MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

17 Days To Oscar: A Thin Line Between Win & Lose

This is the time of the season when things start lining up and one starts gathering perspective. As a result, I find myself endlessly pontificating about what could have been done, what should have been done, what would have been done had there been the money or the will.

And so, a few basic rules that are guaranteed to broken almost immediately.

YOU MUST BE PRESENT

Yes, there are exceptions… every year. But those exceptions are for the Sean Penns and Supporting Actors of the world.

Why are you suddenly seeing Brad Pitt everywhere? Because someone convinced him that he could win. Of course, he’s still only doing the A-list stuff and softball blue card safe stuff like Actor’s Studio… which is why he has no chance of winning.

George Clooney has been the frontrunner for months… again. And it’s looking like he will lose… again. Why? Similar to Pitt, Clooney breathes only in the rooms that Stan Rosenfeld can control completely. And God bless them, that’s their prerogative. But while no “lower” outlet availability is going to win George an Oscar, there has become a disconnect – much as we all love George and find him endlessly charming and bright – between the movie star and the people who might vote for him.

The exceptions this season look to be Viola Davis and Christopher Plummer. Ms. Davis has been around… but not really very accessible. But she is the rock around which The Help revolves. In a way, I don’t really think she is the lead of the film… but she may well win Best Actress for her muscular stoicism. And Chris Plummer, who is a very funny, charming guy, stayed out of the fray this year after getting himself nominated by dipping in for The Last Station. But he has been the frontrunning in Supporting for 5 months now and somehow, that category has a recent history of being cemented in early.

Of course, being present doesn’t guarantee anything. Ken Branagh was very generous with his time this year and isn’t going to win. Albert Brooks is a living legend who has never gotten his due from The Academy and made himself available this year… and didn’t even get nominated. Tilda stumped hard for her movie.

And who knows? Rules are made to be broken. Meryl Streep has been more present this year than in nomination years past… but she’s also remained hidden behind the coattails of 60 “We Don’t Ask Celebrities Real Questions” Minutes and more recently, Pete Hammond. When voters feel like they know a little something real about Meryl Streep is probably when she wins her next Oscar. In the meantime, it’s an honor to be nominated.

YOU MUST NOT BE EMBARRASSING TO VOTE FOR

The rest of the column…

Be Sociable, Share!

2 Responses to “17 Days To Oscar: A Thin Line Between Win & Lose”

  1. torpid bunny says:

    Interesting article. But it seems anecdotal. Is there any solid market research on academy voters?

  2. leahnz says:

    i’d characterise aibaleen (sp?) as the lead in ‘the help’…the fact that the always fabulous viola is likely going to hold aloft a little gold dude for playing a black maid – good grief, that’s gotta chap her ass a bit. (but mikey fassbo looks ready to sooth her; he wants to taste that chocolate in a bad way if the SAGs is anything to go by)

    “Why are you suddenly seeing Brad Pitt everywhere?”

    clearly to annoy the living CRAP out of me

    (and speaking of the SAG awards, every second cringe-worthy reaction shot was either of pitt looking vacant or his defacto clapping her skeleton arms and nodding knowing approval as if she were the oracle of excellence or something, WTF? sphincter factor 9.8, already bracing for more round 2 pandering embarrassment at the oscars. and ftr i don’t even blame them, they’re likely horrified by the constant attention, it’s the panderers who make them look so annoying that should be taken out back and shot)

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon