-
-
Sorkin will win the Globe but Chicago 7 will lose Screenplay to one of Promising Young Woman or Minari at the Oscars.
Or Judas. That’s my prediction at the moment, especially after today’s events.
I'm back bitches.
#EverythingEverywhereSweep
We all like to talk about the BAFTA curse but the Drama Picture Globe has been even worse at predicting the Best Picture winner this past decade outside of 12 Years A Slave and Moonlight (both top 5 most acclaimed movies of the decade)
Chicago 7 can have that one. Also sounds like a curse to me
edit : Argo too, still bad. HFPA is very on beat when it comes to acting category but the Picture race is another story
FYC
AOTY - Renaissance
Angela Bassett, Michelle Yeoh, Brian Tyree Henry.
Or Judas. That’s my prediction at the moment, especially after today’s events.
Judas to me is in a precarious position (in wins) when it comes to non Kaluuya categories because I think it will be hurt buzz wise by a late release date. Whilst I think it will get lots of nominations (it has no chance at a Picture win) the film going into its release date only has win buzz for Kaluuya. It could very well be a film that would be deserving of a screenplay win but I don’t think it will generate buzz for its script (if its deserving) until its embargo lifts. And in a race where Soul, Promising Young Woman and Minari are building more and more buzz for their screenplays (and the latter have been doing so for almost the space of a year) that puts it at a disadvantage.
If it’s screenplay does get nomination buzz it is 100% officially sealing the coffin on Mank’s screenplay chances.
FYC: Better Call Saul, The English and The Good Fight in all categories including Emily Blunt, Bob Odenkirk, Christine Baranski and Rhea Seehorn.
Judas to me is in a precarious position (in wins) when it comes to non Kaluuya categories because I think it will be hurt buzz wise by a late release date. Whilst I think it will get lots of nominations (it has no chance at a Picture win) the film going into its release date only has win buzz for Kaluuya. It could very well be a film that would be deserving of a screenplay win but I don’t think it will generate buzz for its script (if its deserving) until its embargo lifts. And in a race where Soul, Promising Young Woman and Minari are building more and more buzz for their screenplays (and the latter have been doing so for almost the space of a year) that puts it at a disadvantage.
If it’s screenplay does get nomination buzz it is 100% officially sealing the coffin on Mank’s screenplay chances.
It’s already getting screened and the release date is not that late. It’s the equivalent of mid December. To be honest, it’ll have a wide release before Nomadland. If it is really that good, it’ll actually benefit from being freshier in voters minds.
It’s already getting screened and the release date is not that late. It’s the equivalent of mid December. To be honest, it’ll have a wide release before Nomadland. If it is really that good, it’ll actually benefit from being freshier in voters minds.
Its release isn’t the problem the problem is that it doesn’t currently have buzz for a screenplay potential brewing (which Minari, Promising Young Woman and Soul do). And imo it needs to have that huzz brewing now (or soon-ish) for it to be win competitive in screenplay.
Nomadland at least has been screening since September.
FYC: Better Call Saul, The English and The Good Fight in all categories including Emily Blunt, Bob Odenkirk, Christine Baranski and Rhea Seehorn.
Its release isn’t the problem the problem is that it doesn’t currently have buzz for a screenplay potential brewing (which Minari, Promising Young Woman and Soul do). And imo it needs to have that huzz brewing now (or soon-ish) for it to be win competitive in screenplay.
Nomadland at least has been screening since September.
We’re still three months before the nominations day and four months before the ceremony. The review embargo will be over yet this month, around two months before the nominations morning. That’s enough time to generate buzz in case it’s really that good.
You say like non festival December films never won Oscars before.
What people really underestimate about Sound of Metal (other than the fact Amazon are campaigning tf out of it and it looks like their main campaign priprity right now) is that it is a film that several disability groups have endorsed for its depiction of deafness. Something that is quite rare and unprecedented. The Oscars love to award films about people with disabilities and with this one as a result of its endorsements (something Amazon is making known) gives it a sense of urgency for recognition. I’m not saying it’s going to win Best Picture but I see no reason for one to not consider it a top 5 contender in Picture or to consider Ahmed more than Oldman (whose buzz seems to be dying) or Stanfield (who doesn’t seem to have much buzz).
It’s so cool and refreshing to see so many deaf actors (Lauren Ridloff, Jeremy Lee Stone, Shaheem Sanchez, Chelsea Lee) be a part of a movie and considering how adamant the Academy has been lately about representation of people with disabilities in Hollywood makes me think that maybe we’re underestimating this movie for a BP nom.
And I’m not talking about neccesarily what happened today I’m saying if voters want to choose a film with a positive message about how to respond to the last four years, the socio-economic alienation and division and rejection that Nomadland is that film. But anyway I should have phrased myself better.
I’m sorry but how is Nomadland that film? Nomadland is more about Nomads’ life instead of giving any political or “positive message.” That’s actually more suitable for Chicago 7.
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is undoubtedly the worst film I have seen this year. Sorkin’s screenplay is rife with historical inaccuracy of the events surrounding the trial and astonishingly limited knowledge of leftist thought and politicking. The liberties that Sorkin has taken in distorting fact are egregious and unforgivable. Bobby Seale was bound and gagged for multiple days in the courtroom; not one day as Sorkin suggests. Seale’s case was also severed prior to Fred Hampton’s assassination. Tom Hayden did not read all of the names of those US soldiers who died in Vietnam; Dellinger read a few names before being silenced by Judge Hoffman. This toying around with true events so liberally for dramatic purposes is mind-boggling; I don’t know how Sorkin got away with making this film.
Perhaps more horrendous than his fabrications of historical events is Sorkin’s conspicuous misunderstand of leftist thought. The film is void of substantial critique of US institutions and paints these revolutionary figures as foolish caricatures—see Jerry Rubin falling in love with an undercover FBI agent, though in reality he was committed to a longtime partner–who are perhaps well-meaning but misguided and directionless in their efforts to enact change. It is so jarring to hear SBC’s Hoffman say, “I think the institutions of our democracy are wonderful things that right now are populated by some terrible people,” something the real Abbie Hoffman would never have uttered. A brief exchange between Hayden and Hoffman regarding electoralism shows revolutionary Hoffman seemingly conceding to the notion that elections are the only way to enact real change, after just a few short lines of dialogue. It is laughable that a woman of the Black Panther Party, in the beginning of the film, dissuades Seale from attending the protests because of how white people and the police might respond to him. Sorkin’s “revolutionaries” are reverential to the system of US law enforcement officers and are painted as either idealists or crazy. This film is reformist, centrist propaganda and deserves to be shut out of all awards consideration, regardless of how marvelous Rylance was.
I recommend this article from The Nation which informed some of my thinking here. https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/aaron-sorkins-inane-history-lesson/
watch I May Destroy You
The Trial of the Chicago 7 is undoubtedly the worst film I have seen this year. Sorkin’s screenplay is rife with historical inaccuracy of the events surrounding the trial and astonishingly limited knowledge of leftist thought and politicking. The liberties that Sorkin has taken in distorting fact are egregious and unforgivable. Bobby Seale was bound and gagged for multiple days in the courtroom; not one day as Sorkin suggests. Seale’s case was also severed prior to Fred Hampton’s assassination. Tom Hayden did not read all of the names of those US soldiers who died in Vietnam; Dellinger read a few names before being silenced by Judge Hoffman. This toying around with true events so liberally for dramatic purposes is mind-boggling; I don’t know how Sorkin got away with making this film.
Perhaps more horrendous than his fabrications of historical events is Sorkin’s conspicuous misunderstand of leftist thought. The film is void of substantial critique of US institutions and paints these revolutionary figures as foolish caricatures—see Jerry Rubin falling in love with an undercover FBI agent, though in reality he was committed to a longtime partner–who are perhaps well-meaning but misguided and directionless in their efforts to enact change. It is so jarring to hear SBC’s Hoffman say, “I think the institutions of our democracy are wonderful things that right now are populated by some terrible people,” something the real Abbie Hoffman would never have uttered. A brief exchange between Hayden and Hoffman regarding electoralism shows revolutionary Hoffman seemingly conceding to the notion that elections are the only way to enact real change, after just a few short lines of dialogue. It is laughable that a woman of the Black Panther Party, in the beginning of the film, dissuades Seale from attending the protests because of how white people and the police might respond to him. Sorkin’s “revolutionaries” are reverential to the system of US law enforcement officers and are painted as either idealists or crazy. This film is reformist, centrist propaganda and deserves to be shut out of all awards consideration, regardless of how marvelous Rylance was.
I recommend this article from The Nation which informed some of my thinking here. https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/aaron-sorkins-inane-history-lesson/
Agree with every word you said my comrade. No matter how well written and well acted it is, this film is gross and disrespesctful. Fuck Sorkin and his stupid liberal agenda.
Agree with every word you said my comrade. No matter how well written and well acted it is, this film is gross and disrespesctful. Fuck Sorkin and his stupid liberal agenda.
It really is a shame because there were some great performances there. Editing seems pretty good too, although I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have much of an eye for editing.
watch I May Destroy You
I feel like the Academy’s response being as out of touch to the realities of the world as picking Chicago 7 would be so outdated and tactless that I can see them doing it.
The only thing I have to say is that the old guard who might be harbouring a little bit of that reactionary energy might also not exactly be looking to support a Netflix film.
I am not sold on Chicago 7 being the big response film the Academy will go for. In general, this year doesn’t have a film like Parasite or The shape of water that makes a big, obvious, broadly appealing message with allegory to real issues.
Nomadland is a film about people put in a rough place by a failed system, but it’s not Ken Loach, and is much more a tone piece. I think people saying THIS will be the political response are missing what will appeal to voters – it’s a film headed for a semi traditional cinema release not streaming with a big actress they love, craft quality, and a chance to reward rising talent with Chloe Zhao.
One Night In Miami is specific to an era more so than the message of Chicago 7 – it is about a very specific moment in Black history, culture, and activism. There are elements that suggest areas of no change and recall present day developments, but I would argue it isn’t a candidate primarily pushed on politics.
Da 5 Bloods is the most directly politically engaged film in this year for me. Delroy Lindo’s character is a very blunt but fascinating character piece on what motivates a black Trump supporter. The scene that sticks out for me is a late one, where a donation is received by a Black Lives Matter chapter. For a film that is gory and defined often by bitter resentment of the past and present, the scene of gratitude, support, and community feels so different and so proudly compassionate that it feels rousing to the core.
Da 5 Bloods is a movie that is stylistically divisive and nowhere near as accessible as BlackKklansman, so I don’t think Best Picture is happening, but I wanted to say a piece.
My Favourite Albums
Oil Of Every Pearl's Un-Insides - SOPHIE
Hounds of Love - Kate Bush
Since I Left You - The Avalanches
Twin Fantasy - Car Seat Headrest
Vespertine - Bjork
The only thing I can see stopping Nomadland from winning (and as a mega fan of the film I mean this in the best possible way) is that it’s not a fun crowdpleaser. Although then again that did not stop <i>Moonlight </i>(which I think is the best comparison to Nomadland as a film and not Roma). Parasite was a fun crowdpleasing film, Green Book (despite it being an absolutely atrocious white savioury film) was a fun film, <i>The Shape of Water </i>was a fun fantasy film with a fun aesthetic.
<i>The Father </i>is a thrilling film about dementia (that’s the only way I can say it without spoiling it) disguised in branding as a The Wife type drama. Promising Young Woman has a fun aesthetic etc.
FYC: Better Call Saul, The English and The Good Fight in all categories including Emily Blunt, Bob Odenkirk, Christine Baranski and Rhea Seehorn.
We’re still three months before the nominations day and four months before the ceremony. The review embargo will be over yet this month, around two months before the nominations morning. That’s enough time to generate buzz in case it’s really that good. You say like non festival December films never won Oscars before.
I’m not saying Judas can’t win Screenplay but it will be a mountain to climb when going into the embargo the only thing that it has any sense off pre-buzz for is Kaluuya.
FYC: Better Call Saul, The English and The Good Fight in all categories including Emily Blunt, Bob Odenkirk, Christine Baranski and Rhea Seehorn.
Audience reviews for Da 5 Bloods are pretty negative (saying that it’s a disjoint film). It’s like two different movies when we learn their audience and critic scores.
IMDB : 6.5 (shockingly low for a serious drama)
RT critic score: 92%I think critics overrate it mainly because of its political subject/messages and that’s annoying to me. Nearly all the full-star critic reviews are praising more about its message than the film itself.
The topic ‘Oscars 2021 Predictions: Best Picture and Director (Part 5)’ is closed to new replies.
