I'm still obsessed with Brokeback
Gah! It will never end.
Now I am wondering how many total nominations it'll get. It's looking like a winner regardless, but I want it to hit double digits.
It's already looking lockish in 9 categories (Pic, Director, Screenplay, Heath & Michelle, Cinematography, Editing, Score & Song), but I want it to have at least one more. I still have doubts about Jake pulling off a supporting run (and I'm not really sure if I even approve of it), but it may still happen. If not, then the film needs something else. Does it have a chance in art direction? Sound, maybe? Makeup? Probably not. I think it's Jake or nothing.
Anyway, enough.
I NEED to see this movie NOW.
I'm listening to the Santaolla score now. It's so beautiful...
posted by adam k. @ 3:03 AM
6 Comments:
I think Jake could get swept along. The Supporting Actor race is a bit like that this year. Could be filled with the critic darling men such as Dillon, Giamatti and the like. Gyllenhaal could get in there.
I don't really care whether Jake is really a lead - its Oscar politics and I'm threw debating it. If they want to nominate him then I don't really care where.
I haven't seen the movie (obviously) but I think you're right in not predicting it for customer or production design. I doubt make-up. But if the sound is of that oh-so-quiet variety, they might go there as opposed to something that's oh-so-noisy.
btw, I have my thoughts on King Kong up.
Well, it's been confirmed on TheEnvelope that Jake was indeed put in lead at the globes. So I don't think he'll have to worry with oscar as long as they buy him in supporting. SAG will help him out, they always nominate you wherever you ask (see Keisha). So I think he's pretty safe now... I see the 10 noms right there.
I don't get the globes with this, though... I respect them for not caving on this issue this year, but then, last year, they put Foxx in Collateral in supporting, and that was even worse! Especially since they still could've double nommed him with Ray by just putting Collateral in lead-drama. So I know they just sit back and take it sometimes. Maybe they're trying to make up for that this year? I dunno. Whatever.
Jake should be able to make the list. I guess I'm fine with it... even though it'd be like, say, Clark Gable going supporting for Gone with the Wind. Oh well.
Well, with the SAGs the studio submits performances for categories and that's the ONLY category they can be nommed for. Which is why Jennifer Connolly missed for A Beautiful Mind - they accidentally placed her in Lead and she missed out. Same with Meryl Streep in 2002. They placed her Hours performance in supporting alongside Adaptation and I believe she missed on both fronts (just like Nicole Kidman in lead in 2001).
However, AMPAS apparently can place you wherever the individual voter feels like it. Hence Keisha and Samantha from 2003 being nommed in Lead despite being considered for Supporting. And that's why several campaigns have been completely botched cause then they never know where to nominate you (Scarlett, Naomi). I have a feeling Keisha was VERY popular with AMPAS members and they all bandied together to decide to place her in Lead.
And by "all" i mean, a portion.
JConn didn't miss, she got the lead nom (she's the one who booted out Kidman). But she lost the actual statue to Halle Berry.
Yeah, I think Jake will get the SAG nom cause they'll love the film and will have no choice but to nom him there... and a SAG mention would help his oscar hopes a lot.
But I'm jittery about the supporting actor category... Jake, Hoskins, Giammatti, Dillon, Clooney and Hurt all look like they'll make it... but not all of them can. Who gets left out? Tough one.
Oh, yeah, my mistake.
wjhatever, i'm sorta woozy right now. THIS is the category where something unexpected could rise up i think. It's so wide open, you never know.
could they snub Clooney because they can give him other nominations. Four nominations in one here does sound like an awfullot.
Post a Comment
<< Home