Previously I have written scripts for political pieces and comedy pieces. In this entry, I will combine the two in a satirical sketch like what Saturday Night Live does to open their show. So as you read the following feel free to imagine you favorite "Not Ready for Primetime Players" performing the scene (f'rinstance I've always been partial to Amy Poehler's version of Hillary Clinton).
_________________________________________
O'Malley Press Conference
INTERIOR, DAY: THE EVENT ROOM OF A BALTIMORE AREA HOTEL
(A podium sits center stage facing the audience. Chairs are arranged on either side. Several REPORTERS are seated, but there are clearly more seats than seated. A banner reading "O'Malley" hangs behind the podium. GOVERNOR O'MALLEY ENTERS)
O'MALLEY: Thank you all for coming out. I imagine most of you came because we promised free beer and pizza, but before we get to that I would like to make an announcement. (reading) "When we began this campaign together, I hoped that we could unite America in a common . . ."
REPORTER 1: (Interrupting) Excuse me, but who are you?
O'MALLEY: I'm Martin O'Malley. What did you think the banner was for?
REPORTER 1: I just thought "O'Malley's" was the bar that supplied the beer.
O'MALLEY: If I could finish my announcement please. "When we began this campaign together, I hoped . . ."
REPORTER 2: (Interrupting) Sorry, but campaign for what?
O'MALLEY: President. I have been running for President for about the last three months.
REPORTER 3: President of the United States?
O'MALLEY: Yes. Though, I'm not surprised you didn't know that. No reporters came to my campaign launch. That's why I promised the free pizza and beer this time.
REPORTER 4: Are you a Republican?
O'MALLEY: No.
REPORTER 4: Are you Elizabeth Warren?
O'MALLEY: What? No, I'm Martin O'Malley. I'm a Democrat, and I was Governor of Maryland for eight years.
REPORTER 2: Why are you running against Hillary Clinton?
O'MALLEY: To be perfectly honest, when I started my campaign I didn't think she was going to run.
(ALL REPORTERS laugh)
O'MALLEY: She had so many problems already, and then the e-mail scandal started. Did anyone believe that she was so power-hungry and egomaniacal that she would still run for president with all that baggage tied to her?
(ALL REPORTERS look to each other and nodding and saying things to indicate they readily believed that.)
O'MALLEY: Ever since she joined the race, it's been pretty clear I don't have a chance. No one will donate money to my campaign. No one shows up to my events. Be honest with me, how many of you are only here for the free pizza and beer, raise your hand?
(ALL REPORTERS raise their hands)
O'MALLEY: So we've reached the point where continuing this campaign would not make any sense either for myself or . . .
REPORTER 4: Are you Bernie Sanders?
O'MALLEY: No! Obviously, I have no hope to become the President of the United States, so I called this press conference to announce that I'm ending my campaign, and endorsing Hillary Clinton.
REPORTER 1: Sir, I don't mean any disrespect, but do you think anyone cares if Hillary Clinton has your endorsement?
(HILLARY CLINTON ENTERS)
CLINTON: I think I can answer that question.
REPORTER 2: Secretary Clinton! What are you doing here?
CLINTON: I'm like Beetlejuice. If you say my name three times, I'm there. (Steps behind podium, brushing O'MALLEY aside) Thank you, for that wonderful introduction governor. I will be taking over things now. Let's hear it for the Governor O'Malley from the great state of Connecticut.
O'MALLEY: Maryland.
CLINTON: No one cares. (Addressing REPORTERS) Ladies and other voters, I want to thank the Governor for acknowledging the inevitability of my victory. I look forward to the day when all Americans come together and realize that I must be President. And to help us reach that noble goal, I am officially endorsing Governor Martin O'Malley's endorsement of Hillary Clinton!
(ALL REPORTERS applaud)
CLINTON: You know you can trust Hillary Clinton, because you can trust Martin O'Malley, because you can trust Hillary Clinton.
O'MALLEY: Thank you, Secretary Clinton, I'm flattered that you would come here just to support me.
CLINTON: Actually, I came for the pizza and beer.
-SCENE-
Friday, May 22, 2015
Friday, February 13, 2015
Could movie buffs beat Vegas?
The house always wins.
Well, not quite always, but often enough that casinos are multimillion dollar businesses and thousands of people have to seek treatment for gambling addiction, because making bets has ruined their lives. The house makes a fortune and gamblers file for bankruptcy, because the house knows more than the bettors. Casinos are built by exploiting the common person's ignorance about statistics. Almost every game puts the gambler at a massive disadvantage. When the house doesn't have a built in advantage like when taking sports wagers, they try to stay ahead of the public by having far more information. Bookmakers hire highly intelligent people who have a level of expertise no ordinary person can match. When a casino sets the odds for a wager, they have put massive amounts of research into predicting both the likely outcome and the probable distribution of bets they will receive. If you want to make a living wagering on sports, you better have a high IQ and work ethic to match. Just scratching out wins on fifty-three percent of your bets would put you in an elite class of gambler. However there may be a few rare situations where the sharps in Las Vegas don't have the most information.
For special events bookmakers will accept bets outside their normal purview of sports. They will occasionally offer up odds on things happening in pop culture, like reality show outcomes or awards ceremonies. Suddenly a business built around some of the sharpest sports experts in the world has to venture out of their comfort zone where others know more than they do. This gives bettor a rare chance to gamble on a somewhat level playing field. If the casinos aren't the experts, then maybe you could be the expert, or at least find someone who is to advise you.
I believe the annual Academy Awards offer such an opportunity. Plenty of people love movies, and some of them enjoy having the chance to gamble on the highest of Hollywood honors. Casinos gladly accept their action knowing it doesn't take much information to beat the hoi polloi. However a very few film buffs may have the advantage over Vegas. For those of us who study and scrutinize the Academy Awards like religious texts, we can spot those special situations that professional gambler's refer to as value. Sometimes the bookmakers misjudge the odds they should offer for a particular outcome. That means bettors can earn a payoff disproportionate to the actual likelihood of the result occurring. The most clever and committed Oscar watchers know that upsets do occur with some regularity. Actors, writers, directors, and even whole pictures have bested expectations and won when someone else was presumed to have the golden statue coming their way. So it could pay off to lay some money on the Oscars, if you have reason to believe the reward outweighs the risk. For anyone who may be interested I will provide -FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY- my assessment of the major awards and where I think the sharps may have it wrong. Remember these are not my predictions of who will win, though I may mention that, this is about getting the best value for your betting dollar.
We'll start with the "major" categories, for which gambling odds are readily available.
BEST LEADING ACTRESS-
The Nominees:
Marion Cotillard for Two Days, One Night- 60/1
Felicity Jones for The Theory of Everything- 40/1
Julianne Moore for Still Alice- 1/9
Rosamund Pike for Gone Girl- 25/1
Reese Witherspoon for Wild- 8/1
Best Bet: Bettors can gain an advantage by exploiting an area of ignorance. When the bookmakers or the general public don't have a full picture of the contenders for the award the odds can get skewed. We all know that the kinds of movies that win Oscars usually only get a limited release and few people see them. This is especially true for foreign language films. As such most people know nothing about the film Two Days, One Night. While I haven't seen Marion Cotillard's performance, I have seen the results of film awards that usually forecast the results of the Oscars. So far Mme. Cotillard is the only actress other than the favorite Julianne Moore to win a major award for starring in a movie while being female. In my estimation that should give her the second best odds. Casinos prefer to have money spread among all options, so no matter what happens they never stand to lose too much. Since no one saw the movie, no one is betting on Cotillard, so the bookies have to offer longer odds to attract action and spread out the risk. That gives you a great chance to make a value bet on Marion Cotillard.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-
The Nominees:
Patricia Arquette for Boyhood- 1/7
Laura Dern for Wild- 28/1
Keira Knightly for The Imitation Game- 25/1
Emma Stone for Birdman- 12/1
Meryl Streep for Into the Woods- 15/1
Best Bet: Patricia Arquette's dominance of the preliminary awards may make you think putting money on her is a safe bet. That may be true, but that does mean putting a lot of cash on the line for a small payoff. If an upset happens does happen, you'll be in the hurt, and you'll have missed out on a great money making opportunity. To select a dark horse most likely to surprise the field I looked to a few key factors. Remember that the Academy is mostly composed of older men. When they decide which actress they want to bestow an award upon, they tend to pick the woman they would most want to sleep with. (Hey, don't blame me, it's the Oscar voters who are sexist.) That narrows the race to Keira Knightly and Emma Stone as the two youngest and prettiest nominees. Between them only Knightly has been previously nominated. That indicates she already has the respect of some AMPAS members. I like the potential of earning a big prize if the obvious favorite doesn't come through, so I'd bet on Keira Knightly.
BEST LEADING ACTOR-
The Nominees:
Steve Carell for Foxcatcher- 30/1
Bradley Cooper for American Sniper- 75/1
Benedict Cumberbatch for The Imitation Game- 20/1
Michael Keaton for Birdman- 5/6
Eddie Redmayne for The Theory of Everything- 11/10
Best Bet: Though Michael Keaton seems to be the heavy favorite, there's a strong chance that he'll have some tight competition. While Keaton took the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Comedy, Eddie Redmayne snared the parallel award for Drama. That would make Redmayne the most likely contender to beat Keaton, but that doesn't mean betting on Eddie gives you the best value. With a bet of $10 only returning $11 in winnings, that's a pretty small payoff for what are likely some long odds of an upset. (Also there's the chance the voters will see Redmayne's re-dic-u-lous performance in Jupiter Ascending, and squash his hopes like a post-Norbit Eddie Murphey.) If you want to bet on an upset bet on one that can reward you proportionate to the odds. For this category, I like Bradley Cooper as a long shot for a few reasons. First, Cooper has now been nominated three times in three years. That indicates a lot of voters like him and some may think he's due for the award. Second he has to portray a character that many people already know. Chris Kyle was on our TV screens just a couple of years ago. Keaton plays a fictional person (who is really just a fictionalized version of himself, so where's the challenge there). The people played by Carell and Cumberbatch are both obscure figures of whom voters won't have preexisting impressions. Redmayne does portray the world famous Stephen Hawking, but mostly during the period of his life before he became the man we recognize. Trying to recreate a living person when we can compare Cooper's performance to our memories of that person is a risky move. Sometimes the Academy likes to reward those kinds of risks. Finally, American Sniper has become the biggest box office hit of all the films up for Best Picture. There are members of AMPAS who like to reward financial success. Some of the glory for the film as a whole could give its star a much needed bump in the voting.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-
The Nominees:
Robert Duvall for The Judge- 30/1
Ethan Hawke for Boyhood- 12/1
Edward Norton for Birdman- 10/1
Mark Ruffalo for Foxcatcher- 14/1
J. K. Simmons for The Theory of Everything- 1/5
Best Bet: This is another category with a heavy favorite. So all we need to find the best value bet is determine which of the nominees has the best chance of upsetting J. Jonah Simmons. Robert Duvall may be deeply respected, but very few people are passionate about The Judge as a movie. All the other nominees have past nominations and respectable reputations, so they're all even there. I think Edward Norton may have an edge though. Part of the appeal of Michael Keaton's performance in Birdman comes from the winking nature of an actor famous for playing a superhero in a movie that mocks superhero movies. Well Edward Norton once played the Hulk, and famously had a contentious split with Marvel studios over their designs for the character. Now he plays the "pure" theater actor who serves as the foil to Keaton's former blockbuster star. It's a roll that many Oscar voters imagine themselves playing in their real lives. If AMPAS really wants to flip the bird* to all the comic book inspired films that dominate the box office, they could give the trophy to Norton.
BEST DIRECTOR-
The Nominees:
Alejandro G. Iñárritu for Birdman- 7/1
Richard Linklater for Boyhood- 1/6
Bennett Miller for Foxcatcher- 45/1
Wes Anderson for The Grand Budapest Hotel- 22/1
Morten Tyldum for The Imitation Game- 18/1
Best Bet: This one honestly confounds me. I know Richard Linklater walked away with the Golden Globe award, but in 5 of the last 7 years the Oscar didn't go to the Globe winner. Also, I know that for most of the Academy Award's history the prizes for Best Picture and Best Director went to the same movie, and most people assume that's still the case. In the last couple of decades that has changed dramatically. Of the last 16 years the winner of Best Director didn't direct the Best Picture 6 different times! Boyhood may very well win Best Picture, but that by no means makes Linklater a lock. Based on the buzz, I would make Alejandro Iñárritu the favorite to win. Since Vegas gave him the next best odds after the presumed favorite, they seem to agree. When I can win $7 for every dollar bet on someone I judge to be the favorite, I call that a value bet.
BEST PICTURE-
The Nominees:
American Sniper- 75/1
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)- 18/1
Boyhood- 2/5
The Grand Budapest Hotel- 9/1
The Imitation Game- 7/1
Selma- 20/1
The Theory of Everything- 30/1
Whiplash- 60/1
Best Bet: You could actually make an argument for a few of the nominees as good value bets. Because American Sniper has a turned into a box office sensation, there will be some AMPAS members who feel that sort of popularity should be rewarded. On the other hand Chris Kyle's story has stirred up some political controversy, and the Academy has distanced itself from similar films in the past (e.g. Zero Dark Thirty). After Selma missed out in almost every category, there came a major backlash against what many perceived as a racially charged oversight. Historically the Academy has underrepresented minorities among their nominees and winners, but that's changed in recent years. More black nominees have won Oscars from 2001 on than won in the previous 73 years of award's existence. There may be enough voters rallying behind Selma to pull of an unexpected win, similar to what happened with Argo a couple of years ago. Though the odds of that happening are probably longer than the 20 to 1 pay out the bookmakers are offering. I believe Birdman represents the best value bet. It has favorable odds to win Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Director. A film that wins all of those prizes is actually pretty likely to win Best Picture. Certainly it's more likely that 18 to 1. So you have a great opportunity to win big by betting on Birdman.
Now I will give a brief (relatively for me) rundown my selections for the best bets to win all of the other categories.
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS- Dawn of the Planet of the Apes may have more fans among Oscar voters than any of the 3 nominated super-hero movies and the divisive Interstellar. The film made major strides improving motion capture technology, which is probably the future of special FX.
BEST SOUND EDITING- American Sniper successfully recreated the chaotic sounds of battle. That's an impressive feat that usually garners awards
BEST SOUND MIXING- Whiplash had to incorporate the sounds of musical instruments in realistic, but nuanced ways. I expect the voters will respond more to those subtleties than to the louder competition.
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT- "The Phone Call" is an emotionally powerful little fil- y'know what? No one cares about this category. Let's move on.
BEST ANIMATED SHORT- "Feast" has the advantage of being paired with a widely scene and loved Disney movie. Plus you should never bet against a movie featuring a cute puppy.
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT- "Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1" has an incredible one-two punch of being emotionally wrenching and urgently topical. That's like catnip for Oscar voters.
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN- The Grand Budapest Hotel was skillfully and intricately produced to such a gorgeous degree, its visual splendor even stand out among Wes Anderson's oeuvre.
BEST HAIR & MAKEUP- The Grand Budapest Hotel; see above
BEST COSTUMES- The Grand Budapest Hotel; see above above
BEST ORIGINAL SONG- "Glory" from Selma will win what I suppose you could call a token award.
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE- The Theory of Everything had to lean on its score a lot. How else are going to milk a lot of emotion about a guy who spends most of the movie unable to move?
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM- Ida deals with the aftermath of the Holocaust in Poland through the lens of an individuals profound story. And as Kate Winslet taught us Holocaust movies win Oscars!
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE- CitizenFour has won just about every preliminary award, so I expect the Academy to follow suit.
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE- How to Train Your Dragon 2 will likely win, because major releases from US animation studios have a heavy advantage in this category. I know the Academy usually doesn't honor sequels, but I figure How to Train Your Dragon 2 won't be punished for that as much as Big Hero 6.
BEST FILM EDITING- Boyhood is your likely winner. Usually the awards for Best Film Editing goes to the film that wins Best Picture. So with Boyhood favored to win the top prize, you should bet on it winning in this category too.
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY- Birdman pulled off an astounding feat by filming the movie so that it appeared as if most of it was done with one continuous camera shot. Any director of photography who can pull that off deserves an award.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY- The Imitation Game would be my pick. This category can get confusing, because apparently no one can agree on what it means for a screenplay to be "adapted". Whiplash was considered an original screenplay by the Writers' Guild, but is an adapted screenplay according to to AMPAS. So be warned that this is my least confident prediction.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY- The Grand Budapest Hotel has the key preliminary awards under its belt. I expect that to continue. The Academy has a habit of rewarding young-ish auteur filmmakers with a screenplay award. After two past nominations, look for Wes Anderson to finally land an Oscar.
Those are my predictions. I wish you all the best of luck with your Oscar pools. Remember if any of you do wager money on these predictions, you owe me 10% of your winnings.
Well, not quite always, but often enough that casinos are multimillion dollar businesses and thousands of people have to seek treatment for gambling addiction, because making bets has ruined their lives. The house makes a fortune and gamblers file for bankruptcy, because the house knows more than the bettors. Casinos are built by exploiting the common person's ignorance about statistics. Almost every game puts the gambler at a massive disadvantage. When the house doesn't have a built in advantage like when taking sports wagers, they try to stay ahead of the public by having far more information. Bookmakers hire highly intelligent people who have a level of expertise no ordinary person can match. When a casino sets the odds for a wager, they have put massive amounts of research into predicting both the likely outcome and the probable distribution of bets they will receive. If you want to make a living wagering on sports, you better have a high IQ and work ethic to match. Just scratching out wins on fifty-three percent of your bets would put you in an elite class of gambler. However there may be a few rare situations where the sharps in Las Vegas don't have the most information.
For special events bookmakers will accept bets outside their normal purview of sports. They will occasionally offer up odds on things happening in pop culture, like reality show outcomes or awards ceremonies. Suddenly a business built around some of the sharpest sports experts in the world has to venture out of their comfort zone where others know more than they do. This gives bettor a rare chance to gamble on a somewhat level playing field. If the casinos aren't the experts, then maybe you could be the expert, or at least find someone who is to advise you.
I believe the annual Academy Awards offer such an opportunity. Plenty of people love movies, and some of them enjoy having the chance to gamble on the highest of Hollywood honors. Casinos gladly accept their action knowing it doesn't take much information to beat the hoi polloi. However a very few film buffs may have the advantage over Vegas. For those of us who study and scrutinize the Academy Awards like religious texts, we can spot those special situations that professional gambler's refer to as value. Sometimes the bookmakers misjudge the odds they should offer for a particular outcome. That means bettors can earn a payoff disproportionate to the actual likelihood of the result occurring. The most clever and committed Oscar watchers know that upsets do occur with some regularity. Actors, writers, directors, and even whole pictures have bested expectations and won when someone else was presumed to have the golden statue coming their way. So it could pay off to lay some money on the Oscars, if you have reason to believe the reward outweighs the risk. For anyone who may be interested I will provide -FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY- my assessment of the major awards and where I think the sharps may have it wrong. Remember these are not my predictions of who will win, though I may mention that, this is about getting the best value for your betting dollar.
We'll start with the "major" categories, for which gambling odds are readily available.
BEST LEADING ACTRESS-
The Nominees:
Marion Cotillard for Two Days, One Night- 60/1
Felicity Jones for The Theory of Everything- 40/1
Julianne Moore for Still Alice- 1/9
Rosamund Pike for Gone Girl- 25/1
Reese Witherspoon for Wild- 8/1
Best Bet: Bettors can gain an advantage by exploiting an area of ignorance. When the bookmakers or the general public don't have a full picture of the contenders for the award the odds can get skewed. We all know that the kinds of movies that win Oscars usually only get a limited release and few people see them. This is especially true for foreign language films. As such most people know nothing about the film Two Days, One Night. While I haven't seen Marion Cotillard's performance, I have seen the results of film awards that usually forecast the results of the Oscars. So far Mme. Cotillard is the only actress other than the favorite Julianne Moore to win a major award for starring in a movie while being female. In my estimation that should give her the second best odds. Casinos prefer to have money spread among all options, so no matter what happens they never stand to lose too much. Since no one saw the movie, no one is betting on Cotillard, so the bookies have to offer longer odds to attract action and spread out the risk. That gives you a great chance to make a value bet on Marion Cotillard.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-
The Nominees:
Patricia Arquette for Boyhood- 1/7
Laura Dern for Wild- 28/1
Keira Knightly for The Imitation Game- 25/1
Emma Stone for Birdman- 12/1
Meryl Streep for Into the Woods- 15/1
Best Bet: Patricia Arquette's dominance of the preliminary awards may make you think putting money on her is a safe bet. That may be true, but that does mean putting a lot of cash on the line for a small payoff. If an upset happens does happen, you'll be in the hurt, and you'll have missed out on a great money making opportunity. To select a dark horse most likely to surprise the field I looked to a few key factors. Remember that the Academy is mostly composed of older men. When they decide which actress they want to bestow an award upon, they tend to pick the woman they would most want to sleep with. (Hey, don't blame me, it's the Oscar voters who are sexist.) That narrows the race to Keira Knightly and Emma Stone as the two youngest and prettiest nominees. Between them only Knightly has been previously nominated. That indicates she already has the respect of some AMPAS members. I like the potential of earning a big prize if the obvious favorite doesn't come through, so I'd bet on Keira Knightly.
BEST LEADING ACTOR-
The Nominees:
Steve Carell for Foxcatcher- 30/1
Bradley Cooper for American Sniper- 75/1
Benedict Cumberbatch for The Imitation Game- 20/1
Michael Keaton for Birdman- 5/6
Eddie Redmayne for The Theory of Everything- 11/10
Best Bet: Though Michael Keaton seems to be the heavy favorite, there's a strong chance that he'll have some tight competition. While Keaton took the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Comedy, Eddie Redmayne snared the parallel award for Drama. That would make Redmayne the most likely contender to beat Keaton, but that doesn't mean betting on Eddie gives you the best value. With a bet of $10 only returning $11 in winnings, that's a pretty small payoff for what are likely some long odds of an upset. (Also there's the chance the voters will see Redmayne's re-dic-u-lous performance in Jupiter Ascending, and squash his hopes like a post-Norbit Eddie Murphey.) If you want to bet on an upset bet on one that can reward you proportionate to the odds. For this category, I like Bradley Cooper as a long shot for a few reasons. First, Cooper has now been nominated three times in three years. That indicates a lot of voters like him and some may think he's due for the award. Second he has to portray a character that many people already know. Chris Kyle was on our TV screens just a couple of years ago. Keaton plays a fictional person (who is really just a fictionalized version of himself, so where's the challenge there). The people played by Carell and Cumberbatch are both obscure figures of whom voters won't have preexisting impressions. Redmayne does portray the world famous Stephen Hawking, but mostly during the period of his life before he became the man we recognize. Trying to recreate a living person when we can compare Cooper's performance to our memories of that person is a risky move. Sometimes the Academy likes to reward those kinds of risks. Finally, American Sniper has become the biggest box office hit of all the films up for Best Picture. There are members of AMPAS who like to reward financial success. Some of the glory for the film as a whole could give its star a much needed bump in the voting.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-
The Nominees:
Robert Duvall for The Judge- 30/1
Ethan Hawke for Boyhood- 12/1
Edward Norton for Birdman- 10/1
Mark Ruffalo for Foxcatcher- 14/1
J. K. Simmons for The Theory of Everything- 1/5
Best Bet: This is another category with a heavy favorite. So all we need to find the best value bet is determine which of the nominees has the best chance of upsetting J. Jonah Simmons. Robert Duvall may be deeply respected, but very few people are passionate about The Judge as a movie. All the other nominees have past nominations and respectable reputations, so they're all even there. I think Edward Norton may have an edge though. Part of the appeal of Michael Keaton's performance in Birdman comes from the winking nature of an actor famous for playing a superhero in a movie that mocks superhero movies. Well Edward Norton once played the Hulk, and famously had a contentious split with Marvel studios over their designs for the character. Now he plays the "pure" theater actor who serves as the foil to Keaton's former blockbuster star. It's a roll that many Oscar voters imagine themselves playing in their real lives. If AMPAS really wants to flip the bird* to all the comic book inspired films that dominate the box office, they could give the trophy to Norton.
BEST DIRECTOR-
The Nominees:
Alejandro G. Iñárritu for Birdman- 7/1
Richard Linklater for Boyhood- 1/6
Bennett Miller for Foxcatcher- 45/1
Wes Anderson for The Grand Budapest Hotel- 22/1
Morten Tyldum for The Imitation Game- 18/1
Best Bet: This one honestly confounds me. I know Richard Linklater walked away with the Golden Globe award, but in 5 of the last 7 years the Oscar didn't go to the Globe winner. Also, I know that for most of the Academy Award's history the prizes for Best Picture and Best Director went to the same movie, and most people assume that's still the case. In the last couple of decades that has changed dramatically. Of the last 16 years the winner of Best Director didn't direct the Best Picture 6 different times! Boyhood may very well win Best Picture, but that by no means makes Linklater a lock. Based on the buzz, I would make Alejandro Iñárritu the favorite to win. Since Vegas gave him the next best odds after the presumed favorite, they seem to agree. When I can win $7 for every dollar bet on someone I judge to be the favorite, I call that a value bet.
BEST PICTURE-
The Nominees:
American Sniper- 75/1
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)- 18/1
Boyhood- 2/5
The Grand Budapest Hotel- 9/1
The Imitation Game- 7/1
Selma- 20/1
The Theory of Everything- 30/1
Whiplash- 60/1
Best Bet: You could actually make an argument for a few of the nominees as good value bets. Because American Sniper has a turned into a box office sensation, there will be some AMPAS members who feel that sort of popularity should be rewarded. On the other hand Chris Kyle's story has stirred up some political controversy, and the Academy has distanced itself from similar films in the past (e.g. Zero Dark Thirty). After Selma missed out in almost every category, there came a major backlash against what many perceived as a racially charged oversight. Historically the Academy has underrepresented minorities among their nominees and winners, but that's changed in recent years. More black nominees have won Oscars from 2001 on than won in the previous 73 years of award's existence. There may be enough voters rallying behind Selma to pull of an unexpected win, similar to what happened with Argo a couple of years ago. Though the odds of that happening are probably longer than the 20 to 1 pay out the bookmakers are offering. I believe Birdman represents the best value bet. It has favorable odds to win Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Director. A film that wins all of those prizes is actually pretty likely to win Best Picture. Certainly it's more likely that 18 to 1. So you have a great opportunity to win big by betting on Birdman.
Now I will give a brief (relatively for me) rundown my selections for the best bets to win all of the other categories.
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS- Dawn of the Planet of the Apes may have more fans among Oscar voters than any of the 3 nominated super-hero movies and the divisive Interstellar. The film made major strides improving motion capture technology, which is probably the future of special FX.
BEST SOUND EDITING- American Sniper successfully recreated the chaotic sounds of battle. That's an impressive feat that usually garners awards
BEST SOUND MIXING- Whiplash had to incorporate the sounds of musical instruments in realistic, but nuanced ways. I expect the voters will respond more to those subtleties than to the louder competition.
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT- "The Phone Call" is an emotionally powerful little fil- y'know what? No one cares about this category. Let's move on.
BEST ANIMATED SHORT- "Feast" has the advantage of being paired with a widely scene and loved Disney movie. Plus you should never bet against a movie featuring a cute puppy.
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT- "Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1" has an incredible one-two punch of being emotionally wrenching and urgently topical. That's like catnip for Oscar voters.
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN- The Grand Budapest Hotel was skillfully and intricately produced to such a gorgeous degree, its visual splendor even stand out among Wes Anderson's oeuvre.
BEST HAIR & MAKEUP- The Grand Budapest Hotel; see above
BEST COSTUMES- The Grand Budapest Hotel; see above above
BEST ORIGINAL SONG- "Glory" from Selma will win what I suppose you could call a token award.
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE- The Theory of Everything had to lean on its score a lot. How else are going to milk a lot of emotion about a guy who spends most of the movie unable to move?
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM- Ida deals with the aftermath of the Holocaust in Poland through the lens of an individuals profound story. And as Kate Winslet taught us Holocaust movies win Oscars!
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE- CitizenFour has won just about every preliminary award, so I expect the Academy to follow suit.
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE- How to Train Your Dragon 2 will likely win, because major releases from US animation studios have a heavy advantage in this category. I know the Academy usually doesn't honor sequels, but I figure How to Train Your Dragon 2 won't be punished for that as much as Big Hero 6.
BEST FILM EDITING- Boyhood is your likely winner. Usually the awards for Best Film Editing goes to the film that wins Best Picture. So with Boyhood favored to win the top prize, you should bet on it winning in this category too.
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY- Birdman pulled off an astounding feat by filming the movie so that it appeared as if most of it was done with one continuous camera shot. Any director of photography who can pull that off deserves an award.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY- The Imitation Game would be my pick. This category can get confusing, because apparently no one can agree on what it means for a screenplay to be "adapted". Whiplash was considered an original screenplay by the Writers' Guild, but is an adapted screenplay according to to AMPAS. So be warned that this is my least confident prediction.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY- The Grand Budapest Hotel has the key preliminary awards under its belt. I expect that to continue. The Academy has a habit of rewarding young-ish auteur filmmakers with a screenplay award. After two past nominations, look for Wes Anderson to finally land an Oscar.
Those are my predictions. I wish you all the best of luck with your Oscar pools. Remember if any of you do wager money on these predictions, you owe me 10% of your winnings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)