|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 28, 2019 23:25:33 GMT
Hear me out. I'm not here to argue whether or not Anthony McCarten is a total hack of a screenwriter (he is), because that's beside the point. The fact of the matter is, the dude's superficial biopic scripts are magic charms for actors looking to win an Oscar for Best Lead Actor: Redmayne, Oldman, and now Malek is poised to follow in their footsteps despite the controversy of his film and not being predicted before the industry awards began. There's a clear pattern at play. If Malek wins, that'll make it the third consecutive McCarten-penned lead role to win an Oscar. So it's worth investigating what he has in store next, and there's currently one film of his that IMDb denotes as being in post-production: The Pope, which apparently explores the relationship between Pope Francis and Pope Benedict during the transition of power between them. Jonathan Pryce is slated to play the former role, and Anthony Hopkins the latter. Of course either role could generate awards buzz, but Pryce seems far more likely, Hopkins being a past winner, and it seems like the Francis role is the lead (there's an actor cast to play the young version of him, plus they must've tapped a Latin American filmmaker to helm this for a reason) while Benedict is supporting. While the role isn't of a 20th century British icon as the prior three performances at hand, it's still a biopic of an eminent, generally well-liked figure known around the world. Certainly seems like something that could strike the Academy's fancy, especially in this particular category (only two winners this decade -- Dujardin and Affleck -- played fictional characters, just this year only one of the five nominees played a fictional character, etc.). Of course, it's much more rare to win an Oscar for portraying a real-life person who's still alive than one who's dead, but it's not something that doesn't happen, either. And of course that brings us to the man himself, Jonathan Pryce, who isn't terribly well-known to American audiences (though roles in a couple franchises and recently in Game of Thrones are sure to help with that), but nonetheless would likely be seen as overdue by certain crowds; if not for a win, then certainly for a nomination. He's certainly an actor who can turn in an awards-worthy performance, and if McCarten's past ventures are any indication, Pope Francis will be one hell of a showy role for him. I could totally see him finally getting some recognition for it. Additionally, the film is directed by Fernando Meirelles, a well-established filmmaker who's already directed an Oscar-winning performance. Of course, no release date is confirmed for this yet. However, as mentioned, IMDb does list it as in post-production (since September, apparently), which makes me think we must be due to hear more about it pretty soon. Plus, according to his Wikipedia page, McCarten either has released or is due to release a companion novel this year, as he did with Darkest Hour in 2017. So, something's telling me that this might just be ready for Cannes or the fall festival circuit, with a possible U.S. theatrical release at the end of the year. Now, I'm obviously not trying to imply this is a done deal already. Far from it. I think it's absolutely absurd to be making legitimate Oscar predictions any earlier than the fall festival circuit. But, it's an intriguing role, and I just thought I'd take the liberty to be the first (I think?) to throw his name into consideration. And, if this isn't it, according to Wikipedia, McCarten also has a John Lennon/Yoko Ono project "in development," which ... uh ... yeah
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 28, 2019 23:30:09 GMT
Anthony McCarten is the screenwriting equivalent of a monkey's paw. Yes, you get what you wish for in an Oscar-winning role for great actors like Jonathan Pryce and Gary Oldman . . . but they are godawful, facile-as-fuck screenplays.
So yeah, Pryce is probably winning Best Actor and Hopkins Supporting Actor based on this.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Jan 28, 2019 23:48:14 GMT
I've always liked Pryce, so I'd be game for him finally winning. I consider him over three decades overdue for a nod, because this happened in 1983:
Mind you, Robards is even better in that movie, but he won't be winning any more Oscars.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jan 28, 2019 23:58:23 GMT
Probably. I ain't gonna risk betting against an Anthony McCarten movie in the Best Actor category. The AMcCCU (Anthony McCarten Cinematic Universe) is gonna grow.
|
|
speeders
Based
Posts: 4,093
Likes: 2,212
|
Post by speeders on Jan 29, 2019 0:14:17 GMT
I absolutely think so. He seems locked for a nom at the very least. It's baity, the director did the Oscar darling The Constant Gardener etc.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jan 29, 2019 0:17:53 GMT
Of course, no release date is confirmed for this yet. However, as mentioned, IMDb does list it as in post-production (since September, apparently), which makes me think we must be due to hear more about it pretty soon. Plus, according to his Wikipedia page, McCarten either has released or is due to release a companion novel this year, as he did with Darkest Hour in 2017. So, something's telling me that this might just be ready for Cannes or the fall festival circuit, with a possible U.S. theatrical release at the end of the year. Now, I'm obviously not trying to imply this is a done deal already. Far from it. I think it's absolutely absurd to be making legitimate Oscar predictions any earlier than the fall festival circuit. But, it's an intriguing role, and I just thought I'd take the liberty to be the first (I think?) to throw his name into consideration. And, if this isn't it, according to Wikipedia, McCarten also has a John Lennon/Yoko Ono project "in development," which ... uh ... yeah Yeah sight unseen Pryce is my pick to win Best Actor. The formula has worked so far that I don't know why it would suddenly change. Pros: Well known public figure, and while the Catholic Church has come under a lot of criticism, I think generally Pope Frances still has good will even though it's not as much as during his first few years of being Pope. While Pryce might not be as well known as Oldman and considered overdue as he was by the general public, I think people know who he is even if they don't know his name. Plus, there could be a moment if his The Wife co-star wins Best Actress this year, and presents Best Actor to him the next year. Cons: I haven't even really paid much attention to what else could be in the mix yet for next year's award season. I know that there's The Irishman and Once Upon a Time, and one of those well known and well respected and beloved actors from either of those films could certainly win their first or win again in this category, so Pryce might be facing a higher level of competition. Redmayne was facing an actor who had never been nominated before and had a really up and down career, and may have lost votes because voters thought he was just playing himself. Oldman was nominated with two first time nominees, one of whom was extremely young for the Best Actor category, DD-L who had already won 3 Best Actor awards, and Washington who was in a film that got poor reviews and was the only nominee for his film. Malek, assuming he wins, was fortunate that Bale had already won, that Vice's overall reviews weren't that much better than the ones for his film, and that Bale was playing such a loathsome person. Plus, Cooper focused too much on getting a Best Director nomination, and Mortensen kept shooting himself in the foot promoting his film. Also I see it's Netflix, so I'm sure that anything will be secondary to promoting The Irishman. Not that they can't do both, but that could possibly hurt Pryce if he's not their main push. I would guess that maybe they should release it on the fall festival circuit instead of Cannes because I think that the former is likely to be easier on it than Cannes might be. I'm not sure about Venice, but TIFF and Telluride seem like they would be the type of festivals that might go nuts over it and really hype up Pryce's performance.
|
|
|
Post by wilcinema on Jan 29, 2019 8:19:49 GMT
I was talking about this on another blog. This McCarten dude is a magnet for Best Actor winners, so yes, congratulations Academy Award winner Jonathan Pryce!
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 29, 2019 9:03:32 GMT
Theory of Everything and Darkest Hour weren't that bad...
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 29, 2019 13:06:42 GMT
Well, every year is shaped by a few films and from year to year there's a reaction against or an alternative to what came prior - like a few months ago people were saying things that were wrong (and if I was one of them I wouldn't be bringing them up now because I live in denial ok?) - ie Bale will never win for playing a monster like Cheyney, but when you eventually see the nominees around him you think - wait, why can't he win again now?
This year his run, even if it falls short of a win is a flipside to Oldman and other recent biopics - the level of commitment physically, in his 40s (!) ups the ante particularly in light of the year before.
Look, I love Oldman, I thought he was great actually (2nd of nominees), but, Bale this year makes his performance just on a technical level seem utterly phony - I know, you love Oldman too, cool, we can love him and just state this as a fact - no one except him gets the win for a fat suit in the post DeNiro era of acting - that is why DeNiro specifically is important to acting and why Bale is DeNiro's undisputed heir in that regard - you may think "who cares?" but some do, it's an actual thing.
So, that being said I don't know what the trend will be next year, what will be the new Freddie Mercury that defeats or provides a flipside to the next Bale - ie a biopic that rewrites the storyline for BA or better yet is even not.........a biopic. I'm going to suggest though that we might be looking at someone younger, less established (than Pryce) and less white next year.
Ali is going to be a 2 time winner (just like Denzel!) soon, and 2019 is going to have its fair share of older white dudes everywhere - heck THE most anticipated films are QT and Scorsese are all white dude sausage fests.
With Roma historically breaking all the rules this year, BA is a category that could have some rule breaking of its own next - enough with the saintly male biopics.
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Jan 29, 2019 13:28:23 GMT
Pryce who?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2019 14:13:35 GMT
I'm sure that Glenn Close's campaign this year will only help him - she has been mentioning him everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Jan 29, 2019 15:37:17 GMT
He's a great underrated veteran actor so I hope this pans out for him.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 29, 2019 15:46:37 GMT
Theory of Everything and Darkest Hour weren't that bad...
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 29, 2019 15:48:55 GMT
I wouldn't be too sure, guys...
He couldn't even get a nod in Guest Actor for Game of Thrones where he had a rather meaty role and nailed it. AND that was in one of the most popular shows not only in viewership, but also in terms of the Emmys.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 29, 2019 15:52:53 GMT
I wouldn't be too sure, guys... He couldn't even get a nod in Guest Actor for Game of Thrones where he had a rather meaty role and nailed it. AND that was in one of the most popular shows not only in viewership, but also in terms of the Emmys. Playing a role that was pretty much Pope Francis-esque on the surface.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 29, 2019 15:54:39 GMT
Well, every year is shaped by a few films and from year to year there's a reaction against or an alternative to what came prior - like a few months ago people were saying things that were wrong (and if I was one of them I wouldn't be bringing them up now because I live in denial ok?) - ie Bale will never win for playing a monster like Cheyney, but when you eventually see the nominees around him you think - wait, why can't he win again now? This year his run, even if it falls short of a win is a flipside to Oldman and other recent biopics - the level of commitment physically, in his 40s (!) ups the ante particularly in light of the year before. Look, I love Oldman, I thought he was great actually (2nd of nominees), but, Bale this year makes his performance just on a technical level seem utterly phony - I know, you love Oldman too, cool, we can love him and just state this as a fact - no one except him gets the win for a fat suit in the post DeNiro era of acting - that is why DeNiro specifically is important to acting and why Bale is DeNiro's undisputed heir in that regard - you may think "who cares?" but some do, it's an actual thing. So, that being said I don't know what the trend will be next year, what will be the new Freddie Mercury that defeats or provides a flipside to the next Bale - ie a biopic that rewrites the storyline for BA or better yet is even not.........a biopic. I'm going to suggest though that we might be looking at someone younger, less established (than Pryce) and less white next year. Ali is going to be a 2 time winner (just like Denzel!) soon, and 2019 is going to have its fair share of older white dudes everywhere - heck THE most anticipated films are QT and Scorsese are all white dude sausage fests. With Roma historically breaking all the rules this year, BA is a category that could have some rule breaking of its own next - enough with the saintly male biopics. Thank you for the thoughtful response as always ... I agree with everything you say here, and it's one of many reasons why Pryce or anyone else for that matter is far, far from a done deal at this point, especially as we know maybe 2% tops of what next year's awards narrative will be. The fact that The Irishman and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood are, as you say, "white dude sausage fests" are more or less the exact reason why I have reservations about the two films (neither sounds like they could offer up anything new, other than Irishman's VFX experimentation which could very well be a disaster), and why I can't imagine much awards success for either one. Scorsese and Tarantino both feel like filmmakers who are going to fall out of vogue with the seemingly "progressing" Academy -- I mean just look at the discrepancy between the awards success of Django Unchained and The Wolf of Wall Street to The Hateful Eight and Silence just a few years later -- obviously tons of other facts at play, but it's still telling. Pryce as an actor and this role would definitely fall into that same "older white male" category that, if more "rule-breaking" were to occur, would be less enthusiastically recognized. But even so, this current awards season is such a contradiction because while something like Roma is breaking new ground and seems posed to achieve something unprecedented, we also see major recognition for films that just seem to be taking the Academy back in time ten to twenty years in terms of their "progressiveness." So it's hard to say how next year's narrative will shape out, what kind of backlash may or may not be incurred based on who gets recognized now, or if everyone turns a blind eye and they just keep on upholding the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Jan 29, 2019 16:06:12 GMT
I wouldn't be too sure, guys... He couldn't even get a nod in Guest Actor for Game of Thrones where he had a rather meaty role and nailed it. AND that was in one of the most popular shows not only in viewership, but also in terms of the Emmys. Yes, but that's the Emmys, who recognize the same damn actors year after year. The cast of Game of Thrones is a textbook example -- don't even get me started on Dinklage's continuous recognition despite the fact that he hasn't been a standout since the first four seasons, the fact that the likes of Clarke and Headey are guaranteed nominees every year regardless of what they do, and the consistent neglect of the actors who actually had the standout arc for the corresponding season (Allen in season 2, NCW in season 3, Dillane in 5, etc.). With guest performances it's no different -- a nomination for Diana Rigg every year, and that's it, other than the random Max von Sydow nomination which, well, certainly supports the argument you're making (he got in on reputation alone, yet Pryce couldn't get in on reputation and a great performance). But also, wouldn't Pryce have been eligible for supporting actor rather than guest? With the new rules you can only be in like two to three episodes per season to still be considered a "guest" role. I'm not 100% sure on that one, though.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 29, 2019 16:08:24 GMT
I wouldn't be too sure, guys... He couldn't even get a nod in Guest Actor for Game of Thrones where he had a rather meaty role and nailed it. AND that was in one of the most popular shows not only in viewership, but also in terms of the Emmys. Yes, but that's the Emmys, who recognize the same damn actors year after year. The cast of Game of Thrones is a textbook example -- don't even get me started on Dinklage's continuous recognition despite the fact that he hasn't been a standout since the first four seasons, the fact that the likes of Clarke and Headey are guaranteed nominees every year regardless of what they do, and the consistent neglect of the actors who actually had the standout arc for the corresponding season (Allen in season 2, NCW in season 3, Dillane in 5, etc.). With guest performances it's no different -- a nomination for Diana Rigg every year, and that's it, other than the random Max von Sydow nomination which, well, certainly supports the argument you're making (he got in on reputation alone, yet Pryce couldn't get in on reputation and a great performance). But also, wouldn't Pryce have been eligible for supporting actor rather than guest? With the new rules you can only be in like two to three episodes per season to still be considered a "guest" role. I'm not 100% sure on that one, though. Well, if that's true then my whole argument is pretty much doodie.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jan 29, 2019 16:14:13 GMT
Yes, but that's the Emmys, who recognize the same damn actors year after year. The cast of Game of Thrones is a textbook example -- don't even get me started on Dinklage's continuous recognition despite the fact that he hasn't been a standout since the first four seasons, the fact that the likes of Clarke and Headey are guaranteed nominees every year regardless of what they do, and the consistent neglect of the actors who actually had the standout arc for the corresponding season (Allen in season 2, NCW in season 3, Dillane in 5, etc.). With guest performances it's no different -- a nomination for Diana Rigg every year, and that's it, other than the random Max von Sydow nomination which, well, certainly supports the argument you're making (he got in on reputation alone, yet Pryce couldn't get in on reputation and a great performance). But also, wouldn't Pryce have been eligible for supporting actor rather than guest? With the new rules you can only be in like two to three episodes per season to still be considered a "guest" role. I'm not 100% sure on that one, though. Well, if that's true then my whole argument is pretty much doodie. Yeah, same thing happened with Zahn McClarnon for Westworld S2.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 29, 2019 16:16:30 GMT
Well, if that's true then my whole argument is pretty much doodie. Yeah, same thing happened with Zahn McClarnon for Westworld S2. Don't I just feel out of the loop.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jan 29, 2019 16:28:43 GMT
I love JP, I think he is a tremendous veteran actor who should have been recognized by the Academy. I can definitely see a nom but a win for Pryce is quite unlikely.
The point here is the "older white male". The "older male", really. I believe the Academy tends to recognize the older actors mainly when they play supporting roles but not when they are the leads. Actors in their 70s or 80s maybe, have won for smaller parts. But giving the BA Oscar to an older male, I think it's something really, really rare.
By the way, this movie is in post production for quite some time now and was scheduled for a release in late 2018. I was so hyped to watch this, I love both JP and AH.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Jan 29, 2019 18:53:24 GMT
I wouldn't bet against it. Isn't this Netflix ?
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jan 29, 2019 19:40:47 GMT
Don't think so....
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 30, 2019 21:59:54 GMT
I mean at this point it’s a good theory for a pure speculation guess. But probably not.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 30, 2019 22:06:32 GMT
obviously too soon to tell but I sure as hell wouldn't bet against him. McCarten's midas touch in the category is undeniable and Pryce is a respected veteran with a long career behind him. Surely a nomination at least is in the works but knowing how the Academy loves to honor newcomers (and here's one who's massively respected and who's thus far slipped through their fingers), he definitely looks good on paper.
|
|