Politics likely to put a tinge on Oscars
This is the time of year to say that historical trends are the best way to predict the Oscar winners ... except that this year may end up establishing its own trends.
The Oscars are arriving at an odd and rather fraught time in the national discourse, the most disturbed since at least Vietnam. The people you pass on the street are thinking about their own business, but also about politics. And did you see those overhead shots of U.S. Bank Stadium at Super Bowl LII? They showed tens of thousands of people thinking about football, and politics. This year, movies and politics are on the minds of Oscar voters.
This doesn’t mean that every choice that’s made is going to be a political statement. It’s possible that no choices will be made strictly on that basis. But it does mean that political concerns and national anxieties form the backdrop within which voters are making their choices. They are part of the air that people are breathing and will probably have an influence.
BEST PICTURE
The old way of handicapping best picture was to narrow the field down to the biggest movies and then, of the biggest, to figure out which was the stupidest, and that was the winner. But ever since the Academy changed the number of nominees to eight, nine or 10 entries (this year there’s nine) and changed the way of voting, the old rules haven’t applied. About the only fairly consistent element is that whatever starts the season as the favorite (“Boyhood,” “La La Land,” “Lincoln,” “The Social Network”) usually loses.
By that measure, “The Shape of Water,” the favorite as of this writing, will lose to “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” which is said to be the second most likely film to win. Either would make for a reasonable choice, both in terms of quality and in terms of reflecting the particular moment.
Earlier in the season, there was lots of talk that “Get Out” might win. Two of the past four best picture winners have been on African American subjects, after all. But “12 Years a Slave” and “Moonlight” each possessed a grand vision, and “Get Out” pales in comparison. “Dunkirk” has an outside chance of winning, but its history — like that of “Darkest Hour” — feels too distant from the current moment, just as “The Post” seems too close to it. And “Lady Bird,” “Call Me by Your Name” and “Phantom Thread” are probably too personal to resonate with a majority of people wrapped up in external concerns.
I see “The Shape of Water” and “Three Billboards” as movies about anxiety and hopelessness. With “The Shape of Water,” the despair is subterranean and barely acknowledged. It maintains the uneasy front of a redemptive fairy tale and will connect with Academy voters’ unconscious. With “Three Billboards,” it’s all on the surface. It’s about living in the midst of disaster, hopelessness and rage and working through it. It will connect with Academy voters’ conscious thinking.
But this is the movies, and in a battle between the unconscious and the conscious, the unconscious usually wins. And so ... “The Shape of Water” will win best picture.
BEST ACTRESS
This is how it usually works: Best actress usually goes to a woman who has never before been nominated. Most of the time it goes to a young woman. Fifteen of the past 20 best actress winners have been 35 or under. Of the other five who were older, two were what might be called youngish — Cate Blanchett (44) and Sandra Bullock (45) — and only two were in their 60s, Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren.
Best actress winners are most often honored for playing a person completely unlike themselves, preferably an actual celebrity or historical figure, or failing that, someone who is seriously ill, either mentally or physically.
If we look at the nominees — Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water”), Frances McDormand (“Three Billboards”), Margot Robbie (“I, Tonya”), Saoirse Ronan (“Lady Bird”) and Meryl Streep (“The Post”) — Margot Robbie is the only one to check off all those boxes. She’s 27, has never been nominated and plays a real-life person (“I, Tonya”) of considerably less charm than herself. And it doesn’t hurt that she is terrific in the movie. On the merits, if I had a vote, I’d vote for her.
But something is going on in this country. Women are as mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore. And this doesn’t just go for young women. If anything, it goes double for older women, who are refusing to be marginalized while still in their prime. They’re looking at 60-year-old Frances McDormand, and they’re liking what they see, an actress who has never once gone the glamour route, who is strong, forthright and no-nonsense, not to mention brilliant in every movie she has ever been in.
Moreover, women and men are connecting with the anger of the character she plays, a woman who gets tired of being invisible and decides to take action.
The intersections between politics and culture are as weird and mysterious as they are unprovable. So it’s easy to say, or at least guess, that if Hillary Clinton were president of the United States, Margot Robbie could start writing her acceptance speech today.
In any case, we live in a different America than that, and in that America, it’s going to be very pleasant to watch as Frances McDormand wins best actress.
BEST ACTOR
Best actor usually goes to a man in middle age, roughly from age 38 to 60. The Academy loves chameleonic transformations and loves it even more when an actor plays either a celebrity or a historical figure. It helps if the celebrity is noble, ill or both. Finally, the Academy doesn’t like giving best actor to newbies. Newcomers win best actress all the time, but the Academy prefers to honor actors who have been previously nominated in the category.
Now look at the nominees: Timothée Chalamet (“Call Me by Your Name”), Daniel Day-Lewis (“Phantom Thread”), Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out”), Gary Oldman (“Darkest Hour”) and Denzel Washington (“Roman J. Israel, Esq.”).
Right off the top, eliminate Chalamet and Kaluuya for being in their 20s, for not being chameleons and for never having been nominated. Washington is 63, which means he’s close to aging out of the category. He has won before, and the movie he is in is not very good, even though he’s good in it. At 60, Day-Lewis just gets in under the age wire in terms of age, but the role — that of an obsessive artist — doesn’t exactly seem like a stretch.
Now look at Oldman. He’s 59. He has been nominated before. He does an amazing chameleonic transformation as Winston Churchill, depicting a moment of history in which Churchill was almost single-handedly fighting to save Western civilization from Nazi barbarism. Oldman has everything going for him, nothing going against him, and it can’t hurt that he really does give the best performance in this category.
So unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice ... Gary Oldman will win best actor.
THE SUPPORTING CATEGORIES
Allison Janney looks like a shoo-in as supporting actress for her performance as Tonya Harding’s difficult mother in “I, Tonya.” And Sam Rockwell is the favorite to win supporting actor for his performance as an angry, stupid, racist cop, who experiences the beginnings of spiritual growth, in “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.” Allison Janney and Sam Rockwell will win, and they should.
BEST DIRECTOR
Best director used to almost always go to the director of the movie winning best picture. But in four of the past five years, that has not been the case.
“The Shape of Water” will probably win best picture, and an argument could be made that Guillermo del Toro should also win best director. After all, he plucks a whole cinematic world from his imagination and brings it to life, while eliciting a beautiful performance from Sally Hawkins, who can be mawkish if not watched closely.
But a strong argument could also be made for Christopher Nolan, who completely reinvents the war film in “Dunkirk.” And there’s also a lot of warm feeling out there for Greta Gerwig, who established herself as a formidable writing-directing talent with “Lady Bird.”
Obviously, del Toro will get lots of votes from people who love “The Shape of Water.” But I expect he will also get votes from people who choose “Three Billboards” for best picture, and yet don’t want del Toro to go home empty-handed. It’s an advantage for del Toro that the movie most likely to come in second place, “Three Billboards,” is thought of as more of a writer’s picture than a director’s picture: Martin McDonagh received a nomination for best adapted screenplay, but not director.
Indeed, this category may turn out to be the strongest one, the surest bet, for “The Shape of Water.” Guillermo del Toro will win best director.