But Is It (The) Art(ist)? Predicting the 2012 Oscars

Our somewhat expert, anticlimactic predictions for who will walk away with Oscar gold on 26 February, 2012

In recent weeks, a conflict of sorts has been raging between critics on either side of a single fence. For some, The Artist, the earnest and endearing foreign film featuring no spoken dialogue and a style semi-reminiscent of movies made after the turn of the century, is the unquestioned Best Film of 2011. They can't understand why their fellow film pundits don't lockstep agree, turning a bit of bickering into a backlash that seems to want to reconfigure Michel Hazanavicius and his efforts into some kind of aesthetic affront. While we tend to agree that The Artist is nowhere near 2011's greatest, we also aren't about to turn the title into a travesty. Instead, all we can really say is welcome to the annual Academy Awards argument. For every champion of a certain effort, there is someone who doesn't like it, for whatever reason.

In the same vein, by a kind of analytical proxy, predicting is really no fun either. Sure, you can sometimes sense an upset in the making (see Alan Arkin in 2007), or pray for some last minute left field finish (GO TREE OF LIFE! ). But for the most part, every piece of the pre-Oscar puzzle leads one to an evening of anticipated anticlimaxes. Will we be pleased if some of the givens go home empty handed? Perhaps - it all depends on who or what exactly gets the bridesmaid vs. bride treatment. Will we scream if at least a couple of these certainties turn into Robin Williams/Marissa Tomeis? Damn straight! While we will definitely be back to Monday morning quarterback the slick off these celluloid symbols, until then, enjoy these less than educated guesses. They won’t help you win the office pool, but they probably represent the best bet when it comes to figuring out the funny little movie muddle known as Hollywood, starting with the biggest one of all:



What will win: The Artist

What SHOULD win: Hugo

Another year - another good movie being overpraised and positioned to sweep several major awards. One assumes that, when droopy eyes finally close early Monday AM, the gimmicky silent movie that can't seem to win over audiences will walk away with Best Picture, Actor, Director, and various technical awards. It will be yet another example of PR pushing instead of genuine artist assessment and a ready cautionary example for future Oscar overviews. Still, when compared to the rest of the pack nominated (nine, this go round) it definitely deserves a frontrunner spot. For our money, however, Scorsese's actual love letter to the origins of cinema was far more effective and entertaining than this cinematic stunt.



Who will win: Jean Dujardin

Who SHOULD win: Gary Oldman

With SAG and other organizations backing his sunny, smiling performance, Dujardin is a solid shoe-in. He's been making the media rounds, doing all the right things (have you seen his Funny or Die villains piece??? Priceless) and has yet to run into any real opposition. Sure, some are hoping for Clooney to come out of nowhere and upset things, but for us, a far more telling twist would be if Oldman beat them all. While his turn in Tinker was somber and subtle, it represents a fully realized turn in an equally complex effort.



Who will win: Meryl Streep

Who SHOULD win: Rooney Mara

Ms. Mara is getting gypped here. She should have been resituated in the Best Supporting category so she could walk away with its top prize. Decades ago, this was how things were done (right, Timothy Hutton???). Now, she must face off against an Academy icon and a race-based favorite. Indeed, if Ms. Streep doesn't take home her record setting third Oscar, it will be Viola Davis earning a major mea culpa from an organization that marginalized performers of color for more than half a century.



Who will win: Christopher Plummer

Who SHOULD win: Who cares...

Here's the deal - the real Best Supporting Actors of 2011 were not even nominated. Albert Brooks. Asa Butterfield. Ben Kingsley - none of them made the final ballot, so our interest level is already waning. Then there is the whole "lifetime achievement" aspect of this category, a battle shaping up between two aging idols, each one capable of earning their first (and perhaps) only Oscar. Of the two, Plummer will walk away a winner, leaving poor Mr. Von Sydow to hope for another few years - and another fine role or two.



Who will win: Octavia Spencer

Who SHOULD win: Jessica Chastain

As they are often want to do, the Academy will try to make up for its decades of bigotry and prejudice by awarding an actress who both transcends the vile previous archetypes by...playing one of those very roles. As a maid making life a slimy shit pie for her ex-employer, Spencer was excellent. But for sheer range and "what can't she do" dynamics, Ms. Chastain is our choice. From Take Shelter to Tree of Life, from The Debt to Coriolianus, she was uniformly terrific. For such heavy lifting alone, she mandates respect - and a shiny gold statue.



Who will win: Michel Hazanavicius

Who SHOULD win: Martin Scorsese

It's all a question of comfort zone. All Mr. Hazanavicius had to do was bone up on his motion picture history, pickpocket a few plotpoints from Singing in the Rain and A Star is Born, and then offer it all in stunning black and white. Oddly enough, he got his start in spy spoofs, meaning the Mel Brooks comparisons don't fall too far from the tree. Apparently, this impresses the Academy (and the DGA). On the other hand, the true living legend of American cinema tried something different - a family film with a link to the artform's past. He proved he could handle fantasy as well as a certain Mr. Spielberg and proved 3D could be a viable addition to the craftsman's tool box.



What will win: The Descendants

What SHOULD win: Moneyball

The Descendants was a walk in the park for its writers. It offered up a simple story with streamlined characters (distant dad, mischievous kids, angst-ridden adulterer) and a proud, personality-based pay-off. Moneyball, on the other hand, had to make baseball number crunching sexy...and interesting...and suspenseful ...and it had to turn turnips like Billy Beane into an engaging lead. While we really don't care who wins, we think turning the new, statistics based idea of competition into a solid effort should beat out a no win Best Picture afterthought.



Who will win: Midnight in Paris

Who SHOULD win: Bridesmaids

Woody needs this. Many in his former fanbase have bailed, leaving a new group of devotees to worship at his faded and flawed altar. So here's to Hollywood embracing the aging artist and giving him something that, otherwise, his oeuvre argues he doesn't deserve. Of course, The Artist could also walk away with this one, proving that the Academy is about as hip as a Hopalong Cassidy western. Still, if the voters want to prove how cool they really are, they could offer up Ms. Wiig and her crew a vote of confidence. Bridesmaids was terrific, much more than The Hangover with women. An Oscar would prove that.



Who will win: Hell and Back Again

Who SHOULD win: Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory

Here's the challenge - figure out which of five uniformly good documentaries earn the Academy's final approval. Do you pick the pro-environment screed, the 3D look at a famous dancer and choreographer, the story of a small Southern high school and its football team's transformation from worst to first, a returning war vets struggles, or an indictment of the judicial system which actually aided in getting three innocent men freed? If you're the members of AMPAS, you clearly go with the good old red, white, and blue. For us, the overall work of Berlinger and Sinofsky (including other films in their canon) demand respect, and a trophy.



What will win: A Separation

What SHOULD win: A Separation

It's from Iran, and deals with the unusual issue of familial dysfunction and marriage within a confused theocracy. It's earned more praise than per screen review and remains a hot button topic among critics who either adore or abhor it. Still, when placed up against a Belgian crime drama set inside cattle farming, an Israeli tragicomedy about father and son scholars, a Canadian effort about a substitute teacher with a dark past, and a Polish sewer worker who shelters Jews from the Nazis, the choice seems obvious. What's shocking is how A Separation is besting what should have been the real frontrunner. After all, the Academy can't let a WWII story about the horrors of the Third Reich go unrewarded.



What will win: A Cat in Paris

What SHOULD win: Rango

Puss in Boots and Kung Fu Panda 2 are far too commercial to warrant inclusion as part of the mix and since Oscar decided that the motion capture conceits of The Adventures of Tintin weren't worth acknowledging, it's down to an inventive spaghetti western riff - and two complete unknowns. Few critics had even heard of A Cat in Paris or Chico and Rita before their names were read back in January. Now, at least one appears to have gained a bit of an upper hand. While we still want the cheeky Leone-lite of Rango to win, we're really not invested. Spielberg should be walking away with another award.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.