In Contention
By Josh Spiegel
January 12, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
First up, it's the Writers Guild nominations. The WGA, as mentioned last week, made a hefty helping of Oscar contenders ineligible for its awards, mostly because none of the scripts were written by WGA members or the films were not made under a WGA agreement. Thus, we have the nominees for Original Screenplay: (500) Days of Summer, written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber; Avatar, written by James Cameron; The Hangover, written by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore; The Hurt Locker, written by Mark Boal; and A Serious Man, written by Ethan Coen and Joel Coen. The nominees for Adapted Screenplay are Crazy Heart, written by Scott Cooper; Julie & Julia, written by Nora Ephron; Precious, written by Geoffrey Fletcher; Star Trek, written by Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci; and Up in the Air, written by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner.
Before any of you Trekkies (or is it Trekkers? I honestly don't know) get too excited, and the same for those fans of The Hangover, let me remind you that among the ineligible nominees were Up, Inglourious Basterds, In the Loop, District 9, and An Education, among others. With the exception of the highly underrated In the Loop - available to rent this week, so get thee to Netflix after this article - those scripts are very likely to show up in the Oscar nominations. The obvious choices to disappear are Star Trek and The Hangover, but it's just as possible that A Serious Man, a movie that hasn't received a lot of awards buzz in terms of nominations or awards, won't show up in the Oscar nods, or even - hold your breath, fanboys - Avatar. Yes, the highest-grossing movie of 2009 may not end up with an Academy Award nomination for Best Screenplay. Before you target your hate mail to me, let me remind you of Titanic: a movie that won the Best Picture Oscar without getting a writing nomination.
It's hard to quantify what these nominations mean, thanks to all of those major disqualifications. Still, the likely frontrunners are the same frontrunners for Best Picture: The Hurt Locker and Up in the Air. Though Avatar and, to a lesser extent, Inglourious Basterds, is making a solid push to dethrone these two more art house films from taking the top prize at the Oscars, the scripts are likely going to win out. When it comes to Avatar, don't be surprised if its script doesn't get nominated; though it threw out no clunkers as bad as "This is bad" from Titanic, the script is not the film's selling point. Among the adapted screenplays, Star Trek may seem the likely film to be thrown out at the Oscars, but the movie could be something of a dark horse. I would imagine, though, that film and Julie & Julia are most likely in danger when it comes to the Oscars. Until then, we have to wait and see for the uniquely stubborn WGA to award its top scripts.
Next up, it's the American Society of Cinematographers. This year, the ASC nominated five of the more notable and well-shot movies of 2009. The nominees are Avatar, as photographed by Mauro Fiore; The Hurt Locker, as photographed by Barry Ackroyd; Inglourious Basterds, as photographed by Robert Richardson; Nine, as photographed by Dion Beebe; and The White Ribbon, as photographed by Christian Berger. What does this mean for the Best Cinematography category for the Oscars? Well, when it comes to matching nominees, the ASC is mostly solid, getting roughly four of five nominees correct. In fact, only once in the past ten years have the ASC and Oscars matched up completely in their nominees, for the awards honoring the movies of 2007.
What movie is likely to vanish at the Oscars? The Hurt Locker and Inglourious Basterds are seemingly safe, and I'd be a bit surprised if Avatar, digital photography or not, doesn't show up. Nine, as we'll soon discuss, is now a dead movie in terms of Oscar heat, and The White Ribbon, while critically lauded, may be too unfamiliar to Academy voters. Other potential films that could sneak in include Public Enemies, lensed by Dante Spinotti in flashy, digital style; Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, lensed by previous ASC winner Bruno Delbonnel; or perhaps A Serious Man, lensed by Roger Deakins, an ASC favorite who's been nominated for his previous collaborations with the Coens.
Finally, it's the Eddies, short for the American Cinema Editors' nominations, and they appear to be just as in love with science fiction as the Producers' Guild, as all three of the major sci-fi releases from 2009 showed up on the two lists of nominations. Among the five Drama nominees are Avatar, edited by James Cameron, John Refoua, and Stephen E. Rivkin; The Hurt Locker, edited by Chris Innis and Bob Murawski; Up in the Air, edited by Dana E. Glauberman; District 9, edited by Julian Clarker; and Star Trek, edited by Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey. The Comedy nominees are The Hangover, edited by Debra Neil-Fisher; Julie & Julia, edited by Richard Marks; It's Complicated, edited by Joe Hutshing and David Moritz; A Serious Man, edited by Roderick Jaynes (also known as Joel and Ethan Coen); and (500) Days of Summer, edited by Alan Edward Bell. The Animated nominees are Coraline, edited by Christopher Murrie and Ronald Sanders; Fantastic Mr. Fox, edited by Andrew Weisblum; and Up, edited by Kevin Nolting.
As many nominees as there are here, there are two notable omissions: Inglourious Basterds and Precious. It may not seem like it, but among the major precursor nominations, the American Cinema Editors are actually very important. Though they have not always predicted the appropriate Best Picture Oscar winner in the past (they missed out on Crash and Million Dollar Baby, among others), the ACE Eddies are pretty solid at figuring out what movies will be nominated for Best Picture. Over the past ten years, the ACE Eddies have always had a strong eye on what movies are going to be nominated. Though they have missed out on such Best Picture nominees as Atonement, getting on the ACE Eddie list, along with a few other guilds, is not such a bad thing. District 9 and Star Trek fans should be thrilled with this news, as the two science-fiction films, especially District 9, are getting major boosts for the Oscar nominations.
But what about Inglourious Basterds and Precious? As I mentioned above, sometimes movies don't get an ACE Eddie nomination. Moreover, not getting an ACE Eddie doesn't mean the editor won't be recognized in the Oscar nods. Still, of the 13 movies nominated over the three categories, there's a solid amount of Best Picture hopefuls. Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Up, Up in the Air, District 9, and Star Trek are all getting more and more heat with the recent guild announcements. Inglourious Basterds and Precious will also find themselves in the mix, despite not showing up here. All in all, if things pan out as they've been doing in the guilds, the Academy may get its wish at a more diverse mix of films, both critically and widely acclaimed. The experiment, at least for the time being, may work in spades.
Of course, it's also interesting to consider what movies have fallen out of favor despite being seen as sure things come awards time. The three movies that make up the big names of the category are Invictus, The Lovely Bones, and Nine. The first film, a retelling of how Nelson Mandela brought South Africa together through the sport of rugby, has garnered awards attention, but only modest box office returns. Invictus, like the latter of the three films, is still likely to get a Best Picture nomination, but its momentum has died down to nearly nothing. Aside from Best Picture, Morgan Freeman will probably get nominated for Best Actor, Matt Damon may surprise as a Best Supporting Actor nominee, and perhaps Clint Eastwood as Best Director. Nominations notwithstanding, it's unlikely for Invictus to win big at the ceremony.
What threw this movie's momentum off? It's just been overshadowed by newer, more impressive fare. Don't get me wrong: Invictus could get a lot of nominations, but it's very likely not going to win anything. Even Freeman, the film's likeliest candidate for a nod, may lose to George Clooney or the star of The Hurt Locker (also on DVD this week, and you're totally going to rent it, right?), Jeremy Renner. Since Freeman's already won an Oscar, and won it for a previous collaboration with director Clint Eastwood, the Academy may not feel any kind of provocation to honor him this year. Damon's nod, if he gets it, will be ignored in place of likely winner Christoph Waltz. Invictus could have succeeded in other years, but timing is everything, and this one lost.
Timing was also everything for The Lovely Bones, as it appears that the Oscars won't be seeing this period murder mystery at its gala event. Paramount, the film's distributor, is so wise to the film meeting tepid reviews that the studio waited to expand the film past two theaters in New York City and Los Angeles, combined, until January 15th. Though the film won't exactly vanish now that it's about to be released, Paramount may put more emphasis on the technical awards for The Lovely Bones as opposed to the big categories. Frankly, Paramount will end up putting more money behind an Oscar push for Star Trek, which could very well end up with the tenth Best Picture nomination. Once again, though, Peter Jackson appears to be stymied by Oscar when he's not working with Hobbits (or when he's producing other people's movies, such as District 9, another dark-horse contender).
The irony here is that The Lovely Bones was one of the movies Paramount chose to back in place of Shutter Island, which is now opening on February 19th. There was a lot of scuttlebutt made about the movie being pushed back from its original October 2009 release date, but Paramount has been frank in saying that it was all about money for awards campaigns. They preferred to back Up in the Air and the seeming prestige of The Lovely Bones. Shutter Island is, like Star Trek, seen as a more accessible film, something that may be more in line with Cape Fear as opposed to Raging Bull, in terms of Martin Scorsese's filmography not being audience-friendly. Still, every year, it's always a guarantee that one or two Oscar-caliber movies disappoint with audiences and critics, and The Lovely Bones is yet another victim.
The biggest and most prominent victim, though, is Nine. This splashy musical courtesy of producer Harvey Weinstein and director Rob Marshall was based on 8 1/2, one of the most famous films of all time, a self-referential indie masterpiece directed by Federico Fellini. Moreover, the movie Nine was based on the Broadway musical of the same name, and starred Daniel Day-Lewis, Kate Hudson, Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench, Marion Cotillard, and Sophia Loren. This movie was spilling out left and right with Oscar weight. If anything, this movie was destined to either become a massive success, or a massive failure. With so much hype behind it, it'd be hard for Nine to land somewhere in the middle. As of January 10th, Nine has a domestic gross of only $16 million against an $80 million budget. The reviews have been tepid at best, and the movie has only had a solid showing at the Golden Globes.
And, sure, you're probably wondering what's so bad about the Golden Globes showering some love on Nine, as it received five nominations, including one for Best Picture - Comedy or Musical. Since the film has only gotten its most major nominations from the Golden Globes, an association made up of foreign journalists, who are more likely to sway towards a musical based on a foreign film, and the reaction has been so bad, there's almost no doubt that this movie isn't going to get Oscar love. I don't want to count it out completely (though the Weinsteins have their hands full with Inglourious Basterds, they've never lacked for Oscar aggressiveness, or did you forget The Reader?), but if Nine were to show up among the ten Best Picture Oscar nominees, it would easily be the biggest surprise of the entire list. Daniel Day-Lewis will have another day in the Oscar sunshine. For now, he can drink someone's milkshake. Oh, what? That may have been easy, but can you blame me?