For our Moviegoers, Hollywood awards season is the most exciting time of the year. Upon the announcement of the nominees for the 84th Annual Academy Awards, the Moviegoers staff – Mack Bates, Kerry Birmingham and Joel Zawada – gathered to discuss this year’s batch of nominees, pick their favorites in the five major categories (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Actor in a Supporting Role and Best Actress in a Supporting Role) and predict who will walk away with Oscar gold.
Part One deals with the worst nominations of the year, and what was overlooked.
Part Two looks at the categories of Best Actor & Actress in a Supporting Role.
Part Three looks at the categories of Best Actor & Actress in a Leading Role.
Part Four looks at the categories of Best Director & Best Motion Picture.
Kerry: I love that at least two of these people won’t even show up.
Mack: Oh yeah! And neither is probably likely to win as a result.
Kerry: I suspect they’re both okay with that.
Joel: I don’t think either had much chance, even if they promised to show up and be nice. This category is really between Hazanavicius and Scorsese.
Kerry: You may be right. There’s a lot of Hugo love percolating beneath the critical surface, and both films tap into self-nostalgia.
Joel: It’s going to be a consolation prize for the director whose film doesn’t win Best Motion Picture.
Mack: Between the new kid on the block and the established auteur, the latter’s taking it after years of being criminally underrated and shown no Oscar love. The Academy’s determined to right an egregious wrong.
Kerry: I liked The Departed, but I wouldn’t have given it to him then. Scorsese’s going into the canon, so I don’t see how tossing him another Oscar bone would help.
Mack: Think about all the Oscar gold Scorsese should have by now: Raging Bull, and Goodfellas, and arguably Taxi Driver. The membership knows they got it wrong in years past and want to make amends. The fact that he’s still working at the top of his game makes it the ideal time to show him much love.
Joel: So in your estimation, is he ACTUALLY winning for Hugo, or for being slighted in the past?
Mack: Yes, Hugo is Scorsese’s love letter to cinema. It won’t be a consolation prize. The proof is on screen.
Kerry: I don’t know, I’m thinking Hazanavicius might take this since The Artist was so technically hard to pull off. That would have taken someone with the skill level of, say, a Scorsese!
Joel: I’m really torn. I liked The Artist, but loathe the thought of it representing the best of modern cinema. If it’s a choice between The Artist and Hugo for Best Picture (and it is), then Hugo should win for at least attempting new things, and Hazanivicus should win for realizing his labor of love.
Mack: I heard someone describe The Artist as third-rate Chaplin. I think that sentiment may start to rear its ugly head in the weeks leading up to the ceremony.
Joel: “Third-rate Chaplin” is a bit harsh. The thing is, once the novelty of the silent film conventions wears off, The Artist is actually a slight and familiar story.
Kerry: I think it’s only third-rate Chaplin if you have a minimal understanding of how silent film worked. There’s plenty of homage, but Hazanavicius is doing some pretty remarkable things in his movie.
Joel: They’ll reward Hazanavicius for that effort. They’ll reward Scorsese with Best Picture.
Mack: What Hazanavicius pulled off – making a black-and-white silent film in this day and age AND getting it released – is an achievement in and of itself. And the fact that the film has obviously charmed a lot of important industry people and moviegoers, it’s probably going to win one of the biggies. I just think that Scorsese has the momentum and the film to pull out his second win here.
Kerry: I’d be happy with any of these guys winning; they’re all pretty stellar at what they do. I’ll predict Hazanametoohardtospell winning, with the concession that Scorsese could easily take it. I’d personally vote Malick, just because I know how unlikely that is.
Joel: Poor Alexander Payne. Nobody seriously believes he stands a chance.
Mack: Payne should have gotten it for Election. Talk about an achievement! That movie gets better and better every time I see it.
Kerry: Great movie, but I’d have to see what his competition was that year.
Mack: Best thing Reese Witherspoon has EVER done.
Joel: All I need to know about Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is the clip of the young male lead cheerfully announcing to a stranger that his Asperger’s test results were inconclusive. That was more than enough for me.
Kerry: You don’t think that’s a valid character trait?
Mack: Speaking from personal experience, most films get it dead wrong when it comes to portraying any form of autism.
Joel: I think it’s as transparently manipulative as War Horse. I can appreciate the notion of coming at 9/11 from a more comfortable level, but Jesus, that’s bad stuff.
Kerry: There’ve been some excellent portrayals of 9/11 on film, though.
Joel: Exactly. So skip Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close and rent United 93, instead.
Kerry: So where does this nomination come from? Indifferent critics and audiences – is this nomination based on the Hanks-Bullock-9/11 axis?
Mack: I think that much like War Horse, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close got its foot in the door through blatant audience manipulation and empathy. A vote for Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is a vote for hope, or something like that.
Joel: I literally did not believe the nomination when I first saw it. It’s been getting TORN UP by critics. War Horse, at least, had people championing it. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close has been abandoned by all. Yet it was the #1 choice of AT LEAST five percent of the Academy.
Kerry: I can’t imagine it would’ve had a chance in a smaller nomination field.
Mack: Yeah, it benefited from the expansion of the category for sure.
Kerry: Okay, so let’s rule out who’s NOT winning…
Mack: War Horse, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Midnight in Paris, Moneyball, Tree of Life are out!
Joel: The Help gets its win for Supporting Actress – it’s out. Moneyball may get Adapted Screenplay at best – it’s out. The Tree of Life baffled its own stars. It’s out.
Kerry: I’m a great admirer of Midnight in Paris, but even as a Woody Allen fan I know that’s out.
Joel: Midnight in Paris is pleasant, but it’s no Manhattan.
Mack: Hugo leads this year’s nominations with 11, so you can’t rule it out.
Kerry: So we’re saying it’s between Hugo, The Artist, or The Descendants?
Joel: To me, it’s between Hugo and The Artist, with The Descendants a dark horse, depending on what kind of campaign it can put together. It’s at least got Clooney for audience recognition. But the Academy is made up of industry folks, and industry folks LOVE movies about movies. The Artist and Hugo are EXACTLY the kind of navel-gazing they’ll embrace.
Mack: I’m saying it’s between The Artist and The Descendants, with The Help a possible spoiler.
Joel: I view The Help as this year’s The Blind Side. It’s nice that it got nominated, and it’s fun to think about an upset, but the Academy is still the Academy, and chooses certain types of films consistently.
Kerry: Period wins. Real-life people wins. WWII wins.
Mack: Regardless of overall quality.
Kerry: It’s not a lack of quality, it’s just FAMILIAR quality.
Mack: I’d argue both in certain instances.
Kerry: The problem this year is the same problem I see with a lot of the recent Best Picture nominees: they’re all pretty good movies (and Crash), maybe even excellent movies, but I’m hard pressed to find one I can go, “This is the BEST,” and put it in the time capsule for the ages. This list is like that: lots of good-to-great movies, with none that jump out at me as worthy of being “BEST.”
Mack: A lot of the films that I really took a shine to in 2011 – the films I know I’ll pick out of my collection years from now and will gladly watch – didn’t even make the list.
Kerry: I think it’s just over-dilution. Too many movies, some obviously barely in contention, not a focused group to really make it a race.
Joel: Didn’t they open up the category to a potential 10 films to give mainstream films more attention? What went wrong there? Why isn’t there a Bridesmaids in there to at least get people talking?
Kerry: There’s usually a respectable genre piece – say, a District 9 – to fill that purpose, so that is a surprise. Or maybe they didn’t want to have to play the Bridesmaids diarrhea scene to strains of John Williams on the broadcast.
Mack: The intention was to open up the field to more Hollywood blockbusters like The Dark Knight, but it hasn’t quite panned out that way. The films the studios are backing aren’t really worthy of Oscar contention – or even Golden Globes! That’s why they revised the rules yet again this year to make nomination harder.
Joel: I think Hugo has an edge because Scorsese embraced digital, 3D technology to make it. The industry would LOVE to showcase a 3D Best Picture winner to help boost lagging 3D sales. Avatar didn’t need the box-office help. Hugo does.
Kerry: As someone who’s not a booster of 3D, that’s not selling it for me, but that’s a good point.
Mack: I’m kind of fed up with the explosion of 3D fare myself. Give me good ‘ol 2D anytime. Save 3D for projects that it enhances.
Kerry: Okay. I’m going to say The Artist, if only because of momentum and the successful, inventive deployment of its gimmick. It may be a pick that’s looked back on with regret by voters (like Crash), but I think it has this one barring a big push for something else.
Joel: Scorsese. Hugo. Roll credits.
Mack: Moneyball SHOULD win, The Artist WILL win. All the momentum seems to be behind it now.
Joel: Was 2011 just THAT bad a year that eight of the nine films are set in the past? All this nostalgia’s got me feeling queasy…
