SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Is Juno Going To Win Best Picture?

THE PLANK JANUARY 22, 2008

Is Juno Going To Win Best Picture?

BY ISAAC CHOTINER

Oscar nominations were announced this morning, and while there may be critical consensus that No Country For Old Men and There Will be Blood are the two best of the five best picture nominees, many people (including Chris) have assumed that Atonement was likely to win the big prize. This seemed right to me, but now we learn that the film was not nominated for best director--always a bad sign (perhaps a film buff can tell us in the Comments section whether a movie whose director has not been nominated has ever won best picture). Anyway, No Country and Blood still seem like longshots given the types of films that they are, and it's hard to see the underrated Michael Clayton winning. This of course leaves Juno, which has met almost universal acclaim and huge box office grosses (something that the academy usually appreciates).

A Juno win is certainly a depressing prospect (Best Picture of the Year??), but there were other bright spots on the list of nominees, including Michael Clayton's good showing and Tommy Lee Jones' nomination for In the Valley of Elah, a mediocre film which nonetheless featured a great performance from the actor (much better, in fact, than his work in No Country).

--Isaac Chotiner

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 10 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

10 comments

It would be depressing if "Juno" won, mainly because, while a wonderful little gem, it didn't do the same kinds of things with cinema (to use the pretentious term) that "No Country" and "There Will Be Blood" did.  And I loved "Michael Clayton," so I'd love to see it win.

For my part, I'm just glad that the laughably overrated "Into the Wild" scored only one major nomination, and that for the best thing about it (Hal Holbrook's heartbreaking supporting role).  I can watch easy (assuming they have the award ceremony) without having to fear seeing Sean Penn accepting a directing trophy, or Emile HIrsch accepting the acting win.  (I still wonder how he kept his teeth so blindingly white whilst starving in the Alaskan wilds.)

- drdannyu

January 22, 2008 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wish the Oscars had an award for best comedy, in which case Juno can win that. I really enjoyed the movie (except the cheesy music) but recognize it is not Best Picture category. Anyway, it looks like this year they will have an award show in which case the real drama will be who shows up.

- blackton

January 22, 2008 at 10:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Juno" sort of fills the same role that "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" and "Little Miss Sunshine" did a few years back.  As a friend of mine put it, both are Cute Little Films that critical buzz plus enough (totally unexpected) B.O. to make them credible to the Academy handed them Oscar noms that they really didn't warrant, at least not in an absolute sense of what they contributed to the medium.

This may be in part because the Academy is self-conscious about its reputation for considering nothing but dreary, character-centered dramas for the big prize and ignoring comedy, sometimes unfairly.  So they overcompensate and throw a bone to a Cute Little Film where they think they can get away with it.

My money's still on "Atonement", because "No Country" and "Blood" will no doubt split the Murder in the West vote and "Juno" has already earned all the honor the Academy is likely to consider it worthy of with the nomination.  "Michael Clayton" could be a wild card.  But "Atonement" is just the kind of film the Academy regards as a safe choice: a dreary, character-centered drama. :)

So I'd figure it to win a slim plurality of votes for BP despite the absence of a BD nomination.

- austinexpat

January 22, 2008 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Among the people with whom I've discussed it, "Juno" seems to be the movie beloved by people who don't see many movies.  I'm concerned that it could take the prize, if "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" split the vote of the people who know what they're talking about.

- ejbenjamin

January 22, 2008 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, if "Juno" wins, at least I will have the consolation of seeing the award go to a film that's actually good.  I'm still reeling from the triumph of "Crash," which was not only the worst of the nominated films that year, but a genuinely bad movie to begin with.

- drdannyu

January 22, 2008 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Off topic:

I have been trying to post at the "The Complicated, Ugly Truth Behind 'Suite Francaise'

by Ruth Franklin" thread without success and I wonder if other posters have had the same experience?

- jacksondyer

January 22, 2008 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Juno is a great film, but I was disappointed that "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" didn't get any nominations. At the very least the acting in the film was first rate.

- jacksondyer

January 22, 2008 at 10:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While I have my own favorite for this year (No Country For Old Men), I certainly would not be annoyed with Juno or There Will Be Blood winning. Juno may not be the best film, but it is one I honestly enjoyed a great deal and would not mind see getting the award.

I would rather NOT have Atonement win, but that is because I find the entire premise and tone of the film to be dreadfully boring. I have not see Micheal Clayton, so I can't comment on it. I am going to try to get to it before the Academy Awards though. Is it out on DVD yet?

- doubtofbuddha

January 22, 2008 at 11:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Driving Miss Daisy" wasn't nominated for Best Director, but it won Best Picture. Oliver Stone won that year for "Born on the Fourth of July."

"Gladiator," "Shakespeare in Love," "Chicago," and "Crash" all won Best Picture but didn't win Best Director. But in all of those cases, the directors were still nominated.

I think 1989 was an exceptional year--two films dealing with untouchable subjects, one in a family-friendly way and one in a scorched-earth type of way--that it really is an outlier.

I think "No Country" is my pick for Best Picture. The Academy is big on dues-paying, and it's especially big on reconciling for past mistakes. (Think Martin Scorcese.) A lot of people feel that the Coen brothers are owed the big award. People still talk about "Fargo" and it is recognized as one of the 90's best films--when was the last time you ever heard anyone bring up "The English Patient?"

As for the subject matter, I compare it to "Silence of the Lambs," another genre flick which you wouldn't think of as a Best Picture front-runner, but ended up winningbig.

- alexmparker

January 22, 2008 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And looking at the nominations list, I learned that producer Scott Rudin would finally win an Oscar if "No Country" wins. Add one more "dues-paying" argument.

- alexmparker

January 22, 2008 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close