A reader asked why there is so much predictions wall-paper that reflect exactly the same choices in exactly the same categories, except for one or two risky picks here or there. They wanted to know how predictors came to these decisions. I can’t really tell you why people all tend to think alike except that, perhaps, it is in our nature to want to be like-minded to avoid ridicule.
There are five kinds of Oscar predictors. The first is the over-confident type. Those who are new on the scene and cocky because they are certain that A) it’s easy, and B) they know everything. Those are people who will get knocked down pretty quickly with a really off prediction.¬† But this will be a good lesson. The cockiness will fade and in its place, hesitancy.
The second kind is the self-doubter. This is also a troublesome role to play. I consider myself one of these. You can second guess every choice, and talk yourself into anyone winning. When you are too close to the race, and too involved in it, you don’t see the forest for the trees; what should be obvious isn’t.
The third kind is wishful thinking type. You pick those you hope will win, or think SHOULD win instead of those you truly believe have the best chance of winning.
The fourth and most common kind, the type who plays by the rules, uses the stats and precursor methods and the “consensus.” This will always land you with a decent score, but you will get the really high scores without taking risks.
And the fifth kind is very rare. This is the person who is keyed into the tastes of the Academy. Not the people who say stuff like “they always go for Holocaust movies.” But those who have either spent a lot of time with members, or they’ve figured out how to separate their own preferences from the preferences of the average voter: Kris Tapley, Pete Hammond, Steve Pond, Damien Bona, Dave Karger.
Needless to say, the fifth is usually the most successful, but not always. Just because the scenario turns out the way you think it will one year doesn’t mean those same tricks will work the following year. For instance, having the heart involved, or wishful thinking involved can sometimes help to predict an upset – like Marion Cotillard. But the next year it might not, like Mickey Rourke. Wanting it to be so doesn’t always make it so.
Anatomy of an Oscar Predictor
When I first started Oscarwatch back in 1999, the objective was to start watching the race early, follow it throughout the year and try to figure out why certain movies were considered “Oscar movies,” and to predict how the Oscars would go. Back then, there were a few of us, and we all valued the same things. We were opposed to what we called “wishful thinking,” which leads you to believe something that is impossible could actually happen, and we were opposed to advocating. Now, in 2010, both of those things have mostly kicked the bucket. Advocacy is part of the game now, whether it’s being invited to see a movie early at a festival and heralding it the Best Picture of the year so far, or whether it’s pushing hard for a film you loved. Sometimes you get lucky and that film is recognized, other times your desires fall on deaf ears. The truth is, no amount of advocating can make the Academy vote a certain way. Trust me. I know this to be true. They vote for what they like, for what moved them, or projects that either star their friends or were produced by their friends, etc.
Of course, there are many out there who don’t advocate directly – they do indirectly instead by posting negative items about a film they don’t want to win, or by continuously focusing on one film’s strengths while ignoring another. They would never come out and say they had a preference but it is kind of obvious from their coverage. I don’t even bother hiding my preferences anymore because the readers are just too smart for that.¬†¬† You’re popular if you like a movie the readers like; you’re reviled if you like a movie they don’t. And so it goes.
Meanwhile, we Oscar predictors all kind of evolved together, balancing the next year after the previous year’s embarrassment. I remember thinking I was bold in choosing Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon because I really thought, in the end, that Ang Lee’s masterpiece would prevail. I was wrong and I looked stupid. I loved that movie, though. Tom O’Neil has famously made the wrong choices for Best Picture (Moulin Rouge!), and Scott Feinberg chose Juno to win Best Picture. Kris Tapley chose Letters from Iwo Jima. These are moments in Oscar predicting one learns from. Conversely, there have been some wild card predictions that did come true – Jeff Wells, David Carr and Ebert all predicted Crash to win. I had heard that it was possible Crash would upset and even wrote a few posts about it – the uproar was unmatched by anything since.
It is rare that the story doesn’t go as expected. Most of the time, the simplest explanation is the one that is carried through.
Except when it isn’t. We also all remember Crash, and Marcia Gay Harden, and Alan Arkin. And Marion Cotillard and Adrien Brody. My most proud moment as a predictor was when Halle Berry and Denzel Washington won the same year. I predicted it (along with a few others, like Ebert). The only other surprise pick I got right out of those I just mentioned was Marion Cotillard. Every single other one I got wrong. I am not someone who brags about how right I am all of the time. There are many out there who do – but I’m a self-doubter all the way down the line. Moreover, anyone who brags about being a good predictor is headed for a pie-in-the-face. Nobody knows anything.
Many fans use this theory to justify why they think the film they loved so much might win. There is always a possibility, especially this year with the preferential ballot and the ten nominees. We are all in the dark on Best Picture. It makes me nervous when people say it’s an easy call. It is most certainly NOT an easy call. Of course, we’ll never know how close the votes were since the Academy doesn’t release their voting information. And if Avatar wins we’ll never know whether it was going to win anyway, or if the LA Times’ smear campaign against The Hurt Locker actually ended up working. If it’s a surprise vote, like Inglourious Basterds or Precious, we’ll never know if the Chartier thing came into play or if these films were ahead all of the time.
We can’t know; we can only guess.
I spoke with Tapley last night about his thoughts on Oscar predicting and what he said was that he doesn’t necessarily look at history (although those things do come into play; the unprecedented amount of love for The Hurt Locker in the precursors cannot be denied – the DGA rule mostly holds) so much as he has developed, over the years, a clearer understanding of the tastes of the voters. This is mostly how he makes his picks. He doesn’t say “it’s the best so it will win.” He says stuff like “that has too much violence and traditionally they don’t vote for violent films in the foreign category.” He says, “it’s foreign and so most of them won’t seen it and they don’t usually pick black and white movies to win cinematography, or gritty war dramas to win either.”
But he isn’t cocky about it. Maybe he was at one time but he’s learned his lesson, as has Scott Feinberg that even if you think you have it all sewn up and that you’ve cracked the code and have predicted everything exactly right – you will fail in the 11th hour when surprises occur.
I rarely score higher than anyone in the game, not since my first year out of the gate. I am just too close to the race and too passionately involved in the films. Ahem. Nonetheless, my love for Pan’s Labyrinth (which was my Hurt Locker that year) helped me choose that film to win cinematography. I feel lucky when I get one of those right. It was a long shot call that paid off. It turned out that, despite what everyone thought about Pan’s, it was actually very popular within the Academy. Of course, it didn’t win foreign film because of the Lives of Others did, proving Tapley’s theory about their preference for traditional dramas in that category.
So, back to the question as to why we all predict the same -part of it is that no one wants to be left with their ass hanging out to dry. But also, there are certain “rules” that do always prove true — and sometimes it is just an obvious choice. Jeff Bridges won the Globe, then the Critics Choice, then the SAG. He only lost the BAFTA. He got standing ovations every time he won. He’s been everywhere, one of the campaign stars of the year and every time someone sticks a mic in his face he says something funny. How can he lose?
Sandra Bullock is the one who feels vulnerable for an upset to me, not because I don’t think she’ll win — from what I know about the race so far, she seems most likely. But because of the schadenfreude. The readers who are so invested in her not winning they will be happy that Meryl Streep won, but they will be attacking me for not knowing anything. And here I am saying it, and I’ve been saying it for ten years, NOBODY knows anything. We just make our best guesses based on history, on Academy tastes and on what everyone else is predicting. There is no magic formula for getting a perfect score.
I love nothing more than Academy upsets. I feel that there are upsets coming (but I always say that and they rarely do). We’ll just have to wait and see. But remember, if people are wrong it is probably better not to tease them about it, as some are inclined to do. You never know what year you’re going to be one with your ass hanging out. Of course, if you go consensus all the way down the line you will never be that person.