Jonathan Glazer (The Zone of Interest) and Christopher Nolan (Oppenheimer) are among the directors who have been tipped for nominations. Sofia Coppola, director of Priscilla, is also in contention according to Wendy Ide.
Justine Triet (Anatomy of a Fall)
Lanthimos
Past Lives Poor Things and Priscilla are among the films that have received critical acclaim this year. Wendy Ide, film critic for The Guardian, has included all these films in her personal Oscars shortlist.
Payne and Scorsese are expected to win Best Director as they landed DGA nods and helmed the five biggest films in terms of potential Oscar hauls. Celine Song (Past Lives) and Cord Jefferson (Anatomy of a Fall) have also done very well in awards season with breakout pictures.
The Zone of Interest
The Oscar nominations are just around the corner, and film critics and industry insiders have been making their predictions. Here's a roundup of some of the top contenders in various categories.
Best Picture: The Zone of Interest, Anatomy of a Fall, Past Lives Poor Things and Priscilla are among the films that have received critical acclaim this year. Wendy Ide, film critic for The Guardian, has included all these films in her personal Oscars shortlist.
Best Director: Justine Triet (Anatomy of a Fall), Jonathan Glazer (The Zone of Interest) and Christopher Nolan (Oppenheimer) are among the directors who have been tipped for nominations. Sofia Coppola, director of Priscilla, is also in contention according to Wendy Ide.
Other notable mentions: Gerwig, Lanthimos, Payne and Scorsese are expected to win Best Director as they landed DGA nods and helmed the five biggest films in terms of potential Oscar hauls. Celine Song (Past Lives) and Cord Jefferson (Anatomy of a Fall) have also done very well in awards season with breakout pictures.
It's worth noting that there are still some unknown factors at play, such as the upcoming quarterly refunding update from the US Treasury which will provide information on how much bond supply there will be. This could potentially impact the Oscar race.
Results are in for the nominations phase of Awards Daily's 17th Annual Oscar Project
The project is done purely for their own satisfaction and not to influence actual Oscar outcome
It serves as a visual learning tool to understand ballot-counting process in preferential voting system
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Academy members' preferences differ from AD voters without providing any evidence or reasoning for this claim. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by suggesting that only one of two films can be included in Best Picture when there are actually multiple options available. This is not supported by any data or information provided in the article.
The Academy members' preferences differ from AD voters
Only one of two films can be included in Best Picture
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a statement that suggests bias towards the film 'All of Us Strangers'. The author states that they initially landed at #7 but were later moved to #11 due to the surplus rule. This implies that there was an effort made by someone or something (presumably Academy members) to exclude this film from nomination, which could be seen as biased against it.
All of Us Strangers initially landed at #7 but were later moved to #11 due to the surplus rule.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the preferential voting system and ballot relocation process used by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) to determine Oscar nominations. The author also mentions specific films that were affected by these processes, including All of Us Strangers, Past Lives, May December, Zone of Interest, Anatomy of a Fall and The Holdovers.
Past Lives did not do as well in the redistribution process while May December improved their positions
The surplus rule caused two things to happen right out of gate. It knocked All of Us Strangers from #7 to #11 and lifted Past Lives from #11 to #8
Wendy Ide's personal Oscars shortlist for best picture is The Zone of Interest, Anatomy of a Fall, Past Lives, Poor Things and Priscilla.
Jonathan Glazer directed The Zone of Interest.
Christopher Nolan directed Oppenheimer.
Sofia Coppola is the director of Priscilla.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that they could see 'creative risks and artistic daring' being rewarded instead of the usual prestige plodders. This statement implies that there are no creative or artistic works currently being produced, which is not true. Secondly, the article selectively reports on certain films while ignoring others with similar qualities. For example, it mentions 'Anatomy of a Fall' and 'The Zone of Interest', but does not mention other films such as 'Past Lives' or 'Priscilla'. This selective reporting is an attempt to manipulate the reader into believing that these specific films are more deserving than others. Lastly, the author uses emotional manipulation by stating their personal preference for certain films and actors, which may influence readers to agree with them.
The statement 'Instead of the usual prestige plodders' is an example of sensationalism as it implies that all award-winning films are boring or uninspiring. This is not true.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Academy should reward creative risks and artistic daring instead of prestige plodders. This statement implies that the Academy is not capable of making such a decision on its own and needs external guidance from film critics, which is a form of deference to authority.
Wendy Ide's shortlist (my winner first) The Zone of Interest
Justine Triet Anatomy of a Fall director
Andrew Scott in All of Us Strangers
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear bias towards awarding creative risks and artistic daring. They consistently praise films that take chances or are unconventional in their storytelling.
Andrew Scott, who broke my heart in practically every frame of All of Us Strangers.
And why not? There's certainly a lot of very emphatic direction going on in the film. But my choice would be to reward a directorial hand that doesn't repeatedly punch the audience: the delicacy of Sofia Coppola's handling of Priscilla or the unshowy smarts of Justine Triet's gripping Anatomy of a Fall.
My pick would be Jonathan Glazer's chilling masterpiece, The Zone of Interest
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in the article. Wendy Ide has a financial tie to several filmmakers and actors mentioned in the article.
Wendy Ide is an editor at The Guardian which published this article.
. Barbie is locked out of Best Director and Best Screenplay
Florence Pugh lands a surprise Supporting Actress nomination for Oppenheimer.
. Justine Triet directed Anatomy of a Fall.
Accuracy
1. Origin lands Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, and Best Actress
. Florence Pugh lands a surprise Supporting Actress nomination for Oppenheimer.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims to have invented a tradition of making NO Guts, No Glory predictions when in fact it has been done by AwardsDaily for years. This is an example of selective reporting and emotional manipulation as the author tries to make themselves seem like they are unique and special.
1 The article claims that 'I' invented a tradition of making NO Guts, No Glory predictions when in fact it has been done by AwardsDaily for years.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author claims to have invented a term that is not widely recognized or used in the industry. This is an example of an appeal to authority fallacy as the author presents themselves as an expert on this topic without providing any evidence for their claim.
1 – Origin lands Best Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Best Actress
2 – Barbie locked out of Best Director, Best Screenplay
3 – Florence Pugh lands a surprise Supporting Actress nomination for Oppenheimer.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the Oscars 2024 predictions and provides alternative viewpoints. The author also mentions some surprising nominations for Best Actress, Director, Screenplay and Supporting Actress.
The upcoming quarterly refunding update from the US Treasury will provide information on how much bond supply there will be
Nathaniel R is making his final Oscar nomination predictions in a blog post for The Film Experience.
There are ten movies that have had impeccable awards seasons thus far and are expected to dominate the Oscars. These include American Fiction, Anatomy of a Fall, Barbie, The Holdovers, Killers of the Flower Moon, Maestro, Oppenheimer, Past Lives Poor Things and The Zone of Interest.
Gerwig Nolan Payne Scorsese are expected to win Best Director as they landed DGA nods and helmed the five biggest films in terms of potential Oscar hauls. However, there is a possibility that the Directors branch at the Academy may be intermittently iconoclastic on occasion.
Celine Song Cord Jefferson Justine Triet have also done very well in awards season with breakout pictures.
Accuracy
The Zone of Interest is directed by Jonathan Glazer.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that there are no chinks in the armor of the top ten films for Best Picture when it's clear from their own analysis that they have not seen all of them and therefore cannot make such a claim with certainty. Secondly, the author uses phrases like 'in all likelihood' to suggest a level of confidence without providing any evidence or reasoning behind this belief.
The author uses phrases like 'in all likelihood' to suggest a level of confidence without providing any evidence or reasoning behind this belief.
The author claims there are no chinks in the armor of the top ten films for Best Picture when it's clear from their own analysis that they have not seen all of them and therefore cannot make such a claim with certainty.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Directors branch at the Academy has been known to be intermittently iconoclastic on occasion. This is a statement about what may happen in the future and not based on any evidence presented in this article or previous awards seasons.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Directors branch at the Academy has been known to be intermittently iconoclastic on occasion. This is a statement about what may happen in the future and not based on any evidence presented in this article or previous awards seasons.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when they say 'you never know' which implies that there will definitely be an upset, even though it is impossible to predict with certainty.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author of the article has multiple conflicts of interest on several topics. The site is owned by a person with financial ties to some of the individuals and companies mentioned in the article.
Sofia Coppola is the director of Priscilla, which was not included in Wendy Ide's personal Oscars shortlist.
Accuracy
The Zone of Interest
Anatomy of a Fall
Past Lives
Poor Things and Priscilla.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author presents their personal shortlists as if they were objective and representative of a larger group of film critics. However, there is no indication that these are actual alternative Oscar shortlists or that any other film critics have been consulted for this piece.
The title implies that the article contains information about an official Oscars ceremony when in fact it only discusses personal preferences of a single author.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Academy should reward creative risks and artistic daring instead of prestige plodders. This statement implies that the Academy is not capable of making such a decision on its own and needs external guidance from film critics, which is a form of deference to authority.
Wendy Ide states 'Instead of the usual prestige plodders, we could see the slippery courtroom drama Anatomy of a Fall or the riotously batshit Poor Things in with a real chance of winning.'
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that film critics should reveal their personal Oscars shortlists. This implies that these individuals have some sort of expertise and knowledge about what constitutes good cinema, which is not necessarily true.
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear bias towards awarding creative risks and artistic daring. They consistently praise films that take chances or are unconventional in their storytelling.
Andrew Scott, who broke my heart in practically every frame of All of Us Strangers.
And why not? There's certainly a lot of very emphatic direction going on in the film. But my choice would be to reward a directorial hand that doesn't repeatedly punch the audience: the delicacy of Sofia Coppola's handling of Priscilla or the unshowy smarts of Justine Triet's gripping Anatomy of a Fall.
My pick would be Jonathan Glazer's chilling masterpiece, The Zone of Interest
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Wendy Ide has a conflict of interest on the topic 'The Zone of Interest' as she is an author and editor for The Guardian which published the article. She also has a personal relationship with Justine Triet who directed 'Anatomy of a Fall'. Additionally, Wendy Ide may have financial ties to Jonathan Glazer or Yorgos Lanthimos as they are both filmmakers whose work she covers in her role at The Guardian.
Justine Triet directed 'Anatomy of a Fall' and Wendy Ide has a personal relationship with her.
Wendy Ide is an author and editor for The Guardian which published the article on 'The Zone of Interest'.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author Wendy Ide has conflicts of interest on the topics 'Anatomy of a Fall', 'Poor Things', and 'Oppenheimer'.
Wendy Ide has written extensively on Poor Things and Oppenheimer, including reviews for The Guardian.
Wendy Ide is an editor at The Guardian. She was previously the film critic for The Observer, where she wrote about Anatomy of a Fall in 2019.
