The State of the Race: Boyhood is Honored in England while Hollywood Sends a Message to Studios

“I think you should take a look at this statistics model from Nate Silver and Walt Hickey regarding the Oscar race this year:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/birdman-boyhood-dga-bafta/”

Awesome! Thanks a lot for that link!
Of course, he doesn’t use combined stats (naturally, since their sample sizes are usually small – math guys will always ignore them, which, I repeat, I believe is a mistake), which are, in fact, the most powerful, and doesn’t take into account the switch to preferential for the PGA, and its influence. Also, he uses precursors with very small percentages (even under 40%, and even WELL under, which surprises me), and probably gives the critics’ awards too much importance, overall (just because there’s A LOT of them, doesn’t mean they’re actually important at all – there’s no overlap with AMPAS), plus, of course, he doesn’t in any way take into account the “must-have” nominations (director, screenplay, editing, SAG ensemble, PGA, DGA, WGA), and thus ignores the (potentially, though, in this case, possibly not very important) editing snub for Birdman.

Pretty much what I expected such a model to look like. I doubt it will give anywhere near the best results in the long run, based on these issues I have with it (it probably would have had Gravity last year, and Brokeback Mountain, for example – I haven’t added up the numbers, though, so I’m just speculating, for now), but it’s probably good enough, as far as strict math-based models go. I would never do it like that. But it is, indeed, very interesting that Birdman, despite Boyhood’s near-sweep of the critics’ awards, which actually don’t matter almost at all, still comes out on top, even in such a model, that leaves so many key things out of the conversation. Very, very interesting… Thanks again!

“I’ve been following the website for a while and is nice to see another Romanian interested in “Oscarology”.”

Cheers, Andrei! I too am glad to see I’m not alone!…
You can add me as a friend, if you like. My FB ID is acmilan03c1: https://www.facebook.com/acmilan03c1

(I assume it wouldn’t be entirely appropriate to talk in Romanian, or anything besides English, here – people have to be able to understand what we’re saying, in case they somehow care. 🙂 I don’t know the exact rules, though.)

“the Guild results may not be fully reliable.”

As portents of what will actually win the Oscar – yes, of course. Chances are the day will come when something with no guild win takes BP again, and it could very well be this year. It’s likelier than in other years, for sure, since Boyhood has been so strong everywhere else, but still not more than 49% likely, in my opinion, given the stats we know right now.

“every year in the Oscars is unique.”

Indeed – that’s what makes it so interesting and ripe for extensive analysis. 🙂

“I am always wary of relying on previous years’ results or even supposed trends over the years to suggest what might happen this year.”

I’m not. It’s the percentage play. Of course it won’t work out 100% of the time, if you go with it every time for a few decades, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the way to go, especially since it WILL work out about 95% of the time, which is a lot…

“Everybody seems to LOVE Budapest.”

If even Ryan, who we KNOW loves it, has it third on his ballot… it’s pretty clear (not a given, but pretty clear) that, yes, everybody loves it, but not enough people love it enough to put it 1st, and, apparently, not enough love it enough (compared to the other nominees, of course) to even put it 2nd. It’s hard to win without 1st’s AND 2nd’s…

“Is there a possibility of a late swing of the pendulum back to Boyhood, after it so recently swung away from Boyhood to Birdman? ”

I think this is Boyhood’s chance, and NEEDS to happen for it to win BP. The BAFTA win could be a sign of this. Or not… again, hard to say. Personally, I think it’s not been anywhere near long enough since Birdman became the actual favorite (which was, in fact, just a few days ago, with the DGA win), so people have too little time to get sick of it and of voting for it.

“BTW, I did not think Boyhood was the best film of the year. I thought it was “very good”, but I am not sure it is a masterpiece.”

Same here. It’s very close, though.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel was his most charming and accomplished film and I wouldn’t mind it winning”

Again, same here. Though I WOULD mind it, actually, because it would confuse the stats for future years (and probably lose me some small bets too), but definitely NOT because of anything that’s wrong with the movie itself.

@ Scott (the Other one)
I kind of see what you are saying. Right know—thanks to Bafta— I’m clinging on to the hope that Boyhood can pull off an upset. But that’s just a huntch.
I am curious to know want makes you think that this time the predicting record of the PGA and DGA—this one in particular— will be broken?

Claudiu — Don’t get me wrong — I think it would be foolish to ignore the apparent trend coming out of the SAG, PGA and DGA awards towards Birdman. A sensible approach is undoubtedly that Birdman seems now to be the frontrunner, and to predict AGAINST those results is risky.

As I have openly confessed, I don’t WANT Birdman to win, so it is fun to try to assess whether the Guild results may not be fully reliable. In a different year, I’d totally be influenced by them. And although I think I am sticking with Boyhood for BP and Director, I do that knowing full well that this is questionable.

One thing we all have to acknowledge though is that every year in the Oscars is unique. I’ve always felt like what happened in the past in Oscar races is not necessarily an indication of what will happen in the current year. This is because, in every year, the films in competition are different, the actors in their are different, the cultural and social conditions are different, the place actors and filmmakers are at in their careers are different, etc. etc. etc. What happened in year X is different than in this year because of all of the different circumstances. This of course makes Oscar predicting fun, and endlessly debatable, but I am always wary of relying on previous years’ results or even supposed trends over the years to suggest what might happen this year.

@Andrew

In addition to the screener issue, Braveheart took of several advantages and disadvantages

1) No Directing Oscar nomination for Apollo 13’s Ron Howard
2) WGA win
3) Longer Oscar voting season
4) Gibson’s Directing wins at GG and BFCA
5) ACE win
6) AMPAS voters passive hatred of space films (like Gravity)
7) Mel Gibson’s star power (a la Ben Affleck)

BTW, I was turning seven at the time.

Was Braveheart a late surge issue?

“Anderson or Budapest would be a shock like Polanski, Soderbergh ou Crash. Even higher, I guess. Crash at least won SAG. Polanski won BAFTA and so did his film. Soderbergh swept the top 4 critics awards (NY, LA, National Board and National Society) then lost GG, DGA and BAFTA to Ang Lee but he was in a very particular situation that only happened 2 other times in history… The double nomination and by then it was 62 years since a similar thing happened. Anderson did not win a single major award for Budapest’s directing. And the movie’s only major win were the Globes.”

Yup – good points. I’m clearly not saying it WILL happen. But, if Crash could pull it off with just the SAG win, who knows, maybe Budapest can with just the Globe comedy win, the ACE win and the probable WGA win. And Anderson could be pulled along for the ride, as there’s no consensus for director yet (DGA winner different from BFCA/Globe/BAFTA winner). Doesn’t sound COMPLETELY far-fetched, is what I’m saying. It’d probably be a bigger upset than those 3, but not by THAT MUCH, given than Budapest HAS been winning some things (unlike Sniper or Imitation Game).

“Actually, Budapest and Anderson winning Picture and Director would be improbable (but yet still possible).”

That’s exactly what I mean. Though I’m mostly referring to a split, with Anderson winning BD over the BP winner. I’ll admit it seems even less likely than the “double”, though, when one thinks about it more carefully… Anyway, this is SO moot – I was just pointing out it might not be 100% down to 4 BP/BD scenarios, there could be a 1% chance that there are a few other scenarios possible, which WOULD surprise JP. 🙂

“Braveheart lost SAG/DGA/PGA, but it won WGA in 1996. So it’s not completely out of the question.”

Well, Gibson did win the BFCA and Globe for Best Director…

@ Claude

Anderson or Budapest would be a shock like Polanski, Soderbergh ou Crash. Even higher, I guess. Crash at least won SAG. Polanski won BAFTA and so did his film. Soderbergh swept the top 4 critics awards (NY, LA, National Board and National Society) then lost GG, DGA and BAFTA to Ang Lee but he was in a very particular situation that only happened 2 other times in history… The double nomination and by then it was 62 years since a similar thing happened. Anderson did not win a single major award for Budapest’s directing. And the movie’s only major win were the Globes. What is different this year is that neither of the 4 combinations with Boyhood and Birdman will leave me surprised. They all have a very close probability of happening.

“And the ONLY year since I started following awards season in 2000 in which any of the 4 BP/BD director combinations is not gonna surprise me.”

Ah, but what if there’s a 5th?… 🙂 Anderson for director… Who knows?!

“The first 9 years, their choices matched BP 4 out of 9 times.”

I was talking about the first 3 years. 🙂 0/3, for 0%. As opposed to 9/15 since, for 60%. They got the hang of it, realized what they were actually voting for… 🙂

“Trust me, they know the difference between good acting and good movie.”

Doesn’t mean they’ll necessarily vote for the best out of a bunch of very good (more or less equally good) ensembles. They also know that their ensemble award is a precursor for Best Picture, so a lot of the time, if their choice isn’t clear (and how often is it? – the very fact that it’s an ENSEMBLE means A LOT of different factors/performances to evaluate at the same time, AND in relation to each-other, and overall… a lot to ask of even the biggest acting specialist, and these are just ACTORS, not acting coaches, at least I assume not; choosing from among the very best in anything is not easy, trust me, the differences are minute), they’ll simply vote for what they want to win BP, or, in other words, the MOVIE they liked the most. Which is why the SAG is a precursor… the fact that it’s ensemble and not simply “actors’ choice” 🙂 just confuses the matter a bit, and takes its percentage down below 50%. But it doesn’t change the fact that it IS relevant for what the actors prefer. Besides, even if a movie is INSANELY well acted all around, easily the best ensemble of the year, but unlikable otherwise (which some might argue about August: Osage County, or even 12 Years a Slave, I imagine), do you really think they’re going to vote for that movie, which they hate, instead of a movie they love, when they KNOW this is their only chance to express their option for best movie of the year as being the voice of the actors? (There are no other actors’ only groups, right?) They’ll probably just give it some acting awards, and that’s it. Which explains why some movies (there are multiple examples) win ensemble there without winning (or, in some cases, even being nominated for) any individual acting awards.

“It is to me simplistic and shortsighted to automatically equate Best Ensemble as equivalent to BP. It’s just simply not, logically and statistically.”

I’m not equating. I’m saying it has LOTS of relevance, and I’m also saying they ALMOST UNDOUBTEDLY see it that way, if not always, at least in some cases. There is evidence of this in the past, and not just the wins by The Return of the King, Slumdog Millionaire, Argo or Crash, which didn’t win a single acting award to go with the ensemble award. The Return of the King had ZERO acting nominations, and Mystic River won 1 of its two nominations, that year. In Argo’s year, Lincoln won TWO such awards. If that’s not proof that they voted for BP over the better ensemble (Argo had ONE acting nomination at the SAG, Lincoln had 3), I don’t know what is. I can find other, similar examples, I’m sure, if you need me to go on…

“And in addition if you win one of the 5 categories that they are giving out, it is further proof that they are supporting the movie.”

Not actually true. Of the movies that have won only Best Ensemble there that have been nominated for BP, 4/8 have won, which is the same percentage (actually, even a little better) as the overall percentage for the SAG Ensemble award, as you know. So, no, it’s no additional proof of support, in fact.

“Arquette’s BSA win is not less potent than Birdman’s Ensemble win.”

You’re making me do this again for no good reason… I’m saving it this time, so you won’t make me do the research a THIRD time, at some point in the future.
So, again: only 11/45 movies to have been nominated for BP and won acting prizes at the SAG have gone on to win Best Picture. That’s 24%. SIGNIFICANTLY worse than the SAG Ensemble’s 9/19, for 47%. So, no, Arquette’s win is NOT IN ANY WAY EVEN REMOTELY AS SIGNIFICANT as Birdman’s ensemble win, statistically speaking, for the movie’s BP chances.

“Just like last year Lupita’s BSA win wasn’t less potent than American Hustle’s Ensemble win.”

Congratulations on finding ONE example out of 45! How about McConaughey and Leto’s wins for Dallas Buyers Club’s chances, the same year. Or Day Lewis and Jones’ wins for Lincoln, the year before. Or Lawrence’s, for Silver Linings Playbook. Or Waltz’ win in 2010 for Inglorious Basterds… MUST I list ALL of the counter-examples? 4 for every example you can come up with, as you may have deduced from the percentage above.

“If people want to build a stronger case for Birdman by including SAG to be part of the “trifecta”, then Boyhood’s camp should also include Arquette’s SAG win as part of that movie’s resume”

CLEARLY COMPLETELY WRONG – see above. You just don’t listen to me – I’ve given you this argument before…

“By the way, I believe that Boyhood’s Ensemble nomination is a lot more impressive than Birdman’s nomination.”

Yes – however, Birdman also WON. So, if Boyhood’s ensemble nomination is evidence of support for it for BP, then Birdman’s WIN is evidence of EVEN MORE support for Birdman for BP.

“From now on, if someone says that Birdman won PGA, SAG and DGA, I will say Boyhood won GG, BFCA, SAG and BAFTA. :-)”

And you will again be completely wrong. (I get that it was a joke 🙂 – I still can’t just let it pass…)

“in the case of the Oscars and the Guild Awards, the “poll” of 30% people is NOT a random sample of people who represent the general public or the larger group — it is a sample of particular members of particular guilds, who have particular preferences and biases.”

OK, but the relevant 5 different guilds which most impact BP (WGA, SAG, PGA, DGA, ACE) are actually a VERY DIVERSE group, which represents by far the most important and distinctive aspects of movie-making (production, directing, writing, editing, acting). OF COURSE their sample will be super-relevant. Because, like I argued last year, the sound editors won’t be voting in BP for the movie with the best sound editing – they’ll still be voting for the best written, directed, acted and edited movie, with the best production values overall. The same goes for all of the many other small branches. I don’t see how you can prove that a completely random sample of, say, 30% of the voters from each branch, would be more relevant. Besides, trust me, you’d have to do A LOT MORE than just group the people in any voting body by their professions, and select 30% of the professions (of your choosing) for your poll, to actually get SIGNIFICANTLY different results from the overall outcome. It IS 30-effin-percent, after all…

“The close result phenomenon.”

We have a CONSENSUS right now, not 3 different guild winners. It’s statistically improbable, given that the same movie has won with 3 different voting groups, that the overall vote count for that movie across the 3 guilds in question isn’t RATHER SIGNIFICANTLY ahead of the competition, even if, say, 1 of the votes (the DGA, for example) may have been close. Since you have to add the differences in Birdman’s favor to get the total difference, it means for the final difference to be close in any way, you’d have to have had a close vote for ALL of the 3 guild awards. Which, again, like I said, is just statistically improbable (not impossible, though, of course, but we probably shouldn’t assume based on the 5% probability for that, as opposed to the 95% probability that the results were actually not particularly close), given that they’ve all picked the same winner – the rule of probability indicates that it’s far more likely that at least 1 out of the 3 groups having voted would have found a different winner. Correct me if I’m wrong.

“Accordingly, relying on the result of the 30% of the Guild voters who went for Birdman is unreliable.”

Sure, you can go that way – but then why do practically all of the triple crown winners win BP? That indicates that it’s far more likely that it’s USUALLY actually NOT close (otherwise you’d have A LOT more variation in whether the BP winner would be the same as their pick, at least 2-3 exceptions in the 8 years in which this has happened so far), and so one has to assume (in the absence of any other information about the guilds’ tallies) that this is also more likely to be the case this year.

Really, I don’t even have to PROVE to you that the poll is relevant – history does that for me. 87.5% of the triple crown winners have gone on to win BP, and that 12.5% is ALL due to a single exception, from 20 years ago, and one whose relevance (given the tendency for new awards shows to have weirder winners, and for their subsequent winners to be progressively more in line with the general BP consensus – which is something I’ve addressed in this or another thread, I don’t remember) is highly questionable, at best.

“For example, if you polled members of ten professions as to what the best profession is, and then tallied votes of the 10% who were doctors, you’d likely end up with a result saying doctors are the best”

Don’t you see the difference? We’re not asking producers what the best profession is. All movies have to do with all movie industry professions. We’re asking them to pick what movie they like best (basically, since they do that anyway, even when they should be picking what is best acted or best directed), which has little to do with what profession they like best, theirs or any other.

“The 30% of guild members (SAG, PGA, and DGA) who have weighed in are disproportionately actors, and therefore the “result” you refer to is really more representative of the perspective of a particular group”

Yes, but the actors are more, so they get more votes too. Their perspective counts more, as a result.

Very interesting analysis, Claudiu. Thanks, dude.
I have an observation, thou. Well is mostly a doubt. Is that Bafta-Ampas overlap statistically significant? I would guess that most of those members are British, so they may have differents perspectives on what constitutes a better movie. I really don’t know the answer. What I do know is that that 500 members sample is significant WITHIN the Bafta, so is highly unlikely that Birdman or Iñárritu were the most voted choices WITHIN that sample.

Can we please stop lumping the irrelevant BFCA in as a bellwether? THEY’RE CRITICS, not professionals who actually make the movies. The artisans opinions matter, not a bunch of junket-loving, navel-gazing failed artists. SAG, DGA, PGA, BAFTA, WGA, and other guilds – these are the only people that MATTER.

@Claudiu Dobre

Wow, thanks! That’s more info that I can wrap my brain around. But it sure sheds some sanity and perspective on what lies ahead.

BTW, I don’t if either Boyhood or Birdman win Best Picture. There both remarkable and unique cinematic experiences made in unique ways. In other words, they both are a 1,000 mile turnaround from the typical Oscar fare like King’s Speech that voters usually coddle.

Oh, OK, so the BAFTA-AMPAS overlap is 500/6000 (8%, indeed). That’s a lot. That’s almost as much as the PGA and DGA combined. But add the SAG, and the 3 guilds have about 3 times as many voters. So, again, the combination of the guilds is what puts them over the line as the better precursors. 🙂 Which further explains why, taken alone, they have between 50 and 80% prediction accuracy, and, combined, they get very close to 90%.
Has the BAFTA-AMPAS overlap changed in any significant way since the BAFTAs changed their date?

An interesting analysis below – I use some approximate guild overlap numbers that somebody posted here at AD, and which I will take at face value, for lack of any other, more accurate, info:

BAFTA=500 member overlap; 500/6000=8%. BP predicting accuracy rate for this award (let’s say since 2001, when it was first held before the Oscars): 8/14 = 57%
PGA+DGA=300+250=550 member overlap; 550/6000=9%. BP predicting accuracy rate for this combination (not counting Gravity’s near-double, as it’s not the same thing): 15/18 = 83%
PGA+DGA+SAG=550+1000=1550 member overlap; 1550/6000=25%. BP predicting accuracy rate for this combination: 7/8 = 88%

So, in short, the bigger the overlap, the better the predicting accuracy. And here are some more combinations, that might shed some more light on why this year’s race is definitely close, but Birdman almost surely has an edge:

BAFTA alone = 8/14 = 57%; BAFTA+PGA = 9/11 = 82%; BAFTA+DGA = 6/7 = 86%; BAFTA+PGA+DGA = 6/7 = 86%; BAFTA+SAG = 4/4 = 100% – more proof that adding the SAG to any stat or combination improves that stat’s percentages significantly, as opposed to just using the PGA and/or DGA, because when the actors’ branch is leaning towards a proven strong BP contender, that contender almost always wins.

But let’s use an award that also includes the Apollo 13 year – the only other major precursor we can really use, since the Globes have two separate BP categories, the BFCA, even though there’s no overlap, so this might be a bit moot… I’m curious, though:
BFCA alone = 12/19 = 63%; BFCA+PGA = 10/12 = 83%; BFCA+DGA = 10/13 = 77%; BFCA+PGA+DGA = 8/10 = 80%; BFCA+SAG = 6/7 = 86%; BFCA+PGA+DGA+SAG = – Apollo 13 lost to Sense and Sensibility; so, the idea that adding the SAG clearly improves the percentages is confirmed once more… and also that, when combined with other relevant precursors, the PGA – even from its inception, not just from when the preferential ballot was introduced -, does AT LEAST as well as the DGA at predicting BP, overall.

Of course, the SAG itself, on its own, should yield even better percentages, but, clearly, the thing that’s holding it back (in its individual record, not in combinations) is the contradiction between its award being for best ensemble and their desire to used it as a best picture award. But it does extremely well (better, in fact, than the PGA and DGA) when combined with pretty much anything, as can be clearly seen above. Which is why it SHOULD definitely be used as a BP precursor, but ONLY in combinations. It can be extremely powerful.

Now, the case for Boyhood – since 2001: BAFTA+BFCA = 7/8 = 88%, the same as the PGA+DGA+SAG – this is clearly indicative of how tight the race is right now… The far bigger total overlap between the guilds and AMPAS (than between the BAFTA+BFCA and AMPAS) is what gives Birdman the edge here, of course; it could even be a big edge, as the only exception to PGA+DGA+SAG is from 1996, when, again, the PGA and SAG were very young – the fact that both the BAFTAs and the BFCA have extremely poor predicting records in their first few years as precursors is yet more proof that this clearly matters A LOT, and using Apollo 13 as a reliable precedent for the triple crown winner losing BP is an extremely shaky proposition, and one I rather strongly disagree with, other than as proof that it CAN happen, which we already knew, as nothing is certain -, whereas the BAFTA+BFCA exception happened a lot closer to today, though still a bit “early” for the BAFTA, namely in 2006 – Brokeback Mountain -, and is, therefore, probably more relevant, if not, perhaps, even a lot more. Hard to say for sure. But I definitely feel Birdman should have AT LEAST a slight edge, looking at all of the major precursors and the ways in which they combine that are relevant to this year’s race.

I quite like this quote from Mark Harris in his latest Grantland piece:

“In a way,the two movies are perfectly matched. Birdman, after all, is a movie about someone who hopes to create something as good as Boyhood.”

Sums it up for me, anyway.

“I do wonder if Eastwood hadn’t been too cute by half with the last minute Sniper strategy if he’d be running away with this thing with extra time to work the guilds with the “cultural phenomenon” thing and a more plausible sounding explanation for the “rah rah Kyle” tone of the film.”

Could be… Though THAT movie truly might just be too divisive to have won under any circumstances, no matter how good an explanation one could ever find for its tone – Million Dollar Baby wasn’t divisive.

I do wonder if Eastwood hadn’t been too cute by half with the last minute Sniper strategy if he’d be running away with this thing with extra time to work the guilds with the “cultural phenomenon” thing and a more plausible sounding explanation for the “rah rah Kyle” tone of the film.

The idea that a film with not a single plausible human action or emotion and a nonsensical ending can sweep three major Oscar categories just for making fun of superheroes is really an indictment of the people who think they’re the ones pointing the finger of “j’accuse”.

Inarritu’s scarf should disqualify him truth be told.

@Claudio
“They’ll vote for Birdman in BP, then vote for Redmayne because they like him more, and that’s that, they’ll move on.
They don’t care nearly as much as we do about what overall story their choices tell.”
Well put. Seems likely and at the same time sad that we may care more about the overall narrative.

”What’s going to happen if Eddie Redmayne loses at the Oscars? I’m sure he’ll take it like a pro, though I’m also sure he’ll be disappointed. Especially if watches Keaton jumping up and down with glee if he wins.”

Gee, I wouldn’t worry too much for Redmayne. This is his very first Oscar bid, and he’s bound to compete again, possibly for his next role: playing a trans woman in ”The Danish Girl.” Plus, he’s a 33-year-old matinee idol and newlywed. I’d say he’s got the world on a string. If he wins the Oscar, he’ll break a longstanding ”Slap the Stud” tradition at the Academy, where young leading men rarely win. … I’ll admit my sympathies are with Keaton. At 63, he finally has landed his first Oscar nomination in a 40-year career, and ”Birdman” may be his rare and lifetime opportunity to nab an Academy Award.

I’ve resigned myself to Birdman sweeping out, but I’m still at a loss as to how it managed to become this huge guild juggernaut despite even its boosters admitting that the film (especially the ending) was incredibly divisive. Without a likely acting win (despite three nominations there) or editing nom, it bucks several Oscar trends for BP/BD winners right there. If it loses script to GBH, then its a BP winner with wafer thin below the line support. Either these guild votes are a hell of a lot closer than we realize, or the industry has some blind hatred for the other seven films.

@Claudiu Dobre

As much as we have strong indicators based on the top tier guilds as I refer to WGA, SAG, DGA, and PGA, I think it would be more helpful if AMPAS did actually publish their voting results. That way we could get an even more accurate representation of what the other guild members such as Costume Designers, Art Directors, Sound Mixers, etc. voted for Best Picture in relation to the other guilds. The top tier make of 30 percent of the Academy with seventy percent up for grabs. Also, a film needs 50 percent vote from a preferential ballot to win Oscar Best Pic.

From his Twitter feed, it appears Rupert Murdoch is a member of the Academy. He’s asking for suggestions on which movies he should vote for.

“I didn’t realize that winning three BAFTA awards (and losing screenplay and not even getting an Editing nom) was considered a “sweep.””

Yeah, people are definitely exaggerating on that one. It barely won over 50% of its nominations. It’s a very good showing, for sure, but not a sweep, by any means.

“That’s like Colin Firth missing for KING’S SPEECH or Tom Hanks missing for FORREST GUMP.”

OR like Ejiofor missing for 12 Years a Slave (he was very much in it before the SAG too, nominated everywhere, won a lot of critics’ awards, and even won the BAFTA in McConaughey’s absence, so he was clearly 2nd, or 3rd, at worst, if you MUST go with the Di Caprio nonsense) – so, yeah, Keaton losing DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING…

“All this is to say that it would be foolish to bet against Birdman in Original Screenplay.”

I don’t mind saying you’ve convinced me!…

“Does anyone know the last film to win BP without a screenwriting nomination from BOTH WGA and Oscar?”

I think it’s around 1983-84, back when the WGA had like 4 categories, and, in some years, with 3 nominees each, but I don’t remember exactly…

“The last film to win Best Picture without support from WGA, SAG, DGA, or PGA was Out of Africa in 1986 (and that was before SAG and PGA handed out awards).”

Cool! Thanks, Birdiene!

“Claudiu, I don’t think BAFTA is all that “British” anymore in the last 5 years when it correctly predicted BP 100% of the time for the Oscars (and not even using the pref ballots). It also has the Best British Film category to rely on should it want to lavish its citizens. I think it has tried successfully to groom itself as a viable precursor for the Oscars in recent years. And a very American Boyhood won, so Birdman not being British isn’t really too strong of an excuse. Two other British films were in the same category and they didn’t award either. And one of them, they shut out completely. So I don’t think they’re all that “British”

It’s definitely a good point, but you have to keep in mind that the last British pic to have won anything significant before the BAFTA (the Golden Globe) actually did win Best Film there as well (and they awarded another British film in the other category). The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game hadn’t won anything before this year’s ceremony, so, clearly, they weren’t perceived as actual threats here – of course they weren’t going to vote for them because, like you say, they want to get on the bandwagon too. Which is why, when The King’s Speech was proven to be a true contender, of course they were going to vote for it!…

But, yeah, you’re right, Boyhood is a very American film too. I guess that’s Boyhood’s only real plus compared to The Social Network, the BAFTA win. However, maybe there IS a way in which it’s not – it’s possible (given the thinking I’ve illustrated above) that The Social Network ALSO would have beaten The King’s Speech at the BAFTAs, had the latter not been perceived a clearly very strong British Oscar contender (even BEFORE its guild wins, because it had the most nominations, including all the key ones). So, you see, the differences between the two situations still have an impact, so I’m still not sure we can just count the BAFTA win as a plus (over The Social Network – that’s the only point I’m debating here) for Boyhood, without any reservations. This one is definitely debatable.

What’s solid and not debatable, though, is that there’s still no precedent for anything winning without the PGA/SAG/DGA or WGA – if Boyhood surprises and wins the latter, I will definitely have to rethink this, though, as that would show serious and unexpected support, maybe not to the extent the PGA&DGA wins for Birdman showed but, still, it would be very unclear (not least of all because Birdman is ineligible). I would probably still have to go Birdman, mathematically, since the only exception based solely on the WGA is, after all, almost 20 years ago (and I’ve argued how both the SAG and PGA were way too “young” back then to be aware of their role in the race, and even this whole consensus mentality probably hadn’t formed completely yet, as some of their early winners would seem to indicate – The Full Monty, The Birdcage, The Crying Game for PGA etc.), and, of course, because the PGA is now preferential. Like I said, the BAFTA just wouldn’t make it easy for us… 🙂

“Any precursors with less than 50% predictive rate should be thrown out the window.”

Normally, yes, but the SAG has a strong logical connection (acting branch), a very interesting record of predicting upsets (SiL, Crash), plus it COMBINES very effectively with the others (resulting in the triple crown). The DGA is under 80% too, and that’s pretty shaky as well, but it too combines very, very well, which is why it’s so strong. I think the guilds (apart from the PGA, since the switch to preferential – but not before) work rather poorly on their own, and should only be used in combination (or as a “must have”, which is another way they work so well – and the SAG is an essential part of that; remove it, and we have 3 winners with no PGA or DGA wins since 1996, which weakens that stat considerably).

“Did they think “The Full Monty” is a better picture than “Titanic”? “The Birdcage” a better movie than “The English Patient”?”

See above! Very early picks – their choices have been completely irrelevant to the BP race A LOT less often since then. AND they’ve never mis-predicted the BP winner 3 years in a row since those first 3 years in the ensemble award’s history… nor have they even chosen a movie that wasn’t in the BP discussion twice in a row since then, in fact.

“Last year, 2 movies were neck in neck for BP, 12 Years a Slave and Gravity. Without Gravity competing for SAG Ensemble, you’d think that if SAG members want to be relevant they’d go for the other frontrunner, 12 Years a Slave. But, no, they went for American Hustle, a movie that went on to win ZERO oscars.”

Yes, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t PERCEIVED as one of the favorites – it won critics’ precursors, the Globe for comedy, people were predicting it at certain points in the season… just ask Sasha! It had all of the must-have nominations everywhere, too. It had only lost the BFCA BP at that point, basically, that’s how much of a contender it was. AH winning the SAG was definitely NOT irrelevant to BP last year.

“Maybe now and then they think it’s the best movie, but we’re just all assuming. No stats to back it up.”

The combined stats and “must have a guild win” stat back it up. Because of the Crash and SiL precedents.

“BAFTA bodes the best record at predicting BP in the last 6 years out of all the major precursors, GG, BFCA, DGA and even PGA (where it couldn’t even choose one winner last year).”

OK, but then PGA is better over the last 7 years. 🙂 As long as we’re randomly selecting our intervals…

“Actually, all of the BAFTA Best Film winners who went on to win Best Picture at the Oscars since 2009 had at least one of the three major Guild wins”

Also this, of course.

“Was just saying that BAFTA is not that unviable in recent years. The race is still very close to call for me.”

Oh, I definitely agree. 🙂 But, since we MUST call it (that’s what we’re here for), I think the stats are probably slightly in favor of Birdman, still.

“the guilds do have a bigger overlap with AMPAS voteers.” As far as I know. There are about 250 DGA directors who are Oscar voters, 300 PGA members who are Oscar voters, 1000 some actors who are AMPAS voters, 200 WGA writers who are AMPAS voters, so that is about 1750 out of 6000 members. That is about close to 30 percent of the all the guild members overlapping the entire AMPAS membership If Boyhood wins Best Original Screenplay next Saturday, Boyhood might have a chance and win like Braveheart.

@Sam L.

So true. We can’t be ignorant to the facts, people.

As awards junkies, I know it’s fun and fascinating to follow a horse race. You can throw out this statistic or that statistic to prove, or disprove, what you believe. But I’d like to take a moment to recognize the toll on the nominees themselves. For us, it’s just a game; but for them, their emotions are being, no pun intended, whiplashed back and forth. Imagine Michael Keaton’s situation: For months, you are being backslapped for the performance of a career. You win many of the precursor awards. You’re basking in the glow. Everyone is telling you you’ll win the Oscar. Then the SAG Awards happened. Redmayne upsets you. ”Birdman” wins PGA and DGA. Somehow, your movie is picking up momentum for Best Picture. Conversely, yours seems to be plummeting. But you go to the BAFTA, knowing full well that Redmayne might have home-field advantage and win. And Redmayne does. I wonder: Does Keaton think: ”Geez, what went wrong? Two weeks ago, I was a big winner, and now it looks like I’ll be a big loser at the Oscars.” It must be surreal.

Yes, I realize that attending awards shows are part of the business. It’s PR for your movie. Maybe for your next job. And it’s always better to be nominated than not. Still, if you’re a nominee who keeps losing again and again to Julianne Moore, J.K. Simmons and Patricia Arquette, it’s being more than a good sport. It’s got to take some emotional toll on your nerves that none of us could ever begin to understand.

@Larry

Yeah, that is true. However, the guilds do have a bigger overlap with AMPAS voteers. And even with that 20% of BAFTA, we don’t even know how they would have voted.

Oh, also about what’s different about the Oscar race than in years past, I forget about number 3

3) Oscar voters used preferential system to decide winners. Previously weighted ballot (get majority votes) was the procedure back then. That’s why Shakespeare in Love and Crash were able to score huge upsets (mainly due to strong SAG support). I’d strongly suggest that the race between Crash and Brokeback Mountain would be closer (or possibly Brokeback winning) if the voting was done using preferential.

Is it possible that in Britain, where the theatre is still sacrosanct, a sold-out superhero actor who wants to prove himself on the stage just doesn’t ring with the same crystal-clear resonance that it would in Hollywood. For decades, the Academy had avoided giving Oscars to films about the movie business, until the French made a movie (THE ARTIST) in Hollywood about the transition from silents to sound. ALL ABOUT EVE, an allegory for Hollywood’s fear of the changes roiling it in 1950 used the Broadway theater as its, um, stage, albeit with one of the most iconic movie stars of the studio era in the lead. It was seen as preferable to SUNSET BOULEVARD, which cruelly held a mirror up to Hollywood, and was regarded as repellent by many, L.B. Mayer, most famously.

As for Sasha’s point about the last four Best Director winners being foreign-born, it’s true. But remember that Ang Lee received a B.F.A. from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana and an M.F.A. in film production from NYU. These degrees account for his ability to adapt relatively easily to American production methods, after making his first two films in his native Taiwan and periodically returning there for films.
Thinking about this realistically, we probably are headed for a BIRDMAN BP win; the three guilds are just too strong a precedent to ignore. Unless something wild still happens, such as the ASC award going to something other than BIRDMAN, I don’t really see a split happening either. BOYHOOD will leave on Oscar night with Supporting Actress and Editing–and that’s it.

BUT. . . It makes no sense to award Best Picture-Director to BIRDMAN and not to give an Oscar to Michael Keaton. If that happens, it will mark the first time since LAWRENCE OF ARABIA that a male performance so central to a BP is denied Best Actor. And there it was a new British actor losing to a well-loved Hollywood veteran in a beloved film. Here we supposedly have the opposite. If a BIRDMAN win would prove that there is not necessarily one type of film that wins Best Picture (Take that, Harvey Weinstein), a Redmayne win will prove that playing a famous man with a disability will win it for you every time, even if most of the voters couldn’t have placed your name a year ago. I think BIRDMAN will pull in Keaton.

Here, alas, are my winners:
Picture: BIRDMAN
Director: Inarritu
Actor: Keaton (Possible Upset: If 1950 is an analogy here, Bradley Cooper may be well positioned to be the Judy Holliday who comes between the two front-runners.) I would caution though, that just as Adrien Brody in 2002 was in the unprecedented position of being the only one of the five nominees who hadn’t won before, Keaton is in the equally unprecedented spot of being up against four actors in biopics (Jake Gyllenhaal at the SAGs and Ralph Fiennes at BAFTA broke up the biopic stranglehold). This, plus the film’s momentum, may be what puts Keaton over. Plus I still argue that in the minds of SAG voters, the Ensemble award to BIRDMAN freed them to give actor to somebody other than Keaton. The Academy doesn’t have that kind of option.
Actress: Moore
Supp. Actor: Simmons
Supp. Actress: Arquette
Ad. Screenplay: AMERICAN SNIPER (That piece in the New York Review of Books, true or not, has really damaged IMITATION GAME); Jason Hall’s many interviews about how his talks with Taya Kyle following Chris Kyle’s death and how they transformed the film, will convince enough voters to put him over.
Or. Screenplay: GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
Cin.: BIRDMAN
Editing: BOYHOOD
Costume Design, Prod. Des., Music Score (Yay!), Makeup: GRAND BUDAPEST
Sound Mixing and Sound Editing: AMERICAN SNIPER
Visual Effects: GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

@Andrew

I also mentioned that Braveheart had a WGA Original Screenplay. While the WGA usually is not indicative in a Best Picture win, this might be one of the times it did matter. So it is not like the film had no support from the top tier guilds. Also, Ron Howard had no directing Oscar nomination. And there was a longer voting period.

“People said the same thing about the BAFTA. Most expected it to win. Did it win? Well, NO.
BIRDMAN failed to win a single industry award for its writing. It has the Golden Globe and Critics’ Choice but it is not the industry. And while in the case of THE KING’S SPEECH the WGA didn’t matter because THE KING’S SPEECH was miles ahead of Inception, here it does because by the time voters fill their ballots, every screenwriting award out there goes to THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and once again, I believe they’ll honor the vision and spirit of Wes Anderson, especially given how strongly each voting body responded to this film.”

The problem is that the stats don’t support you at all. Yes, the GG and CC are not industry, but they have indicated an Oscar winner nearly every time for the last decade for Original Screenplay. In fact, when it’s won both, it’s been unstoppable. Again, what you’re saying is exactly what many were saying about David O. Russell last year (and he even won the BAFTA for Original Screenplay last year), but the stats were against him, making it a very predictable loss.

Unfortunately I no longer see the Best Picture race as unpredictable. The fact that Birdman took the three key Guilds tells me it will prevail on Oscar night. I admit I’m not 100% sure about that but I see Boyhood’s chances as slim.

Last time a Best Picture race was truly UNPREDICTABLE was in 2006, when each important award body picked a different movie. Babel (GG), The Departed (BFCA, DGA), Little Miss Sunshine (PGA, SAG), The Queen (BAFTA).
2007 – No Country for Old Men won as expected
2008 – Slumdog Millionaire won as expected
2009 – The Hurt Locker won, as expected by most people (I know some thought Avatar would take it and a few placed their bets on Inglourious Basterds, but we knew THL had the edge)
2010 – The King’s Speech won as expected
2011 – The Artist won as expected
2012 – Argo won as expected
2013 – 12 Years a Slave won, as expected too. Virtually everyone knew Gravity would the vast majority of the awards including Director but not Best Picture.

Against Birdman I see mainly two things – As noted by Paddy Mulholland, it lost BFCA, Globes and BAFTA altogether. And the lack of a Film Editing nomination (apparently a more important one than Best Director).

@ Claudio Dobre,

“Yeah, yeah, actually, you bring up a very good point – if Boyhood loses the WGA to The Grand Budapest Hotel (or whatever else), which I believe it very well might, then its win at the Oscars (in Best Picture) would truly be wholly unprecedented (as no movie has ever won without having won at least one of the 4 – PGA, SAG, DGA, WGA).”

You sure about that? Like EVER?
Go and check Out of Africa!!!

There are some Birdman fans on here who seem insistent on interpreting statistics as incontrovertible indications of a film’s dominance. This is not true. You can take all the ‘evidence’ you want and argue in one film’s favour, but the conversation that develops around the nominated films is far more influential than the awards they’ve racked up in the season so far. Crash taught us that.

“Your argument seems to suggest that winning the PGA, the DGA and the SAG Ensemble Cast award make a film invincible.”

Been the case since ’96…

What’s that, seven films? Every race is different, and every stat comes to represent something different when it’s applied to each new Oscar race. The truth is, though, that none of those films actually were invincible. Furthermore, of those seven films, not one lost the Golden Globe, the Critics Choice and the BAFTA.

Ellar’s speech not snub, of course

I am not surprised by Birdman’s late swoop. It is distinctive that Critics favored Boyhood and Guilds favored Birdman, but I refuse to accept that Birdman has not had buzz or momentum, it has been hanging from Boyhood’s tail all season long. Those are the two movies we’ve been talking about as potential winners. If American Sniper or The Grand Budapest Hotel swept the Guilds, that would have been a swoop.

@HAWKEYE,
People said the same thing about the BAFTA. Most expected it to win. Did it win? Well, NO.
BIRDMAN failed to win a single industry award for its writing. It has the Golden Globe and Critics’ Choice but it is not the industry. And while in the case of THE KING’S SPEECH the WGA didn’t matter because THE KING’S SPEECH was miles ahead of Inception, here it does because by the time voters fill their ballots, every screenwriting award out there goes to THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL and once again, I believe they’ll honor the vision and spirit of Wes Anderson, especially given how strongly each voting body responded to this film.

I think the fact that Anderson, Linklater, Lubezki (and probably Inarittu) didn’t show up in the UK, shows perfectly where the priorities are when it comes to the award shows. BAFTA might be a fun show to watch, with a variety of categories and a lot of American movies awarded, but somehow I can’t imagine the situation where at the DGA Alfonso Cuaron says: “Alejandro can’t be here tonight, because tomorrow he’ll be attending the BAFTAs. I’m happy to accept this award on his behalf.”

Indeed, or we could simplify it even more by saying that the Best Picture winner takes its respective screenplay category most of the time. The last exception was The Artist, but its 42-page script wasn’t the film’s strongest element, especially since it was a silent film. Shoot, even when a film really didn’t deserve to win screenplay (Argo & The Hurt Locker), they usually still end up winning it somehow. Prior to The Artist, you have to jump back to 2004’s Million Dollar Baby to find a BP winner that didn’t win for its screenplay (not surprising. It’s still shocking that the film managed to win Best Picture & Best Director).

“If The Grand Budapest Hotel takes the WGA, it’ll have critics and BAFTA/WGA. These are stronger than Globe/Critics’ Choice.”

Except we can’t count the WGA this year due to Birdman being deemed “ineligible” because of their silly rules. If it were included, it would most likely win. So really, all we could officially put under GBH’s column as a major win would be BAFTA, which certainly doesn’t outweigh the Golden Globe + Critics Choice wins (I’ve already mentioned the stats for this above). Even the BAFTA doesn’t mean that much as they’ve differed with AMPAS in the category several times in the last few years: American Hustle instead of Her (not even nominated), The Artist instead of Midnight in Paris, and In Bruges instead of Milk.

All this is to say that it would be foolish to bet against Birdman in Original Screenplay.

Would everyone (including you, Sasha) please STOP mentioning no editing as a negative benchmark for BIRDMAN. it’s driving me crazy.
People, THERE WASN’T ANY EDITING…well, what, maybe four cuts? This is the one movie, in the one year, that editing recognition doesn’t factor into it’s chances. In fact, the ABSENCE of editing is what makes it such a special film…Duh.

I am in the company of some experienced and wise award prognosticators 🙂
Alan, you are spot on with 12 yrs and Hawkeye has used examples that help my assertion (thank you Hawkeye). Every year is its own story, for all of the guilds. Birdiene, you are correct – SAG especially pinched some of GG’s spotlight in the race.

“Dave, yeah, the key word is “interpreted”. Wrongly, I believe. SAG Ensemble matches 47% of the time with BP. Not something I’d use to “brag” about. SAG members don’t vote Ensemble as a prediction for BP, nor do they interpret as their choice for BP. Did they think “The Full Monty” is a better picture than “Titanic”? “The Birdcage” a better movie than “The English Patient”? Do you think the most of the members in the acting branch of AMPAS voted for “The Full Monty” instead of “Titanic” for BP? No one in their right mind would think or vote like that.”

The problem here is that you can switch it around. Did they really think Argo had a better cast than Lincoln or Les Miserables? Did they really think Slumdog Millionaire had a better cast than Doubt, Milk, or Frost/Nixon? Sometimes they clearly do use it as a Best Picture award. As I’ve pointed out before, it doesn’t mean much on its own (though it certainly has before), but coupled with a PGA win, it can mean quite a bit.

Alan, you are quite right about those examples, but they were early in the SAG award history. I think the last decade their choices have rightly or wrongly been both used as and interpreted as a best picture vote. The Full Monty is the perfect example of ensemble acting – so too Gosford Park.

Before Oscar Watch/Awards Daily, Andrew, I used to look to GG as an indicator. Now, perhaps it is the first major award telecast and so allows the oscar watcher to feel the pulse in the room towards nominees and get a sense of the big players and contenders; but nothing more reliable.

Fun fact:

The last film to win Best Picture without support from WGA, SAG, DGA, or PGA was Out of Africa in 1986 (and that was before SAG and PGA handed out awards).

Alan, glad you agree with me.

Alan, i don’t disagree with you in the most part; i’m just curious why we (me included) give credence to the Hollywood Foreign Press when they only have 90 members? The SAG vote, ostensibly a ‘best ensemble’ prize has often been interpreted as, a proxy best picture and the sheer numbers of voters in that guild i would have thought lends itself as an integral predictor; on its numbers. (its relative youth is a contra-indicator). Yes, is BAFTA’s choice a red herring or a vital clue?

Andrew,

I don’t take much stock at all with the SAG Ensemble win (that win doesn’t mean much to my collection of stats). I only consider GG, BFCA, PGA, DGA and BAFTA as true strong precursors. Any precursors with less than 50% predictive rate should be thrown out the window.

Boyhood won GG, BFCA and BAFTA. Birdman won PGA and DGA. If I have to choose, I’d choose PGA and DGA, but Boyhood sweeping BAFTA really gave me pause.

Andrew and Birdienest81,

I’m not making a case for Boyhood to win BP using BAFTA’s track record. Was just saying that BAFTA is not that unviable in recent years. The race is still very close to call for me.

Alan of NY, I misread your previous posting. But it looks like you misread mine about Anderson. I posted:

* Funniest highlight: Ralph Fiennes accepted Original Screeplay for Wes Anderson and read his speech: ”I was already most unhappy to miss this event, but I am really angry and resentful. I blame the DGA for requiring my presence in Los Angeles, where most likely I have already failed to win a different prize.”

That is, Fiennes delivered a speech that Anderson had given him to read.

@Alan of NY

Actually, all of the BAFTA Best Film winners who went on to win Best Picture at the Oscars since 2009 had at least one of the three major Guild wins:

2009: Slumdog Millionaire (won PGA, SAG, and DGA)
2010: The Hurt Locker (won PGA and DGA
2011: The King’s Speech (won PGA, SAG, and DGA)
2012: The Artist (won PGA and DGA)
2013: Argo (won PGA, SAG, and DGA)
2014: 12 Years a Slave (won PGA in a tie with Gravity)

So it’s not necessarily BAFTA has the greatest influence. It’s more of a coincidence. I’d say its the guilds that have the most power

WW, you said:
“I hope it’s clear that Wes Anderson’s acceptance speech at BAFTAs was tongue-in-cheek (and very funny).”

So that’s why I assumed that Anderson was at BAFTA?

Claudiu, I don’t think BAFTA is all that “British” anymore in the last 5 years when it correctly predicted BP 100% of the time for the Oscars (and not even using the pref ballots). It also has the Best British Film category to rely on should it want to lavish its citizens. I think it has tried successfully to groom itself as a viable precursor for the Oscars in recent years. And a very American Boyhood won, so Birdman not being British isn’t really too strong of an excuse. Two other British films were in the same category and they didn’t award either. And one of them, they shut out completely. So I don’t think they’re all that “British”. BAFTA bodes the best record at predicting BP in the last 6 years out of all the major precursors, GG, BFCA, DGA and even PGA (where it couldn’t even choose one winner last year).

Does anyone care to argue that (b) is in a stronger position than (a)

That BAFTA or GG is a better predictor of AMPAS voting intention than SAG, PGA or DGA?

Prefer Boyhood if you must, that’s fine, but don’t say the stats support you

The Baftas got it right. Boyhood, Linklater, Eddie Redmayne and Julianne Moore. Sunday not so bloody Sunday.

Alan of NY, I said that Ethan Hawke accepted Best Director on Richard Linklater’s behalf. Hawke quipped that like Wes Anderson, Linklater’s pissed about being in L.A., losing the DGA. Hawke then said he had talked to Linklater about what he (Hawke) should say in case Linklater won the BAFTA. That’s what Hawke conveyed: Linklater’s gratitude for Ellar and Lorelei.

WW – how the heck did Anderson get to BAFTA after being in L.A. last night?

Yay for Boyhood at the BAFTA Awards!! This race for Best Picture is getting really really good. I still think the sweep of the major guilds for Birdman mean it’s got the edge, but it’s unknown by how much.

With all of this year in mind, I felt like looking to the future, and creating a list of possible Best Picture nominees for next year’s Oscar ceremony.

As of today, these are their release dates set for the United States.

Irrational Man – Woody Allen – 2015
Trumbo – Jay Roach – 2015
Southpaw – Antoine Fuqua – July 31, 2015
Icon – Stephen Frears – August 2015
Black Mass – Scott Cooper – September 18, 2015
Everest – Baltasar Kormákur – September 18, 2015
The Walk – Robert Zemeckis – October 2, 2015
St. James Place – Steven Spielberg – October 16, 2015
The Hateful Eight – Quentin Tarantino – November 13, 2015
The Martian – Ridley Scott – November 25, 2015
In the Heart of the Sea – Ron Howard – December 11, 2015
Knight of Cups – Terrence Malick – December 11, 2015
Joy – David O. Russell – December 25, 2015
The Revenant – Alejandro G. Iñárritu – December 25, 2015

Rules are meant 2 be broken. Either Birdman becomes 1st film since 1980 (8th ever) to win BP without editing nom or Boyhood becomes 1st film since 1996 (2nd ever) to win after losing SAG/PGA/DGA trifecta. If it misses WGA first film ever to win without one of the 4.

I hope it’s clear that Wes Anderson’s acceptance speech at BAFTAs was tongue-in-cheek (and very funny).

He also sincerely thanked the British Academy and mentioned that he’s a BAFTA member in good standing.

Meantime, I’m crossing my fingers that Anderson repeats his Original Screenplay victory at the Oscars.

Is fascinating to see how Keaton was the front-runner (as EW themselves proclaimed) only to have it now be Redmayne. I know we’ve had cases where a sudden front-runner appears but it turns out to be nothing (Riva two years ago) but the SAG win does give Redmayne more push. Still, think Keaton benefits from a Hollywood vet in his first ever nom, some voters might think “Redmayne will have more chances, who knows if Keaton will?” Not fair but that’s how it often works. I do lean toward Redmayne now but still think Keaton has support, especially with Birdman a Picture contender and might end up pulling it off so we’ll see.

Wes Anderson, I don’t blame him for being pissed for not being able to win an award for his writing. I hope after being nominated 4 times by the Academy he finally gets an Oscar.

Just watched the BBC America’s 3-hour telecast of the BAFTAs. The first half-hour is red-carpet. The rest of the time is devoted to awards, but several (like makeup, editing, production, costumes) were only seen in a montage.
* Terrific night for ”Boyhood”: Patricia Arquette gave a lovely speech (no written notes); Ethan Hawke accepted the Best Director prize on behalf of Richard Linklater, who wanted to thank Ellar Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater because ”Boyhood” rode on their backs). Hawke also called Ellar and Lorelei ”artists of the first order.”
* Steve Carell kicked off his Best Director presentation with: ”I am here to suck up to the five nominees.”
* Funniest highlight: Ralph Fiennes accepted Original Screeplay for Wes Anderson and read his speech: ”I was already most unhappy to miss this event, but I am really angry and resentful. I blame the DGA for requiring my presence in Los Angeles, where most likely I have already failed to win a different prize.”

I think the spreading the wealth theory is a bit faulty. Don’t think most voters weigh it up like that.

Paddy this a two-horse race. Based on previous stats, would you rate (a) or (b) the better chance of Best Picture

*Claudiu (sorry for the typo)

For Pete’s sake, when are we going to be able to edit comments on here? It’s 2015 isn’t it? Isn’t that a standard thing everywhere nowadays?

By the time they get to supporting actor and (maybe) notice they haven’t given Birdman any acting wins, do you really think they’re going to go back and change their actor vote to Keaton instead of Redmayne? I think it’s far more likely they’ll just say “oh, well” and move on within a few seconds, never giving it another thought…

“As I said, I just can’t imagine a scenario where they honor Birdman for Picture, Director, and Original Screenplay, but choose to deny it the Best Actor Oscar, even though the performances (particularly Keaton’s) are half of why the movie is a masterpiece.”

I myself have fallen prey to this kind of thinking in the past, which is why I, I’m ashamed to say, had American Hustle to win screenplay last year (I simply didn’t think they’d go 0/10). But, honestly, I’ve noticed that this is probably THE biggest trap you can fall into when making predictions in not 100% clear categories. If the stats point in one direction, and pretty clearly (as is the case with Redmayne), you HAVE to go with the stats every time, over these assumptions based on what the voters may or may not think about the “bigger picture”. Like when people were saying Argo had to win an acting award, so Arkin might win… or that 12 Years can’t only win 3 Oscars, so they were trying to give it a fourth win in categories where it clearly had no shot – and so on. A person with better memory could probably come up with better examples than these, I’ll admit it. 🙂 But, anyway, the bigger picture is simply less important than the individual stats for each category, because the Academy just doesn’t care as much about “spreading the wealth” (like other groups do) or “justifying” their BP pick with this or that win (ESPECIALLY since the preferential ballot has been in place, and the BP winner isn’t even directly related to the other categories anymore; as all those voting for Redmayne could have various other movies 1st, and Birdman 2nd, so they wouldn’t feel justified to give it actor as well, but it would still win BP in the end, helped by all those 2nd places, and the 1st places it got from other voters). I’m pretty sure the voters won’t even give it much thought, anyway, the idea that Birdman is so reliant on Keaton for its greatness. They’ll vote for Birdman in BP, then vote for Redmayne because they like him more, and that’s that, they’ll move on. They don’t care nearly as much as we do about what overall story their choices tell.

As I said, I just can’t imagine a scenario where they honor Birdman for Picture, Director, and Original Screenplay, but choose to deny it the Best Actor Oscar, even though the performances (particularly Keaton’s) are half of why the movie is a masterpiece.

This is the one thing that sticks with me as well, and why I’m still slightly hesitant to say Birdman has BP in the bag. Just a month ago, the consensus was that Birdman wasn’t going to win Best Picture but Keaton was the big favourite for Best Actor. Now, things seems to have flipped completely — the film is the one scooping up these major precursors while Keaton has lost major ground to Redmayne. I just seems so odd that if there’s such widespread admiration for Birdman as a film that its main star isn’t being swept up in its wake, especially since Keaton looked to be such a favourite just a few weeks ago.

I thought last year was more of a nailbiter, especially after that PGA tie. This year, Birdman won the big three guilds with the most overlap in AMPAS voting. Last year, Gravity had PGA and DGA, while 12 Years had DGA.
I still think it will be Birdman/Inarritu. And I will be pleased with that result.

“Any hope for Keaton to win?”

It doesn’t look good. It really doesn’t. The SAG Best Actor winner has gone on to win the Oscar for the last decade. However, the only sliver of hope I can find is that SAG had the opportunity to award Redmayne with Best Actor while still awarding Keaton (and the rest of Birdman’s ensemble) with Best Cast, meaning that the Academy may still go with Keaton. As I said, I just can’t imagine a scenario where they honor Birdman for Picture, Director, and Original Screenplay, but choose to deny it the Best Actor Oscar, even though the performances (particularly Keaton’s) are half of why the movie is a masterpiece.

“I wouldn’t rule Wes Anderson out of the screenplay race, Budapest is very liked and that’s the category they can truly honour him.”

People tried to say the same about David O. Russell and American Hustle last year (it even took Original Screenplay from BAFTA), but the same stats were against him (along with the WGA, which we were able to count last year), leading to a just-as-predictable loss (though many strangely predicted Hustle for the win just the same).

“The only open race is original screenplay and maybe best actor.”

Original Screenplay is pretty much closed. With Birdman winning the Golden Globe for Screenplay and the Critics Choice award for Original Screenplay, there’s little doubt that it will win. The Golden Globe win has meant an Oscar win 8/10 times in the last decade (and of those two exceptions, Up in the Air’s loss was due to controversy). The Critics Choice for Original Screenplay/Screenplay has won an Oscar 9/10 times (the Academy screwed up by not awarding Inglourious Basterds). It’s a shame we can’t count the WGA award for Original Screenplay this year what with their silly rules excluding Birdman, so it won’t tell us anything.

As much as I would like to believe that there’s still a race, my head is telling me that the chances of Boyhood pulling an upset are, at best, pretty small. We could talk about for hours about stats, but the truth of the matter is that the industry has spoken. I could understand why Birdman won the PGA, but Linklater losing the DGA was, for me, a huge surprise, and speaks volumes: if Linklater’s collegues could’nt appreciate his work and vision, nobody at the industry will. And that makes me pretty sad.

i have nothing against Birdman—i personally think it’s an excellent film— or Iñárritu—I actually admire his career and movies; God knows that ”Amores perros” is one of my favorites movies ever—, but I think the Academy is about to commit a huge injustice, if not a crime. A BP/BD split would seem like a fair scenario, but I just don’t see it happening this time.

At the end of the day, nothing really matters here; it’s just 2 independent films battling over a crown that 99% of the rest of America doesn’t give a flying fvck about. The indie community is properly excited, yes, but does anyone here actually believe the mainstream moviegoer in this country cares about who winds up as the #3 least seen Best Picture winner in the history of American film?

Don’t think so.

@Leocdc I really enjoy Half in the Bag. I almost always agree with Mike Stoklasa.

Oh wait I’m just realizing now that Hawking was there for INTERSTELLAR not Redmayne. lol

What I was surprised about with these Baftas is that the ladies on the red carpet were asking people what film they liked best and a lot of them Brits were saying WHIPLASH. I hope to see it before the Oscars but it doesn’t look like it.

Um, are we forgetting how last year the BAFTAs were NOT an indication of the Oscars?

Screenplay: American Hustle
Supporting Actor: Barkhad Abdi
Supporting Actress: Jennifer Lawrence
Best Actor: Chiwetel Ejiofor.

Just saying, the BAFTAs aren’t always an indicator of how late voting will be. Remember 2013, Riva’s win having folks think she was now the Oscar favorite despite her being ignored by most other awards and not nominated for the SAG. Yes, it’s good to see wins but even more in this year, hard to take these as “clear indicators” of how the Oscars will be.

Further correction, I meant to say that Saving Private Ryan and Brokeback Mountain had won the PGA + DGA, not Crash and Shakespeare in Love (which had only won SAG).

@Claudiu Dobre

Kristopher Tapley did note that despite Braveheart losing PGA/SAG/DGA, it did manage to win a WGA Award for Original Screnplay. So it does reinforce just how powerful the DGA/WGA/PGA/SAG are.

Anways, always fun to take about Oscar stats with you! You and Sasha make this wild race worth discussing.

With a different vote count for the 2 categories – director, and picture, i’m not convinced the same film is going to win them this year. I may be hegding my bets but with Boyhood and Birdman there are compelling arguments for both to prevail. Why did the Academy not reward their Best Film last year with the filmmaker who directed it? Why was the best directed film last year not the year’s Best Film? The tie at PGA last year affirmed the dichotomy.

Birdman doesn’t lack a good screenplay, ensemble acting and great technicals; Boyhood doesn’t lack these either – both are impeccably made visions – just so different. What factors therefore compel an individual voter to go a certain way – or to go two certain ways?

I am not as convinced, Claudiu as you, as to the emphatic imminent win for Birdman. My gut tells me it is not the picture they (as a collective) want to crown. Stats are one thing, the instinct is another. But right now, darn it, it is a conundrum! I like both movies – they are just so different – as frontrunners.

After all, Innaritu said superhero flicks were tantamount to “cultural genocide.’

I kinda feel bad for him that he made a great one, but not really. lol

“My point here was that with the BAFTA now you see that it really is just about the Hollywood industry, which is why I think there’s more to it — I think it’s about the superhero thing…Inarritu’s own comments about it.”

I suspect that if they do pick Birdman for Best Picture, it will surely reinforce the old guard’s hatred of superhero/sci-fi genre movies. After all, Innaritu said superhero flicks were tantamount to “cultural genocide.’

In fairness, however, Birdman does take some unflattering shot against critics and the prestige of high art, including Oscar vanity projects. In other words, it skewers both fanboy and artsy-fartsy ends of the movie spectrum.

“and, in truth, there was never much reason to place any validity in the notion that Gravity could beat 12 Years a Slave.”
It won 7 Oscars against 3, including Best Director? TIED Producers Guild?

Birdman all the way! But I still wouldn’t consider Boyhood out for the count. It’s been a long time since I’ve agreed with a Best Picture winner, so my hopes this year aren’t that big.

For any fans of film music, an Oscar nominee is now a Grammy winner, too. Here’s a link to the winners …

http://www.hitfix.com/news/2015-grammy-awards-winners-and-nominees-complete-list

Dear Academy members, don’t trust the brits. Cinema it’s not their industry, it’s not their thing. Trust the american guilds. Trust your team.

My money is on Birdman.

My heart is on Boyhood.

Imitation Game > Theory of Everything. Latter is like an episode of Masterpiece Theatre. Sheesh.

Andrew, you are right, a win for Birdman would expand the portrait of Best Picture winners. I do not think it would be a bad choice at all, but having followed these things since ’77, just when i think i have a handle on their collective taste (an impossible pursuit), the landscape changes. I don;t agree with some of the simplified takes on why Birdman is so beloved by Hollywood. BAFTA clearly were not enamored enough with its content or form. That is telling to me, But then again some of their choices have been downright daft, so maybe chaos reigns supreme! The more i know, the less I know 🙂

Forgot what you think of the films for a moment.
Which film (a) or (b) would you favour:
(a) SAG/PGA/DGA
(b) GG/BAFTA
You’d have to pick (a). That doesn’t mean Birdman wins, it just means it’s more likely to

Nope. You wouldn’t have to pick either (a) or (b). Your argument seems to suggest that winning the PGA, the DGA and the SAG Ensemble Cast award make a film invincible. Winning the Golden Globe and the BAFTA (and the Critics Choice, btw) can be a very potent combination, and it certainly opens up the race in this year’s case, but bear in mind that both films have other factors which could either aid or impede their path to success at the Oscars. Boyhood may still legitimately be a more likely contender in the eyes of some, regardless of their personal opinion on either film.

One thing I noted tonight: I hated BAFTA’s nominations. I liked their awards. This often happens, whereby a poor slate of nominations yields an impressive one of award winners, or a great slate of nominations yields a terrible one of award winners (the Oscars two years ago, for example, by and large). I hated Oscar’s nominations this year, on the whole. Perhaps I’ll love the decisions they make in choosing their eventual favourites.

This is a sad lament because no country has more film schools than the USA but most countries do not have for-profit education either and thus, their citizens are not burdened with massive student loan debt. Their governments haven’t gutted arts programs at public schools. They tend to give filmmakers grants and support the arts in a variety of ways. Here in America if you aren’t rich you are basically screwed.

Plainly not true on most counts.

Anyway, you’re quite right Sasha, that this is the most clearly defined race we’ve seen in some time. The Brokeback Mountain / Crash race didn’t seem like one until Crash won, the Babel / The Departed / Little Miss Sunshine one probably wasn’t all that competitive in the end, the Avatar / The Hurt Locker one had died down by Oscar night and, in truth, there was never much reason to place any validity in the notion that Gravity could beat 12 Years a Slave.

I wonder if BAFTA rly did vote with their hearts. At nomination stage (although I’m certain Ryan disagrees with me here), I think they thoroughly did not, and instead chose to bestow nomination after nomination upon Oscar-touted projects – I mean, if they’d voted with their hearts then, that deserved BAFTA Fellowship award Mike Leigh received wouldn’t have been his only personal recognition this year. Perhaps had they a chance to see what the DGA had done yesterday before voting, BAFTA might have made a different decision. Nevertheless, with Oscar ballots still outstanding, BAFTA sure have kept this race alive.

They’ve also opened up Best Adapted Screenplay – so far, that’s one for The Imitation Game and one for The Theory of Everything. BFCA went with Gone Girl. Who knows what WGA will do. And then The Academy could pick Whiplash, which Guy Lodge today commented upon on Twitter, stating that he feels it could be this year’s Precious. Original Score also seems to be up in the air – The Theory of Everything won the Golden Globe, and I thought it might sweep this season in that category. But then tonight, The Grand Budapest Hotel won both the BAFTA and the Grammy.

NB: BAFTA grew in significance when it abolished the category divide between international and British films. It grew again when it changed its date to before the Oscars. It grew again when the writers’ strike prompted the cancellation of the Golden Globes ceremony and thereby drew more attention to the BAFTAs, which were starrier than ever that year and were the only precursor to match Oscar across all four acting categories, picking Marion Cotillard and Tilda Swinton in two unsettled female acting races. Since that year, seven years ago, BAFTA has been a major stop along the way to Oscar – note that all four acting winners were in attendance tonight, and 18 out of 20 nominees. Even Rosanna Arquette…!

Dave Birdman is not typical best picture fare (neither was No Country) and that’s what would make its win so great

Am i intuiting (or projecting onto you Sasha here) that a split is coming? Birdman seems to be the consensus, but large pockets do not want Linklater to go home emptyhanded and give him Director, while Birdman takes picture? Without the editing category, does Birdman take just 3? BP, Cinematography and Screenplay? Boyhood wins Director, Supp Actress and Editing? Acting prizes go to Eddie, Julianne, J.K and Patricia?. Budapest and Whiplash share techs.
I am still somewhat baffled by the PGA win for Birdman (less so, the DGA). I don’t see the reflected love for this movie by the industry. I don’t think any of the characters or themes emerge unscathed from the movie. Filmmakers, actors, critics, producers. I liked the movie, but it is a horror movie – All about eve meets Black Swan. Madness takes its toll. Will AMPAS overwhelmingly get behind it for the Best Picture of the Year? They went dark for No Country and Departed but it allowed them to honor iconic filmmakers, and The Hurt Locker had its narrative, but Birdman is not simply a film about Hollywood heroes ala Argo or a sentimental elegy The Artist. It’s a savage satire not steeped in reality.

Unfortunately, Chicago did win best picture.

Thanks for the summary Sasha.
How about the SAG/PGA/DGA trifecta
stat- is it only Apollo 13 that has not won BP after winning the trifecta?