Circuit Breaker Episode 74: ‘All the Money in the World,’ Oscar Predictions, and Christmas Break

18

Welcome to the Awards Circuit podcast titled “CIRCUIT BREAKER!,” a weekly podcast from AwardsCircuit.com featuring host Clayton Davis along with panelists Sam Coffey, Mark Johnson, Joey Magidson, and Karen Peterson. We discuss movies, television and all the awards shows that need predicting. New episodes are released every Monday.

Find us on Twitter at @Circuit_Pod, email us at podcast@awardscircuit.com, and submit your comments and questions at the bottom of the episode.

On the agenda:

  • Talking the Christmas holiday and what voters may be watching over the break.
  • “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” continues to dominate the box office but films like “The Post,” “Phantom Thread,” “The Greatest Showman,” and “Downsizing” are hitting theaters.
  • Will “All the Money in the World” opening, is it REALLY an Oscar contender despite the controversy surrounding it?
  • Oscar Prediction check ins.  Where do we all stand?

Comment and send in #CinephileShowdowns#DeleteTheActor,
#ChoosetheGold, and #ACCircuitBreaker questions in the comment section below!

LIKE Us on FacebookThe Awards Circuit Facebook Page
Follow Us on Twitter: @Circuit_Pod & @AwardsCircuit
Download Us
 on Stitcher Radio!
Rate and Download Us on iTunes
SUBSCRIBE to the Podcast by the FEED
SHARE #‎StartTheREALConversation and #StopMuslimBan

CLICK THE CATEGORY TO SEE THE OSCAR PREDICTIONS:

MOTION PICTURE | DIRECTOR |
LEAD ACTOR | LEAD ACTRESS | SUPPORTING ACTOR | SUPPORTING ACTRESS | 
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY | ADAPTED SCREENPLAY | ANIMATED FEATURE |
PRODUCTION DESIGN | CINEMATOGRAPHY | COSTUME DESIGN | FILM EDITING | MAKEUP & HAIRSTYLING | SOUND MIXING | SOUND EDITING | VISUAL EFFECTS |
ORIGINAL SCORE | ORIGINAL SONG |
FOREIGN LANGUAGE | DOCUMENTARY FEATURE |

ANIMATED SHORT | DOCUMENTARY SHORT | LIVE ACTION SHORT |

  • Joey Magidson

    Enjoy!

  • John

    Merry Christmas y’all

  • blake011

    I was wondering what you’re thoughts would be on Phantom Thread when you saw it Karen. I don’t agree that it celebrates the main character. I feel like a lot of the humor was basically about how ridiculous he was.

    The movie is bad because like Anderson’s last few films it’s pretty but boring with a nothing screenplay.

    • Thank you, Blake. I’m working on a full review and will explain exactly why I feel that way.

      And I agree that it is pretty. But yikes. That beauty is so superficial. Just like basically all of PTA’s films.

      • blake011

        Disagree a bit in the sense that up until There Will Be blood I adored his films. Magnolia was one of the most moving experiences i had in a movie theater when I saw it in high school and I still adored its messy open hearted nature.

        I remember seeing There Will Be Blood and having a reservation about who cold it was compared to his previous films but I still loved it. Ever since then with Master, Inherent Vice, and Phantom Thread its like he has either forgotten or has nothing else to say. I kinda of wished he bowed out after Blood.

        Whats really funny is that the book Inherent Vice is fantastic. Funny, heartbreaking, epic, and romantic. I can easily see the Anderson Boogie nights and magnolia days nailing it.

  • Calliope

    I just think it’s ridiculous that you keep saying predictions are about what you think will happen instead of what you want to happen, while you’re still predicting Margot Robbie to win for no apparent reason. She hasn’t gotten any precursors and will almost certainly lose the Globe to Saoirse Ronan. I’m genuinely curious, why are you so dead set on Robbie?

  • Raul Gama

    The idea that Hong Chau and Will Poulter’s performeances shouldn’t be nominated because it was a heavy year to talk about racism would be completely understandeable, if this conversation and nominations were made by children who can’t process and separate things, and because of that, actors and other artists get impaired by that.

    And no one is putting in Meryl Streep’s basket the responsabilities of Hervey’s crimes, the whole conversation is about the hipocracy and the coldness of their publicist made statements since they were all so close to him, with literally calling him god and tattooing his name on their butt.

    The heavy criticism should be for all or for no one at all, and the opposite is what happens.

  • Ferdinand

    Clayton, you keep saying that predicting Kaluuya, Chalamet and Franco is predicting a very young lineup. Then wouldn’t you say that predicting Oldman, Day-Lewis, Hanks and Washington would make an extremely old lineup?

    Also, your point about performances missing nominations even though they get nominated everywhere they need to in the precursors (Globe, BFCA, SAG, probably BAFTA), it’s extremely unlikely that that situation happens twice in a category in a single year (and Kaluuya and Chalamet are most likely going to get BAFTA nominations since Kaluuya is British and Chalamet is in a movie that is probably going to react with BAFTA more than any of the other big precursors).

    • John

      There’s is no such thing as an old lineup for Lead Actor. Frequently the youngest of the nominees will be in his late thirties, there are times no one will be under forty.

      • Ferdinand

        There is generally a balance. Not only young actors and not only old actors. That is because the “veteran vote” isn’t strong enough to carry four people to nominations and the sharing of those votes would inevitably lead to vote-splitting that would again lower the amount of veterans in the lineup.

        If we look at the previous few years, the actors that were (or at least felt like they were) in the age range (let’s say that the minimum would be 55 years) that four of the people in Clayton’s lineup:
        2016:
        Denzel Washington
        Viggo Mortensen

        2015:
        Bryan Cranston

        2014:
        Michael Keaton

        2013:
        Bruce Dern

        2012:
        Daniel Day-Lewis
        Denzel Washington

        2011:
        Gary Oldman

        2010:
        Jeff Bridges

        2009:
        Jeff Bridges
        Morgan Freeman

        2008:
        Richard Jenkins
        Frank Langella
        Mickey Rourke

        2007:
        Tommy Lee Jones

        2006:
        Peter O’Toole

        2005:
        David Strathairn

        2004:
        Clint Eastwood

        2003:
        Bill Murray
        Ben Kingsley

        2002:
        Jack Nicholson
        Michael Caine

        2001:
        Tom Wilkinson

        2000:

        So in fact there is most definitely a lineup that is “too old” even in best actor. The previous time that a lineup with four actors in this age-range would be in 1997 and a lineup with three nominees like this has happened only once since then (2008). So predicting Oldman and Day-Lewis is smart in my opinion, predicting Hanks or Washington is something that seems unlikely to me but a somewhat reasonable prediction. Predicting all four is daring to say the least

        • Jason

          The “young” actors you speak of aren’t that young. Normally late 30’s. Not 22 and 28. And they’re normally actors that have been building up for a while. Not two actors who barely anyone heard of before this year. Oldman, Day Lewis, Hanks, and Washington are also some of the most respected actors working today, and are often considered among the best. They also aren’t that old. You talk like they’re all over 70. Washington is the oldest at 63.

          • Ferdinand

            I didn’t especially mean that they would all be 70 but that there is usually more than one actor under 50-55 in the lineup. Sorry if I created the wrong impression. I always thought that Clayton was really smart for noting how young a lineup it would be if Chalamet, Kaluuya and Franco all got in but this is going overboard. Predicting all four of these is basically typecasting the Academy to one role, that old men ALWAYS get nominated over young men, that they never go for someone who isn’t over 50 because they’re too young and attractive, and that there is going to be no vote-splitting between four actors who have similar narratives (of course there are differences but the main point is still that they’re all respected veterans who they love and appreciate for their body of work). And it basically expects at least around 50-60% of the Academy’s acting branches to vote for a this type of actor. And that probably isn’t even enough since I’d imagine at least 20% are voting Oldman as their number one and I’d imagine that Day-Lewis won’t be barely making it in either. So we’re probably talking at least 65-75% of the Academy having a very particular mindset and voting for a particular kind of performance (classical performance by a veteran actor) as their number one and probably filling most of the top 3 with similar performances as well. That is highly unlikely to happen and if the vote total is notably less than that, vote-splitting is going to take out at least one of these performances.

            And like the list I made proves, the Academy does like to have several younger actors in there pretty much every year. And expecting Franco to be the only one is from a point of view of the previous years extremely unlikely, even though Kaluuya and Chalamet are very young and we have a general expectation of the Academy’s voting that is basically “Best actress goes young, best actor goes old”.

            Also, how often does a performance by an actor in his 20s even hit every single nomination at the actually notable precursors (SAG, Globe, BFCA)? There seems to be only one case since SAG started giving out awards that an actor in his 20s got nominated at SAG, Globe and BFCA and eventually missed out on an Oscar nomination. This performance is Ryan Gosling in Lars and the Real Girl, a performance for which he did not recieve a BAFTA nomination (Chalamet and Kaluuya are both likely BAFTA nominees at this point) and was in a film that didn’t have nearly as much best picture attention as Call Me by Your Name and Get Out do.

          • Ferdinand

            I didn’t especially mean that they would all be 70 but that there is usually more than one actor under 50-55 in the lineup. Sorry if I created the wrong impression. I always thought that Clayton was really smart for noting how young a lineup it would be if Chalamet, Kaluuya and Franco all got in but this is going overboard. Predicting all four of these is basically typecasting the Academy to one role, that old men ALWAYS get nominated over young men, that they never go for someone who isn’t over 50 because they’re too young and attractive, and that there is going to be no vote-splitting between four actors who have similar narratives (of course there are differences but the main point is still that they’re all respected veterans who they love and appreciate for their body of work). And it basically expects at least around 50-60% of the Academy’s acting branches to vote for a this type of actor. And that probably isn’t even enough since I’d imagine at least 20% are voting Oldman as their number one and I’d imagine that Day-Lewis won’t be barely making it in either. So we’re probably talking at least 65-75% of the Academy having a very particular mindset and voting for a particular kind of performance (classical performance by a veteran actor) as their number one and probably filling most of the top 3 with similar performances as well. That is highly unlikely to happen and if the vote total is notably less than that, vote-splitting is going to take out at least one of these performances.

            And like the list I made proves, the Academy does like to have several younger actors in there pretty much every year. And expecting Franco to be the only one is from a point of view of the previous years extremely unlikely, even though Kaluuya and Chalamet are very young and we have a general expectation of the Academy’s voting that is basically “Best actress goes young, best actor goes old”.

            Also, how often does a performance by an actor in his 20s even hit every single nomination at the actually notable precursors (SAG, Globe, BFCA)? There seems to be only one case since SAG started giving out awards that an actor in his 20s got nominated at SAG, Globe and BFCA and eventually missed out on an Oscar nomination. This performance is Ryan Gosling in Lars and the Real Girl, a performance for which he did not recieve a BAFTA nomination (Chalamet and Kaluuya are both likely BAFTA nominees at this point) and was in a film that didn’t have nearly as much best picture attention as Call Me by Your Name and Get Out do.

  • Raul Gama

    Which mutiple nominated actors do you think have the best showcase of their range in their combined nominations?

  • Cornelius Buttersby

    I must say, considering how much emphasis Clayton places on predicting objectively (with particular reference to Chalamet’s standing in Lead Actor), it reads as bizarre that he still has Dee Rees in a director line-up ahead of Globe/BFCA nominee and critics leader Nolan, Globe-nominee Scott, critical favourite Peele, or BFCA nominee Guadagnino.

    Rees has won a single critics prize for her direction on Mudbound, and only been nominated by two other critics groups, so she’s hardly coming at this as a critics champion. She’s less established in the industry than Nolan, Scott, or even arguably Guadagnino or Baker, so it’s not a matter of a veteran or career nomination card, and Lady Bird and Get Out have picked up more steam from critics and industry awards, so if a diversity narrative were to push contenders, Gerwig and Peele would be more likely to benefit. The film’s SAG success is questionable, since Netflix has overperformed at SAG while failing to gain wider recognition before (see Beasts of No Nation, and on the TV side, Stranger Things’ ensemble win last year), and the film’s AFI, Globe, and BFCA misses are conspicuous.

    Similarly, Get Out’s emergence as a critical favourite with a lead in critic prizes, and citation by NBR, AFI, SAG, and BFCA, should objectively position it into a number 6 spot in a lineup, at least. The only thing going against it is an assumption of genre bias – an aspect which has not derailed Mad Max, or Her in the past couple of years – but its success with critics groups and industry guilds so far indicate that those in the industry are not as fazed by its subject matter as one might expect.

    On a side-note, I wholeheartedly agree with Clayton’s suspicion that Plummer could well win the whole thing – the Waltz route of a Globe win and BAFTA win (Dafoe doesn’t seem right for a BAFTA win to me) could prevail again, especially with the narrative and publicity around an already showy role. If Michelle Williams sneaks into Lead Actress, I see her ousting Margot Robbie (in cases where a late-breaker unseats a favourite, it is usually the performance from the film with the least overall buzz that suffers – here that could be Robbie).

  • Cornelius Buttersby

    If we’re looking for a Tommy Lee Jones in In the Valley of Elah this year, it’s important not to forget that Jones had a lot of attention in 2007 for a supporting role that didn’t ultimately make the lineup.

    Therefore, the corresponding contender would probably be Steve Carell for Last Flag Flying.