Academy Anonymous
An invaluable, unparalleled and only partly-delusional resource for any cinephiles and Oscar-addicts forever obsessing about whether their favorite films, performances and artists will survive another grueling Oscar season.
Join us on our noble (futile! compulsive!) mission to track the contenders, mourn the flop-aroonis, cut-down the winners, champion the over-looked and generally forecast the state of the race with “100% accuracy" (results may vary).
Need your daily Oscar fix? We got you covered.
(But seriously, consider getting some real help when all this is over… this ain’t healthy.)
Academy Anonymous
Oscar Season 2025-2026: Recap of All the Oscar Contenders from the Venice Film Festival; We Predict the Winners
On this episode of ACADEMY ANONYMOUS:
- Can an unlikeable George Clooney still squeeze into a very competitive Best Actor race with mixed JAY KELLY
- Who's the real scene-stealer of Netflix's JAY KELLY - Adam Sandler vs. Billy Crudup
- Can Emma Stone really get into Best Actress AGAIN for newest collaboration with Yorgos Lanthimos?
- Is BUGONIA Jesse Plemons' ticket to lead Actor recognition?
- Luca Guadagnino and Julia Roberts may be playing with fire with AFTER THE HUNT - could be difficult to recover after early burn from Venice
- Another genre classic from master Park Chan-wook, but will the South Korean great EVER get some Oscar love?
- Jim Jarmusch's meditation on family FATHER MOTHER SISTER BROTHER a winner - best reviewed American film in Competition!
- Guillermo del Toro's beloved FRANKENSTEIN dividing audiences, but everyone agrees Jacob Elordi steals the show!
- THE TESTAMENT OF ANN LEE's Amanda Seyfried looks to crash the Best Actress category
- Is Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson really this year's "Brendan Fraser"? Stuns viewers with THE SMASHING MACHINE transformation, but will it be enough?
- Is Emily Blunt un-beatable for Best Supporting Actress?
- Never doubt Kathryn Bigelow! Helmer returns with nerve-shattering A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE
- Two female directors for Best Director AGAIN! An early analysis of the Kathryn Bigelow vs. Chloé Zhao narrative
- THE VOICE OF HIND RAJAB poised for Venice breakout! Could be a major dark horse for Best Picture!
- Who will win the Golden Lion? We make our calls.
hey and welcome back to another episode of academy anonymous. I'm your co-host, joseph, and I'm here with and I'm jules and we are digging into the Oscar race of this year and we have big news, because Venice is about to wrap up. Yes, telluride is officially behind us. Toronto is going to start right now, the next bus stop on our route. So there's a lot to cover, but first I think we should let everyone know some really exciting news.
Speaker 2:Very, very exciting. We were finally able to launch a website that we're hoping to run parallel to this podcast. It's called. It is called framesandflickercom, and that's F-R-A-M-E-S-A-N-D-F-L-I-C-K-E-Rcom D-F-L-I-C-K-E-Rcom Frames and Flickrcom.
Speaker 1:So we'll be covering the Oscar race from there as well, and we'll also be peppering in some reviews, some thoughts on movies and of course, we are going to be listing our Oscar predictions. And we are going to be doing some analysis as to why we picked those individual nominees or those individual films right now.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it looks so cool. Guys, we're really happy with it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we're happy with the way it came out. Yeah.
Speaker 2:And please come visit us over there, check it out. We'd love to have you Check out our Oscar predictions.
Speaker 1:We got the first few categories we still have.
Speaker 2:We have picture director, actor, actress. We have picture director, actor, actress, supporting actor and supporting actress, exactly.
Speaker 1:That's where we're at right now, but we're quickly going to be finishing the rest of the categories. We're going to try to build out everything but all the line, the screenplays.
Speaker 2:And hopefully we'll be updating it very routinely so you guys can see how the race changes, how our thoughts change, why our thoughts are changing, because we'll have like little blurbs explaining why we chose those five nominees. It's really cool guys. It looks really nice and we're really proud of it. We're so happy with how it turned out. So if you guys check it out, we'd love to have you and yeah, that's, I think it's going to be a really cool, really nice adventure that we can take together.
Speaker 1:We didn't do this last year, so it'll be fun. I mean, you always have the gold derby option there, which is fun and everyone can sort of join in there, and that's a fun thing to maybe even consider in the future. But you can never really talk about it too in depth, and so I think the benefit is that, you know, on our website you get to see our not just our choices, but our opinions. I mean, analytically, what we're seeing is a strength or a weakness in each person, as you said, as the race develops.
Speaker 2:Right, and also on the website there's a contact us page. If you guys want to have more of a one-on-one contact, you can feel free to reach us out there. Also on the website, there's a button that will take you to our Twitter for this podcast, academy Anonymous. It's, I believe, at Academy Anon. Please follow us there. It's very helpful. And there'll also be a button that will take you to the official Twitter account of Frames and Flickr, which I believe is at Frames, and then N.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the letter N the letter.
Speaker 2:N and then Flickr.
Speaker 1:Yeah, our website name was a little too long to write the full thing out so it's F-R-A-M-E-S, the letter N Flickr F-L-I-C-K-E-R. So yeah, follow us on our website or on social media. We'd love to hear from you and we'd love to keep going through this Oscar journey together. Yes, all right. So then let's start unpacking what is the big news, which is everything that has happened thus far at the Venice Film Festival.
Speaker 2:Maybe have a few films left to screen, but the bulk is behind us. Yeah, so Venice is about to be done. I believe the award ceremony is on the 6th, so we're rapidly finishing. Officially, the films that are going to be most talked about for the Oscar race have already been seen Today actually earlier today, depending on when you're listening to this. You know, there was the premiere of the Voice of Hin Rajab, which was a big, had a very big reception, but most of the quote-unquote Oscar players have already been seen, even if the festival hasn't concluded yet and Toronto starts right now. As you were saying, telluride is done.
Speaker 1:Exactly. I will preface this by saying that one of the films that we were looking forward to can still have an outstanding debut, and that's the new film from El Dico and Yeti, who's there with Silent Friend Tony Leung is in there, and I don't think it's screened for press yet and I don't think it's had its big premiere yet. So I hope it does well, right, um?
Speaker 1:but, we certainly have a lot to talk about already, right? Uh, the last film on Body and Soul was a nominee. Yeah, was a foreign nominee. Was a nominee for international film, exactly.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and so let's see Um. The first big again within this you know the realm of the Oscar race was Jay Kelly. It was actually one day where it was a really big premiere. It was a really big day because you had the premiere of Jay Kelly and you had the premiere of Begonia and you had the sort of the press screening of After the Hunt. So a lot went down that day.
Speaker 1:So let's start with Jay Kelly. It was very eventful and in our last episode we did say that our picks, I think, for the two films that are going to possibly break out and go all the way to a Best Picture nomination were Begonia, the focus features, and that Yorgos would continue having a good day, and then Jay Kelly, of course, because first of all, we had mentioned Alexander Payne being on the jury.
Speaker 2:But then also that you know Netflix had so many horses that we predicted was going to be a big have a big impact. It was under the radar, we thought it was going to have a big impact and, lo and behold, it did have that impact. It's a House of Dynamite and we'll be talking about that later in the episode. But to start off with Jay Kelly, so I think that the foreign press, foreign press um has certainly reacted differently to this film that, for example, the audience that was at the telluride film festival. It had a much better reception at telluride than it did at venice right and of course we can talk about that.
Speaker 1:You know at length when we cover telluride, but I will say that my impression with j kelly was that it was a fumble out of the gate with venice right. I think the press did not take to it um, individuals who were there who enjoyed movies, um did not take to it um. So I think that it was a surprisingly underwhelming response. Yes, it had its fans, but they were certainly outnumbered.
Speaker 2:Right, and just to add something really quick related to this that we forgot to mention. But on the website we'll be always posting articles and whatnot. So we actually posted articles for so far every day of Venice and the premieres and we talked about what went down that day and did some of our Oscar analysis. So if you guys want to check that out, please feel free to check that out, but anyway, you were saying about Jay Kelly.
Speaker 1:Exactly those hot takes are sort of on our website already, but for our podcast listeners, I think that Jay Kelly was a fumble out of the gate. Maybe expectations were too high, considering that everyone was thinking that the Netflix film that was going to start off was going to be their big push. You had George Clooney going, an immense, immense cast set in Italy. There was already some buzz here in terms of the kind of performance that Adam Sandler was going to give in. It was also one of the few films that was going to so many of the festivals, right?
Speaker 2:It's only skipping Toronto, basically.
Speaker 1:It's basically only skipping Toronto. It's scheduled everywhere else, but there you go. As these things tend to happen, whatever you think is certain to happen will sometimes sort of not happen, and so I think that it was a stumble out of the gate. I don't, it's to me. My first reaction to it was it's a little bit more white noise and certainly not marriage story, right, which was an immediate, an immediate hit, and you and I sort of waited for the online reception and the critic community to come and sort of have their say on the film and possibly put the film in the right perspective, and that just never materialized, right? What happened when critics actually started giving word? Right?
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, I hesitate to say that I thought it was a stumble. Well, I mean, I hesitate to say that I thought it was a stumble. I think that it didn't have the reception, as you were implying that it, you know, wanted to have that. Netflix wanted it to have. It wasn't. After the hunt, which we'll get into later. I think the most appropriate way to describe it, in my opinion, would be that it was respectable, but not, you know, thrilled or loved, or unanimously, you know, yeah, unanimously adored. It was respectful. Um, if you read a lot of the reviews and we went through all the reviews, um, most people think it's you know, it's fine, it's decent.
Speaker 2:Um, certainly the prevailing um understanding is that it's not top tier, noah Baumbach, it's certainly not anything in the realm of marriage story. It's certainly not perfect and that you know it's. It's, you know, a decent enough sort of wistful. I heard that word a lot describing the film. But I also will say that a lot of critics pointed to the idea I mean, if you look at IndieWire and you look at Vulture, a lot of critics were pointing to this idea that the film sort of ends on a very strong note and that you know some of the imperfections that are throughout the film. You know, by the end it's sort of a Hollywood ending. I think I've heard it be described in that manner. It it's the sort of Hollywood ending, crowd pleaser. Uh, I heard that the film is very sentimental. I mean, there were very, there were some negative critics about that sort of thing, that it was sentimental, and then other critics have thought, yeah, it's sentimental, but you know it's, it's a, it's a sentimental that I can bear.
Speaker 1:Um, that was absolutely a theme, the idea that the ending was very redemptive to some people who were on the fence on the movie Right, and the ending is really the most important part of the movie technically yes. But you know, when I saw Peter Bradshaw's review, I thought he just assassinated Jay Kelly. Jay Kelly was just born and he just assassinated him.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I think that peter bradshaw, of the guardian, we really like looking at his reviews. Um, he's a very good writer and he's very, very, very intelligent. Um he, his response to the film, mimicked what we were seeing on letterbox, for example. You know, which I think goes to this broader idea, that the foreign, you know, community is going to be less receptive of this film. I think that there was issues with people finding it stereotypical of how it was representing Italians and Italy, and also, you know, tropes that were already tired. You know a familiarity to the piece.
Speaker 1:Something we visited about it. Yes, that was certainly another common theme here, right?
Speaker 2:And, as we all, as we've said several times, you know, the Academy in and of itself is not the Academy of yesteryear. It's a much. There's much more foreign presence in the Academy and you certainly to be in the best position. Netflix would ideally have a project that appeals to both mainstream audiences and American audiences, but also international audiences, and they certainly had that last year with Amelia Perez, which you know I got let's not beat around the bush I got 13 nominations.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:And you know a big contingency of you know I got let's not beat around the bush I got 13 nominations and you know a big contingency of you know support for that movie was international. Yeah, you're not going to have this here.
Speaker 1:No.
Speaker 2:And this is going to hopefully we'll touch on this. That's why, jay Kelly, because of what it's about and it's, you know, a film that's sort of holding a mirror to the industry and George Clooney, that familiarity goes a long way. But the fact that it's sort of missing that extra oomph that will appeal to the international base is why this film is not Amelia Parrish and that's why this film will not be Netflix's big, big horse, quote unquote and we can expect it to factor into the race. I certainly am someone who believes that it's still firmly in the race and in strong contention to make it to the final 10, based on what it's about. But it certainly is going to be a film that, if it were to make it into the final 10 for best picture, is going to make it in the final two or three slots for best picture.
Speaker 1:I also think that it's interesting that we have yet to have George Clooney sort of represent the film. He was MIA due to illness at both Telluride and Venice, so at some point he's going to come into the campaign and that might be a very significant turning point into people's relationship or reception to the film. So I do think that that element was missing. Nonetheless, I think everything you've said is on point. So where then do you think that the movie lies right now? I think I'm certainly a little bit more skittish about its chances in the bigger races than you are, but where do you think it may still have a good chance? And certainly it's not the bona fide nominee? I would argue in any category, unless you disagree, but maybe there are some categories that you think are better than others, Like, for example, based on what we've been reading and the news we've been getting out of Venice, I don't think Laura Dern will be a significant factor in the supporting actress race. Right.
Speaker 2:So, again, I think, if this film weren't about what it's about, I think I would be more like you in thinking that its chances of getting recognized, you know, would be severely diminished.
Speaker 2:But because it got just enough decent reviews it's in the 60s right now, in Metacritic, and I think it's in the 80s in Rotten Tomatoes. You know the inherent difficulty that it is to. You know live a life, um in the industry and in front of the camera and you get to see what's going on in the lives of actors and movie stars and you know the the, you know, inherent push and pull of all of that. It's something that's very familiar to them, it's something that they like to see, it's something that is very um, something that they like to see. It's something that is very um, something that can easily move them Right Um. So for that reason, I think that the film is going to, at the end of the day, make it into best picture, whether it be the ninth or 10th spot. Um, I believe that the film has a very good chance of getting nominated for best actor for George Clooney, who has not been nominated in the acting categories since his Oscar win, I believe.
Speaker 1:No, no, oh yes, yes, yes In 2011.
Speaker 2:Yes, Um and uh. Certainly I think Adam Sandler will be redeemed and get his nomination that he was so close to getting for uncut gems.
Speaker 1:A lot of people like Sandler will be redeemed and get his nomination that he was so close to getting for Uncut Gems A lot of people like Sandler.
Speaker 2:Right. Some people even liked him more than George Clooney. I think he will certainly be nominated for Best Supporting Actor. I want to say something about, oh, and I also think that the film will eventually get it will also get nominated for Best Screenplay, for Best Original Screenplay, so I feel pretty confident in those four nominations.
Speaker 2:I want to say something interesting about George Clooney in that, reading several reviews, you know he plays a character, from what I'm understanding, that can veer towards unlikeability and sort of being egocentric. Some people posited possibly some viewers or actors or voters being possibly turned off by the way that George Clooney or the character, the way it's, the way he's built, and to being sort of possibly, you know, egocentric, like I said, selfish. Um. So there's sort of like a a little bit of a uh, sort of negative, uh, aspect to this character that we don't aren't used to seeing George Clooney play characters that aren't, you know just, you know, completely good. So there's an aspect to this character that's a little bit more complicated. It's very bombac, right, and also that's probably a subversive aspect of the piece. You know, playing with George Clooney's image and what you expect of George Clooney's image.
Speaker 2:I think that's actually going to go into his favor. I think it's going to make some voters feel like the George Clooney that they're seeing in this movie has a little bit more color than what they're used to seeing, Even though, again, many people say that it's sort of he's sort of playing a version of himself. And again, subversively, that's sort of what the movie already knows that and is playing with that. I think that's going to help. Would I be shocked if he's left off the list? Actor is stacked. Best lead actor is stat category this year.
Speaker 1:That's what I was going to bring up With many contenders.
Speaker 2:So no, I would not be surprised if he's. That's what I was reading in the reviews is a possible second nomination in supporting actor for Billy Crudup, who supposedly has the scene in the movie. I've heard several reviews say that he walks away with the movie. Billy Crudup has never been nominated for an Oscar, even though he's had a lot of success recently with the show the Morning Show, so he's been on it for several Emmys and supposedly the character he plays in the movie and the scenes he has I think it's like two scenes make a big impact. So I would not be surprised to see him factor into the best supporting actor race. I'm seeing Poppin have a surprise nomination, possibly at the SAGs or the Globes, et cetera, so I think he'll also be in contention.
Speaker 1:I possibly at the SAGs or the Globes, etc. So I think he'll also be in contention. I will. I think all that's really interesting here's where I'm sort of where I'm at with Jay Kelly is. It's going to be fascinating because actors stacked, as you said, and there's just so many performances and bids that look really ripe for a nomination. It's going to be interesting to see George Clooney sort of be on offense, because the last thing that I would consider him is a lock, and when the descendants comes out, when Michael Clayton comes out, when up in the air comes out, he's an immediate front runner and throughout the race he becomes, you know, anywhere between one, two or three and throughout the race he becomes, you know, anywhere between one, two or three and I would argue for the majority of the race he's sitting at one and right now I think that he could be a four or five.
Speaker 1:Right, that's how I'm seeing it too, exactly, and that's a very dangerous spot to be in, but it's also going to be fun, in the sense that we've never seen George Clooney sort of duke it out for a fourth or fifth spot. I think one issue with this film is that Noah Baumbach isn't necessarily a runaway hit with directors, and so I don't see this getting singled out at the Director's Guild Award, and so there's a part of me that wonders where it could possibly have an edge to make it anywhere near best picture. Certainly that bottom half. But again, if you're on that bottom half of that list and you're competing for spots 9 or 10, you should never feel comfortable. You should never feel safe.
Speaker 1:And so again, when Noah Baumbach does get in for Marriage Story into best picture, I would argue that again Marriage Story is borderline five or six on that list right so.
Speaker 1:I do wonder if a movie like Jake Kelly is going to have enough support throughout other categories to make it in. And then I think the same thing goes for Adam Sandler and Billy Kudrow, in the sense that certainly Adam Sandler. I don't think that Adam Sandler can make it in by himself for this movie. I would be very surprised if at the end of the year and into next year, we're seeing Adam Sandler possibly being a solo nomination. Right, I think Adam Sandler would have to get in for a movie that gets a couple of different nominations. It would really help if his co-star George is there, but again it's really stacked and it looks like he's fighting for fourth or fifth. Supporting actor is actually a lot less busy and that's really an advantage for Adam Sandler.
Speaker 2:And possibly.
Speaker 1:Billy, crudup and possibly Billy, but then again, if you're going to see Adam and Billy together, the one thing that has to happen is they have to make it together at the SAG, and so to me that's the edge that this movie has, the topic that it's about the individuals that are involved in the movie, certainly George Clooney being, you know, an ambassador for the movie.
Speaker 1:This movie needs to have, in my opinion, a fantastic day at the Screen Actors Guild Award. It needs to get an ensemble nomination. It needs to have, in my opinion, a fantastic day at the Screen Actors Guild Award. It needs to get an ensemble nomination. It needs to get George in. It needs to get Adam in and if they want to try to get Billy in along with Adam, then it needs to get in there as well.
Speaker 1:So we're talking about four. And if you're going to give me four nominations for Jake Kelly at the SAG, okay, I could see it. You know, solidifying that ninth or tenth spot, certainly the SAG okay, I could see it. You know, solidifying that ninth or 10th spot, certainly, if nothing stronger shows up. But that's a lot. That that's a lot that would have to go right for Jay Kelly to land those four nominations. It could happen, and I think that that's sort of their path and what they have to sort of concentrate on. It doesn't matter how many Golden Globe nominations it gets or how many awards Adam Sandler can sweep. They need those sort of four nominations.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean it could be three also. No Billy Crudup and just ensemble actor and one supporting actor.
Speaker 1:Right, but then I doubt that, and also.
Speaker 2:I think this film stands a good chance of competing for best casting.
Speaker 1:Oh, that's right, that's, that's. Yeah, you're, you're right. I had forgotten that that's going to have the that goes in its favor as well. Yeah, I think it's possible, even though we don't know how that category is going to shake out. It's the first time we're seeing it. But I absolutely agree that it could maybe have an edge there as well. So not out of the race anywhere, but certainly, I would argue, not safe anywhere either. I think it's contending, but I don't think it's safe.
Speaker 2:I where either. I think it's contending, but I don't think it's safe. Yeah, I think it's a. It's certainly not safe, but it's a stronger contender that I think than I think some people who are already kind of throwing it under the bus. Okay, it's stronger than they think. Okay, and can round out several of those categories that I mentioned.
Speaker 1:It makes sense.
Speaker 2:Okay, okay. The other very big film that did very well was Yorgos Lanthimos' Begonia.
Speaker 1:Same day. It probably did not help to have that playing just a few minutes away from wherever Jake Kelly was playing, right.
Speaker 2:And so this film, from the very beginning we told you guys, obviously seemed like it was going to be more closer to his more modern pieces, like Killing of a Sacred Deer and the Lobster, more than his period pieces. And those have been a little bit hit and miss, depending on you know what the movie is, but it was really well received here. Critics and viewers alike responded very well.
Speaker 1:Right, absolutely. Critics and viewers alike responded very well. Right, absolutely, I mean out of the gate. It was just such an overwhelmingly positive response that our immediate reaction was that this is going to end up being that rare contemporary Yorgos film that could find crossover success, like his costume pieces, the favorite and, most recently, poor, poor things. And so I was really excited because I thought how, how amazing that he might be able to finally break through for a contemporary film.
Speaker 1:Not only that, but we had talked about in our previous episode forecasting venice, um, that his success at venice had mostly come with his partnership with Searchlight and Fox Searchlight, and so this was his first time going into the festival with Focus Features and that it was sort of interesting that Begonia was missing in other places and then sort of maybe suspicious, but the early word was phenomenal for this film right, yeah, and this film has a lot of the Yorgos themes that make his film so special about power and control and alienation and cruelty, and it's commenting a little bit or directly on these sort of conspiracy theory sort of bubble that is wrapping a lot of the world at this moment is certainly America, so there's a timeliness to it as well.
Speaker 2:I did read interestingly enough in some reviews that there were people who had significant issues with the final act of the movie, which is interesting. You know, obviously I'm not trying to read any spoilers for myself, but I thought that was interesting and I heard that mentioned quite a few times. I also heard that for the first two thirds of the film it's sort of a more sort of restrained Yorgos until all hell breaks loose on the third act.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:You know, which is also quite interesting and something worth considering when you're considering its possible awards prospects.
Speaker 1:Right. So what did you think I mean? Certainly, I think the thing that was most at the foreground was just the praise for Emma Stone's performance. I think that is the biggest takeaway from the movie and I think there were a lot of fans when it premiered. But I will say that as the festival went on, I feel that the enthusiasm for it sort of plateaued a little bit.
Speaker 1:It didn't sort of keep skyrocketing and I don't think it ended up anywhere near J Kelly, near j kelly, but it did sort of start to give me that impression that it is a fantastic yorgos film, that individuals who enjoy his films are going to enjoy again right, and that individuals who possibly are a little bit more hesitant hesitant or reserved about enjoying his films so openly, or have that just that clean relationship with his films might be turned off by it that it is still certainly, at the end, a very vicious and bare-teethed Yorgos film, right.
Speaker 2:But I also will say, though, that we heard tons of great things about Emma Stone. People loved her performance, but I will say that you know, the more you read, jesse Plemons was right up there with Emma Stone. From what I read, you know that, and some people even thought that he had the more impressive performance, even if Emma Stone's performance was possibly the louder performance. Um, I heard a lot of praise for what Jesse Plemons is able to do and sort of tap into in this movie, which made me very excited. He's a past nominee for supporting actor for the Power of the Dog. If he were to be nominated this year, it would be a category shift. You guys remember, in previous episodes we've talked about the pattern that's very frequent in the Academy, that actors tend to be nominated for their subsequent roles. They tend to have sort of a category shift going on.
Speaker 2:Emma Stone is still lead here but, Jesse Plemons would have a category shift here.
Speaker 1:There was some doubt as to whether she was lead or not but I'm glad we got that cleared up. She's certainly a lead performance in this role.
Speaker 2:And, and you know, when you're considering its awards prospects, it's important to remember everything that you just said, that we haven't really tested the waters yet of how well a Yorgos Lanthimos film can do when it's a contemporary film. You know, we know that when he does Period it's sort of adored. You know, top to bottom across.
Speaker 1:You know several categories Multiple categories.
Speaker 2:But prior to that, you know, he had a foreign language film nomination for Dog Tooth, Um, and I believe he had a screenplay nomination for the Lobster, and so it's a much more more. It's a much more tame sort of uh recognition that he gets when he doesn't do his period thing, Um. So that's something that we have to consider when we're considering, you know, how much of an impact it will have. You also consider, you know, Emma Stone just won for Poor Things, you know, two years ago.
Speaker 2:She is one of the youngest actors to have two Academy Awards. She has two Academy Awards, both of them in the lead category, and she's been nominated for several Yorgos films. She already has five nominations for acting. This would be a sixth nomination, her fifth in acting for another Yorgos film that they just finished giving her a second Oscar for. So all of that is, you know, not routinely, what they would do If it's not going to be a film that's going to be nominated across the board. They would. You know, if you're looking at their patterns, they would prefer to sort of give it a rest, even if she's great in it, and I don't doubt it. But typically that's the kind of pattern that we would see happen here.
Speaker 1:I would agree that it's not, strictly speaking, an advantage for her, but I do think that one thing that will stand out to voters is that the early word is that the performance stands apart from her other work with Yorgos. It's very accomplished work nonetheless, but it doesn't feel like the same performance from Poor things or the same performance from uh the favorite, and I think voters might be really receptive to that. And of course there's going to be these. You know very uh attention calling uh flourishes to the performance.
Speaker 1:Everyone's going to know that she shaved her head for the movie and I'm sure that's gonna entice some voters to at least watch it and or consider it. That's gonna give her points. That's gonna entice some voters to at least watch it or consider it.
Speaker 2:That's gonna give her points. That's gonna give her points.
Speaker 1:Exactly it's gonna give her points, but I do also think that, in terms of this movie, there are a couple of different factors. We have to think about focus, features and how committed they're gonna be to the movie If they're gonna have success with it. It's their first time working with campaigning for Yorgos and, as we'll talk later on, they have another big horse. It's going to get tricky, and I think the other thing is remember that this is an adaptation from a South Korean film that was very successful in the 2000s, and so I do think that there's possibly an element there in terms of international appeal that might be able to help the film. In terms of international appeal that might be able to help the film, I think it's interesting to note that I think his work is sharp, razor sharp again, but I don't know if Yorgos can get in for a third time for directing.
Speaker 2:If he did.
Speaker 1:I think he would have a strong case to win. He's not a writer on this, so if this film does manage to get listed for adapted screenplay, he would not get credit for that.
Speaker 2:And I heard good things about the cinematography in the film and I heard good things about the score in the film. Some people were seeing the film and thinking that it was going to compete in several categories. Other people were more nitpicky about the categories it can compete in categories. Other people were more nitpicky about the categories it can compete in, have a different opinion as to how much of an impact it can have in the awards race. So it's a little bit of a hard one to read unless you've seen the movie.
Speaker 1:Exactly. I'd have to see the movie to know exactly how off-putting it is. I mean, when your go is more confrontational and possibly a little bit more prickly, as I like to call them um, it could be a turnout to some voters. There's still excellent, wonderful films, kinds of kindness.
Speaker 1:It's a wonderful film um a lot of beautiful things about it um but voters aren't going to necessarily get on its spectrum yeah because of the lack of window dressing that at least allows them, at least allows some type of conservative voters, yeah, to enter the film. Um, through that aspect, 100 um. But if this film makes money, if this film makes some, some good amount of money, then I think that this film can easily get anywhere between what picture director, the two performances, the screen, the script, um, the film editing. He's been nominated before um for, uh, his work with yorgos. Robbie ryan is doing um the cinematography work again and um, the same composer of the composer from poor things, so it could potentially get eight nods.
Speaker 1:Um, and if, if, if you tell me that it is a runaway hit in the fall and that people enjoy watching it when it comes out and that maybe it doesn't make the same amount of money as Poor Things but it makes a sizable amount of money at the box office, then I think it gives the film that sort of second life that I think right now it would require to sort of convince people to sort of say, yes, it's a little bit off-putting, it's a little bit controversial, it's a little bit risky, but I'm going to put it anyway.
Speaker 2:Right, I agree with you, but I have doubt that it can make a lot of money at the box office. You know, I think it's going to do roughly around what his modern pieces tend to do.
Speaker 2:It can't do kinds of kindness, I think it'll be more in line with something like kinds of kindness or possibly killing of a sacred deer. So I think that that matters, that we kind of are missing some of those you know higher end things like costume and production design et cetera, et cetera. That's one reason that we won't see that same kind of crowd go and watch it. So right now I feel conservative about its awards prospects. I think that Emma Stone again best actress, you guys is a dearth category this year.
Speaker 2:It's one of our weakest in a long, long time. There are not a ton of contenders and Emma Stone might really benefit from that and she might just have enough. You know attention-calling aspects to this performance, like her shaved head, that help her get in for what would be her sixth nomination and she's beloved enough.
Speaker 1:But but you and I do talk about the idea of you know the oscar voter in general when they have to fill out five slots and of course the most important is whoever they put on the top when you think about filling five slots, you're not gonna have very many voters who have such an open appreciation for performances in different types of films to be able to list, in my opinion, emma stone for begonia, jennifer lawrence for die my love, who's great?
Speaker 1:and die my love, she's great. Fantastic from mooby and rose burn from if I had legs, I'd kick you for may 24. Who's also very good? Lawrence, for Die my Love. Who's great in? Die my Love, she's great. Fantastic from Mubi and Rose Byrne from If I had Legs that Kick you from May 24.
Speaker 2:Who's also very good.
Speaker 1:It just. It doesn't make sense to me to have an actress lineup that incorporates those three performances.
Speaker 2:I agree with that. But what I was saying is that, because I feel more conservative about Begonia's awards chances, right now I'm seeing it as emma stone benefiting from the category that she's in, um and again the attention calling aspects of her performance. So, actress, I think that jesse plemmons is probably great he's always good, always great but maybe actor is just way too stacked um, and maybe a m actor, and so maybe gets one or two other nominations, among them being screenplay, which I think is a very adequate place to award a movie like this, except you wouldn't really be awarding Yargos because he didn't write this, so it wouldn't really be a compensation, so to speak. But I think screenplay is a good place for a movie like this, so I see it more like you know, a more conservative uh hall, you know.
Speaker 1:like you know, two or three nominations is what I'm seeing right now I would really like to put the performances in both performances and the script. I really like those three. Um, but jesse would have to absolutely get a sag nomination. He does not have one, yet that's um. On the film side, on an individual nomination yet um, he does have a bafta nomination, he has the oscar nomination, but he hasn't necessarily been singled out by his sort of peer group in that televised awards ceremony. So I think if jesse can get that, then jesse's in um and I would expect him to get in as a pair. I'm not sure that I can somehow see jesse getting in without emma stone. What about you?
Speaker 2:um yes because, again, she has to battle the recency bias that we just we you an Oscar for another Yorgos film.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:You know, in another year, where there's more candidates and actors, she doesn't get in, no matter how great her performance is. The reason we're even talking about it is yes, she's liked, but there is space here.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think we also talked about a couple like this strange sort of parallel trajectory that she has to the Jennifer Lawrence David O Russell relationship. Remember when David was able to get Jennifer in for three different movies right Two lead and one supporting yes and one win.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:And so now Yorgos has one Emma performance in lead that won a supporting performance from Emma in the favorite and possibly, if he can, if this movie can get a spot in Best Actress, possibly a third performance, and then they stopped working, so maybe the best thing would be for her not to be nominated so they can keep working together, yeah, and hopefully, you know, as we get closer to the end of the podcast, we might have enough time to share our winning predictions.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, and there's a chance that someone like I don't think Emma Stone can win Best Actress at the Venice Film Festival.
Speaker 2:She's already won for La La Land. I would say that, considering who the competition, considering who was in the lineup that year, I think that was a little premature. That, considering who the competition, considering who was in the lineup that year, I think that was a little premature. Um, uh, but so I don't think she's gonna win best actress for this film and plus, you know poor things already won the golden line.
Speaker 2:So I think jesse plemmons could pull the rare feat of winning best actor here at the venice film festival for begonia. That would be huge. And then he will be an actor that would have won the best actor prize at venice and at the camp film festival consecutively, exactly because he just won last year for kinds of kindness, a can um, and I think that will go a long way to his uh campaign, especially amongst uh international voters, that this is an actor who is the real deal if this was the race of 2023 or 2024 or even 2022, I would feel more comfortable, but because it's the race of 2025 and there's so many people and some that don't have any mention yet, I'm he's always gonna have to you know work hard to get that recognition from venice or from the oscars.
Speaker 2:No, I'm talking about about the Oscars.
Speaker 1:But certainly you're right. If he wins actor, it would be huge. I think if Emma Stone wins actress, it would be very significant. I think if Begonia somehow wins the Golden Lion, it would be massive.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:But I think it's interesting also to talk about just the idea of winning, because it's not unlike your theory on recency being a factor against Emma Stone, is not unlike what happened to Nicole Kidman last year, right, where she was tremendous in Baby Girl and she won the Actors Prize at Venice but nonetheless she was just coming off being nominated.
Speaker 2:Yeah for being the Ricardos Not even winning being nominated.
Speaker 1:Yeah for being the Ricardos For being the Ricardos and they just felt that I don't necessarily have to nominate her again especially if she's not gonna win especially if she's not gonna win.
Speaker 1:It's almost like if I do nominate her she is gonna win, right, and then, which is maybe something going for emma, which is like I can sort of nominate her and not feel the pressure of having to give her the win right, so I could just sort of nominate her and it's like an Afterglow nomination possibly. But if you look at Nicole, I'm sure another thing that did not help was that Baby Girl is such an amazing film and amazing performance, but it's again one of those we don't have room for.
Speaker 2:Rose Byrne, jennifer Lawrence, emma Stone situations Baby Girl is not the type of role that the Oscars are going to want to put on their trailer and their promotion on abc when kids are watching it after school and all that, yeah, and, and, as we've said in the past and other episodes, you know that, you know that that matters that's something that they think about yeah, believe it or not. Um, and so you know. That's where I'm at with begonia two to three nominations, among them an acting, possibly on the stone because of her category, maybe get score. Uh, screenplays looks like a good place to award it. What about you?
Speaker 1:I'm in the same area the two performances, the script. If it can make a dent with people at the box office, then I think it becomes a more serious contender for picture and some text and things like that.
Speaker 2:Right. The next film to talk about that was quite a doozy, had several people talking about it was After the Hunt by Luca Guadagnino, which premiered out of competition. Oh boy, I want to just, you know, say for the record that Joseph and I predicted that this film was going to be in some trouble when it premiered. We saw a lot of red flags coming that were odd for a Luca Guadagnino film.
Speaker 1:Joseph read the script an earlier draft of the script for After the Hunt I will say that in the script for After the Hunt they did not write in the Woody Allen credits that is not in the script. I did not see that Because if I had seen that on the script, I would have been like whoa.
Speaker 2:Yeah, whoa, that was something that polarized some people, most people, and you know it was kind of a weird experience because Joseph and I, you know, were staying up late looking at, you know, the first impressions of the press screening and we were seeing these reviews from viewers on letterbox, very positive about the film, and I kept hearing complex, it's complex, it's complex, it's so complex, you know, and it was strange because, you know, joseph said it's, there wasn't a lot of complexity in the draft that he read, um, uh, which was. But you know you would get a lot of viewers who were quite positive about it and and and and, praising the, the script and its sort of depth, its layers, uh, praising Julia Roberts I heard a lot of mentions about Michael Stuhlberg, uh, being second best in show and, um, then we wake up the following day and it's doing terribly with critics.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and it's in the 40s on Rotten Tomatoes and it's in the 50s on Metacritic, and so a lot of this sort of complexity that people were attaching to in the letterboxd early, you know, impressions Right, Critics were just. You know, it's not complex, it's just you know not good To be fair.
Speaker 1:I did mention that to you as soon as we started looking up some of the reactions. You know, when people were talking about this really complex piece and it was a little bit, certainly it was there was positive reactions.
Speaker 2:It's also kind of vague.
Speaker 1:There was some vague reactions. I think a lot of people didn't necessarily know what to make out of it right away and they wanted to think about it for a little while longer, which is always a good sign. Yeah, and there were also some people who were underwhelmed and unimpressed, um, and there were some people who were immediately drawn to how bold they thought the film was, um, but when there was a lot of discussion about sort of these, this complex ambiguity to the piece, it didn't seem to me reflective of what I had read in one of the earlier drafts, and so I told you, I said I'm just going to be so curious as to whether that's something that critics felt or not, and so when it was absent for a significant portion of them, I thought that made a little bit more sense to me.
Speaker 1:Right with what you read, with what I had read Right.
Speaker 2:But you know, even you know maybe I'm being too harsh by saying that critics thought it wasn't good. I will say that critics thought that some of the ambiguity of the piece and the complexity of the piece was ill-serving and it was in the service of possibly the film not saying much, um, or not enough, right or not what it wanted to say, uh, uh, completely. So you know they were, you know from the reviews that we read, um, very, um, uh, very mixed on it, right.
Speaker 2:Extremely mixed, um, very mixed on it, extremely mixed, and even the ones that were a bit more positive admitted that it's one of Luca Guadagnino's lesser works.
Speaker 1:Right, I mean, and then let's talk about what were some of the big takeaways of it, right? So most people really enjoyed the Julia Roberts performance.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:And they said it was just a joy to see her tackling more complicated material, material that isn't light, seeing her at a festival it's been such a long time and seeing her on the big screen, and those were all highlights to, I think, a lot of critics. And I think a lot of critics mentioned someone who I thought was really good in the script and was sort of a quiet hero of the script, which is michael storberg, as the husband, right, um, and he's a regular of luca guaranino, so I would not be surprised that he got a very good role and that he gave luca a very good performance, right, um, so those are two things that I think were highlights. Certainly, um, what the film wants to discuss is possibly a little bit disappointing for most critics. I think we have to, also because we're going to talk about oscars. I think we have to talk about the credits and we have to talk about the woody allen of it all and how it's.
Speaker 1:It's not many people miss the gesture that they're the quote, unquote Woody Allen credits, and it was brought up in the press conference and Luca had an answer to it, um, and in fact, uh, julia was also at the press conference and had some, possibly some pointed words about the kind of film they were trying to make and making an ambiguous film, a film that they wanted us to talk about, and so I think that that's going to end up being a factor, the fact that there are Woody Allen credits on the piece. I actually really like a little bit of a riff that's been happening on Letterboxd for the film, which is some people are calling it Aftar the Hunt, because it's like a version of Tar.
Speaker 2:We mentioned that in our last episode it sort of like feels a little bit like watered down tar a little bit from what we were sensing.
Speaker 1:Exactly, and then some people called it after the witch hunt right. And that gets to the idea that I want to talk about, which is that those first reactions we had a lot of positive and some mixed and some negative. I do wonder how this is going to end up playing to a mass US audience with that clickbait word witch hunt Right, because there are going to be some people who are immediately attracted to that and are going to use that as veneer for whatever their own self-interests are right right, and that's maybe some of the danger about how this movie can be appropriated into other arguments and into other discussions and into other discourse where it maybe did not want to go down or lead to.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and also when you tread those waters of ambiguity with a topic like sexual assault, sexual abuse, you know it's certainly terrain for controversy, but then I won't say that my impression has been that everyone in the Academy is completely over the moon and happy and satisfied with the treatment quote unquote that has been given to Woody Allen.
Speaker 1:And you know, no one is surprised, or it was part of the conversation, the idea that Cate Blanchett is in a movie called Tar that at least touches upon cancel culture and one of its layers of what it wants to talk about, and that she's a star of Blue Jasmine and she won an Oscar for Blue Jasmine and she's done fantastic work with Woody Allen in the past. The film, I think quite intelligently, does not put the Woody Allen credits at the front right, but it's not going to be lost on anyone that this film and Luca are trying to say something about that situation. I haven't seen the film so I don't know how simple or complex that discussion is, but it's certainly a discussion that the piece wants to have. And so my question is how does the academy feel about that? Um, because I don't think that this academy, you know my feeling is that they don't want to throw away woody allen, the same way that they're ready to sort of possibly again my opinion bulldoze or or ready to get rid of roman polanski, if that makes sense.
Speaker 1:I think they have a different standing within the Academy, Maybe some some and maybe it's just recency the idea that, you know, Polanski has been sort of persona non grata for a more protracted period of time and that Woody Allen was up for best director in 2011. You know, that's a few more, maybe 15 years, less than 15 years ago.
Speaker 2:Right, right.
Speaker 1:And he was helping Cate Blanchett win an Oscar in 2013. Right.
Speaker 2:There's a lot of tricky terrain here that a film as phenomenal as Tar was able to, you know, walk so eloquently and so powerfully, in my opinion and still win zero oscars also yeah exactly still wins their oscars, you know. But when you're tackling these complicated subject matters, it's even more pressure to get it right and to succeed in your attempt to discuss a complicated matter. And, from what we saw after the hunt doesn't stick the landing.
Speaker 1:But will voters think that it was noble to even try to have the conversation? It was noble of Luca and Brian Grazer and Julia Roberts to try to have the conversation, even if the conversation does not necessarily lead to a very beneficial place or a very informative or insightful place. Are they going to look at that gesture with admiration and say, certainly, in a and again, the dearth that is best actress? I would like to spotlight this because I don't want to feel like I can't spotlight it because of what it's trying to talk about, right? Nor do I want to have the perception do I want others to have the perception of me that I'm unwilling to spotlight it because it wants to talk about the quote unquote witch hunt right, but but I'll also say that I think we're living such a polarized moment and that seeps into all things, including voters at the academy that it's almost like tar.
Speaker 2:Let's imagine tar being the film that it is, the great film that it is. If it had, if it had gotten a poor reception at venice, at its festivals and it was, you know, yellow on metacritic and in the 40s on ron tomatoes, and it's the same film. It's the same film. It gives voters an excuse to not consider it seriously.
Speaker 2:Um, and the sort and and having a film that tackles that kind of difficult subject matter is, once you start burdening it, the film with a quote, unquote poor reception from critics.
Speaker 2:It kind of carries around that label, you know, and it makes it sort of like in a way, ostracized, you know, like you're the film that didn't do well at the festival, you're the film that has mixed critics, and so I do feel like there's that's a different thing than when you see a film that doesn't necessarily tackle such a controversial matter and it gets mixed critics. Yeah, that can still be embraced and we'll talk about it and, and soon. You know movies like jojo rabbit and whatnot. They don't have great critics and still get embraced by the academy. But when it's a film about a complicated subject matter, something that we're wrestling with as a community, especially in the industry, and you have that negative label that you're carrying around, you know you were poorly received. I think that's something that the film can't escape. It can't escape that negative label. It's going to carry it and it's going to make it much less attractive for voters to want to embrace it for awards.
Speaker 1:I kind of told you when I was starting to read the reception that, funnily enough, I think what could have really benefited the film was if it were in competition and the jury is emboldened to give it a significant award, that this film is not beyond the moves on the board to do a sort of joker 180, to do a sort of we're being dismissed by critics as problematic and not about anything that excuses why we've made it.
Speaker 1:And then all of a sudden have audiences saying it's such a timely piece, it's such an important piece, it's such a profound piece, it's such a significant piece and sort of audiences resurrecting that and I'm not trying to say that the movie is going to make, would have to make or is in line to make billions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars but I am trying to say that the sort of mainstream reaction from individuals just go to the movies and, and you know, vote with their dollars, so to speak that it could shine the spotlight on the film again in such a way as to sort of give the movie more pieces, a better path to walk to making any sort of give the movie more pieces, a better path to walk to making any sort of nomination a possibility.
Speaker 2:But you're saying that that is something that can still happen if people tune in to watch the movie in the theater, or you're saying that that's something that would have happened had it been able to win an award at Venice?
Speaker 1:I think that the award would have helped, but I don't think it's beyond recuperating. So it's not. It's bigger than a fumble, but I would not call them out of the game completely. They're still opening New York, and New York is notorious for having a very nitpicky selection. I think New York is also notorious for being Woody Allen's town. I mean, let's call it what it is, that's New York and New York on screen and New York on screen and American cinema and Woody Allen. Those go hand in hand.
Speaker 1:I don't know if that's incidental. Like I said, I'm curious as to how culture at large, pop culture at large and movie culture wants to have that conversation. And so it's beyond winning any award. It's out of competition, certainly, but it is not beyond, I think, rescuing itself by admiration from voters and by admiration from viewers and by some people, again in a very polarized way, that something like Jojo Rabbit or Joker exists. Some people are thinking that this is the most important film of the year, while other thinking that this is the most important film of the year, while other people think it's the most hollow film of the year.
Speaker 2:I disagree with you. I think that it's a big stumble. I think it's really handicapped because of what I was just saying earlier, that now has to carry this negative stigma of being a poorly received film at Venice, um, that isn't going to make a billion dollars, like Joker, um, and isn't accessible enough, uh, as a film like, for example, uh, jojo Rabbit, which is not a film that I like very much, um, but it's accessible, um, and people want to go see it. That's why I won the TIFF People's Choice Award. If this premiered at TIFF, it would not be anywhere near the TIFF People's Choice Award. Just on what it's about and how it tackles its subject, which I heard is complicated. I heard that it's. You know, the screenplay is really complicated, the conversations are very complicated, the way, the technique that's being used with his compositions are a bit different from what he usually does. That's complicated as well, so it wouldn't place anywhere near a best of you know my favorite of a best Right, and so now it has to carry that negative stigma on its back and it's just going to make it an excuse to not really uh, uh, engage with the film.
Speaker 2:I think the film's best shot will be julia roberts and again she benefits greatly, greatly from the dearth that is best actress. Um, I I still expect the julia roberts all you know. She did get much acclaim for her performance and people you know were very praised for the kind of you know sort of antagonistic aspects to the performance and I'm sure that's pretty cool. You know it reminds me a little bit of, possibly, her role in Closer, you know, which has these dark shade to it. Her role in Closer, you know, which has these dark shade to it that I think is going to be that plus that much more in this role. I do expect Julia Roberts to get a Golden Globe nomination for Dharma Actress. I expect her to get a SAG nomination for Best.
Speaker 2:Actress, but that's it. I don't expect an Academy Award nomination. If, at the end of the day, they have to choose between someone like Emma Stone again for a Yorgos film or a poorly received film about a serious subject in After the Hunt, I think they're going to pick the former. So I think its only chance is Julia Roberts. Possibly in one of those award shows she takes in someone like Michael Stuhlbarg Michael Stuhlbarg, who got very good notices and is a credible actor who's yet to get his flowers. I'll also point out that you know a lot of people had high expectations about Andrew Garfield in the movie and certainly about Ayo Deberry, based on the roles, and those performances had a mixed reception.
Speaker 2:Um, you know, there are people who like the performances, there are people who didn't like the performances and the characters too yeah, um, I think that you know as a, as a hierarchy, it was julia, michael andrew and last ao, um, so only julia roberts is in play here with a possible michael stuhlbarg, and that's it and from what I remember reading in the script.
Speaker 1:Again, I will say that the reason why Michael stands out is because he has a very unique relationship with Julia as the protagonist. That really that you really enjoy as you're reading the script and I guess, from people's reception, that you enjoy as you're watching the movie. It's almost like a little bit of a reprieve from the whole situation and the little, the convoluted nature of what's going on. And it's really it's. It's a welcome side to viewers when he comes on screen and just gives you a certain sort of ambient energy that also brings shades to her character.
Speaker 2:So but also say that was now that you're bringing it up. I did read a few people say that there's a very impactful scene that happens at this hospital and that Michael Stuhlbarg is involved with Julia Roberts, and that you read something similar like that in the script.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:That you can sort of picture what that scene's going to be about. For many people, that scene is the scene of the movie.
Speaker 1:Maybe I mean, I, I agree. I think julia is the big push here. I think the golden globe nomination is in the bag. I don't think the sag nomination is in the bag. I think if your job is to campaign after the haunt, you have enough room to make a move, um, despite this stumble, uh, to get julia there. And I think if your job is to get someone in over her sony picture classics with june squibb, you have more than enough moves on the board to get june squibb nominated over julia roberts. Um, I think that's where it stands right now. Um, I'm not super confident that she's going to get in for the Oscars, but I cannot dismiss her either, and I still think that there's an opportunity for the conversation around the film to sort of be reframed once mass audiences see it. So we'll see what happens.
Speaker 2:Exactly, and so the next film that I think is worth talking about Oscar contenders is no Other Choice, which was Park Chan-wook's next film, I believe his 16th film.
Speaker 1:Famously denied a spot at Cannes.
Speaker 2:Yeah that was a rumor that it was Along with another film that we'll be talking about soon. Father, mother, sister, brother, the Jim Jarmusch film supposedly was not accepted for Cannes, and so this film did wonderfully. People had it pegged as an early favorite to win the top prize. Park Chang-wook has never won the top prize at Venice. He's won the best director prize I can, and several of the other uh feature prizes, uh like the jury prize and the grand prix yeah um, but uh, never the palm dior.
Speaker 2:Um, this was received. Uh, wonderfully, it was raptured, rapturously received. Um, uh, critics loved it. Um, and what, what do you think?
Speaker 1:well, I mean, I think that the issue really is the distributor. It's really just neon. Neon is the problem. Um, they have a full slate, as is, and so now this other film has premiered at Venice. That did exceptionally well and has the potential to cross over into major categories, including director for Park Chan-wook. The lead actor, lee Byung-un we talked about him in our forecast. He has ties to Hollywood. He seems to have gotten a fantastic role here.
Speaker 1:Film has already been selected by South Korea to represent it at the International for International Film, and so, if Neon Slate wasn't so full, they have, you know, I think, the ability to sort of leverage this success into a Best Picture nomination.
Speaker 1:The issue is that their slate is already massively full and exclusively full of international films, all of which are good enough to get nominated for bigger awards than international film. But they're going to have to pick and choose at some point. Imagine what would have happened had they accepted no other choice into the Cannes Film Festival. You know that probably would have been the fourth or fifth, because they bought Surr sarat also, so it might have been the fifth purchase that neon would have made from competition, right, um, and there's just they don't have, I think, the resources to spread out amongst all these films to get them the opportunity that they deserve in all these other categories. And so, even when actors fool with jesse plemmons and george clooney and all these other categories, and so even when actors fool with Jesse Plemons and George Clooney and all these bigger names, lee Byung-un would have a significant chance if it was not necessarily Neon behind him, and he still may, but it would possibly be at the detriment of Wagner Mora's performance in the Secret Agent, right.
Speaker 2:And you know there's a timeliness to this piece. The premise is fascinating. You know this murder comedy, satire, this desperation being out of work, having to result to result to murder as a last means. I think there's a timeliness to this that is going to resonate with a lot of people and could resonate with the Academy as well. I think it would help if it won something big at Venice. Right now I'm still not sure, because a lot of this is reminding me of Parasite. You know they have. You know there's a similarity, there's a DNA, there's some shared DNA between the two pieces, Thematically for sure.
Speaker 2:Thematically, and I'm just now feeling it right now, that this is going to be, you know, uh, a film like Parasite that's going to win the big award, even though it was an early favorite, and I expect it to win something. I just think that you know, maybe this is absurd, but we're not. We're not far enough removed from the moment in time when Parasite won the big award at Cannes, the Palme d'Or, and sort of changed the landscape. I'm not sure that we're far enough removed from that time for that to happen again so soon, if you know what I mean.
Speaker 1:I totally understand what you're saying and I feel we're in the unfortunate position where most filmmakers who break through to the Academy in major categories like screenplay and director and picture, they tend to visit international film first. If you look at someone like Malcolm Trier right he's, he's poised to be nominated for best director, screenplay again, possibly picture it looks looking very good. He got worst person in the world nominated in that category foreign film and we're just in this position where park jeon-wook has never, has never done it, despite having this amazing career. It just hasn't appealed to the taste of that branch right, nor any other branch um in the academy and so short of I I fear that short of him winning the palm dior for a film, it's it's very difficult to imagine the academy all of a sudden having this enthusiasm to nominate any one of his films in a major category, let alone international film. I mean decision to leave would have been a perfect movie to nominate and they yet again decided not to nominate it.
Speaker 2:Um didn't it? It didn't make the final shortlist or did it? I don't think that it did. It was a shock.
Speaker 1:I remember yeah I don't think that it did, but and it was a shock. But I think we're unfortunately at that point where park jung-wook is gonna. It's to be very difficult for him to break out or one of his films to break through with the Academy unless it has that huge spotlight on it which could be career changing and life changing. And I don't have any illusions that if Jafar Panahi, the master that he is, had failed to win any major award at Cannes, the conversation this year would be immensely different. And it's no reflection at all on his skill as an artist and as a storyteller. Just happens to be Academy taste and sometimes if they're not pushed in a certain direction, then they're not going to go in that direction.
Speaker 2:And so I even wonder Jafar Panahi film would not be the Academy's thing, had it not won the Palme d'Or, Absolutely.
Speaker 1:And so, and the same thing, I would say well, if Decision to Leave had won the Palme d'Or in 2022, then you probably would have seen Park Chan-wook nominated for that film in 2022. And so even the Golden Lion, which went to Pedro last year right For his English language debut from Sony Classics, that didn't get in either. So I don't think the Golden Line has the same prestige as the Palme d'Or.
Speaker 2:That's a good point.
Speaker 1:So, even with the Golden Line, I would never call Park Chan-wook a shoe-in for any category, much less a breakthrough category which is a shame, because I do think that this is one of the sort of more unanimously praised films of the festival.
Speaker 2:Yes, absolutely and certainly one of our greatest filmmakers. So it's crazy that he hasn't ever even reached any level of recognition within the Academy. But I completely agree with you, 100%. I do think it's going to win something at Venice. I just don't think, as we're saying, that it's going to translate into any awards traction unfortunately.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I almost wish Imagine if it had won the golden lion and it went to movie. Yeah, maybe after the substance movie.
Speaker 2:Has enough in there also don't try to get it in.
Speaker 1:Yeah but again, just being on neon's list and running fourth or fifth, let's just see if they can get no other choice into international film top five yeah which, again, someone brought up this crazy idea, which is sounding really accurate right now, which is the possibility of Neon having all five nominees for the international film category.
Speaker 2:That'd be crazy.
Speaker 1:If you put in Sentimental Value and no Other Choice, the Secret Agent Surat, Jafar Panahi's film, they're going to have all the nominees and I can sort of tell you, based on my gut feeling, that's why one of those nominees is going to get snubbed. That had all five of those nominees, maybe spread the wealth, all five of those titles, and maybe three of them been Neon, one Sony Classics and the other movie, it would have had a much better chance of happening. But the idea that the screening committee is going to go and nominate five titles from Neon, I think is just goes to show you that it's unlikely to happen. And so a movie like Surat or a movie like no Other Choice is going to be on the outside looking in.
Speaker 2:And I think it's disappointing because I think several people were enthusiastic about the possibility that, given the strong reception of this film, that Park Chang-woo can figure into a category like best director, which would be a dream, but again without an initiation of sorts, you know, having the film had popped up somewhere in the past in any of the branches foreign film, cinematography, editing anything. To make that leap from nothing to best director. It's very unlikely. It's not a pattern, that is that that happens right.
Speaker 1:And then you have the screenplay, which I'm sure people love as well, and it's even based on a donald westlake um, uh, text book, um, but then he just got in trouble with the wGA. Yes, so I mean he's unfortunately, it sounds like a spectacular film that it's just not in the cards to go very far this year. Unfortunately, right, but I do.
Speaker 2:I can't wait to see it, but I do think that it's going to be a film that's going to be very celebrated throughout the rest of the year. It's going to make several top 10 lists, I expect the lead actor, who I've heard great things about, lee byung-hun to factor into, for example, the national society of film critics at some point? Uh, possibly. Uh, the new york film critics?
Speaker 2:yeah, it's playing critical yeah, critical awards in general. Um, so it will get acclaim and praise and recognized in that way, just not by the academy, tell you what if any film would really benefit from a toronto's people's choice award?
Speaker 1:it might be no other choice yeah you know that might that might be the edge that it needs. So we'll talk about that in our toronto episode. But, thinking about it, that could be the difference maker for that film right.
Speaker 2:uh, the next film to talk about, um was a very anticipated film, was Guillermo del Toro's, you know, long gestating dream project of Frankenstein. Finally, you know, seeing the light of day Right Was an enormous endeavor for him, a passion project for him, a lot of anticipation for it, and I'll say that the reception was like, not too far away from something like j kelly, which was respectable, you know, decent, respectable, not a adoration.
Speaker 2:um, not the best guillermo del toro film not shape of water not shape of water, not a film that I think most the consensus was that I think the consensus was that it it didn't meet those very high expectations. Um, it's still light. It still has in the 70s like 73 I think, on metacritic. Um, it's not going to be a film that's going to be, you know, negatively reviewed. Um, it's just not going to be a film that's going to be just showered with, you know, praise right, left and right. Um, you know praise Right, left and right.
Speaker 2:And you know it's kind of disappointing to hear because you know one, as Guillermo del Toro fans, we're all looking forward to it. But two, you know this is a passion project for Guillermo del Toro. Part of me wonders if you know this is kind of what happens when you have such a dream project that you know you're, you're, you're longing to fulfill, that there's so much pressure to try to get it right for you. You know, as, as an artist, you, you, you have that put upon pressure that you put on yourself to, to, to, really, you know, nail it.
Speaker 1:Right, and you know that you know sometimes the irony, when you have that much desire to to to, you know, create something incredible and great, you know you, you fall a little bit short yeah, you know what I'm saying that's an irony that I think can exist, you know, for artists um yeah, yeah, no, I absolutely agree with what you're saying and I think, from what I'm understanding, I think it's a del toro film that, like so many of his other films, it's there's gonna be a lot of people who like it, some people who don't like it, and then there's gonna be some people who really love it, right? Um, I'm a I'm a huge fan of crimson peak I love crimson.
Speaker 2:I think it's a spectacular film.
Speaker 1:I think it's beautiful, but I think I see so much of the artist in the film. Um, it's one of my favorite del toro films and a lot of. There's a significant amount of people who feel that way, right, um, but there's also a significant amount of people who think it's not well done and we're not very impressed with it.
Speaker 1:It's not like the shape of water, where you'll have a lot more people sort of ride the spectrum of saying you know more unanimous, more unanimous, more unanimous, it doesn't have to be unanimously I loved it, but maybe unanimously I liked it, and then very few people, if any, saying I hated it. Right, and um, a significant portion saying I loved it. And so, unfortunately, I just think it's going to be like one of those del Toro films. Um, that's a little bit more like, um, crimson Peak or maybe even something like Nightmare Alley.
Speaker 1:There are some people who really love nightmare alley and some people who think it's just fine, right, um, I I was disappointed by it. I know you like it a lot, um, and so I think it's going to be more like that, and the disadvantage for the movie is that guillermo has had such a great streak right with pinocchio, and nightmare alley was nominated for best picture, you know, right after the shape of water, and so, on top of the film being sort of not one of those unanimous del Toro films like Pan's Labyrinth or Shape of Water, it also has a disadvantage of sort of being fourth Right, and so we've sort of we've celebrated his work a lot, and I think there's a lack of urgency now, um, um, nonetheless, I think that we're in this moment right when horror and um classic monsters are, you know, appetizing to voters again, and we look at Robert Eggers who got four nominations for Nosferatu, right, um, I think Frankenstein is going to repeat all those nominations, don't you think?
Speaker 2:Yes, the film is a no-brainer for its technical, which I heard is a technical marvel, a technical mastery of which I have no doubt you know, just seeing pictures and knowing Guillermo's work. No doubt about that. So the film will absolutely be nominated for production design, costume design, makeup. I believe it'll be a nominee, even though he's been snubbed in the past by that branch, oddly enough, oddly enough, yeah, yeah for, for, for a filmmaker that you know is synonymous with that craft right exactly.
Speaker 2:Um, I heard great things about the score from alexander desplat that it's one of his best in a long time. That's saying something right. Um and uh. Honestly, I think that's where the boat stopped. Or cinematography possibly possibly figuring into cinematography it's a possibility.
Speaker 2:But other than that, I feel like that's where the boat stops. And you know, prior to this film premiering, we had discussed how I at least was feeling that it was unlikely that guillermo was going to pull another nightmare alley and have a film factor into best picture and then three other tax um, tech, categories below the line categories, um, I found it very unlikely that he was going to repeat that sort of same situation. It would have had to be something grander. It would have had to be something that was. It would have had to be something that was going to compete for director, for acting, possibly screenplay. Otherwise, if we're just talking about below the line, then it probably wasn't going to be a best picture contender and that's sort of what's happened.
Speaker 2:I think a lot of people had issue with the pacing of the movie that it's just completely beautiful to look at, just sometimes often missing a little bit of life, some people feeling that it could feel a little bit flat, a little bit dull, even if visually it's so majestic.
Speaker 2:And I also feel like I heard quite a bit of things about Jacob Elordi as the monster. He got a lot of mentions. A bit of things about jacob alordi as the monster. Uh, he got a lot of mentions, a lot of strong notices. He was a very much a a favorite, a highlight from many, from many viewers. Um, uh, some people taking issue with, I guess, the perspective the film takes on the monster, or having the monster be more victim, I think, or or or vice versa. I'm not exactly positive, but I know there were some issues from spectators about how the monster was constructed on a storytelling level and I heard some issues about Oscar Isaac and the accent and the sort of character-esque, possibly. All that to say that it's really a film that's mostly competing for tech categories, right, and doesn't have the, you know, unanimous reception to factor in outside of those tech categories.
Speaker 1:I mean, I understand everything you're saying and I agree with it. I will say that it will probably come up short, but with the mentions that he's been getting, I would not be surprised if jacob alorti does get some traction a golden globe nomination maybe I think so too um, or maybe a sag nomination, I think I think so too.
Speaker 2:I just think that at the end it comes up short exactly.
Speaker 1:I think those organizations are really eager to single him out and I think he's. He's building a a really nice filmography. He was on swift tour. He was uh uh in the film on swift horses earlier this year, but he was also wonderful in priscilla, and so I think that those organizations are going to be happy to single him out. I I would expect him, maybe, maybe one at least um, I think you're right, it's always going to fall short.
Speaker 1:It doesn't help that he's playing, you know, the, the, the monster in the in the movie, and voters are always going to look at that a certain way.
Speaker 1:So that would never have helped, even if it was the shape of water, um.
Speaker 1:But I also think it's important to sort of note here, which is beyond that nightmare, alley, possibly afterglow element, to that film being nominated for so many categories. Um, you look at crimson peak, and crimson peak is a gorgeous film and you would think that it would figure into those other categories, uh, like production design or costume design, and it still doesn't. And so there's still, the film still has to premiere in front of the eyes of the average moviegoer and that's going to, I think, play a part as to how far the film can go. I mean, if you look at Nosferatu, which got those four nominations for a Robert Eggers film, first time that he's ever no, I'm sorry, excuse me, first time he's ever gotten so many nominations, but he has been nominated for some photography for the Lighthouse. But I think part of that was that Nosfer autu was a big box office success, right, and that sort of compelled voters to take it seriously, and so I think that if something happens and well, this definitely won't be that, because it's a netflix right.
Speaker 1:But even if if that, if it's they've sort of revealed that you know netflix viewers just are not too excited about it um, it doesn't have, you know, moments of conversation in in the culture and amongst film fans, then it is something that could potentially go away in favor of other films that are, you know, popping at that moment. That's a good point, thick of that conversation. But certainly, certainly, when you look at something like cinematography, it's, it's always going to have right, it's always going to be in danger of of falling off to another film that's somewhere in the top 10. You know, if if at the same time f1 is hitting, you know viewers on streamers or or people are falling in love with f1, it could out muscle it potentially. Is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that's a good point. Um, right now I just think that, from what I'm hearing, the texts are just too good to ignore. But 100% I think that there's the possibility that things could change. So right now I'm seeing it for those categories.
Speaker 1:Yes, that's awesome. I think that you feel the same way.
Speaker 2:Those are the categories where I would compete, I would agree, yeah, okay. Next up we have Jim Jarmusch's new film, father, mother, sister, brother, which is also rumored to have not been accepted by Cannes for an in competition spot and also, you know, interestingly enough, like no Other Choice, was really well received by critics Raves. In fact, jim Jarmusch is one of our great filmmakers, so that's no surprise. I did see a lot of reactions from, you know, viewers who were at the screenings that felt that maybe it was more of a minor work from Jim Jarmusch. The film is sort of a trip-tuck. You know, three episodes dealing with family, relatives, memory. It's also subdued and subtle. First collaboration with Mubi. Yes, mubi will be releasing it in the fall, and so this film did excellent with critics, probably, I think, a film that has a strong potential to do well at venice and win something big. Um, from what I've been hearing, but I think you know, jim jarmusch has never been, you know, the academy's thing and probably isn't an austria contender.
Speaker 2:Um, you need a palm dior yeah, you need a palm dior win to sort of, you know, uh, you know, wrestle a spot um, but uh, yeah, I'm very happy to hear that about. Uh, jim jarmusch's film has a terrific cast, amazing, an amazing cast um, and it's one of our most anticipated films yeah, I really can't wait to see it.
Speaker 1:Um, and I think it's playing new york yes, it's going to new york yes, which is great. Um, it didn't go to tell you, right, um, but yeah, I'm I'm so happy that it did well, here obviously there's no oscar prospects, because they're just not cool. Um, but the film sounds amazing.
Speaker 1:Um, and again, I feel like sometimes, especially with jim jarmusch, because he's so again quietly cool and low-key cool that, like anyone who calls it like minor jim jarmusch, you could technically call any jim jarmusch, minor jim jarmusch, because all his films live in this really unique wavelength and yet for so for one of his fans, you're gonna call it, they're gonna see it as major jim jarmusch, um, and so I I'm so excited to see that movie. I'm so glad I did well here yeah and you know, I really think that terry lisa like reconsider some of these films that he's letting into competition and some of the films that he's not letting right right and on what you were saying.
Speaker 2:You know, you know there's some, there's a deceptive simplicity to jim jarmusch's films yeah that you know, if you, if you look closely, are actually quite, quite profound and, uh, quite, quite quite impactful yeah so, uh, we're looking forward to that, and the next film to talk about is actually a pretty big one.
Speaker 2:Um is mona fastd's next film, the Testament of Anne Lee Yep, which had a terrific reception at Venice. But prior to its premiere screening, you know, the same thing was happening. The same thing that was happening with After the Hunt for Us. We were staying up late trying to see what the early immediate reception was going to be after the press screening and we were seeing a lot of troubling comments from Letterboxd, of people who thought it was kind of weird propaganda and just too weird for them. A film that was sort of, I guess, in their eyes, promoting abstaining from sex. Um, a film that had a lot of uh, I, you know, uh, ambition that didn't quite land. Um, people not really knowing what to make of the piece, people feeling like it was a big misfire. Yeah, some people called it, um, you know the you know, wtf movie of the festival of film. That, uh, you know, I guess on the ground uh had a very polarized reaction amongst audience members.
Speaker 2:you, know, in a way it reminds me a little bit of well, people were saying it was this year's Amelia Paris, which is strange, but I guess they're both kind of musicals or quasi musicals, right, but it reminded me a little bit more from what I was hearing of Die my Love, which had a very good critical reception. That's right. But while we were at Cannes, I was fortunate enough to be at the premiere of that film.
Speaker 1:The first showing, yeah.
Speaker 2:The first showing yeah, the first showing with Jennifer Lawrence and Robert Pattinson and Len Ramsey, which was awesome, um, but you know, if you talked talking to my colleagues at that festival, a lot of people didn't like it.
Speaker 2:A lot of people you know uh were were really turned off by it, felt alienated by it, didn't like it. Um. I was fortunate enough to see it again and I and I and I loved it my second time, um, but uh, so it kind of reminded me of that. You know, critics were so rapturously, you know uh, embracing of the movie. Um has terrific reviews, um, but audience members are more polarized.
Speaker 1:Right and, to be fair, I think that it's going to end up being a film that plays better for critics and audiences. I don't think this is going to be the brutalist in the sense that I do think there's some crossover appeal for the brutalist that you know the average cinema goer would, would you know, make, take a gamble and go and watch. I don't think that that is the case for this movie um, but I'm happy to say that the reception really turned around like 24, 48 hours later, from what we were initially seeing, you know, two hours after its premiere, um, so that's great.
Speaker 2:It's kind of the opposite of after the hunt. Yeah, kind of You're right.
Speaker 1:Exactly, um, but so that was great to see, and so a lot of people. I mean no one calls it a simple film. Everyone acknowledges that it is an unconventional film, but a lot of people admired for that. A lot of people admire for that, yeah.
Speaker 2:I think I I I read ecstatic reviews for it, so much so that I cannot wait to see this movie. This is at the very top of my most anticipated of the year. I heard it looks beautiful. I heard the craftsmanship is top notch. I heard that it has moments of real euphoria and boldness. Euphoria, um, and and and boldness, um. It's uh, how it's calibrating its musical numbers and the choreography and the story. It's just such an.
Speaker 2:You know, I've heard transfixing things about it right um, and even david erlich from indiewire at one point said that it might be possibly even better than the brutalist. Oh, wow, um. And so I didn didn't read that. I cannot wait to see this movie.
Speaker 1:I mean, I will say that in terms of those early reactions that we were first seeing, and again, letterboxd is no science. So jokes on us for trying to take Letterboxd as a science of anything.
Speaker 2:This movie proved that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's revealing of anything, and certainly when it comes to oscar voters. I don't think an oscar voter really gives an f right about the letterbox curve, as they call it um. But it was sort of interesting because then this rumor came up, the idea that some people were maybe, in that first wave of reactions, giving it a negative review, um on purpose and what's it called like? Um review, bombing, bombing it, which is really uncalled for. I mean, if there's any truth to it, it's just a little sad and unnecessary.
Speaker 2:And you know, let's leave that for IMDB yeah, but I hate when it happens on IMDB too, and I think the rumor was that possibly I mean this is just a rumor that possibly Ariana Grande fans were review, bombing it because of something Amanda Seyfried said at some point about auditioning for.
Speaker 1:Glinda.
Speaker 2:I don't know. That's just a rumor that was floating around. Hopefully it's not true. Like you said, let's not be review bombing nothing for any reason.
Speaker 1:Right, and I mean, and I will say, like it's all part of the Oscar race anyway, if you remember last year's Fernanda Torres and Carlos Villagas-Kahn debacle, but there's enough to talk about without getting into any of that territory. So you know, respectfully, interview when you see the film.
Speaker 2:But now things are more normal. Like if you look at the letterbox curve, it's normal.
Speaker 1:It makes sense.
Speaker 2:It's sort of even doubt, yeah but you know, um, the ecstatic reviews for this movie. You know, first of all, the film doesn't have a distributor. So we certainly have to wait to see which studio picks the film up before we consider or before we're able better, better, better, able to picture where it's going to have an impact in the race, what categories. And the problem with debuting in a festival, a fall festival, without a distributor.
Speaker 2:Things have to move quickly. You have to buy the film quickly, a distributor, and start promoting the film, start sending the film out, start putting voters in front of the movie distributor and start promoting the film. Start sending the film out, start, um, you know, putting voters in front of the movie, um, so that it can get the traction that it needs to. And it's the shorter time, it's a shorter window, uh, for all these things to to move along and these negotiations, you know to to for a studio distributor to buy a film, they don't happen quickly, you know it's. It takes time, yeah, so you know the pressure's on for it to find a distributor and get going. The Brutalist was able to do it, yeah, and it did it pretty fast after the Venice premiere.
Speaker 1:And it's the same team, so you an argument could be made that if anyone knows how to do it quick, it's it's the Brutalist team.
Speaker 2:Right, right. But I will say that you know that Brutalist benefited from A24 not having a big horse last year. Yeah, something to push a film, to push all the way, and so they jumped at the chance to buy the Brutalist. This is a different scenario because I think a lot of studios already have their horse.
Speaker 1:Yeah, a lot of studios already you know, have dibs on what they want to, you know, be promoting and we talked about some studios that might be buyers at the festival and you know, to be fair, there has been some rumors that someone has already picked it up.
Speaker 2:There's been rumors. We don't know how true those rumors are, but again, just looking at the landscape of the distributors that are available, possibly that don't have possibly a big awards horse that they can sort of push, you know, there aren't that many candidates. So it's, for example, A24 probably is not going to buy this movie. They have their hands full with the Safdie brothers. Neon certainly cannot buy this movie. They have way too many contenders.
Speaker 1:It's not for it.
Speaker 2:A great studio to purchase this movie, I think would have been Mubi, oh yeah. But Mubi has been kind of quiet and they just made a huge purchase at Cannes for the Lin Ramsey movie Die my Love, another actor's contender Right and they certainly went all the way, probably expended many of their resources to get the Substance, those nominations last year. Who knows how much resources they have this year to spend on an Oscar campaign.
Speaker 1:And they have a good amount of movies this year. They're just not necessarily quote-unquote Oscar movies. They have Kelly Reichardt and the Dramers.
Speaker 2:And those other bigger studios already have their horses. We thought about something like Searchlight possibly, which is oddly enough, this year doesn't have A little hollow. Yes, I think they have a horse in Rental Family. Possibly that's going to Toronto right now. Or Bradley Cooper, or Bradley Cooper's film. Either way, neither of those films, feel like they would make a huge impact.
Speaker 1:And none of them are actress movies.
Speaker 2:Right, exactly, exactly, but just on the scale of those movies. It's harder for those films to get you know. Nine nominations, yeah, not. Actress movies not tech movies necessarily Some luck with getting nominees into categories, but it's certainly not, you know, a24 or Neon, or Mubi, or Searchlight, you know, or Universal. It's a smaller company. It would be a steeper climb.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:And so that's something that we are eagerly waiting to see what happens there.
Speaker 1:Bleeker is also.
Speaker 2:I mean Bleeker released Mona Fassball's last film.
Speaker 1:But that's again. That's a very difficult climb, exactly.
Speaker 2:So you know, we have to see, we really have to see what happens with which studio buys it.
Speaker 1:Yeah, to me that's going to be the major factor because there's a lot of enthusiastic word for it. But if we analyze the situation a little bit deeper, you're kind of going to see that brady corbett's films do well at venice, and so I'm not surprised that something that he produces is also doing well and lee, but none of them really take off like the brutalist. You know, you needed the brutalist, a 70 millimeter sort of headline, to sort of compel voters to watch it and take it seriously. I mean, vox lux did really well at venice, right. It didn't manage a win, right, and it certainly didn't manage any traction with oscar voters, just because it's just not their thing and it didn't do well at the box office and it didn't do all the box office.
Speaker 1:Now ann lee benefits from the fact that amanda seyfried has been nominated before.
Speaker 2:It's a real person and they desperately need that in the actress category but even even aside from you know the best actress thing that you're talking about.
Speaker 1:It's also on 70 millimeter, it's also on 70, but but what I'm saying is now that it's on 70 millimeter and we just did the bruce has the 70 millimeter, lost some of its shine, right?
Speaker 1:and what about the idea that, paul, that Paul Thomas Anderson is about to release a movie on the same format? Right, it's not like it doesn't have the same oohs and ahhs that the Brutalist had when it premiered, right, and that may be a factor. And so for me, in my opinion, from what I'm gathering, is that it can be a film that makes an impact in best picture and best director, certainly in best actress, tech categories like cinematography and production design and costume design. It could factor in in song and score, even though its team is not necessarily full of artists who have garnered nominations in those categories before. There's enough work in the movie to do that.
Speaker 1:But the most important thing is the film needs this piece of glue, I think, to hold it together, which is whoever picks it up and is sort of going to sell it to voters. And so what kind of glue are you going to have? If you're going to have bleaker studio glue, then it's really not going to hold up. If you're going to have Sony Picture studio glue, then it's really not going to hold up. If you're going to have Sony Picture Classics glue, it's probably going to go the distance Right, and so that's going to be the most pivotal part.
Speaker 2:Well, yeah, exactly, you know. The commercial prospects for a movie like this, though, I think, are much less than a movie like the Boudalas, just based on what it's about and how it's expressing its, uh, artistry. Right, you know, it's gonna be a tougher sell for audiences. I think that's something that studios who are contemplating purchasing the film, acquiring the film, that's certainly something that's crossing their mind. Um, it's, it's. It's not an easy sell, it's not.
Speaker 2:And so, to your point, best actress is one of the categories we're most looking at with this film in particular. Why? Because that category is, as you were saying, joseph, in desperate need of an actor who's playing a real life figure. We've talked about this before on the podcasts, episodes. Um, you know, uh, the trend is that every category, every acting category, should have at least one actor who is playing a real life figure. Um, that's just, you know, that's something that actors are very attracted to, that's something that they seek out, that's something that is going to help an actor get nominated if they're playing a real-life figure, especially in a movie that they're watching. It's one of the main reasons why you and I were not surprised one bit when Monica Barber landed that nomination for playing Joan Baez last year, even if all she had was a SAG nomination, because that category, supporting actress year, was in desperate need of an actor playing a real-life figure. And who better than you know a legend like Joan Baez? Right.
Speaker 2:And so Amanda Seyfried playing Anne Lee, who is a historical figure, really existed and is the founder of the Shaker movement. She fits that bill. She would be a real life figure, um, and give that category what it's missing, and so that's something that's a huge asset for her, so much so that I would say that if the film gets picked up by even a smaller studio, she would still stand a good chance, based on the need that that category possesses of having a candidate playing a real life figure. We don't have one right now. The closest you come to is the character that Jesse Buckley is playing in Hamnet, which we'll get into in the future, which doesn't really count because it's sort of a fictionalized take on Shakespeare in a way. I mean, the main character isn't even called Anne Hathaway.
Speaker 1:She's called Agnes. It's not, strictly speaking, what they like most, right?
Speaker 2:the statistic that we're talking about is very much, you know, an actual, real life figure from history. Yeah, and so I think Amanda Seyfried is right now the absolute best play for the film, because, again, that category needs that. But depending on the studios you were saying, I think it could go even further than that. I've heard incredible things about the technical aspects of the film, the cinematography. I heard that the score is amazing and he just won an Oscar last year.
Speaker 1:Is that going to?
Speaker 2:hurt his chances to get nominated again, or will it help his chances to get nominated again, especially if the film is using the score to such a degree? I heard there's an original song. I think that helps because it can get nominated for original song and it seems appropriate. Mean, I haven't heard the songs, but I heard that that's the way that these songs are utilized in the film, are very effective, um, sort of. They're kind of like prayers, chants, but they're songs as well. Um, and so I think it has a chance there.
Speaker 2:Um, and yeah, I think that it, depending on the studio, I think it could be a much bigger play than Amanda Seyfried. But right now, even if it's a less ideal studio, I still think Amanda Seyfried would stand a good chance. And I'll go further and I'll say that I believe firmly. I may be wrong, but Amanda Seyfried was going to win best actress here at the Venice Film Festival. We'll see in a few days if that prediction comes true, but if it does happen, now we're talking about a Venice winner for best actress, and so now, on top of having a category that needs a real life figure, now you have an option in a Venice best winner I mean best actress winner Right, which I think is going to help her. You know, get in regardless of the studio that she's a part of Right.
Speaker 1:I mean I think that the studio or the distributor is going to really frame whatever path they have to getting any kind of Oscar nomination. It's always going to look brighter in the hands of Searchlight, for example, than Bleaker Street, and that's no knock on Bleaker Street. They did a good job with Hard Truth last year. It just didn't make it in and it was an extraordinary performance from a former nominee. There are advantages that Amanda has that you've just iterated. That I completely agree with. A win would be fantastic.
Speaker 1:I think the other huge advantage here is that among all the acting categories, venice has been most kind to actress. You know, when you think about um spencer being able to get in with kristen stewart and the year that you had olivia coleman get in and parallel mothers get in, um, that's the same year with kristen. You know you have Vanessa Kirby get in along with Frances McDormand. So this idea that typically you're going to have at least one actress get in and Emma Stone has some vulnerability maybe. But even then Venice would be great, a great forecaster for maybe two Best Actress nominees for maybe two Best.
Speaker 1:Actress nominees, and so, if you look at it that way, amanda Seyfried right now may be in a much better position than someone like Julia Roberts, who a lot of people pegged for that nomination before the festival started.
Speaker 2:Right, right, right, 100%. But do you think that if it were a smaller studio like IFC Films that picks up the movie that, given the best actress is in need of something like that a real life historical figure she'd still be able to factor into the race with something like ifc films backing her?
Speaker 1:I think, with ifc or bleaker or oscilloscope backing her. As long as she has that win, she has a very compelling chance. And without it, without the win, I would argue that the esteem for Julia could be neck and neck.
Speaker 2:And what about if she doesn't win Best Actress, but the film wins something else?
Speaker 1:Then I still think it has a very compelling chance and again I think the film can win nothing, and as soon as it's picked up by Sony Picture Classics, I'm all in on her getting it.
Speaker 2:Right, there's a possibility that this film only registers in a category like best actress, just when we were saying earlier that the film might just be on this wavelength.
Speaker 2:That'll be hard for Academy of voters to get on. Right, um, strikes me as a harder proposition. I haven't seen the film and again it's among my most anticipated now, but it strikes me as a harder proposition, uh to take uh seriously awards wise, than a film like amelia peres, which you know had a lot of things going on at the same time, a lot of you know blending of different genres and and themes, and certainly a lot of people had a lot of thoughts about all of that. But it's still a little bit of an easier sell than I think. A musical about this historical 18th century figure who was a founder of a religious movement that promoted celibacy, and you know there's musicality in it, but it's sort of prayer-like, hymn-like and there's, you know, very suggestive explorative choreography. You know it's just a bolder film I don't want to say bolder because Emilia Perez had a lot of boldness about it but it just strikes me as a film that it's going to be harder for some voters to get on that wavelength.
Speaker 1:I completely agree, and it just goes down to the idea that Jacques Galliard, as an artist, was more easily assimilated into Oscar voters taste than you know. The team of the Boudelist, or, uh, brady Corbett, who was able to get in after only after so many films, and again the 70 millimeter of it all, you know the format of it all, um, really helped a lot. Um, and so I completely agree with you is that it would have a more challenging climb than Emilia Perez.
Speaker 2:Even if it got picked up by a bigger studio.
Speaker 1:Even if it got picked up by a bigger studio, because it's not. They're just not necessarily the most familiar with that type of filmmaking.
Speaker 2:Yet and I also think that it hurts that we're just coming from the Brutalist. Possibly and so Mona Fassbauer did receive a nomination as a co-writer of the Brutalist. Yeah, and so in a way it's, you know, like what we were talking about earlier with Emma Stone and Yorgos. You know, these kind of projects benefit from having some space between them as opposed to being back-to-back.
Speaker 1:That's sad. Remember that year, or those a couple of years, where we went from chris and stewart getting in for spencer in 2021 and the very next year, anna darmas got in for a very confrontational performance or confrontational film and blonde. And so, like I said, sometimes oscar voters, in their desperation, they're going to be willing to sort of say I'll, I'll take this on again right, as we were saying, that actress category is desperate for that one element.
Speaker 2:but I'll still say, like you know, the what you're referring to, the similarities between Spencer and blonde, possibly is not as exact as the shared DNA between Mona's fast Mona, fast fall, mona fast falls, involvement in the bootless and now another Mona Fassvald piece. Yeah, yeah, I get that, and the next big film to talk about is the premiere of Benny Safdie's film the Smashing Machine, which is an autobiographical film.
Speaker 1:Right, exactly on Mark Kerr right, the UFC fighter, and that had a really standout reception, mostly I, I think, or overwhelmingly for duane johnson right and doing johnson's performance, and we had talked about beforehand how it's going to be. This sort of transformative performance that you know makes a lot of headlines and that has an immediate uh, an immediate reaction from the audience, and I don't necessarily think that the film is being, you know, praised as something very singular. I think there's something conventional about the story and conventional about the material and possibly even conventional about the way it's told.
Speaker 2:I will say that prior to the film premiering, there had been some rumors that the film was actually going to be very out of the box and that was going to be sort of I don't strange, or you know what benny was doing yeah exactly. And then the trailer comes out and there's not a lot of unorthodox things about it, um, but we'll see. Maybe they hit things in the trailer and then the film premieres. And yeah, it's, it's, it's a familiar, uh, you know, familiarly told uh story, uh film that fits very comfortably in the sort of sports.
Speaker 1:Right, I'll pick exactly exactly so.
Speaker 2:I think most of the reviews were, uh, pointing to the fact that benny safty did a good job, um, as a solo effort, as a first solo effort, um, uh, separating from josh um, and that he has skill and that, as a, you know, as a first film, it was respectable, um, and there's certainly elements that were, you know, um, praised, but overall, you know, it's familiar, um, it's not too, you know it's it's accessible, um, and in a way, it's kind of what you would expect from this kind of story Right, but the clear highlight was certainly Dwayne Johnson's performance as Kerr, and that's had, I think, a 10-minute standing ovation when it premiered.
Speaker 1:And they're calling it a career best, which is not necessarily that surprising when you consider again his career choices.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:But nonetheless he got the praise that the film or the campaign required.
Speaker 2:And it certainly catapults him to the very top of consideration for best actor next year. But I will say that. Well, first, tackling Dwayne Johnson, he's a particular case. I wouldn't expect the academy to embrace Dwayne Johnson so fast, um, as some people were comparing him to um, brendan Fraser and the reception for the whale, and him having a similar trajectory to Brendan Fraser as an actor that you don't expect to pull off a highly commendable performance, and then he does, and then he gets nominated and then he wins. But Dwayne Johnson is not really like Brendan Fraser.
Speaker 1:I think that's a terrible comparison, right, right.
Speaker 2:Because Brendan Fraser had already been part of these projects earlier on in his career that were standout projects. You know he wasn't nominated for them, but they were projects that were acclaimed and praised. Dwayne Johnson is different because he, by and large, has been in only one type of movie and doesn't really have a filmography of respectable titles at all. You can't really point to something that is, you know, really well received, really well reviewed, and something that I guess uh, that his peers would be immediately attracted to.
Speaker 2:You know or impressed by or commend. Yeah, um, it's. This is really the first, the first attempt, um, at something, uh, deeper, and really the first attempt at something deeper and it's successful so far. It's very successful, but it's really it's just one. You know, brendan Fraser not saying Brendan Fraser had loads and loads of them, but he didn't just have one.
Speaker 1:No, he was in Gods and Monsters. He was in School Ties, he was part of the SAG ensemble winning film crash. So, absolutely, his. His standing in the industry and among his peers is significantly different. Right, and I also will exactly.
Speaker 2:And I also say that it's worth noting that you know Brendan Fraser, his character in the whale. First of all, the whale is a lot of movie that I like. I have a lot of issues with it, but certainly there's a, you know, the transformation aspect of brendan fraser, fraser, and then, uh, you know, having to play this character struggling with morbid obesity, you know um and and and tackling all of that through this sort of transformational lens. The Rock Dwayne Johnson is not exactly that, even though I heard that there's very good makeup involved in the film. But Dwayne Johnson comes from a world of fighting. He comes from a world, the wrestling world.
Speaker 1:Yeah, sports world.
Speaker 2:So, in a way, he's not too far removed from the world that he's, you know, involved in in the film, and I think I can't help but think that that's still something that voters are going to be looking at yeah, are they going to be aware of, at least.
Speaker 2:Right, you know, and I'm not trying to say that that detracts from his performance. I haven't seen it and certainly no one seems to say that that does detract. In fact, it's an asset, right, you know, um, you can, you can certainly use that as fuel for your performance that you're going to, you're going to give, um, it certainly adds a dimension to what you're playing, your familiarity with the subject and the world. But I, it's, it's, it's not as big of a stretch, I think, um, objectively, as some voters would see the Brendan Fraser part in the Whale.
Speaker 1:I agree, I agree, and I think that's something that they're going to be aware of that it might become a factor, but it might not. I think the big disadvantage there is that, again, actor is very crowded and when you come up with more esteemed names, like George Clooney, it could potentially be a factor. But if that wasn't the case and then the other thing is, you know, had his filmography had a couple more titles that had some critical esteem or some maybe artistically or creatively bold decisions you know, not blockbuster cinema, um, not um, mainstream cinema, popcorn cinema it would probably fare better. Again, I'm gonna say that the rock gave a tremendous performance in pain and gain and I I tweeted that and I thought he was hilarious in that and and again, it's not.
Speaker 1:I was not the biggest fan of that movie or performance I really like that movie and the performance, but again not too far removed, and I do think that at minimum it's going to encourage him to take on more of these roles and I think that if he does, I think he's going to see a lot of fruits for his efforts in the future. That said, I absolutely agree that he's like in the thick of the hunt for the nomination.
Speaker 1:I don't think he could win, and then agree that he's like in the thick of the hunt for the nomination. I don't think he could win no um. And then you did mention this idea that the film is a very comfortable sports movie. But I think that's a huge advantage right because I think that if you can get people to watch this movie and and make a good amount of money, and then you have voters seeing what is a more conventional film, that that's actually going to be something that appeals to them more than turns them off.
Speaker 1:And so I actually think that's an advantage for the film throughout the race.
Speaker 2:Right, I agree with that. I think this film, one of the reasons why it has so much potential to do well in the awards race in certain categories is because I do think it will do well financially. I think people will want to see the movie. I think the Rock has a fan base that will go watch the movie. And now, with this sort of narrative of the Rock is can actually you know this?
Speaker 2:you know, quote unquote the Rock is actually acting now narrative, and you have to see it because you know it's an amazing transformation and the kind of performance you wouldn't expect from the Rock is actually acting now narrative, and you have to see it because you know it's an amazing transformation and the kind of performance you wouldn't expect from the Rock and he gives it. Um, it's going to propel people who typically wouldn't go see that movie that's starring Dwayne Johnson to go see it. Um, recently we had a very successful uh box office for the Iron Claw from A24 as well. That was a great movie too, which I think is just a taste of how well this movie can do uh, with a bigger name like the rock and this sort of transformational narrative that, unfortunately, that film wasn't able to muster, even though zach efron is incredible in that movie but that's an interesting point to make, because zach wasn't able to make it into best actor and he's wonderful in that.
Speaker 2:But I will also say some people on social media have pointed to this and I have I have personal feelings about it as well that you know, when you look at and I think this is something that happens to me with the awards landscape often you know when you look at, you know actors who haven't been able to muster their first nomination, and then you know you have success stories like this one where the Rock's first, you know, really dramatic role might yield so much good result like a nomination for the film for him for several categories, you know.
Speaker 2:And then someone like Zac Efron, who has been in very good films throughout his career and is an incredibly strong actor, he can't muster a first nomination for the Iron Claw and such and such can offer, can can muster their first nomination after years of work, and such and such and such. And then you have these stories of well, one was good enough.
Speaker 1:One was good enough.
Speaker 2:And now they're in, and now they're a nominee. You know I always have very, very, you know, conflicted feelings about that. It doesn't feel fair to me, you know. It doesn't feel. You know, in a perfect world that things would just feel more balanced for me.
Speaker 1:I feel similar so I've heard.
Speaker 2:I've heard people on social media say those kind of things and I totally get it and it's justified but.
Speaker 1:I think at the end of the day it also comes down to what kind of campaign are they running for you, right, right, and what your situation is Like. I said, I really do think that I don't see how the Rock is going to miss the Globe, the SAG, any of the other really big name awards. I don't think he's going to have mention at the national society film critics. But at the end of the day, if the if, if duane johnson gets those big televised nominations and leaving uh libyan is able to win all three of la new york national society film critics or wagner mora, he's always going to be in danger of losing his spot to whatever actor is able to do that by the simple fact that they're probably going to have a more advanced career by now. Um, and so you see, I think the opposite.
Speaker 2:I think that I don't get what you're saying and in a way, I think that that's the fair thing. But I think that when you have the right vehicle, you know and you're just ticking all the right boxes. It really doesn't matter that a lesser known actor who's had a better, has had a better career, a bigger career in terms of quality films, wins National Film Critics, la Film Critics, new York Film Critics, because I think that you know, as you were saying, the campaign is the thing that matters the most. Which film did more financially better is the thing that matters the most. Which film did more financially better is the thing that matters the most. Which film is more prone to getting mentioned by the Golden Globes or the SAG Awards or the BAFTA? That matters more. So, in a way, I get what you're saying, but I think I'm on the opposite end of that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I disagree. I think that, at the end of the day, dwayne Johnson can go perfect on the precursor awards and Wagner Mora can miss them all, but by virtue of enough international voters prioritizing a watch for the secret agent and understanding what's at stake for Wagner Mora and for Brazilian cinema and for that title and possibly for neon, that Wagner Mora is going to be able to leverage that to a nomination. But yeah, we have a disagreement there. But so, yeah, I definitely think that he's in the thick of it. I would never call him a lock.
Speaker 2:I think he is a lock, but maybe I'll be proven wrong.
Speaker 1:I think he's safe for now, but I think it's a very long race.
Speaker 2:But I also will say someone that I think is as important to talk about is Emily Blunt, who plays Kers, one of his ex-girlfriends. I don't think they're together anymore and I will say okay, we initially predicted Emily Blunt would have a terrific chance of being nominated in the lead actress category because, as we were saying with Amanda Seyfried, that category is in desperate need of an actor playing a real life figure. The film has screened and it is very incredibly unlikely that emily blunt will go lead. Yeah, she will go supporting um I think it's from people who've seen it, I think it's it's obvious that she's a supporting uh character in the film. Um, and guess what?
Speaker 2:Supporting actors is also in desperate, desperate need of two things. It's in desperate need of a cemented veteran presence in the category, meaning someone who's already been there before has a past nomination. We don't have someone who looks great. When we have options, they all have pros and cons. We didn't have someone that felt perfect, and that category supporting actors is also missing someone who is a real-life figure. And guess what? Emily Blunt has come to check both boxes.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:So she checks the box of a real-life historical figure I mean someone who actually exists and a veteran Right. And so guess what, even if we have some doubt about I mean you have some doubt currently about you know Dwayne Johnson making it into best actor, emily Blunt shoots up to the top of the list, but for best supporting actress, Right, which is kind of odd because she was just there in 2023 in the exact same category for Oppenheimer. Emily Blunt is a very talented actor. It was surprising that her first nomination was as a supporting actress for Oppenheimer, where I don't think she was asked to do a lot. In my personal opinion, she's very much fitting in that supportive wife role. And here she is again contending for Best Supporting Actress in that supportive wife role. And here she is again contending for best supporting actors in another supportive wife role. I think it's a little bit too. How do I say this?
Speaker 2:you know it's, it's familiar, yes, it's familiar, and typically the voters, I think, would opt to not nominate her yeah and say well, we just nominated you in the same exact category for a similar kind of part of a supportive wife. Supportive partner part.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:Even though, clearly, the character in the Smashing Machine is very radically different from the character that she plays in Oppenheimer, no doubt, but just the bare bones of it. They would typically, you know, if you look at their patterns, they would say you know, we just did that, we don't have to do it again. But given the supporting actress is in such dire need of both aing Actress, seeing who her competitors can be Elle Fanning, jennifer Lopez, wunmi Mosaku, possibly Gwyneth Paltrow, possibly someone from One Battle After Another, possibly Ariana Grande, possibly Rebecca Ferguson. Just looking at the landscape, it's hard to see somebody beating her on reputation on her on, on, on on the basis of her name and her reputation.
Speaker 2:Um, obviously things would change if I don't know um another actor who was possibly on their fourth or fifth nomination, who, yeah, oh, glenn close let's say glenn close is incredible in wake up dead man okay.
Speaker 2:Well, things change a bit. Yes, you know, glenn Close would probably win that category hands down. But barring something like that you really have she doesn't have the fiercest competition and she stands. She would stand a terrific chance of winning her first Oscar if she is nominated as a supporting actress, and right now it seems very likely that she will.
Speaker 1:At the same time to play devil's advocate. Here we're talking about an actor who, historically, has had a difficult time getting nominated at the Oscars. It took Oppenheimer, in its what 13 nomination haul to have her break into that category. Whatever feelings the voting branch may have had about those other films that she was in, remember when she had the double bid for Mary Poppins and A Quiet Place and she ended up winning that SAG award For A Quiet Place, for A Quiet Place exactly.
Speaker 1:I'm not sure that those feelings or those apprehensions are gone, and so it does seem a little bit possibly far-fetched to think that she is a bona fide shoe-in. I just, without a category, shift in a very familiar or similar role. So she does have the advantages that you mentioned, but she also has those other disadvantages, and I think you're right. If she were listed she may become the favorite to win, and that may be an incentive to not list her. I think it'd be more odd to see Emily Blunt by herself, without the rock and the vice versa the rock by himself without Emily Blunt.
Speaker 1:so I don't see Emily Blunt getting in by herself here. But again the but, again the idea that the movie is kind of conventional and that Dwayne Johnson doesn't have the filmography yet and that Emily Blunt was just there and that the role is not too much of a departure. I don't necessarily think that she's a shoe in for a nomination, um and and the same with the same with Dwayne Johnson. I think that they're both pretty comfortable right now, and they should be, and I think Emily Blunt checks so many of those boxes that are necessary. But without that I do think that she's not as strong as I would have hoped. I think some people kind of talked about this element, that she's kind of maybe unlikable.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I've heard that's the other thing I was going to bring up. The only thing that makes me question I feel a little bit bullish about her possibilities of getting nominated and possibly becoming the favorite, just given the stats that we've gone over. But I will say one of the things that gives me hesitation is reading from some people that her character is unlikable. Reading from some reviews that the movie kind of stacks the cards against her character. Reading some from some reviews that the squabbles between her character who I believe is, I think it's dawn um with her partner occur, um that they kind of aren't the highlights of the movie. They kind of sometimes are more of the lowlights of the movie.
Speaker 2:You know that sort of you know, kind of stops the momentum a little bit, all of those factors and that it's I've heard from several people read, from several people saying that it's a thinly written part and that because of Emily Blunt's skill as an actor she's able to still give this very thinly, you know, unlikable character, this thinly drawn unlikable character, some life because she's so talented. You know, those kind of factors might come into play when voters are deciding well, do I really want her to win for this? Yeah, you know so I certainly have thought about win for this. Yeah, you know, so I certainly have thought about that. That's a possibility. Again, I haven't seen the film but yeah, it's possible, it's possible.
Speaker 1:I think the other thing that I think could end up being a factor is again if the movie makes a good amount of money at the box office, then I think that it will, and then you're right, there's every reason to believe that it will. Then I don't see why it's not a picture actor supporting actress, makeup Right, and I'm glad that you brought that up, because that's the next thing I wanted to say.
Speaker 2:If we're talking about a very, very, very possible nomination for Dwayne Johnson in lead actor, if and lead actor, if we're talking about a very possible nomination for Emily Blunt and possible frontrunner status for Emily Blunt winning that category best supporting actress, if we're talking about a makeup nomination, that seems very likely. That's something the Academy very much is drawn to, that branch An actor and the makeup needed to transform them into a specific character and a real-life figure too, right, a real-life figure. If we're saying all of that and we're also saying that the film stands to make good money, then really, if you think about it, there really is no logical reason that the film wouldn't make it to best picture. It would really only not make it into best picture if it's a stacked, you know, category and there's just so many contenders. But that's not really the case here, you know, um, I think there's maybe like seven contenders that feel firm, maybe even less than that, and there's room here, and so I have a very strong, uh, suspicion that when we get to the end of the year, if things remain on the road on which they seem to be at this moment of a likely nomination for all the things I just mentioned.
Speaker 2:The smashing machine will get nominated for best picture and I know no one is expecting that because, again, it's a conventional piece, it's a familiar piece. The standouts are the acting, the makeup. You know it's a you know good job on Benny. The standouts is the acting, the makeup. It's a good job on Benny, but it's not great. It's okay, it's good, that won't matter, because it has just enough elements to make it in the end into best picture.
Speaker 2:So don't sleep on it at all. Do not sleep on it at all. I know people think that A24 is big horse. I certainly have thoughts about that, that A24's big horse is Marty Supreme, and that may well end up being true. And even if it is true, the Smashing Machine will still hold, will still have a good opportunity to crash land and make the top 10. At number 10, at number nine who knows? Towards the bottom, but still make it. And maybe we have a scenario where both Safdie films are nominated for Best Picture, which makes, you have to admit, makes a very attractive headline. Right, you know, both brothers getting Best Picture nominations.
Speaker 1:I absolutely agree and I think all those pieces are in play and that scenario exists and is within reach.
Speaker 1:So we'll see what happens by the end of the year.
Speaker 1:But I'll also say that is that if you have Emily Blunt in a familiar role and she's not Meryl Streep, and you have Dwayne Johnson, who doesn't have the filmography, and you're not necessarily going to include Benny in Best Director and you're not going to include the script either, then I think that there is an opportunity also for it to flip the other way right and just have it be a box office success that is listed at the Producers Guild Award and at the SAG Awards and, at the end of the day, just did not have the strength to retain the ninth spot in picture, the fourth spot in supporting actress or the fifth spot in actor, and that it's just a movie that gets nominated for makeup or maybe potentially nothing.
Speaker 1:I kind of agree with you that right now, if I had to lean one way, I'd lean into the nominations that include Best Picture. But I would also say that you know, given the type of work that it looks like this year is going to have, that I could just as easily see this going into a. It didn't get on it for anything kind of thing.
Speaker 2:Right, you know, I hear you and I think it's possible, anything's possible, but right now I'm, I'm, I'm just feeling, like that's where the momentum is.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:And it's as you know, it's hard to derail momentum, I agree, once you have momentum, you know it's hard to derail momentum, I agree, once you have momentum, you know, a big portion of the game is is is that I agree, um, but I'll also say something that you said. Interesting on one final note is the nominations that we're talking about acting actor, supporting actress, makeup. They sound incredibly familiar. Why? Because those are the same exact nominations that darren aronofsky's the Whale got in 2022. And yes, the Whale which again, is not a film that I like at all, and it hurts me to say that because I'm a big Darren Aronofsky fan the Whale did not get nine for best picture. It won two of those three Oscars. It won makeup and actor.
Speaker 2:And let's be serious, the vote as we've said several times on the podcast, the voters that vote for the nominees is a much more select you know compact group of voters, more narrow Than the you know, entire body that is voting for the winners.
Speaker 2:That makes sense, because the voters who are voting for the nominees have to go through stacks and stacks of films. They have to see a bunch of films to come up with the nominations. That's harder than seeing the five that you're supposed to see and then picking the one that you like, the one that speaks to you. That's why the voting pool for the nominations is always smaller than the voting pool for the nominations is always smaller than the voting pool for the winners. If the voting pool for the winners that big body of voters, had been able to vote for best picture or had voted for best picture, the whale would have been nominated for best picture. I feel very confident saying that it didn't get the nomination. You know it must have probably missed it by a hair. It was probably number 11. But if we get a larger sample of voters like the ones that voted for those winners that year, they would have voted for the Whale to be a top 10 Best Picture nominee.
Speaker 1:Most actor winners are Best Picture nominees.
Speaker 2:It's rare to have a Best Actor winner not be in Best Picture, and so that's an anomaly that probably would have been corrected had more voters voted in Phase 1 for the nominees and so in a way, there's a symmetry between that and what we're talking about for the Smashing Machine.
Speaker 2:Yeah, correct, no, I agree. Yeah, the last big film we're going to talk about was a huge success and Joseph and I predicted that it was going to be again under the radar and have a big moment at Venice. And it did, and that is Catherine Bigelow's. A House of Dynamite Hope Diction, yeah, and even though on paper it seemed like Jay Kelly was their preferred big horse, there were just too many good things going for Catherine Bigelow's movie that I found it odd that more people weren't more assured that the film was going to be a bonafide, big best picture contender. Why do I say that? Because if you look at gold Derby, you know, um, uh, house of dynamite had very low odds. It was towards the bottom. People were putting all their chips on, uh, frankenstein and especially Jay Kelly. No one was really looking at a house of dynamite and, honestly, there was no reason not to Number one.
Speaker 2:Catherine Bigelow rarely does poorly with critics. Even her last film, which is disappointed at the box office, detroit, which is not a bad movie at all, did well with critics. It just did bad at the box office. She rarely does poorly with critics. She's assembled a terrific team here. The cast is aces, the cinematographer is aces, the editor is aces. She has a terrific team working with her, and it's a timely subject matter that I knew that she could pull off and that it would resonate and it did, and so it wasn't a surprise at all to see it do so well.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, I completely agree. I think the one hesitation I had and I mentioned it on our podcast was just the involvement of Netflix. It's her first big feature film with Netflix and the whole hypothetical of the situation, and I understand that the film is based on this protocol and I think that's probably a sound place to begin from. But just the idea that this is the same distributor that was responsible for Don't Look Up, which was also nominated for Best Picture, by the way, but it was also emacerated by critics. That's where my hesitation came from. I'm so happy that it turned out well, Rapturous reviews for it and it certainly sounds like something the academy would really love to spotlight. That's going to automatically attract them. Um, I kind of thought that there was something to the project when the new york film festival yes, selected it that was also a green flag.
Speaker 1:Exactly at the same time they did open up with after the hunt. So I didn't know what to make of it. But anyway, I was really happy to see that, and it's again reminiscent of other films that deal with similar topics. People have pointed out to the film Failsafe, which is from the 50s or 60s I believe, and so really no surprise here, that it should be an absolute shoo-in for a number of nominations, I will say the only weak spots the film has.
Speaker 2:It has a couple of them. Number one it's undeniable that we're going through a moment in the world, you know, there's a wave of anti-American sentiment because of the, you know, cultural and political landscape. I think that could produce some detractors. Not enough that I think the film wouldn't get nominated for Best Picture and several other categories, but I think it could derail a little bit of momentum. I think on Letterboxd those initial reactions were good, very positive, but not ecstatic, because I think there were audience members, you know, foreign, from the, from the foreign, uh, side of things that, um, you know, were less in love with it, you know some some of them called it like thinly veiled propaganda.
Speaker 2:Um, some of them took issue with sort of the you, you know us, uh, centric kind of narrative narrative, um, uh, and I think that could be something that plays a part in again derailing some of that momentum. I will say that, as a filmmaker, catherine Bigelow tends to shy away from um or restrain herself from having a defiant perspective on the political spectrum, which, in the past, has sort of irked some viewers and some audience members. I can't help but feel, personally, that it was one of the reasons why I filmed, like Zero Dark Thirty, which had terrific box office and incredible critical reception, really underperformed in the Academy Awards of 2012, getting only, I think, five nominations, missing a Best Director nomination, which seemed like a no-brainer, winning only one Academy Award. That was a tie, and so you know, know, I think there's that aspect to her films that have has always been present, and we're living in such a politically charged time where I think there are people who feel more, uh, resistant to supporting something that doesn't take a defiant stance on some on these political issues.
Speaker 1:Um, I issues and the political landscape.
Speaker 2:I think that's something that could affect the momentum of this film as well.
Speaker 1:I agree it has a lot of momentum right now, but the ambiguity that Catherine Bigelow likes to imbue within her films is undoubtedly going to rub some people the wrong way, and the film, as praised as it is right now, is going to become controversial at some point, either with international audiences or domestic audiences. Certainly domestic audiences, audiences in the US, are definitely going to have a lot of opinions about it, and the question remains is what does the Academy do with that? Do they sort of say I want to spotlight the film because it's raising these questions or I want to avoid the film because it's raising these questions or I want to avoid the film because it's raising these questions and this is it's.
Speaker 1:The film has debuted. It is a success. I would argue that it's. It should be a favorite for a lot of categories, including best picture. But this is the kind of film where it can be released in October and it can completely be derailed by one or two side or parallel narratives that develop. I remember with Zero Dark Thirty the narrative sort of developed that it was not criticizing enough the sort of torture tactics that were displayed in the film, and so I haven't seen the film yet, but I can, understanding the kind of time we're living in, I know that will become a factor. I know the film will be released in October and we're going to get all the think pieces from viewers and politicians and people in government and other kinds of officials and all those may become a factor as to the future that the film has at the Oscars. Right, but going by this reception alone, I would say that it should be Netflix's main campaign, the campaign that they prioritize.
Speaker 2:Right with what you just said right now that I think it. You're right. There's possibility here that the film could face some challenges. But those challenges in and of themselves are also somewhat positive because I think it will be a major talking point kind of movie. Not too dissimilar and it's going to sound crazy to say this but not too dissimilar than Don't Look Up when it came out and you had a lot of people talking about it and discussing it and I hate it, I love it, I think it's good, I think it's okay, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2:A lot of conversation happening about the piece. Again, we're living in a politically charged time, so these kinds pieces tend to to do that. Um, I do think it's a film that a lot of people are going to see on netflix people from the left, people from the right, people from the middle, um, people curious cinephiles. A lot of people are going to tune in to watch it. I think it's going to be a film that's going to be discussed a lot on tv, in news programs, by people just socially, um, and I think, think, as much as those kind of scenarios can create difficulties for the movie, I think it'll also be an asset because it'll be a major talking point kind of movie. It's not going to be something that slips under the radar that people snooze on. I mean, amelia Perez got 13 Academy Award nominations and it barely made any dent when it came out on netflix?
Speaker 2:I don't think it. I don't think it made the top 10 of netflix once and there was a lot of discourse on that and there was a lot so. So, in a way, I think this film stands to do great business for netflix and, as we've seen, I don't I I don't imagine the critical reception diminishing. I think it's only going to be get stronger or stay where it is, which is really very high. Um, and people are going to talk about it. People are going to be uh, have opinions about it.
Speaker 2:Um, all of that, I think, is overall an asset for its awards potential. Um, I agree with you. I think it's a bonafide best picture nominee. Um, I think it should absolutely be Netflix's big horse. I think they with you. I think it's a bonafide best picture nominee. Um, I think it should absolutely be Netflix's big horse. I think they know that. I think they know that this is their, their, you know, most prized pony. Um, that is not going to be getting in in the last two or three spots like Jay Kelly, possibly. It's going to be a firm uh contender, a firm favorite for the Academy Award nomination for Best Picture. I think Catherine Bigelow is going to contend for Best Director. That's a fascinating category, considering that there's another amazing filmmaker that I love, chloe Zhao, who's also going to be contending with her film. There could be the possibility, could there be, that we have two female directors for the first time in the Best Director category? That would be insane.
Speaker 1:That would be amazing. Well, we had it in 2020 with Emeril Fanel and Chloe Zhao. Oh, that's right.
Speaker 2:Whenever Chloe Zhao gets in, she brings in another female filmmaker. That's right.
Speaker 1:yes, which is what's great about her, but no, historically it would be the first time that we have two female filmmakers competing for best director who have already won an award for best director, and that's history in and of itself. So that would be. That would be great to see, right.
Speaker 2:You know the the best director category I spoke about this in the in the column that I wrote. That's on the website. You know is a very volatile category and there's a lot of contenders this year between, you know, joaquin Trier and Jafar Panahi and Ryan Coogler and PTA and Yorgos, and now Catherine Bigelow and Josh Safdie and Benny Safdie. There's just a lot of people Chloe Zhao, and so this volatile category of best director they may have to choose.
Speaker 1:They're going to have to choose.
Speaker 2:Do I want to lend my support to Catherine Bigelow for a second nomination, or do I want to nominate Chloe Zhao just four years after she won best director for Nomadland? That might be fascinating. In the event that neither of them get in, I think it will be a huge issue for the Academy, because I think you're talking about two incredibly celebrated films.
Speaker 2:I think there's going to be no excuse to recognize them, but I'm I'm weary that they're going to see how the director's branch typically does things and seeing the contenders that are, you know, available this year, I have a hard time seeing them both get in, and I think it's going to present a dramatic problem for directors. Which film do they side with?
Speaker 2:And there's a part of me that thinks, in some ways, catherine Bigelow has the edge here. I know people don't feel that yet and I know Chloe Zhao, you know, at least on Gold Derby, is, you know, very high. Um, and I would love that. I love Chloe Zhao, but Catherine Bigelow has a little bit of the edge. I would say why? Because she's waited longer for her second nomination. Chloe Zhao won in 2020. Um, catherine Bigelow won in 2009. Um, uh, uh. On top of that, catherine Bigelow tends to make films that are you know, very muscular.
Speaker 2:You know that I can see a lot of male members of the academy being drawn to um, being sort of uh, you know, just uh, considering also the film is, you know, taut thriller, a tense thriller. Her muscular direction, there's a masculinity to her pieces, to her film work that I think might resonate with the men in that branch. So don't be surprised if she has the edge here for best director.
Speaker 1:I absolutely can see where you're coming from. The edge here for best director. I absolutely can see where you're coming from. I think the other factor is that people are going to discuss how the narrative may devolve into this idea of it either has to be Chloe Zhao or Catherine Bigelow, as if we don't necessarily have room for two female filmmakers, female directors, and I expect it to be a pointed conversation because it doesn't necessarily have to go down that route. You don't have to be comparing it based on oh well, I really only need to get one female filmmaker in, and I just expect that to become part of the discussion as the year goes on. I do think that there is potentially one weak spot in Catherine's bid for best director and that is that, unlike Chloe Zhao, there isn't necessarily one performance that people who have seen the film are championing right now. They're thinking that they're sort of saying it's more of an ensemble piece, and sometimes the director category really rewards those filmmakers who have, you know, a very strong central performance at at the heart of the film.
Speaker 1:You know, directing so much of it is performance right and so, even though Catherine Bigelow is working her magic with all these other elements sound and editing and I heard the score is wonderful the idea that there isn't this central figure like a Maya from Zero Dark Thirty, could be the difference maker and could potentially be what leaves her off the list.
Speaker 2:I think that's a really good point and I'd go there next. You know where does the film stand for acting categories and it's tricky because, first of all, it's an amazing cast probably you know best and brightest, and everyone unanimously says that the entire cast is good. You know, there's not one weak spot and everyone is so skilled as a performer that they can add a lot of humanity to their parts even with limited screen time. And everyone has limited screen time because the film is divided into these three chapters that are tackling the same event but through different perspectives, and there's a lot of people in this cast. It's huge. I think it's going to be a huge contender for casting and for the SAG Ensemble nomination.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:But when you get to singling out performance, the people that we had our eyes on were Rebecca Ferguson, idris Elba who has yet to be nominated by the Academy, even though he was extremely close in 2015 because he won the SAG Award for Best Supporting Actor for Beasts of the Little Nation and Tracy Lutz.
Speaker 2:All those three actors in particular are, you know, very talented and scene stealers in their own right, and we kind of thought that they would be positioned in the film in a way that they would stand out and reviewers did comment and praise their parts. Um, rebecca ferguson and tracy letts are in the first chapter, which I've heard by by and large, from many, many, many people that it's the best chapter, um, but it's the first chapter right um, idris elba is playing the president. Um in the last chapter, which I think is a little bit of more of an elongated chapter from what I hear, um, I I mean, you know, I think that's a tension calling that Idris Elba was playing the president, right Um, and so all of three all three of them were praised, but so were you know, so was Jared Harris.
Speaker 2:Exactly so was Jared Harris.
Speaker 1:Greta Lee.
Speaker 2:Greta Lee so was.
Speaker 1:Anthony Ramos was.
Speaker 2:Anthony Ramos, and so there wasn't this consensus that this one performer was the standout. It very much felt like a collective group of actors that you know all did as well as each other.
Speaker 1:Exactly. You never got the feeling from any of the reactions so far that any actor is pulling a massive weight in the film at any given moment.
Speaker 2:And I also heard that no actor has a quote unquote, like Oscar scene.
Speaker 1:Everyone is just working in this really perfect harmony with the piece and no one necessarily has an advantage because so many of them I mean you have newer actors like Anthony Ramos and Greta Lee, but even the more established actors like Tracy Letts and Idris Elba and Rebecca Ferguson none of them have been nominated yet. Sometimes you'll see. For example, I remember when Rachel McAdams was in Spotlight, which was a Best Picture movie that Mark Ruffalo got in for, who was a previous nominee.
Speaker 1:It helps that she's, you know, the only woman in that large ensemble and it also helps that she hadn't really been nominated yet but that, that, that, that won't really work here in this situation, because none of them have been nominated and they've all been in good movies and they've all had fantastic opportunities.
Speaker 2:um, and the, the ensemble is so diverse, right, right, exactly you know, some a part of me wonders if a race like supporting actress is weak enough that someone like Rebecca Ferguson in what might be the best chapter of the three could sneak in. I just haven't seen the movie, so I'm going a little blind here. Based on people's reception, that you know, does it stand out more than the other parts around her. And the other thing that happens is when you have these big ensembles that everyone is so colorful, you're going to get someone say, oh, but you know, actually my favorite was, you know, jared harris. Oh, actually my favorite was idris elba actually widespread actually my favorite was rebecca ferguson, etc.
Speaker 2:Exactly, and so unless you have that sort of unanimous you know, know figure that you're pushing, it tends to not be something that materializes. I guess in the case of Spotlight, which is a movie that I was going to bring up as well, you know, I don't think I didn't hear a lot of people say that the standout performance was Rachel McAdams, but, as you said, she was the only female presence in the film, so in a way, she was able to stand out in that manner.
Speaker 1:And Mark Ruffalo had quote unquote the scene. He had that big Oscar scene. Michael Keaton I thought could have gone supporting and my favorite was Stanley Tucci in a very limited part, right exactly.
Speaker 2:And so right now it just feels a little bit. It's hard for us to say that we think one performance, you know, stands out. And if there were to be one, why wouldn't it be? For example, someone like Idris Elba, who sort of ends the movie, is the president, you know. Is the SAG winner Right Would add some diversity to the lineup. You know, I don't know, it's kind of odd to it's odd to think that maybe someone gets into supporting actors but nobody gets into supporting actors.
Speaker 1:It's just odd. I can completely see that, but I would also go the other way and say, well, isn't this the perfect opportunity to nominate tracy letts? He's just such an amazing character actor that here he is doing what he does, which is being a character actor, and I would argue that in almost every write-up I've seen, he has the line of the movie Right, right, right.
Speaker 2:But I'll also say that, interestingly enough, uh, Catherine Bigelow has had most success with her lead performances. You know, uh uh, Jessica Chastain got in for Zero Dark Thirty and Jeremy Renner got in for the Hurt Locker. There is no lead here.
Speaker 1:Yeah, they're all support?
Speaker 2:Absolutely not, and she tends to not do well in those supporting categories.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:So that's something to look at Right now. I think acting is very, you know it's up in the air. It's really up in the air at this moment.
Speaker 1:I think it's a casting nomination.
Speaker 2:I think a casting nomination absolutely, and I think a cast ensemble nomination at the SAG absolutely. I think the film will content. I think the film is a no-brainer for editing. I think the film stands a very likely chance for sound design.
Speaker 1:I think the film is a no-brainer for score. Cinematography is not bad.
Speaker 2:I think the cinematography nomination is very likely as well, and so I think this film is going to do well in many categories and, as we said, I think it's Netflix's big horse and you know, I feel a little bit happy. We predicted that before the premiere, you know, in our last podcast and and it turned out correct.
Speaker 1:We said it. That's the dangerous one, that's the one you got to look out for. I mean, I think the new york film festival really tipped it off, and I'm actually really anxious to see what its reception is going to be like in new york right, yeah, I mean let's, let's also, let's also like pause for a second and just say that every movie that has premiered at Venice they're going to have to make their domestic debut in the US.
Speaker 1:Some already have, and reception doesn't always travel, and we'll talk about this in a later episode, but you would think that Jay Kelly was at a certain place after Venice and then Telluride came and its prospects are looking a lot brighter. So we'll have to wait to see how US audiences react to something like the House of Dynamite.
Speaker 2:Right, and I'll also say well, the last film that you know we're going to spend some time talking about before we wrap things up is the film that actually just premiered today the Voice of Hin Rajab.
Speaker 1:Yeah, by Kater Benhanya who has been.
Speaker 2:Her films have already been nominated, once for foreign language film and once for documentary feature, so she has been embraced by the academy, before you know. Obviously, the story is, you know, based on a real story.
Speaker 1:Yeah, um, that's sort of anchoring the piece uh, very tragic with what's going on right now, the conflict, what's going on in Gaza right now, and we sort of highlighted as as potentially being a movie to look out for, especially for the international film race.
Speaker 1:Um, since then we've kind of gotten wind that yeah among its executive producers team, you have runy mara and joaquin phoenix, jonathan glazer yeah, I'm brad pitt, um and so you can already see a lot of support forming behind the film, because the film has a very important message about what's going on at this very moment yeah, it's incredibly timely people were talking about the standing ovation that I got, which was supposedly it broke records and it got the longest standing ovation from any film film festival ever.
Speaker 2:Uh, so you know that's not something to ignore yeah um and again, just politically. You know it's, it's so important to what's going on in the political landscape right now.
Speaker 1:If nothing else. It talks about how urgent of a moment we're in right now, right, and how front of mind that is in front of anyone who watches movies, right, and they kind of, you know, jokingly, they kind of alluded to that when they brought that up to alexander payne who's the?
Speaker 1:jury president. But the truth is, you know you can't escape it. There's no escaping it whatsoever, and so it got a very strong reception. Um, I think its prospects are high. Um, for the international film race, I think, with the sort of support that I'm seeing it gather, I would wager that it that it's going to end up there. I think it already has US distribution, so it's not going to run into the same hiccup that.
Speaker 2:No Other Land did. I'm not sure that it does, but we'll see, I think it does.
Speaker 1:I just think it's small because so many businesses, distributors that are in the movie business, they don't want to gamble on it. And let's and let's. Let's face it no one's going to release it to try to make money. They're going to, they're going to try to release it to try to get the message across.
Speaker 1:Um, and that doesn't necessarily entice, you know, big conglomerates and their subsidiaries, um, but I I don't think it'll run into that same hiccup as no other land, um, and I think it'll run into that same hiccup as no other land, um, and I think it has pretty good chances of winning something significant at the festival right, I?
Speaker 2:I was gonna say that I think I'm I'm very curious to see if all of this adulation and respect for what the film is addressing is going to result in something like a golden line when you know, you know the film, just you know the. From what I've heard, the way it's structured, composed, you know, is in such a way that part of me wonders if it's the kind of film that would appeal to someone like alexander pain. We were in. We're mostly in one room. I heard that you know a lot of the exchanges that are happening with the real life phone call of this family that went through this tragedy. You know we're in one place. You know one room.
Speaker 2:Uh, like a chamber piece exactly exactly, um you know there's limited camera movement, you know limited, you know cinematic tools being used and I'm sure that that's adding to the, the, the realism of the piece. But I wonder if someone like Alexander Payne, whose films are so different from that kind of uh you know approach, if they're going to want to give the film, uh, the, the golden line when um just out of you know um uh importance politically for everything that's going on in Gaza, or if they're going to opt to give the film another award and give another film the Golden Lion win.
Speaker 1:Right. I mean, I do think that any award is helpful. The Golden Lion could possibly be extremely prophetic, but as long as it wins any award and I think it will be extremely prophetic, but as long as it wins any award and I think it will um, I think it's. It's going to make a very significant run, an international film, and you know we haven't talked about best picture strictly yet. It's up there in our predictions if you want to see it on our website I'm frames, framesandflickrcom but there's something kind of off in how narrow the pool is of films that are looking for a nomination coming from the same sort of studios.
Speaker 1:You have a couple of Warner Brothers films, you've got a bunch of neon films, and so I think that voters may want some diversity in terms of the studios and distributors who are going to get into Best Picture, and I think that this film has that. I also think it has a unique perspective when you look at the other films in competition. I think it's based on a real story. I think it's an important critical issue. The filmmaker has been embraced by the Academy before, so I don't see it. I don't see the cards here being that the film gets left out? Certainly not, and I don't see it, the film not having any potential of breaking out in a much more significant way.
Speaker 1:I think when we finally see winners at Venice, we can see how far it can go, which would be really fascinating to sort of observe throughout the race. But if you look at the fact that the filmmaker has been championed by a branch like the international film category, there's nothing to suggest that she cannot factor in to best director, which is again one of the branches that is most open to inviting international filmmakers into the fold.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but I can even see a scenario where it wins the golden line and ends up getting nominated for foreign language film and ends up being getting nominated for best picture as we're saying and having two nominations best picture and best foreign language film.
Speaker 1:I can absolutely see that 100%.
Speaker 2:Yeah, you know the the the distressing situation in Gaza, you know, could call for something that you know extreme and unusual typically doesn't happen in the academy, but I can certainly see it happen in this case and she's a very powerful filmmaker too, if you saw her previous documentary four daughters fantastic, fantastic film and so I have no doubt that the film is strong enough to compete. It's just that you know, neon didn't buy it. Neon didn't buy it. I can't.
Speaker 1:If neon had bought it, cannes, this would be a different conversation, right? But yeah, it'll be really interesting to see if it's going to be able to close out with a win, a significant win, by the end of the festival, right.
Speaker 2:And to wrap things up, why don't we go over our predictions for who's going to be the winners on Saturday for Venice?
Speaker 1:Yeah, and that's coming up soon. We can post these up online.
Speaker 2:Yeah, we're going to be posting them on our website and maybe we'll be making some posts on our Twitter for Academy Anonymous and our Twitter for Frames of Liquor Sounds good. So let's see, let's start with the top, I guess top to bottom.
Speaker 1:Top to bottom. You're going to go to the top to bottom really, with the top. I guess Top to bottom, top to bottom.
Speaker 2:You're going to go with the top to bottom. Really, yeah, okay, go. So my prediction for the Golden Lion win is Jim Jarmusch's father, mother, sister, brother.
Speaker 1:Okay, and do you have a runner-up for that and my?
Speaker 2:runner-up is the voice of Hin Rajab.
Speaker 1:Okay, very good choices, solid choices. I actually think that the Golden Lion is going to go to a film that we didn't talk about too much, but I think looks gorgeous. I think it played really well and I think it will qualify for the documentary shortlist. And that's from Gianfranco Rossi for his documentary Below the Clouds.
Speaker 2:We love that filmmaker, fantastic filmmaker Film was really well received.
Speaker 1:It's a documentary about Naples Exactly, and knowing what I know of the jury's filmography, I think this will be very tempting. So I'm going to say Below the Clouds for the Golden Lion and, if anything, and it was really beautifully received from critics as well. Yeah, absolutely, he's a brilliant filmmaker. But if anything, if Below the Clouds loses, my gut says we might see no other choice. Win the Golden Lion. Win the Golden Lion.
Speaker 2:Interesting. So my grand jury prize prediction is the voice of Hind Rajab. I think that's the award it walks out with. My runner up for that award, which is essentially the second place, is no Other Choice from.
Speaker 1:Park Chan-wook. Okay, that makes sense to me. My grand jury prize prediction is the voice of Hind Rajab, just like yours, and my runner up actually is Jim Jarmusch for father, mother, sister, brother, but I think this is the one that, uh, he and her job will walk out with.
Speaker 2:Right Um the special jury prize, which is essentially the third, third, third place, um, my prediction is Gianfranco Rosie's documentary below the clouds. I agree with you, that was incredible. That was really well received by critics, looks beautiful and I think it could stand out with this group of this jury, and my runner up would be House of Dynamite oh interesting, I am actually skeptical about House of Dynamite. Yeah, I was a little bit too.
Speaker 1:But so special jury prize, third prize, third place. I'm actually going with Jim Jarmusch, with Father, mother, sister, brother. I think it was a standout there. I think this is a film that the jury would really love, including Alexander Payne. My runner up here would be Jean-Franco, though Below the Clouds if he doesn't get the golden line.
Speaker 2:Right and the silver line, which is the Best Director prize. I'm predicting that it will go to Catherine Bigelow for A House of Dynamite, and my runner up is Jim Jarmusch for Father, Mother, Sister, Brother.
Speaker 1:I would love to see Jim Jarmusch here, but I think the Silver Lion for Best Director is going to go to Catherine Bigelow for A House of Dynamite. I think this is the one category where I can see House of Dynamite getting in. I mean, actually I would love to see it in screenplay, but the screenwriter has already won for Jackie so I don't think he'll win twice.
Speaker 1:So I think Catherine Bigelow is the win for Best Director for A House of Dynamite, but my runner-up is actually Mona Fastfold for the Testament of Anne Lee. I think the project is just ambitious enough that all the jurors are going to agree that it might be the most ambitious film that played the festival.
Speaker 2:That's interesting because Brady Corbett won Best Director last year.
Speaker 1:Oh, that's right Interesting.
Speaker 2:Which is why I hesitate to do, mona Fassbult, but I will say something. I don't think that we mentioned it, but you were just mentioning it right now, with Noah Oppenheim who wrote House of. Dynamite and also wrote Jackie and won the screenplay prize. You know, I certainly think that House of Dynamite is going to factor into screenplay oh yeah, I think it's a definite nominee for best screenplay, and that's a fascinating story because of his history. Yes, but we'll talk about that some other time, but absolutely I agree with you.
Speaker 1:But his and hers special jury prizes could happen Could happen.
Speaker 2:The Volpe Cup for Best Actor, I am predicting will go to Tony Servillo for a film that we didn't get a chance to talk about La Grazia yeah, which is the next film from Italian maestro Paolo Sorrentino, From.
Speaker 1:Mubi. From Mubi it will be released later this year, probably a favorite for international film from the Italian selection.
Speaker 2:Exactly. It's a standout part for him, received well reviews from critics. He plays a fictional president. I heard that, you know it's a sort of more restrained Paul Sorrentino, but it's sort of also very, very elegant, very elegaic. And yeah, that's my prediction and my runner up is actually going to be George Clooney for Jay Kelly, which would be very obvious, you know too obvious, but I have a hard time seeing Jay Kelly walk away from this award ceremony with nothing, considering that Alexander Payne is the head of the jury.
Speaker 1:That'll be so interesting. You know, this jury does have a history of, you know, awarding their friends, so we'll see what happens. But I'm thinking for best actor, just like you. Tony Servio, I think, should win it for La Grazia, and actually I've seen and read about it and it seems like the kind of thing that someone like agatha payne would love yeah, um.
Speaker 1:So tony servio is my choice, but my runner-up is actually lee byung-hun, for no other choice, um he would have been my third choice yeah, I just think he's at the center of that movie and he's doing so many eclectic things um that it's an easy place to reward the movie as well yeah, uh, for the volpe cup for best actress.
Speaker 2:I feel so, and I mentioned this already. I I feel so adamant that Amanda Seyfried will win the Best Actress Prize for the Testament of Anne Lee. And the runner-up? I think there are not that many options. The runner-up, I think, would be Valerie Bruni, tedeschi, for a film that's in competition called Doucet, which is also playing the New York Film Festival. That's based on a real life figure.
Speaker 1:Yeah, really interesting filmmaker as well. I agree with you. I think the favorite here has to be Amanda Seyfried for the Testament of Anne Lee, and I don't think it's. You know, I don't think the competition is really stacked.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:But if my runner up is Emma Stone or Begonia, and if emma stone wins this for begonia and she wins two, so so, uh, close to when she won for poor things, I just I, I can't wait to read the headlines on that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean, I find it very unlikely, given that she already won for la la land why, did we give emma stone the win for la La Land when we could have given her the win for Begonia?
Speaker 1:Because Damien Chazelle was the president. No, no, I'm sorry. I'm talking about when Damien Chazelle poured things the golden line.
Speaker 2:I'm sorry, excuse me. He made La La Land. He made La La Land. Yeah, okay, the Screenplay Award, which last year went to the Brazilian film the Gun I have for Best.
Speaker 1:Picture. Yes, I'm still here, so this is an important one. I mean, they're all important ones, to be honest.
Speaker 2:I think that will go to another choice and the runner-up again J Kelly, because I just have a hard time seeing J Kelly walk away with nothing.
Speaker 1:I'm trusting Alexander Payne to not pick his friends beyond Jim Jarmusch, but for my screenplay, I agree with you. I think the best choice is no other choice, and so I think that's who will win here, despite the protests of the WGA.
Speaker 1:And then the runner-up. I actually think LaGrazia would be a great choice, and I think there's a lot of elements to the script that the jury was going to like. So, yeah, I think it's interesting that for both of us, based on our individual sort of perceptions of all the word that has come out of venice, we've sort of yeah, you know, we sort of have the same group of films competing for an award. Right, we're not seeing anything for the smashing machine?
Speaker 2:no, which is interesting, right I'm not, um, but that would be a big get for that movie. Oh, huge, um, I will say that, uh, the last award we didn't talk about is the award they give to the best young actor. Um, I'm thinking that the winner for that film is going to be a french actor who's an excellent actor, benjamin voicing, uh, for his performance in the stranger, which is a film by French filmmaker, a master filmmaker, francois Auzon. The film did very well. It's an adaptation of the you know famous Albert Camus novel, the Stranger, which we all read in high school.
Speaker 1:Right, which looks gorgeous. By the way, it looks absolutely beautiful in black and white and it did.
Speaker 2:It got a good reception. I think he will win, and my runner up for that category is actually Jacob Elordi, for Frankenstein, and so do not be surprised if, uh, jacob Elordi coming back to Venice after being there with Priscilla and having. Priscilla won the best actress award. Now he wins the young actor award for Frankenstein.
Speaker 1:That that's both excellent choices. Excellent choices. I will say that we have yet to hear word on Ildiko and Yeti's film Silent Friend, and it looks really good, and so there's still a chance that maybe they saved one of the absolute best films that wins the Golden Lion for the end. So we're rooting for the Hungarian filmmaker. It looks fascinating. So these predictions do not account for reaction to Silent Friend. Yet Right, and I think that's it for today.
Speaker 2:That's a very extensive episode on Venice, but we had a lot to cover with you guys.
Speaker 1:That is where things lay right now. There's a lot coming up. We have, we should go over Telluride, we have to look forward to Toronto and see how the race sort of continues to take shape.
Speaker 2:But after Venice I feel much better about being able to make more accurate guesses. You know I had a little bit of question marks for these films. Now I have a little bit more certainty. So you think you know everything All right, and please make sure to visit us on our website. That's framesandflickercom. Um, and please make sure to visit us on our website. That's frames and flickercom Right Um also uh. Follow us on our Twitter at Academy Anon.
Speaker 1:That's Anon A-N-O-N Right.
Speaker 2:And, um, there's also our Twitter for frames and flicker. If you go to our website, there are buttons there at the very top that can lead you there, and, uh, we look forward to our next session. Yeah, until then, this is jules and I'm joseph, and it's been a pleasure. The music on this episode entitled cool cats was graciously provided by Kevin MacLeod and incompetechcom, licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0. Http//creativecommonsorg. Forward slash licenses forward slash buy. Forward slash 3.0.
Speaker 1:Disclaimer the Academy Anonymous podcast is in no way affiliated or endorsed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.