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

Narrowing it Down to Three.

Something that became obvious right after the nominations came out was that The Martian was out of it, because it missed on a Best Director nomination. It could have gone the Argo way and risen on the strength of that snub, but Hollywood does not have the same sympathy for an elderly for-hire director as it does for a young pretty boy superstar, I suppose. The other two that missed Director, Brooklyn and Bridge of Spies, were similarly out of it and made no noise the rest of the season.

Room had a surprisingly strong showing, scoring key writing, directing, and acting nods, but the lack of a single nomination by precursor guilds (other than the surefire win for its star, Brie Larson), has kept all of us far away from predicting that it can make any noise at the Oscars. More on that later.

It was then down to four films — Spotlight, The Big Short, The Revenant, and Mad Max. The first and last of these were critical and pundit darlings. But, as happens often with the Oscar race — indeed as it happened just last year — there is such a thing as your head in your ass. Prognosticators and critics alike, in love with, for example, Mad Max, have been picking it to win Directing and a slew of technical races at the Oscars. Yet its defeat at the Critics’ Choice, the DGA, and BAFTA to other movies, has or should put those theories to rest. Indeed, Mad Max is arguably struggling to maintain its lead in technical races where The Revenant is coming on strong.

So, the PGA went to The Big Short, the SAG gave Spotlight some life, and the DGA, and, later, BAFTA went for The Revenant.

And then there were three.

Why Each Can and Can’t Win

Year in and year out you hear different theories by different prognosticators about why this or that movie can or cannot win Best Picture. Some rely on past statistics, some rely on what they hear from voters, some go by gut. I advocate a combination of the three, but I always fall back on a simple principle: there is an “Academy type” of movie. The movie has to have some sort of snob or prestige factor at the absolute minimum. It has to have some sort of punch to it, whether intellectual or emotional (but most of the time it’s the latter). And it’s better if it makes them feel smart or like they’re good people.

Factor One: The Oscar-Type Movie.

Two years ago, the semi-split among the guilds had some people, fans, mostly, still predicting Gravity for Best Picture. I did not buy it, and was of course correct. Last year, the inability of critics to let go of their darling, Boyhood, kept some of them seeing a win for Birdman despite its sweep of the guilds.

This year, to be sure, is harder. But I have to argue against the notion that either of two darlings is going to win: Mad Max does not have a chance and Spotlight is likely out of it too. A SAG win is worth only a 50/50 Best Picture chance. That’s all that Spotlight has. Spotlight meets two of those three criteria: it has a prestige/snob factor and it makes them feel good about themselves if they reward the courageous reporters. But it’s missing (in the views of the industry, not mine) that strong emotional punch. The movie is great because it’s subtle, subdued, and understated. Its greatness as a movie is its weakness as a Best Picture contender. So be it. Spotlight will not have to live up to that mark of death that the “Best Picture” label smears a movie with. And Mad Max, despite its adoration by critics, is simply too easy to see as a popcorn movie. It lacks both the emotional punch and the “feel smart” factor, even if it arguably has the prestige/snob element because of its amazing craft.

Continued:       1       2       3       4