Out of Focus

Awards Weekend Wrap-up Part II: Partially previewing Oscar, so, not so much a wrap

The Oscars are just hours away, and as much as I look forward to watching while I participate in Greencine's Oscar Night Live Blog likely arguing with several other smart film folks as to why my opinions are more right than theirs (because that's what it comes down to for us all, no?), I currently sit here enraged by the current Cablevision/ABC Disney dispute (fodder for another post), hoping that something gets resolved so I can watch and chat sitting on my comfy couch in front of my nice TV. I also find myself reflecting further upon my will win/should win picks (published on indieWIRE the other day). It seems like this could be one of the most predictable Academy Awards in recent memory, although, the one constant almost every year also seems to be that each year many of us say that only to discover that the vast majority of the time we're right save for the one or two wins that are true surprises.

Roger Ebert's Oscar predictions post from a few week's back begins with the same claim: "I can't remember a year when it seemed easier to predict the Oscars." And yet today, I've read several tweets (including from Ebert) stating a feeling that there could be some huge surprises tonight, especially in the Best Picture category. I very well may regret these words as the credits begin to roll sometime during the 11 p.m. hour (at least, we should all hope it finishes before midnight!), but with the exception of a few categories, I still anticipate extreme predictability. Momentum is always a funny thing in Oscar campaigns, but the entire nature of the nominations and award voting process this year has taken on so many bizarre storylines -- for my money having less to do with actual filmmaking quality than usual (and that's saying something) – that variations from the conventional wisdom seem more impossible than ever.

Anyone who thinks the Spirit Awards sweep by Precious last night bodes well for its Oscar hopes be ignoring the fact that the overlap between voting blocs is relatively minimal, and history has shown that with the exception of acting awards, the winners rarely overlap. The films that are the small fish in the Oscar ocean get to be the barracudas in Spirits pond.

This is the year of The Hurt Locker, plain and simple. Some months ago on Twitter, before seeing Avatar, I said I thought Up in the Air would likely stop Precious from having a real chance at the big prize, thinking that The Hurt Locker had not been seen by enough people, did not actually tap in to the current zeitgeist as well, had not earned enough at the box office and, in my opinion, frankly was not as good a film. I still hold that last opinion, but I didn't count on a couple things: I didn't count on the surge to the top of critics' lists that far outstripped the reception the film had received even at its Toronto premiere. I didn't give enough credit to the idea that awarding the Best Director prize to a woman for the first time, especially coupled with all the press and conversation about how Bigelow makes antic-Nancy Meyers/Nora Ephron movies, would be so powerful. But most of all, I didn't think about how compelling the Bigelow vs. Cameron storyline would be, with one participant being the supremely arrogant "king of the world" who, in his own words, revolutionized all cinema with the pioneering female director who made a war movie. Personally, watching the trajectory of The Hurt Locker during this awards season, I think nothing has helped the film's chances more.

Awards Weekend Wrap-up Part I: Lamenting a lack of Spirit

This year’s Spirit Awards marked the first time in over a decade-and-a-half that my vote didn’t count. Considering how my “Will win” vs. “Should win” predictions panned out – I only missed the screenplay award; more on that later – it seems that my votes likely wouldn’t have made a huge difference in the massive, albeit completely anticipated, sweep of the evening’s prizes by Precious. I had been an IFP member for all that time, and for those who don't know, even after Film Independent took its larger budgets and events and split from the rest of the IFP community, they still allow their former sister chapters to vote.

I wondered if Steve Pond's "expose" on Spirit Award voting from a couple weeks ago was actually news to anyone who even pays attention to the Spirits. Granted, maybe there is an IFC audience out there not intimately involved with the film industry, but is that same audience reading The Wrap? Regardless, the main point of Pond's article was that lots (most?) voters don't have the opportunity to see most movies. That was certainly a much bigger problem 10-15 years ago before everyone had a computer, Netflix or a DVD player, and frankly, I think it's more due to the fact that people don't take the voting seriously. I mean, especially if you're a member of an audience that eschews awards shows – at least the Oscars – how much of an effort are you really going to make.

I used to go to the IFP awards screenings all the time in the late '90s at the Pioneer. I considered those screenings alone worthy of paying for my annual $100 membership. And unless the film was a "major" indie, the audiences were often pathetic, not coming close to filling the 99-seat house. Yet, schedule never managed to stop the popular titles from overflowing. People made time for those films.

Ridiculously or not, I always took my voting seriously, and even though I didn't vote this year, I still take it seriously; that if I'm planning on expressing my opinion on an indieWIRE ballot or here in my little corner of the Web, I'm going to do my best to have seen as many of the films (ideally, all!) as possible.