So to everyone who complained and yammered that this year's Oscars were too predictable: are you happy now? The PGA and SAG have doled out their annual kudos and things did not go as planned. "Birdman" has emerged as a likely upset to Richard Linklater's 12 year spanning "Boyhood". I personally had "Birdman" in second place for quite sometime, but other pundits and bloggers seemed less convinced. "Boyhood" was always a bit of an underdog (low budget, won't appeal to the below the line branches, etc) and has had a target on its back for a while. Inarritu's stunning display of filmmaking is almost the polar opposite film, and the clear alternative for those not interested in the front-runner. In fact, it just became the front-runner.
If you weren't paying attention, the guild winners were the following:
PGA
Best Picture: "Birdman"
SAG
Best Ensemble: "Birdman"
Best Actor: Eddie Redmayne, "The Theory of Everything"
Best Actress: Julianne Moore, "Still Alice"
Best Supporting Actor: J.K. Simmons, "Whiplash"
Best Supporting Actress: Patricia Arquette, "Boyhood"
While the SAG ensemble win was expected, the citation from the Producers guild is huge. "Boyhood" was the expected winner, but it isn't the typical type of movie that appeals to producers. Had they not gone with it, I expected them to opt for one of the well received blockbusters ("American Sniper" or "Gone Girl"), or the polished bio-pic ("The Imitation Game"). The producers guild also utilizes the same preferential balloting system that the Academy uses. Not to mention many members of this guild are also Academy members.
In the blink of an eye, "Birdman" just became the new leader of the pack. Can it actually win the Oscar? A great deal of fuss has been made over its lack of an editing nomination. And awards geeks will be quick to tell you that a film has not won Best Picture at the Oscars without an editing nomination since "Ordinary People", over three decades ago in 1980. But since the Oscars moved to the "anywhere-from-5-to-10-nominees" era, rules have been consistently broken, and the old stats add up to nothing. "Birdman" has support in the important directing, acting, and writing branches; as well as cinematography and sound. Can it win? Absolutely.
It can win because of the actors. The Actor's branch is the largest branch of the Academy with over one thousand members. "Birdman" speaks directly to them. The narrative of a performer trying to stay relevant with meaningful work, and find his place in a world overrun with loud superhero movies, is likely to resonate with the voting body. Consider past winners like "Shakespeare in Love", "The Artist", "Chicago", and "Argo". They are all about performers triumphing.
"Boyhood" isn't down for the count, but the race just got a whole lot tougher for the little movie that could. I have heard many complain that if you remove the "gimmick" of filming for 12 years, then you are left with nothing. To which I say: you are fools. The so called "gimmick" of telling a story over time is the entire point, and aides the films reflective, introspective effect. One could also say the "continuous shot" effect in "Birdman" is a gimmick. Without it, the movie would read as a stage play captured on film. Speaking in such terms devalues the accomplishments of each film, and I'm growing tired of hearing it on every website that mentions the Oscar race. Since when is using a narrative device a "gimmick"?
All awards season grievances aside, we may have to look to the DGA as the final glimmer in our crystal balls. The ACE Eddie awards will be handed out on Sunday. However, they split the best editing award into two categories for drama and comedy. Both "Birdman" and "Boyhood" are likely to be the winners in their respective categories, so that won't clear anything up. Though should one of them lose (to say "Grand Budapest" or "Whiplash"), that would be a major red flag. The director's could be a big piece of the puzzle this year.
Over in the acting categories, SAG has proved there is only one category with any competition. Eddie Redmayne's win there is a big deal for him. It is entirely likely he can take the BAFTA as well and turn the conversation away from Michael Keaton. I would argue Keaton has the standout behind the scenes narrative this year, which is often more important that the onscreen narrative when it comes to winning awards. Just ask last year's champ Matthew McConaughey. I think this will be a nail biter until the envelope is opened. But I'm glad for the suspense. I mean, Best Actress might as well be called "Julianne Moore and the Four Women Who Will Lose to Her".
Our quiet little awards race just got a big shakeup. And there's still room for more maneuvering. Can you imagine if the DGA gave their best director prize to Wes Anderson?
