I feel like I need to put this exchange here on the main page because frankly I’m sick of having to discuss this repeatedly. First, a reader named Andrew wrote:
I’m not sure what my not posting on other threads has to with anything, but I will make one point- I have been posting here for years, and have never had my posts deleted or moderated until this year. And it has been about one thing: my pointing out of the skewed Lincoln-loving and Argo-hating, from a site whose editor called Argo perfect.
Your comments were moderated and deleted because of their nasty, relentless tone – you don’t “post” here, you comment here. There is a difference. We were pretty up front about our Lincoln loving – and there was never “Argo hating.” Not once. Oh, maybe on Twitter when it kept winning everything – we are allowed to show our irritation.
We knew Lincoln was a tough sell, as was Life of Pi. That’s why we invested heavily in those movies – and in Beasts of the Southern Wild and Middle of Nowhere and many of the other seeming “lost causes.” Lincoln bothered people more because there was a uniform hate of it that started over at the New York Times where they made not one but two “why Lincoln is such a bad movie” videos. It didn’t stop there. It was savaged for all of the wrong reasons. If it was so bad why were the reviews so great? Why was it number 5 on the top ten lists of all of the critics and why did it eventually make $180 million? You see the dynamic we’re up against? You don’t think I saw this outcome from a mile away? I did but there wasn’t much to do but write about a movie I (we) felt deserved much better than it was getting. Probably the worst thing that happened to Lincoln, though, was when President Clinton intro’d the film at the Globes and the following morning the story was expertly spun into the David and Goliath narrative that would take permanent hold.
I think we will eventually be on the right side of movie history but you never really know about these things.
I just need to stipulate that I did not call Argo “perfect.” I called it a perfect film. There is a difference. What I never did, out of respect for the film and the filmmakers and the publicists, was write a long essay about why I’d changed my mind about Argo after I watched it a couple more times. I never did that so people assume I just flipped. I never knew so many people paid attention — it’s not like we’re talking about pro-life versus abortion – you act like I “took a position” and then “flip-flopped.”
I often see films I think are great and then rewatch them and see that no, in fact they’re flimsy. Argo looks perfect on first pass. But there is nothing deep there, nothing more to discover. If you notice, before Argo took the lead in the race I wrote up a “favorite moments” post and I couldn’t even find one in Argo but I gave it an honorable mention. There were ten films that were more memorable, deeper. Why I have to explain this is bizarre — everyone who watches movies knows we re-evaluate them over time. Well it didn’t take me long with Argo — just about three viewings.
I watch movies over and over again. I watched Zero Dark Thirty seven times over a two day period. That is a great movie. Social Network I saw 30 times during Oscar season and I still notice new things about it when I watch it. I watch No Country for Old Men maybe five times every year. I’ve seen The Godfather, Raging Bull, Jaws, Citizen Kane, Vertigo, Psycho more times than I can count. I even watch imperfect movies repeatedly because they have something worth diving into. But what I found with Argo was, unlike The Town for instance which is one I watch repeatedly, you get everything on first pass. There is nothing more to dive into. The best part of it are the Hollywood jokes and the music. That’s great and all but you still have to then deal with the whole getting the Americans out of Iran which you can really only see once, maybe twice and then it all starts to look pretty fake. So yeah, like The King’s Speech, like The Artist these are not “flawed” movies in the least. They are in their ways “perfect films.” But as such, that makes them ultimately lacking in depth. At least the King’s Speech had that one great scene with Colin Firth and Geoffrey’s Rush’ brilliant supporting turn.
Each of these three winners can’t be picked apart or criticized, which is why they won, frankly. The least flawed, the least divisive films do tend to win. I was just hoping, with an array of GREAT films this year that might not have happened. But alas, even without a Best Director nod, it still did.
So I hope that explains it better. They won Best Picture and that’s a done deal. Further, Andrew writes:
My point has been that we can’t cry when our fave doesnt win, AMPAS does that all the time. And we shouldn’t hate on a film like Argo which is a fairly decent pick, better than other recent winners like TKS and The Artist.
But you see, yes we CAN cry. We write an Oscar blog which means we can cry about anything we want. After 14 years of “yes sir, can I please have another” we know how the game goes which is why we try harder to steer the ship in a different direction year after year but it’s always too late to turn the boat around — it’s headed in one direction.
What bothered me was that Argo’s wins seemed to be fueled by two things: Zero Dark Thirty’s demise and Ben Affleck’s snub. No one started the Oscar race thinking Argo was the film to beat. No one in the pundit world, in the critic world or the public. But Affleck’s “Oscar story” became too big to ignore and it won the same awards as Slumdog Millionaire heading into the race. The difference between that film and Argo is that Slumdog starting winning and didn’t stop. Argo didn’t start winning until Zero Dark Thirty stopped. That means it was probably never Lincoln’s or Life of Pi’s to win. But we’ll never really know the outcome.
I agree with you that you can’t really criticize Argo’s win too much – it’s a great movie for what it is. The problem wasn’t WITH Argo so much. The problem was that it, like the King’s Speech, was standing next to much more daring works of genius. I think, and readers of this site know, that Ben Affleck is a really good director. I was enthusiastic about Argo when I saw it in Telluride and those were honest feelings. I don’t now think Argo is a bad film. It’s just that I like to think this industry rewards career high points – grand achievements that were decades in the making. All too often now, the Oscar race is like politics – find the least offensive choice you can live with and be done with it. I don’t think that’s the best way to find “the best.”
Finally, I recognize that being a woman makes me the target of more hate than I would probably get if I were a man saying the same stuff. I get that I’m supposed to be nice about everything and that when I’m not I get called all sorts of colorful names. It would probably bother me more if all of this was my whole life. Thankfully, it isn’t. The Oscars are a game — some play it really well and win the game. But we should never forget what they really are.
I hope that what we’re doing here, Ryan and me, is appreciated by people who like to talk about the Oscar race and every other discussion it brings to the table. I think those discussions are worth having. We continue to reserve the right to control the content, which includes the comments. You have many Oscar blogs at your disposal now – the supply far outweighs the demand. You should feel lucky to have so many options to choose from. And that it’s all provided to you at no cost. How bad can that be?
Kansas City defense: 14 points allowed, 2 INTs, 1 INT returned for TD
Authorities also discovered that the MTA and a consultant hired to monitor compliance with environmental laws in the tunnel were asleep at the switch.
“,” May 24, 2011.
2 million contract at Ground Zero, and Yonkers won three deals worth $14.
The publicity surrounding the story encouraged the parents of five other missing girls to come forward this month, saying their daughters also were victimized by people they met on Facebook. Two more girls were freed from their captors in October and are now seeking counseling.
For all the talk of Vick’s improved pocket presence last year, he set a career-high with 8.3 carries per game. This season, a brittle Vick is averaging just 6.7 carries a game, and Eagles coach seems intent on protecting Vick the rest of the year. Vick carried the ball just twice last week, while tailback racked up 27 carries (his most since October).
“We’re hung up on this one case where this one fellow was in fact found not guilty by a jury. That’s the way the American law system works,” Harris said. “Get over it.”
In her CNN interview, which aired in two parts Monday and Tuesday nights on “AC360,” the juror said she believes Zimmerman didn’t do anything unlawful and was “justified” in shooting 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
Not that it matters to anybody, but I get far more disappointed at nominations than I do at what/who actually wins in the end
Comment
I’m not so sure that Ebert’s statement about Argo was as much him picking it as the best film without having seen several of the others that would later be released as it was the prediction of somebody that has an idea of what to look for in a contender.
Good film – check.
Approachable but adult – check.
Telluride/Toronto rollout – check.
High profile backers – check.
Presents positive image of Hollywood – big freaking check.
Mr. Ebert’s been around enough to know what kind of story is going to push all the right buttons when he sees it. Even if that’s in September.
i like Ebert, too. but liked the dear departed Siskel even more–especially when he championed my favorite movie, THE RIGHT STUFF, over TERMS OF ENDEARMENT. Siskel also chose RAGTIME as best picture of the year…another favorite. but one has to be careful when worshiping a noted film critic. they can play games with your head. i’ve always adored Robert Wise’s WEST SIDE STORY, but after reading Pauline Kael’s authoritative, witty and acidic dump on that classic, i had self doubts…”uh, gee, maybe i don’t like it after all!” it took a while to shake that off.
I think that when we evaluate movies, we also have to look at what we think the filmakers were trying to accomplish and how well they succeeded. Lincoln was attempting to reveal another side of the president as well as giving insight as to how the political process works. It was meant to be enlightening in these areas. Argo on the other hand, was not attempting to delve into it’s subject as deeply, but rather to be an entertaining film with a historical backdrop. Both of these films accomplished their goals,IMO, as well as most of the other films nominated for best picture.
In the end, it’s how we react to what we are seeing that determines in our mind what is the “best” . It’s a subjective thing. It just so happens that at this time Argo hit home with voters more than anything else did. Just my thoughts on all of these discussions.
I have been a visitor to this website for many years now, and will continue to do so. It is hard to find this amount of passion for film anywhere else!
My personal choice for Best Picture was Anna Karenina… unfortunately, that didn’t work out too well. But I stand by the fact that it was the most artistically daring and interesting film of the year.
One of my very rare comments here. I have been reading your blog for a long time. I don’t understand how people can turn as nasty as some people have against an opinion on works of art. Personally I loved both Lincoln and Argo, which I prefer would vary on what sort of mood I was in. I liked the fact I didn’t have to think in Argo and also that Lincoln made me do so.
I just wanted to thank you and Ryan for all the wonderful work you do on this blog. Some of your posts make me angry and annoyed but I keep coming back because I’d rather feel that. Genuine opinions well argued are better than reading the sycophantic trash that appears on many other blogs. I thank you again for that. I do feel sad however that some of us readers make you continually justify your opinions for the sole reason that they (your opinions) disagree with their (the readers) own view. Keep up the good work. Many thanks.
was standing next to was standing next to much more daring works of genius.
Like what?
I get what you’re saying, Chris Kw. I cannot really go into the Argo retrospective because I only saw it once and when I saw it that one time, I was not blown away and only thought it was adequate. I sorta wanted a different movie told of that event, in all honesty but that is not really an argument to fight on with in film criticism. I thought its editing and design were top notch but felt like it never reached the height of its first 20 minutes. As for the time span, I think awards season produces a really detrimental cycle to movies that really can only create backlash. Add social media and it really ages all of the contenders out toward the end that even years after movies are either forgotten because they were placed on a pedestal by way of consensus or some movie are still at looked through what people thought in that short span. The masterpieces endure, of course, but something has happened now as opposed to earlier times when nominees/winners did not feel like they had some taint or less staying power than the current crop of movies.
Interesting you bring up 2007, by far one of the strongest years in American movies since 1999. I only got to see Zodiac after a year after somebody who bemoaned Benjamin Button called Zodiac his best work. It feels like a fool’s errand to rank things, especially when you are not on either coast, as there is a great film made that year yet to be discovered. Edward Yang’s A Brighter Summer Day took nearly two decades to come to America, as just one example.
I can handle snarky. I can handle hostile. It had nothing to do with him being snarky or condescending. I appreciate your loyalty. That’s quite admirable.
I am of a reactionary personality, which translates into I avoid confrontations at all costs, however make feel like I need to come out of a corner to stand my ground and I will. I learned very quickly here because of a comment I made in response to a comment that Ryan posted in response to mine. Ryan can get annoyed and it comes across. I got annoyed at his annoyance and said something that was very unflattering and if I weren’t gay it might have been considered rather racist. When he pointed my behavior out to me I was rather embarrassed that I had sunk to that level. It’s not usually in my nature to do that but as we all know the internet provides us with this false shield where we believe that we can say or do anything we want without any consideration for anyone else. I wasn’t raised that way so it really bothered me, and it happened I think over two years ago and I still remember and am embarrassed by it.
So I found a great many of his commentaries during the Lincoln debate to be less that I would expect from someone with his obvious intelligence and eloquence. So I avoid commenting on his commentaries as I said earlier until today. Now I will go back and continue to avoid his commentaries.
CMG, right. Opinions may not have changed. But if you think a movie is worthy to be nominated for Best Picture, the fact that it eventually won shouldn’t be something to be upset about. That’s how I see it at least. Plus, I obviously don’t watch these movies multiple times during awards season like Sasha does. Maybe it’s the small time span that throws me off. For me, I look at 2007. It took a few years for my feelings on those films to be fully formed. At the time I was pulling for There Will Be Blood because after one viewing of the nominated films, I thought it had the most depth. But over five years later, I have watched Michael Clayton and No Country for Old Men many more times than TWBB. My favorite movie that year was Zodiac which I’m pretty sure wasn’t even nominated for anything. The lack of nominations didn’t upset me at the time and I really don’t care now because it was five years ago.
Thanks Ryan. It took time for me to be this way, mind you, as I was not a happy camper during the thick of the controversies last December.
And just fair warning, all of my knowledge of the legal system comes from Law & Order and Legally Blonde.
Their opinion on the movie probably did not change (and not in terms of ZOMG BEST MOVIE EVAH but that it was a gangbusters, well-oiled thriller) but after watching it again after seeing the other contenders, did it really seem better than those other movies? Was it doing anything new or riskier than those other movies?
CMG, If I’m ever arrested for murder, will you be my lawyer? Thanks. (I’ll do my best to be ‘falsely accused’).
Your sharp level-headed contributions to these discussion pages are much appreciated.
Okay. Most Acadamy voters probably only watched Argo once. Maybe twice. So if they had a similar reaction that you had after your first viewing, isn’t it reasonable that they might feel that it was a worthy Best Picture? And let’s be honest: your opinion probably wouldn’t have changed as much if it hadn’t won so many awards.
Nic V, I followed a lot of what Rufus Sondheim said about Spielberg’s Lincoln on AD, and supported a lot of those comments as well. I found nothing objectionable about the content. His tone may have been snarky at times, but, as Ryan Adams, the moderator of this site, says, some people just need to develop a tougher kevlar vest. I, as well, can get a little sarcastic on here when I see commenters getting a little too full of themselves. While Rufus’ comments sometimes gave some a good ribbing, he was often met with a much more hostile and juvenile tone.
Vince I know exactly what I’m referring too and I’m sure he does as well. I was not the only individual during the Lincoln discussions where his replies or comments were rather inappropriate. I’m not going to post the reference that I particularly found offensive simply because there’s no point in doing that. He’s an intelligent man and I won’t argue that point all and he’s also very eloquent.
As a loyal and daily reader of your site Sasha, I must say that yours is the one I come back to most often and check regularly when I want to hear your opinion on a film or performance I feel passionate about. This past Oscar season on Awards Daily was clearly rocked with issues like the one you’ve written about above, and to be honest, I skipped over most of the articles concerning Argo and Lincoln because I didn’t see either of them. I saw many of the other nominated films during the awards race, but just didn’t have much interest in Argo and Lincoln simply for personal preference and taste reasons. (Although I completely agree that Argo didn’t win because it was the best film of the year, it won because of all the other publicity in the media) But even then, I didn’t care that you were writing so passionately about Lincoln (I loved your support for Life of Pi, one of the truly best films of 2012). As someone who is passionate about movies and these stories coming to life in front of us on the big screen, I appreciate and respect someone feeling so strongly for certain films and performances over others.
That’s what movies are supposed to do for us: excite us, fill us with emotion, makes us feel or understand something. And I personally think people should share these feelings in a respectful and genuine way. That’s what Sasha and Ryan do when they write about movies. It’s just sad and frustrating when people can’t participate in a respectful dialectic about what really matters, and instead resort to attacking and bombarding antics. If you’re a fan of movies and you love them enough to follow daily blogs about them, you should have enough common courtesy to participate in the comments in a respectful manner not only to the author of the post, but also to other people leaving comments too.
Sasha, thank you for writing this article and strongly standing by your opinions and convictions – that’s what I respect about you. To both Sasha and Ryan, please don’t ever lose or try to diminish the passion you have when writing about movies simply because of some commentator’s opinion. If you do, you’ll just end up like one of the many other generic movie and awards blogs that just spouts the same recycled opinions of everyone else.
Nic V, Unless you can provide evidence where Rufus was rude, please do. But, I don’t remember him doing anything but making his case why the film fell short of the book it was based on, which he was more than a little familiar with.
***But sometimes I think it comes off that you believe this is an unquestionable fact. Now I don’t mind because I come here for the spirited discussions far more than the blog posts, but if I came here just for the blog posts, I’d probably be turned off because while I think Lincoln was a good film, I think there are many problems with it and I’ll never consider it a great film. I, like many others, don’t wish to be bludgeoned over and over again with the sentiment “You are stupid for not getting Lincoln.”***
I have avoided making any comment in regard to any post you make Rufus to this point but after reading this I feel the need to say something. The same thing you’re accusing Sasha and Ryan of well you need to take a good look at your own comments to others who didn’t agree with you about Lincoln. You weren’t exactly Mr. Wonderful. So if you want not to reach for their club then don’t reach for yours.
“Filmmakers, production companies develop and market films using public interest and in the cases of ZD30 and Lincoln to an extent, controversy to help promote and generate such interest and excitement in their films. They get the viewing public interested and then have the gall to be irate when the platform they decided to use generates controversy. I don’t think any of is has anything to do with thinking the American public cant discern fact from fiction. But it’s the promoters And filmmakers to an extent particularly with those 2 films who prop up the parallels to real events or people and controversy to an extent as selling points for their films.”
First of all, in the case of ZDT, the strategy was too remain silent because the idea of playing with fire would **hurt** the movie than help it. Further inflaming the debate at that point was not a priority of the filmmakers, who by the way, because it was produced by them and Annapurna Pictures but distributed by Sony, they had no such control on what are the selling points. All they could do was control was they said or did not say. They said the movie was as accurate as a movie **could** be and the movie was down in **almost** a journalistic approach that got twisted despite each statement being carefully worded from the get-go. They were not saying that to throw salvos. Everything else they said late in the game was most definitely done in playing defense for the film than playing offense.
On the level of what the viewer sees, look at Glenn Greenwald’s work and get back to me whether or not he has any faith in the American public never mind the American movie viewer. His pieces on ZDT itself show incredible contempt for the film critic community and a complete illiteracy to film as a form. You bet he is one of those people who fear some Joe Six-Pack in a flyover red state is going to think torture worked in this movie and elect some schmo into office who supports the torture of A-Rabs to keep this country safe. You can also bet there are people like Levin, Feinstein, and McCain who think that (although I also contend they were uncomfortable with the movie showing **too** much of the warts of the clandestine service). Why stop at the threat of investigation the day AFTER the Oscars? They are no worse than people who claim the movie has a complete black & white ideology or point of view because they are projecting a lack of faith in viewers. Note that letter was to the distributor and not Annapurna or to Boal or Bigelow. The script itself paints the idea that the early parts in the movie are murky because it was a murky time. It was not because it was going to be a great selling point for the movie and that was why it would be written in.
Also, I doubt Tony Kushner, Spielberg, and Team Lincoln thought they made a controversial movie. It was about the era, the men, the congress, the cabinet, and that amendment. Kushner’s response letter to Joe Courtney shows somebody who had no real plans to anger people about the Connecticut vote. He was not switching the Connecticut votes and the names of those people to stir it up.
I never thought the controversies were good for either movie. Sony’s roll-out of ZDT if anything showed this would lengthen the conversation and make accusations stick because it was only available in so many theaters when the height of controversy was happening. Lincoln’s so-called accuracy controversies happened long AFTER it was in theaters. It seemed petty and contrived, straight out of an Oscar whispering campaign.
And the key significant difference between McNamara to Boal/Bigelow and Spielberg/Kushner is that he did play a direct role in a war that killed several Americans. He had blood on his hands. The debate of ZDT had some people act like what Boal/Bigelow did was on the level of Bush and Cheney. It was ridiculous and remains to be ridiculous and will be looked at as ridiculous and potentially detrimental to any future movies ever being made on that subject in passing time.
Don’t confuse fans of the movies on the site with the filmmakers who made the movies. We are likely more upset than they are because they know the nature business more than us. No camp was whining beyond no longer taking the mud-slinging that even objective observers like Kris Tapley and Anne Thompson deemed as dirty tricks in a dirty Oscar campaign season.
I have no problem with people having their opinions on the movie. I thought there were some good pieces on ZDT that I disagreed with but found to be interesting takes. But a lot of those think pieces on ZDT came off with a lot of people not so much worrying about their own opinions on the movie, whether it showed something they believed was correct or not, or that the movie was good or not, but how it would be perceived by others, the plebs who could somehow be swayed by a movie.
Who do I have to [REDACTED] to get moderated around here?
Seriously! I am going to create my own blog where I will predict the Best Picture. And I’m going to do it every time! Guaranteed! And I’m going to use a method that is all mine! This message—created by me—is an ingenious method that will be adopted by everyone. The method—which I call Rob Y’s Method—will get it right 100% of the time. My method—developed by me—will identify who is going to win Best Picture next year.
Let me announce right here that Oz, The Great and Powerful will win Best Picture next year. I bet none of you had that one! Also I would like to announce that Dead Man Down is going to win Best Picture next year. See it’s easy to do. I am going to wait until next week to announce that The Incredible Burt Wonderstone will win Best Picture next year.
My process is ingenious so that in one year’s time I can shout to the world that I identified the Best Picture winner from 2013.
^
Genius.
I’m not talkin about talent. I said genius. Gee-nee-ous.
@CMG
I read that NYT article when it was posted a couple of weeks back and frankly IMO it’s BS. Filmmakers, production companies develop and market films using public interest and in the cases of ZD30 and Lincoln to an extent, controversy to help promote and generate such interest and excitement in their films. They get the viewing public interested and then have the gall to be irate when the platform they decided to use generates controversy. I don’t think any of is has anything to do with thinking the American public cant discern fact from fiction. But it’s the promoters And filmmakers to an extent particularly with those 2 films who prop up the parallels to real events or people and controversy to an extent as selling points for their films. And that public, including journalists and historians, have a right to examine and critique those things also. I get angry when I read how it’s a ok for controversy as long as it doesn’t hurt my precious film’s awards chances ( even if it does help generate more $$ at the box office) but once it does then somehow it’s hurtful and unfair and somehow violates artistic freedom. Do here individuals even live in the real world.
Robert McNamara wrote a book called “In Retrospect” several years back about his experiences as Defense Secretary under Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. The book was a huge best seller and McNamara went on a lengthy book tour and promotional campaign that was filled with protests and venom over what people remembered about his participation in the Vietnam war, yet I didn’t see him complain that his book didn’t win a Pulitzer Prize. No one prevented him from writing the book, promoting it, or making money off of it, but as a democracy, we do have the right as citizens to protest and voice our discontent. In his case a lot of the dissidence was led by factions of people who were against a polarizing war.
I am surprised neither Sasha nor Ryan nor anybody have brought up this pretty truthful quote that Manohla Dargis and AO Scott did on the controversies that surrounded the movies we loved this Oscar season. It really is the key one that encapsulates a lot of the BS that went down.
” Behind some of the most inflamed concern over works like “Lincoln” and especially “Zero Dark Thirty” is a thinly veiled distrust of the American public — that, well, moviegoers are just not smart or sophisticated or schooled enough to know the difference between fact and fiction, on-screen lies and off-screen ones.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/movies/awardsseason/the-history-in-lincoln-argo-and-zero-dark-thirty.html?pagewanted=2&ref=manohladargis
It was never about torture in ZDT, it was about the fear about what viewers could think about torture being construed as working or being a key factor in the capture/kill of UBL (which the movie is very deliberate on portraying this moment as a hollow, empty moment that destroyed a lot of the lives of people who made their lives that manhunt). It was not about the 13th amendment vote for Lincoln, it was about being scared that their state was not being conflated with the saintly, pious North in a dialectical tale of slavery when the truth was the movie showed a much more complex, dirty, and gray level of politicking that went beyond North and South. This Oscar season was about obscuring and compromising viewer literacy for a certain point of view, largely by people who felt they had stakes in those moments on screen.
“It was savaged for all of the wrong reasons. If it was so bad why were the reviews so great?” (Lincoln)
The people doing the savaging weren’t bona fide film critics, in most cases – at least, anybody that’s worth reading. It would be those of same mentality that was able to justify slavery in the first place, I imagine. Good thing Lincoln got the amendment passed because I don’t think the current politicians would have the wherewithall to make it happen now, clouded as they are by partisanship.
What we saw this year was a variety of styles with regards to attacks, from in-your-face challenges used on ZDT and Lincoln to the almost deliberate silence on Pi ( which was probably due to the fact that those who didn’t like it weren’t capable of understanding it in the first place and didn’t want to show their ignorance by challenging the film’s points.)
Beast and Amour, same thing – neither was brassy enough to pose a threat because their busker-size promotional budgets. Easy to dismiss.
Looking back it was Argo in a cakewalk, somewhat spent by the time the envelope was opened. Had the Oscars been held in March or April, like the old days, I think the shine would have diminished and we would have had a totally different outcome, though.
I was only aware of Sasha actually when she was apart of the aforementioned early ZDT debates where she admittedly helped stir the false premise on the movie. I easily could have spewed bile at her but really my issues were with critics like Edelstein and Gleiberman who went out of their way to portend that they were being thoughtful and fair by completely caving to the likes of Klein, Mayer, and Greenwald because they felt inadequate as movie critics to discuss politics with people who specialized in it. This was the first sign of trouble for ZDT when critics caved and then accepted that 3 Senators (all of whom voted for John Brennan’s confirmation, by the way, so let’s look at them vs. the movie who played more to carrying the status quo these last few months) could condemn a movie and threaten with an investigation. As Ryan said, people got scared and felt inadequate to engage in a debate that went beyond art and movie viewer literacy. Just look up the What the Flick video on ZDT that have all four panelists struggling to really review the movie when they are stuck on talking points already thrown around in the debate (or just Ben Mankiewicz’s smugness on the subject just because he often has talked policy on The Young Turks and seriously does act like he is smarter than the others on panel about the movie).
Sasha and a lot of other people who were initially ambivalent about ZDT and the debate came around. Perhaps too late. But I think it says more about what a movie means in the coming years than just the first few specific months of the year. For some people early on, Argo was considered that but even to people who liked it when they first saw it were pulling away or admitted that this movie’s placement among the best was not coming from a genuine place of judging on quality. It was the easiest to digest among the nominees. It will play well on cable but so do a lot of movies that do not win Best Picture.
Also Ebert, for me, just felt not as useful these last few years. Some of it is lack of activity that I am sure revolves around his health issues and the other part is that his taste is getting much spottier. I never thought Argo was a good movie but if you read stuff like his review of The Master, Prometheus, Cloud Atlas, and Zero Dark Thirty (it felt like he was upset the movie was not his ‘Movie of the Decade’ The Hurt Locker which seems unfair when you think of his reviews to other filmmakers where there is almost no reference to their other celebrated works) you wonder how this guy won a Pulitzer. It is not so much that any of those movies are good or bad, but I could not really tell by the review if they were other than something rather stream of conscience writing. I think his defense of Crash made me look at his point of view on awards differently. I know he has Ebertfest, but he does often celebrate the consensus picks and Argo was one of those instances. The only thing I can agree with him wholeheartedly is his Tilda Swinton partisanship. I would take a bullet for that woman.
Lincoln seemed just like a not well-run campaign. ZDT had an obviously bad campaign by Sony from the get-go but Team Lincoln seemed a little off their game. They seemed to accept it would not win over critics and then concentrated on the guilds and industry awards. They did not see the Argo surge, despite that there was a lot of ZDT-Argo overlap for critics and industry folk who were antsy about ZDT.
Pauline Kael (but like Steven Soderbergh said, her raves were as just if not more informative than her pans of sacred cows), Jim Hoberman, Dargis, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, Scott Tobias, Keith Phipps, Wesley Morris, and Glenn Kenny are my favorite critics. I know Kael’s gone but I still often go back to her a lot reading For Keeps. I do not necessarily trust them but their reviews are good reads even if they have different tastes that stretches beyond the status quo picks that I find with other critics of major publications.
Well, I wanted BOTSW to win 1) it was a great heartfelt movie by a bunch of true independents. If you watch the Making of BOTSW you will see what a triumph it was; 2) it would have been the first “black” main cast movie to win. When is Hollywood going to finally break the “color” line and let a movie that stars people of color win? There have been some notable movies, mostly small, but hey — it’s past time 3) I thought Q Wallis gave a wonderful performance. Watch it again and watch her. A natural.
Wow a whole post just for me, I’m flattered. I think there was more than one time u were nasty about Argo, like the beard thing, the fake phone call to the member of congress, the continual references to Argo winning thing being a sympathy vote etc
The simple point is that you turned on Arjgo because you saw films which you liked better. I think thus year more than most you let personal preferences cloud your objectivity.
I also think that you question the system when your favorite doesn’t win but not when it wins, as in THL.
I think this is the best oscars site around and am glad to have this debate.
I think this the best oscars site around, and I am glad to have a debate about this.
It’s a private website, and the owners can delete as they bloody well please. If you don’t like it, there’s a plethora of other sites to visit.
I love awards daily I know I can come on here and comment about any movie,or any performance I want whether people agree with me or not thanks Sasha and Ryan for awards daily!!!!!!
The best way to put a baby to sleep is let it cry itself to sleep.
I would just completely ignore any comments that contain the words Argo or Lincoln.
People will eventually get the hint and move on to 2013.
“Vince, You’re very much mistaken if you think Roger Ebert is one of the critics I trust the most.”
This is interesting stuff. I myself don’t “trust” any critic. There just happen to be some of them with who I agree more often than not. I’d have to say I probably agree with Roger Ebert 75-80%* of the time* which is possibly the highest. I just know I don’t trust A. O. Scott from The New York Times. Even if I agree with him whether a film is good or not (60-65%* of the time) all his reviews read like they were written by a major pussy.
Gonna go ahead and read Pauline Kael’s review of SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT to feel validated and shit. Love that girl.
*all numbers are tentative
Ryan, how should one interpret your comment to Sean about finding a tougher kevlar vest? Because I’m certainly clueless at this point.
*throws hands up in air*
Going by critics you trust the most and have named [Ebert], I would say, yes, the critical passion was greater.
Vince, You’re very much mistaken if you think Roger Ebert is one of the critics I trust the most.
Stop nagging me, alright?
Gladiator does not belong alongside A Beautiful Mind (pure bait), Crash (simplistic), The King’s Speech (pure bait) and The Artist (a trifle) as recent undeserving winners. Gladiator was second only to Traffic that year in my opinion.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/12/eberts_top_movies_of_2012.html
One of your “first film professors” declared Argo the best film of 2012. The other two are sadly no longer with us. Does his opinion not count for anything?
One of your “first film professors” declared Argo the best film of 2012. Does his opinion not count for anything?
Are we talking about the same professor who trumpeted Crash over Brokeback Mountain?
His opinion is his own.
I graduated and now I can form opinions of my own too. Just like a grown-up!
Ryan,
As you’ve illustrated, Ebert bases his predictions often on how passionate he feels about a film.
Can we agree that Ebert, as well as many other critics/viewers, felt very passionately about Argo?
Can we agree that the critics didn’t feel as passionately towards Lincoln as they did ZD30, as then Argo?
Can we agree that the critics didn’t feel as passionately towards Lincoln as they did ZD30, as then Argo
I agree that the critics were not as passionate about any film as they were about Zero Dark Thirty. Until John McCain said Boo! and then all the critics groups ran away from ZDT as fast as they could. It’s pretty obvious that Zero Dark Thirty’s score of 95 on metacritic is a larger number than the pair of 86s that Lincoln and Argo have.
Lincoln has 12 perfect scores 100 and only 4 scores lower than 70. (out of 44)
Argo has 13 perfect scores of 100 and only 4 scores lower than 70. (out of 45)
So, nope, going by the critics I trust the most, I’d say that critics did not show any more passion for Argo in their reviews.
I know that memories get foggy. But …
Argo collected solid reviews at Telluride.
SLP was the frontrunner for a short time after TIFF. Some considered it threat throughout, never dropping below Top Five status.
Argo became the frontrunner when it opened to an impressive opening weekend and sustained the momentum, while Lincoln and Pi collected solid reviews at NYFF.
Lincoln became the frontrunner when it opened to circumstances similar to Argo.
Les Mis became the frontrunner for a hot second when everyone joined the bandwagon based on those premature late November reviews.
Lincoln reclaimed frontrunner status when the Les Mis fever dissipated.
Zero Dark Thirty collected all of those critic awards, but the consensus vote never tipped away from Lincoln.
Argo took over the critical haul when the torture controversy knocked ZD30 off its critic-award perch.
Lincoln remained the frontrunner until Argo began collecting Best Picture awards one right after the other, until the Argo camp outweighed the Lincoln camp. And there it remained.
Using this website to “push” or “promote” certain movies during the Oscar season is fine, Sasha’s prerogative and in many ways admirable. For example, I might not have even heard of Middle Of Nowhere were it not for Awards Daily and so when MON came to town, I made a point to check it out and enjoyed the film immensely.
The problem with playing favourites, though, is that it has the effect on your writing of making it seem like a tragedy when one of those favourites doesn’t win, which is often. I think that’s where some of the criticism comes in — the tone of many of Sasha/Ryan’s pieces tends to become quite negative leading up to the Oscar show (when it’s become clear that the unfavoured winners will triumph) and in the aftermath (once the winners have won and the losers have lost).
Sasha/Ryan decry the horse race aspect of the Oscar season and yet this website plays along as much as anyone by turning the final results into travesties. King’s Speech wasn’t as good as Social Network but that result wasn’t a terrible one — TKS was a very good movie, and all you can ask for is that a “very good” movie wins Best Picture. And I say this myself as someone who was openly disgusted when clearly inferior, at-best-okay movies like Crash, A Beautiful Mind, Braveheart, Gladiator won the prize. If I’d been running Awards Daily during any of those Oscar years, hoo boy, I would’ve been just as vehement in pushing my preferred choices over those mediocrities.
Also, I can’t be the only one confused by the characterization of Lincoln as some kind of underdog in the race. Middle of Nowhere, Beasts, even Life Of Pi, sure….but Lincoln? The prestige biopic about America’s most respected president, starring the best actor in the world, directed by Steven freaking Spielberg?! THAT was the “tough sell”? Lincoln was as Oscar bait-ish as movies get.
Ebert did not pick Milk, he picked Slumdog Millionaire:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090207/OSCARS/902079995
Similarly, Ebert did not pick Juno, he picked No Country (he had Juno as his dark horse):
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080209/OSCARS/872515753
Stan, the question is not what was Ebert saying 5 days before the Oscars. My cat can tell you who’s going to win by then. The question is: How does Ebert do when he latches on to his personal favorites in September and October? — or even a month away from the Oscars?
so I’m afraid this is how things looked to Ebert 3 weeks before the Oscars in 2009.
A month before the Oscars, Roger Ebert knew Heath Ledger was winning an Oscar. Ebert and 2 billion other people knew that.
A month before the Oscars, Ebert was wrong about 4 of the top 5 categories. 20% correct.
feels so good when sasha speaks how much she loved zero dark thirty, it’s like i’m putting words in her mouth. what a film it was from start to finish by one of the intelligent pair of filmmakers, bigelow and boal.
and ryan is right, ebert picking argo to win oscar doesn’t have to do anything with argo actually winning it.
he gets lucky when something controversial happens with the apparent best picture of the year. his last prediction held correct was of crash to win and it won because of brokeback getting targeted that year and same for ZD30 this year.
I don’t think Ebert said game over. I ThInk he liked the film and predicted it as an Oscar contender. He also did the same for Pi and Lincoln.
I dont thnk anyone believes Ebert is infallible same as any other film critic. He’s made faulty predictions. But I could also site the fact that critics tend to narrow in on a small group of films, those they’ve most recently seen, to proclaim best picture JMO than looking back at the entire body of work for the season. Why else in a year filled with relatively weak best actress candidates, did Streep who gave a beautiful performance in Hope SPrings get ignored.im still baffled as to why Life of Pi, a miracle in filmmaking, was so ignored by most critics for ZDT.
I ThInk he liked the film and predicted it as an Oscar contender. He also did the same for Pi and Lincoln.
Valerie, yes. In fact, that’s exactly how I remember it being presented as well.
So, in essence, that’s very much the same arc Sasha followed herself. WE ALL saw Argo, Lincoln and Pi as the three films in the lead. Every reader on this site saw it and knew it too. We all saw what Ebert saw.
And right up to the final days before Oscar night, Ebert was naming Argo and Lincoln as the two most likely BP winners. Head to head. Same as we all were. Ebert leaned ultimately toward Argo, and frankly we all knew that was increasingly inevitable, even if a few of us refused this year to say it out loud.
speaking for myself, I wasn’t going to ditch Lincoln in the final 3 weeks of February. Because it matters very little to me whether I’m “right” or “wrong.” Matters to me not at all. — this year I wanted go down with the ship to which I felt the most allegiance. I think sometimes Sasha feels the same way.
(although I believe too many people have forgotten than Sasha officially changed her predictions to Hooper and The King’s Speech on Jan 29, 2011. Four weeks before the Oscars, Sasha knew the signposts and anybody relying on her navigation was not led astray. Me? I was off in the wilderness thinking Fincher could pull an upset, right up to the moment the envelope was opened).
believe it or not, I don’t earn any extra bonus bucks for guessing the winners correctly! Luckily I don’t earn any less if I’m wrong. (whew!)
(I’m even disqualified from entering the Contests 🙁
“wow, that’s just great. That’s what we want: Somebody who wants to name the best picture of the year 3 months before he even sees 5 of the other best pictures of the year. Really scientific.
The word for that is “LUCK”
Like i said its the tone. It reads as extremely snarky sarcasm at best. They pointed out a fact which is that Ebert did predict Argo to win best picture the moment he saw it. Then you pointed out when he has been wrong. Thats all great. Its the tone that is often the problem here.
They pointed out a fact which is that Ebert did predict Argo to win best picture the moment he saw it.
My point is, betting on the hand you’re dealt in September before the other players have even been seated at the table is not a “predicton” — it’s a gamble.
Great, the gamble paid off for Ebert this year, as it does for him once every 3 years or so. Gambling like he does, he’s wrong about more things than he’s ever right about.
gosh, I’m not trying to deny him sainthood for his miracles.
Lucking up and winning a gamble is no big deal to me, and I had a strongly-worded way I wanted say so.
I think it’s reckless and unprofessional to say “GAME OVER!” in September. I think it’s stupid.
“Finally, I recognize that being a woman makes me the target of more hate than I would probably get if I were a man saying the same stuff. I get that I’m supposed to be nice about everything and that when I’m not I get called all sorts of colorful names.”
Hand to God, I don’t think in terms of sex. I wouldn’t give a rats you-know-what if you are a woman, a man, a baboon, making those comments. And I bet a lot of people on this site feel the same.
I love your spirited opinions/arguments. It’s why I come here so much to read. It’s wonderful. Now, that doesn’t mean I agree with you everytime. And I think you can be a bit harsh towards some commenters who happen to speak on behalf of something you disagree with. But then, you’re more than right to blast the nasty commenters. No one needs that on their site. But anyway, I LOVE the discussions and the site, Sasha.
And that’s why I love Tilda Swinton. She’s not in it for awards or fame. The fucks, she gives none.
I do think that it’s odd how different the AD Forums are from the general site. I mean I think the forums are what everyone often accuse Sasha and Ryan of being: Pretentious and nasty to anyone who doesn’t agree with them. I’m sure they are over there bitching about how they hated Anne Hathaway before hating her was cool. Last I checked they were mocking you lamenting Argo winning everything even though if a person did some digging around those forums, they weren’t happy with Argo winning everything either. Hypocrisy much?
“wow, that’s just great. That’s what we want: Somebody who wants to name the best picture of the year 3 months before he even sees 5 of the other best pictures of the year. Really scientific.
The word for that is “LUCK”
Luck isn’t always so kind to Ebert.
In 2009 Roger Ebert picked Milk to win BP.
Ebert has predicted with certainty that Tilda Swinton would be nominated for Best Actress for The Deep End… for Julia… for We Need to Talk About Kevin. Pretty much anytime Tilda Swinton makes a movie Ebert says she’s going to an Oscar for it.
In 2008 Roger Ebert picked Juno to win BP. Ebert predicted Ellen Page to win Best Actress. Over Marion Cotillard.
But let’s back up. Ebert predicted Juno. To win Best Picture. Roger Ebert picked Juno to beat No Country for Old Men.
In 2006 Roger spent 4 paragraphs of his Oscar column talking about how Little Miss Sunshine was poised to upset for Best Picture.
Ebert’s 2006 preference: Babel
Ebert’s 2006 prediction: Babel
Anybody remember what won that year?
Go right ahead and place all your bets on whatever Roger Ebert tells you is going to happen.
Because he obviously never lets his passions cloud his Rogtradamus psychic powers.”
This right here is just one example of why many of your readers feel attacked. You guys have a serious tone problem dating back to last years race. I love this website, but I have to take a break often. I got tied up in it once and said something you guys deemed offensive and was deleted. Its your site thats fine. But then I was also deleted last month when I said something that was just an opposing view that had no attacks against either Sasha or Ryan. Its hard not to be passionate about the Oscars when you care so much, but the tone here is very condescending much of the time.
This right here is just one example of why many of your readers feel attacked.
Where exactly is the attack?
Funny how Sasha and I fend off 50 stabs every day, but if we raise a hand to block a slap then, “Eek! Ryan’s on the attack!”
250 times since New Years Day we’ve been told that we need to stop letting our passions get in the way of predictions. But when I cite a dozen famous examples of Ebert’s passion then you perceive that as me attacking you?
You might need a tougher kevlar vest.
Or some skin that’s less thin?
^
(attack!)
“You should feel lucky to have so many options to choose from. And that it’s all provided to you at no cost. How bad can that be?”
[…] Due respect, blog/website readers are of importance as well. *Pro (*doing it for bread and butter) bloggers et al in general need readers, who give back their time, feedbacks/comments/posts, a number of hits, in return, let’s say, at least in some cases to prove it worthwhile for their patrons and advertisers. So, there is no free lunch […] either. [I know what Sasha is saying here reading between the lines if any, but at the end of the day, you know…….]
That said, this *pro blog is special (unique) for its owner Sasha herself, as well as its *pro(?) editor(s) Ryan et al. I like Sasha’s passion in general, her love for films, and I love Ryan’s eloquent, articulate writing style. [And I prefer the site-format this way as opposed to, let’s say, AD Public Co., Ltd-like alter ego I believe I saw in my dreams some days ago. xD But I digress.]
I respectfully disagree with Sasha’s +Big Sister style *+a la take it or leave it*. But at the end of the day, it’s her site…. And at least, here she is being honest about it. (Good for her.)
“I felt sure that Oscar wanted to stay and live in California”
Of course he would prefer California – little bugger doesn’t have any clothes and heather raises havoc with the nether regions.
On topic, like so many others, I come here for the passionate aspect of films and awards season, not the procedural side of it. I expect Sasha and Ryan to be as loyal to their favorites as I – and the rest of you – are to ours. If that was missing, so would I be gone.
You both are doing it right, Sasha and Ryan. When we are in agreement, it’s a rush; when we disagree, it’s lively. I’d rather read something written by somebody I disagree with than someone who just reports the facts and doesn’t give a damn.
Ryan, you lucky bastard, getting to phone up Tilda Swinton for a wee chat.
Paddy,
That phone call was one of the shiniest highlights of 2009 for me. Opportunities like that loom so much larger in my mind than remembering who won what. Awards happen to other people. But when Sasha gets to hug Ang Lee or I get to talk to Tilda, that’s something that happens to us.
I don’t think anyone claimed Ebert was infallible. He has his own bias. And yeah he’s a critic but I’ve also had people throw the “every critic likes it it must be a great film” argument at me when proclaiming a film is the so called best film of the year.
Most critics IMO don’t speak for the general audience and I’m not suggesting they have to.but Ebert saying something is or isn’t going to win an Oscar doesn’t make him any more right than any other critic. I can only speak for myself, in that a good percentage of what he reviews and his impressions of films resonate with me.
Why are people attacking Ebert? Simply because he picked Argo in Sept? I think he said he loved Argo from the moment it was shown in Toronto. He also loved a lot of other films.
Why are people attacking Ebert?
Attacking? Where is anyone attacking him?
Personally, I was not a great fan of either Lincoln OR Argo, and I think it’s The Master, Holy Motors, and hopefully Seven Psychopaths which will come to be seen as this year’s real masterpieces.
Hi Ryan and Sasha, this is my blog where you can find my film awards.
And my real name is Felipe.
Thank you!
http://felipe-cinema.blogspot.com/
P.S: I expect your comments!
“Ebert has predicted with certainty that Tilda Swinton would be nominated for Best Actress for The Deep End… for Julia… for We Need to Talk About Kevin. Pretty much anytime Tilda Swinton makes a movie Ebert says she’s going to an Oscar for it.”
LOL bummer I do the same!
^
I know, right?
Tilda Swinton should have 3 Oscars for those 3 movies.
Here’s how much Tilda Swinton cares about the Oscar. The one she won for Michael Clayton, she gave to her agent on Oscar night.
A couple of years later I got to chance to speak to her on the phone about I Am Love. It was the day before Christmas and the phone call was to her home in Scotland. I had to know. I had to ask her if that story was true — if she really did give her Oscar away.
She told me, “oh yes, I felt sure that Oscar wanted to stay and live in California.”
seems to me that had someone else made that statement.. it would be up for moderation lol
^
which statement?
Yeah let’s bash Ebert, oh wait no, he’s my favorite movie critic. He’s not an Oscar blogger/prognosticator so it’s perfectly fine if his [inset adjective] judgement clouds whatever the fuck he predicts. Now having said that if you go by Ebert to fill out your Oscar pool then you’re an idiot. He’s a movie critic.
Just pointing out that there were pple who thought Argo would win from the get go..
This site used to be fun and entertaining and i used it determine what movies i wanted to see.. then came raves for Hoover and Planet of the Apes.. then a year of Kings Speech robbing SN.. and now poor Lincoln (which I loved btw)
It’s just the movies pple..
What is the right side of movie history and why does one want/need to be on it?
People are voting about what they like now, not about the movie that will age the best, that is completely irrelevant, awards aren’t about that.
*shrugs. I like Ebert always have. And I like this blog for much of the same reasons, it makes me think and sometimes look at things differently and on occassion, helps change my perspective. A lot of the blogs and critics out there, sad to say, just seem to regurgitate what has already been said. I happened to agree with Eberts review for example of ZDT . It wasn’t the typical “pro torture” stuff most of the critics who don’t like the film have spewed. I felt it was an honest evaluation of it as just a film and he gave kudos to Chastains performance while not raving about the film as some masterpiece of the century.
We all like different things and how boring would life be if we all liked the same things and shared the same opinions. What I do think is that some critics and self appointed “film experts”(not you Sasha), tend to embrace more artsy edgy films as if that somehow puts them on a higher pedestal than the rest of us just ho hum movie goers who just don’t get good cinema. I love Raiders of the Lost Arc , one of my favorite films, does it make me lowbrow because it’s a crowd pleasing adventure film with the swashbuckling “Errol Flynn” like Indiana Jones as the hero. If I had my choice, Life of Pi or Amour should have won, but thing is I don’t have a say and I don’t see any shame in a non artsy less edgy Argo winning.
*shrugs. I like Ebert always have.
I do too! I have deep and abiding admiration for Roger Ebert.
Ebert and Kael and Sarris were my first first film professors years before I was old enough for college. Their books of collected reviews are the foundation my earliest film education.
That doesn’t change the fact that it’s pretty dumb for ANYBODY to declare a Best Picture winner in September. It’s reckless. It’s even damaging, I think, for a man of Ebert’s reputation to use his power so clumsily.
I guess I’m the bad guy this morning for taking stand and wishing Ebert would hold off and SEE ALL THE YEAR’S MOVIES before using his power of Pope of American Cinema to bestow the BEST crown on a movie at the end of summer, and thus effectively taking a preemptive shit on everything that might happen in Oct-Nov-Dec
@Ryan, but…BUT…Ebert did say Crash would win best picture. Bow down before the great Eeeeeebert!
He also said Dark City was the best movie the year it was released and gave Knowing 4 stars. He has a soft spot for sci-fi films and I generally like that about him.
I think the issue some have here is with the tone and not the content. Now I know most of us are smart enough to know that what you write is your opinion, you certainly shouldn’t have to write “It’s my opinion that Lincoln is the best film of the year” when most of us know that’s the same thing as “Lincoln is the best film of the year.”
But sometimes I think it comes off that you believe this is an unquestionable fact. Now I don’t mind because I come here for the spirited discussions far more than the blog posts, but if I came here just for the blog posts, I’d probably be turned off because while I think Lincoln was a good film, I think there are many problems with it and I’ll never consider it a great film. I, like many others, don’t wish to be bludgeoned over and over again with the sentiment “You are stupid for not getting Lincoln.”
But many, instead of just not reading these posts, want to respond and they do in the comments. And for everytime you say Lincoln is a masterpiece, they feel the need to respond with Lincoln is boring. Both are valid comments but also valueless comments if they come with no supporting commentary. Yes, you’ve written eloquently about Lincoln, as has Ryan, and I’m looking forward to seeing it again. Sadly, the vast majority of the Lincoln is boring crowd have been unable to fully flesh out why they thought it was boring.
But keep it up, Sasha, I love that you express your opinions so forcefully. It’s great to see passion. Too often media refrains from being passionate because it turns off a large portion of your potential audience. But what people often forget is that passion draws in many people as well and they become devoted daily visitors, of which I am one. And will remain one.
I love what you do here, Sasha, and maybe next year you and I will agree on what should win. (You were close with ZDT 🙂 ) And if not, I will still visit every day because what you have here is unique, a group of people who love film and love to discuss it passionately.
Sasha, I tend to disagree with you and Ryan now and again but that’s just a matter of my taste vs yours. We all have a right to our opinion and things get heated around November and dont let up until a week after the Oscars end. With that being said I know you liked Argo and I know you liked other movies better. Showing your love for Spielberg and Bigelow does not translate to showing your hate for Affleck. We all know how far he’s come from what he used to be and there were an Oscar for “Comeback Kid” he’d win it. I never felt you had to constantly reaffirm your feelings on Argo and how your perspective changes over time. One thing that’s stuck with me was when Ryan once replied to a reader and he said (paraphrasing), “Are we supposed to stubbornly stick with our initial feeings about a film?” I love Argo. I LOVE it. However my feelings have changed a little because, as you say, it’s a perfect film but not “perfect”. It’s amazing for what it is and to me something like that can’t get too much better without altering more history. It won and I’m happy it won. I knew deep down ZD30 wouldn’t win and The Master (My #1 of the year) was snubbed like a red-headed stepchild. So I needed something to root for that I knew had a chance and I loved. I’m hoping that doesn’t make it look like I’m jumping on a band wagon because I was calling a best picture win since it’s release. Maybe in another year we will get back to daring, genius wins like The Hurt Locker and No Country for Old Men.
On another note, I’m not sure what kind of a nasty tone this Andrew guy had so I can’t say if his deleted comments were warranted. In all due respect, when Oscar season rolls around everybody gets snippy and nasty and will try to be sarcastic or condescending to make a point and end the discussion. Just wanted to throw that out there. And of course most people here do appreciate what you and Ryan do. It’s why we come here…even during the dumping grounds of bad months for movies. February, anyone?
I wanted Zero Dark Thirty to win Best Picture. However, I accepted that was not going to happen, and I did my best to enjoy the Oscar ceremony.
Only once in the past two decades have I 100% agreed with the Best Picture winner (The Hurt Locker). Other films may not have been my number one choice, but they came pretty close (The Departed, No Country For Old Men, and a few others). I have gotten pretty used to being disappointed.
I enjoy your passion Sasha, and our taste in films seems pretty close. This is your website, and you should run it however you wish. If you want to champion a film, you go ahead and do that. I appreciate that AwardsDaily exists, and I hope you never get so sick of the “game” that you shut-down the site.
Oscar repeatedly breaks our hearts, but we keep coming back for more. It is a crazy relationship, but I am glad you are there to experience it all with me!
On September 12, 2012 Roger Ebert picked ARGO to win the BP Oscar.
On September 12, 2012 Roger Ebert picked ARGO to win the BP Oscar.
wow, that’s just great. That’s what we want: Somebody who wants to name the best picture of the year 3 months before he even sees 5 of the other best pictures of the year. Really scientific.
The word for that is “LUCK”
Luck isn’t always so kind to Ebert.
In 2009 Roger Ebert picked Milk to win BP.
Ebert has predicted with certainty that Tilda Swinton would be nominated for Best Actress for The Deep End… for Julia… for We Need to Talk About Kevin. Pretty much anytime Tilda Swinton makes a movie Ebert says she’s going to an Oscar for it.
In 2008 Roger Ebert picked Juno to win BP. Ebert predicted Ellen Page to win Best Actress. Over Marion Cotillard.
But let’s back up. Ebert predicted Juno. To win Best Picture. Roger Ebert picked Juno to beat No Country for Old Men.
In 2006 Roger spent 4 paragraphs of his Oscar column talking about how Little Miss Sunshine was poised to upset for Best Picture.
Ebert’s 2006 preference: Babel
Ebert’s 2006 prediction: Babel
Anybody remember what won that year?
Go right ahead and place all your bets on whatever Roger Ebert tells you is going to happen.
Because he obviously never lets his passions cloud his Rogtradamus psychic powers.