Welcome again to Oscar Oracle, where I talk about the Academy Awards race on a film-by-film basis. As ever, if you're looking for serious gamesmanship and analysis, there are plenty of other Oscar prognosticators who take it very, very seriously -- see David Poland's Gurus of Gold, for but one group of high-minded deep thinkers on the matter -- but the rules here at Oscar Oracle are pretty simple.

First, I'm only going to talk about the Oscar chances of films I've actually seen. And second, when the actual nominations are released in January, I'll make picks against the Academy's nominations and see how well I do, which will be strenuously mentioned in all future Oscar Oracle columns by yours truly whether a badge of pride or a dunce's cap. For now, though, a discussion -- film by film, in installments -- of which films you might see in the Oscar nominations, and why. In this installment, several outliers come under the microscope ...

Inherent Vice:

Will it be nominated? Mmmmmaybe? Even in a 10-film field, Paul Thomas Anderson's latest is a little out there -- sketchy, fuzzy, non-linear, impressionistic. Let's put it this way: It's a film more likely to be admired in its parts than in its totality. 

Likely Nominations: If there's one cold-stone lock for Inherent Vice, if it earns a single nomination, it'll be for Robert Elswit, the cinematographer; between this and Nightcrawler, he's had a hell of a year ...

Dear Academy: They're complicated parts that don't quite fit into anyone's expectations, but Joanna Newsom and Katharine Waterston are both Best Supporting Actress-worthy, here. 
 
Get on Up:

Will it be nominated? Probably not for Best Picture, but there is a push to get Chadwick Bozeman a Best Actor nom ... and it's a push I might see working. 

Likely Nominations: Best Actor.

From My Review:

"The blunt fact of the matter is that Boseman -- who displayed significant range between the two poles of his noble-but-stiff work in 42 and his lighter, looser performance in Draft Day -- is completely and utterly wrong to play Brown; he's the wrong height, the wrong body shape, the wrong skin tone. Boseman isn't just taller than Brown, he's a half-foot taller, and he's built leaner and longer than Brown's stout, barrel-shaped body, lighter-skinned and wider-eyed. But when Boseman is not only just performing Brown, but also performing as Brown in performance, the effect is electric -- Bozeman portrays the dance moves, the flow of energy between the crowd and Brown and Brown and the band, the kind of showmanship that makes a man do repeated splits to the ground as easily, and more swiftly, than you can breathe --  and, briefly, the movie comes to life."

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes:
 
Will it be nominated? Not for Best Picture, and even though there's a big push for Andy Serkis' work as Caesar to get a nomination -- and be the performance that takes motion capture/performance capture/'digital make-up" out of the world of Effects and into the realm of Acting-with-a-Capital A -- I can't see it happening. One impediment? Frankly, the effects in Dawn don't look nearly as good on Awards screeners at home -- which is where, frankly, the vast majority of Academy voters will see the film. 

Likely Nominations: Best Visual Effects -- these films are still technical marvels -- but that's about it. 

From My Review:

"Serkis is great, as ever; he originated this role, and owns it as a ape of conviction who can't afford mistakes."