Although Academy voters are supposed to keep their choices secret, another batch of anonymous ballots has been leaked — giving us insight into a race that's hard to predict.
In 2016, after much effort, criticism, and Twitter backlash, the Academy finally began to value diversity and modernity. The #OscarsSoWhite controversy of two consecutive years of all-white nominations (Michael B Jordan’s exclusion for “Creed” was, in my opinion, the most egregious) caused a dramatic upheaval and a shift that continues today, with more women, people of color, and international voters added to a previously nearly homogeneous base.
This has led to an Oscar race that is increasingly difficult to predict with a traditional mindset – a process that has become increasingly exciting over time. The idea of a “typical Oscar movie” has become increasingly vague. Films like Parasite, Anora, Moonlight, Anatomy of a Fall, Nomadland, Get Out and The Zone of Interest have all managed to make it into the main categories in recent years, while this year’s selections show further progress – from foreign-language films to extraordinary stories and more challenging characters than ever.
With just days to go, this year's race is once again a tough one to predict, one reason why the discussions have been more toxic than usual, prompting a more careful search for signs that might shed light on what will happen on Sunday. The annual round of anonymous ballots (a tradition that continues despite the risk of exclusion) should always be taken with a dose of skepticism, especially as the Academy has expanded its size, but with so many categories still open, what can be gleaned from this?
Jessie Buckley has the best chance
There probably wasn't much to speculate about in this category (she's the only surefire winner in the acting categories this year, having won every previous award), but a perusal of the ballots shows that any criticism of her performance in Hamnet has been exclusively online. One Academy member called her "performance of the year," another said it was "next level," and she was also picked by five of eight Variety voters and three of four Entertainment Weekly voters. If anyone were to take a guess, this would be the safest bet.
Amy Madigan – a secret weapon?
The best supporting actress category is expected to be a close one, perhaps one of the tightest in acting this year. So far, Teyana Taylor for One Battle After Another has won a Golden Globe, Wunmi Mosaku for Sinners has won a Bafta, and Amy Madigan for Weapons has won a Critics Choice. There is considerable support for Taylor and Mosaku among voters, and usually the winner comes from a film with other nominations (the last time that didn’t happen was with Penélope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona), but the enthusiasm for Madigan suggests it could be her night. She received votes from two of four Entertainment Weekly voters (“very nice for an experienced actress”), Variety representatives considered her to hold “great appreciation” from the L.A. community, another chose her for her character and career, and some called her a “classic” for her “showy, crazy and daring” performance. For other actors, it looks like a three-way race.
Sinners has the advantage over One Battle After Another
The race has gradually narrowed between two auteur projects that come from the same studio and that, for once, are both incredibly good. Early awards suggest One Battle After Another is the more likely winner (winner of the PGA, Golden Globes, Bafta and Critics Choice), but Sinners’ recent rise after its success at the acting awards has changed the bets. According to honest ballots, it seems to be the wiser choice. It had a slight edge in Variety and EW’s summaries (“a masterpiece” and “made me remember what theater is for”), one anonymous producer has seen it three times in theaters and voted for it in almost every category, and several others describe it as “euphoric” or say they would vote for it “with all their heart”. However, some voters are calling for “awards distribution”, so it’s not certain that one will win them all.
But the competition may not just be between the two films.
Some voters support One Battle After Another, albeit less than Sinners, but there are other choices that show that the race may not be as simple as it seems. There are passionate admirers of Sentimental Value (“extraordinary, almost perfect”), fans of Marty Supreme (“the most fun experience”), admirers of Hamnet (“it hit me in the soul”), supporters of Bugonia (“I haven’t stopped thinking about it”) and even Train Dreams (“I loved everything about it”). But not many F1 fans…
It could be Paul Thomas Anderson's year.
Despite skepticism about One Battle After Another (“the most problematic film for the Black community since Green Book,” perhaps), there is overwhelming support for director Paul Thomas Anderson. The main race will be a One Battle vs. Sinners showdown, and the votes suggest it will be close. PTA fans point out that it’s his time (“it’s Paul’s time!”) and that he’s at his best with his latest film. While the tradition has been to split the award for best picture and best director, in the past six years one film has taken both, so the winner could have a big say in the night’s top prize.
Wagner Moura could be a surprise winner for best actor
The best actor award looked like it would go to Timothée Chalamet for Marty Supreme for most of the season. He had won a Golden Globe and a Critics' Choice, and the aggressive promotion seemed to be working. But his frenetic energy and persistence were starting to cause fatigue, especially online. While he might win, voters also seem to be thinking of Michael B. Jordan (Sinners) and Wagner Moura (The Secret Agent), with some still considering Leonardo DiCaprio (One Battle). Jordan remains the favorite, but Moura has a surprising edge.
The new rules were not well received.
For the first time, Academy members must have seen every film in a category before voting. The screening is done in the Academy's digital room, a method that aims to be fair, but there have been anonymous complaints. Some say they didn't have time, another called it "noble" but laughed, saying that when films last 13 hours, everyone is lying. One Oscar-nominated director even didn't vote at all, calling the awards "insignificant" and the films "too weak to watch to the end." /GazetaExpress/
t7 live
