The State of the Race – A Birdman Takes Flight in an Unpredictable Season

Thank you for the reply, Antoinette! I’m not qualified to comment on it, but I will say it doesn’t remove my confusion (with regards to what I posted in the other threads) – I don’t think you meant it to, though.

Ranking the order of films in each category by the chances of winning

Best Picture
1. Boyhood
2. Birdman
3. Whiplash
4. The Theory of Everything
5. The Grand Budapest Hotel
6. American Sniper
7. Selma
8. The Imitation Game

Director
1. Richard Linklater
2. Alejandro G. Innaritu
3. Wes Anderson
4. Morten Tyldum
5. Bennett Miller

Lead Actor
1. Eddie Redmayne
2. Micheal Keaton
3. Bradley Cooper
4. Benedict Cumberbatch
5. Steve Carrell

Lead Actress
1. Julianne Moore
2. Reese Witherspoon
3. Rosamund Pike
4. Felictiy Jones
5. Marion Cotillard

Supporting Actor
1. JK Simmons
2. Robert DuVall
3. Edward Norton
4. Mark Ruffalo
5. Ethan Hawke

Supporting Actress
1. Patricia Arquette
2. Meryl Streep
3. Keira Knightley
4. Emma Stone
5. Laura Dern

Animated Feature
1. The Boxtrolls
2. Big Hero 6
3. How to Train Your Dragon 2
4. Song of the Sea
5. The Tale of Princess Kuyaga

Foreign Language Film
1. Leviathan
2. Ida
3. Wild Tales
4. Timbuktu
5. Tangerines

Documentary Feature
1. CitizenFour
2. Finding Vivian Maier
3; The Salt of the Earth
4. Virunga
5. The Last Days of Vietnam

Documentary Short Subject
1. Joanna
2. Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1
3. The Reaper
4. White Earth
5. Our Curse

Live Action Short Film
1. The Phone Call
2. Boogaloo and Graham
3. Aya
4. Butter Lamp
5. Parvenah

Animated Short Film
1. Me and My Moulton
2. Feast
3. The Bigger Picture
4. The Dam Keeper
5. A Single Life

Film Editing
1. Boyhood
2. American Sniper
3. The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. Whiplash
5. The Imitation Game

Makeup
1. Guardians of the Galaxy
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel
3. Foxcatcher

Original Song
1. Glory from Selma
2. Lost Stars from Begin Again
3. I’ll be Missing You from Glen Campbell: I’ll be Me
4. Grateful from Beyond the LIghts
5. Everything is Awesome from The Lego Movie

Visual Effects
1. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
2. Guardians of the Galaxy
3. Interstellar
4. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
5. X-Men: Days of Future Past

Original Score
1. The Theory of Everything
2, The Grand Budapest Hotel
3. Mr. Turner
4. The Imitation Game
5. Interstellar

Sound Mixing
1. American Sniper
2. Unbroken
3. Birdman
4. Whiplash
5. Interstellar

Sound Editing
1. American Sniper
2. Unbroken
3. The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies
4. Interstellar
5. Birdman

Cinematography
1. Birdman
2. Mr. Turner
3. The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. Unbroken
5. Ida
Production Design
1. The Grand Budapest Hotel
2. Mr. Turner
3. Into the Woods
4. Interstellar
5. The Imitation Game

Costume Design
1. The Grand Budapest Hotel
2. Maleficent
3. Mr. Turner
4. Inherent Vice
5. Into the Woods

Original Screenplay
1. Birdman
2. Boyhood
3. The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. Nightcrawler
5. Foxcatcher

Adapted Screenplay
1. Whiplash
2. American Sniper
3. Inherent Vice
4. The Theory of Everything
5. The Imitation Game

this is an EXTREMELY far-fetched theory from my point of view, because we simply never see any kind of sign of terror on Emma Stone’s face in that scene,

She definitely did NOT see a corpse. I’m not a fan of Emma Stone but she’s a good enough actress to pull off a tinge of sadness and then move on to what came next, which actually confirmed my interpretation of the ending for me (and that of the entire movie). I mostly disagree with your interpretation but the fact that there’s no corpse causes problems for other interpretations, but not ours.

IF YOU READ THIS POST HAVING NOT SEEN BIRDMAN, YOU’RE THE ONE WITH MENTAL PROBLEMS

ALL SPOILERS, ALL THE TIME

I disagree with everyone else. lol Riggan had “powers” all along. I’d probably call them talents or skills but same difference. Anyway he could levitate, see giant black birds in the sky, etc. That, for lack of a better word, was “real”. A separate reality, maybe. 😉 I think Riggan shot his nose off and woke up in the hospital room with a new beak. The only thing left for his transformation into Birdman was for him to fly. Did he know what he was doing? Maybe not. Was Birdman stronger than him and took him over? Perhaps. But he was Birdman anyway. Birdman was his higher, more mystical, self. So, in my opinion he jumps out the window and somewhere between the window and the pavement his transformation became complete. He found his inner Birdman and his ability to fly. (Don’t forget we haven’t seen the Birdman movies. We don’t know if the character was like Batman or Iron Man, a rich human in a suit, or if he was a magical being or alien like Superman or Thor.)

Emma Stone’s character ran to the window and in all her hipster ultra-realistic ‘nothing matters’ way of thinking searched for a corpse. IT WASN’T THERE. She looked into the sky and saw Birdman, her father, flying over Manhattan. He was in the sky. Not a spirit. Not a ghost. Not a hallucination. He was there.

Think shaman. Think Don Juan. Watch this and SEE. This is what I choose to believe the film was about in the end. They left it open to interpretation. This is the interpretation I choose and that’s why I think it’s awesome. But I don’t think that I’m “right”. I don’t think there is a right answer. I think they wanted multiple interpretations. I wish the rest of you luck with the nonexistent corpse.

As a sidenote. Let me explain why I think open endings are a good thing. I loved DONNIE DARKO when I saw it in the theater. Loved it. So much so that I bought it the day it came out on video. Watched it through once. Then I made a snack and watched it through again with the commentary on. The director, Richard Kelly, explained the plot. The movie was ruined for me. My interpretation was so much better than his. lol Anyway, I don’t really watch it anymore and I never bothered with the Director’s Cut. Open endings are the stuff dreams are made of. Which is also why David Lynch is a boss. And it’s why Christoper Nolan is becoming one.

(Not sure where to post this. This seems the most appropriate thread. Maybe Ryan can give me an idea – if he thinks this is worth posting anywhere else, of course…)

SPOILERS FOR BIRDMAN!…

OK, I have a definitive take on the ending of Birdman, and I believe it is 100% plausible (and THE MOST plausible theory, given all of the strong clues present in the actual movie), cohesive and logical from Riggan and every other character’s point of view. I doubt that it’ll make anyone like the movie more (bacause it remains a very dark and depressing movie, at its core), but I’m hoping, should I succeed in explaining it, and also convincing, that it’ll at least put to rest the notion that the movie itself is pretentious and empty (there is a case, however, I would say, to be made against the writers, because they actually seem to have taken the stance that they wanted the movie to have an open ending – see here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/birdman-ending_n_6219290.html -, which it is, but I don’t think in the way they meant, and, besides, I would strongly argue that, whatever their INTENTIONS, the actual movie works 100% the way I describe below, and there are ACTUAL, very specific VISUAL CUES (and not only, but I’ll focus on those, as they’re the most important – I have rewatched the relevant parts very carefully) in the movie that support this theory, and THIS THEORY ALONE (other theories are all either unrealistic, or simply negated by events that take place earlier in the movie) and, therefore, I posit that, in evaluating the movie itself, it DOESN’T MATTER if the writers deliberately made it so that this was the only 100% plausible reading, or if they simply stumbled upon something that worked, while trying to make everything work, because the movie itself is what it is, it works, and, irrespective of their intentions, fluke or stroke of genius, it’s pretty brilliant. I’m quite confident in saying I don’t think the interpretation I give below takes anything out of the movie that isn’t already there, and, therefore, it is not merely a personal take, but rather what I believe to be (by far) the most likely (for reasons I shall explain) correct interpretation.

Alright, so the central premise here is that, as many people have correctly deduced (not sure about AD, but on other forums), the actual final scene TAKING PLACE IN REALITY in the movie Birdman is Riggan shooting himself on stage. The visual cues are the cut(s), after the entire movie up to that point was made to look like it had been one take (Inarritu has apparently said in interviews that “there are no cuts in life”, to further explain this), the image of the comet and the beach (which is similar to the one at the beginning of the movie – perhaps identical, I’m not sure -, right after the quote from Raymond Carver, which clearly states the central theme of the movie, and the main character’s conflict), the surreal scene with the drummers on the stage, before that, etc.. Everything that happens after this is, to me, very clearly not real (for reasons I shall elucidate shortly), but an illustration of all of the things that Riggan’s character had hoped to achieve by shooting himself on stage. Where this scene comes from, and what it IS exactly, is very much up for debate, and I’ll get to that part too, later, though it’s not very important, anyway – which I’ll also explain.

The reasons why nothing that happens after the moment he shoots himself, and the critic walks off amid the applause (which is, I believe, technically the last “real” thing we see, and which, of course, could mean absolutely anything), can be real, are probably more than those I can actually remember. I’ll do my best to mention all of those that I can remember, including the key ones. Here’s my explanation:

1. Riggan’s powers are almost certainly not real. There are many moments in Birdman that hint at this, and some people offer as definitive proof the fact that Galifianakis’ character has no reaction when he enters the room and Riggan is STILL floating things with his telekinesis – but I would say that this is not so clear, because there is a chance Galifianakis’ character already knows about Riggan’s powers (perhaps being the only one) and is used to them -, but I think the better piece of evidence is the scene in which Riggan, after having flown to the top of the building and back down, arrives at the theater, but, immediately, we see a cab driver getting out of his cab and going after him, saying he hadn’t paid for the ride. There is simply no other possible explanation of this (in a movie that makes any kind of sense) other than that Riggan took a cab to the theater, and did not fly. Therefore, he was only imagining the actual flight part.

2. Since we know Riggan’s powers are not real, he cannot actually be flying at the end of the movie, when his daughter looks up at the sky. The way she looks out the window, it is very clear that she first looks down, scans quickly, sees nothing, then looks up and smiles. Some have posited that she sees her dad lying dead on the pavement, is shocked, has a breakdown, and looks up in horror, then sees the birds and smiles – this is an EXTREMELY far-fetched theory from my point of view, because we simply never see any kind of sign of terror on Emma Stone’s face in that scene, nor is her just looking up and immediately smiling, with, again, no hint of anything out of the ordinary, like madness, in her glance, in any way a reaction anyone, crazy or not, would ever have to anything like that, and also, even if, for whatever reason, she had not been able to spot her father’s corpse below, she would have still been far too worried, since she obviously cared about her dad very much, to ever be able to instantly break a smile, at anything, just two seconds later. Therefore, since it is both impossible that she has seen her father dead below (for the reasons stated) AND, since we know Riggan has no superpowers, that she sees him flying around, we must conclude that none of this can ever have happened in real life.

Therefore, that scene, too, is not real, and is either in Riggan’s imagination, a dream of his, or simply a symbolic representation of his inner thoughts/hopes at one time or another (most say right after he shot himself, and before he dies, which is a possibility like any other, but there is no evidence in the movie to support either this or any other theory as to when exactly this scene takes place in Riggan’s mind). We cannot know for sure what this is exactly, or – if it is, indeed, something that occurs in Riggan’s mind, whether a dream or a fantasy – when it actually “takes place”. We can only guess. What it is FOR SURE is an explanatory epilogue, and WHEN it “happens”, not whether it is real, is the only thing open to interpretation. Not that it really matters.

Other things have also been suggested as proof that this whole scene is imaginary, like the fact that Galifianakis’ character says “we’ll get you another one” in relation to Riggan’s nose, although he alredy has one, which we discover once he takes off his face mask – and some others, all of them pretty convincing. I don’t think there’s need for more proof than that which I have given here, though.

3. Obviously, since what happens in the epilogue can’t be reality… it could be pretty much anything else. It doesn’t HAVE to be his dream, it doesn’t HAVE to be his thoughts in his dying moments, or any other theory – but it can’t be what actually happened, either. It could just be a symbolic ending that shows us, the viewers, what his thought process was behind his “idea” to kill himself on stage, while also helping to leave open the question of his actual death (since it is suggested in this symbolic ending that he could have missed and just shot his nose off – and we don’t actually see his brains being blown out, we just see the shot, at a level corresponding with where his nose is situated, and from behind, so we can’t know for sure what the bullet, in fact, hit).

We simply don’t know whether he dies or not, and the idea of the ending is that it DOESN’T MATTER. What matters is that he was crazy enough to do it, that his quest for fame, and that elusive “beloved” status, was more important to him than his sanity – he couldn’t silence the voice of mediocrity in his head any other way, nor could he accept what it was telling him. And that’s what the movie is about: his internal conflict, which ends in his ultimate refusal to let go of his impossible dream of being beloved BY EVERYONE (see the quote at the beginning), critics, family, fans etc., all at the same time, which leads him to the only solution he feels he has left, in his attempt to reach this status of being universally beloved. Whether he is “successful”, or whether he dies (two separate questions), we simply do not know, based on the evidence presented in the movie.

The post-shooting scene is the filmmakers showing us what Riggan was hoping to achieve by his (attempted) suicide: reconciliation with (and to be understood by) his daughter, critical acclaim, fame AND to escape from his Birdman alter-ego, etc., all at once – whether symbolically or not, and whether he meant to actually kill himself, or to miss; both would achieve roughly the same result, only in one scenario, he’d be dead, and in the other, he wouldn’t… again, we don’t know what his exact intentions were, and it doesn’t matter, because either way, what he did is CLEARLY going too far and NOT the way to get all of the things he hopes to get… either way, he fails in his REAL struggle, the one that he SHOULD have been focusing on, the one that his daughter, and others, had attempted to persuade him to focus on, which is the struggle to escape his obsession with fame and critical recognition, and to accept that he is what he is, and he shouldn’t try to be something he simply is not, and cannot be… in this sense, Birdman, the character, is, of course, the voice of reason in his head, throughout the movie.

The ending is, therefore, an idealized scenario, and whether it’s a dream he had at some point BEFORE shooting himself on stage, or his dying thoughts in the split seconds after he shoots himself, or just a symbolic epilogue – which is my preferred take on it -, we cannot know. Thus, the important question arises: why not just SHOW what happened, pick an ending? My answer: because that would defeat the purpose. It’s simply NOT IMPORTANT to the movie’s conflict what specific result he got by means of his insane actions, or whether he lived or died (because he was already dead, psychologically speaking, the second he pulled the trigger), and what reaction people had to it, because, in fact, NO result would be the right result, as long as he was willing to go that far just for the sake of fame. He was a lost cause as a real human being either way, having ultimately succumbed to his ego. What’s important is that he lost his struggle, and this epilogue is just a way for the viewer to better understand why he did what he did, and what he, in his twisted mind, actually hoped to accomplish by it.

I don’t think just ending the movie after he shot himself would have been anywhere near as satisfying, and I’m not at all sure the idea that it’s not important what happened afterwards (which I really like) would have been as well emphasized, either. Also, since he could clearly NEVER get the result he wanted – everything working out, the play being a success, everybody he cared about reacting the way he wanted them to react -, any other ending would have just muddled the issue further, and made unnecessarily confusing the movie’s central message.

Why do I, personally, love this movie? Because I relate to Riggan’s (and not only his) struggle, his overpowering need to live up to the expectations of an unreasonably demanding modern society, where, especially if you are a public figure, you are never allowed to only be what you really are, but must also be what other people and/or the public opinion expects you to be, in order to truly be accepted. Riggan cared too much about pleasing everyone, about fitting into all of the parts (serious actor, father, husband, celebrity etc.) that society had cast for him, most of which were by now unattainable to him, and could not see the folly in trying at all costs to be all of those things at once, an impossible task, and something that no society should ever demand of anyone (which is an issue I strongly relate to, as I have all my life refused to be shaped and/or defined by all of the different things the various people around me have wanted me to be, and I have always taken the paths that I felt were right for me, and my own individuality – Birdman’s bleak message confirms my own impression, that that way lies only madness, and, no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to reconcile all of those things, and will, therefore, never be truly happy, which is why I think it is an important message). Riggan paid for it with his sanity. He is, of course, a tragic figure.

Not sure anybody will bother/have the patience to read all/any of this stuff, but, since I’ve done the research anyway, I might as well share it. Here goes!…

Birdman or Boyhood – editing snub vs. PGA win:

I’ve finally gotten around to performing an extensive analysis of the exact circumstances for each year so far in which the same movie has won the PGA and SAG Ensemble awards. I decided that the most important precursors to include in the analysis were the Golden Globes (BP+BD), BFCA (BP+BD), ACE and WGA awards. I also decided to use the BAFTA stats, as the fifth precursor, even for the years before the date change, because I concluded that, even in the years when they were held after the Oscars, they could still be considered indicators of consensus, retroactively, albeit somewhat less reliable (since the “wanting to vote for the winner” factor probably wasn’t as strong – which the results confirm). Besides, they won’t affect the general conclusions, which are based on only those precursors which have already been awarded this season as well (Golden Globes and BFCA). They’ll just help give a better idea of the overall picture for each of those years.

Below are my findings and conclusions…

Comparing the relevant 10 movies’ performances at the Golden Globes and BFCA, Birdman is, just as I had guessed even before carrying out this analysis, right on the line between those who won BP (7) and those who didn’t (2). There isn’t enough evidence either way, so the situation is, indeed, inconclusive, until the DGA announces. More specifically, all of the 9 who won at least one BP or BD prize at these two awards shows (American Beauty – all 4 -, Chicago – only the 2 BP prizes -, The Return of the King – all 4 -, No Country for Old Men – both at BFCA only -, Slumdog Millionaire – all 4 – and Argo – all 4) have won Best Picture. Birdman has won neither of these. However, of the three other movies that won neither, there is a precedent (which also happens to be by far the most relevant one – see next paragraph for details) of one of them winning Best Picture – The King’s Speech. In fact, if it wins the DGA, then, in order to match The King’s Speech record with these 5 awards bodies EXACTLY, Birdman would need to win the BAFTA for Best Picture (but not also the BAFTA for Best Director). Nevertheless, of course, it’s worth noting that The King’s Speech was a British film, and, therefore, much, much more likely to triumph at the BAFTAs than Birdman, irrespective of its chances of winning Best Picture at the Oscars.

It is also very much worth noting, of course, that the two movies that won PGA+SAG, but ended up losing Best Picture (Apollo 13 and Little Miss Sunshine), in addition to no director – and, in Little Miss Sunshine’s case, also editing – nominations at the Oscars, both had ridiculously poor performances (for BP contender standards) at these 5 precursor award shows (Apollo 13 lost everywhere, and wasn’t even nominated for BP/BD by BAFTA, as did Little Miss Sunshine, except for winning the WGA, while also not having its directors nominated at either the Golden Globes or BFCA awards). Also, equally importantly, these defeats for Apollo 13 and Little Miss Sunshine both came BEFORE the PGA switched to the preferential ballot, at the same time as the Oscars, and went on its current run of 5 correctly predicted BP winners (5 since then – more if you count the years before that too). Which is why Birdman is clearly far ahead of these two predecessors even now, before the BAFTA and ACE awards (even if it loses both, because of the lack of some important precursor nominations for Apollo 13 and Little Miss Sunshine), and a lot closer to The King’s Speech (it only lacks the editing nomination to be on par with it – both, interestingly, being WGA-ineligible).

Given all that, I draw the following raw conclusions: CLEARLY the race this year is, regardless of who wins the DGA, one of the toughest to predict EVER, not just in recent memory (at least statistically speaking). The key to this race is, I would say obviously, which of the two stats that are almost exclusively responsible for making it so interesting in the first place, the editing nomination (which Birdman does not have) and the PGA’s 100% BP-matching record under the preferential ballot (Birdman having won the PGA), one believes takes precedence over the other.

My arguments for why I believe the PGA’s record is more important, which I’ve already elaborated on (so, for those who have already read those posts, you can just skip this part, although there is a bit of new and, I think, rather relevant, stuff, plus details), are the following: the PGA is an actual Best Picture award, voted on by a much larger voting body (and one whose number is actually very close to that of the Academy’s) than the number of people who vote for editing nominations, that Birdman’s editing being non-traditional, but rather effects-based, its snub could easily be a fluke based on very specific and hard-to-reproduce circumstances, and also that a 100% stat (that also makes sense logically) should not be ignored, even when the sample size is still relatively small (5 years); meanwhile, the editing snub stat, while not having any exceptions since 1980, has not really suffered from any changes in circumstances since the relevant award’s inception – apart from the various switches to and from the preferential voting system for Best Picture, which will, by their nature, affect things (although the actual numbers – 2 exceptions in 17 years under the preferential ballot, 9 exceptions in 80 years overall, for almost exactly the same matching percentage, 88.x% – do not confirm this) – and, therefore, there is no reason not to consider the earlier years as well, when evaluating its importance.

The only changes I can think of that might have happened over time, and that might have affected (increased) the stat’s importance, are psychological, as in voters becoming more and more aware of the award’s relevance to BP, as the percentage of times it didn’t work – years in which the BP winner wasn’t nominated for this award – grew smaller and smaller, and as the stat became common knowledge more and more, and, therefore, given consensus mentality, said voters becoming more interested in making sure they had the eventual winner in their lineup. I think this is a very good case to make in favor of the editing stat, but insufficient. Not least of all, of course, because, mathematically, after enough years of something (which isn’t FORCED or guaranteed in any real, logical way) invariably happening, with each new year its NOT happening becomes more and more likely, and we’re already at 33 consecutive years of this rule being confirmed (which is a lot more than the 22 years that passed between Driving Miss Daisy’s BD snub and the year Argo became the next BP winner without a BD nomination). It’s still close, but I believe there are enough arguments to suggest that it’s (at least) slightly more likely that this rule be broken this year, than not.

I leave below the exact data I worked with in my analysis, and that I have based these conclusions upon (sorry about the somewhat messy and abbreviated presentation :D):

PGA+SAG = DGA 8/9 times (exception: Little Miss Sunshine)
PGA+SAG+DGA = BP 7/8 times (exception: Apollo 13)
PGA+SAG(DGA-?) = BP 7/9 times (exceptions: the aforementioned two)

v = win
. = loss
1 – Golden Globe for Best Picture
2 – Golden Globe for Best Director
3 – BFCA Award for Best Picture
4 – BFCA Award for Best Director

1234
…. 1995 Apollo 13*: lost GG Drama (Sense) and GG BD, no BAFTA BP (Sense) or BD (Il Postino) noms, lost ACE, lost BFCA BP (Sense) and BD, lost WGA
vvvv 1999 American Beauty: won GG Drama and BD, won BAFTA BP and lost BD (Todo sobre…), lost ACE (Matrix), won BFCA BP and BD, won WGA
v.v. 2002 Chicago: won GG Comedy and lost BD (Gangs), lost BAFTA BP and BD (Pianist), won ACE, won BFCA BP and no BD nom (Catch Me…, Minor.R.), lost WGA (Hours)
vvvv 2003 The Return of the King: won GG Drama and BD, won BAFTA BP and lost BD (Master and Commander), won ACE, won BFCA BP and BD, lost WGA (American Splendor)
…. 2006 Little Miss Sunshine**: lost GG Comedy (*****) and no BD nom, lost BAFTA BP (Queen) and BD (Un. 93), lost ACE (******), lost BFCA BP (Departed) and no BD nom, won WGA
..vv 2007 No Country for Old Men: lost GG Drama (Atonement) and BD (Le scaphandre…), lost BAFTA BP (Atonement) and won BD, lost ACE (Bourne), won BFCA BP and BD, won WGA
vvvv 2008 Slumdog Millionaire: won GG Drama and BD, won BAFTA BP and BD, won ACE, won BFCA BP and BD, won WGA
…. 2010 The King’s Speech: lost GG Drama and BD (TSN), won BAFTA BP and lost BD (TSN), lost ACE (TSN), lost BFCA BP and BD (TSN), WGA – ineligible (TSN won)
vvvv 2012 Argo***: won GG Drama and BD, won BAFTA BP and BD, won ACE, won BFCA BP and BD, won WGA
…. 2014 Birdman****: lost GG Comedy (*******) and BD (Boyhood), BAFTA – not yet held -, ACE – not yet held -, lost BFCA BP and BD (Boyhood), WGA – ineligible

* – no BD nomination! Braveheart had everything but any SAG/PGA noms, Sense had no BD/Editing nominations; all defeats with nothing in brackets are to Braveheart;
** – no BD/Editing nominations!
*** – no BD nomination!
**** – no Editing nomination!
***** – lost to Dreamgirls; Babel won Drama;
****** – lost to Dreamgirls; The Departed, the BP winner, won (tied with Babel) in the drama category;
******* – lost to The Grand Budapest Hotel; Boyhood won Drama.

For everybody that been comparing these year to 2006 between Little Miss Sunshine and The Departed and if boyhood does wins and keaton also could win for best actor because this year similiar to 2006 between Alan Arkin and Eddie Murphy where Eddie won sag and globe.That PGA and SAG actually means something because Birdman gonna win those two or three top 5 categories at the Oscars.

I saw a top 20 up there. So I’m doing mine. (What do you want? I’m snowed in.)

1) Exodus: Gods and Kings (3D)
2) Interstellar
3) Captain America: The Winter Soldier
4) Inherent Vice
5) The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
6) Lucy
7) Birdman
8) Into the Woods
9) Chef
10) Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
11) X- Men: Days of Future Past
12) The Lego Movie
13) Locke
14) Edge of Tomorrow
15) Blue Ruin
16) Nightcrawler
17) American Sniper
18) The Immigrant
19) The Grand Budapest Hotel
20) Get On Up

These are my favorites. Not what I think normal people would choose. Never in all my years have I so disagreed with the Academy. Of the nominated pictures I need to see WHIPLASH and THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING.

Claudiu,

I don’t feel attacked at all. So don’t you worry about it. I just don’t want you to waste your time criticizing my calculation method when you’re not privy to even a fraction of its details. That’s all.

I don’t think I’m inflexible with my model. I read these forums and others and really listen to the stats that I previously wasn’t aware of that people throw out. I study those stats and judiciously decide if they’re worth including in my grids and how. And I have refined my model several times since I first created it. I didn’t say if Birdman wins DGA, Boyhood would still be the favorite. I said that the two would be even. You don’t need to tell me how important PGA, DGA and SAG results are. Trust me, I’ve baked their importance into the model.

You’ll be happy to hear that during this back and forth conversation we’ve had, I’ve realized there’s a rather significant stat that I haven’t baked into the model and now, after hours of contemplation, have put it in. See? I’m not stubborn.

Yes, I will now concede that if Inarritu wins the DGA (he won’t, haha), Birdman will be the favorite to win Oscar BP. Not by much, but it will. But I think it’s rather foolhardy to think that Birdman is currently the favorite. At best, it’s still inconclusive.

Oh right. Just ’cause some Italian guy says it, now it make sense. lol j/k 😉

“The awards race ruins movies. It ruins every good thing about them. It turns masterpieces into forgotten wallflowers. It turns momentary fascinations into champions”
Then why encourage it?

I used to love the Oscars ever since i started watching them as a little kid, used to go on this site religiously but now….the illusion has been broken. There is nothing authentic about the Oscars, it should be a CELEBRATION, not a COMPETITION and unfortunately that’s what I realize it is. At the end of the day, let’s just enjoy the films for the experience, not comparing them with one another. Takes the magic out.

“I get what Claudiu is trying to say here. You have to consider the outlying factors and other strange things that happen when making comparisons. Many people are giving the editing snub (for Birdman) too much credit here. Look, it took 32 years for a film without a screenplay Oscar nomination to win BP (Sound of Music, Titanic). It took 23 years for a film without a directing nom to win BP (Driving Miss Daisy, Argo). Perhps, this is the year there is an anomaly. […] However, I do think it is ridiculous to say that Birdman has a lesser chance than Boyhood because of the editing snub. Even if Linklater wins DGA, it’s more of a 50/50 chance for both films to win it.”

Exactly! That is EXACTLY what I am trying to say. Thank you, sir! Agree with 100% of that.

“But at the same time, it doesn’t look at the latest significant awards like PGA, SAG or BAFTA as the end all be all precursors as well.”

They are BY FAR the most important ones, because they have large numbers of mutual voters, similar numbers of voters and represent the voice of the industry, as opposed to outsider groups such as the HFPA, BAFTA or critics’ groups. They’re NOT history erasers either – I never said that. But I do believe, when combined (ESPECIALLY PGA+SAG+DGA) they’re VERY, VERY CLOSE to being that. Apart from the Apollo 13 case, for which I’ve already amply illustrated the reasons why I don’t believe it’s entirely relevant, if at all, this combination is 7/7 at predicting Best Picture. And this is the combination your model is betting against if Boyhood loses the DGA to Birdman – based, mostly, on what I believe is a highly vulnerable editing stat, especially in the context of Birdman’s non-traditional editing. This looks very, very suspicious to me. Sure, individually, the PGA, DGA and SAG miss with reasonable frequency, but all of them combined – practically never.

I’m not trying to poke holes in your mathematical theory. 🙂 I’m telling you I personally believe the principles of statistical theory shouldn’t be applied blindly when it comes to the Oscar (BP) race, and minimum sample size should be a concept taken with a grain of salt, because there are very strong stats that don’t reach those minimum numbers, but that it’s clearly a serious mistake to ignore… And also that one HAS to take into account the subtle, but immensely important, changes in parameters (like PGA’s switch to preferential, at the same time as the Academy, which completely alters its nature as a precursor). And I’m offering as an argument the fact that, if you have Boyhood still given as the favorite (statistically speaking) even if it loses the DGA to Inarritu, there is DEFINITELY something wrong. (And I believe, in the absence of exact data, that it’s very likely the fact that you assign too much weight to either the BFCA+Globes wins, or the Birdman editing snub, or both, compared to the weight assigned to the industry awards, which you admit you don’t, perhaps, value as much as most people.) Just because the model worked last year (which is a good sign, but, I repeat, last year was a lot easier, as Gravity was, statistically speaking, not actually that much of a threat, given the many snubs and lack of BP wins – there’s a reason why most pundits were still predicting 12 Years; this year could prove a lot more tricky, a lot more of a test, for any model), it doesn’t mean these wrongly assigned weights won’t tell in the long run, and your model won’t make the wrong predictions because of it.

But it’s OK, I don’t expect you to believe me or change your model just because I say so. I, of course, know all too well how inflexible people who are particularly well-versed in certain areas of expertise (like, in this case, mathematical theory, as you put it) can be, and I don’t expect you to give me too much credibility. It’s a natural reaction – they’ve worked hard to gain the knowledge they have, and any suggestion that this knowledge might not be as unquestionable as they like to think it is makes them become defensive, and they are, of course, very reluctant to accept it. I have A LOT of experience with the BP race (more than people that have been watching the Oscars a lot longer than I have – not more than the likes of Sasha, who is also all about the BP race, like me, but many others -, because I spend a lot more time thinking about the BP race every year than most of the pundits, and I know pretty much every stat there is, and their importance, and all of the possible arguments and counter-arguments and scenarios and outcomes, historical or potential), and I’m telling you if you still have Boyhood as the favorite immediately after losing the DGA, you’re going to be wrong in that situation quite a bit more often than you’re going to be right, in the long run, if not necessarily this year, specifically. Do what you want with that information – ignore it at your own peril. I don’t mind. 🙂 But don’t feel threatened, because I’m not attacking you. I’m questioning your interpretation of the stats, that’s all. I do that all the time, with many people, and it’s never personal (unless it’s someone like Zooey, who makes truly absurd claims, and then refuses to listen to reason).

“Trust me! I don’t! I underspoke or you misunderstood what I said. I’ve studied the historical patterns of each category individually. Even the models for Actress and Supporting Actress are different. What I meant to say is that I apply the same formula for all the films, AND THEN all the directors…”

OK, you’ve lost me here a little bit – either you’re not being very clear, or my English isn’t yet at the required level. 🙁 Either way, if you say you have a different formula for BP than for every other category, then it’s OK. If not – then I’ve already stated my opinion about that (I repeat, in the absence of further data, since you won’t share your model with us, which I’m not asking you to, by the way – I understand why you won’t).

Lead Hero Actor who makes his biggest splash by horribly disfiguring himself.

BIRDMAN MONDO SPOILERS

I know you want to watch it fresh but if you went along with my view you’d realize that in his transformation into Birdman, he gave himself a beak. Look at it and see.

Ryan, good luck, my friend. Though it is good to keep other interpretations open for, well, interpretation, which you seem to be able to do. The slight blip, as you put it, was not enough to topple everything. Me saying, “destroyed” was a bit much on my end. When I said, “destroyed” I didn’t mean that the movie ended up sucking, which you know. But the illusion, the suspension of disbelief, it made me question everything. Not if it was a comedy or a drama but what was going on but HOW it was going on. It’s amazing how one look, one little look for 5 seconds can immediately change one’s view of a movie. That’s either insanely good storytelling and direction or a gigantic plot hole that can be exposed so easily. I prefer the former. That one little look begs a 2nd viewing and that’s something I can’t say about most films I saw this year. Sure I’ll rewatch some great movies but not because the narrative may or may not have changed, like Birdman. When I think now about that one look it makes me wonder how much of it is told from Riggan’s point of view, like even when he’s not in the frame. I viewed the theater as his labyrinth of his mind that’s a bit too twisty and turny for his own good. I also thought about the ending of Finding Neverland and how the play “opened” to a magical world. Was it told from Winslet’s point of view? Sure, in a way it was. But the other actors seemed to have gone along with it somehow and I think that’s the same case with the final shot in Birdman.

I believe you meant to use the word “flair”…

Gotta see Birdman and The Imitation Game and American Sniper. I’ll be seeing those in the Oscar showcase.

My favorite films so far
1. Boyhood
2. Selma
3. Whiplash
4. The Grand Budapest Hotel
5. The Theory of Everything
6. Still Alice
7. Gone Girl
8. The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies
9. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
10. Interstellar
11. Jersey Boys
12. X-Men: Days of Future Past
13. Chef
14. Edge of Tomorrow
15. Noah
16. Heaven is for Real
17. Guardians of the Galaxy
18. Dolphin Tale 2
19. Foxcatcher
20. Outlander

That’s my 20 favorite films for the year,

I still think Boyhood is going to win best picture. It has a 99 percent on rottentomatoes.com while Birdman has a 93 percent on rt,com

OT: New York friends. They just tweeted that there are Late Show tickets available if you want to try. https://twitter.com/Letterman

Sasha,

I’ve been thinking about your statement “How you “feel” should be the least of it when deciding on such things as “best.”” and I think I disagree because the best movies demand an emotional response from the viewers. I personally hate to sit through any film that doesn’t engage me, no matter how well constructed or acted they may be — and trust me, there are plenty of those around. But my emotional response is going to be very much a factor when I determine something is best.

And we’re all different. That’s why I can include Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Rear Window, The Godfather, Pulp Fiction, Star Wars, The Silence of the Lambs, Singin’ in the Rain, The Shawshank Redemption, When Harry Met Sally, Schindler’s List, and The Social Network among great films that are pretty universally beloved. But my list of great films also includes those that are often dissed — films like Ordinary People, Oliver!, The Color Purple, Driving Miss Daisy, Braveheart, Places in the Heart, Dances with Wolves, The Blind Side, and as of now, American Sniper.. My list also includes some films that others generally think are good, but I seem to like a lot better, like Apollo 13, Bull Durham, Cleopatra, Gorillas in the Mist, and Broadcast News. And then there are films that are highly acclaimed movies which don’t make my list of great films at all, even though they had some elements in them that I might admire: such as Slumdog Millionaire, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Raging Bull. Her, and Gravity.

Time changes our perspective too, and how we feel about some movies change. For example, I think Once Upon a Time in America is great now, though I detested in on the first viewing. Conversely, I loved the comedy Stir Crazy once upon a time, but don’t think I cracked a smile the last time I saw it.

In other words, everyone’s view of “Best” is unique and it is pointless to argue because after all, why is one opinion better than another? Even Roger Ebert, who could make some pretty convincing arguments, could get it wrong sometimes!

I don’t think AMPAS acts collectively, but it stands to reason that the movie that is best liked will win over ones that people have passion for. Rarely does my choice for Best Picture win — last years 12 Years a Slave being an exception.

I watch the Oscars to see how well my concept of “Best” lines up with AMPAS. Not well, but I can root for my favorites. I go to movies to have my emotions stimulated. Joy, anger, surprise, sorrow, thrill — I don’t much care as long as it is well-done. But I want to be moved, or it won’t make my Best Picture list at all.

Boyhood frustrates me. Though I found the film pleasant… And I enjoyed some scenes… The film has no arc. It is an exercise that would be best presented in a museum. And it would be a marvelous exhibition. But I don’t see much artistry in that film. The script is abysmal, relying on “check-off-the-list” life moments that we can all “relate” to with some dialogue so cliche it would be shredded in a 101 script writing class. And has Linklater listened to a group of teens talk in a while? I work with adolescents almost every day, and their complaint about the film is that it so poorly approximates their world. The child performances are either directed to not get in the way – or are embarrassing; Linklater’s poor daughter has moments that made me turn away and cringe. AND….the film ends over and over again. All that said, I admit, it does have an emotional impact. There is something marvelous about watching the aging process and reflecting back on one’s own life. But when you watch it through the lens of craft – the craft of filmmaking – of art – I don’t see much that comes even close to outstanding. I have not yet seen Birdman. Selma was truly a marvel. But for me, the film of the year was Foxcatcher… And Boyhood would have only one nomination – for Arquette.

Quietly illuminating, yes, but all the more persuasive for being quiet.

Boyhood. The Pet Rock of movies.

The Academy doesn’t have to feel they owe Redmayne anything. He just gives a towering performance in a rather conventional but touching biopic that concentrates on a marriage rather than delve into scientific theory. If he wins, It’s the type of performance actors appreciate and I’m sure many of them are going to vote for him.

“And there’s the rub. That last shot confirmed every thing that came before for me.”

Yeah, me too, pretty much.

I didn’t hate the last shot, I thought it was nice and clever and bittersweet, but it made me question almost everything else that came before.

And there’s the rub. That last shot confirmed every thing that came before for me. I would have jumped up and clapped if I wasn’t so lazy.

“What’s new or particularly illuminating about Boyhood’s themes/message?”

Boyhood doesn’t try to be clever, it just is. There’s nothing mannered about it. The ebb and flow of time and existence. That’s what it is, and that’s what has never been captured on film in quite the same way before. It doesn’t try to do anything but depict life as it unfolds. It is fragments of the life of a boy and his family, carefully and lovingly edited and presented. Quietly illuminating, yes, but all the more persuasive for being quiet.

*sigh* I can’t believe so many of you who supposedly like art think being crazy is a bad thing.

Not much, Claudiu, but it’s a way more honest film.

I think it is disappointing, to see that Birdman can actually win. On the ending, SPOILER, it was manipulative, in full contradiction with the rest of the film, pretentious and frankly, irritating END SPOILER. Birdman wasn’t a superhero movie. It was an over-the-top exploration of the inner side of showbiz, nothing we’ve never seen before, and full of clichés. The actors were wonderful, though, but in a sucession of Oscar clips that could have earned a nom to any, even all, of the actors involved. My favorite, apart from Keaton, who is truly superb (and superior to Redmayne), was Zach Galiafanakis, who deserved the nom, over Norton… it’s my opinion. It’s nice to see Emma Stone nominated, but I do wonder if Watts wasn’t equally good or even better. In the end, it’s a matter of, who yelled the most, earned the nom. And it’s quite frustrating… it remembers a John Malkovich quote about the Oscar, it dismissed his “Places in the Heart” nomination, arguing that the only thing you needed to do to earn a nomination is, to look at the camera and yell “I’m blind!”. He’s so true… we just need to check out the nominees, most of the times, and see who was left out. We need to not go further than Oyelowo or Chris Evans (Snowpiercer) this year.

The lead actor race is honestly crazy. Now that Keaton has lost his frontrunner status despite the veteran comeback narrative, I think the Academy won’t feel they “owe” him the Oscar anymore. But will they feel the same way about Redmayne? What if Keaton’s snub could lead to another shocking snub? What if they thought that after the original frontrunner has been de facto taken down they could finally give the award to their darling, the box-office earthquake Bradley Cooper?

Is that so unlikely?

I don’t think anyone should really compare this year to past recent years where some really great films have towered over the undeserving Oscar winners; fortunately, last year the best picture did win though . Social Network is a real masterpiece incomparable in quality to the much inferior King’s Speech and Zero Dark Thirty, Beasts of the Southern Wild and the un-nominated The Master are obviously better films than Argo, and I cannot really understand how The Artist beat Tree of Life or even Hugo and Midnight in Paris, that were also superior to it.

I don’t like the term “gimmick” because I enjoy and I’m inspired by creativity in storytelling. I think Dustin Hoffman and Brando, Woody Allen and all of them were right in criticizing awards because it makes one forget about the subjectivity of it all. The way Artist was directed was wonderful for that story, the bit about the dog and all and it isn’t fair to call it a gimmick in a dismissive manner, neither is the choice to film Boyhood throughout 12 years or the continuous shoot of Birdman (an homage to actors in what should feel like a play, after all, theatre is the true actor’s medium). These are not just gimmicks, they’re the stuff dreams are made of, dreams being cinema. Hitchcock was the master of gimmicks if you will and he was a genius for it as are Spielberg, Scorsese and the best of them. It is these gimmicks that make for a cinematic experience and differentiate it from television . Arguments against accuracy are stupid as well, films can take dramatic license to tell an effective story and to push whatever themes the filmmaker wants, I too “don’t want realism, I want magic”; I expect more realism in documentary features, though those are also biased because it’s all subjective, people!

What I’m trying to say is, I don’t think no one film is so groundbreaking in the depth or themes explored in its story. I don’t think it’s a weak year, on the contrary, I think all the contenders were very well-made films that make it hard to pick a superlative because there is no towering masterpiece that stands out among the bunch, apples and oranges. Boyhood is lovely and intimate and is the zeitgeist choice but hardly introduces anything new to the table. While it does reflect ordinary people going through tough, common struggles of the modern day effectively, it’s not very subtle so there’s not much ambivalence to the story very much like Argo and Artist and King’s Speech and no character is truly compelling or fascinating the way Carell’s, Keaton’s, Affleck, Patrick Harris and Pike’s, Cotillard and J.K Simmons characters are in their films.

I’d pick the un-nominated Foxcatcher as the best picture but it’s no towering achievement either; GBH, though uneven, is the most cinematic, clever and original of the bunch and Gone Girl, though very flawed and not a top 5 Fincher, is the only film really “snubbed” because it’s definitely complex and will be talked about for years to come. Boyhood will win because it’s the most paper thin, classic “feel-good” choice. It tackles nothing taboo, does not enlighten on any issue of the human experience and is the less divisive more uplifting story. Despite a few rough patches, the mother and father and children are all decent, they’re all free, the children smoke pot, drink, fuck, dress/hair however they want without repressing parents or religion, etc., have a solid family unit despite divorce, the father matures and settles and learns to acknowledge the mother, and vice-versa though never disrespected each other, mom is free to pick the terrible men she does without her children ever seriously resenting her for it, continues her education, even inspires the lawn service minority guy and the kids make it to college, having always a nice suburban lifestyle, where despite some bills piling, they never really HAVE to work or are in danger outside the household or bullied or anything. Nothing wrong with all of that, like I said its all lovely, but its not the way life works for most people and it is the true safe pick and not the second coming, introspective movie critics hailed it as; outside the white, middle class, divorced families in America, there’s nothing in it for anyone that’s truly fascinating to discuss or worth pondering, besides admiring the 12 year commitment. Compare Boyhood to the youth struggles and/or
family issues of characters in Precious, Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, An Education, The Kids are All Right, Ordinary People, K vs. K, Breakfast Club, Pariah, Stand by Me and of course, The Graduate. Even Theory of Everything deals with the struggle between faith and reason and that’s the least complex/controversial of the 8 after Boyhood.

And the whole foreign directors winning is not so bad, we want diversity and at least these wins have given us that. Having two potential back to back Mexicans win director is also historic and important to latinos, the demographic that has the most theatre attendance of any other demographic in the US (including whites.) Nominations and wins in these past 3 seasons alone for foreign-born Haneke, Ang Lee, Cuaron and McQueen and now Iñarritu are very well deserved and not just an affirmative action move. The Academy are finally being progressive in this trend and, hopefully, won’t repeat the mistakes of the past when foreign-born Hitchcock, Bergman, Truffaut, Fellini, Kurasawa, Renoir, Buñuel went unrewarded for losing to inferior American choices. If the Academy should be patriotic about their choices than American Sniper should be given Best Picture.

I truly appreciate and apologize to anyone who read through this dissertation! 🙂

“One thing’s for sure, it’s a movie that will reward multiple viewings.”

Definitely! 🙂

“It does seem to me that the soundscape returns to “normal” when his daughter comes back in the room. In fact, it’s the wail of sirens (which obviously could mean many things) that started to nudge me psychologically into thinking the worst.

But then the tone of the lighting, camera angle and attitude swerves into such a sudden denial of the previous 5 minutes”

Yeah, you might be right about that – Inarritu might be cheating here a little bit with those details, in order to suggest the literal interpretation as well, even though it doesn’t really work. I know for a fact (I have a specific example in mind, but I’d rather not name it) that even the best writers/directors do that sometimes. It’s a flaw, in that case, but I wouldn’t say it’s an important flaw, as these aren’t clear-cut clues (like you say, they can be interpreted in more ways than one), and I think the logical argument I discussed earlier is stronger and negates them. But I could still be completely wrong about that, of course… Besides, the ending is the thing I’m most flexible about when it comes to Birdman – it’s the only thing that I think can be objectively criticized, though I’ll still defend it, of course. 🙂

“It would be easy to point to Inarritu’s previous movies. Why would he have changed? I think he’s trying to deliver the same message of hope-gone-wrong”

Yup, makes sense. Good point!

“He is deliberately trying to obscure not only the meaning of his film, but the nature of it. Why? To make a movie that is uncommercial at its heart seem commercially viable, of course.”

The movie isn’t ONLY about Riggan and his inner conflict. It’s also about theater, Hollywood, social media etc., it’s also satire… the comedic tone fits that part, of course. What’s wrong with adding layers? What’s wrong with squeezing two movies into one (and pulling it off, I might add), while also taking full advantage of the medium?!…

“Another thought about having a hard time expressing myself. As much as I love Twitter, I feel like Tweeting is turning my brain into mush. Since you’re only allowed 140 characters at a time, I’ve started thinking in terms of 140 characters at a time. I think to get a genuinely expressive fully formed thought out, it needs to be more than 140 chacters. I think it’s making me a bit lazy it trying to fully form a thought or an opinion.”

Thanks for the warning! I’ll keep that in mind if I ever want to start tweeting stuff (I don’t, right now).

***

“I’m using the same formula as I did last year. I was 100% correct with all the acting, directing and BP categories, even in the unpredictable tight races. (I don’t do the other categories).

I stood firm with Lupita N’yongo win, remember? When people including you were switching after JLaw won BAFTA, remember?”

I don’t care about any categories outside BP for 99% of the race. I don’t study the stats for them on a regular basis, like I do BP. When the ceremony approaches, and I have to make my predictions for the other categories (for various contests), so I quickly look at the stats for each. I don’t spend more than a day on it. Last year I guess I did it too early, which is why I made some changes at some point (also, I discovered a very interesting way of analyzing late in the game, as I recall, which changed some of my predictions). Besides, like I said, honestly, I don’t even care about getting those right. I want to get BP right. That’s all I even remotely care about.

“I apply my formula for all the contending films and actors in the same way.”

Yeah, see, I knew something was wrong. You have the same formula for BP as for the other categories. That doesn’t work – personal opinion. And Marshall’s Statsgasm kind of proved it last year (he had Gravity to win). BP is a completely different animal, way more complex than any of the other races (there are far more stats, more factors to consider). The same formula (regardless of the parameters) will never work for it, that works for the other races. In fact, personally, I think you should have a separate formula for each category (since you must have formulas), because they’re all different – but definitely for BP. I’m sure you have other ideas, though – which is fine.

And you’ve not really denied that you give too much weight to critics’ awards. That would also be a problem, like I said.

“It didn’t throw the Argo’s race into a chaos.”

Argo had won the Globe, the BAFTA (which wasn’t a precursor in Apollo 13’s case, but it still didn’t win), the BFCA, the WGA, neither of which was won by Apollo 13. Argo had ZERO serious competition (Lincoln had won NO BP OR BD prizes, apart from critics’ awards, and Life of Pi had no acting or SAG nominations, plus it also hadn’t won any BP/BD awards); Braveheart had won the Globe and BFCA awards for Best Director, the Eddie and the WGA (same category as Apollo 13). Vastly different situation in many, many ways. Apollo 13 had nowhere near the kind of broad support Argo did, and had a tough challenger in Braveheart. I say this is all based on stats. These are the reasons I, with much regret, had to finally concede to predict Argo, not something else, to win Best Picture two years ago.

And, again, I want to point out that the SAG best cast award was in its first year back then, they weren’t yet as important (or aware of it). Their winners reflect this – the first 3 years they didn’t coincide with the BP winner, and one of those wasn’t even nominated (The Birdcage). Also, the first two years, atypically small casts of only 6 and 7 actors (listed), respectively, were their winners, one of which was Apollo 13. During the following 17 years, there would only be 3 more casts that small to win it, so clearly those first few years were quite anomalous, in more ways than one. Something like The Birdcage would never win these days… And, in fact, the PGA was also pretty “young” (this, in addition to not yet being decided by preferential voting).

Personally, I think it’s pretty clear that, had those two awards been as old as they are now, had the records they have now, had their voters known how important they are, like they do now, Braveheart would most definitely have been nominated for and won at least one of those two (probably the SAG, as it has by far the bigger cast than Apollo 13 – its lack of acting nominations at the Oscars wouldn’t hurt it, as The Return of the King also did it without any, as did Slumdog Millionaire, and there might be more examples). Besides, you don’t even have to agree with this assumption – but you kind of have to agree that the PGA and SAG weren’t anywhere near as relevant for the outcome of the race then as they are now, when the voters know full well that they’re not only casting a vote for the PGA and SAG Best Ensemble, but also, at the same time, for the Oscar for Best Picture. And it shows in their picks (Argo, for example).

“Keep speaking up, Al and happy viewing” Thanks again, and you too! TTYL. 🙂

Just how respected is Julianne Moore? The answer is ALLLLL the respected…not even Sasha can bring herself to write that Pike “should be” the winner, but just that she “gave the best performance.”

I loved Birdman even more than I loved Boyhood, so as long as one of those two wins Best Picture, I’ll be a happy camper. Those are the two clearcut ‘best of 2014’ for me in any order. Perhaps the best argument I can make for Boyhood winning is that Birdman is my personal #1 for the year, and my personal #1 hasn’t also won Best Picture since all the back in 1993 with Schindler’s List. Sorry for the jinx, Birdman!

Another thought about having a hard time expressing myself. As much as I love Twitter, I feel like Tweeting is turning my brain into mush. Since you’re only allowed 140 characters at a time, I’ve started thinking in terms of 140 characters at a time. I think to get a genuinely expressive fully formed thought out, it needs to be more than 140 chacters. I think it’s making me a bit lazy it trying to fully form a thought or an opinion.

Random thought, I wonder what William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Ernest Hemingway, or Charles Bukowski would have thought of using Twitter.

“The way I read Birdman, it has the most tragically horrible downbeat endings of all the Best Picture nominees (if not for that illogical grinning idiot daughter in the last shot trying to fake a bogus uplifting coda.) (which only makes it worse, for me, and wrecks any possible hope for a meaningful message).”

(MORE SPOILERS!!)

The only redeemable thing about that last shot would be if somehow it reflects Riggan’s delusions about how he wants his daughter to react, thereby making it easier for him to take the actual jump? But in that case Inarritu fucks up the chronology and the perspective to a point where it all becomes too obscure to care about. As a narrative device in a non-delusional man’s movie (I assume, Inarritu is not mentally challenged), it is far from a satisfying conclusion either way.
No matter: When people talk about Birdman as uplifting and emotional, I’m confused. It’s the most pointlessly depressing piece of cinema!
It would be easy to point to Inarritu’s previous movies. Why would he have changed? I think he’s trying to deliver the same message of hope-gone-wrong, just on a much less global scale, where the egoism of the main character is self-evident and therefore it challenges the viewer’s capacity for feeling sympathy with him. Also, the faux-comedy-stylings of the movie is another trap that he wants us to step into. He is deliberately trying to obscure not only the meaning of his film, but the nature of it. Why? To make a movie that is uncommercial at its heart seem commercially viable, of course.
Clever? Yes, some. Profound? Hell no.

@Al – you are one of, if not the most respectful person i’ve read on this site. You always ‘own’ your statements and don’t lessen others in so doing. Keep on keeping on! 🙂

“Thanks, but Apollo 13 lacked a Directing nod sending that race into chaos.”

It didn’t throw the Argo’s race into a chaos.

Claudiu,

I apply my formula for all the contending films and actors in the same way. It has no bias on my part. I’m not cherry picking stats to fit a narrative. I give each stat its appropriate significance according to their historical record.

I’m using the same formula as I did last year. I was 100% correct with all the acting, directing and BP categories, even in the unpredictable tight races. (I don’t do the other categories). I stood firm with Lupita N’yongo win, remember? When people including you were switching after JLaw won BAFTA, remember? My numbers had Lupita a few points ahead and stuck to my gun. I couldn’t argue with the “numbers”.

I’m not saying that my formula is perfect and can’t be refined further. No prognostication is end all and be all. But trust me I don’t pick and choose stat so that my favorite would come out ahead.

Lastly, these are just points and pontification at the end of the day, and I’m not arguing just with you specifically but am posting my POV for the forum, for anyone who might be interested in reading. So don’t take what I say personally. If my numbers agitate you, then just ignore them from now on. 🙂

‘Night!

“my problem is how Riggan’s complete abject failure to work through his mental problems is depicted as a weird spiritual victory.”

Not necessarily a victory. I see it more as an acceptance of his condition.

The whole look, feel and content of Birdman felt heightened and unreal to me, that’s what made it so riveting, From the first utterances of the actor playing the actor about to depart the play, the over arched style signaled something for me, and it didn’t let up – at all! I respect others have a different take, and NONE are absolute. I can see how others react to some of the characters and plot turns; but are you seriously lambasting the movie for being unrealistic? Does the rest of the movie appear realistic as well? Nup.

BTW, my least favourite thing about Birdman is its insufferable snobbishness. The writers have a very simplistic, inaccurate grasp on contemporary pop culture and social media – what about the idiotic female reporter in his dressing room? What a pathetic piece of pandering to the middle-aged, middle-class, middlebrow theatre types who’ll undoubtedly lap that shit up. The depiction of antagonistic characters, all of whom can be condensed into Lindsay Duncan’s embarrassingly exaggerated caricature, as obnoxious, bullying assholes with no respect for Riggan’s supposed superiority is grating. The film reads very tidily as a celebration of bruised masculinity, of the misunderstood white male souls outraged by an increasingly equal cultural landscape.

And that’s to say nothing about what I remained convinced (despite arguments to the contrary, in which I place no significant stock since I don’t feel they’re substantial) is a shallow stylistic gimmick.

So I updated my prediction number crunch post PGA and SAG results. These are my personal number crunching with my own personal formula of calculating chances. I will not share the formula, so don’t ask. 🙂

Prior to this weekend, Birdman ranked #4 as the likelihood of it winning Oscar BP behind The Imitation Game, Grand Budapest Hotel and of course Boyhood. It trailed Boyhood by 11 points. After winning 2 awards, it leaped past Budapest and Imitation as the #2 contender. It is now 7 points behind Boyhood, cutting the deficits by 4 points, a significant gain. In order for Birdman to pull even with Boyhood, it will have to win the WGA, DGA and BAFTA.

Prior to this weekend, Redmayne trailed Keaton by 5 points. Now Eddie edges Keaton by 1 point.

I think one thing is clear here: if Birdman wins the DGA, it’s winning the Big Oscar, no questions asked. I don’t necessarily think it will, mind – I think Linklater’s directorial achievement is a bit much to ignore (a la Cuaron’s with Gravity), and despite Boyhood allegedly not being “a movie for today’s consensus voters,” it’s been a pretty easy film for most people to get behind. Honestly, Linklater winning director is a surer bet at this point than Boyhood winning picture, so I’ll say if Linklater wins the DGA (which I’m betting he does), he’s definitely getting the directing Oscar and most likely also picture, whereas if Inarritu grabs it, Birdman takes Picture and probably also director.

Honestly, I love this. When was the last time we had an eleventh-hour switchup where the standing unassailable favorite is challenged by an equally worthy, equally exciting film? I’ll be totally satisfied if Boyhood wins (I do think it’s the best of the nominees, after all, and Linklater deserves the recognition), but I will have absolutely nothing to complain about if Birdman pulls it off, even if I think Boyhood, Whiplash, and Grand Budapest are better. It’s just such a great success narrative.

Disdain for the theater? I didn’t get that. I got disdain for this one evil critic lady. Here’s the movie I saw.

TOTAL BIRDMAN SPOILERS

Riggan was a huge star of the Birdman movies. He’s getting old. He’s thinking about his legacy. He doesn’t want to pull an Alec Guinness and be remembered for playing in a silly blockbuster. He considers himself a serious actor. He needs to rewrite his own story and it all hinges on this play. But all anyone wants him to do is another Birdman movie. He hates Birdman. It haunts him. It’s trying to sabotage his last chance at going down in history as a great thespian. He finally gets everything he needs for the play to work, but it doesn’t matter. The villain intends to take him down anyway. That critic just hates him and his Hollywood people coming in and trying to use Broadway for their cash grabs and fake legitimacy. But in the end the villain is conquered, the play’s a hit, and he frees himself. He’s Birdman.

Was there a word of the day tweet today featuring “denigrate” that I missed?

It is one thing to dismiss a film for not being your cup of tea and quite another to dismiss the people who enjoy that film as “sheeple”.

I explained that already. But go ahead. Tell me about the multiple layers of BOYHOOD that I missed.

“But you see, Dave, you have to take into considerations that Stephen’s reaction might be the kind of reaction that a lot Academy members would have.”

True. But we should also take into consideration that Stephen’s reaction might be Stephen’s reaction and not all that indicative of what Academy members collectively think. So far the PGA and SAG results–and both guilds have Academy voters in them–suggest that a majority of voters probably aren’t having Stephen’s reaction.

Yep, Alan, you’re right. I don’t normally challenge people’s statements, as I respect that personal taste and opinion is something we call have. But in dismissing the believability of a movie as an argument for why it should not be award worthy, made me sit up. Black Swan was my personal favorite that year; but i entirely get why it was not AMPAS friendly, other than Portman. Birdman can be taken at all levels, i am hopefully offering another perspective.

But you see, Dave, you have to take into considerations that Stephen’s reaction might be the kind of reaction that a lot Academy members would have. They won’t necessarily interpret the movie the way you interpret it, however appropriately or inappropriately..

And btw Black Swan did not win BP.

“Will Redmayne be the youngest person ever to win Best Actor? Or was it Daniel Day Lewis or Adrian Brody?”

At 33, he would be the eighth youngest behind (from youngest), Brody, Richard Dreyfuss (who defeated the veteran favorite Richard Burton), Marlon Brando, Maximillan Schell, Nicolas Cage, James Stewart, and Daniel Day Lewis.

Sorry, nope what? Film Fatale, what are you sorry nope-ing? Otherwise, I’m sorry. I meant to lay Socrates nonsense somewhere more appropriate, my bad. However, I didn’t say anything about 21 GRAMS or BABEL.

Hawkey, the Academy has plenty more chances than SAG to award Birdman with, like screenplay and other technical awards.

I said it in the other thread, but it’s worth repeating: I just don’t see a situation in which Keaton doesn’t win the Oscar. Half the reason that Birdman is the masterpiece it is is because of the amazing ensemble (and half of that is due to Keaton’s brilliant performance). It’s an actors’ movie ABOUT actors, featuring the best performance of the entire year. How do you not acknowledge it with at least one acting Oscar (especially with it being lined up to take Picture, Screenplay, and possibly director)? Plus you also have to factor in that SAG had the opportunity to award both films for the performances, but the Academy doesn’t, not without removing another frontrunner. Redmayne was outstanding, so it wouldn’t be the worst thing that could happen, but robbing Keaton of his Oscar would not only be awkward, but also rather embarrassing.

Stephen; for me one of the beguiling things about Birdman, was not necessarily taking it at face value. I mean, how can you anway, it has transpersonal elements. So to reduce some of its characters and plot as unrealistic, makes me wonder what you made of the talking poster, and the hovering bird etc, All is not as it seems.

@Jerry; you’re right about one thing – i have not nor could not watch Silver Linings Playbook for a 2nd time. Once was bad enough.

“About the sheeple. I meant that people who’ve never seen BOYHOOD love BOYHOOD. Those are the sheeple I’m talking about. If people actually liked it who watched it good for them. I don’t think most of the voters who have chosen that film so far did it because it was their favorite film of the year. Most of them probably didn’t see it. Others want to be quoted as picking the winner. Sheeple.”

I think that’s absurd. I also suspect you wouldn’t be saying that if you had liked the film yourself.

It’s OK to feel differently about something than others. Doesn’t mean you need to denigrate those others. Perhaps their opinions are actually sincerely felt.

I still think Michael Keaton will take Oscar. Especially since voting hasn’t happened yet. Seeing him quietly cheering Eddie’s win made my stomach fall out. I hope the industry felt the same way and will make him the Oscar winner. (Nothing against Eddie…he’s lovely). I agree with Antoinette about Boyhood and Ethan Hawke. Thought he lit up every scene. But who can be upset about Patricia Arquette? (Tilda not being nominated for Snowpiercer breaks my fragile heart though). Also, I like the daughter better than the son, not the character but the actors. Eller left me cold for some reason. However, my almost 13 year old son went gaga over the movie. And he is developing pretty good taste in his 13 years on the planet. (He did hate Halloween III though, which crushed me). Anyway, very well written Sasha as usual. Although I don’t participate a whole lot, I’ve been following your site for 10 years now and look forward to each and every time I get to escape to it.

Sasha,
you can’t make the comparison with Argo. Argo wasn’t favored to win any individual SAG while Keaton was the front-runner in male leading actor. So it isn’t the same situation.

@DFA About the sheeple. I meant that people who’ve never seen BOYHOOD love BOYHOOD. Those are the sheeple I’m talking about. If people actually liked it who watched it good for them. I don’t think most of the voters who have chosen that film so far did it because it was their favorite film of the year. Most of them probably didn’t see it. Others want to be quoted as picking the winner. Sheeple.

“They’re the ones with deflated balls.”

And the rudeness continues. Almost makes me want to reconsider the spelling of “contrarian”.

Perhaps the problem is not everyone else but your (in)abiity to see beyond the surface?

I know people love the “deepness” of those films. That’s my point. I think they’re probably getting the same fans. They’re like Oprah deep, not Socrates deep.

It’s probably asking too much of the Academy to honor the best film of the year. I think the closest they’ve come to matching the annual Sight and Sound poll was with The Hurt Locker, which placed 2nd. (In the Academy’s defense, I’m pretty sure the top film that year wasn’t American.) Brokeback Mountain and The Social Network both topped the poll and were Oscar frontrunners until… well, you know. It looks like Boyhood might be joining that list this year. I just hope you’re wrong about Linklater leaving empty-handed. That would be a travesty. The man has made more than one masterpiece at this point– not that that’s stopped the Academy from snubbing people before. I know it’s all a bit of a mug’s game– predicting which films will stand the test of time and which won’t– but the critics have a hell of a lot better of a track record than the Academy does. That’s part of the reason why I’m a little bit squeamish about Boyhood winning Best Picture. On one hand, it could be a symbol of the Academy turning the page and truly honoring the best films of the year, whether they are made on budgets of $2 million or $200 million. On the other hand, it feels like a mark of inferiority, given many of their past choices.

@Antoinette – i unapologetically want to defend Life Of Pi, a movie with heaps of symbolism and spirituality at its core; as well as spectacular use of technology to tell its layered narrative.

Pre DGA – my predix are that Boyhood still wins BP/BD/Supp Actress. Birdman to win Screenplay and Cinematography Eddie, Julianne, Patricia & J.K

Ryan, i’m glad you wrote what you did in response to this state of the race; as I wanted to offer something along those lines. I get. that following the Oscars in this intense and relentless way for 16 years makes it hard to keep both the optimism and the separation from the circus, but as you say it is about a bigger picture, and that movies are way way bigger than awards and even the Academy Award. All institutions engender derision and criticism and should do. Even back in the 70’s i recall observing and reading about those sentimental and grandiose choices and knowing that while they added $’s to the a box office and forever being encrypted with the preface ‘Academy Award Winner’; they were just another group of subjective and fallible bunch.

Yes, I get bummed when a favorite does not get included or rewarded, especially by someone who i perceive gave a less stellar performance; but it doesn’t reduce my esteem for the film or the performance. I guess we want to see our sensibilities and passions mirrored not only on the big screen but also when the envelope is opened. As I have respectfully affirmed you both before, you are part of the solution, not part of the problem. That matters!

BIRDMAN made me dizzy.I couldnt sit through it .BOYHOOD will win the oscar.

“One upon a time, overlapping dialogue was a “gimmick” — like that superfical gimmicky ol’ Citizen Kane.”

[overlapping dialogue and everything seems to happen all at once]
It also reminds me of the great [RIP] Robert Altman’s The Player and Gosford Park. Love both films.

[logged out for now]

The Oscar race is, always was and always will be “entertainment in itself”. That’s why I keep following it. The more it’s unpredictable the more it’s enjoyable. Now even if Boyhood will win it won’t be a total bore. Go Birdman!

I give Pike a sneaky chance of winning the BAFTA.

The Tale of the Princess Kaguya is a masterpiece, with an all-time great final act (imo, obviously). How to Train Your Dragon 2 is pleasant well-made fun, but not in the same league. See it if you haven’t.
I also hope Citizenfour wins (as opposed ot “any of the other four”, Sasha). Its a quiet film that humanizes an important and remarkable man. Forget pyrotechnics and fancy editing, sometimes just allowing the camera to linger is the right artistic choice. Normally I don’t really care what/who wins most of the Oscars, but Snowden’s case should be heard by as large an audience as possible.

We don’t need a crystal ball to know that Eddie is going to win,…unless the equally marvelous Bradley Cooper wins instead.
But Best Pic is up in the air and I’m personally excited by the unknown. I’ve said time and time again that frontrunner status bores the crap out of me and it’s so lazy. That’s why I’m so indifferent to all the acting wins, sans the Best Actor field. Best Actress would be equally fun if Rosamund deservedly won at least one major award instead of Moore winning every time for a very, very little seen film.
At this point, I sense Birdman will win Best Pic with Linklater getting Best Director. I don’t think Boyhood is exciting enough of a film to win Best Picture. At least Birdman is fun and quirky.

As I mentioned in another article, in hindsight, can we really be surprised that Birdman won the PGA? I mean, besides the 12 years, in terms of conventional production, Birdman was a bigger undertaking and a team effort than Boyhood. But that doesn’t necessarily means that Boyhood is losing the race because it’s not a conventional production at all. So, maybe—and this may very well be wishful thinking— this time the PGA award may not be the appropiate precursor to measure the real state of the race. We’ll see what happens at the DGA. If Iñárritu wins, then is all over for Boyhood. Then I will feel sick, but not now.

@Robert A. Plenty of movie have gimmicks. Some movies are only a gimmick.

Yes, one of the most annoying things about this Oscar season is how so many people toss around the word “gimmick” when trying to disparage Boyhood. It’s become such a lazy, knee-jerk critique, and what’s even more ironic is that many of the people so exasperated by the “gimmick” are people who have no problem with the gimmicks in their Nolan movies, or in their sci-fi and super-hero movies.

Good read, Sasha. I’m even more pumped now to watch “Birdman” (which at freaking last is getting released here this coming Thursday). Sorry, Ryan.
My attitude towards the Oscars (or any film awards, truth be told) is that it celebrates filmmaking. Thats what matters, to me. It does many things, and many things wrong; it does so from a point of view that is not necessarily like my own. But it does celebrate filmmaking; if nothing else, when it gives space to editors, costume and set designers, cinematographers etc etc to have their voice heard. Filmmaking begets films. And I love them.
When “they” end up agreeing with me, so much the better. When they don’t, I shrug it off. (A little trick I learned when “LA Confidential”, which to me is the pinnacle of film in the 90’s, was sunk by a sinking ship.)

I still don’t see Birdman sweeping. PGA and SAG ensemble were crucial win to be back in the conversation, but Redmayne’s upset hurts Keaton, and Birdman as a consequence, too much to believe Birdman is the clear frontrunner. My feeling is that Boyhood still has a good edge over its competitors and that lead will grow with Linklater’s likely win at DGA.

It’s not a dead race anymore but Birdman is still a somewhat weak competitor, despite the recent surge.

Birdman indeed appe to be the frontrunner — on paper, at least. But I have difficulty envisioning the Academy’s choosing it as Best Picture. Boyhood seems more of a safe, traditional choice. I can see the rationale behund Birdman’s win at the PGA, though that outcome is more surprising to me than the SAG win for Birdman’s ensemble. You’re right, Sasha, in that there’s time enough to see any trend toward either of these two films, but at this time I feel Boyhood is the more likely winner, with Linklater following the patterN even though Innaritu is “hot” right now and may be considered more of a director’s director. Certainly, though, it’s a more interesting race for picture/director/actor than it was 2 days ago.

I totally feel you, Sasha, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. Let’s wait and see if Linklater takes the DGA, if he doesn’t, yeah, I will say it will be Birdman all the way unfortunately.

Perhaps grasping at straws here, but Birdman didn’t win any individual acting SAG’s and Boyhood did. Without knowing the real difference between first and second in the PGA it could might possibly be premature to write off DGA.

Under your scenario, two triple nominees would leave empty handed on Oscar night. When in the last time that happened?

This whole xenophobic directors narrative is getting a little tacky.

*who knows, a surprise even bigger than Birdman, COULD be in the works