 |
| (Searchlight) |
In
my Oscar column back on December 21 (as in, before even nominations were
announced), I
wrote the following:
The
correlation between high nomination totals and who wins is undeniable, and
indicates broadly that people vote what they know. And unlike Argo, which grossed hundreds of millions of dollars
domestically, Boyhood is an
extremely small film with a campaigner in IFC that is very new at this “awards”
game. So I wonder: can Boyhood sustain
its frontrunner status? … The only film that’s been performing well that
will earn substantial nominations is Birdman. It’s a technical achievement with a deep cast –
Michael Keaton, Edward Norton and Emma Stone all appear good for a nomination –
and an inventive screenplay. But it’s also weird and atypical. No Oscar pundit
is betting on Birdman for
exactly what it is – a tone- and genre-defying mash-up rooted in satire. That
doesn’t scream “Oscar!” but, then again, in this year’s climate not much does.
Perhaps
I should have taken that a little more seriously. A vast majority of pundits,
especially following wins at the Golden Globes and Critics’ Choice Awards, had
lined up behind Boyhood as the likely
Best Picture winner. And what could defeat it? Why, an agreeable historical
biopic with the might of Harvey Weinstein behind it, in The Imitation Game.
Birdman
is the only film other than Boyhood
to aggressively and uniformly hit the precursor circuit (that is, earn acting,
directing, writing and picture nominations). It was the frontrunner right under
our noses – Too weird? It’s making more money than Boyhood. Too comedic? Its production values eschew any limitation
there, considering Boyhood’s bare-bones
approach – and, after a rather shocking Best Picture win with the Producers
Guild of America (PGA), and a more-expected victory from the Screen Actors
Guild (SAG), Birdman is, indeed, the
movie to beat.
This
race is far from over – though at this point, it looks to be between two films,
as Imitation needed either SAG or PGA
to demonstrate sufficient support – and there are a few keys to see just how
far ahead Birdman is. We have two
major guilds left to vote: the Writers Guild of America (WGA), where Birdman was ineligible, and the
Directors Guild of America (DGA), where both Alejandro G. Inarritu and Richard
Linklater compete. On the WGA side, a Boyhood
win might actually be crucial; if it’s defeated by The Grand Budapest Hotel there, we’ll see that Boyhood is lacking overriding support from most every major area.
As for DGA, Inarritu defeating Linklater – which suddenly makes a whole lot of
sense, given the technical audacity of Birdman
– will signify a “game over” much as Tom Hooper defeating David Fincher did in
2011. But Best Director feels like Linklater’s to lose, even if Birdman is out front – is a
Picture/Director split ripe to occur for the third year in a row?
I
had noted in that previously-excerpted column post that Birdman was the only movie among the frontrunners to appeal to a
diversity of groups and earn a substantial amount of nominations (by previous
winners’ standards). But that it won an award voted on by producers – the
group that historically goes for the more conservative choice (King’s Speech) over the bolder one (Social Network) – is extremely
significant. PGA has successfully forecast the Best Picture winner every year
since 2007 – and has never been wrong since adopting a preferential voting
method, similar to the Oscars – but, then again, DGA has done so successfully
since 2006, and since 2001 excluding 2005 (Ang Lee, in the horrible Brokeback Mountain defeat). Birdman as a frontrunner could be a
false narrative – Boyhood’s miniscule
budget is not generally PGA-friendly and Birdman
may have squeaked through an immensely-tight slate, while its cast was
easily out front for SAG as American
Hustle’s was last year – and WGA/DGA will tell us if this is for real.
Until then, we’ve got a genuine race.
This
is a good thing, because every acting category appears sewn up. Eddie Redmayne
beat Michael Keaton at SAG, which, given his reputation among actors, is where
he really needed to triumph. That Redmayne, a relative unknown, was able to
overtake Keaton’s comeback narrative for an award given out by fellow actors is
indicative of how strong he is here. Julianne Moore, J.K. Simmons and Patricia
Arquette, meanwhile, are so dominant in their respective acting categories that
at this point absolutely nothing could
get in the way. Arquette’s speeches have been relatively sub-par – and by that,
I mean, Simmons and Moore have been remarkably affable and genuine, speech
after speech – but, luckily for her, the competition in Best Supporting Actress
is especially weak.
The
screenplay categories are really intriguing, though. The race to Best Original
Screenplay only starts with the WGA winner; the Oscar contest will be between
whoever that is and Birdman. Birdman seems like a logical choice, but
this would be a great chance for the Academy to recognize Wes Anderson for the
first time, in the same way they pulled out for Spike Jonze of Her even though American Hustle was a stronger player. Meanwhile, in Adapted
Screenplay, the obvious pick would be the only real Oscar player in the
category, The Imitation Game, but
there’s plenty of room to surprise. Damien Chazelle is a type-A wunderkind with
a beloved screenplay under his belt; I could see voters pulling for Whiplash in that category, if Imitation is ultimately weaker than
early surveying seemed to suggest (which, given its blanking at every award
ceremony left and right, is a definite possibility). The problem: Whiplash is chanceless at WGA, as it is competing
in Original, so its strength is a big question mark. And given the preferential
system of it all, could Paul Thomas Anderson soak up a bunch of #1 votes and
drive into a major upset? It is, after all, what got him a surprising
nomination.