Oscar Predictions
February 23rd, 2007 | by Scott |I’m an Academy Award wonk and have a pretty good track record of picking the winners each year. However, this year is the most wide-open field since 1995. There are scenarios where all five best picture nominees could walk away with the top prize.
If you are interested in an unpredictable night at the Oscars, this is the one. I’ll try to take my best stab at the top categories but I’m not expecting to be overly successful.
Best Picture
Will Win–Again, I think a case can be made for all of these movies. The best I can do is a process of elimination as none of these truly stand out above the others. The Queen has a shot because of its across the board excellence and its multiple nominations. Little Miss Sunshine has great love from the acting block but it’s lack of a directing nom could be a detriment. Letters From Iwo Jima is making a late surge and it has the Eastwood cachet. Babel is an outstanding film that delivered some of the most intense scenes of the year. But ultimately I think there will finally be a much belated breakthrough for Scorcese and The Departed will be swept along with that tide.
Should Win–Babel is the one movie that has stuck with me after seeing it. The message of fractured communication in the midst of heartache and struggle is compelling.
Best Actor
Will Win–Although there seems to be a lot of sentiment for Peter O’Toole I have to give the nod to Forrest Whitaker for his stirring depiction of Idi Amin. Besides O’Toole just received an honorary award.
Should Win–It’s hard to go against those two luminaries for their performances but no actor sucked me in with a performance this year better than Leonardo DiCaprio. And he did it twice.
Best Actress
Will Win–Although Oscar is famed for its backlash, and Helen Mirren has led from the outset scooping up every award along the way, nothing stands in her way this year.
Should Win–Mirren
Best Supporting Actor
Will Win–It’s a horse race between Arkin and Murphy but I think old school gives Alan Arkin the trophy.
Should Win–It’s Eddie Murphy with a career defining role that should win the prize. A lot of talk has been about how Norbit may hurt his chances. But he shouldn’t be penalized for being Eddie Murphy. He should be awarded for how staggering this departure was.
Best Supporting Actress
Will Win–Jennifer Hudson for dominating every scene she was in in Dreamgirls.
Should Win–Hudson.
Director
Will Win-It’s finally Marty’s year. But Eastwood is looking over his shoulder and could be the spoiler yet again.
Should Win–Martin Scorcese. If there is anyone due, it’s him.
Other Thoughts:
Children of Men should snatch up cinematography. It is the most beautifully shot movie of the year.
Babel will, inexplicably, win editing. It’s a great film but, come on, they couldn’t have trimmed 10 minutes off of it.
I’d love to see Borat win screenplay, but it won’t happen
22 Responses to “Oscar Predictions”
By jasonk on Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
I tried to rent The Departed last weekend, and not surprisingly, it was sold out. I have heard that it is an exceptional movie.
Jennifer Hudson is an interesting choice. If she really is that good, what would she still be doing today if not for American Idol? I wonder how many potential Oscar winners are pouring coffee in a restaurant right now, and are ten years from even being cast in their first movie, let alone winning an Oscar. Because of the instant fame a show like AI allows, they have a shot at the fast track. I’m curious to know your thoughts on it.
By Scott on Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
The Departed was great. It’s no Goodfellas and it’s extremely brutal with an unsatisfying third act, but all in all a great film.
AI is a juggernaut. It may be the most powerful and dominant TV show in history. Obviously it has provided a boost to some great talents (and some marginal ones).
And the industry seems to corrects AI’s mistakes. For example that curly headed dude from season 1 is nowhere to be seen. And that angry dude from last season is outsinging the old guy that won.
It’s impact on the pop culture landscape is staggering.
By Politics and Culture on Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
My sister sister is a big fan of the Oscars. I just don’t understand it. I truly couldn’t care less. In fact, I think I would rather have a root canal than have to sit through that mess of arrogant, pompous, out-of-touch Hollywood types patting each other on the back. At least with a root canal, something worthwhile is accomplished when all is said and done.
But that’s just me…..
By jasonk on Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
I’m anxious to see it. Thanks for the info on the film.
Most powerful show in history, sure, if by powerful you mean that it finds people pumping gas and selling aluminum siding, and turns them into instant pop stars, who win Grammys and Oscars and Golden Globes. And to follow PandC’s line of thinking, it allows outsiders to crash the party of the Hollywood elite. That’s always a good story.
I’m not sure if the industry corrects AIs mistakes, or if buyers correct them. The people who vote are the consumers who buy the records, austensibly. So you would think there would be a correlation between the winner, and the number of records they sell, but there isn’t always, partly because of voting blocks by regions, and by computer generated voting.
It is my opinion that if you make it to the top ten, your career is pretty much set, if you really have talent. Hudson and Daughtry are proof of that. Bo Bice and Justin what’s his name are going to likely be seen as wanna-be’s, with little or no real talent of their own.
That’s part of what makes AI so intriguing. The ones with real talent are going to take the opportunity to make something of themselves. And we are all better as a result.
The one thing that bugs me is when AI finalists do not at least throw a thanks to the producers of the show. Its like they want people to forget how they got to where they are. The obvious exception is Carrie Underwood, who thanked Simon Fuller when she won her Grammys this year.
By len on Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
A website I like is http://www.screenit.com. They break down all of the content of movies (at least as best they can). I wanted to go see The Departed. But according to their count there are at least 237 “f”-words. I just don’t want to expose myself, and especially my wife, to that for 2 hours. In fact, the last movie I saw that was anywhere close to that many “f”-bombs was Goodfellas. After I watched that I said “never again”. Scorcese makes great films, but I hate his language and gratuitous violence.
Borat is another I haven’t seen. Why should it win best screenplay? Is there more to it than the sophomoric humor of a “gay” wrestling scene?
By Scott on Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
It is a downside. But that’s another discussion altogether.
Oscar is often a staid affair. Borat in character winning an award would definitely shake it out of the doldrums. It won’t win and shouldn’t but it would be a departure.
By Steve on Feb 25, 2007 | Reply
Scott,
I saw your picture in the Christian Chronicle. It is a great thing that you signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative. I am hoping that most people will soon see that it is the one’s who deny the human role in climate change that are politically and financially motivated to obsure that fact.
By jasonk on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
Well, I must say that I am impressed. You batted a thousand this time, didn’t you?
Good job.
I made one prediction, and I was right. That I would find something else to watch, and read the results later on. I was right!
By Scott on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
Steve, thanks a lot. Slowly people are beginning to wake up to the reality. And you are right I think it’s a political or financial motive to deny it.
Jason, I did pretty good. I only missed two on the whole night with the big awards. I was surprised.
It was one of the most boring Oscar ceremonies in my memory. No memorable speeches, although I was glad to see Marty finally win.
I told Tracy yesterday afternoon that Ellen would be a horrible host. Her low-key deadpan delivery might work for the Emmy’s but Oscar needs more energy to keep the show from becoming more glacial than it already is. I was right. I imagine about 5 minutes in Oscar producers were speed-dialing Billy Crystal for next year.
By len on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
I watched bits and pieces of the show. Agreed that Billy Crystal is better suited than Ellen, but I do find her funny. Part of me really wants to like Al Gore, but he has got to be the most boring person on the planet.
Scott, I find it interesting that you spend so much time talking about non-violence on here yet you view, and seem to enjoy, some of the most violent movies out there. Scorcese doesn’t have any problems with over the top graphic violence. Any plans for a post on movies, music, television and the non-violent lifestyle?
By Scott on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
Len, I can’t say that I enjoyed “The Departed.” I thought it was a well-done film.
This is, however, one of my big struggles and I won’t shrink from that.
I don’t watch a lot of violent movies (I don’t watch a LOT of movies, period). I do try to watch the nominated films from a cultural perspective.
By Jeff_R on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
Len raises an interesting point. I do watch a lot of film and I rarely pay much attention to the ratings, etc. if I’m the only one of my family planning to watch. I have found that I have become more and more convinced of the urgency for a return to the traditional Christian view of non-violence after watching films like Unforgiven and Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List and so on. The idea to me is to watch works of real quality and substance rather than exploitative films. Honestly, the violence in the Bible would warrant at least an “R” rating, if not worse, but it’s placed in a moral context that is meaningful. That, it seems to me, should be the demarcation - not the presence of violence in art, but the context and characterization it is given.
By Scott on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
I agree Jeff. Babel gave a great lesson on communication in the midst of personal pain. It has tremendous personal implications that transcend a mere rating.
The label the MPAA gives is generally immaterial to me. If they weren’t I wouldn’t have seen “The Passion.”
I often wonder about sites like Screen It. Someone has to go watch those movies and count the number of times certain words are said. What’s the point? Is there a threshold for some words over others? Again, that’s a different discussion.
By len on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
I primarily use Screen It for films my family goes to see and content so I will know what to expect going in. For me personally, nudity is a far greater issue than violence, language, etc. I can’t afford to expose myself to certain images.
And I do think there is a threshold for words, images, violence, etc. I was reminded of that just this Saturday. I took the family to see Amazing Grace. A few moments in, Wilberforce is playing cards with another member of parliament. This fellow has run out of money to bet. He tells another person to “run fetch my n*****”. My wife gasped out loud. Why? That word had shock value to her because it is not a word that we use nor do we condone the use of it. To us, the movie effectively communicated its point. Now, if the “n” word were a term she heard regularly, the moment wouldn’t have been as effective. But by placing that word in the context it conveyed the mindset of certain people about the slaves.
You ask the question “what’s the point”. A few days ago you posted about your girls watching too much TV and the negative effect it was having on them. Every time I hear certain words it desensitizes me. Certain words are violent by their very nature. Pardon the illustration, but I want to make love to my wife: I would never say I want to f*** her. One is beautiful, one is violent and vulgar.
By Scott on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
I agree Len, my point was if the word is wrong then it seems pointless to point out that it’s used 237 times as opposed to 12 times. Either way it’s gratuitous.
The threshold was frequency that I was referring to. After a couple of times that a certain word is used, it seems pointless to me to keep counting them. But that’s just me.
I do like Screen It for the reason you mentioned–taking the fam.
By Jeff_R on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
But, also, Len, consider the two illustrations you make. The “n-word” was once (even in our lifetimes in the South) a commonplace word and not considered vulgar or shocking. Culture (and not really the Christian culture) changed and made that word obscene.
The “f-word”, on the other hand, is moving the opposite direction. It is becoming less and less of an obscenity.
Why? Because as its use has spread far and wide (it’s a verb, a noun, an adjective, an adverb, an expletive, etc.); it’s use is less shocking or offensive. If trends continue, eventually the word will not even be considered vulgar by most people. The word will cease to be obscene. Is that a bad thing?
When we talk about desensitization, I think we have to keep in mind what that means. By using the “f-word” in a variety of contexts and for a variety of purposes, it really is no longer having (if it ever had) much of an impact on the way people characterize sex. In fact, when the word is used with reference to sex in most of the recent films/media I’ve seen, it’s usually used deliberately to represent demeaning or disrespectful sex - i.e., not in a positive way. Most of the other uses really have no direct connection to the sex act at all.
So hearing the word itself does not in and of itself have any necessary desensitizing effect with regard to how a person think about sexuality.
“Certain words are violent by their very nature”
Perhaps, but only within certain constraints - context, intent, etc. And the meanings are always shifting and changing as the “n-word” illustrates - and the “f-word”, too. The meanings and usages have changed and continue to evolve and we respond appropriately.
Think, for example, about the word “rape”. Does that word offend us? But isn’t it, too, depicting a violent and vulgar act - much moreso than even the more liberal uses of the “f-word”? Why is the use of that word not obscene? Are we desensitized to accept forcible sex because we use the word “rape” too much?
Perhaps we would do well to adopt Shakespeare’s attitude: “For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”.
By Scott on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
Jeff, thanks for those thoughts. I’ve been tooling this kind of thing in my head for a while now and have yet to feel ready to put my own thoughts down, but I feel that we have hitched our wagon to a modernistic value-set that might actually obscure what our true mission might be.
But, again, I don’t have this fleshed out yet. Any more thoughts you might have in this regard would be appreciated.
By Jonathan on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply
About Screen It, I use it in a couple of ways.
One is for deciding about movies for the kids. For example, a few years back some friends proposed letting our kids watch Kangaroo Jack while the adults were doing something else (can’t remember what). I looked at the Screen It! review and said no.
Secondly, I’m in the habit of posting a link to the Screen It! review when I post about a movie on my blog. I do this because I know people have widely diverging sensitivities regarding what they find offensive in film. In my mind, posting a link to the Screen It! review “indemnifies” me against blame if someone watches a movie because I said it was good only to find it to be full of content he/she would find offensive. For example, despite the drugs, sex, violence, and profanity, Pulp Fiction is one my favorite films, but I know many would find it to be reprehensible.
By Burt Hollandsworth on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
Borat win the screenplay?
VERY NICE … HOW MUCH?
By Scott on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply
No, it lost.
By R-Liz on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply
So I’m a little late to the discussion. I was wondering if you might do a little entry about Oscar night, but find the discussion (however small it might be) on this thread.
I was curious what you thought of the little “A Comedian at the Oscars” act by Will Ferrell and Jack Black. That’s the only part of the evening I laughed pretty hard at. Jack Black threatening Peter O’Toole with a beat-down with his Nickelodeon award was hilarious.
I thought Ellen was okay– but she wasn’t given much of an opportunity to shine b/c they packed so many stinkin’ montages into the evening. ENOUGH already with all that excess crap.
Seeing Jerry Seinfeld on stage made me wonder about him being an Oscar host. Or would he be too much like Steve Martin? Perhaps not goofy enough?
By Scott on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply
R-Liz, I’m not a Will Ferrell fan so it didn’t really click with me. It was just another in a long series of montages that were indistinctive from each other.
I like Ellen. I think she is hilarious a large part of the time. But her style did not translate well to the Oscar stage. There aren’t that many Billy Crystal’s out there.
Seinfeld would be cool to see.