New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

It is very tempting, when looking at the artistic and technical categories, to overthink things, second guess yourself, and end up talking yourself out of the answer that makes the most sense. Over the years I have convinced myself that Chicago was not going to win Best Art Direction, that Return of the King was not going to win Best Film Editing, and that Marie Antoinette was not going to win Best Costumes. It is important in these categories, more than any others, to just go with what feels right.

Remember that the people who actually do these things for a living, the production designers, the directors of photography, the costume designers, and the film editors, make up only a small percentage of the people who vote on these awards. The majority of voters don't know anything about the technical aspects of these fields, they don't know what kind of work goes into costuming hundreds of extras, or setting up the perfect shot that has to travel through a battlefield while avoiding the craft services table, or staying up for 20 straight hours to re-edit a scene so that the music starts swelling at exactly the right moment.

All they know is what looks good. What looks cool and impressive and beautiful. That is why Pan's Labyrinth beat Children of Men for Best Cinematography, or why Return of the King beat City of God for Best Film Editing, or why between 2006 and 2009, the award for Best Costumes went to the film with the prettiest dresses every time. When it comes to these four categories there is no secret underlying method to how Academy members vote. They like what they like. Sometimes what they like is unconventional, like when There Will be Blood won Best Cinematography, or when The Bourne Ultimatum won Best Film Editing, but even in those cases the axiom still holds true. They like what they like.

Best Art Direction

“Spectacular, Spectacular” declares Harold Zidler during a scene in Moulin Rouge! in which he is trying to impress his producer. He might have been talking about Oscar voters, though, and he would have been right, since Moulin Rouge! won both Best Art Direction and Best Costumes. The winners in this category are all about spectacle, being big and grandiose. Lots of sets, lots of locations, always something either from the past or from a fantasy world. So the question you have to ask yourself is not which film has the most detailed or intricate sets, but which one has the biggest. The most spectacular.

When you phrase it like that, one film seems to be the clear frontrunner. Hugo not only recreates the world of 1930s Paris, it also recreates the lavish sets that George Mellies used in his films. There are so many different impressive sets, from the train station to inside the clock, to the library to the theater. The last time Scorsese made a film about a filmmaker it was The Aviator, which also won Best Art Direction. Yes, The Artist is definitely a threat in this category, but this is one case where being in black and white could hurt it. While creating sets designed to be photographed in black and white is a challenge, it is not the kind that non-professionals would know anything about. All they know is that it doesn't stand out as much. Its Best Picture frontrunner status will also not be much help, since as many Best Picture winners have lost this category in the last decade (Gladiator and The King's Speech) as have won (Chicago and Return of the King.

Will Win: Hugo
Might Win: The Artist
Dark Horse: War Horse

Continued:       1       2       3