Oscar Voting Closes: Is ‘The Brutalist’ Underseen? Could ‘Juror No. 2’ Make a Surprise Best Picture Appearance? — 9 Takeaways From Academy Members

As Frodo says after destroying the One Ring while sitting on a boulder surrounded by rivers of lava in “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”: It’s done.

After two voting extensions prompted by the devastating Los Angeles wildfires, the nomination voting period for the 97th Academy Awards has officially closed. While the Producers Guild of America, Writers Guild of America, and other key guilds have offered some insight into which films might dominate this year’s Oscars, one thing remains certain: surprises are practically guaranteed when it comes to the Academy.

For seasoned awards pundits, predicting the Oscars has always involved careful calculations, heated debates, and whispered, off-the-record conversations with Academy voters. These chats, typically brimming with insider insights and candid opinions, took on a different tone this year. Many pundits hesitated to reach out in the wake of wildfires that devastated parts of Los Angeles. Surprisingly, the voters initiated contact, leading with compassionate inquiries about the well-being of journalists and their families — a touching reminder that even in Hollywood, humanity transcends the glitz.

Once pleasantries were exchanged, the conversations naturally turned to cinema, offering a welcome distraction from the chaos. For voters, discussing movies became a source of solace during a challenging time. In these exchanges, trends and insights about this year’s race began to take shape. From potential best picture frontrunners to unexpected snubs, here are seven key takeaways from our conversations with Academy members — and some burning questions as we gear up for the Jan. 23 nominations announcement.

Did voters finish “The Brutalist?”

Brady Corbet’s “The Brutalist” is a strong contender in this year’s race, bolstered by its Golden Globe win. Yet, some voters admitted they “didn’t get to it” or “didn’t finish it,” citing its demanding runtime and intense subject matter. While this likely won’t derail the film’s chances for nominations — many expect it to secure, at minimum, a solid eight — it could explain why supporting actress hopeful Felicity Jones, whose pivotal role doesn’t appear until the second half, hasn’t gained more traction.

Golden Globe wins still matter.

Despite ongoing debates about the Globes’ relevance, a win at the ceremony undeniably carries weight. Several voters admitted the Globes influenced their watchlist, pushing films like “I’m Still Here” starring Fernanda Torres and “A Real Pain” featuring Kieran Culkin into the spotlight. Meanwhile, high-profile contenders such as Jacques Audiard’s “Emilia Pérez” and Edward Berger’s “Conclave” solidified their must-watch status thanks to their victories in specific categories. For films teetering on the edge of voters’ radar, that recognition can mean the difference between a nomination and a miss.

Critics and Audiences ≠ Academy Voters

This year, the divide between critics, audiences, and Academy members feels particularly pronounced. For instance, critical darlings like RaMell Ross’ “Nickel Boys” and Mike Leigh’s “Hard Truths” have struggled to translate their momentum into voter enthusiasm. On the flip side, “Emilia Pérez” — which sports lukewarm Rotten Tomatoes scores (76% critics, 40% audience) — is widely expected to dominate noms, potentially becoming the most-nominated non-English-language film in Oscar history.

Similarly, James Mangold’s Bob Dylan biopic “A Complete Unknown” (79% on Rotten Tomatoes) has found passionate support among Academy members despite a mixed reception elsewhere. These cases underscore that Academy voters operate on their own wavelength, driven by personal taste, nostalgia and cinematic resonance rather than external metrics.

The Curious Case of “Category Fraud” and a Possible Acting Switch

“Category fraud” has become a buzzword this awards season, with social media and voters alike calling out the campaigns of seemingly lead performances as supporting to increase awards chances. Zoe Saldaña in “Emilia Pérez,” Kieran Culkin in “A Real Pain,” and Ariana Grande in “Wicked” are just a few examples of performances that came up in discussions who are marketed as supporting despite significant screen time.

One acting branch member remarked, “I love them, but let’s be honest, she’s a lead,” referring to Saldaña. These dynamics could lead to unexpected outcomes, split votes, or surprise placements, echoing past Oscar shocks.

This leads me to provide a couple of scenarios (not a prediction…yet?) on what nominations might look like on nomination morning. And bear with me; I’m a journalist who will try to explain something using math (not my strong suit).

The first is business as usual for “Emilia Perez,” with Karla Sofia Gascon becoming the first openly transgender actor nominated in the lead and Saldaña continuing her frontrunner pursuit in supporting.

But what if there was a twist?

What if we see the latest Kate Winslet (“The Reader”) category switch-a-roo, where Saldaña’s performance is cited in the lead, alongside her co-star, which would be the first co-leading duo recognized since Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon for “Thelma & Louise” (1991).

Another outcome is Gascon is left entirely off the list, with Saldaña left alone to represent the film as a supporting actress. According to Academy rules, if a performance makes the top five in both lead and supporting for the same performance, whichever has more votes is the nominated performance. With the best actress race so competitive, it would be interesting to see how the votes are distributed among all the contenders.

And the final scenario, which coincidentally seems like the most far-fetched but also the most likely of all these hypotheticals, is a repeat of the “Judas and the Black Messiah” (2021) shocker where LaKieth Stanfield, who had been campaigning as lead actor all season, surprisingly showed up in supporting alongside his eventual Oscar-winning co-star Daniel Kaluuya. Following the nominations in 2021, I explained why this happened.

In one conversation with an Acting Branch member, when I asked if they were voting for Gascón, they responded: “Oh yes, in supporting, right?”

When told that Gascón was in the lead and Saldaña was in supporting, they quickly yelled, “Supporting?!” I don’t know where they eventually voted, but that set off a potential alarm. How would that shake up the race, and who would that push out? I can’t even wrap my mind around that one.

Will women and POC get shut out of best director?

The best director category has long been a challenging space for women and people of color to break into, and this year is no different. Despite critical acclaim for Jon M. Chu (“Wicked”), RaMell Ross (“Nickel Boys”), Coralie Fargeat (“The Substance”), and Payal Kapadia (“All We Imagine as Light”), none are considered locks. With Jacques Audiard, Brady Corbet, Edward Berger, and Sean Baker seemingly firm in the race, the final slot looks destined for someone like James Mangold or Denis Villeneuve — safer, more traditional picks — or a potential wildcard.

Could Clint Eastwood’s “Juror No. 2” pull off the ultimate shocker?

Among the surprises this season, Clint Eastwood’s “Juror No. 2” has been mentioned far more than I would have expected with voters, and potentially, a viable contender for that last best picture slot we’re all trying to figure out. The film, rumored to be Eastwood’s final project, has garnered admiration from voters in the producers’ and directors’ branches, many of whom see their vote as a symbolic gesture to the legendary filmmaker and “middle finger” to Warner Bros, who gave it a limited release. Its mere inclusion would be shocking, but that would be enough. On top of that, it could be the lone nomination for the movie, which would be the first since “The Ox-Bow Incident” (1943) grabbed a single nom for best picture. It might be crazy enough to make sense.

Jamie Lee Curtis is the best Oscar campaigner working today.

If there were an Oscar for Best Awards Campaigner, Jamie Lee Curtis would win in a landslide. The veteran actress earned her first Oscar for “Everything Everywhere All at Once” and has been tirelessly promoting her co-star Pamela Anderson and her film, “The Last Showgirl.” Curtis’ genuine enthusiasm and relentless support have not gone unnoticed, with voters praising her charisma. After securing SAG and BAFTA nominations, Curtis is well-positioned for her second Oscar nod. A studio needs to give her a role in your assumed best picture frontrunner. She’ll get it to the finish line for you.

Voters like “Challengers,” but are there enough of them?

Luca Guadagnino’s steamy tennis drama “Challengers,” starring Zendaya, has quietly built a passionate fan base among voters. The film’s blend of sports and sexual tension has resonated with younger Academy members. However, following BAFTA, PGA and SAG shutouts, its chances for attention remain uncertain. Its best shot seems to be in the categories for original screenplay and score (which it won at the Globes) and maybe even best picture. But it’s tough to call.

Voters have been looking for “feel good” movies to watch.

One thing that became clear from these conversations: voters have been seeking films that offered a sense of joy, escapism and uplift. Following a week of non-stop bad news from the wildfires, especially with those based in L.A., many who found the energy to watch a couple more movies were gravitating towards films they deemed “easy watches.” This included the folk era nostalgia of “A Complete Unknown” to the green and pink-colored musicality of “Wicked.”

My theory is that the feeling may have profoundly affected some international features. Many of the shortlisted 15 have been deemed “depressing” by multiple voters. Still, notably, this could affect a film such as “The Seed of the Sacred Fig” from Germany, which, at two hours and 40 minutes, and admittedly grim (albeit brilliant), may not have been a priority for voters when casting their ballots.

Final predictions will drop next week. Until then, happy predicting.