Snap Judgments Pt. II: 'The King's Speech' vs. 'The Social Network'

STILL KINDA SLEEPY - but loving it. More snap judgments on why The King's Speech is perfectly positioned to upset The Social Network for Best Picture.

FYI - not saying that it WILL, but if it DOES, here's why:

Based on the fact that Social Network has won every single critics' award under the sun, it will - and probably should - still be considered the front-runner for Best Picture at the Oscars, even though it's tied for third (with Inception) in the nominations count with eight. Also, keep in mind that Inception was snubbed for two nods which I felt would be fairly obvious for it to grab: Director and Editing. But I digress.

Back to Social Network. Critics' prizes up the wazoo, as well as the Globe. But it got (relatively) little love from the Academy. Eight nominations is still a lot, but the real story this morning is how well True Grit did, along with the expected leader in the nominations count, The King's Speech. Meanwhile, Social Network has a not-insignificant snub to deal with in Andrew Garfield's lack of a Best Supporting Actor nomination. True, he didn't get a SAG nod, but most prognosticators felt he'd score an Oscar nod.

Much of the time, the film with the most nominations is the automatic front-runner. Not always the case, because sometimes big, bloated spectacle-style films can rack up a ton of nominations in technical categories but don't get nominated where it really counts (like in acting or writing). Think Avatar from last year: tied with eventual winner The Hurt Locker with nine nominations apiece, but it had no acting or writing nods - it was nominated for Picture, Director and a ton of technical awards, and that was it. It was dead on arrival.

This year, the film with the most nominations - The King's Speech - has a TON of love from the Academy, all across the board. It's nominated in every acting category but Best Actress (where it didn't have a nominee to push for a spot), plus writing, directing and lots of technical awards. True Grit, in a way, is almost King's Speech-lite as it's got double-digit nominations, and it's got 'em where it really counts. Social Network is a shoo-in for Aaron Sorkin's adapted screenplay, plus David Fincher's probably still got the Director prize in his back pocket and Jesse Eisenberg is nominated for Best Actor. But no Garfield is potentially worrisome. The film did get nods for Original Score and Editing, which always bode well for a Best Picture. But I think there's a real chance of an upset here.

Put simply, The King's Speech has the most nominations, strong support within the Academy, just won the Producer's Guild (PGA) top prize, is poised to win at the BAFTAs and possibly the SAG Awards - and everyone thinks the other film is a shoo-in to win.

My money is still on The Social Network, because I do think to some extent its relatively-small nomination total was unavoidable: it's a not a movie built to rack up the Oscar nods. Plus, it's the best-reviewed movie of the year, producer Scott Rudin will push it hard and it'd be a shame if the Academy didn't reward what is clearly the best American movie of the year. But there's a real path to an upset by The King's Speech, which might be the first 12-nomination, acting-writing-directing-editing nominated film in history that is still considered by many to be an underdog.

Oscar Nomination Snap Judgments

It might not be safe to judge me on these come the day of the ceremony! The disclaimer, obviously, is that it's 6 A.M. here in Los Angeles and my brain is still trying to process being awake, let alone writing for all the Internets to see.

Not too many surprises this morning, but there were a few. Here they are, along with other snap judgments regarding today's Academy Award nominations:

1. True Grit back from the dead: After being snubbed at the Globes, and with indications that past winners the Coen Bros. probably would NOT be recognized for directing, the Coen Bros. WERE recognized for directing AND the movie had the second-most nominations, with 10
2. Andrew Garfield overlooked for Best Supporting Actor in the role that is the heart of the film that is supposed to be the front-runner. I'm not saying this is a death knell by any means for The Social Network, but I can't take it as GOOD news by any means.
3. The Academy just can't bring itself to dig Christopher Nolan. The whole reason we now have 10 Best Picture nominees is because, two years, the Academy made one of its biggest snubs ever and failed to nominate Nolan's film The Dark Knight. They've nominated Inception this time around, but snubbed the Brit of a Best Director slot, something that seemed like a foregone conclusion. The Coen Bros. presumably took that slot. So the moral of the story is, in the eyes of the Academy: Coens > Nolan
4. Javier Bardem! The former winner (for a Coen Bros. film), in a bit of an upset, won a Best Actor nomination for his role in Biutiful. It's the first time ever that a leading actor nominee's performance was entirely in Spanish.
5. Hailee Steinfeld's nom is Michelle Williams' gain. Not a surprise in the least that the 14 year-old heroine of True Grit was nominated, but there had been some thinking recently that she'd get nominated as Best Actress (since she drives the movie) and not Best Supporting Actress (which she was being pushed for, because she's 14). But in the end, Supporting it was - which kept open a spot for the much-loved indie queen Michelle Williams as a Best Actress nominee for Blue Valentine, but presumably kept Mila Kunis (Black Swan) out of the Supporting race.
   
6. John Hawkes for Best Supporting Actor: The Winter's Bone actor presumably grabbed Andrew Garfield's spot.
7. Jacki Weaver for Best Supporting Actress: The veteran Australian actress duplicated her Golden Globes nod by getting nominated for her chilling turn in Animal Kingdom. Largely expected in many quarters, but it's still somewhat of a coup considering her film is probably the least-seen of any nominee in a major category (acting, directing, writing, picture).

In the end, what I'm most interested in is the fact that The Social Network got "only" eight nominations, which puts it in third place behind The King's Speech with 12 and True Grit (!) with 10. Granted, Social Network is not a movie designed to get tons of Oscar nominations, whereas King's Speech or True Grit are - because they can rack up nods in the technical categories like art direction, costumes, etc. But I did get somewhat of a sense that, if Social Network is to cap off awards season with a Best Picture win, it will need to have a strong core of support within the Academy, because judging from the nominations alone the voters seem to be a bit ambivalent about it. Considering the fact that it's won almost everything up to this point, it's at least one of two front-runners (along with King's Speech; 10 nominations notwithstanding, I don't think True Grit is winning). But when you throw into the mix the fact that King's Speech got 12 nominations, just won the Producer's Guild prize for Best Picture, blew everyone out of the water at the BAFTAs (I know, they're British) AND the fact that Social Network is third among most-nominated films (with a not-insignificant snub in Andrew Garfield), you begin to get the feeling that Social Network's support within the Academy might be a little shakier than previously thought.

It's going to take a bit more than expected for the Academy to crown "the Facebook movie," especially when a heart-warming, old-fashioned piece of (British!) entertainment is sitting there for the taking - along with the Coen Bros., now firmly entrenched in the establishment, as a very dark horse.