Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Spirit Awards. What They Do and Don't Say About Oscar.

Now that I've had a day to think over the Spirit Awards (nominee discussion) and what they reveal and obscure about the Oscar race, here's a deeper look for my Tribeca Film column.

Eligible "Best Feature" Snubs
Blue Valentine, Get Low, Somewhere, Rabbit Hole

Not eligible for "Best Feature" or Acting Prizes
The King's Speech,
I Am Love, Another Year, Animal KingdomNot eligible for anything
Toy Story 3, The Social Network, True Grit, The Town, Etc...

Remember last year when Precious: Based on the Novel “Push” by Sapphire swept the Oscars, becoming the first... oh, no, wait, that didn't happen at all. That was the Film Independent Spirit Awards. They take place the day before the Oscars each year. And they take place in a tent. We don't know the square footage, but it’s safe to say that it’s got nothing on the Kodak Theater. 

Generally speaking, the Spirit Awards are a looser, rowdier event. You can even wear jeans. As a group, they’re much more likely to honor African-American abuse dramas (Precious) or intimate character studies of "broken down pieces of meat" (The Wrestler) or teen pregnancy comedies (Juno) than the mainstream Academy is. In fact, in their entire 25-year shared history with the Oscars, the “Best Feature” and “Best Picture” prizes have only gone to the same film once. the rest in my weekly Tribeca Film column.


Robert Hamer said...

"In fact, in their entire 25-year shared history with the Oscars, the “Best Feature” and “Best Picture” prizes have only gone to the same film once."

And that was all the way back in 1987 when Platoon won! Pretty crazy when you think about it...

Joe Reid said...

But does anybody really think that the Spirit noms predict the Oscar WINNER? I think what people glean from these nominations is pretty appropriate: a Spirit nomination is a boost -- in visibility and chatter, if nothing else -- on the road to an Oscar nomination. I'm not sure anybody's calling Winter's Bone for the win right now. (If they are, then yeah, they shouldn't be.)


no i'm not saying they are. But you have to admit that soon as any of these nominations come out people title way too far in the direction that just happened. So many of the important films were not eligible for these prizes.

Philip said...

Is it sad that when I read at the bottom the date of the Oscar nominations announcement, I shuddered because I'm that much of an Oscar obsessed person...? Hahah, sad.


Philip -- that's not sad, that's beautiful. :)

Lara said...

It has certainly been discussed before but can somebody please explain why Annette Bening is hogging ALL the awards attention and Julianne Moore none?

Having finally seen TKAA I'd say that their performances are equal though I personally find Julianne's a bit better and the story seems to centre more around her character. As for being overdue, wouldn't this be more applicable to Julianne with four noms compared to Bening's three?

And now I'm probably showing my bias ;-), but apart from Drifters which I haven't seen and therefore can't comment Bening rightfully didn't win the Oscar in 1999 and 2004 since there were better performances in both years. Moore on the other hand easily deserved to win in 1997 and 2002. So why all this overdue talk about Bening and none for Moore?


Lara -- i'm guessing there's more "overdue" buzz for Bening simply because she has gotten closer to a win before than Moore. And in some ways she's more "Hollywood" (and in the end it's an small town with a global playing field, right?) marrying into film royalty and living in California.

I agree that Moore should have 2 Oscars by now but she's never been the frontrunner when nominated. Even in 1997 when she ran circles around her competitors, the race was between Stuart & Basinger. Even in 2002 she was shoved into 3rd late in the game as it became a war between Kidman & Zellweger. I'm assuming Bening has been runner up for the win in at least 2 of her 3 races. Maybe all 3.