Oscar Surprises Await: Will ‘Juror No. 2’ Shock the Nominations?

by

In “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,” as Frodo utters after destroying the One Ring, perched upon a rock amidst flowing rivers of molten rock, he simply says: Mission accomplished.

Following two extensions due to the destructive wildfires in Los Angeles, the nomination phase for the 97th Academy Awards has now ended. Although the Producers Guild of America, Writers Guild of America, and other important associations have given some hints about potential Oscar winners this year, one fact remains unchanged: unexpected outcomes are nearly inevitable when it comes to the Academy.

Predicting who will win at the Oscars has traditionally been a meticulous process for experienced prognosticators, involving intricate calculations, passionate discussions, and clandestine talks with Academy members. This year, however, these secretive chats have shifted in tone due to the wildfires that ravaged parts of Los Angeles. Many pundits held back from reaching out, but surprisingly, it was the voters who reached out first, expressing concern for the journalists and their families – a heartwarming gesture showing that despite Hollywood’s glamour, human compassion remains a priority.

After the initial friendliness, our discussions inevitably veered towards the topic of films, providing a refreshing escape from the ongoing turbulence. For voters, chatting about movies served as a comfort during difficult times. It was during these interactions that the contours of this year’s competition gradually emerged. From apparent favorites for Best Picture to surprising omissions, here are seven crucial observations gleaned from our talks with Academy members, along with some intriguing queries as we prepare for the announcement of nominations on January 23rd.

Did voters finish “The Brutalist?”

Brady Corbet’s movie “The Brutalist” is proving to be a significant competitor in this year’s awards, boosted by its Golden Globe victory. However, some voters have confessed that they either didn’t watch it completely or didn’t finish it, attributing this to its lengthy running time and challenging content. Despite this, the film is unlikely to see its chances for nominations diminished – many believe it will comfortably secure at least eight – but this could be the reason why supporting actress nominee Felicity Jones, whose crucial role doesn’t emerge until the second part of the movie, hasn’t garnered more attention.

Golden Globe wins still matter.

Despite some questioning whether the Globes still matter, winning at this ceremony certainly has an impact. Some viewers have admitted that the Globes affect their viewing choices, causing films like “I’m Still Here” with Fernanda Torres and “A Real Pain” starring Kieran Culkin to gain more attention. At the same time, notable competitors such as Jacques Audiard’s “Emilia Pérez” and Edward Berger’s “Conclave” were elevated to ‘must-watch’ status due to their wins in certain categories. For films that are on the brink of being noticed by voters, that recognition can be crucial, potentially deciding whether they receive a nomination or not.

Critics and Audiences ≠ Academy Voters

This year, there seems to be a significant gap between what critics, viewers, and Academy members favor. For example, films that have been critically acclaimed such as “Nickel Boys” by RaMell Ross and “Hard Truths” by Mike Leigh have failed to generate the same level of excitement among voters. Conversely, “Emilia Pérez,” a film with moderate Rotten Tomatoes ratings (76% from critics, 40% from audiences), is predicted to be a front-runner, potentially setting a record as the most nominated non-English language film in Oscar history.

In much the same way, James Mangold’s Bob Dylan biopic “A Complete Unknown,” which has garnered 79% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, has sparked fervent backing among Academy members, even though it received a mixed response elsewhere. This demonstrates that Academy voters often act independently, influenced more by personal preferences, nostalgia, and a film’s emotional impact rather than relying solely on external evaluations.

The Curious Case of “Category Fraud” and a Possible Acting Switch

During this year’s awards season, the term ‘category fraud’ has been frequently used, with both social media and voters questioning the categorization of certain lead performances as supporting roles to boost their chances of winning awards. For instance, performances such as Zoe Saldaña in ‘Emilia Pérez’, Kieran Culkin in ‘A Real Pain’, and Ariana Grande in ‘Wicked’ have been discussed as being marketed as supporting roles despite having substantial screen time.

One branch representative commented, “I admire her, but it’s undeniable that she’s the main actress,” in reference to Saldaña. Such a situation might result in unforeseen results, divided votes, or shocking rankings, mirroring past Oscar surprises.

OR

One branch member stated, “I adore her, but it can’t be denied that she’s the star,” speaking of Saldaña. This setup could potentially lead to unexpected consequences, split decisions, or startling placements, reminiscent of past Oscar upsets.

This prompts me to offer a few hypothetical situations (still not a forecast…for now) regarding how nominations could appear on the day they are announced. Please be patient, as I’m more of a wordsmith than a mathematician.

For Emilia Perez, it’s a typical day, while Karla Sofia Gascon makes history by being the first openly transgender actor nominated for a leading role. Meanwhile, Saldaña maintains her strong position as a top contender in the supporting category.

But what if there was a twist?

Could we witness a scenario similar to that of Kate Winslet’s role in “The Reader,” where Zoe Saldaña’s performance is given equal importance as her co-star’s, much like Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon were recognized together for their roles in “Thelma & Louise” back in 1991?

If Gascon is not included on the list at all, Saldaña stands solo as the film’s supporting actress nominee. As per Academy regulations, when a performance ranks among the top five in both lead and supporting categories for the same role, the category with more votes decides the nomination. Given the fierce competition in the best actress category, it will be intriguing to observe how the votes are divided among all the competitors.

The last possibility, remarkably similar to the “Judas and the Black Messiah” (2021) surprise, appears to be the most implausible yet plausible of all these speculations. In this case, we might see a repeat where our lead actor LaKieth Stanfield, who had been vigorously campaigning all season, ends up in the supporting role alongside his eventual Oscar-winning co-star Daniel Kaluuya. I previously explained why such an occurrence could take place following the 2021 nominations.

During a recent chat with a fellow film enthusiast from the Actors’ Guild, I enquired about their voting preference for District Attorney Gascón. Their response was: “Absolutely! I’m backing him, if you will.

Upon learning that Gascón was ahead while Saldaña was in a supportive role, their initial reaction was surprise, exclaiming “Supporting?!” It’s unclear where they eventually cast their votes, but this revelation raised a possible red flag about the race’s outcome. This development could potentially disrupt the competition and possibly eliminate other candidates. I find it hard to grasp this scenario entirely.

Will women and POC get shut out of best director?

The category of top directors has historically been tough for women and minority filmmakers to penetrate, and this year is proving no exception. While films like “Wicked” by Jon M. Chu, “Nickel Boys” by RaMell Ross, “The Substance” by Coralie Fargeat, and “All We Imagine as Light” by Payal Kapadia have received critical praise, they are not seen as frontrunners. Instead, Jacques Audiard, Brady Corbet, Edward Berger, and Sean Baker appear to be strong contenders. The remaining spot could go to a more traditional choice like James Mangold or Denis Villeneuve, or it might be given to a wildcard candidate.

Could Clint Eastwood’s “Juror No. 2” pull off the ultimate shocker?

Surprisingly, Clint Eastwood’s “Juror No. 2” is generating more buzz than anticipated among voters, and could realistically compete for the final Best Picture nomination we’re all trying to predict. This film, said to be Eastwood’s swan song, has been receiving praise from producers and directors, many of whom view their vote as a tribute to the esteemed filmmaker and a snub to Warner Bros, who gave it a limited release. If it were to be nominated, that would be astonishing; just being considered would be significant enough. Moreover, it could be the only nomination for the movie, which would make history since “The Ox-Bow Incident” (1943) was the last film to secure a single Best Picture nomination. Given its longshot status, it might just be crazy enough to work out.

Jamie Lee Curtis is the best Oscar campaigner working today.

In a world where there’s an award for the Best Campaigner, Jamie Lee Curtis would undoubtedly sweep it away. This seasoned actress clinched her first Oscar with “Everything Everywhere All at Once” and has been passionately advocating for her fellow actor, Pamela Anderson, and their movie, “The Last Showgirl.” Her authentic excitement and unwavering support have caught the eye of voters who admire her charm. With SAG and BAFTA nominations already under her belt, Curtis is poised to secure another Oscar nomination. A smart move for a studio would be to cast her in their assumed best picture frontrunner. She’s the one who can take it across the finish line for you.

Voters like “Challengers,” but are there enough of them?

Luca Guadagnino’s heated tennis movie “Challengers,” featuring Zendaya, has been gradually gathering a fervent fanbase among viewers. The mix of sports and sexual tension in the film appears to have struck a chord with younger members of the Academy. However, after being overlooked by BAFTA, PGA, and SAG, its prospects for recognition are unclear. It seems to have a good chance in categories like original screenplay and score (having won at the Globes), and perhaps even best picture, but it’s hard to predict with certainty.

Voters have been for “feel good” movies to watch.

Reflecting on these discussions, it’s evident that moviegoers are yearning for films that bring a spark of joy, a momentary escape, and an uplifting spirit. With the constant stream of distressing news about the wildfires, particularly affecting those in L.A., many who managed to find the willpower to watch a few more movies were drawn towards films they considered as ‘comfort viewing.’ This ranged from the nostalgic charm of “A Complete Unknown” set during the folk era, to the vibrant melodies of the visually striking “Wicked.

My hypothesis is that the emotional impact might significantly influence certain global aspects. Quite a few of the finalists were marked as “depressing” by various viewers. Interestingly, this could sway a movie like “The Seed of the Sacred Fig,” a German production that clocks in at 2 hours and 40 minutes and is undeniably grim (yet masterful), potentially lowering its appeal for voters when they were choosing their picks.

Final predictions will drop next week. Until then, happy predicting.

Read More

2025-01-18 04:17