Blue Jay]

I think I was misinterpreted.  I don't think that's what I meant.  It frustrates me when I see what I think is a near-perfect adaptation of a book that I love, and the critics don't like the film because I think they're understanding the film in a different way that I did.  I personally loved both books: Gone Girl and The Girl on the Train, and I don't think they even need to be compared - that's a marketing ploy that I don't blame marketers for using.  I think it does a disservice to Paula Hawkins to needlessly compare her totally different book to another book that had Girl in the title, of a similar genre.  It happens all too often to female authors.  Pretty dismissive.

I did NOT love the film Gone Girl because of my bias towards the book, and yet I DID love the film The Girl on the Train because of my bias towards the book.  I just think that - and I don't think this can be disputed - someone who's read the book is going to have a different critique of the film adaptation.  I still think Emily Blunt's performance was "Oscar-worthy".  It made me uncomfortable, in a good way, and reminded me of my reaction towards Angelina Jolie's performance in Girl, Interrupted, although not as dramatic.  And sure, I'm curious what other people who have seen the film, and not read the book, think of Emily's performance. But I am thinking and hoping that it stands on its own if you haven't read the book.  I think I confused the issue by bringing up the whole book thing.  I also thought Haley Bennett did a very good job. 

As a personal thing, if I assume most critics haven't read either book -- 
Gone Girl the film has a lot of critical acclaim, and The Girl on the Train does not, and yet I feel oppositely to critics.   I think it would be interesting to have a subset of film criticism that criticizes films based on how well they adapted source material.  A friend of mine who loves The Martian, the book, was really unhappy with the film adaptation and we all know that critics feel differently.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[slf]

I honestly do not get Best Director nominees whose films don't get nominated for Best Picture. I haven't seen Jackie, of course, but everything I've read about it and the trailer suggests it will be a far superior film to Sully (which I've seen, thought it was pretty good but not Oscar-worthy).

Davis should absolutely be in the Best Actress category so I hope the Academy/the Globes don't nominate her in the Supporting Actress category. Let her or Annette Bening win.

I hear Emma Stone's campaigning hard. She's one I've almost always liked, she's really consistent, but I've never thought she was great. I was a little surprised to remember she's been nominated before.

[SeanC]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is going to be a massive groundswell of enthusiasm for Jackie this awards season.  It'll be the equivalent of Sean Penn winning after Prop 8 passed in 2008.

[Shannon L.]

I'm predicting that we'll see Jungle Book, Dr. Strange and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them in the special effects category. 

I saw a second trailer for La-La-Land and I still have no idea what it's about other than aspiring young actors.  I assume there's more to the story than that?

[Ms Blue Jay]

On 11/9/2016 at 4:00 PM, Shannon L. said:

I saw a second trailer for La-La-Land and I still have no idea what it's about other than aspiring young actors.  I assume there's more to the story than that?

Thank you.  That's why it kind of makes me want to barf when I see so many people on social media declare that they're so excited for the movie and love it so much already.  Based on these trailers.  It sticks in my craw.

[Dejana]

On 11/9/2016 at 11:07 AM, SeanC said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is going to be a massive groundswell of enthusiasm for Jackie this awards season.  It'll be the equivalent of Sean Penn winning after Prop 8 passed in 2008.

I think the beneficiaries will be La La Land for its light escapism and Arrival may be viewed as very timely, with its themes about communicating with vs. attacking outsiders who are different from us.

Many musicals are light on plot, so what they are about is less important than how they go about it, and songs/clips/stills are the sorts of things that generate interest. I started following the progress of La La Land back when it was going to star Emma Watson and Miles Teller, and people were instantly excited for a new musical that wasn't based on a Broadway show. Throw in that Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are not only a big casting upgrade but that they have fans as an onscreen pairing and are reuniting, not to mention the festival reviews, and the LLL anticipation makes perfect sense to me.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Dejana

[SeanC]

Moana makes its festival debut on Monday, so we'll soon have some indication whether it's up to challenging for Best Animated Feature, or else nothing stands in Zootopia's way.

[Silver Raven]

On 11/12/2016 at 10:25 PM, SeanC said:

Moana makes its festival debut on Monday, so we'll soon have some indication whether it's up to challenging for Best Animated Feature, or else nothing stands in Zootopia's way.

Kubo and the Two Strings is the best animated movie of the year.

[SeanC]

9 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

Kubo and the Two Strings is the best animated movie of the year.

Whatever your opinion of its quality, I don't think it has a reasonable chance of beating Zootopia, which won critical raves (much like Kubo) and made a billion dollars (unlike Kubo).

Edited November 14, 2016 by SeanC

[vibeology]

3 hours ago, SeanC said:

Whatever your opinion of its quality, I don't think it has a reasonable chance of beating Zootopia, which won critical raves (much like Kubo) and made a billion dollars (unlike Kubo).

Plus when you look at the history of the award, Disney or Pixar is the likely winner. In the 14 years the award has existed, it's gone to Pixar 8 times, Disney 2 and DreamWorks 2 with one of those wins being split with another studio. I do think Moana will have a very strong campaign. It's coming out later, meaning it'll be fresh in voters mind. Then it's got Lin-Manuel Miranda and with Hamilton still being one of the biggest stories in the entertainment world, that can only help it's chances. To me, even without seeing what else is getting nominated, it's already a two horse race.

[piequinn35]

I don't think anything can beat Zootopia in terms of its quality and it also made a billion dollars same as Finding Dory.

[starri]

Naomie Harris in Moonlight and both Janelle Monae and Octavia Spencer for Hidden Figures are picking up steam for Supporting as well. I really want Viola to win just because I thought she absolutely should have won both for Doubt and The Help, but honestly, there is not a single one of them I wouldn't be delighted for. 

Viola does have the "Oops, here's Best Supporting to make up for the Best Actress we should have given you" factor. 

[ruby24]

Zootopia's themes make it even more timely for the win this year. I think it's got that award unless Moana can make a billion dollars (always possible with Disney I suppose).

[SeanC]

Having now seen Moana (and liked it quite a bit), I'd say Zootopia should be considered the leader still.  It's got the edge in terms of story complexity that adults will appreciate.

[vibeology]

I agree that Zootopia is the stronger movie, but I do think Moana has the stronger campaign. (And I personally liked Moana more but I do think it had some pacing problems that make it the weaker film.) It's out later which will mean it'll be fresher in voters' minds. It has a smaller cast, but The Rock is a bigger star than anyone in Zootopia and Auli’i Cravalho is charming so I imagine she'll do well at those industry events. Plus, Moana has Lin-Manuel Miranda and if Hamilton hype was dying down before, people have been reminded about it this past week. Plus he's got the (P)EGOT storyline going on and according to reports he was working the room hard at the Governor's Ball. If one of his songs gets the win, that certainly won't hurt the movie's chances.

I still think Zootopia is the leader, but I do think Moana has a good chance of sneaking in there and winning the Oscar. It's got several pluses outside of the film itself and sadly thanks to those Vanity Fair secret ballots, it's clear that many voters don't actually bother to watch the animated movies before they vote. All of that behind the scenes stuff could easily make a difference with those who vote based on reputation rather than the movies themselves.

[SeanC]

I definitely wouldn't rule out Moana winning, by any means.  People who like musicals (and/or Lin-Manuel Miranda) will probably lean its way.  Politically, it feels like this could go either way, as Moana is actually about a little-seen-on-film demographic group, while Zootopia has a very relevant contemporary political message (which is probably, unfortunately, only going to get more relevant in the New Year).  If Moana becomes a real commercial phenomenon stretching into the holiday season, it'll have lots of good press to ride as well, and lots of Academy members with kids will end up seeing it regardless of whether they're animation fans.

[SeanC]

To speak on a different category, unless the Academy finds a sudden passion for Marvel Studios, I don't see how anything else stands a chance against The Jungle Book's photorealistic animals in the Best Visual Effects category.

[VCRTracking]

Having seen Zootopia for the first time weeks after the election, I say it definitely resonates a lot more. Gazelle saying "Give be back the Zootopia I love!" Man, that hit me hard. Also the bad guy(who I won't reveal) giving that monologue at the end.

It isn't until recently that I became aware of how actors campaign during awards season. Like having friends help them out. Emma Stone's pal Jennifer Lawrence hosted a special screening of La La Land in NYC last month. Emma's former co-star Bradley Cooper hosting one in Los Angeles last week. I found out Eddie Redmayne's friends like Hugh Jackman did the same thing for him for The Theory of Everything.

Edited November 28, 2016 by VCRTracking

[vibeology]

I honestly find the campaigns as interesting as the movies themselves. It's funny what is considered acceptable and when a line gets crossed. Melissa Leo taking out her own trade ads was gauche but Leo putting everyone he knew to work crafting his narrative of being "overdue" was fine. Having friends host special screenings is okay; hosting one yourself is desperate. But it certainly does matter as does the media surrounding you during awards season. People often say Eddie Murphy would have won an Oscar for Dreamgirls if not for the billboards all over town for Norbit while Academy members were voting.

A few years back I started to spend more time reading Tom and Lorenzo's site and specifically how fashion plays a huge role for women while they campaign for an Oscar. It was really eye opening just how many events there are to get yourself in front of voters and how key (especially for women) looking like a winner is to becoming a winner. You're probably looking at around 100 events you can attend in the lead up to the Oscars if you want to, though I don't think anyone has ever gone to them all.

[SeanC]

2 hours ago, vibeology said:

I honestly find the campaigns as interesting as the movies themselves.

The horserace stuff is definitely a lot of fun to follow.

[raezen]

It's high school all over again.

[Dejana]

4 hours ago, SeanC said:

The horserace stuff is definitely a lot of fun to follow.

I love the spectacle and strategy of awards season and view the results as an incidental bonus. Sometimes the campaigning helps and sometimes it's just about the role and a person wins even without going to all the events (Mo'Nique, Mark Rylance). Each season is different and it depends on the competition within the category. In the last couple of years it's been interesting to see male stars get knocked for their desperation for awards, because usually it's women who get criticized for how they carry themselves.

I hope Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are still friendly exes because they will probably be seeing a lot of each other in the next few months.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Dejana

[Trini]

Annie awards nominees; nominees for Best Animated Feature:

Quote

Finding Dory - Pixar Animation Studios

Kubo and the Two Strings - LAIKA

Kung Fu Panda 3 - DreamWorks Animation

Moana - Walt Disney Animation Studios

Zootopia - Walt Disney Animation Studios

Commentary from Cartoon Brew:

Quote

Across its various divisions, the Walt Disney Company took 38 nominations this year. It’s a curious turn of events considering that the Walt Disney Company claimed that the Annie Awards voting was rigged and pressured ASIFA-Hollywood to overhaul the awards voting process just a few years ago. In 2010, Disney Animation and Pixar president Ed Catmull, along with John Lasseter, withdrew all of Disney’s productions from the Annie Awards in protest that Kung Fu Panda had won too many awards the previous year.

...

This year, three of the five nominees for best animated feature were Disney productions—Moana, Zootopia, and Finding Dory. Shockingly, Mark Osborne’s The Little Prince, which won France’s Cesar Award earlier this year for best animated feature, was locked out of nearly every category, garnering just two nods for production design and music. On a positive note, The Red Turtle picked up five nominations, and My Life As A Zucchini picked up three.

[SeanC]

The starter gun has been fired for awards season, with the Gotham Awards and the National Board of Review.

Gotham Awards: (minimal categories)

Quote

Picture - Moonlight

Actor - Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea)

Actress - Isabelle Huppert (Elle)

Screenplay - Moonlight

Documentary - O.J.: Made in America

Breakthrough Actor - Anya Taylor-Joy (The Witch)

NBR:

Quote

Picture:  Manchester by the Sea

Director:  Barry Jenkins (Moonlight)

Actor:  Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea)

Actress:  Amy Adams (Arrival)

Supporting Actor:  Jeff Bridges (Hell or High Water)

Supporting Actress:  Naomie Harris (Moonlight)

Original Screenplay:  Manchester by the Sea

Adapted Screenplay:  Silence

Animated Feature:  Kubo and the Two Strings

Breakthrough (Male):  Lucas Hedges (Manchester by the Sea)

Breakthrough (Female):  Royalty Hightower (The Fits)

Foreign Language Film:  The Salesman

Documentary:  O.J.: Made in America

Ensemble:  Hidden Figures

Edited November 29, 2016 by SeanC

[thuganomics85]

Interesting that despite being first-billed, Jeff Bridges was considered a supporting actor for Hell or High Water, by the NBR.  I wonder if that will happen with the Oscars too; especially if someone like Casey Affleck ends up dominating the category.

Really hope my area gets Moonlight and Manchester by the Sea, since it looks like both are going to be contenders, if the early buzz is any indication.

[Silver Raven]

I wonder how much Casey Affleck's legal problems in the past will hurt his Oscar chances.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/casey-affleck-sued-woman-joaquin-phoenix-documentary-staff-article-1.205391

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-11310161

 

It seems to be affecting Nate Parker's chances.

[SeanC]

1 hour ago, Silver Raven said:

I wonder how much Casey Affleck's legal problems in the past will hurt his Oscar chances.

I definitely think that's unexploded ordnance under his candidacy, which is why I'm somewhat more reserved about his chances than many prognosticators.  Though he's aided by how great people think the film is, whereas after the initial burst of enthusiasm it seems like lots of people concluded that Birth of a Nation wasn't actually that good.  People will overlook a lot more in defense of something they love.

1 hour ago, thuganomics85 said:

Interesting that despite being first-billed, Jeff Bridges was considered a supporting actor for Hell or High Water, by the NBR.  I wonder if that will happen with the Oscars too; especially if someone like Casey Affleck ends up dominating the category.

I figured his billing was a contractual thing.  I think Pine is definitely the lead there, and Bridges' character a strong supporting role, akin to Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men.

Edited November 29, 2016 by SeanC

[vibeology]

46 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

I wonder how much Casey Affleck's legal problems in the past will hurt his Oscar chances.

I think Casey is going to benefit from having famous family and friends, giving a strong performance and most importantly being white and he's still going to get a nomination despite this. That's not how it should be and I'd be happy to be wrong, but I have a feeling.

I've been waiting for Moonlight to open near me and while the main theatre chain isn't releasing it, another theatre is so I've already got my tickets for the weekend! Every review has been glowing and seeing it pick up the awards is all the more reason for my excitement.

[hendersonrocks]

Quote

I wonder how much Casey Affleck's legal problems in the past will hurt his Oscar chances...It seems to be affecting Nate Parker's chances.

There is some discussion about this over in the Manchester by the Sea forum. I agree perceived quality of performance and film has something to do with it as does race, Parker's position as writer/director/everything-having-to-do-with-the-movie vs. Affleck's as solely lead actor, and the role of what I described as the Damon-Affleck industrial complex. It's awful that the Affleck allegations aren't being mentioned at all in reviews whereas Parker's were all over the place - that, I think, is absolutely unfair.

[SeanC]

I think that, of all things, Moonlight also hurt Birth of a Nation, by providing an alternative choice for the constituency looking for a less-mainstream POC cinema alternative to Fences (which is pretty much the embodiment of a black version of a mainstream studio film).  There might have been commentators less willing to let go of Birth of a Nation if they had lacked a fallback (or, rather, in most cases, a preferred choice anyway).