The State of the Race: When You Have them By the Balls…
Now that the waves have receded back to the ocean, we’re left to sift through the debris of another Oscar season where we, Oscar pundits/watchers, have become as much a part of the problem as the Oscars themselves. Because it’s become such a large industry, it is no longer about watching, but about dictating. Bloggers and critics do the prep-work for the voters. Maybe they always have, going all the way back to the beginning when the critics and the public saw all of the movies first, and voted on them either with their box office or their awards, or their reviews. The public usually had a say. The critics had a say. And the Oscar voters had the final say. Sure, it was and always will be about honoring their own – their prom queens and prom kings, their buddies, their pals, their idols. It’s always been about that and it will likely always be about that — but for a nudge here or there occasionally, when a truly deserving contender actually wins for a job well done. But that’s rare. Popularity is the name of the game when it comes to the Oscars, at least in the major categories.
You can’t really pin that label on The Artist producer, director, or actor; they made it to the Oscars because critics and voters genuinely liked their movie. It hardly ever happens that way and certainly wasn’t the case LAST year, when The King’s Speech was propelled on the popularity of its actors, but mainly on how well the Weinstein Co. worked the back-end. And in the end, it WAS the movie the public liked best. It WAS the crowdpleaser. But last year’s winner hasn’t even lasted one year after it won. I don’t know what the fate of The Artist will be but I think it was a pretty ballsy move, despite the soft lob down the middle that it actually is, for the Academy to award a movie so few people have seen nor likely to see in the near future.
Weinstein Co. is doing their job. Oscar voters are doing their job too. People put a few plates in front of them and choose from the selection which they “like” best. Because they have to see so many movies every year, because they’ve seen plenty of geniuses come and go, because they don’t really care, ultimately, what the critics really think, they only have their tastes to go on — and these are very pampered, wealthy, insulated old white people. Most are very old and more than a few are very very tired of facing new challenges throughout their long lifetimes. Many are way past the age when film excited them all that much. Moreover, a great number of them have worked in film (many of them never did and never do) and know many of the contenders. There are so many weird factors at play the only thing they CAN rely on is how much they “liked” the movie. The publicists job, therefore, is to work hard to keep the stink off their product and to keep them likable all the way to the finish line. It ain’t easy, of course. Once the worm turns it turns for good. Staying ahead of it, that’s the key. Once the awards have been won it’s left to observers like me to examine whether those choices were good or bad, as well as try to understand the reasons why those choices were probably inevitable.
The trick with Oscar blogging — our goal, our responsibility, as I see it — is to make sure as many plates as possible make it to the table in the first place. Obviously this was easier back when they had a solid ten nominees. The funny part is, decades of Academy convention has preconditioned them to like five Best Pictures. And you can see what those five would be, give or take, by how their wins went down.
This year:
Hugo – Sound, Sound Editing, Art Direction, Visual Effects, Cinematography
The Artist – Picture, Director, Actor, Costumes, Score
The Help – Supporting Actress
The Descendants – Screenplay
Midnight in Paris – Screenplay
Empty-handed: Moneyball, War Horse, Extremely Loud, Tree of Life
The year before was a little better, with six winners:
Black Swan – Best Actress
The King’s Speech – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actor
The Social Network – Screenplay, Editing, Score
The Fighter – Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor
Inception – Sound, Sound Editing, Cinematography, Visual Effects
Toy Story 3 – Animated Feature, Song
Empty-handed: 127 Hours, The Kids Are All Right, Winter’s Bone, True Grit
2009
The Hurt Locker – Picture, Director, Screenplay, Sound, Sound Editing
Avatar – Cinematography, Art Direction
The Blind Side – Actress
Precious – Screenplay, Supporting Actress
Inglourious Basterds – Supporting actor
Up – Animated Feature, Score
Empty-handed: A Serious Man, An Education, District Nine, Up in the Air
We know that Up in the Air would likely have been one of the Best Picture nominees — toss out The Blind Side and put back in Up in the Air and you’d have your five.
So you see, the Academy really only needs, or wants, five entrees to choose from. The rest of those nominees satisfy the public mostly because otherwise what are they doing there?
In 2009 and 2010, their list of ten was really representative of the year’s best, give or take a Blind Side. This year their list of nine was mostly an embarrassment, give or take a Hugo or two. But if they aren’t going to start being braver with their choices there really is no point to expanding the Best Picture race at all.
For those who cover the race, for critics who present their choices on a silver tray in an attempt to influence Oscar, perhaps the idea is not treat the Academy like children who have picky tastes and must be fed only the blandest of foods — only white foods with butter and cheese on them, or chicken nuggets. Perhaps the idea is to encourage them to sample as wide a variety as possible. Sure, they’re always going to default back to what’s familiar and tastes good, but who knows what might happen if you give them the benefit of the doubt first.
Perhaps you think it’s presumptuous to assume that people who cover the Oscars have that much power. Indeed, the choices for Oscar are laid out long before they ever hit the festival circuit, when they are still in development, in fact. Many of them are clearly made with Oscar in mind. It makes a big difference to be in the Oscar race, but mostly for smaller productions. Had Woody Harrelson been nominated for Rampart that would have made all of the difference between people seeing that movie and not seeing it. The Artist would be a blip, a quickly forgotten novelty, had it not gotten into the Oscar race.
Either way, here’s to hoping for a more diverse slate next year, and a willingness by the pundits and critics to avoid being so perfection-oriented. To look beyond the safe lay-ups to see the greatness in films that make riskier moves. If you require a certain level of perfection in art you are going to lose what makes the work exceptional in the first place and you’ll end up with the most vanilla choices, again and again.
Do we have any control over “Oscar buzz”? Probably not. Do we have any control over what films get chosen? Probably not. But we can’t cultivate a taste for something unfamiliar unless we serve it up in the first place. When we stop thinking like parents who would rather serve their kids happy meals than risk their refusal of anything spicier, who knows what doors might suddenly fly open.
57 Comments
Leave a Comment
Tracker Pages
Recently on AD
Follow Us!
Tags
Gallery
Hmmm. Jeff Wells’ early criticism of The Artist and Sasha’s of War Horse stayed in my mind as I watched both and certainly would have played a role were I to fill out a ballot. I guess it all depends on how much voters rely on outside sources to make their picks. I have a feeling plenty vote for what’s buzzy, what gets covered a lot in the LA/NY Times….Harvey certainly helped The Artist on that front. It would be great to corral about 100 voters and have them give their reasoning, although the 4 EW profiled were interesting, generally for the wrong reasons.
Hurt Locker also won Editing.
I think it’s a joint responsbility between public (but they’re less aware and care the least about the Oscars), critics, and bloggers/pundits.
But yeah, something has to be done.
Someone said “It’s been the Artist since Cannes” – that takes on a life of its own.
I’ve been saying for a while that a reason it’s so predictable and safe is because the bloggers/predictors like to play it predictable and safe. They/we want to be right, so we pick what we think “they” will like. But the Hurt Locker’s and Tree of Life’s and NCFOM’s of the world show that they are willing to nominate or recognize films that are not the sappy happy ending of TKS, The Artist. They are willing to go there, if we are willing to go there.
No one was really willing to “go there” for an off the cuff movie this year (perhaps there weren’t that many great ones as in past year) so they didn’t.
But, unfortunately, one blogger/site cannot make this change alone. Even if AD starts championing other movies strongly next year, it will be more of the same if all the other 99 sites are too busy predicting and trying to “guess” what “they” will pick to notice that by trying to “guess” they are indeed helping “them” pick.
Just look at the Academy membership profiles that we got from LA Times. Do we think Madonna and Haley Joel Osmont have time to see all the movies from NYFF? From Cannes? From Toronto? Of course not. No f*ing way. There lives are not dedicated to movies.
When they have their ballots they see: “Well, NYFCC picked The Artist and NBR picked Hugo and GG likes these. And all the bloggers seem to think that The Artist and Hugo and The Help and Moneyball are right down our alley. No one really thinks Shame and Rampart are going to make it. So I’ll pick those.” It’s quite easy. You can see that process playing out in the minds of hundreds if not thousands of the voters.
Sure, the dedicated, small contingent that is still in the business will vote smarter than that and you get Tree of Life’s and A Serious Man’s, or whatever. But the other movies are cut and paste for them by all of us together.
We are such an active part of this whole process now, helped by Twitter, the Internet, 24/7 coverage and buzz, that it is impossible to expect them to change if we don’t change the way we do it. (Again, I say we because it includes bloggers, critics, and public – when my friends complain about the lack of good movies I always say vote with your feet – if you go see more Bridesmaids and Moneyballs and Helps, those movies will get made and recognized).
Change comes from within.
although the 4 EW profiled were interesting, generally for the wrong reasons.
Yeah, those 4 in EW were a sad confirmation of what we thought. I’ve said it before but “The Actress” one seemed like the most ridiculous, catty, unreasonable voter of all time. They said she’s a former nominee…..I’d love to know who she is.
I like how most of the blame for the last two years’ Oscar winners gets shoved onto the Weinstein Company. So what the Weinstein Company says, goes? Academy members don’t have a choice? They’re forced to buy into the hype and vote how the Weinstein Company tells them to?
Why not start putting the culpability of who wins an Oscar back into the hands of those who actually make the choices? Why must a corporation take all the heat when all it does is say, “Vote my films?” Honestly, unless there’s a gun placed to every Academy member’s head, you can’t point fingers at anyone but the AMPAS.
“But last year’s winner hasn’t even lasted one year after it won.”
I don’t think any of the people who liked last year’s winner suddenly changed their minds. And now The King’s Speech is going to be a play on the West End in London.
This year there seemed to be apathy and not great campaigning so voters gave in to Harvey, which they need to stop doing this year. But there will be several non-Weinstein projects that look promising this year.
The King’s Speech was also the 14th best selling DVD of last year, ahead of Toy Story 3. I think it’s doing just fine.
I really don’t get the “But last year’s winner hasn’t even lasted one year after it won,” according to whom? This website? This website has been bashing *The King’s Speech* since BEFORE it won. What a ridiculous statement.
On the same token as @Zach above, what is Weinstein Co. “doing” that other studios and film companies are not?
Are Warner Bros, Sony, and Fox all just out there getting their asses kicked, or are they even getting in the ring?
although the 4 EW profiled were interesting, generally for the wrong reasons.
Does anyone have a link to that?
The best analogy I can think of is a political campaign — yes, it’s incredibly obvious, but apt nonetheless.
When George W. Bush won the presidency in 2004 and Obama in 2008, most people who opposed wither blamed the voters for being naive and backwards-thinking and lured in for voting for such a candidate. How many blamed Bush or Obama for actually campaigning? No one, because that’s what they’re supposed to do.
Like movie studios, politicians campaign and try to win over the voting bloc. It’s up to the voters to make up their minds — some buy into the hype and some go with what they prefer.
Holding the studios culpable makes no sense. As long as they follow the guidelines for marketing and campaigning then why complain? Because your film didn’t win? My film never wins, but I don’t take it personally. I’ve had to have my life affected one way or another by any decision made by the AMPAS, so there’s no reason to bemoan the process.
“Are Warner Bros, Sony, and Fox all just out there getting their asses kicked, or are they even getting in the ring?”
Exactly, Carson and Zach. Other studios have to stop blaming Weinstein for out playing them and get off their butts and do something for their own clients.
Remember when Fassbender suddenly appeared on the talk show circuit – right at the nomination deadline when most of the ballots were probably already in? We, here, called it then, said it was too little/too late and, sure enough – no nomination. Totally Fox’s fault
Fox, however, was a real go-getter compared to SONY’s bungling of Michael Shannon’s chances for Take Shelter. And IFC – Swinton (anybody home?) Both had major critical rockets just waiting to be lit and it never happened.
Drive had an absolutely misguided, shitty “fast ‘n furious” release campaign that likely did permanent damage to the film in AMPAS brains. They are OLD – they don’t recover quickly of change direction easily. The film’s chances were ruined at the start.
Warner’s gets spooked by a few negative reviews for J Edgar and abandons DiCaprio, et al. Would Harvey run and hide? He didn’t when he elevated a lesser film, The Reader, and landed Winslet her Oscar.
If you want a first class film tp be a critical success, that’s one skillset; good box office, that’s a different one. Getting Oscar’s attention – another skillset, entirely.
The Oscars need to stop being pussies, and nominate some films people actually care about! If TDKR and Hobbit get snubbed and they nominate small films i will be Fucking Pissed!
Jake G, I don’t think the Oscars are quite for you…
Maybe the Empire awards are more up your street.
Do really wish at some time you would address category fraud – it is very common:
Brando – The Godfather
Finch – Network
Signoret – Room at the Top
Neal – Hud
Kidman – The Hours
Fitzgerald – Going My Way
Gwenn – Miracle on 34th St.
Matthau – Fortune Cookie
Albertson – Subject Was Roses
Burns – Sunshine Boys
Hutton – Ordinary People
Jones – Fugitive
Saint – On the Waterfront
O’Neal – Paper Moon
Weisz – Constant Gardener
Jones – Chicago
Binoche – English Patient
And these are just the winners – adding nominees makes this a very common practice.
@Robert L.: Good list. Lead and supporting seems to have more to do with who controls the tenor of the film and, in some cases, which category can provide an easier path to a nomination. I still think Lesley Manville got robbed last year because no one could figure out if she was a lead or supporting. She dictated the action of the scenes she appeared in and really mirrored Another year’s tone aa a whole, but her screen time wasn’t as significant as, say, Natalie Portman’s in Black Swan.
I agree, I agree, i agree. Manville is the crux of the whole film.
Sasha, I’m sorry, but I’ve heard more people talk about The King’s Speech this past year than The Social Network. I realize you got burned by last years race, but this is ridiculous. Just because YOU didn’t care for the film (or at least as much as TSN), don’t presume to know how others felt/feel about it.
My favorite films almost never win the top prize, but after a certain point I just learn to get over it. All I have to do is looks at the films I consider the crown jewels of my personal collection, and I can see that a VERY small percentage of them are Oscar winners, let alone Best Picture winners. That’s just the way things go.
A lot of us are likely to disagree with the top choice of all these awards bodies in any number of given years. It doesn’t mean that good choices weren’t made nor that the films chosen are garbage.
The trick is not minding. I’ve read that somewhere.
Pardon my typo (‘look’ not ‘looks’)
From the people I know who’ve seen “The Social Network:” I don’t get it. He’s a dick the whole time to everyone. How’s that interesting.
From the same people, re: “The King’s Speech:” The whole time you’re thinking he can’t not stutter, then at the end, bam, he nails it.
These aren’t film scholars by any means, just average movie-goers. And as much as I love “The Social Network,” most Americans don’t like it when films stray from traditional structure and narrative. They could follow “The King’s Speech,” but had to work at “The Social Network.” I’m sure many AMPAS members had the same situation.
Or the Weinstein Company just over-saturated the market and voters felt obligated to pick “The King’s Speech” — I mean, if Harvey’s spending all this money it must be good. Right?
The King’s Speech hasn’t last one year?
I wonder why I own it on bluray and have watched it already at least 3 times without any decay – but even becoming even better to my eyes – and why I still haven’t rechecked The Social Network, The Fighter just to name two of the other nominees… don’t really feel the need to. Even thought I liked them a lot.
Robert, ‘Category Fraud’, which is a buzz term i resist, as it is a quinessential part of the Oscar process. Comparing an 8 minute performance with one that may be 5 or 10 times the amount of screen time is never going to be a level playing field. For me, if i accept the basic ‘oranges and apples’ of comparing and competing performances, then the machinations of who is put forward in what category and why, is open to so much conjecture – but it is NEVER fair or right. It suits the game. Would i want to take away Marcia Gay Harden’s Supporting Oscar, despite her being the Lead? No.
Just as film appreciation is highly subjective, so is the notion of what constitutes lead and support. I’ve seen and participated in many arguments on this site as to whether someone is rightfully or wrongfully in a category. The whole process is politics and strategy. Rationale is a wondrous thing – we can use it to serve our own aims and opinions. When is a co-lead an actual lead, or relegated to a supporting role – for an award potential. When is an ensemble member elevated to leading – for awards potential. Sometimes it backfires. Sometimes it works.
These articles are getting more and more tired by the day.
I know not everyone loved Hugo but there were a lot of people who did and thought it was Scorsese at his best. The Paramount campaign never seem to reflect the wonder of the film and it was mistake for them not to open the film completely wide the first two weeks when interest was key. And why didn’t they campaign for Ben Kingsley who was just as effective as Max Von Sydow. The film should have promoted as fantasy for all ages rather than as a film about a kid. It’s over now but Paramount blew it.
It’s a shame Harvey wasn’t behind Hugo instead of Gangs of New York. Still Hugo is already selling well on DVD and should be remembered in years to come.
Looking at that photograph at the top of the article, it makes one wonder just what an uproar there may have been in 1976 when Rocky beat All the President’s Men, Taxi Driver and Network had the internet or the notion of Oscar-bloggers existed. Unlike the events of this year, that truly was a travesty.
If I may though, Sasha, I’m not sure how drastically different a line-up you really wanted to see from the Academy this year in relation to the twenty films you ranked as the best just before Christmas. Obviously, (of the films you singled out), the likes of Shame, Margin Call, We Need to Talk About Kevin, Rampart, Attack the Block and Drive would’ve felt like a true breath of fresh air had they been among the nominated films, and I would certainly agree that Shame genuinely deserved greater recognition and in a perfect world would’ve received Best Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actress and Cinematography noms at the very least. But you also list the likes of J.Edgar, War Horse and Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, films that fit squarely in the Academy’s comfort zone and have subsequently been acknowledged as not being especially great (in the interests of full disclosure, I couldn’t ultimately bring myself to see EL & IC, but found J. Edgar to be dramatically inert. I would confess to having a soft spot for War Horse though, for all of its noted flaws). Elsewhere, much of the final Oscar shortlist is also represented but there is no mention for Melancholia, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Young Adult, The Skin I Live In, Take Shelter, Margaret….
This is not a criticism of your list as I’m not a believer in criticizing something that is personal and subjective (it always strikes me as bizarre when commenters get upset about what does or doesn’t make another individual’s top ten list). I appreciate that you may not have liked some of the other films mentioned above or possibly hadn’t even had chance to have viewed them at the time of publishing your list. My observation is merely that the films you chose to single out as being among the best of the year are far closer to the conservatism typically associated with traditional Academy choices than the more left-field or diverse choices you write about wanting to see acknowledged. Indeed, by including War Horse and EL & IC (albeit among the lower placings of your top twenty rather than the top ten), you yourself have endorsed what the consensus sees as the biggest failures of the Academy in resorting to type with certain selections in their Best Picture line-up. Similarly, I don’t believe awarding Harry Potter one of the Best Picture berths would have been any less conservative either and would have only been a regressive step back toward acknowledging the studios’ bigger cash cows.
Great films will always be unfairly overlooked and innovation is rarely appreciated at the time of its introduction to the world (which is why Stanley Kubrick never won Best Director). But if your assertion that the critics and bloggers have to be more adventurous in what they are championing to get away from the ‘safe lay-ups’, and that the pundits have become as much of a problem as the Academy themselves, then many of your own choices would appear to belie that very overlap and I’d be curious to know if you’ve since re-assessed or revisited any of the films that you covered in your best of the year article.
@Paddy M. The oscars nominated small films this year that arent the best! Your going to tell me that Midnight in Paris and EL&IC are better than The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Drive, or Bridesmaids? No. The academy is just too pussy to nominate R rated films! It shouldn’t matter what their rating is, if they are better they are better!
Why can’t I post here?
Trying to post the Saturn Award film nominees which were announced today but the site won’t let me.
PaulH, maybe something in formatting or links bumped your post into the spam can. I’ll go check…
Found it. I’ll move it to the main page. Thanks!
When predicting Oscars, you have said that it’s wise not to succumb to wishful. Unfortunately you have succumbed to wishful thinking about THE KING’S SPEECH’s public regard. It wasn’t my favorite either (even though I liked it a lot), but I have gotten over it. It’s time to let it go.
Thanks; Harry Potter fans in particular will be eager to see the nomination list. Saturn Awards have their back.
I’m curious, NOT taking potential Awards-love into account, which 2012-films do we think, have the potential to be truly memorable masterpieces ? My take :
1. Anna Karenina (the ‘different’ approach could REALLY work)
2. The Master (P. T. Anderson’s follow-up to ‘There will be blood’…rest my case)
3. The Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan…nuff said)
4. The Great Gatsby (Luhrmann is hit-and-miss…but when he is a hit…)
5. Gravity (Cuarón’s one-(wo)man show with Sandra Bullock ? Interesting!)
6. Untitled Terrence Malick Film (…rest my case)
7. Untitled Kathryn Bigelow Film (ditto)
8. Django Unchained (Tarantino in ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’-mode ? GOLDEN !)
9. Prometheus (Ridley Scott back to his roots)
10. Cogan’s Trade (The Assassination of Jesse James-reunion…good enough for me)
The Great Gatsby looks nauseating. I haven’t seen Moulin Rouge but I did see Romeo & Juliet and it was a beautiful diversion but little more. I hope that is not the case with Gatsby because it is a great novel that has the potential to be a “white people problems” trainwreck. Once again, I hope that doesn’t happen.
I’d say Les Miserables and (I suppose) TDKR could be spectacular. Moonrise Kingdom looks interesting too.
As an Aussie, i find Luhrmann overrated. I loved Strictly Ballroom, as it was so fruity and fun, and Romeo & Juliet was pretty good, but Moulin Rouge – was completely style over substance, and Australia was as well.
The only things i have heard about the Gatsby circus being filmed here in Sydney is the Leo revolving door of models that he is seen with, dates and dumps. Nothing about the movie. Wasn’t this story done well enough the last time? Just my 50c….
“In 2009 and 2010, their list of ten was really representative of the year’s best, give or take a Blind Side. This year their list of nine was mostly an embarrassment, give or take a Hugo or two. But if they aren’t going to start being braver with their choices there really is no point to expanding the Best Picture race at all.“
I always say it`s better making a “sacrifice“ and see a Blind Side nominated than not having a Black Swan, a 127 Hours, a Winter`s Bone, a District 9 or a Pixar film and having the same Oscar bait films as usual. The truth is that we won`t know until next year if this new 5% system made really big changes in the list but… 2011 was actually a weak year in terms of films for me, so… although I think this 5% was a bad decision, I prefer to wait. The ratings were pretty good for what this ceremony could have been. Meryl Streep doesn`t win an Oscar every year and the main interest in the Oscars was in the Best Actress category but a race like this is not common… What brings more attention are the films and the Academy will have a very big test this year if Dark Knight, Hobbit and Brave are great films.
daveinprogress
I agree with you on Luhrmann. The problem with all the Gatsby’s that have been filmed are there screenplays. The novel is all internal with limited dialogue. Also much of that dialogue is stilled works wonderfully for the novel but does not translate well for the film medium. It is going to take a brilliant screenplay mores than director.
I’d love next for the Times to have their investigative reporters train their eye on the Weinstein Company next, and uncover just what exactly they do to get people to vote for its movies. Nikki Finke suggested skulduggery in her Oscar night report. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.
The King’s Seech? Haven’t lasted a year? I still hear people talking about it.
Ultimately I think that The Social Network will be remembered as a much better film than The King’s Speech. But to say that The King’s Speech has disappeared from sight or favour at this point is simply not true.
I don’t think you can look at five movies out of nine that won Oscars and say automatically that those five would have been the nominees in a five-movie field.
I’ve thought that if there were five this year, MONEYBALL would have gotten in; you can see the breadth of support it had across the branches. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, with support mainly from the directors and writers, would have been the odd one out. But the awards result would have been exactly the same.
Last year, I thought, was a perfect argument for the 10-nominee format. With TKS, TSN, THE FIGHTER, and TRUE GRIT all locks, the 5th spot would have come down to two movies with passionate defenders–BLACK SWAN and INCEPTION. I think I know which one would have fallen out in a 5-picture format. There would have been a firestorm had INCEPTION not made it. But 2010 had ten nominees, all of which had at least four nominations, and usually solid nominations; e.g., screenplay, a lead acting nom, and a supporting nom for both WINTER’S BONE and THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT. I’m sure people who wouldn’t otherwise have watched WINTER’S BONE on DVD last year, or TREE OF LIFE or MIDNIGHT IN PARIS this year.
Last year is an even better example of how the final Oscars and a putative 5 don’t match up. TRUE GRIT amassed 10 noms, none of them winners. The movie was clearly no one’s number one or even number two. Yet it was nommed under the 10 format, and I believe would have been under the 5 as well. But would it have been nominated this year? The 9 format with the 5% percent solution have found it left out–with 9 nominations!–tying THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON’T THEY? At least that would hearken back to the year of the first TRUE GRIT. Perhaps it actually would have won something, like Best Cinematography, in compensation.
I feel the Academy needs to go back to the 10-picture model. To go back to 5 makes no sense. Think back over the years 1944-2008 and imagine all the movies that would have made a 10-nominee list. You’d have far fewer classics left out of the Best Picture race. This might even have changed some outcomes. Might THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL, which won 5 Oscars despite no BP nod, have won BP in that split year, saving us all the GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH embarrassment? 10 is better for the Academy, the movies, and the business. The preferential 5-to-10 will produce as many arbitrary choices, as it did this year, and as much disgruntlement as the 5-format did. But I also think that the Academy can’t be seen tweaking this thing every year.
Going back to five would be a mistake. Go to ten, resolve to stick with it for at least five years, and let the pieces fall.
Raymond wrote – “I really don’t get the “But last year’s winner hasn’t even lasted one year after it won,” according to whom? This website? This website has been bashing *The King’s Speech* since BEFORE it won. What a ridiculous statement.”
I fully agree. What a nonesense statement to make. Exactly what does a film have to do once its done the cinema route? Released on DVD (check), made available to cable TV (check), available for public to buy (check) ……. just what else is an Oscar winning film supposed to do? In my opinion its a great film, superbly acted, looks gorgeous and much more memorable than TSN. I really do not get Sasha’s comment other than to “bash”!!!!
Definitely have to agree that more of the general public still talks about The King’s Speech than The Social Network.
“it makes one wonder just what an uproar there may have been in 1976 when Rocky beat All the President’s Men, Taxi Driver and Network”
Uproar and anger didn’t exist as the internet hadn’t been invented yet.
TKS didn’t last one day for me. It would be complete misery to have to sit through that thing again.
And I find it really hard to believe that anyone would still want to sit around and discuss TKS. Unless they ran out of Ambien.
This essay looks like a work in progress, or an evolving position.
Meta here is that film awards are important and that we are part, large or small, of the process. That, playing the part of dispassionate predictions experts enables mediocrity.
“TKS didn’t last one day for me. It would be complete misery to have to sit through that thing again.”
You bet – once was more than enough for me, too. It’s competition – what was it called again? – I’ve watched maybe 7 or 8 times.
“Uproar and anger didn’t exist as the internet hadn’t been invented yet.”
1976 – many times I wish we had a race like that to debate, if only to see the meltdown at the results.
OT. Rules changes have been discussed so often in the last few years that maybe for next year, they should have something like this from the 1981 Oscars:
http://youtu.be/fk09nHyRpE0
A group of dancers explaning the rules singing and dancing (during the second half of the video), lol. I had never seen this, so I don’t know if there was some sarcasm in it or if it was just explaining rules that might have been new that year. And people complain now the show is too long…
We may complain a lot about the Oscars (and we have our reasons for that) but it`s true that in the past 5 years, they have chosen the best reviewed film among the nominees (in No Country For Old Man, it`s a virtual tie between it and There Will Be Blood). Rocky over those 3 is a bad choice. Not the ones the Academy did recently.
they have chosen 4 times. The exception is obviously The King`s Speech, which also got stellar reviews but not as Toy Story or The Social Network.
How has The King’s Speech not lasted a year after it has won? I am a staunch Social Network fan and feel it was robbed but people genuinely liked The King’s Speech last year and I’m sure if you still ask them, they’d say they still like and support it’s BP win. I think in 10 or 20 years, TKS won’t “last.” But how can you say after only won year that it is somehow an afterthought?
I support The King’s Speech, but I liked Social Network as well. The acting in KS included Rush (who was incredible, and IMO deserved the Oscar), Firth, and Bonham-Carter. TSN was a good screenplay, but the acting was so-so. Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield came across as nerds, and that’s how they come across in everything else they play. Armie Hammer? Rashida Jones? Rooney Mara (who I didn’t even recognize)? Sorry, but some people prefer one type of a movie, and others prefer something different. One isn’t “better” than the other, and getting overly emotional over it serves no real purpose.
Going out on a limb and stating that of the ten of the year of 2010, Black Swan will be the one that stands the test of time (can’t state which others yet).
Hard to qualify but it’s very controversial and divisive but has a universality to it that the scholars and critics love and it’s the scholars and critics that write a film’s place in cinematic history.
Archie, how do scholars and critics view films like Animal House, Vacation, or many Westerns? Those movies nevertheless have a place in cinematic history even if not under the imprimatur of the cinema cognoscente. Heck, the “scholars and critics” hardly sang the praises of Citizen Cane when it came out, but later had an epiphany regarding its “place in history”.
As much as I appreciate reading the “knowledgeable movie press”, at least half of what they write is useless in evaluating a film. They will often take a scene that is inconsequential in the grand scheme, and nitpick it to shreds. Minutiae and their own pet peeves often get in the way of anything overly readable or useful.
A great film has a visceral effect on the viewer. No amount of deconstruction or other linguistic/philosophical analysis is going to change that. People like Animal House. Could a Pauline Kael write a dissertation on what she thinks that says about the masses? Probably. Would they care?
“Could a Pauline Kael write a dissertation on what she thinks that says about the masses? Probably. Would they care?”
No, they wouldn’t care, but it would be a great read, wouldn’t it?
Go for it, Sasha!
The Social Network should have won bp last year but TKS was better than Gladitor of Braveheart. The ARTIST was the bp of 2011 better than ncfom or the DEPARTED maybe not as goos as the THE HURT LOCKER. The Best BP IN OSCAR History was the Godfather.
Was there ever any Academy Awards when the public voted for who they think should be the winner?