They Shoot Oscar Prognosticators, Don't They?
AFI Does Nothing to Clarify Best Picture Race
By J. Don Birnam
November 17, 2015
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Perhaps Steve Carell’s performance in The Big Short puts him in the conversation for the wide-open Best Actor race. And given the lack of other viable options, the Academy may feel some pressure to nominate Will Smith for his well-reviewed performance in the NFL drama Concussion. As you know, their failure to nominate a single minority in the 20 acting slots last year caused controversy, and at the Governor’s Awards this weekend, where Spike Lee was awarded an honorary Oscar, the conversation was squarely directed at that embarrassing slate of nominees.
With little movement in the main races, today I will look at the writing races, and in particular, at what appears to be becoming a showdown in the Best Adapted Screenplay race. You can also check out our updated Best Director power rankings, here.
As we discussed, Steve Jobs seems to be fading from Oscar contention, while The Martian appears to be surging. The phenomena behind these two movies’ Oscar fortunes and what it means for the overall picture is nothing short of fascinating. I would love to hear thoughts on Steve Jobs and The Martian - particularly if they are different than what I have heard so far as I explain below - which you can share with me on Twitter.
"The Story" that Makes a Movie Great: Best Adapted Screenplay and the Steve Jobs vs. The Martian face-off
Almost unanimously, friends that I ask love The Martian and feel lukewarm or actively dislike Steve Jobs. This explains, without a doubt, their respective box office fortunes (the latter is a colossal flop, and the other one did very well), and will likely affect their fates at the Academy Awards later this season.
Opinions of these movies invariably center first and foremost on the stories they tell - as most people’s opinions of movies tend to. There can be no doubt that people perceive a movie to be “good” if they somehow connect or respond to the story, if they are inspired or entertained or solaced. Rarely will you hear someone say, “Well, the story was good but the soundtrack was bad so I didn’t like the movie.” Nor will you hear, “The sets and the lighting were so great that I loved the movie but the story was boring.” It’s more common to get “The movie was slow” or “I didn’t like the character.”
It is therefore not surprising that the dislikes of Jobs center around hating the character and/or what he stands for or on disapproving of the filmmakers’ choice to limit the narrative to a discrete chapter of Jobs’ life (Spoilers: “They don’t get to the iPhone!” is a common complaint). By marked contrast, when talking about The Martian, people have gushed about how entertained they were, and about how exciting the movie is. Who does not like movies about American ingenuity and our ability to come together to solve problems (Argo, anyone?). Moreover, the book on which the movie is based, and the adaptation to the extent allowed by the medium, are interesting and ingenious with regards to science.
And make no mistake about it: just as audiences respond almost entirely to the story a movie tells when evaluating the worth of a picture, the Academy, as I’ve repeatedly lamented, does so as well. Every movie to win Best Picture in the last 10 years has also won a writing Oscar, other than The Artist, for obvious reasons. And it is only Titanic and The Sound of Music that have won the top prize without a nomination in that category in modern Oscars history. Simply put, people perceive a good story to be a good movie.
There is an irony in the column I am writing. I’ve always been one to defend a technical achievement even if it does not have the greatest story ever told. Avatar and Titanic come to mind. But in my view, it is Steve Jobs that has the better “story” than The Martian, whereas The Martian is strongest in craft (effects, sound, cinematography). Under my traditional defense of movies that are technical pieces over interesting stories, then, you would expect I would go to bat for The Martian at the Oscars over Steve Jobs. Yet, here I am, about to defend Steve Jobs.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with seeking out movies as entertainment or even escapism. Problems abound in our society. Terrorism, the shrinking middle class, a presidential election, etc. Why does one need to pay and spent two hours to be depressed or required to think too much? And I have nothing against The Martian, a movie I enjoyed from start to finish, unabashedly and thoroughly.
But I must rise to the defense of what I believe is nothing short of a masterpiece, the much maligned Steve Jobs. Before I even get to the story, consider the out-of-this-world performances by every player. Jeff Daniels does not miss a beat in the tense, back-and-forth arguments with Fassbender, who adjusts his tone and demeanor brilliantly. Kate Winslet’s performance, particularly that Oscar-bait scene in the third act where she begs Jobs to patch things up with his daughter, is one of the best of her career. Even Seth Rogen proves that he can act. And Michael Fassbender is, simply put, spectacular.
Consider next the tense but exacting soundtrack, which appears at the right moments and accelerates as needed. And what can one say about the brilliant editing, which keeps viewers glued to the screen, particularly in the two crucial Daniels/Fassbender arguments in the second and third acts. Flashbacks work spectacularly. Despite Danny Boyle’s somewhat overwrought directorial touch, the movie is nearly flawless.
But it is without a doubt Aaron Sorkin and his flawless, brilliant, intelligent, witty, sophisticated script that deserves the most accolades. His script drips with sarcasm and humor and efficiently conveys the key elements of the technical aspects of the products that are about to be launched. Perhaps a bit overly cute with the repeated “Aaron, which one joke?”, every single interaction and exchange is meticulous and conveys a pointed idea. It is a far cry from Matt Damon talking to himself foolishly.
I understand the complaints that Jobs was not a good person (although since I never followed his life closely, I feel indifferent about him) and that the script does not touch upon a piece of technology that so many of us enjoy. But, with due respect, those seem to be personal problems with the movie, not a problem with the movie itself. The movie was not about the iPhone. And, do all of our protagonists have to be flawless heroes like Matt Damon, or somewhat exaggerated to the point of unrealism, like, say, Hannibal Lecter? We do not have to like the guy, we do not have to look up to him or think he is a genius. Regardless of Jobs’ many moral failings, the story that Sorkin tells is compelling and interesting.
And do not get me started on complaints about historical accuracy. Did anyone else see Argo? Basically nothing that happens in that movie actually happened in real life. Did you see The King’s Speech? Spoiler: King George’s stutter was a tenth of what is portrayed there. It cannot be that we hold screenwriters to this impossible double standard: give us exact historical accuracy, but make the protagonist a likable guy, or we will hate him. Some people exist and triumph in this world being evil, for a certain moral code anyway. That is not the fault of the screenwriter.
When these goggles that compel us to see everything as inherently good or bad are removed from the equation and one sees Steve Jobs for what it is - a fictionalized dramatization, a prosaic and theatrical representation, one is able to witness it in all its brilliance. Jobs’ conniving, master plan for revenge plays itself out in unexpected ways over the three acts; each character reappears and is used smartly by Sorkin to explore a different facet of his personality (his conscience - Winslet, his ego - Daniels, his heart - his daughter, his brain - Rogen, playing Steve Wozniak). Each vignette represents the evolution of a man and of ideas, and the unapologetic exposition of a basic American truth: if you build something successful, we will like you, even if it is begrudgingly so. It's Wolf of Wall Street-esque, in a sense, not to mention, of course, The Social Network.
My humble advice, indeed, my urgent beg to you: do not miss the brilliance of this script and of the actors who deliver it because of whatever atrocities the real Steve Jobs committed during his life. It is not the filmmakers’ fault. And it is not yours.
As for predicting the Oscars: Perhaps someone will hear my pleas, but, for now, it is unarguable that Steve Jobs has fallen in the Best Adapted Screenplay race. Still, I fully expect it to be in the conversation because of how respected Sorkin is, but a win now seems a harder call. At the same time, the writing is clearly on the wall that Drew Goddard’s adaptation of the immensely popular novel will net him a nod for The Martian. Beyond that, the picture is murky, because there are several contenders with a real shot at a nod. Room, of course, is based on an also popular novel, and I think this movie is resonating across the industry. The 1950s companion pieces, Carol and Brooklyn, also should both have decent shots, as the dialogue in both is profound and memorable, aided by the delivery of the talented actresses that perform it.
The Revenant is the likely the real wild-card, as the movie may end up one of those sink or swim, all-or-nothing propositions for movies that debut late in the Oscar year. I still think that The Danish Girl has a better than decent shot, but we will know more when the movie finally hits theaters in coming weeks.
All of that said, the writers’ branch of the Academy are known for their quirks, and a dark horse candidate, from Trumbo to Concussion to The Big Short of Beasts of No Nation, should not be discounted. Check out here our updated Best Adapted Screenplay power rankings.
Best Original Screenplay: Finally David O. Russell’s year?
The field seems somewhat narrower in the Original Screenplay race, with Joy and Spotlight battling it out. If Joy truly is going to take over the lead for Best Picture, then it will surely be in the lead here. I’m still sticking with Spotlight, for now, but watch this space.
Two movies that are not in strong Best Picture consideration could make an appearance here. Many hope that Amy Schumer’s Trainwreck gets her some love here. I personally found the story of the bad girl who doesn’t want a boyfriend only to give it all up for that boyfriend to be impossibly clichéd, but I do not have a vote. I’m much more partial to Inside Out, which has not left the conversation for this category since it premiered.
Then of course there is Tarantino’s Hateful Eight. He is a perennial darling of the branch and a multiple past winner, so he likely has a slot here unless the controversy over the movie boils over to a breaking point.
For wildcards, look anywhere from Bridge of Spies (although the screenplay is arguably its weakest element) to Suffragette (again, probably the low point of the movie), to Son of Saul, which could sneak in to this and other categories if it gets enough people to see it. Here are our updated Best Original Screenplay power rankings.