Because life has a sense of humor, the Oscar nominations and the Hall of Fame selections were announced on the same day this year. With no assignments to immediately respond to either one, there was no labor burden for me, although I did record a podcast about the Oscar nominations with my Twitter friend Chauncey (listen here). Oh, and you can buy tickets now for my virtual Oscar talk on March 7 through Smithsonian Associates (buy tix here). I do these every year, and they are lots of fun. We go through the history and meaning of the Oscars, and in the end I do some predictions. I’m usually wrong.
Still, for lovers of both baseball and film, it’s a lot to process in one day. I’ll offer thoughts on the Oscars below, but I want to say just a few words about the Hall of Fame and the election of Scott Rolen, a very nice player who, when he was active, I never thought of as a Hall of Famer. Maybe the numbers suggest otherwise, but to me, the HOF was always reserved for legends of the game. But the voting committee has kept out so many of the game’s legends—most recently, Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens—that it’s certainly not for that anymore. I can respect those who feel steroid users have no place in the Hall, although I don’t agree with them. But I can’t wrap my head around a Hall that excludes them and includes Harold Baines, a good first baseman and hitter who accrued some nice stats over his long career, and Billy Wagner, only the second or third best closer of his era, who will likely be voted in next year. It doesn’t make any sense.
This Hall of Fame has no identity. It’s neither inclusive nor restrictive. Cheaters from prior eras, like Gaylord Perry, are celebrated unreservedly. New cheaters, even those who never failed a drug test or likely took steroids before it was officially banned, are excluded for life. It’s not a hall of excellence anymore. It’s just a vessel for debate. Fans and sportswriters can spend their lives arguing about which players should get in, and the argument never ends, because there’s nothing even close to a correct answer. Maybe that’s what the Hall wants. The elusive “engagement.” Constant tweeting. To me, it makes the whole thing profoundly meaningless.
I’ll have more to say about the Oscars in the next month or so, but for now I thought it might be useful (and fun!) to rank the Best Picture winners in order of likelihood to win, and give you a sense of what their actual path to victory might be. In some cases, it’s not a path per se, just an idea of why voters might flock to it. To be clear, only three or four of these films actually have a legitimate shot in my eyes. But there’s a month to go before the Oscars, and that’s an eternity in the awards cycle. Weird stuff happens. So let’s see how it might happen to each of these films.
Women Talking: On the one hand, this parable by writer/director Sarah Polley gives the Academy an opportunity to publicly congratulate themselves for taking #MeToo seriously. It’s a film about Mennonite women who learn they have been systematically drugged and raped, and come together to decide whether they should forgive the assailants in their community or leave and start a new society. It’s a clear metaphor for Hollywood itself, and Academy members will surely respond to that. It’s probably too dry and arty to actually win, but if it could fashion itself as a woman-driven underdog (no women were nominated for Best Director this year, which has produced some outrage), it’s possible that voters could rally around it.
Avatar: The Way of Water: In 1953, the Academy awarded Best Picture to The Greatest Show on Earth, a thoroughly mediocre film that was a huge hit. Conspiracy theorists suggest this occurred because it was the first year the Oscars were ever televised. Academy members wanted to placate their viewers to boost future ratings and promote the industry. Interesting that they used television, seen by many as a threat to cinema, to save themselves. The point is that the Academy often responds to existential crises by appealing to populism. This is the first year in a few that they have even had a big blockbuster contend for Best Picture because of…wait for it…the existential crisis that Covid and the streaming revolution have brought to their industry.
Triangle of Sadness: One of the great surprises of this year’s crop of nominations, Triangle of Sadness earned Best Picture and Best Director nods that were predicted by few. A mostly English-language film by acclaimed Swedish director Ruben Östlund, the film concerns a luxury cruise gone wrong. It’s a vicious skewering of the rich that doesn’t totally hold together as a film (at least not for me), although its pleasures are undeniable. More to the point, it won the Palme D’Or at Cannes last year (the fest’s highest honor), which Parasite won in 2020 before going on to win Best Picture. Triangle of Sadness doesn’t have that type of momentum yet, but the Academy’s efforts to invite more international members bore fruit once before—and it could again.
All Quiet on the Western Front: It hasn’t been that long since an international film won Best Picture; again, Parasite. All Quiet doesn’t have the juice right now, although it absolutely dominated the BAFTA nominations last month. If it wins some of those, watch out. The Academy loves war movies (Hurt Locker, anyone), and don’t forget that All Quiet is the only Netflix film in contention. That means they can throw their considerable awards budget at it. Plus, I wonder if voters might be more inclined to give Netflix its first ever Best Picture Oscar for a smaller, less buzzy movie like this, as opposed to Roma, The Irishman, or Power of the Dog, which were all early frontrunners.
Elvis: The Academy liked Ray. They gave Jamie Foxx an Oscar for it. They liked Bohemian Rhapsody. They gave Rami Malek an Oscar for it. If the pattern holds, Austin Butler will win Best Actor for Elvis, but it’s also quite clearly a flashier, more accomplished work than either of the other biopics to which it has most often been compared. I didn’t love Elvis. Its concert scenes were visceral and thrilling, but the overall storytelling was flimsy and aimless. But that hasn’t stopped the Academy before. Voting for an Elvis movie because they like Elvis Presley definitely seems like something the Academy would do.
Top Gun: Maverick: Last year, CODA won Best Picture in part because it made people feel really good. Coming out of the toughest years of the pandemic, voters were unashamed of their happy tears, which propelled a little AppleTV+ film to the top spot. Was there any film that made more people feel better this year than Top Gun: Maverick? I say no. An unparalleled technical achievement that pushed its cast and crew into uncharted skies—the actors underwent a three-month training course to prepare them to endure the rigors of flying, while the aerial coordinator actually invented an aircraft mounted with a camera to withstand 3 G’s—Top Gun: Maverick will win lots of votes from the below-the-line members of the Academy, and anyone else who likes having a good time at the movies.
Tár: Last year, CODA won Best Picture despite having only three total nominations. The year before, Nomadland won with only six nominations. The point is that the film with the most nominations hasn’t been winning lately. What matters more is that it be nominated in the right categories. Tár received six nominations and in all the right places: Picture, Director, Actress, Original Screenplay, Editing, and Cinematography. These are the nominees of a serious contender, and while the film by Todd Field might feel a little arty and cold to be embraced by the Academy, one thing we know about this body is they like to swerve. Moonlight to Green Book in two years? CODA to Tár would make perfect sense. Because it makes no sense.
The Banshees of Inisherin: Martin McDonagh’s last film, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, was nominated for six Oscars and won two: Frances McDormand won Best Actress, and Sam Rockwell for Best Supporting Actor. Banshees has scored 9 nominations. Do the math: The Academy is falling deeper in love with McDonagh. It’s still more likely that Banshees wins for its screenplay than Best Picture, but this is a very well-liked movie that offers viewers a good time without sacrificing dramatic heft. It’s a comedy that engages deeply with the darkest corners of the human soul, and, without saying it, it speaks to many of the social and existential anxieties of the COVID era. It may strike a chord.
The Fabelmans: When The Fabelmans premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival back in September, it was declared a lock for Best Picture. Note to film critics: Nothing is a lock in September. When a front-runner is declared that early, it’s only a matter of time before it gets knocked off its perch. The Academy is fickle. It falls in love easily and often. By the time the Critics’ Choice Awards came around, it was clear that Everything Everywhere All at Once had overtaken The Fabelmans as the presumptive favorite.
But did EEAAO peak too early? The Oscars are still over a month away. If for some reason EEAAO falters in the home stretch, the widely-loved Fabelmans will be right there to step into the winner’s circle. It’s a warm, insightful autobiography by one of cinema’s masters, and it ends on a glorious high note, perhaps the most singularly joyous moment in a film this year. Leaving viewers with glee in their heart is a surefire way to win votes.
Everything Everywhere All at Once: When EEAOO premiered to a rapturous reception at the South by Southwest Festival in March of last year, nobody had it pegged for Best Picture. EEAOO is now the frontrunner for Best Picture (and could snag Best Director, Best Actress, and a slew of below-the-line awards) because their marketing team made that underdog spirit part of its narrative. This film is the little engine that could. It was financed by a A24, the ultra-hip independent studio behind Moonlight, Lady Bird, and Uncut Gems; directed by the Daniels, a young and weird directing team; starring Michelle Yeoh, global cinema superstar who has never quite gotten her due in the U.S; and co-starring Ke Huy Quan, whose return to major cinema four decades after The Goonies and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is easily the year’s best story.
That’s all a Best Picture winner needs really: a story. EEAOO has a narrative that voters can latch onto and feel good about being part of. It’s an Asian immigrant story. It has a cutting-edge approach to storytelling. It’s young, hip, and heartfelt. It’s well-liked by just about everyone, and absolutely adored by some. It’s a juggernaut headed for a big win, and maybe even a sweep.
And so I’ll end this exercise by flipping its purpose: Why won’t this movie win Best Picture? It calls back to The Fabelmans. It’s very hard for a film to maintain its frontrunner status for even a few months. Last year at this time, very few people were predicting a CODA win. It emerged as a frontrunner after it picked up Best Ensemble at the Screen Actors Guild Awards (which are on February 26 this year, set your DVR). In the span of two weeks, CODA displaced The Power of the Dog and won both Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, and Supporting Actor. All three of its nominations. There’s still time for something to happen to EEAAOO. A controversy could arise out of nowhere. One of its cast members or crew could say something stupid. Or voters could just get tired of it being the frontrunner and put their energy elsewhere.
But for that to happen, another film will have to be able to claim underdog status and create a narrative that voters feel good about supporting. CODA was a feel-good movie about disability starring actual disabled actors. That’s catnip for Oscar voters. I’m not sure there’s anything that can steal the underdog mantle from EEAAO. But we should never say never. The Oscars are a month away, and that’s an eternity.
Good read!