After a month and a half of buzz, conflicting awards results and Hollywood gamesmanship (some that made the bizarre Best Original Song nominee "Alone Yet Not Alone" a nominee yet not a nominee), yes, the Oscars are finally happening this Sunday night.
Itâ€™s one of the closest races in years â€“ maybe since "Crash" and "Brokeback Mountain" in 2005 â€“ so thereâ€™s actual drama going into the evening (other than the usual question of who will degrade E!â€™s Mani-Cam the best).
So as a little refresher for your Oscar parties and betting pools, hereâ€™s a quick guide to the big nominees (my picks are coming Sunday), listing off why or why not each movie has a chance â€“ and a question to either start conversation or drive your friends away with.Â
Why it will win: I mean â€¦ it needs to win, right? Itâ€™d be like "Schindlerâ€™s List" losing to "The Fugitive." Ever since its premiere at Telluride, Steve McQueenâ€™s painfully powerful third feature has been pegged as the frontrunner. Itâ€™s a movie that certainly feels important (itâ€™s now apparently being used in some schools), something the Academy loves.
Putting aside things like social importance and merit, itâ€™s just a brilliant piece of art, one thatâ€™s certainly challenging and punishing but also filled with beauty and humanity. It pushes hard, but McQueen and screenwriter John Ridley find just how hard to push without making the film an exercise in endurance. Â
Why it wonâ€™t win: Nobody loves "12 Years a Slave." People respect it, admire it and find it "important," but it feels like the film that you should put your vote down for, but maybe not want to. The head says to vote for "12 Years a Slave," but the heart â€¦ ?
Interesting/annoying party question: "Without using the words â€˜important,' â€˜necessary' or 'What are you; a racist?' explain why '12 Years a Slaveâ€™ is the best movie of the year?"
Why it will win: Consider it the anti-"12 Years." Yeah, itâ€™s messy and sloppy. But itâ€™s so much fun, filled with contagious energy and the kind of big performances the Oscars love to put their arms around. If McQueenâ€™s film is a demanding college professor who grades harshly and teaches to the bell, "American Hustle" is the fun, laid-back college professor who doesnâ€™t take attendance, makes pop culture references in his lectures and might even go out to the bars with the class. Yeah, youâ€™ll probably appreciate the former more later on in life, but right now?Â
Why it wonâ€™t win: Eventually, even the most ecstatic highs have to come down. After the few weeks of buzz that followed its initial release, the "American Hustle" excitement has tampered down by a loud chorus of "â€¦ so thatâ€™s it?"
Plus, do the Oscar voters want to be on the wrong side of history? Do they want to be the people who passed on "12 Years a Slave" for fluff? Do they want every post-Oscar talk to reference how the Academy is still overwhelmingly white? Because some will likely make that argument.
Interesting/annoying party question: "So when is it revealed that Martin Scorsese directed this the whole time?" "Did you hear how the real-life story ended for Jennifer Lawrenceâ€™s character?"
Why it will win: Itâ€™s a crackerjack action movie, fueled by a great lead performance by a beloved actor and a script thatâ€™s far smarter and more humanist than anyone couldâ€™ve expected. Plus, recent wins for Barkhad Abdi and screenwriter Billy Ray at the BAFTAS and Writers Guild Awards respectively â€“ plus a nomination for Best Editing, typically an area of favorites â€“ imply a quietly powerful following.
Why it wonâ€™t win: From the buzz, Greengrassâ€™ film seems to be everyoneâ€™s second or third choice. In a year of movies with enormous historical ("12 Years"), cinematic ("Gravity") and emotional ("American Hustle") potency, "Captain Phillips" might be left out at sea.
Interesting/annoying party question: "How does Abdi get nominated but not the man who played Captain Phillips himself? Who do you kick out of the Best Actor race to put in Tom Hanks?"
Why it will win: Well, that was unexpected â€¦ and also kind of expected. The story of Ron Woodruff is everything the Academy loves, mainly physically demanding performances and a story based on true events that takes on a social relevant subject with a feel-good aftertaste. Yet itâ€™s managed to play dark horse and underdog this whole time. Itâ€™s Oscar bait that doesnâ€™t feel like Oscar bait, and I donâ€™t know much about fishing, but that seems like a good strategy.
Why it wonâ€™t win: Itâ€™s still a dark horse, one with a newly found groundswell of perfectly timed backlash. Bigger though, there are too many competitors ahead of "Dallas Buyers Club." Instead, itâ€™ll reap its rewards in the acting categories, with Leto almost a lock for Best Supporting Actor and the McConaissance narrative too tempting to leave unrecognized.
Interesting/annoying party question: "Does the reality of Woodruffâ€™s story Ââ€“ that associates say he wasnâ€™t a homophobe that he was possibly openly bisexual Ââ€“ make you think of the movie differently? Also: Should they have cast an actual transgender actor for Rayon?"
Why it will win: As they remind us every year in seemingly endless montages, the Academy is dedicated to the wonder of the movies and the big screen. And has there been a better pure cinematic experience in recent note than "Gravity"? Plus, a tie for Best Picture at the Producers Guild Awards with "12 Years" shows itâ€™s actually a contender, the happy medium between the sloppy fun of "American Hustle" and the depressing art of "12 Years."
Why it wonâ€™t win: It's this year's "Life of Pi." "Gravity" will clean up in the technical categories â€“ including director for CuarÃ³n. But Best Picture? Seems like a reach, especially since sci-fi doesnâ€™t traditionally do well around awards season.
Interesting/annoying party question: "Are the tracking shots and cinematography as impressive knowing that so much of it was done in a computer?
Why it will win: There is a strong following (including myself) of people who love "Her." Itâ€™s original, beautifully shot, elegantly performed and filled with emotional depth that hits the heart. And its use of technology is almost unnervingly relevant.
Why it wonâ€™t win: Remember that part where I said the Academy is overwhelmingly white? Well, theyâ€™re also overwhelmingly old. This is the same group of people who overlooked "The Social Network," an incredibly acute portrait of todayâ€™s techno-obsessed society (and just a great movie period), in favor of a solid BBC movie. "Her" has its devoted followers, just nowhere near enough. The fact it merely got nominated is its victory (and maybe a Best Original Screenplay win if itâ€™s lucky).
Interesting/annoying party question: "Wouldnâ€™t it have been great if Scarlett Johansson was nominated?"
Why it will win: Frankly, itâ€™s hard to come up with reasons why it could win Sunday night. It certainly has fans, and it is a lovely, charming movie. Plus, it has a Best Director nomination, which means thereâ€™s certainly a strong level of respect being sent its way.
Why it wonâ€™t win: Too small. Too low-key. Too modest. Too light. Too many other nominees going more aggressively for the prize. Other than that, I like its chances.
Interesting/annoying party talking point: "Do you think Alexander Payne is condescending to Midwesternites?"
Why it will win: Itâ€™s been a surprising road for the little Judi Dench movie that could (though maybe not all that surprising since it comes fueled by notorious awards season guru Harvey Weinstein). "Philomena" is a modest movie, but itâ€™s surprisingly effective, and itâ€™s just the kind of story that could continue to win over the graying hearts of the Academy.
Why it wonâ€™t win: Itâ€™s so modest and tiny that even Harvey wasnâ€™t expecting "Philomena" to make it this far (he had his bets on "August: Osage County" â€¦ womp womp). "Philomena" is nice and sweet, but thereâ€™s nothing about it that grabs the audience, much less votes from other, bigger, sexier nominees.
Interesting/annoying party talking point: "How much does your grandma love this movie?" "Since this is seemingly the obvious ninth-best Best Pic nominee, who do you put in its place instead?"
"The Wolf of Wall Street"
Why it will win: You can never count Scorsese out, especially when "Wolf of Wall Street" is his biggest, boldest, brazen movie in years, if not decades. His tale of Wall Street coke, hookers, greed, more coke, more hookers, corruption and one last snort of coke (probably off a hooker) definitely has its fans â€“ myself included â€“ who find the film not only outrageously funny but outrageously biting as well. Plus, between this and "Django Unchained" last year, Unhinged Leo is easily my favorite Leo.
Why it wonâ€™t win: For as many fans as "Wolf" has, it has just as many detractors who find it long, repulsively overindulgent and morally repellent. An early Academy screening got a lot of publicity when some members brought their issues to Marty himself. Angrily. Thatâ€™s a bad sign, especially since Scorsese is one of the most respected people in the industry.
Most harmful, however, is that "Wolf" is a movie with edge and an angry edge at that. And simply put, edgy movies donâ€™t win Best Picture. Just ask "Zero Dark Thirty," "Do the Right Thing" â€¦ you get the point.
Interesting/annoying party talking point: "Does â€˜Wolf of Wall Streetâ€™ indict or condone Jordan Belfortâ€™s behavior (takes a swig of bleach)? Also: Do you think a movie like â€˜Taxi Driverâ€™ could win Best Picture today?"
No Talkbacks for this article.
Post your comment/review now
Disclaimer: Please note that Facebook comments are posted through Facebook and cannot be approved, edited or declined by OnMilwaukee.com. The opinions expressed in Facebook comments do not necessarily reflect those of OnMilwaukee.com or its staff.
Recent Articles & Blogs by Matt Mueller
Published Feb. 6, 2016
Filmmaker Brian Oakes remembers James Foley well, growing up together as friends and remaining tightly knit all the way until Jim's abrupt death. And it's that James Foley - his life, not his death - that Oakes hopes to pay tribute to with "Jim: The James Foley Story."
Published Feb. 5, 2016
OnMilwaukee recently caught up with Milwaukee-born animator Owen Klatte to talk about the making of "Anomalisa," the process behind turning puppets into people, stop-motion sex and the movie's Oscar odds against "Inside Out."
Published Feb. 4, 2016
Are you exhausted by Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the media hullabaloo constantly around it? Do you have about ten free seconds of time to waste? Then you might just love TrumpDonald.org.
Published Feb. 4, 2016
Want to know why you crave those cheese curds? According to a recent study from researchers at the University of Michigan, cheese triggers the same part of the brain as several hard drugs do.
Published Feb. 4, 2016
The Milwaukee Brewers are bringing back their postgame concert series with two performances set for the 2016 season: pop star Andy Grammer and country performer Kip Moore.
Published Feb. 2, 2016
By the time I landed in Park City, Utah Friday for the final days of the Sundance Film Festival, most of the party was dying down. However, the important parts - the movies - were very much still in action. Here are the best and worst of what I saw.
Published Jan. 29, 2016
As we speak, my bucket list is in the process of becoming one entry shorter. I am currently on a plane to Utah, about to attend my first ever Sundance Film Festival. And even though this year's festival is reaching its end, the buzz is still high.
Published Jan. 29, 2016
Before Kanye and Wiz got into a Twitter beef and before TMZ made an industry of grainy club videos and stalking celebs, there was the Duchess Margaret of Argyll, the subject of Skylight Music Theatre's "Powder Her Face."
Published Jan. 27, 2016
Christopher Porterfield and Charles K. Harris may both be musical Milwaukeeans, but that would seem to be one of the rare common threads between the two as they join forces for Alverno Presents' latest concert, investigating how to write a popular song.
Published Jan. 26, 2016
This afternoon, the Brewers announced a new alternate look for the team: a mash-up of old and new, with the classic ball-and-glove logo and yellow color meeting up with the team's current overall navy blue look.