I know no Call Me By Your Name or Get Out or Three Billboards fan wants to hear that — and certainly not Nate Silver, who is always wrong about the Oscars year after year (still love ya, Nate). He dissed the Best Picture winner on Twitter shortly after the Oscars, but I can tell you end to end, from someone who has covered the Oscars every year since 1999, that The Shape of Water is one of the best films to win the prize in two decades. It joins the ranks of the best of the best, like No Country for Old Men, The Departed, and The Hurt Locker and perhaps ushers in a new decade of films that will flourish under America’s sudden turn to the dark side.
I did not think Shape would win, as you all know, though it was one of my favorites of the year. I had heard too many divisive opinions from people, and it was lacking the SAG Ensemble stat — worse, it didn’t win the BAFTA for Best Picture when it led the nominations there. I assumed the actors would be behind Billboards, but sitting in the Dolby last night it was clear that there was a muted response to every mention of Billboards and a hearty, enthusiastic response to both Shape and Get Out. This is an Academy newly sworn to political activism and there is no turning back. That is perhaps the difference between the opinions other countries have of us and our opinion of ourselves. We want to be the good guys, always, and on the right side of good and evil, even if it isn’t exactly the whole truth.
It was clear from the first moment last night that The Shape of Water was the favorite — you could just feel it in the room. Usually my own ego gets in the way of everything else when it comes to predicting — I didn’t do too badly, 19 right overall, but not having chosen Best Picture and refusing to choose Dear Basketball cost me in the end. Still, I ended up leaving feeling good about the Best Picture winner because it is so deserving, stats be damned. I don’t know what I’ll do to fill the time now that the SAG stat has faltered, and Shape also becomes the first film to win without winning any screenwriting or acting prizes in 20 years. People fell in love with this film, and for once passion won out.
While it’s true that Get Out is probably still the landmark film of the year and will do what all great films do when they don’t win Oscars: consistently land on the greatest films of all time lists, Spielberg says Guillermo del Toro has joined a legacy of filmmakers and he did do that. He and Alfonso Cuaron and Alejandro G. Inarritu have made a lasting and permanent imprint on American film, showing a rigid studio system what flexibility is also possible within that system. That is probably the bigger legacy. Get Out, I suspect, will live on as one of the greatest movies never to win: people will look back and marvel that it didn’t, as they do every year. These are Oscars to be proud of, even if the ratings dipped.
You might have thought that if Get Out won last night that it would be a sign of a changing Academy. I guess I would have thought that too. But Shape’s win still shows that Oscar voters were willing to let the right one in: a sci-fi fantasy film, even if it was divisive, even without the full support of the Screen Actors Guild. There were many reasons for it not to have won, and there will be many reasons why some will seek to downgrade it simply because it did win. But those of us who know this race understand what a big deal it was that it won. It wasn’t just that it became the first film with a Best Actress and Supporting Actress nominee to win Best Picture since Chicago — and before that Shakespeare in Love, the year my daughter was born and the year I first thought about starting this site — but it was that the film itself is so imaginative and unique. It has now broadened the possibilities for what can be considered “Best Picture” of the year. Bravo to Guillermo del Toro and his exceptional work.
Twenty years is a long time to be covering the Oscars. I’ve aged and evolved along with them. I feel the pulse of the next generation behind me, with more interest in them and more urgency to write about them just as I feel the restlessness in myself to move on from them. Our staff here at AwardsDaily is growing and I’m hoping next season to bring more voices in.
I just want to give an eternal shout out to those who keep this site running, those who are ever present, working regular jobs in addition to helping with this site. Our intrepid reporter Jazz Tangcay out and about doing interviews, attending parties, listening to the buzz on the ground. Marshall Flores, proofreader and stats whiz and the first to call a potential win for Get Out in screenplay and its Best Picture nomination. Clarence Moye and the devoted ADTV crew: Megan Mclachlan, Joey Moser, and Jalal Haddad, also known as the Oscar Squad. Our roving festival correspondents in Europe, Patrick Mulholland and Zhuo-Ning (Tony) Su, whose voices brim with sharp insight. Our keen guest contributers Brian Whisenant, Daniel Smith-Rowsey, and Robin Write. Deep appreciation to Dr. Rob Y for his lucid handling of the Awards Daily Oscar Ballot Project, a premium fixture of the site for 10 years now. And finally, Ryan Adams, Wingman in Chief, whose presence is like the beating heart of this site. Thank you.
And thanks to you readers, those longtime loyalists who are still kicking around this site, those who haven’t migrated to the abundance of other Oscar sites, the gratifying number of new friends who have recently found us and joined the AD community, and especially to those who send letters, emails, and tweets of gratitude and encouragement. We might not always write back to every one of you, but we share your messages with each other and your notes often brighten our day on days when we need it most. Though we might not say so out loud, we truly do appreciate your words of support.
Onward, my friends, onward. Real life awaits outside in daylight. As well as a wealth of new worlds onscreen to discover together in the dark.
Just gonna say I finally watched LADYBIRD on Monday and I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I’m still happy it didn’t win anything… Laurie Metcalf maybe but I still haven’t been able to see I TONYA to compare those 2 performances.
Yeah, I enjoyed Lady Bird but didn’t find it to be “winning” in any respect short of Metcalf.
Each season, I feel that the more I know; ultimately the less I know. I read a lot on this site and comment from time to time and I see how transformed my process is of approaching the Oscars is from the pre-internet years where there was really only BAFTA and the Globes to use as pre-cursor; unless you were acquainted with the NBR or LA Film critics etc. Hunches and gut feelings were the go. Once again I incorrectly predicted the outcome of BP, but I do feel vindicated in that especially this year, moments before Beatty/Dunaway announced the final one, and that seemingly endless Best Picture montage (i’d prefer the SAG/Globes method of presenting them through the show to honour and highlight the best of the year), I had no idea which of perhaps 4 films might be named. I admire the ardent and assiduous way that regulars on this site and indeed our wonderful hosts and editors approach the season and forensically pore over the stats and the markers of each and every stage of a given year.
Perhaps my own disappointment with The Shape of Water (i liked it, but didn’t love it); my emphatic assessment of the flaws of 3B despite its powerhouse acting (i predicted it for BP), my admiration for Get Out (but not sure that it could go all the way as it was such a bizarre genre mix) as well as thinking Nolan and Dunkirk was AMPAS of old and that perhaps in such a fluid mix of films, that could still prevail, led me to equivocate even in that final pensive moment before the hand trembling Warren Beatty announced the winner. I figured the combo of GG/SAG/BAFTA wins for 3B and its visceral powerhouse (albeit flawed narrative) would be more in the wheelhouse than a fantasy movie; however beautifully directed. Previously ‘beautifully’ directed fare have won Director but not Picture. And the SAG ensemble omission pointed me away from and not to Shape of Water being the winner (a lesson i took from last year but it didn’t require it this year; which is why i feel each year and the set of movies especially in the preferential vote have to be taken on their own merits and within their own qualities and dynamics. And yet; i still found it impossible to work out which film would prevail. How can we when we can’t predict #2, #3 etc on voters’ preferences. It was hard enough when it was just 5 and to imagine which was to be first over the line. An eternal work in progress.
My respect as ever is to Sasha and Ryan and all the contributors to this site. It is highly addictive, and it has indelibly changed my approach and appreciation of the Oscars. That is not entirely a bad thing. In fact it’s a good thing. The posts and articles here continue to prod at my consciousness, not just about the prizes, but about the politics and more importantly the takeaways and gems of the narratives themselves. I learn a lot about the art of appreciating art from everyone on here. So a big thank you. 🙂
One side note about “Three Billboards”… not enough people has seen Zhang Yimou’s “The Story of Qiu Ju”, otherwise, the reception to that subpar rip-off, from that masterpiece, would have been pointed out, all through the year. Like really, Yimou’s film, screenplay, structure, message, and even ending – plus Gong Li’s masterful performance – put the american reimagination to shame.
To summarize the chinese original: in a community, the leader kick Qiu Ju’s husband in the balls and she starts a process looking for justice, which is an excellent opportunity for Yimou’s to offer us a glance into the deep core of China’s everyday life but also burocratic nightmare, and deliver us an emotional, deep, powerful ending that feels earned through the film’s narrative, without ever going through cheap tricks to move the film forward. My advice… check both films back to back, despite its difference, the inspiration of McDonagh is clear, and while I can’t fully blame him for plagiarism, the core of both films seem too similar, but McDonagh opted for a more bankable – box-office, awards-wise – version full of shock value. It could have been named “The Story of Mildred, a woman from Ebbing, Missouri”.
Are you for real?? The Shape of Water is one of the weirdest and most boring movies I’ve ever seen! And you are saying that in the past 20 years, this is one of the BEST?? Along with THE HURT LOCKER???? hahahaha Clearly you don’t know movies. The Hurt Locker is terrrrrrrrible. Oh but you prob think its great because a women directed it. You probably love The Shape of Water because a lonely woman masturbates in the bath tub for some reason…
I liked the masturbation scene, right at the beginning of the film, which jolted me and reminded me that I am watching a film for adults, not a children’s fantasy. There were other similar scenes that I loved, such as the cat scene.
I find it odd to see someone juxtapose the words “weirdest” and “most boring” in the same sentence. Weirdness is not boring. Normality is boring. A weird film may work or may not work, and clearly you thought this one didn’t work. That is fair enough.
Just saw SOW. It’s good. It’s fine. It’s E.T. with sex and for lonely millennial women. And so politically correct with the evil white American and Russian white males. You had those evil white males in E.T. too, but you only saw them from the knee down. Not a great film…but certainly representative of its time…just like Get Out.
The depiction of the two sides in the Cold War was not “politically correct”, it was “historically correct”. The year was 1962, the year of the Cuban missile crisis. People genuinely feared the world would end in a nuclear war, and both sides behaved… coldly. The Russians were undoubtedly evil; Americans not so much, but they were not entirely heroic. I am glad Americans fought the Cold War and won, but their methods of winning were not always wholesome. See another Best Picture movie: “The Post”. (See all of the BP movies, in fact.)
The white males from E.T., from the 1980s, are not comparable. They were not evil, they just wanted to capture the alien for scientific purposes. Also, Amphibian Man was not an extra-terrestrial. He was from this planet, from South America.
The movie was definitely a variation on the same theme as ET. Of course it’s not EXACTLY the same. But the overall theme…an otherworldly creature in an alien American environment is befriended by a lonely human who hides him, protects him, nurtures him and then helps him return “home” is the same. The main reason I brought this up was because there was news of a lawsuit against the film by the writers of another, more obscure film for stealing its idea. When I saw the film I was struck at how it was so clearly related to ET, yet nobody had commented on that. Basically my point was that there are very few “new” stories out there and most movies are variations on just a relative handful of themes.
My point about white males was not clearly expressed. I was pointing out that the portrait of the American white male was so over the top evil that it fits into the current demonization of white males which reached a fever pitch with Trump’s election. In that way it expresses the zeitgeist of the time along with Get Out.
You make good points. The Shape of Water is certainly derivative of many other films, including, yes, E.T., and I believe del Toro acknowledged a few of these in his acceptance speech. (However, I have actually watched that obscure dolphin documentary film, and I am certain that lawsuit will lose. It is far-fetched to think Shape was derived from that dolphin story.)
White females came across just as badly as white males in Get Out, if not worse, so that film had separate issues dealing with race, not gender. The zeitgeist in Hollywood lately has been purely about gender, thanks to the terrible sexual harassment scandals, which may be why the two main contenders this season were Shape of Water and Three Billboards.
As I said, you make good points. Many people here are just surprised that an obviously intelligent person like you only managed to see the Best Picture winner a few days ago! Most people saw it months ago! I guess you must be a really busy person who doesn’t have much spare time. You really should make an effort to see the other Best Picture nominees before they disappear from cinemas. They’re all worth it. See the ones with the highest Metacritic scores first. (If you’re going to skip one, skip “The Post”, as I have a feeling that Cold War story might bore you.)
You are good at seeing the holes in my arguments…which I freely admit exist. I’m just getting sloppy and lazy in my old age. I haven’t been to a movie theater since the 3d glasses at Avatar gave me a splitting headache five years or so ago. I try to catch up on the “must sees” on PPV. I was an Oscar fanatic in my youth starting in the sixties and a regular movie goer while living in NYC for 30 years. So I still have a mild interest in film. But I haven’t seen anything really exciting for years. I rely on the handful of classics that have truly stood the test of time for my inspiration and enjoyment. Those I can watch over and over…like great music.
You’re so lucky to have been a moviegoer in the 60s and 70s. That era, as you may know, is still considered by people who weren’t even alive then to be the best era for films. The special effects blockbusters didn’t take over until Star Wars in 1977, I believe, so before that films had to rely on tight screenplays, sharp dialogue, good acting and photography, and sometimes a hummable soundtrack (“Raindrops”, “Everybody’s Talking At Me”, etc.).
Most films aren’t like that these days, except for some of the lower-budget ones. I don’t know which of the Oscar nominees this year will stand the test of time, but I know some of them will. Sorry you can’t find out which at the cinema any more, but have fun finding out on PPV.
Saw Get Out for the second time and it held up really well even with the surprise of the big reveal. Very deserving OS win.
Still suprised tho that this horror flick, having lost everything except WGA, including globe to LB, having failed to get a globe director nom, BAFTA bp or bd nom and an Oscar editing nom, was still regarded by some as their pick for Best Picture. Just seemed such a stretch.
It was popular. It had a lot of hidden support, so it was credible. I agree about the Original Screenplay win. I’m really happy about that.
When you say, you’re welcoming new voices, are you welcoming people who don’t see remedying race relations as not the primary purpose of film or film criticism? When you talk about the new generation of socially-conscious voters, are you talking about a generation of voters who thinks artistic voices that offend the fewest POC should be championed (as in Maritn McDonagh’s 3 Billboards)? Are you referring to a generation of people who champions nonsensical arguments (that Sam Rockwell wasn’t allowed to be given a narrative arc that lent him to improvement, that the entirety of La La Land is defined by a single scene where a white guy *gasp* explained jazz) and that insists on recasting Hollywood as a duality of heroes and villains on the scale of diversity? Are celebrating the collective empowerment of all voices or the expanse of voices at the demonization of others like Natalie Portman who sought to shame the male directors simply for being male and those who sought to strong-arm Greta Gerwig into the file or the people who think that Martin McDonagh is not allowed to tell a story set in America that deals with race (the film wasn’t primarily about race anymore), or say it’s no longer ok for a white person to tell a black person’s story (i.e. Kathryn Bigelow). The point of art is to expand outside your bounds.
I’m not suggesting that Sasha Stone is that bad compared to the critics at Vulture or the AV Club, but personally, I see any attempts at inclusivity that don’t keep their intellectual exclusivity in check are just as disgusting as racism.
When you say, you’re welcoming new voices, are you welcoming people who don’t see remedying race relations…
What the heck Best Picture nominee did you see that depicted any remedy for race relations?
Personally, I see any attempts at inclusivity that don’t keep their intellectual exclusivity in check are just as disgusting as racism.
Well thanks for letting us know where you stand.
I guess. Yikes.
I’ll consider myself forewarned.
So you think people who don’t meet your criteria for “intellectual exclusivity” (??) are just as disgusting as racists.
Fine.
How about if I think anyone who proudly announces such bizarre over-the-top disgust is disgusting.
Well, to be fair. Intellectual exclusivity isn’t something Sasha does (and I believe you’re her editor). Her takes on last year’s race did strive a little to break away from the duality of La La Land=white oppression whereas Moonlight =black triumph and this year I think she did such a wonderful thing in defending 3 Billboards and encouraging people not to look at it as a black vs white thing.
I just feel that she was encouraging intellectual exclusivity and that does exist in other discussion groups. Have you seen the Dissolve facebook discussion group or AV Club Message boards. Those places are disgusting.
That vs racism is a bit overstated
Last year I saw a total of about 10 movies, one of the least number I had ever seen. I remember seeing 3 awards movies (Get out, Ebbing and Florida) and my favorite was Girls Night out! That’s the one I bought on DVD. The only movie I have an urge to see again is the Florida Project, which in the words of the Honest Academy member — “was screwed”.
All the other Oscar movies are still in cinemas now, so you still have a chance to catch them before they leave. I recommend you go for it! They’re worth it.