Saturday, November 05, 2005

Hoskins whoever

Oscar Updates November

And the award for 'category in which almost anything could still happen' goes to... BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR. Supporting categories always clear up late (because there's, well, hundreds of possibilities as each year begins). Any man who can gain early traction with the NBR or NYFCC will be helped greatly in the hunt. With Jarhead proving less of a "performance" piece than expected, it got even more confusing this weekend.

Read the rest -- now updated with new text and trivia-- and marvel at how cloudy the whole thing looks. This is the category where the best campaign strategies (not to mention overall picture heat) can really work wonders.


Anonymous said...

So true.
I probably would have Rush as a solid #2 simply because I suspect that as he's the only real name in the cast familiar to awards, he'd probably be offered a good role. And as you said, awards-giving bodies worship him. But still, it's perfectly conceivable that he could miss.

LGF HAS to focus the campaign on Dillon and do so soon. His turn does have the makings of a potential nominee but it's not like a McKellen in LOTR/Cruise in Magnolia sort of thing where "best in show" is so easily pinned down.
Currently, they are listing seven (!) supporting actor candidates on the FYC ads. You stop reading halfway through.
As it is, I think Giamatti is way ahead of him in the race for a "summer slot" because his snubs are fresher in AMPAS' mind, his role is traditional fodder and his studio is way.

I think Siddig is a interesting possibility and I give you kudos for tossing him in there.

And while I wouldn't predict Hurt, I do think he's more possible than many people realize. In fact, if the category remains as "all over the place" to the end as it is now, I could easily see him getting in even if he misses all the major precursor citations.

I also think Broderick should be higher and Beach ought to at least be listed. I realize you have virtually no faith in the film but the latter has the sort of scene stealing role that something like SAG could eat up while the former's career has lasted longer than it's had any right to and he has the sort of co-lead role this category loves.
They may end up like Lane and Azaria in The Birdcage though I do feel they'll at least be in the "top twenty", if not top ten.

It's a shame The New World is such a mystery. Plummer "looks" like he ought to have a good role but...who knows?

Your updates are addictive and I'm addicted to responding to them.

Anonymous said...

Hey! Two days ago (so before I read your updated Oscar predix fyi) I did my own way-too-early-to-tell Oscar predictions over on my blog.

Supporting Actor is the oddest category this year at the moment. I write on my blog that it's odd because there are no roles that scream out as being Oscar-y roles.

Things that I'm feeling could very well go on and get nominated:

Keira Knightley (P&P) - I had her down before you did OKAY!!lol
Gwyneth Paltrow (Proof)
Squid & the Whale (Screenplay)


Sandra Bullock (Crash) - I have her as the alternate right now. I'm not sure why. But... i dunno. I'm feeling something. It'll (most likely) never eventuate into anything, but what's the fun in being boring?

It still hurts to see what you write about Geoffrey Rush. A frowny face does not do it justice... but i'll do one anyway :(


John T said...

First off-where are you getting these pictures from Brokeback Mountain? I've never seen the new ones you have up of Heath and Jake in the Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor pages.

Now, onto the Supporting Actor category-Hoskins appears lockish at this point, though I don't think he'll have the trophy in the end (too small, too British, too soon after Jim Broadbent's win).

I'd also say Rush is a guarantee-too big of film, too big of an actor, and you know that Spielberg will push it.

I'm going to go for hoping and say Jake makes it as well (Brokeback storms in with three Oscar nods). Dillon will also be included (Crash has to score somewhere).

And for the fifth slot, I'll go with Plummer (legend, and why not?) Siddig is a good prediction, though. I can't imagine Hurt making it, if only because Harris has a bigger part and is an Academy player.

Finally, one question-why is no one mentioning Donald Sutherland for Pride and Prejudice? Is it only about Keira at this point, or could he possibly make it (particularly in a field this wide)? He's a legend, well known across the film community, and has never been nominated.

Anonymous said...

John, Donald Sutherland's role in P&P isn't much. He's decent I suppose, but nothing more than usual.

And I don't particularly like Donald Sutherland (too "passive" for me)

I would say that outside of Keira Knightley, the only one who could squeeze in would be Brenda Blethyn, but i doubt that could happen. Although I'm a fan of Blethyn, she is getting good marks from people who do not like her. So... i dunno. I don't think it'll happen, but i suppose it could... er, this is going on too long with the exact same thing.


Anonymous said...

Alexander Siddig was in Star Trek, fwiw.

adam k. said...

I kind of don't want Jake to make it just cause it would probably amount to fraud (it's a romantic drama and he is the other lead... it already smacks of Scarlett in LiT). Plus it's kind of homophobic to view the "bottom" as a supporting player in the relationship (ha.), even though it's really just a best-chance category-positioning thing. But I guess I'll wait and see if the fraud is truly heinous or more of an "eh, I guess it WAS really more about Heath" type situation.
Really, though, with Jarhead less of a player now, this is looking to be Jake's big film of the year, so I think his chances have improved, and with the wide field, his could make it in on name and frontrunner film cred alone... I just don't want him in on fraud, because that would taint the whole movie for me.

Anonymous said...

I also think Jake Gyllenhaal will make the shortlist.

I think that AMPAS would nominate both if the love for the film is as strong as I think it will be. You can't not nominate Jake, when he is arguably the better actor.

adam k. said...

Well apparently Heath's performance is more impressive. But that might just be because his role is bigger.


Gerard -lgf is listing a bunch of people but they're already working Dillon to. The upcoming Gotham tribute can't be a coincidence.

Glenn -if it means anything to you I liked Rush a lot in Elizabeth. fwiw.

John -I get photos wherever I can find them. usually google image searches. And HURT vs. HARRIS: it's easy to see who the winner is inn regards to people's reactions to the film. And also easy to forget that Hurt IS an academy player as well. 3 consecutive nominations and a win in the 80s. That's very Renee Zellweger-ish in the 2000s. So, they do like him. a lot. Or at least they used to.

Adam -at least its not a Training Day or Collateral thing. I mean it's not like Jake has the bigger role and is going supporting. Even in the short story, Heath's character gets more time. So even if its fraud it's not embarrassing fraud like Hawke or Foxx who both had larger roles than the men that were considered "lead"

Joe R. said...

Yeah, not speaking for the film, but in Proulx's short story, Jake's character is pretty clearly secondary to Heath's - very much a subject/object sort of thing.

Anonymous said...

Without having seen the movie, and based more on momentum than performance quality, I think Gyllenhaal getting nominated for supporting actor seems more and more likely.

A Globe nod in this category will set the stage. And the Globes could easily do it... after all they nominated Quaid for playing gay in FFH and even gave it to pretty boy Pitt once. (Gyllenhaal is a pretty boy playing gay, you do the math.)

Jake's strong performance in Jarhead coupled with Foxx and Sarsgaard being dropped from contention also helps him here. And I thought he had some very good moments in Proof as well.

I like your Siddig suggestion. This category seems weak so there are bound to be surprises. Perhaps even Sanada in White Countess could make it in if the film gains steam in the late innings. (Do I sound like a broken record?)

Basically I see Hoskins, Gyllenhaal, someone or two from Munich and a wild card or two.

tim r said...

It's bonkers, they're both leads. And Ledger's part really isn't that much bigger - it's just that he's been getting the better reviews. This kind of bullshit gets thrown up year after year - but Jake does have a much bigger chance of being nommed (or even winning) for supporting, so I suppose you can see where they're coming from strategy-wise.

Just out of interest, when was the last time two leads duked it out for the same movie and one of them actually won? Amadeus?

You're so right about Rush, the big old ham.

John T said...

Yeah, I believe Abraham/Hulce in 1984 was the last time in a lead category that happened. For the others (correct me if I'm wrong, but):

Actress-Winger/MacLaine (1983)
S. Actor-Nicholson/Lithgow (1983)
S. Actress-Zeta-Jones/Latifah (2002)

Anonymous said...

Supporting Actor, 1991 - Keitel and Kingsley we both nominated for Bugsy.

Joe R. said...

Yeah, but they both lost to Jack Pallance.

Anonymous said...

some I can remember now:

Tatum O'Neal over Madeline Kahn (73)
Dianne Wiest over Jennifer Tilly (94)
Timothy Hutton over Judd Hirsch (80)
Jason Robards over Maximilian Schell (77)
Robert de Niro over Michael V. Gazzo and Lee Strasberg (74)
Meryl Streep over Jane Alexander (79)
Ben Johnson and Cloris Leachman over Jeff Bridges and Ellen Burstyn (71)
Maximilian Schell over Spencer Tracy (61)
Hattie McDaniel over De Havilland (39)
Peter Finch over William Holden (76)
Teresa Wright over Dame May Whitty (42)


adam k. said...

The person asked about leads, though, it's much rarer with leads. Doesn't happen often.

I really don't want Jake to be nommed if it's a lead. Because if this were a hetero love story, of course he'd be put in the other lead category. It's just annoying. Tim R, have you seen the film? Is that what you're basing your rant on? I really hope it's not fraud. I think Nathaniel may be letting his rose-colored view of the film get in the way of his judgment re: the possibly severity of the fraud, which I am prone to do also, but... argh. Wouldn't it be amazing if they were both nominated for lead?
I do see him getting in, though. The globes may not buy it (though they recently bought Jamie Foxx, so who knows) but the SAGs will probably pick up the slack. Ah well.

Anonymous said...

I have seen Brokeback and if I HAD to make a choice, I'd probably acknowledge Gyllenhaal as a co-lead.
But it is one of those instances where there is some grey area- not like a Lost in Translation, Collateral or Training Day (where the film was *strictly* about the relationship between the leads).
More of a Pollock, if you know what I mean. It's Ledger's story first and foremost but the love story is *the* major theme therein, though it ends on Ledger and he does definately have more screentime throughout.

adam k. said...

Well if it's a Pollock/Beautiful Mind thing, then I can forgive it. Those were love stories centered around one of the two characters. I do hope that he makes it in if a real case can be made for supporting. Hey, the more Brokeback noms, the better.

As for Hurt/Harris... I have not seen aHoV, but it strikes me as kind of a Marcia Gay Harden/Laura Linney in Mystic River situation. One role is bigger, the other role is juicier... and do we remember how that turned out?

Anonymous said...

But I think we all know what the most completely bonkers Supporting campaign was... Naomi Watts for Mulholland Drive. Like... wtf?

I think the Gyllenhaal thing could actually come to pass. He does have Hollywood blood afterall, and they like that, no?

And it's not homophobic to sell Gyllenhaal as the supporting player. I mean, clearly he's the co-lead but it just makes more Oscar playing sense to do it that way.

Although, now that Jarhead has started to fall away, maybe we'll see Gyllenhaal moved up to Lead. Who knows.