“Tell me you haven’t predicted Best Picture status for The Battle of the Sexes,” I texted a friend this morning. “Or called it the leading Best Picture contender out of Telluride. 

“It’s an acceptable, good-enough film with five or six good scenes. But it’s no more than that, or certainly not in the view of the Telluride chattering class. It’s fine as far as it goes and sufficient for what it tries to do, but nobody I spoke to last weekend was over the moon about it, and a few were underwhelmed.”

The person I texted replied that she hadn’t called The Battle of the Sexes the leading Best Picture candidate out of Telluride, and only that it could (as opposed to would or should) win the Best Picture Oscar. 

Trust me, that’s a very flimsy possibility.

In the HE realm the definite contenders right now are Dunkirk, Lady Bird, Call Me By Your Name, probably The Post and possibly Darkest Hour. 

As acceptable and moderately satisfying as The Battle of the Sexes is, it doesn’t begin to possess those X-factor attributes that often or usually propel a film into Best Picture contention.

And you can probably forget The Shape of Water also. I’m starting to think that the raves out of Venice are going to gradually subside and that more level-headed voices (i.e., fewer fanboys) will start to dominate the conversation. The great Sally Hawkins will almost certainly land a Best Actress nomination, but the film…well, we’ll see.

Other Best Picture potentials: Mudbound, Phantom Thread, Roman Israel, Esq., The Big Sick. Not happening: Downsizing, Wonder Woman, Wonderstruck, Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Why isn’t there a film as good as Moneyball opening this fall? Some kind of adult, male-centric, amply-funded middle-class movie that really rings the bell, I mean. A film as superbly written, I mean, and directed (by the great Bennett Miller) and scored with such delicacy and finesse (by Mychael Danna). And cut with such confidence and with just the right portions of smarts, charisma, undercurrents and misty-eyed emotion.

Posted on 9.7.11, “Moneyball is mystical, statistical, spooky, emotional and wonderfully original. And wonderfully ‘pure’ in a sense. The complexity mixed with the spirituality and the political reality of things…just brilliant.”

Moneyball opened close to a decade go, and that seems like a century ago in terms of what’s getting made these days and where the Hollywood culture is at and who’s investing in what. I’m very, very afraid that American megaplex flicks like Moneyball (i.e., ones that might turn out just as well) are never even getting their chance at bat.

From Scott Feinberg’s 9.5 assessment piece, “Lady Bird Could Be a Rare Female-Centered Oscar Contender”:

“Lady Bird seems to go over best with women, but the Academy’s demographics, despite recent efforts to increase diversity, still do not favor female-centric movies. Still, one or two such films manage a Best Picture Oscar nomination each year, and Lady Bird could well be one of them this year, especially with Rudin behind its sails. 

“Even more likely, though, are noms for Saoirse Ronan as Best Actress, Laurie Metcalf as Best Supporting Actress and Greta Gerwig for Best Original Screenplay, and perhaps Tracy Letts as Best Supporting Actor as well.”

HE to Feinberg: (1) If Lady Bird goes over “best with women”, how do you account for Sasha Stone‘s measured, less-than-wholehearted approval (she wrote this morning that Lady Bird is “still in pretty good standing for a [Best Picture] nod, at least right now”) and guys like me doing somersaults?;  

(2) Ladybird isn’t going to “manage” a Best Picture nomination — it is a Best Picture nominee waiting to happen. At least that. The only thing to worry about are people complaining about Ronan’s character being “somewhat unlikable.”; 

(3) You’re not forecasting a Best Director nomination for Gerwig? It’s her movie, her life, her soul, her casting, her dialogue, her style and editing choices…everything. How could her direction not be nominated alongside Ronan and Metcalf’s performances?