The Oscar nominees rarely satisfy, only surprise and enrage, although never in the way people expect, which I guess is its own surprise.
It was expected that Amy Adams could “surprise” by breaking into the field of Best Actress nominees, but did anyone suspect that it would be at Emma Thompson’s expense? There were predictions that Christian Bale or Leonardo DiCaprio could get into an even tighter race, but both of them? Sally Hawkins was less expected behind perhaps Octavia Spencer and others, but was Oprah really the weak link?
These are the kinds of revelations that both delight and frustrate Oscar pundits. In a way, they were right that the Academy after all did not love “Inside Llewyn Davis” or “Saving Mr. Banks,” but then those prediction tallies never seem to match up.
The fact that there are surprises each year really shouldn’t be a surprise at all. If the Oscar nominations were as easy to predict as picking all the top ranked favorites, then what would be the fun of waking up at 7:38 in the morning to watch them? For instance, why was there doubt that David O. Russell couldn’t lead yet another cast to a sweep of the acting categories like he did with “Silver Linings Playbook” and nearly did with “The Fighter”? That’s one of those “surprises” that people should’ve seen coming a mile away, but no one did.
I guess it’s less of a surprise that Oscar pundits will now all turn around and rationalize the nominations in the way I’ve just done, as though it made sense or was expected all along, but no one “knew” that Thompson would be out, or no one “knew” that “Philomena” was a sure thing thanks to Harvey Weinstein after all. (I did however bet Hanks would get nothing)
Even less of a surprise is people calling foul about “snubs” galore when it’s much harder to say who would go in their place. If Oscar Isaac really gave the best performance of the year, maybe that’s a snub, or if Tom Hanks was really cleaning up everywhere else, that would be a snub, but Oprah didn’t get “snubbed”; she just got pushed out. There are only five nominees after all.
What is a surprise is that there weren’t more surprises. The last two years the Academy pulled some fast ones on us by nominating “The Tree of Life” and “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” in the same year, and then Benh Zeitlin and Michael Haneke for Best Director the next. It wasn’t as though they came out to bat for “Before Midnight” or Brie Larson or some really trashy Oscar bait like “The Book Thief” or “The Fifth Estate.”
Ultimately, you can play the game of who did not get in all day. There were over 900 movies released in 2013, and something is bound to be pushed out when only 1 percent of those get nominated for Best Picture.
What I can be happy about is a nomination for Sally Hawkins in “Blue Jasmine”, for Amy Adams in “American Hustle” and preventing the field from being filled with former winners, Arcade Fire (!) getting nominated for “Her,” or that “Saving Mr. Banks” did not get nominated (seriously, how is it being left out a “snub”?). I don’t quite care for “Philomena” and would’ve been thrilled to see “Inside Llewyn Davis” get more, but these are the shakes.
I think it’s more upsetting to see the Oscars not reflect our tastes because rather than an individual critic with their own quirks, the Oscars are a byproduct of group think. We expect consensus, and we’re shocked when the committee comes out of that room with just a compromise.
This year’s nominees are a great compromise, with my Top 3 movies of the year all serious Best Picture contenders, and very few in any category who can be crowned definitive winners.
See you in March. I’m sure we’ll have a few more surprises yet.