Clearly Feinberg hasn't been talking to many voters. "Juno" is, at best, in the #4 spot right now. Big surge for "Clayton," yes, but "Blood," believe it or not, is all over the place.

Regardless, "No Country" will win, because the Academy will want to look "in." The critical community has forced this one (and "Blood" as well) into the awards landscape this year and it isn't going anywhere.

Juno wins BP, McCain wins election, then I wake up in a cold sweat and remain thankful for living in a non-lunatic universe. Which is still an illusion

Soooo let me get this straight. Feinberg thinks that a challenging movie with a thought provoking ending won't get the votes from Academy members and they will go with the "safe" pick "Juno"?

This guy Feinberg has a lower opinion of Academy members than Jeff.

Kris--or, as long as we're on a last-name basis, "Tapley"--I remind you that he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones... I believe it was you who predicted Letters from Iwo Jima for Best Picture last year.

"Clearly Feinberg hasn't been talking to many voters. "Juno" is, at best, in the #4 spot right now. Big surge for "Clayton," yes, but "Blood," believe it or not, is all over the place."

And if "Country" and "Blood" split a certain type of vote...

The "Juno" scenario is far from unbelievable.

Who is Scott Feinberg and who gives a fuck what he thinks? He's got a 20% chance of being right. If he had predicted that Juno would be nominated back in May or something then I would care, but, predictions like this are the equivalent of a friend betting you ten dollars that he can eat an entire bottle of herring.

It was indeed. And as I note in my column today, it had a clear shot, given talks with voters. I certainly wasn't the only guy predicting it. And last year was the most wide open year for the win we ever saw. Any one of those films could have won and, indeed, Letters was in the thick of it.

In any case, this isn't a glass houses discussion. I'm not throwing stones, just trying to give you some insight. "Juno" is coming up short in talks with voters this last week of voting.

But hey, if you're right, you're the only one. And "Juno" will miraculously win Best Pic and -- well -- only one other award.

Chris: "Michael Clayton" is more likely the beneficiary in that scenario this year.

Hey Milkman,
I won't get into who the fuck I am or tell you that you have to give a fuck what I think, but as to your other point... I predicted Juno would be nominated not back in May--since nobody had seen the movie yet--but immediately after its first public screening at the Toronto Film Festival:
http://andthewinneris.blog.com/2068237/
Close enough?
You don't have to agree with my opinion, but don't insinuate that I have no basis for it.

I'm not going to say "Juno" WON'T win...never count out the Academy's love of the feel-good movie...but I agree that "Clayton" seems to be surging. I still think it's going to be "No Country" though.

I think Scott may be on to something.

Chris Willman says "The 'Juno' scenario is far from unbelievable."

Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean it's not grotesque.

In other news, Scott Feinberg's got some pretty thin skin, no?

You have about as much basis for your opinion as anybody else, which is none. I'm getting tired of all you web cockroaches, it brings out the troll in me, I want to squash you all with the heel of my pink patent leather Chucks. Oh how I long for the day when there were only three people that knew anything about anything. Now everybody is an expert, hence, no one is. And so what if Juno wins, what does that mean, that you have some kind of preternatural ability to predict the winners of beauty contests? Join the club, there are about a million of you.

"I think Scott may be on to something."

I do too, but I think he picked the wrong dark horse...I can definitely see NCFOM losing to "Michael Clayton"...in fact, that is my prediction.

I loved all 3 movies, so in that sense I will be pleased no matter how it turns out...

Gee, Milkman, and you say this as yet one more among millions of anonymous assholes posting in the comments section of one of the hundreds of movie blogs out there. Oh I long for the days when there weren't so many internet trolls. There was once a time when there was something called Netiquette. Nobody uses it anymore, of course, because the trolls reign supreme.

As for Juno winning, well--stranger things have happened. Feinberg has a point, I think. Voters are timid and they hate the critics. So it's possible they will side with the public on this one. If they do, one can only cringe with embarrassment and poor Juno will sink like a stone, going down as one of the most undeserving wins ever.

I have to argue, though, with Jeff's weird assertion that Shakespeare in Love DIDN'T deserve to win over Private Ryan: no contest. Spielberg did not deserve to win for that really weak and sappy last act. Shakespeare in Love is a perfect film, flawless from start to finish. It also has the most noms going in.

Crash, on the other hand...and I do have a feeling something is going to upset No Country - it just has too many wins against it. I just don't know what movie stands to gain. Not sure it's Juno. Don't feel the Michael Clayton vibe but hey, if that happens I can puke up my milkshake. Atonement, probably not. There Will Be Blood might win and no one would complain I guess but it's even more of a critics' darling than No Country.

No Country deserves it. They're fools if they vote against it just to be contrary assholes.

"...it will certainly be as big of an upset as Shakespeare in Love edging out Saving Private Ryan"

In whose mind? Juno is one of the biggest indie hits ever, more than doubling the box office of NCFOM. (Not saying that BO matters, but the degree that a film has connected with it's audience, does in fact have relevance.) Not sure how taking down the Coen Bros. and Josh Brolin, with respect, is nearly just as big as taking down a seminal $200 million Speilburg/Hanks instant classic. To equate the two upsets is absurd, imo.

Hey Milkman,
I won't get into who the fuck I am or tell you that you have to give a fuck what I think, but as to your other point... I predicted Mary Reilly would be nominated not back in May--since nobody had seen the movie yet--but immediately after its first public screening at the Toronto Film Festival:
http://andthewinneris.blog.com/19968237/
Close enough?
You don't have to agree with my opinion, but don't insinuate that I have no basis for it.

Posted by: Scott Feinberg [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 19, 1996 12:43 PM

I think they're going to give it to Crash again just to piss me off.

LMAO, Massey

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

Simple.

"I've been on board with Juno since it was conceived in Toronto, I've watched it get bigger over nine viewings and a full awards season since, and I'm not about to abort it a week before its due to deliver."

—that's got to be one of the most badly overwritten pieces of punditry I've read all season. (Btw, I'm with those who see an upset coming from Michael Clayton, if from anywhere.)

"Crash" beat "Brokeback" because of homophobia and and the people backing "Crash" got it down to a two picture race. The people writing these comments can't agree on "Juno" or "Michael Clayton" as the main contender, which means that "No Country for Old Men" is likely to win.

CRASH beat BROKEBACK, because a lot of people left the theater after BROKEBACK and said to themselves (and others): "That's it? That was the longest trailer I've ever sat through. I'm still waiting for the movie to start."

I'm pretty sure I wrote on one of these boards months ago that the "TWBB & NCFOM split the vote, Juno wins" scenario was a real serious one.

And that was before I even saw Juno, which makes me VERY mad now, as the thought of Juno beating out those two make me very upset.

But let's face facts-- TWBB and NCFOM are amazing films, classics, either worthy of winning. . . and they *both* appeal to the exact same crowd. And that crowd was never going to vote for Juno, was it?

Yup, there's a good chance Juno wins. And it'll be a damn shame.

"I have to argue, though, with Jeff's weird assertion that Shakespeare in Love DIDN'T deserve to win over Private Ryan. . ."

Nothing weird about it-- it happens to be correct. Not only was it an upset in the beauty contest/horse race, it was an *artistic* upset as well.

Number of movies since influenced by Shakespeare in Love: ?

Number of movies since influenced by Saving Private Ryan: countless.

Now, I'm not one to argue that a film's merit is directly equal to its artistic influence, but in this case, even for it's (inarguable) flaws, SPR endures, while Shakespeare in Love is remembered as the last time anyone paid serious attention to Gwyneth Paltrow.

Jeff, was Crash over Brokeback Mountain really that huge of an upset? I don't remember being surprised by it at all.

White Academy guilt over racism trumps heterosexual Academy guilt over homophobia. Big shocker there. The Academy voted Crash and got to feel good about itself at cocktail parties.

It's like how reverse racism fuels Obama over Clinton-- rich white liberals can always be guilted into supporting black candidates purely because they're black much more easily than they can be guilted into supporting a female candidate. In any other year, perhaps HRC gets the guilt-boost, "I'm voting for the woman, look how progressive I am!" This year, versus Obama, dead in the water.

Poor Hillary, she chose the wrong year to play identity politics. Bummer.

Based on everyone I've talked to in the last few minutes, I think it's between Zodiac and The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford. At this point I'm Not There has virtually no chance, however.

Crash" beat "Brokeback" because of homophobia and and the people backing "Crash" got it down to a two picture race. The people writing these comments can't agree on "Juno" or "Michael Clayton" as the main contender, which means that "No Country for Old Men" is likely to win

f. bush, you're exactly right, which is why I don't watch anymore. The Academy has showed their true colors, they rally behind Clinton and Obama but they have more in common with the likes of Huckabee.

We'll probably look back on all this "Juno" speculation and laugh next week. Much like all the "Little Miss Sunshine" beating "The Departed" hype last year. At least I hope so.

In the broadest, most simplistic terms, "No Country" is this year's "Departed," "There Will Be Blood" is this year's "Babel," and "Juno" is this year's "LMS."

I'm betting the results will be similar.

Democratic nomination: White guilt trumps feminism.
Republican nomination: Guilt over putting Dad in the nursing home trumps guilt over your divorce, drinking too many Bud Lights every weekend, not going to church and not remembering what actually happened on that hunting trip when you woke up in your buddy's sleeping bag with a bleeding asshole.

For years, I used to keep up on my home office bulletin board a note I received from my entertainment editor at the Dallas Morning News. I had previously sent her a note, asking if she wanted me to write my interview with Hugh Hudson, director of Chariots of Fire, for the Sunday before the Oscarcast, just in case the movie beat out Reds and On Golden Pond for Best Picture. Her reply: "Don't bother. There's no way that will win Best Picture."

So, to repeat: I think Scott Feinberg might be on to something.

Scott: Just for the record, I was at "Juno's" first public screenings, and and they weren't in Toronto, but in Telluride.

Try thinking about Home Alone (or Hot Shots part deux), and then read the beginning of the second paragraph of Eberts Juno review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/REVIEWS/712130303/1001

I'm guessing he thought Little Miss Sunshine was going to win last year...

Seriously, I think it's understood that Juno being nominated is its prize. It's going to be No Country for two reasons:

1. Good film
2. Fargo didn't win best picture.

"And so what if Juno wins..."

Exactly. It means nothing.

Hitchcock never won an Oscar. Crash, a ridiculous movie, won an Oscar, and Citizen Kane didn't.

The Oscars provide a small box office boost for the winning picture, a handful of Jeopardy questions, and a chance for Joan Rivers to get some work.

Nothing more.

Nobody got the ending? What's there to get?

"Crash" beat "Brokeback" because of homophobia and the people backing "Crash" got it down to a two picture race.

Homophobia? Check out the IMDb ratings. IMDb users on the whole say "Crash" is the better picture. So do IMDb Top 1000 Voters. So does the IMDb staff. Are all those groups homophobic? Wouldn't anyone who preferred "Brokeback" automatically be racist, then?

I personally think "Saving Private Ryan" is a sensational film, and "Shakespeare in Love" is a fluffy sitcom. That doesn't mean that the Academy's "Shakespeare" voters are Nazi sympathizers.

"Wouldn't anyone who preferred 'Brokeback' automatically be racist, then?"

Absolutely not. They just wouldn't be a moron.

"Number of movies since influenced by Shakespeare in Love: ?

Number of movies since influenced by Saving Private Ryan: countless."

Is that how you judge what merits a Best Picture winner? I think there hasn't been sufficient time to tell which will have the greater influence. Certainly from a screenwriter's perspective, good lord willing they'll take their cue from the better script. First 45 minutes of Private Ryan? Absolutely. But so? There are plenty of films that have had a major impact on the future of cinema - that doesn't mean they should have or would have won Best Picture that year. Most of the time, the most influential film doesn't even get nominated. And that isn't how I judge Best Picture myself. I've been hearing the same crap for years about the supposed brilliance of Private Ryan and it's misplaced. I say this as a Spielberg fan and supporter but not apologist. It doesn't fly. Having seen Shakespeare in Love dozens of times, and slogged through Private Ryan a few times -- there is no comparison in terms of story and intelligence. The Spielberg movie has the tech stuff, no doubt. But give me a break - it is the lamest, stupidest last act ever, one of the worst screenplays ever written.

If you want to judge it on the first 40 minutes, wonderful, cause I have a list a mile long of films that were great for the first 40 minutes.

Why would the voters on IMDB be any less homophobic than the members of the Academy? I'd imagine they're even moreso.

As for the Saving Private Ryan/Shakespeare debate, amazing that it comes up every year. SPR had a crappy, chiched script. It was very well-done technically, and received the appropriate awards.

Shakespeare, on the other hand, had a script that worked on a highbrow and lowbrow level, avoiding insulting its audience while still managing to be intelligent. It had a great cast of new faces and some veteran ones, who all had their moments to shine. SPR's roster of new young faces (some of whom broke out, admittedly) doesn't really stack up.

So it shouldn't be a surprise that the film with the better lines and players proved victorious. And people also should feel like it's such a travesty, either. Pick on something truly shallow like Crash, or pseudo-profound like American Beauty if you must.

Best opening 40 mins ever belongs to Empire Strikes Back. Plus the movie just kicks ass.

Tapley is wrong - IWO JIMA was never in it (neither was LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE - people were far too swoony over that SAG ensemble win to think straight in the immediate post-CRASH era - or THE QUEEN.

Indeed, 2006 was a BABEL (Oscar-catnip "message" film) v. DEPARTED race all the way - which was just as clear then as it is now. OH, and I talked to voters too (yay "inside" info cred.) and there was no real question as there was, say, with CRASH v. BROKEBACK.

To be blunt, Tapley was just hoping to boost his own "Oscar pundit" cred with being the lone-wolf guy who picked the big upset in IWO JIMA - he notoriously craves this.

Back to IWO JIMA:
1)Subtitles don't win best picture - never have, never will. Strike one.
2)A film that was inching to expire just past $10 million at the domestic box will never beat one that passed $100 million. Strike two.
3) And Eastwood could more than afford to take an Academy breather, while the broadly popular DEPARTED was carried by Scorsese to the win (snipping that albatross off the golden guy's neck.) You're outta there....

Why would the voters on IMDB be any less homophobic than the members of the Academy? I'd imagine they're even moreso.

Ah, so even though most voters in a variety of groups prefer "Crash", that's only because they're all homophobic. And how do we know they're homophobic? Because they prefer "Crash". Welcome to Circular Logic 101.

It's not circular logic. Are the majority of the people in this country uncomfortable with homosexuality? Yes. If you narrow that group down to the people who are avid filmgoers and frequent IMDB, does that percentage change? Maybe. Does it change again with the members of the Academy? Sure, considering how many gay people have careers in the industry. But talking to people and working with people is not the same as having to watch the sexual act onscreen. If you don't think that could effect a significant number voters (we'll never know how close the decision was), you're crazy.

Preferring Crash doesn't make you a homophobe. But passing over Brokeback for a film that goes down easy because the former made you uncomfortable, means that some element of homophobia has played A PART in that result.

The first few minutes of Saving Private Ryan were lame - the framing device was a flop. And the landing action didn't last two reels.

The best first reel of a film: COBRA.

If you look at the Editing noms only NCFOM and TWBB are up for Best Picture. Juno will not win. Lame ending or not (and it is kind of lame unless you want to over analyze it) No Country For Old Men will win Best Picture. It's the Coen Bros. night.

Borgnine, along with pal Tony Curtis, led the
Motion Picture Academy's infamous attack on the Gay cowboy movie,
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN in 2006. Borgnine made disparaging comments on the
critically acclaimed film, saying it defamed the late legendary cowboy
icon John Wayne. He also refused even to see BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, he told
Entertainment Weekly magazine.

Such orchestrated attacks, said BBM's producer James Schamus, were
pivotal in its losing the Best Picture Oscar that year. Borgnine
is nominated for a cable TV movie called A GRANDPA FOR CHRISTMAS.
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN received four Golden Globe awards, including
Best Dramatic film. Borgnine will be 91 next month.

Still think no Homophobia was involved?

Lazarus, nothing you're saying is unreasonable, but it's still lacking any evidence. I could easily replace "uncomfortable with homosexuality" in your post with "preoccupied with race," and use it to attribute one of the awards "Brokeback" won over "Crash" to racism.

I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy. When I see a wide variety of groups who prefer movie A over movie B, I figure maybe it isn't due to some malicious bigotry on the part of all those voters. Maybe movie A just resonates with more people.

well, if the film's producer said it was robbed, then it must be true. thanks for closing the case there, Filmslob. who knew that ernie borgnine still swung that kind of weight in this industry?

Spoonbill clearly has no idea what he's talking about and was also clearly swayed by last minute publicity yakitty-yak on the part of Par Vantage.

Oh, and I wasn't alone on the pick, spooner. Just because people aren't on the record doesn't mean there aren't scattered thoughts in the wind. Robert Osborne sure as hell was convinced, however.

I crave a drastic drop in the stupidity of internet commenters, but it never happens. I don't, however, crave the gratification of something as insignificant as an Oscar guess. Nice try, oh anonymous one.

"The Spielberg movie has the tech stuff, no doubt. But give me a break - it is the lamest, stupidest last act ever, one of the worst screenplays ever written."

Sasha, are you for real? No, I'm serious. ARE YOU FOR REAL? Do you actually believe the shit you write? Your license to comment on film should be revoked just for that! Saving Private Ryan is one of Spielberg's best films and it was certainly robbed of Best Picture by Shakespeare in Love. One of the worst screenplays ever written? Do you realize how incredibly lame and stupid that sounds? I can name literally thousands of worse screenplays, probably tens of thousands. I'm sure you were exaggerating, or at the very least, just being overly hyperbolic. I wonder how hard Steven would laugh if he heard that. For my money, which is pretty worthless as of late, there are usually 3 movies a year that stand head and shoulders above the rest. I'm too lazy to back through the years but in order:
1998: American History X, A Simple Plan, Saving Private Ryan
1999: American Beauty, Being John Malkovich, Fight Club
2005: Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Munich
2007: Diving Bell, TWBB, Zodiac

Tom Hanks or Joe Fiennes? Steven Spielberg or John Madden? Tough call...

Sorry Tapley, but you're not squirming out of this one. (Though, like trying to be the one sharpie who sees the left-field pick no one else cottons onto, it's another fave pastime of yours).

"Just because people aren't on the record?" Yeah, convenient that - because then you can just cobble whatever flattering narrative you wish, eh? Scattered thoughts indeed.

No one at ParVan got to me or any such rot -- "Babel" was the prime also-ran that year if on thematic elements only. IWO JIMA was not in any sort of serious contention; it benefited from DREMAGIRLS' collapse, the Clint and the gravitas, not from any big mo' for the actual top Oscar.

Incidentally, I myself don't put much stock in the whole film editing nom=realistic best pic chances formula, so that wasn't why I knew IWO JIMA was out of it, as most other prognosticators were saying at the time. (I certainly was hearing over and over that the Little Miss Funshine had a stronger bid for the top trophy, directing and editing nom omissions notwithstanding, than the Eastwood pic, which pretty much says it all).

And no, there weren't really numerous folks who were pegging an IWO JIMA "upset" that year. Enough with the revisionist history - it was the least seen of the five pic nominees among the bulk of Acad voters - did your chats with the balloters ever reveal that pertinent tidbit? - and was an unembarrassing slot-filler at best. In fact, if there was a nominated film that had pretty much zippo stars aligned in its favor that year, it was the Eastwood. He already had spent his "actor-turned-auteur" queue-cutting privileges with Oscar by that point anyway, most recently at Scorsese's expense - yes, at times even the Acad knows when to say "when."

And don't hide those narcissistic "I was right; nah-nah-nah" cravings of yours, Kris - let's be honest, would you have gotten so far without them, oh humble one?

Anyone who thinks that IMDB voters might not be homophobic clearly hasn't spent much time reading the user comments there. That place makes AICN talkbacks look like a bastion of intelligence and maturity.

Oh, and No Country is winning. Case closed. Every year when there's a boringly obvious frontrunner (and I'm referring to the race itself, not the movie), the media/bloggers try to stir up some news and excitement by doing this same routine. I'm sure if bloggers had been around in the year of Schindler's List, they would have been knowingly proclaiming that according to the insiders they had spoken to, Four Weddings and a Funeral was going to score an upset because it was the fun, lighthearted alternative.

I hate backlashers even more than hardcore film geeks who masturbate to the lord of the rings trilogy...

Crash - decent film, won best picture in a very weak year for movies, but that's not it's fault. I understand why some people hate it, but it's not awful.

Saving Private Ryan - great film, get over yourselves. The screenplay gets the job done and the direction is superb. Should have won best picture.

American Beauty - great film, especially in the context of the late 90s, gets overly bashed just because it won best picture. Whenever someone writes this film off completely, I can safely write their opinions off as a stick-up-the-ass cinephile snob.

And of course Titanic backlashers are the worst of the worst (not saying it should have won best picture, however).

Spoonbill, Robert Osbourne, the official Academy historian, was also predicting "Iwo Jima" to win. You don't get more credible than Osbourne. Sounds like you're the one with the agenda here. And I would be willing to bet that Tapley has more industry contacts than you do, so I'm going to put much more stock in what he has to say.

The only films I truly love that won the Oscar:
Rebecca
Casablanca
The Bridge on the River Kwai
Lawrence of Arabia
Tom Jones
The French Connection
The Godfather
The Godfather, Part II
Annie Hall
Out of Africa
Shakespeare in Love

Everything else is OK to awful. The Departed deserved to beat the other nominees last year but is inferior to Pan's Labyrinth, Good Shepherd, and Volver. Look at all the titles nominated last year and consider how few will last. This year is much better, but No Country or Blood doesn't win, it'll be business as usual.

VOLVER was a two-hour Mentos commercial. Absolute torture.

That's a losing bet Mr. Lucas. No agenda here, except calling them out in others when the whim strikes me.

And columnist/Oscar historian/TCM host Robert Osborne (note spelling please) had tapped BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN as the 2005 winner before locking onto IWO JIMA a year later. And your point is?

Now perhaps if he had joined Ebert's compatriots in the CRASH crowd, an individual may (may!) have an argument as to why what the guy (nice as he likely is) who is author of the Oscar's coffee-table-book histories has some great cachet or inside track as a prognosticator.

But he didn't, so frankly I don't get it. And, further, I don't think there's anything *to* get.

IWO JIMA at nom time was a solid, 11th-hour fifth-place picture that benefited from DREAMGIRLS not being a lot of voters' cup of tea after months of being told that it was. While many more voters caught up with DREAMGIRLS than IWO JIMA prior to nom voting deadline (note the eight nominations), a solid block of the IWO viewing voters went for it in the top category while most of those who caught DREAMGIRLS didn't.

And in the voting period for the final awards, IWO earned more respect than love (evinced by its tepid post-noms box-office returns that pretty much conveyed a "Wait for Netflix" attitude regarding the Eastwood.) It likely according to my polling of folks finished 4th - above THE QUEEN (which should have been more accurately titled HELEN MIRREN'S OSCAR ROLE, considering how much she overshadowed it - Daniel Day-Lewis in THERE WILL BE BLOOD comes close to that level, I'll admit) but behind the rest of the pack.