An anonymous ballot (really, after all that’s been said, why be anonymous? Grow a pair, pal) reveals how one member thought Green Book won. His op-ed illustrates how little conviction or courage people have when so much public humiliation is involved. I fault journalists with clickbait headlines for not adequately informing readers why Green Book’s win was anything but a surprise. I get that a lot of people not only predicted Roma to win but were 100% convinced it would win. They need to believe Green Book’s win wasn’t predictable. But it was. It was if you were paying attention to stats. And precedent.
This anonymous voter says the following:
How did Green Book win? I have to assume the preferential balloting [which in a close race can elevate films ranked second or lower by many voters] helped because people clearly had a lot of regard for Roma, based on Alfonso Cuarón’s directing win. Regardless, many Academy members, sad to say, aren’t very rigorous and don’t hold their choices to a high standard; the award is for excellence and artistry, not whether a movie made you feel good. Green Book is a fine enough film, but it’s not an Oscar film — period — and I’m very disappointed that so many members thought it is.
Preferential voting has been in place since 2009. If these folks, and the journalists who cover the race, don’t know how it works by now what can anyone say? It rewards broad support. That means Green Book had to be not just liked but loved by enough voters — almost all of them, folks, to rank higher than any other in each round of ballot redistribution. This is the same process that put Moonlight, Spotlight, 12 Years a Slave at the top. In a year where picture and director split, the film that wins is the least divisive, more widely-liked film.
How do we know Green Book is the most liked? There’s more evidence. It beat Roma in Toronto. It beat Roma on the preferential ballot at the PGA. Surely that might have been a clue to, you know, someone?
This anonymous voter gets a chance to complain, yet again, about Green Book not being good enough (because he thinks it’s not) but then he neglects to include the important information, yet again, that it wasn’t like Crash. Just because people responded in waves of outrage doesn’t mean this wasn’t a predictable outcome to anyone really paying attention. Crash was genuinely unpredictable. It had only won the SAG ensemble. Its win would have been as surprising as Black Panther’s win. Green Book’s win came down to more of a coin toss with Roma. Roma had no SAG noms and lost the PGA — and it was destined to win Best Foreign Language, one of Oscars highest honors, thus absolving many voters from choosing it as best film again at the top of the ballot.
Journalists who got it wrong, and there are many – MANY – are not doing due diligence in pointing this out to their readers. Instead, most of them are happy to watch the world burn because they are pissed that they got it wrong. I’ve gotten it wrong many times before. This time I got it right by paying attention to stats, a methodology that has served us well over the years but is written off by the majority of pundits out there.
The reason so many people voted for Green Book, the reason it won, is that so many people simply liked the movie. Not just white people. Not possible. Across a broad swatch of diverse moviegoers, any hesitation they might have had about the movie evaporated once they actually saw the movie. Yes, because Green Book, unlike several other Oscar nominees, made so many people feel good, and not just white people. We know that most voters vote with their hearts. But you didn’t need to consider that fact to predict Green Book — you only needed to ask why didn’t Roma win in Toronto? Why didn’t it win the PGA?
Even as we put the 2019 Oscar race behind us, we know it won’t be the last time we talk about this year’s Best Picture winner. Because so many people are behaving as if Green Book’s victory is the worst thing to happen in America since the election of Donald Trump. If only that were true. If this is our second-worst problem then we’re doing a lot better than the rest of the world. But no, there are more important things to be mad about, and the sooner people stop saying anyone who voted for Green Book is “not very rigorous” or worse, the sooner we can all focus our anger on things that matter.
I finally watched Green Book (The only nominee I did not get to watch before the oscars). Wow, Sasha is right. Green Book is a perfectly fine film, not great but pretty good and very entertaining. It is not the monster it is made out to be. People are so mean spirited, they are keyboard warriors ready to tear down a perfectly fine film, without giving out a single realistic suggestion on how to actually solve the social problems we have today.
Now that I have seen all films, my order would be
– Roma
– BlackKklansman
– Green Book
– The favorite
– Black Panther
– A star is born & Bohemian Rhapsody
– Vice
As you can see, even though I liked Roma better GreenBook is close to the top. Spielberg and co campaigned to keep Roma in the bottom in a preferential ballot. And that is why Green Book won. Makes sense now.
I get that there are SOME stories where the writer demonstrates ignorance of how the preferential ballot works. But that’s NOT where the outrage is coming from. The outrage is because the winning film had an entirely white team behind the camera making a simplistic, feel-good movie about racial reconciliation. I give Sasha lots of credit for a successful prediction. But there are larger discourses around the Oscars, and Sasha’s analysis of those issues is shaped by her loathing of “woke twitter.”
Thanks for explaining the outrage to us. Maybe you didn’t notice that a major reason the film won is that many people had heard all about the outrage, and were outraged by the outrage. We’ve had too many similar so-called outrages in the last few years, and we’re sick to death of them. La La Land was racist, apparently, because it was made by whites and a white guy saved jazz. No, he clearly stated that it originated in New Orleans, and black jazz musicians were playing while he talked about jazz. Are white people not even allowed to be fans of jazz? The following year Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri was called racist, because a racist character redeemed himself. “Racists are racists and can’t redeem themselves” is itself a racist comment, if you think about it, as well as being factually incorrect. The outrage was because he didn’t face any consequences, you may say. But one of the major themes of the film, whatever you may think of it, was that nobody faced consequences for anything in that town… (spoilers)… not for arson, thumb torture, pushing people out of windows, beating people up… oh… or rape or murder. Yet somebody should face consequences for racism there? That criticism was less logical than any of the plot twists of the film.
The main premise of your outrage this time is that the team behind the camera was all white. This is factually incorrect, since executive producers Octavia Spencer and Kwame Parker were both black, and Don Shirley, who approved the screenplay, was black. The writers were white, you meant. This is a wrong and dangerous criticism. It’s one thing to say that actors on the screen should be representative: it’s quite another to say that writers should look like the characters they write. Should we throw away Kevin Jarre’s screenplay for the film Glory? Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird? Shakespeare’s Othello the Moor? No, good writers do not need to look like their characters. If you go down that road, you will doom literature.
Nick Vallelonga was one of the writers because he was the son of one of the leads. Just supposing he had done what you wanted and hired a token black person to help him write the screenplay. What improvements could have been made to the content of the film? Elsewhere in this thread, I gave ways to improve the other films in the BP race, but I have not heard any critics of Green Book give constructive ways to improve this film, other than calling for more blacks behind the camera. It shouldn’t have been “feel-good”, you say. Sorry, but this story ended at Christmastime and the two became lifelong friends, according to Don Shirley himself. This is historically accurate, so cannot be changed. It shouldn’t be a “simplistic” story about “racial reconciliation”, you say. That just shows that your own interpretation was simplistic. This story was not simply about race, was it? It was much deeper than that. Don Shirley was never intended to represent average black men. He said himself that he neither fitted in with whites nor with blacks. We know why he didn’t fit in with whites: he didn’t look like them. Why did he feel he couldn’t fit in with blacks? The black people who oppose this film need to ask themselves this question.
That’s not to say all blacks oppose this film, or even most blacks. It had support from wise and influential leaders like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, columnist at the Hollywood Reporter, and musicians Quincy Jones and Harry Belafonte, who knew Don Shirley, and Rep. John Lewis, who lived during that time and said, at the Oscars, that the film was accurate. He is one of the most senior Democrats in the House, close behind Nancy Pelosi, but some of these “outraged” opponents of Green Book were dismissing him as an old fool. It was a disgrace.
I agree with Sasha. It was no surprise, but then again, the definition of “surprise” is very odd nowadays. When Rylance beat Stallone, that was considered by some as a “surprise” even though Rylance won the BAFTA and solo nominees typically lose.
For this year’s Oscar (or should I say last), we had the following contenders:
BEST PICTURE – Green Book or Roma. GB won the Globe and PGA, two very high predictors, and Roma won the DGA and had the most nominations. Everybody knew one of those was going to win.
BEST ACTRESS – Close or Coleman. Close won the SAG and the Globe in Drama. Colman won the Globe in Comedy/Musical and the BAFTA.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS – Regina King or Rachel Weisz. King won the Globe, Weisz won the BAFTA.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY – BlacKkKlansman or Can You Ever Forgive Me? – BKKK was the Best Picture nominee out of the bunch and won the BAFTA. CYEFM won the WGA.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY – Green Book or The Favourite – GB won the Globe and TF won the BAFTA.
I would argue, if we’re being as objective as possible, BKKK or TF winning (no major BP trophies) or Black Panther (won the SAGE, but didn’t score director, screenplay, or editing) winning would be a surprise.
Lady Gaga winning would be a surprise, for Best Actress.
Anybody but Mahershala Ali for Supporting Actor, would be a complete shocker.
I suppose you could argue that GB was a surprise because Vegas and Gold Derby pundits had Roma winning. But with that logic, The Shape of Water winning Best Picture would also constitute as a “surprise”.
BREAKING NEWS : Glenn Close is winning her long-overdue Oscar on my 33rd birthday!!!
The long-in-the-works (as in “25 years” long) Sunset Boulevard musical adaptation, set up at Paramount, has just found its director, Tony winner Rob Ashford and they plan on starting shooting this fall, meaning a 2020 release is happening, also meaning that on 28th of February, 2021 Glenn Close WILL win her damn Oscar at last! They probably shouldn’t even bother with nominating anyone else that year, on Nominations Morning they should be just like : Best Actress in a Leading Role – Glenn Close. PERIOD.
director is not experienced enough to guarantee a great movie……remember…a sole nomination for close is not enough…it should be a best picture nominee for her to win. I wouldn’t get excited just yet
All these actresses say hi, dummy:
Jessica Lange, Blue Sky
Susan Sarandon, Dead Man Walking
Hillary Swank, Boys Don’t Cry
Halle Berry, Monsters Ball
Charlize Theron, Monster
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
Marion Cotillard, La Vie en Rose
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Cate Blanchett, Blue Jasmine
Julianne Moore, Still Alice
Half the Best Actress winners of the past two decades were in movies that didn’t have a Best Picture nomination.
absence of a best picture contender makes it harder. When you are not in a nominated movie…in order to win..you require your competition to not be in legitimate best picture contenders
The film could be an epic mess and she will STILL deliver a performance for the ages if she does indeed get the chance to play Norma fokin Desmond on the big screen. While I agree she would be helped a great deal if her film actually was a contender in other top categories, I think with THIS epic role and her being criminally overdue, she will win either way.
Exactly. The story is epic and roles are to die for. It could be the performance driven film if it’s techn weak.
The standard for BP nominations is very low going by this year’s line ups. In normal years, BP, GB and “Vice” wouldn’t even get nominated let alone win anything major. The story of this film is legendary and I don’t think the directors has to do match to bring this story to big screen. If nothing else, it could be a performance driven film in the way that “Fence”, GB and 3B were.
Nice try troll….you know nothing about film making yet you come here and try to troll vice that has been approved across the board by industry and people who ACTUALLY make movies for living as opposed to write click bait articles ? Roma can lick my balls along with cuaron. You really think a movie nominated for screen play, editing and directing is less deserving of best picture nomination or a fluke than movies missing one of these categories ? it has support across the board. Speaking of glenn close..i am glad she is going to die without an oscar. I swear on her future grave…she is going to die without an oscar full of regret. I will laugh over her dead body if I can.
I am amazed at the useless confidence you displayed while typing “in normal years, BP, GB and “Vice” wouldn’t even get nominated let alone win anything major”. You are just casually including green book and vice with BR as if you are correct. No, you are WRONG right there. Your opinion is worthless compared to academy voters, BAFTA voters, DGA voters, PGA voters, ACE EDDIE voters and lot of filmmakers. You are nothing compared to each of them let along put together. So first know your place and then stop judging the quality of green book and vice. You are nothing john smith.
Anyone want to volunteer for jury duty?
There’s a court case now on the docket in which a chronic jackass is hoping a beloved actress dies with no Oscar.
He wants her dead so he can laugh about it.
“Speaking of glenn close..i am glad she is going to die without an oscar. I swear on her future grave…she is going to die without an oscar full of regret. I will laugh over her dead body if I can.”
Vile.
But it’s a remake. How often do movies that are remakes get to win? Just look at A Star is Born.
Not exactly a remake. The film was first adapted into a musical, and then that musical is now adapted to film again.
This is going to be a very difficult role to get right. It works on stage because musicals are allowed to be campy, but I wonder if they can make it work on film. But if anyone can pull it off, it’s Glenn Close.
The loss might turn out to be a blessing in disguise. I think she is going to knock it out of the park. I love that film. It’s one of my favourite and by my favourite director.
Calm down, PERIOD. The director is an unknown entity in film and we have no idea what this product will look like. Also, I’ve seen Glenn Close on Broadway in this show and I would not say it’s a shoo-in for a Best Actress win, good as she was.
Epic role + long overdue acting giant = Oscar
This formula may not pan out but I think as long as someone points a camera at her playing Norma freaking Desmond, she will win, even if the film is flawed. Her performance won’t be.
A month later but, I hope you’re right. Not the time to give up hope.
Gotta say my goodbyes for this Oscar season… I genuinely would have liked to have hung around a bit longer this year, but I’m going out of town tomorrow, and the place I’m going to doesn’t really have internet, except for one specific place I don’t enjoy visiting very much (unless things have changed, from last year), so I won’t be able to do that. I might come back for a few days, to check out the last post-Oscar articles and comments I missed, when I return, mid-March.
Enjoy the off-season, folks, and I’ll see you in September, or thereabouts! 🙂 Cheers!
Have a nice few weeks off social media!
Thanks! 🙂 I WILL probably go to that place that has internet at least once or twice while I’m there, just for essential stuff – who knows, I might even pop in her a bit?! Doubtful, given the limited time, but possible…
good bye my friend i no idea your not available to post or to interact with on occassion during year? let me guess right? your headed to Antarctica or something like that? (jke)> where else is there zero net connection? what work you do if i may ask? i unemployed qualified architect by the by and tragic part time blogger on this site like you lol:P
Sorry to hear you dont enjoy going wherever your going i gather then it work related matter?:P
take care and one more thing friend i suppose it a excuse for anyone to tune out of off season time to process and reflect too or possibly lord forbid 😛 move on from this slightly overblown oscar season? where you and my prefrerred best picture contenders in infinity war and first man didnt get best pic nom ey?
take care dear friend speak to you ltr in year
🙂 Not Antarctica – somewhere in Romania… And it’s not work related. (I don’t like to talk about my work, anyway. It’s no big deal, and it’s nothing very interesting, but, as with many things in life, I don’t like the extra pressure talking about it creates for me. So I try to keep work, Awards Daily and my other affairs separate, each in their own world. That seems to work best for me.) Nor is it leisure. It’s something in-between…
But no, I’m not tired of this Oscar season, like I was last year, for example. I just have to take this trip. I truly would have stayed on for at least another week, if I’d been able to. It’s a bit abrupt for me too, to leave like this, but there’s nothing to be done about it. The trip can’t be delayed. 🙂
Take care yourself, and see you this autumn!
All the best for the time being Claudiu!
Thank you, and likewise! 🙂
I heard on the news today about a satellite which has been launched into space, intending to provide 3BO (three billion others) broadband service to all the parts of the world that don’t have the internet. It will probably start working too late to help you, unfortunately.
I don’t know if anything can help this place, internet-wise or otherwise… As one of my chess friends used to say: it’s a place where “communism has triumphed”… 🙂 (O.K., it’s probably no longer as bad as it was back when he said that – but it’s not much better, either.)
He meant in terms of the quality of life, of course – not ACTUAL, political communism. Just a communist type setting…
Cheers, Claudiu!
I haven’t had the time reading all your lengthy post-Oscars analysis. I’m gonna save them and study and be more prepared for next year. 🙂
I always imagined you living in a strange mythical land like Transylvania. Maybe you work with Count Dracula off season. Maybe you’re his stat expert keeping count of his victims and helping him identify the best towns to get fresh blood and the juiciest meats. Have fun!
Before you leave I want to share with you as a parting gift a play on words that came to my mind today a bit too late: « A Stat is Born ».
:)) That’s brilliant! Even funnier is that I DID actually live in Transylvania (near Covasna) for about six years, as a child – my mom got work there as a teacher right after college. Since 1994 I’ve lived in a different part of Romania – very close to Bucharest, the capital.
“A Stat is Born” – damn! We should all slap ourselves collectively for not thinking of that sooner! 🙂
Wow! I’m glad you like it. I must have written right after you left, so I was worried I might have offended you or smth.
Transylvania looks so quaint! The only criticism I have ever read from visitors is that it is not as gloomy as Hollywood movies would have us believe. It is not a land of perpetual Halloween 😉
Wishing you a wonderful summer!
“I must have written right after you left, so I was worried I might have offended you or smth.”
Of course not. 🙂 Sorry about that – it was my bad for putting off (or rather forgetting to post) the “farewell message” until so late that I no longer even had time to look at the replies that evening, before I was off early the next day! It was an unusual situation for me. I’ve never had to go out of town for a long period of time quite so soon after the Oscars before.
Yeah, Transylvania is a region like any other. Maybe a little more archaic-looking, in places, but definitely not gloomy! 🙂 It’s full of life, in fact. We did return to the little town we lived in back then one time – I pestered my mom to do that, a few years ago -, and it was pretty awesome. We reconnected with some old friends, visited the places of my early childhood (I was 8 or 9 when I left there – so, of course, among other changes, everything looked a lot smaller to me than it had back then), spent the night at our friends’ house (a Turkish-Romanian family) and had a great time with them and in general. One of the best days of my life…
[Now that I’m back from my trip, I’m just doing some quick replies to anybody who wrote when I didn’t have internet, and maybe I’ll go through some of the comments and articles right after the Oscars I didn’t have time to check out, before I take my leave for good, for the summer.]
Thank you for once again being the most powerful voice of reason this site has this season as well as every other season. Your stats work is masterful, your taste in films is always impeccable and you are also the most kind and caring person. These comments sections are lucky to have you.
See you next season, and have a great spring and summer.
Wow, thanks! As always, you’re too kind… 🙂 I wish I were half those things!
A brilliant spring and summer to you as well, dear friend!
[Now that I’m back from my trip, I’m just doing some quick replies to anybody who wrote when I didn’t have internet, and maybe I’ll go through some of the comments and articles right after the Oscars I didn’t have time to check out, before I take my leave for good, for the summer.]
Hope to see you next season, Claudiu – take care!
For me, it is always about the journey and what a great company to have on this journey. I wanted this crazy season to end but I was sad to see it end too. It’s been fun and you were all great company, none more than Claudiu. Thank you, all. Special thanks to Sasha, Ryan (poor overworked guy), Jazz and Marshall for their great work this year. Congrats to Sasha for finally become top of the class in Oscar predictions.
Agree fully, of course! 🙂
[Now that I’m back from my trip, I’m just doing some quick replies to anybody who wrote when I didn’t have internet, and maybe I’ll go through some of the comments and articles right after the Oscars I didn’t have time to check out, before I take my leave for good, for the summer.]
4 time Oscar winner, 11 time nominee, 10 time Grammy winner, Beethoven Piano Concertos master has passed on. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2e5f1db02de779c19f966827b39e9ed2e0227bcf5b943fd5ac0222e83612b75b.jpg
Is that Andre Previn? He looks likes him. Oh, it is. I just checked it. Sad.
This season left me exhausted. No more movies made after 1999 for me until Cannes. (Not that I’m going to Cannes). Catch up on my reading. Wait for BLL2 and GOT sand that’s it. I don’t even intend to catch up on anymore 2018 shit. I might finish my letter to Ridley Scott asking for the 4-hour cut of Exodus. I guess I’ll be seeing the hardcore among y’all during the off-season. Lates.
cc’ing you on my above reply to Dominik, Bryce.
And requesting your assistance in helping me put together a list of most anticipated of 2019 ?
cc’ing you on my above reply to Dominik, Bryce.
And requesting your assistance in helping me put together a list of most anticipated of 2019 ?
I’ll try and put something together!
I can never do this with your help, Bryce!
I’ll open a post where other clever scouts can pitch in
I’m honestly scared to go back and look at what topped our 2018 poll
have no fear friend…for it all in the past….i actually curious to see which films you mean? prior to the actual final shortlist of oscar contenders that missed out last year topped your 2018 poll? or did you mean of films that were nominated for best picture this year? Now..there an idea everyone what WAS everyone’s best film of all released in 2018 before official oscar contenders were chosen last year? vote
then the ever trusty Ryan and Sasha can tally them up each year and we can compare it to the films that are oscar contenders and see to what extent films oscar nominate REALLY match up to everyones overall choices well? what you think?
Ah Aaron
As we do every year, last year, the week after Oscar Night, we ran a poll of 80-100 titles of up coming 2018 movies.
We voted on which ones that we look most forward to seeing. Sight unseen, just going by cast, crew, pedigree.
In past years, usually 5 of our top 10 blind guesses become Best Picture nominees or major players in other awards.
We AD readers are guessing 11 months in advance. But we are surprisingly good at it.
But I dread to look at what we said in March 2018. Crazy year.
Just checked. We did terrible. But we came close: lots of films were in the conversation, just missed the BP nomination.
First Man, Isle of Dogs, Beale Street, Mary Queen of Scots, Widows, Boy Erased, Incredibles 2, Suspiria, Death and Life of John F. Donovan, and Beautiful Boy were our top 10 (not counting The Irishman, which is 2019).
8 of those except for Suspiria and Donovan got nominated for at least 1 major award.
The first Best Picture nominee we have is The Favourite with #11 (#12 with The Irishman). Vice was at #13.
Plus, Roma was a confident #1 in the foreign language vote, so there’s that.
great keep doing it oh by the way Ryan and i address this to you, Sasha, Jazz, Dr.Rob, Mr. Flores, and Paddy Mulholland. The films each of us well we dont all get our way and , more often than not some of us don’t get our preferred film to win best picture BUT…thanx to all of you we feel nevertheless like winners thanx to all of you.
What’s *really* going to surprise people is the sequel, Greener Book!
Then the startling conclusion of the trilogy: Green Babadook
Or the Orange Book? The three colours trilogy.
Offtopic, and presented without comment: https://deadline.com/2019/02/netflix-roma-bafta-regal-cineworld-vue-1202567254/
“BAFTA has told its members that Cineworld, the world’s second largest theater group, has pulled support for the organization following Netflix’s four BAFTA wins for Roma.
“In a letter sent to BAFTA members, the org said, “I regret to tell you that, on Tuesday, Cineworld informed us of its unilateral decision to withdraw its support of BAFTA, citing similar concerns [to those expressed by fellow commercial chain Vue] regarding the eligibility requirements of the Film Awards.”
“Vue recently threatened to withdraw support for BAFTA, claiming the organization had broken its own rules by making “made for TV” film Roma awards eligible this year. Vue claimed the film had not had sufficient theatrical play to qualify for a BAFTA. But the UK organization denied that it had contravened its own rules and those close to the film’s UK distribution were keen to stress to us that it had played in more than a handful of cinemas over a sustained period.
“BAFTA said in today’s letter that it is in discussions with Vue and that there is a “review of our eligibility criteria in the coming months.”
“Cineworld is the UK’s largest operator by market share with more than 1000 screens. In January, Cineworld-owned Regal left Roma out of its Best Picture showcase.”
They are talking out of their ass. According to BAFTA rules, Roma was clearly eligible. They don’t like that Curzon got to release it (and is still showing it) instead of them. Disgraceful behaviour.
Not as disgraceful as Netflix trying to take down all competitors and do away with movie theaters.
The question is not whether ‘Roma’ was eligible according to Bafta rules, but whether said Bafta rules affirm strongly enough the theatrical nature of cinema, which is why Bafta is now reviewing its own rules with exhibitors, just like Ampas is doing after the backlash from prominent Academy members caused by the success of ‘Roma’.
“Vue recently threatened to withdraw support for BAFTA, claiming the organization had broken its own rules by making “made for TV” film Roma awards eligible this year. Vue claimed the film had not had sufficient theatrical play to qualify for a BAFTA. But the UK organization denied that it had contravened its own rules and those close to the film’s UK distribution were keen to stress to us that it had played in more than a handful of cinemas over a sustained period.”
I was referring to this. It’s a plain lie. If they have a problem with Netflix, say that we don’t want large cinema chains to get passed over for releases. But even then it’s disgraceful. Cold War, I believe, only had a Curzon release on premiere (similar, and actually smaller than Roma). What if that won? Would they also be mad?
As long as Netflix is willing to give films a theatrical release (which seems to be moving towards being the rule instead of the exception, e.g. The Irishman getting a wide release) I don’t have a problem with their model. I don’t think they want to do away with movie theaters. They just offer a small-screen release a few months earlier than traditional blu-ray releases.
Also, if Cineworld and Vue are worried by Netflix offering infinite entertainment for 8 pounds, maybe they should consider lowering their ridiculous 17 pound cinema ticket prices. Competition is good.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/02/netflix-the-irishman-martin-scorsese-theaters
If this is true and only if Netflix alter there ways which suggests here they might i back in this films for best picture contender but ONLY IF netflix alter their approach i definitely keen to see irishman but NOT because i cant get to see it in cinemas and have to see it online a Scorsese film seriously?> not see on big screen? over my damn dead body (ld forbid:P)
After Moonlight, Mahershala Ali might be? the most in demand black actor on recent trends…since then in a few years alone if barely that? he then followed up with Green Book, and other day i saw “Alita Battle Angel’ and he was in that too! who saw that? what you think of that? James Cameron is a genius and has another potential franchise on his hands..not as good as avatar but different too..not great but really well done..considering the depth and ambition of it story. But kudos to Mr. Ali he not only plays a hero to a tee but he can play a form of villainy too well..on another topic of things.
For the record as to the much overhyped netflix ‘debut’ in an awards institution to which institution has resisted it arrogant charge for best picture glory for some time i predict now- even though it was not a great movie “Alita Battle Angel” is to be experienced on big screen and most films on big screen are meant to be experienced only on the big screen.
AS i said before for about 5 years i predict (but i admit i cant be so sure) the academy will rightfully indulge in their new found stronger footing and principles in this long overdue broad- based united support within academy itself of big screen films for big screen knowing academy’s trends on all issues that start as ‘new’ it takes quite a lot of time for the academy in their precedent cases whether it overcoming gender bias to embracing women or racial bias against blacks, i dont see any difference to far less urgent issue..and lets face it for academy to taken far longer than was justified on other two issues that reflected on culture and made these types of people feel well pissed off for decades before oscar woke up finally to themselves…there is simply no human feeling or dimension to a supposed ‘urgency’ in academy’s eyes to rush to give netflix best picture.
Scorseses ‘the irishman’ is only one of i certain a host of more pressing big screen broad -appeal high qualkity films that academy may well likely give preference for..over this film. Just cos it a scorsese film it all largely depends on netflix altering their overtly zealous overtly aggressive ego- driven marketing approach cos clearly..while it won some oscars that was more for individual than the collective to be honest..full credit to Cuaron zero to netflix..they really needed the producers to swing behind it to make netflix a serious viable oscar contender for best picture..i almost certain based on other precedents combined with the fact thet ‘Green Book;’ as Sasha points out rightly is the consensus ‘broad based support’ type film is the future academy will be keen to embrace these types of films more than other alternatives.
And we dont know how popular ‘the irishman’ will be for the traditional pro- big screen voter base that is the new big influential force thankfully to determine academy’s most central tradition and lore that i was right all along throughout this yuears race: ” big screen movies for the cinemas” and they are here to stay and dominate for a while to come..it is as simple as that.
And finally..Netflix need to drop their ego, their sense of self- righteous entitlement and arrogance and accept for their movies to get big enough support they need to seriously consider at LEAST moderate release not just online but also on cineplexes that are still as proven by box office record breakers more often in last decade than the 30 years before that between breaking blockbuster records, and yes prices may have risen but the sheer increase in population globally too even if you strip price increases the sheer volume of pple in cinemas during movie peak times are far higher on average than they used to be.
Netflix should accept as i stated before if they want to be a more serious player in academy to win only prize that reflects on netflix success for oscatr campaigning open simultaneously online and in cinemas it a no- brainer to me. that ONLY way i accept netflix as a viable best picture contender. thjey can afford it they no excuse for netflix not to do that.
In a way it would be a shame if Scorsese ‘the irishman’ chances would be compromised cos netflix refuse to open it on a reasonable amount of big screens as well as online.
Not doubting Scorsese at all to get nomination i doubt netflix sincerity to alter their approach to previal with enough broad based consensus so no i not surprised Green Book one and frankly it deserved it to me anyway (though i was [praying for a unlikely black panther win)
I not surprised for Green Book to win …but i am frankly totally appalled the delusional negative reaction putting a modern classic to shame…esp one that we need more than ever about race relations during times for division and conflict in real world politically, racially…for record i am critical on occassion as we all are about what some people prefer to win best picture but the extent that some individuals really lay it on thick is frankly unfair and unjustified…some of those individuals are entitled to their opinion but everything is relative…what the saying? ESPECIALLY when responding to clearly more clear – headed far more educated and informed objective critics who run this superb site, ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ and heres another one for those who really go overboard in insulting unjustly other people’s thoughts ‘dont shoot down the message the messenger passes’- take few chunks here or there but dont humiliate a persons message that appalling for some minorities here to do that i think so anyway
Funny thing, but in the season when King´s Speech has beaten Social
Network it was not a compliment on this site when King´s Speech was “the
film people can feel”…
Times are changing.
Can we consider that Sasha still doesn’t see “movies that make you feel” as a very sophisticated compliment. But instead she is just reminding us that it’s a proven and durable reason why movies win?
Can we also remind ourselves that there were 4 or 5 movies this year that Sasha would have preferred to see win Best Picture but that she accepts that the Academy went for Green Book, for the same reasons that she used to predict it.
That it’s possible to understand and accept as stark reality reasons that we may not all agree with?
Lastly (because I need to shut up) can we agree that we can’t spit and piss on the Academy when they disappoint us, and then embrace them when they still so frequently inspire us and make us happy?
Because who wants to embrace a bunch of cinematic legends who are covered in our spit and piss.
When we do pragmatic predictions, we get mocked for concealing our true feelings. Then when we do write about our true feelings we get scolded for not sticking to cold hard predictions.
Fun? Not for us on staff it isn’t.
People furious when we refused to agree that The Favourite would sweep the Oscars. Mad that we wouldn’t get on board and say so. Then people are furious when Sasha gets 22 right out of 24.
Want somebody who’s delusional and misguided due to being swept up in idealism? That would be me.
Want somebody whose dreams get dashed every year after resisting reality and ending up dead wrong in 33% of the categories – like most of the rest of you? Again, that would be me.
I know you understand these nuances and conflicting impulses, Dominik, my good friend.
I’m not verbalizing things this way to argue with you. Not tryna school you, my brainy buddy. I know you know what I say is mostly true.
I’m just trying to respectfully steer you away from insinuating that we have turned into hypocrites since the day all our hearts were broken for Fincher and The Social Network.
(Remember that last paragraph when Sasha and I are able to unveil some great news a couple of months from now.)
Yes, yes, all this!
No worries, Ryan – I´m just in a typical post-Oscar disillusion that sometimes grabs me when some sort of “low standard voting” (like the quoted Academy member states) leads us to Best Picture choices that could be – to say the least – a little more inspired… That said, I think it´s totally appropriate to criticize them – considered, like I said in a different post, that it´s never really “the Academy” in total. I see them as a very heterogenic, probably even divided group. Who knows, but probably the vote for “Green Book” was rather a vote for the lowest common denominator in order to prevent a Netflix/foreign language/too artsy candidate to win?
It´s really – more than ever – the big critics circle groups like LA and New York, that got it right this year! 😉
Great post.
Thanks for the extent to which you engage with the readership here even with critical posters, like moi.
Crash wasn’t entirely unpredictable. I remember on the preshows there were some people who were hearing a surprisingly significant number of voters had voted for Crash, and there were a few who thought it could pull off the upset. When BM won Score I was hopeful, but when it lost Cinematography I became nervous again (to good avail). The same when La La Land lost both Editing and Sound Mixing, both of which Whiplash won (which is why all categories have to air). The Crash win can be likened to Colman’s win. It seemed almost impossible to even broach the idea of such an upset. But as with the murmurs in 2006 the anonymous ballots hinted at the possibility. Granted Grant couldn’t pull off the upset despite all of the Ballot mentions, but if he had won it would have definitely been the same kind of upset: unthinkable, but the signs were there. Just Ali is not the legend Close is thus making it more shocking. But ultimately if you pay enough attention there are minor upsets and major upsets. The difference between Crash and Capote or Colman and McCarthy. With Picture there really wasn’t a favorite although most felt it was Green Book vs. Roma. And when in doubt the Preferential Ballot will guide the way as Sasha I feel has been very successful in conveying (I based my Green Book prediction on that supposition). It’s just that the mainstream doesn’t get their weekly Oscar transfusions many of the people on this and other sites subject themselves to every year. But just keep beating the drum and hopefully more people will fall into the rhythm.
Crash was predictable as fuck, because Brokeback Mountain didn’t have an editing nod. Booom!!!
Not much was made of that stat back then (although in retrospect). It’s crazy that in the last 6 years more Picture winners received Editing nominations than Directing. And with Birdman an unlikely Editing nominee it could have easily gone 6 for 6. What’s even odder: only one Picture winner has actually won Editing (Argo) while 2 have won Directing.
It’s freaky how this stat holds. Birdman is an obvious exeption from the rule, so I don’t consider it breaking the streak. If you look further back you’d have to go all the way back to 1980 when Ordinary People didn’t get nominated. So it’s a 38 year streak.
“We know that most voters vote with their hearts. But you didn’t need to consider that fact to predict Green Book — you only needed to ask why didn’t Roma win in Toronto? Why didn’t it win the PGA?”
Come on, this was NOT a race where the stats were clear and made it easy to call anything! Give me a break!… Why didn’t Green Book win the WGA, or screenplay at BAFTA or Critics Choice? Why didn’t it get the directing nomination? Why did it only have 5 nominations?
“Crash was genuinely unpredictable. It had only won the SAG ensemble. Its win would have been as surprising as Black Panther’s win.”
Really? It also won WGA and ACE – did Black Panther win any of those, or anything else to make up for not winning them? Crash also had zero significant industry snubs – didn’t Black Panther have, like, almost all of the snubs imaginable?! Please…
Thank you! These gloating Monday morning quarterback articles are wearisome.
They’re not wearisome to me. I want to keep reading articles about Green Book. You weren’t happy with its win, so you told me on an earlier thread that you had moved on. That’s your choice.
I wasn’t happy either, but I have to agree with you. This was one of the most complicated awards seasons ever. It was interesting and important to discuss the situation before the ceremony, and it is interesting and important to discuss it now. If we want to actually be good predictors, it’s important to learn from this year.
Given how all over the place this season was, precursors wise. I doubt that one can really “learn” much from it.
GB overcame some huge hurdles to win as well.
One possible takeaway: in a race where every film seems to have big hurdles to overcome, the film that everyone gets if not loves (as Sasha used to put it) wins. But there could be other reads as well, and we should do our best to find those I think.
For a site and a writer who always tout that stats as the true barometer of how to predict winners, saying things like “the film that everyone gets if not loves” is not how we move forward and learn.
In part of this article, Sasha tried to bring up stats to prove that GB was always going to win, and Cladiu kept her honest.
Just bc she was right in her predictions, it doesn’t mean her arguments are automatically strong and to be revered. I don’t trust articles from gloaters. How about an article about why she was wrong about Close vs. Colman? I’d be interested in that. And, no, the Academy voters are assholes would not make a good argument.
The latest podcast talks a lot about Close vs Colman and how Sasha got it wrong.
I don’t listen to their podcasts (I’ve tried in the past… It’s boring… All they do is agree with each other).
But was one of the reasons they gave is that Academy voters are just heartless?
EDIT: I didn’t mean “boring”. I meant more like tedious and long without much payoff. Didn’t meant to offend.
No, they were discussing that they should’ve seen it coming, as the Academy wanted to give The Favourite something, and it was not going to beat Black Panther (because they will vote for that everywhere they “can”) for costumes and production design, or Green Book for screenplay, and they wanted to award King as well. So the only place left was Colman.
Thanks for the summary. But it’s not that convincing b/c they could have given TF costumes or PD easily. And that’s a lot of equations to have a specific outcome from 8000+ private ballots.
I would have felt really bad if the usual British royalty costumes and production design had beaten big-budget African royalty this year. (I’m British.)
But the costumes were not usual British royalty!
Stone has a denim dress. Weisz has that white, masculine shooting dress, which I believe was made of leather. The three leads are all wearing black&white throughout.
The costumes have a remarkable role in taking the film out of the normal period context and elevating it into this modern, absurd space.
“All they do is agree with each other”
I still love the podcasts, but I’ll give you that one. 🙂 Some more dissent would be nice. (Not that they should fake it, of course. But maybe bring in somebody who has different opinions, in general…)
Oh, good idea. I’d love to hear bloody, no-holds-barred arguments between Sasha and Ryan and whoever else is on the podcast.
What do Gold Derby call it when two of their experts argue fiercely on one of their podcasts? “Smackdown”? That’s what we want! 🙂 We want more smackdowns at Awards Daily!…
I think Tom O’Neil and Sasha had one together last year. I was hoping to see one again this year, but that didn’t happen :/
Yeah, I think I remember that. 🙂 Maybe next year…
Sasha should again be in vogue at Gold Derby next year, after this 22/24, like she was after she got Moonlight right. 🙂
slugfest?
That too – that’s what they’re usually called -, but I think they also have “smackdowns” from time to time. 🙂 Or something like that.
They have slugfests, too, that I always enjoy listening to.
Oh we’ve had our arguements. Rough ones. I don’t like those to be broadcast.
All of us can request things to be edited out.
Someday Sasha and I and Marshall and Jazz might do a table reading of Who’s Afraid of Viginia Woolf, so you can all hear what it’s like when we are possessed by the spirits of Martha and George and Nick and Honey.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/794eefc7aea894d3a69e1dcdf1fef0ed92b4a6714902d29a12cbccef565cd19c.gif
AD — what a glorious dump!
TOTAL WAR.
TOTAL.
(That’s my favorite dialogue from the film.)
Too late. You’ve written too many things phrased to sound deliberately offensive the past few days to pretend that you do it accidentally.
Fuck off with your bitter poutyass false accusation that anyone is gloating.
One possible takeaway: in a race where every film seems to have big hurdles to overcome, the film that everyone gets if not loves (as Sasha used to put it) wins. But there could be other reads as well, and we should do our best to find those I think.
Personally, I think one can learn the most from this. 🙂 A lot more than from a straightforward, winner-sweeps race. More stats clashed this year, more comparisons had to be made…
PGA is the best guild, is what I learned. Only 2 misses out of the 10 Best Pictures since 2009.
🙂 I already thought that. (Except I think the WGA might be even stronger, at least when the PGA winner hasn’t also won the DGA and/or SAG. Head to head, no other guild wins, I believe the WGA wins most of the time – wasn’t possible this year, with their two winners not up for BP.) And the numbers were already on its side. This year just strengthens it. Anyway, the reasons I had for not predicting Green Book had nothing to do with thinking the PGA wasn’t more important than the rest.
Stats have to evolve. Claudiu knows this. They must be continually refined and finetuned, right?
Tumultuous years like this reflect seismic shifts in the expectation that we always rely on as solid absolutes.
Studying what went wrong, and adjusting accordingly, is the only way to keep stats applicable and meaningful.
That’s why the work Claudiu and Marshall and others of you do to track these changes is so important and valuable.
Much of it is over my head to corral and correlate, but I know that stats models have to be realigned to account for new data.
Failures in old models show our AD experts how to build new and better models.
I mean, obviously, I agree… And thank you! 🙂 Though, personally, I don’t necessarily think the stats themselves, and their strength, really change that much. Their logic is still sound, those aspects of film-making are still just as important as they were 20 or 50 years ago, so the stats should still work about the same, even when demographics and other things change. It’ll still be people voting, still people who make and love movies and are a part of the industry. That won’t change, and, so, I don’t think the stats will change much, no matter what. (They’ll change some, of course. AFTRA is a radical example, as that could have been anticipated to change things a lot. But I’m sure there are other things, like the correlation between directing and picture, etc.) What changes every single year is we get a new set of clues, in addition to the ones we already had, which helps a lot in fine tuning our systems/models, like you say. We have a sample which is O.K. right now, 30 years for the PGA era, 25 for SAG, 70 years of DGA and WGA data, 90 years of Oscar stats, etc., but not large enough to know for sure (or even be particularly confident) about certain details and what will happen when this or that stat goes up against this or that other stat, or when highly unusual situations like the one this year will arise, or when this or that movie will be ineligible here, or will have this or that exact combination of snubs and wins… The more years we have to work with and analyze retroactively, the more we will know how to handle more and more specific stats setups, even the more unusual ones. (It’s for the latter that I think this year should be most useful, since it tested SO many stats and combinations of stats all at once…)
I don’t disagree. But one can get some insights with stats and learn which is more important. But not the learning of “this movie makes people feel more” theories.
If there’s a future year that is replicate this year’s precursor wins, would the GB-position film win again? Far from clear.
“If there’s a future year that is replicate this year’s precursor wins, would the GB-position film win again? Far from clear.”
That is, of course, the big question… 🙂 To which I and any others like me (if any exist) are hoping and thinking the answer might be “yes”. Or at least close enough to “yes” to make the stats a better way to predict than anything else.
Of course, it’s an academic question – the exact situation will never be replicated. There will always be at least a few important differences, and the key to using the stats lessons learned this year (again, if I’m right about how good the stats are at predicting BP) will be to properly evaluate what those differences mean and how they change the situation, based on all of the other races (precedents) the stats are drawn from. 🙂 As it is every year, to a larger or smaller degree. (This is, of course, what I’m hoping my industry stats-assessment system, and the way it’s set up, can do, at least once I’ve finally calibrated it properly, should that day ever come.)
My being happy or unhappy got nothing to do with it. My point was about the “gloating” tone. Sasha did well this year in predictions. Good for her.
But there are years she’s done terribly too. Just b/c you predict correctly doesn’t mean that you got the whole story. You could also be lucky too. Without seeing the tally, one never truly knows which.
“Since I got it right, let me tell you how y’all were so shortsighted and wrong…”
“Just b/c you predict correctly doesn’t mean that you got the whole
story. You could also be lucky too. Without seeing the tally, one
never truly knows which.”
This.
Honestly, this was one of the easiest years to predict most of the categories. There were a few nail biters but fewer than usual. I got 20/24 and I never get that many. My usual range is 16-18 with one year 19. Almost everyone I know got 19 or 20, at the minimum this year. The three shorts, which are often the downfall of many prognosticators, went as predicted by most people to Bao, Period End of Sentence, and Skin.
I totally, fully, completely praise Sasha for getting to 22 — she absolutely beat me, she wins, i lose — but most people got better scores this year than they ever have.
Well, it was the reverse for me: I usually get 17-20, and now I got 16. I know at least two other people that had the same kind of problem – doing significantly worse this year than they usually do. So I’d say it was definitely no easier than average. Like Idle Time said: sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don’t…
“The three shorts, which are often the downfall of many prognosticators,
went as predicted by most people to Bao, Period End of Sentence, and
Skin.”
Wasn’t “Marguerite” the most predicted? At least on Gold Derby. Anyway, I agree those were easier to get (intuitively – not with the stats) than in other years, because most of the other nominees just didn’t feel like they could win…
Interesting. I have run the office pool for ten years and this year’s average score was the highest ever with 32 ballots cast and was 1.7 votes higher than any other year, which is the biggest statistical difference ever. Of course there could be other reasons for this, e.g. more people looking at Oscar sites to help them predict.
I didn’t think it was easier. I’ve gotten 22, 21, 20, and 18 and got 17 or 18 this time, depending on which set of predictions I count.
Take a nap. Wake refreshed.
I find that, just as it’s fun to talk about what might happen, it’s fun to analyze what did happen.
“Slam”?
i deleted that before you posted your reply because i thought it was unfair
Word!
I agree with everything Sasha says here. It is almost like “Green Book” was a safe bet, something a majority of people liked. Maybe wasn’t their number one, but enough number two’s to win. And that is what counts on the preferential ballot, it seems. Or can.
Regarding “Crash,” indeed, that was before the preferential ballot. I’ll never forget the cover headline from “The Hollywood Reporter,” the year it won, when their team did an unprecedented move, around January or February, before the awards. They mailed out DVD screeners to every voting member of SAG (I cannot find the article online). This was a very costly effort to that little studio releasing that film, and was unprecedented. Now, remember, this was back when screeners didn’t get mailed to every guild, back before we had online streaming options, and before the theatrical-to-video window was so short. “Crash” was released in May, 2006. Actors make up the largest voting block of the Academy. Mailing a DVD copy of “Crash” to every voting member of SAG had a huge cross-over with the largest voting block of the Academy, and this strategy won. If, for no other reason, more people saw it than any other film.
And I think it was one of the biggest Oscar travesties of this century, so far. Certainly less-deserving than “Green Book,” by a huge margin.
So … can we create a system where we have more than five nominees (which was necessary, and re-invigorated by “The Dark Knight” snub), but also go back to a simple majority win? I’m curious to know how things would have played out this year, and for the last few years. I’d probably have a mixed opinion, as I do not think that “Moonlight” would have won, either, even though I think it deserved to, and probably would not have, without the preferential ballot.
It won because it deserved to. Is it the best thing ever? No. Was it one of the frontrunners? Yes. As bad as The King’s Speech or Crash? Not at all.
I dream of a year we get a Lawrence of Arabia, an Out of Africa, a Last Emperor. Whatever happened to the epics?
Sadly, epic like the ones you mentioned seem to be out of style. Would lovvve for audiences, critics and the Academy to embrace them again.
As well as the big studios. You’d need one of them to put together the financing, no? I’m guessing that they’re the only ones who can bankroll a genuine epic. But of course the studios don’t seem interested in epics any more and instead apparently like relying on the big bucks they can earn from souped-up safe superhero extravaganzas. Which are fantasies. Not genuine historical or contemporary epics.
Remember when a movie could be described as having “historical sweep”? I’m not sure there’s enough shared history any more that could sweep up an audience large enough to justify the cost of the movie, i.e., to move it into profit territory. The audience, the world, has become too fragmented. Whose history? That’s the question anyone contemplating such a movie would have to answer.
How much ado about nothing…
People:
1) Green Book is a classic Oscar Movie. And more, is a good classic Oscar Movie. Also, people over 50 years think is a masterpiece. Which is the middle age of Oscar voters?
2) Roma, The Favourite and Blackkklansman was way way better than Green Book. But they are not Oscar Movies. If we want to see these movies recognized we have to look at Berlin, Cannes and Venice, where they have been recognized.
3) Best Picture winner is quite frequently a movie in the middle (quality sense) between the nominees. Ordinary People, Rocky, Kramer vs. Kramer, The Shape of Water.
4) Crash was horrible. Green Book gives some good laughs.
5) Why still complaining? I think that this was one of the best years for Oscars. 3 out of 4 acting categories saw the victory of LGBT characters. Spike Lee won an Oscar, Olivia Colman won an Oscar, Ruth E Carter won an Oscar. And I feel that every victory was deserved even if in a lot of categories my favorite didn’t made it.
Most of the complaints come from two distinct places.
People who care about the status of African-American talent in the film industry were horrified that an all-white production team were on stage at the end of the night for a film about race relations, a film whose messaging and tone those critics saw as white liberal fantasy rather than reality-based. The comments by the white male lead and the director demonstrated a certain cluelessness about African-American perceptions and cemented the idea that GB was a film made by white liberals to make other white liberals feel good. Given the presence of BKK and BP on the ballot, this was tough to swallow.
The other issue is that it seems likely some Academy members voted Roma last simply because they did not want a Netflix film to win. And that goes to the heart of huge debates about the future of Hollywood and filmmaking.
Two years ago, when La La Land lost, Sasha had written that it was better for the film, as it will be remembered more fondly and without a target sign on its back, it would be liked more in due time… I think if GB had lost it would have been the same… But it just walks around with a big ‘kick me’ sign on its back. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Roma is in great company with La La Land, Mad Max: FR, Brokeback Mountain, Saving Private Ryan, Social Network and Star Wars… and actually has more to boast as it won Mexico’s first foreign movie Oscar. Academy doesn’t always reward the best picture of the year. I don’t think it’s ever about what is ‘best.’ If you read this blog enough you know this is the case… GB is not a masterpiece and it will be written down to the ground every year. But it is just a perfectly okay film reminiscent of Academy’s old choices.. .
Roma won the Oscars it deserved: Foreign Film, Director and especially Cinematography. It won’t become a popular classic like the films you mentioned.
Tend to agree, Roma won the Oscars it should have contended strongly in. Can understand voters looking elsewhere in Picture. Even in the context of Cuaron’s filmography it isn’t particularly noteworthy.
I like the way you think. Comment more often!
Green Book is the right Best Picture winner, because it combines the attributes of all the other BP nominees — and even does it better. Look at the synopses of the other films:
Roma — A slice of life in a well-crafted period setting. | GB gives us this too, but does not relegate the political context to the background.
BlacKkKlansman — In a light-hearted caper film, a black and white duo explore the dark world of racists. | GB does this, but while BKkK cheats by showing scenes of violence in separate montages, they are part of the main narrative in GB (the bar scene). GB is better because it doesn’t only show us the racism of stupid, violent thugs, but also the racism of genteel folk who like classical music.
Black Panther — A contrast between isolated African royalty and African-American poverty. | GB shows us this, as Dr Shirley is introduced in his throne room supprounded by African cultural artefacts, then meets poor blacks in the rural and urban South. GB is better because it is a true story, while the world of BP can be dismissed as a Marvel superhero fantasy.
If Beale Street Could Talk — A black man is wrongfully imprisoned by a racist cop. | GB does this, but also makes a white man experience it.
Bohemian Rhapsody / The Favourite — These are both character studies of real-life gay people. | GB does this, but while those characters talked about their sex lives yet no nudity or sex scenes were shown, GB brazenly shows us two naked men in a shower. In this regard, it beats even Moonlight! It is bold for a film that was designed for a mainstream audience.
A Star Is Born — A duo where one partner soars, making the other crash. | In GB, both learn from each other. There is neither a “white saviour” nor a “magical negro”, since they are both improved by the experience.
Vice — A character study of a man at the top of his profession. | GB shows us this, but while Cheney starts out as inscrutable and remains inscrutable, Dr. Shirley and Tony both have character arcs. They reveal their personalities to us.
ok, a bit stretchy, but featured comment anyway.
Damn, the first featured comment without any likes? 🙂
It’s a very interesting comment but it covers so many things it’s difficult to agree with everything
I could easily disagree with the whole thing, if I was in the mood.
I must disagree with one important point though: Emma Stone was briefly topless while asleep in bed with Olivia Colman. This counts as same-sex nudity. Therefore Green Book does not beat The Favourite in this area. 🙂
This Isn’t A Popularity Contest! 🙂
I like to think that James is being wry, winking at us, and winking at his own quirky take. it’s featured to lighten the mood around here.
I thought so too, but I was forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel for overlaps between Green Book and A Star Is Born/Vice/etc, for consistency.
We admire your effort, sir, and thank you for your service.
Thank you, sir. But… being called “sir” makes me feel older than I am. I’m oddly more comfortable with the way Braylon talks to me, like I’m a dumb frat boy. He made me happy.
The people who were surprised that Green Book won probably have a huge overlap with the same people who were surprised that Donlad Trump won.
Also, the people who now say that Roma was an overwhelming favourite after the show might be the same who said that Hillary was an overwhelming favourite after the vote. It’s not just about being surprised, it’s also distorting the truth by falsely reporting ex ante probabilities ex post.
LOL.
Except Trump didn’t win.
Roma didn’t beat Green Book by 3 million votes.
And Green Book isn’t about to be cast out in disgrace, prosecuted for multiple felonies, and possibly on it’s way to prison.
Otherwise, cute comparison.
I think that post was only talking about the people (or newspapers, mostly) that did present the Trump victory as a huge surprise, similarly how they present the Green Book victory as a huge surprise. I assume we both can agree that reasonable predictions did count with Green Book as a potential winner (even if they didn’t think it was the favourite to win) and, similarly, reasonable predictions did count with Trump as a potential winner (even if they didn’t think he was the favourite to win).
Also, the popular vote is not the thing that decides the presidential election, the electoral college is. One can argue whether that is a better or worse system, sure, but that it the name of the game currently. It’s similar to arguing that Roma should have won Best Picture if we knew that it won the first round voting. That’s not how the system works, and we can argue whether that’s good or bad, but it is what it is.
Obviously, it would be wrong to state things like “Green Book winning the Oscar is just the same thing as Trump winning the presidency” because that’s not true. The significance of those events are not even nearly comparable, and the “meaning” (?) of the Green Book victory is completely different from the meaning of the Trump victory. But I don’t think that simply stating the similarities between the overreaction in the press about Green Book’s victory and reporting false statements about their previous chances necessarily draws a parallel like the one I mentioned in the beginning of this paragraph. Even Sasha’s article is basically stating the same thing (how some articles are creating a false narrative about Green Book’s previous chances).
This comment got much longer than it needed to be, sorry about that.
Don’t be sorry. I enjoy your lengthiness.
Oh Ryan, how I wish that could be true. But a sitting president can’t be prosecuted (isnt that written somewhere?) – plus, with the sad state of the republican party, made of bigots, corruption, closeted gays, false christians, self entitled old white men, and the way 62 million americans have been brainwashed in the last couple of years, there is no way in hell anything will happen to Trump – except a reelection. I weep for the world
On my darkest of dark nights I agree with you, Henrique. And that darkness is frequent.
“a sitting president can’t be prosecuted (isnt that written somewhere?)”
It’s a vague Dept of Justice policy statement, from 40 years ago. Not a law. Not covered in the Constitution.
But it has never been tested. Because we never had a klutzy gangster as president before. Much less one who’s supported financially by Russia and Saudi Arabia. (Where vast amounts of blackmail material on all the GOP leadership has been collected and weaponized.)
So you do have an excellent broad-view grasp of the dire situation. Your outline is undeniably realist.
If billionaire people like these get taken down, they will try to drag the world down with them. Dark times ahead. It’ll get much worse before it ever gets better.
And those 62 million brainwashed Americans? We know that they’re the ones who hold most of America’s 340 million guns, right?
https://twitter.com/filmystic/status/800062560145907712?s=19
According to the U.S. Constitution — which is all that matters in presidential elections — Trump won hands down.
And, yeah, that prosecution sure is… happening…? Anyone…?
See, now you’re being cute, Ryan. Stupidly so, but still.
“We know that most voters vote with their hearts. But you didn’t need to consider that fact to predict Green Book — you only needed to ask why didn’t Roma win in Toronto? Why didn’t it win the PGA?”
Come on, this was NOT a race where the stats were clear and made it easy to call anything! Give me a break!… Why didn’t Green Book win the WGA, or screenplay at BAFTA or Critics Choice? Why didn’t it get the directing nomination? Why did it only have 5 nominations?
“Crash was genuinely unpredictable. It had only won the SAG ensemble. Its win would have been as surprising as Black Panther’s win.”
Really? It also won WGA and ACE – did Black Panther win any of those, or anything else to make up for not winning them? Crash also had zero significant industry snubs – didn’t Black Panther have, like, almost all of the snubs imaginable?! Please…
Has there honestly ever been so much bile and hostility in one Oscar season?
It seems the same as every year. Have you forgotten all the hostility just last year, against 3B, Get Out, CMBYN, etc? The Shape of Water was the safe choice and won. The difference this year is that the supposedly safe choice is also the most attacked film.
I remember the 3 Billboards nonsense. What was the Get Out and CBMYN controversies?
CMBYN was getting attacked for promoting pedophilia (lol).
Oh God!
Having said that, I personally found its promotion of peaches above all other stone fruits quite egregious and needlessly insulting.
True, but it also promoted soft-boiled eggs and trotters, so there was some diversity there.
Pitophilia.
It should be noted where these attacks are coming from. It started with James Woods. Recently that intelligent remark was uttered by Sidveryvic/Braylon.
https://twitter.com/filmystic/status/907402181522882560
3B was accused of being racist, and Get Out could be seen as racist in a different way, if one were to take the film seriously. CMBYN had a lead character who was 17, which is fine in Italy, and also in New York, the home state of Chalamet and author Andre Aciman, and in Texas, the home state of Armie Hammer, and in fact in the whole Western world and about 40 US states… but not in the state of California. Many Americans mistakenly believe that California’s laws are the same as America’s laws, not to mention the rest of the world.
I’m old enough to remember when William Randolph Hearst tried to buy the prints of Citizen Kane and destroy them all in a bonfire
And when that failed, Hearst threatened to expose Hollywood as a hotbed of rampant homosexuals and “Jewish menace” if RKO didn’t shelve it.
And when that failed a Hearst flunky hid a 14yo girl in Welles closet at his hotel room and had a photographer waiting to take gotcha! pics for a fake scandal, but hotel security warned Welles away and he left town.
So everybody was afraid to vote for Kane after it got 9 nominations.
Also, Welles was dicking Delores del Rio, who was the wife of original Academy founding member Cedric Gibbons (himself Oscar nominated 38 times, winning 11 times. Including in 1941.)
Causing quite a stir in the ranks of old-guard Oscar voters who didn’t much approve of any of these disruptive and hostile shenanigans.
So 1941 Twitter was all abuzz about all that (the only people on Twitter in 1941 were Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons, but man oh man, they sure knew how to tweet.)
Okay I’m not really old enough to recall all that, but Christ, this year has made me feel like I am.
Clearly these things happen when the Best Picture winner has ‘Green’ in the title.
Funnily enough, the original title for Green Book was How Green Was My Valet.
lol—-that was REALLY good. I wish my students understood the Oscars. I try to give them a pun a day. A student even got me a jar filled with puns one year as a gift.
LOL i was reading your post and thinking, damn, Ryan is over 79????!! I mean, you’re wise, but that’s ridiculous.
did anyone notice that john ottman was sitting very close to podium ? i think they knew he was going to win ahead of time. If category has multiple winners…they would shove them in the back like make up and visual effects.
Nope, I didn’t notice that. You’re in your own little world, separate to everyone else on this site. (See below.)
stick to the comments you are referred in….you are too insignificant to insert yourself in other topics.
That line made little sense, but that doesn’t surprise me. I’m insignificant, according to you. (Haha, you really have no idea how everybody else sees you, do you?) Fine, but you asked your question to “anyone”, which would include me, since the comments section is open to you and me and everyone else.
Edit: It’s against my principles to bitch about people in their absence, so I should inform you that I referred to you under BillyBob’s comment above. Never mind.
your non-constructive crap is not invited
So when you said below that you wanted to punch Leonardo DiCaprio’s face in, you were being constructive? You have a strange definition of the word. And when I disagreed with you, that made me non-constructive? Right, I see. I stand corrected.
I really did want to punch him in the face and it is constructive in making my point.
Only reason I came by to look in on this page this morning, Braylon, is because your comments have been flagged 9 times overnight.
how is it my problem..people over here are being cry babies…they can’t accept criticism or difference of opinion
I saw that!
John Ottman was sitting right up front. On a grassy knoll.
I’ll live with Green Book winning purely due to the fact that i’ll get to own it on 4K Ultra HD.
It’s pathetic that a movie shot in 65 mm like Roma can only be seen on Netflix and I won’t be able to buy it if I wanted to.
So, the fact that Green Book won, from a pure film enthusiast standpoint, is a good thing for the industry because it allowes the physical media to keep going. Plus, it preserves a bit of the Studio status quo which is not entirely a bad thing.
We can’t have either just superhero movies or small indies showing on Netflix. We have to have something inbetween as well.
They might release it on video… They release their TV shows like Stranger Things and Daredevil etc.
Lol yes! While I was rooting for “Roma” (with “The Favourite” being a very close second), as someone who owns all of the Best Picture winners on home video (arranged chronologically on my bookshelf 😛 ), I am a little relieved that my collection will not be incomplete.
I’m not surprised it won medicore films tend to win Best Picture.
Your opinion.
No, he is right. Based on artist evaluation, GB is mediocre. I think there was a road trip film about race relations winning BP. Let me think, what was it called?
Artist evaluation? You do realize opinions are subjective. It has nothing to do with Driving Miss Daisy. Mediocre because Roma didn’t win?
Yes, but they are not of equal value. That’s the bloody point.
Thousands of producers and industry at large liked the film and voted for it. I think it is great they didn’t vote for Roma in my opinion.
I don’t doubt that they liked it more. Some people can like shit over gold. It’s not about liking so much as showing the artistic merit. Where is the evaluation that claims GB is better or than other films. Just because you say it is doesn’t make it so. Critics have written their evaluations. Saying you like something isn’t enough when it comes to evaluating works of art. You must say why it is great. This is why some films awarded by Oscars have been derided over the years while great films overlooked have got greater over the years. Why is that? because they great have gone through big evaluations over the years and stand up to the test. Some people are even denying that GB face any test and we should just accept the fact that some people like it. But, of course, that is not how it works. All great art is tested to the full.
Whether it is shit or gold is subjective. There are alsp people who think ROMA is a slow pretentious piece of crap, but to imply Greenbook is shit is a bit extreme. My point is there is no right or wrong or a clear answer as to whether Green Book is mediocre. I will have to disagree with you.
“Never Underestimate the Power of Mediocrity” – Paul Schrader.
“Green Book, unlike several other Oscar nominees, made so many people feel good, and not just white people.” The Academy is 89% white. So it could easily have been just white people. And was probably pretty close to it.
According to the most recent Oscar demo, 84% of the Academy is white, not 89%. You make it sound like it’s a cousin of the Klan. If that’s true, why have 3 of the last 6 BP winners had African-American lead storylines? Grow up and get a pair.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kareem-abdul-jabbar-truth-green-book-controversy-1175540
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is black, and an influential columnist on the Hollywood Reporter. His article on 14th January supporting the film may have given permission to many voters to back it. It’s nonsense to say only whites support it. Rep. John Lewis, who introduced the film, was elected to represent blacks. He lived during that time and said it was accurate, so I will listen to him and not to you.
He was elected to represent blacks?
He was elected to represent all his constituents, and ever since he took office he has tried especially hard to represent black citizens — because so few other politicians in D.C. do so.
Let’s not parse the wording James chose and frown about it.
How about we focus our furrowed brow on the president who was elected to represent white supremacists.
I didn’t say “only” blacks. His current district is Georgia’s 5th, which is 58% African-American. Yes, he does represent other minorities too, including the one-third who are white.
I think it’s 84% white now.
Still about 10% too much.
I feel like such a shitty person because of this, but
Still about 10 percentage points too much.
Please forgive me for being such a maths nazi.
Math Nazis are among the better Nazis.
Cannes 2019: Alejandro González Iñárritu to preside over the Jury.
So our Palme d’or winner is probably going to be the most pretentious and serious film in competition
But who could have imagined Steven Spielberg´s Jury would award something sexual provocative like “Blue is the warmest colour”?
Of course there’s the rest of the jury and Spielberg isn’t just one thing as a filmmaker but even that year, they did give the Prix to what is perhaps one of Kore-eda’s weaker films when it’s one that Spielberg considered remaking himself.
But still, I´d say that the Palm d´Or in that year has been one of the best decisions in the past twenty years. Let´s hope Inarritu will have a Jury that will make itself heard! 😉
Yet now he says the Best Picture winner “saved cinema”. Can’t even fathom how the Amigos reacted when they heard that.
Could you provide a link to something where he says this? I can’t find anything like that and it seems quite idiotic of Spielberg to say (especially since even if we were to say that Netflix were the death of cinema, it’s absurd if he thinks that the battle’s won by one best picture win)
Closest thing I could find:
“In the final weeks, a narrative emerged that revealed just how threatened the major studios are by streamer Netflix. According to such gung-ho “Green Book” advocates as Academy governor Steven Spielberg, who helped writer-director Peter Farrelly find a home for the Participant Media movie at Universal, a vote for “Green Book” was a vote for cinema itself.”
https://www.indiewire.com/2019/02/the-hollywood-studios-oscar-netflix-green-book-roma-spike-lee-1202047272/
So it’s more a “we stood as a part of the resistance and won this battle” argument than a “we did it, we won, cinema is saved” one. That’s relieving (although maybe the notion that a large amount of people in the film industry have to cling to Green Book as a win for cinema is quite disheartening and not that promising for the industry’s attitude on how strong is the actual vitality of film)
People always like to make these kind of assumptions based on the jury president’s work, but it’s rarely that simple.
Of course it’s not but Iñárritu feels a bit like a kind of jury president who might be very dictator-like (when for example in 2011 Assayas supposedly really took control in the De Niro jury as far as awarding the Palme went) and unlike a lot of these directors and actors who we’ve simplified to be one thing, I feel like Iñárritu has a very precise tonal thread running through his films and persona that not only is present in his expression but also feels like that’s a particularly essential element in his point of view towards art and what is valuable in art. And it’s not like we’ve always been wrong, reading about what Blanchett likes and her career choices in my opinion it’s no surprise that she was supposedly championing Godard to win the Palme
Isn’t it already the case most of the time anyway? I must admit my track record at watching Cannes films is even worse than that of checking Oscar films in time for the ceremony so I trust your judgment here.
I’d say that Winter Sleep in 2014 is the previous time the winner has been super serious to the point that an Iñárritu choice will probably be and that The Square in 2017 is the only film since then that I can see people claiming to be “pretentious”. The recent winners have been mostly quite gently character-driven or quite traditionally narrative-driven
Winter Sleep is super-serious, no doubt, but also a marvellous experience, isn´t it? Smelled like Bergman spirit…
I must admit that I’m not the biggest Winter Sleep fan (though Anatolia is a masterpiece) but I didn’t mean the mention of its seriousness here as a slander against it (I’d say Amour is of as dark a tone and that was a great choice for the Palme, even though the jury had other problems that year)
Yeah, I usually feel bad for missing out on so many films (I really don’t have time to watch more than one a day at best and even so I prefer to watch older movies) but ‘The Square’ really never appealed to me. I was quite disappointed by ‘Force Majeure’ despite its intriguing concept, so maybe that’s why.
Do you or anyone else know how the jury president’s work is any different from the other jurors? Is he just a symbolic “head figure” or does he have a bigger say?
This is what I could find from the rules:
“Each Jury member votes by secret ballot. Decisions will be reached by an
absolute majority of votes in the first two ballots and by a relative
majority vote in the following ballots. The President and the General
Director of the Festival de Cannes attend Jury deliberations but will
take no part in the voting.”
“No film can receive more than one award. However, the award for the Best
Screenplay and the Jury Prize can be combined with a Best Performance
award, on special dispensation of the Festival’s President.”
The latter probably refers to Lescure but it might be the jury president as well.
But even if the president is only a symbolic president, I’d imagine it might be notably easier for the president to get to a position of influence due to this status
Interesting. I had never heard of these rules. Indeed the Festival president is an official and not the jury president, and the jury definitely needs approval from festival authorities to do certain things, though I would assume the opinion of the jury president is more important than that of the other jurors when deciding such matters, and his or her approval would be needed too.
It’s funny. I had read rumors that Isabelle Huppert had single-handedly decided to award the Palme d’Or to her friend Michael Haneke for ‘The White Ribbon’ when she was President of the Jury and other members resented her for that, but apparently that is not possible.
I always imagined festival juries like 12 Angry Men, needing to make a unanimous (more realistically, a majority) decision on the winners. Plurality on a secret ballot is just meh :/
Sasha, you don’t understand, you got the reasoning wrong NOW as well. You feared all season that backlash would derail a Green Book win, and we complained all season that it wouldn’t, that it was irrelevant, and gave our reasons why. You still don’t seem to get WHY Green Book won, even if it was your final prediction selection.
The only other explanation would be that you deliberately posted regular articles about twitter activity to confuse and misinform the Oscar predictions of others, which would be a breach of professional integrity.
I posted this the other day and it bears repeating….Green Book almost surely won because the “more forward-thinking” voters split their votes among Roma/BlacKkKlansman/Black Panther and probably the Favourite, whereas GB was the only choice for older, more traditional Academy members.
You’d think ASIB would’ve been that alternative for the older set, though its momentum completely seemed to die off, number of nominations notwithstanding. Going by my small sample size (two parents, three grandparents, two aunts!) of older people who watched ASIB, they all enjoyed it, but to a person, all said they liked the Judy Garland/James Mason version better. Maybe it was just too hard for such a familiar remake to really seem fresh or worth rewarding.
Even if you’re an older and more traditional voter who didn’t care for Green Book, I wonder how many of them would’ve opted for one of the most innovative choices or just dismissed them without even watching for one reason or another. “I’m not voting for a Netflix movie/a foreign movie; I’m not voting for a comic book movie; I’m not voting for a Spike Lee movie.” I’d like to think that the actual Academy voters care as much about the Best Picture vote as we all do, but we all know that’s not the case.
Give it up. Green Book won. I hope this argument and discussion about WHY it won (just like that argument about Driving Miss Daisy and Traffic) will stop.
A preferential ballot requires a majority to win. You don’t win a majority through vote splitting – you win through building a broad enough coalition to get to 50% + 1. Which is what Green Book did.
Speaking of surprises, while Green Book shouldn’t have been a big surprise, really … I stick my neck out to say that Olivia Colman winning probably SHOULDN’T have been a big surprise, either.
Sure, it could/should have been Glenn Close’s year. I’m simultaneously ecstatic for Colman and gutted for Close.
But Colman winning kinda sorta makes sense in retrospect. Narrative ASIDE (and I realize it was a huge narrative) …
… sure, Close won SAG (maybe not by much, we’ll never know), but that’s ONLY actors in SAG, some AFTRA, and perhaps plenty not even within the actors branch of the Academy.
Additionally, Colman won BAFTA (where an entire membership votes, including Academy crossovers).
If you look at that, you could see how the 6,000+ voters OUTSIDE of the actors branch might’ve preferred Colman all along. No Academy voters in the HFPA or BFCA (and Colman won with those voting bodies, as well).
It may very well be that Colman won by a larger margin than we’re even considering.
Overall, SAG still has the better track record – than BAFTA, CC, Globes. Colman was a surprise win. And the race was likely close. Whereas Supporting Actress was not this hot mess as people here made it out to be. The pundits, odds makers long had Regina King as the front runner. While Adams, Weisz, Stone, de Tavria were all bunched together pulling up the rear.
The Favourite actually came out pretty late and I think people saw it later than the other nominees. Colman’s performance was undeniable. And everyone loves her personality and I imagine all of Hollywood is clamoring to work with her now. Truly bittersweet for Close, but she took it like the champ she is. The photos of her on the dance floor at the VF party are incredible.
I agree. TF was nominated all across the branches. Colman could’ve gotten her votes from outside the actor’s branch.
Wasn’t it you John who posted a comment about how Colman might have a shot at winning after the BAFTA results? And I remember replying to your comment that the Academy can be cruel but I didn’t think they would do it to Close. But they DID. They DID THAT.
Yes! I did comment as such and really did believe Colman had a strong shot, but didn’t realllllly think it would be happen.
As I said above, happy for Colman (and I love her), but sad for Close (love her, as well).
Olivia Colman was a true surprise. Not Green Book. Black Klansman winning would have been a shocker.
Colman
Thanks, corrected
with 2018 oscars coming to an end…i have a question.
How do we get ourselves out of this horrible leonardo dicaprio cycle that we find ourselves in time and again every awards season ?
First lets all agree that his name is a good clickbait title for websites.
Then he comes in with a movie by a beloved director. People in film twitter are already a fanboys of those filmmakers so they write and anticipate about that movie months in advance always for best picture of the year honor. He helps them finance the movies for 100 million $ because of his box office draw. So people get hyped for those movies and since they don’t call those directors beloved for nothing, they deliver a good movie. Just by association we assume it is because of him the movie is great but in reality its the situations surrounding his performance that are great and that elevates his bland , same performance in every movie. In the end the movies get a bunch of award nominations and we cry that he deserves to be nominated or win.
And back to the same cycle. How do we break from it ? I wanna punch him in the face whenever I see his name in an article or his face for that matter. My problem is not with the movies but with the bland same performance he gives in every one of his movies.
I actually think he’s been pretty good during this little run of his. I am somewhat surprised he’s in another Tarantino given the previous chatter that they didn’t really get on during the Django shoot.
my problem is that he is being cast in these roles because he is a decent actor and huge box office draw. Take the latter part away and he wouldn’t be offered these roles. I have no problem with the movies themselves. The scripts for those movies are highly sought after and directors great…so of course they are going to turn out good. But his casting in these movies is not the same as matt damon in the martian. He was born to play that role. But a lot of dicaprio’s movies…he is just miscast. Its more about his desire to be in the movie because of the behind the camera talent involved as opposed to seeing if he fits the role.
I’m curious which recent role of his was miscast? I think he was wrong for Django Unchained (among the myriad of problems with that bafflingly well regarded film) and State of Play was wildly generic. But he seems to have come prepared for all the other roles he’s taken.
he was not in state of play..welp
Body of Lies..my bad…utterly generic film
he was miscast in django, revenant…he never looked like a frontiersman to me…especially a tracker.. I would have bought him as a one of the fur traders but a tracker is too much. Looking at what he survives…a guy with his face and physique would never survive all that.
He was somewhat miscast as Gatsby. I liked Leo in the movie and thought he did particularly well in the Plaza Hotel confrontation scene. But I don’t think Fitzgerald ever intended Gatsby to be dreamboat handsome, like Leo. I think one of Gatsby’s challenges is that he’s probably not particularly good looking, another reason he works so hard to once again win over the now-married Daisy.
Often in Lurhman’s movie, when Gatsby was pining after Daisy and cherishing memories of her, I couldn’t help wondering why this good looking man had been sitting around mooning all this time over a past love. Surely a man this handsome would have come across women who could help him forget, even if these women might not know his full backstory.
But the counter argument would be that a man this good looking would certainly have to truly love Daisy, since he easily could find someone else. Still, visually I had a bit of a hard time with Leo’s ease, smoothness and savoir faire in the role. In the novel, Gatsby is rich, but he’s still awkward, gauche and deeply insecure. I didn’t get a lot of that from Leo’s performance.
“I wanna punch him in the face…” I instantly despise anyone who utters this line. Donald Trump is an example of someone who has uttered this line. Curiously, I notice that people who utter this charming line usually have faces like Donald Trump’s. It’s lucky we can’t see your face. I used to be more supportive of you than most people on this site, but no longer. I will try to tune you out now.
ooh some fanboy is triggered….your whole useless comment has nothing to do with the topic…you might as well take it and shove it up your behind…no one gives a damn about your trump analogies
My comment had everything to do with the topic (and I’m not a huge fan of Leo’s films). No one gives a damn about YOU. On this site, everybody despises you. Are you too stupid to have worked that out yet? I guess so.
I am glad Sasha has continued to address this issue. There is something I would like to add. The reason voters went for Crash is different than Green Book. They were not yet ready to anoint a movie such as the nature of Brokeback, so Crash was another film they felt comfortable rallying around. Voters supported Green Book because they really liked the film or were moved by it in a way that was different than the other BP nominees. In other words, a vote for GB was not a vote against another film like with BBM. And did they think that voters would really give Curan 4 Oscars? Roma is a great film, but I don’t think they were going to give it both BP and BFLF. Just sharing some thoughts.
That’s completely false. There were most definitely anti-Netflix, anti-foreign language and anti-multiple AC votes. It’s understandable and you are delusional to ignore it.
Well. I predicted it. If a slow learner such as I can do it, how surprising could it have been? And although I don’t like it, the negative press has me almost (I said almost) wanting to defend it.
Green Book is a GREAT FILM. Not a masterpiece, of course, but a great film, a gentle, not harsh look at the 60’s racism and homophobia. A film about a real story that built bridges between black and white, between gay and straight, a story of acceptance, of love, a positive view on building a world jumping over stereotypes and expectations and finding the soul that connects human beings alike, regardless of the surface. And it is not a surprise someone like Peter Farrelly built up this film, you only need to look back at how he treated difficult issues in his films with his brother Bobby, always with love and respect for disability, different creeds, sexual tendencies, races… some people misunderstood some of it, as they were treating, for example, disabled characters for laughs with them, not at the expense of them. Whenever a laugh would come completely inappropiate (as in There’s something about Mary), the character was later revealed to be a fraud.
Would I think it’s the best of the bunch? Heck no. BlacKkKlansman, then Roma, then The Favourite are my picks for the 2018 masterpieces lucky enough to arrive to the Oscar finals as BP nominees. I think next in line after Green Book is the much maligned and underrated Bohemian Rhapsody, a film that made millions FEEL like no other in 2018. Then, Black Panther, then A Star is Born (a film that needed at least 30 extra minutes so it wouldn’t feel as rushed into the ending and would equilibrate with more sober scenes by Cooper’s character so he wouldn’t appear one-note), and finally Vice, which technically is great, but is too coward to hit the right notes.
Overall, it’s been one of the best set of nominees I remember, with nothing really shameful, and a high level of quality. And I am happy that 7 films arrived to Oscar night with chances, and that when BP was announced there was still a gasp about which one out of 5 films would be named, because of the key awards they won. It was Green Book, as Sasha already guessed back in Fall, which prevailed. But it really could have been anything else, that was an extremely impressing set of narratives and quality fighting each other. I am happy all 8 got something
Some people think that a film makes you feel good, that should be enough. Yes, it’s enough to enjoy. But we are talking about artistic evaluation when it comes to the Oscar, are we not? I mean, if that’s not case then any average Joe can pick his favourite as the Best Picture. I thought the Oscars had a higher standard than the average Joe public, but maybe I am wrong.
in terms of quality, in my opinion…
1. BlacKkKlansman A+
2. Roma A+
3. The Favourite A
4. Green Book B
5. Bohemian Rhapsody B-
6. Black Panther B-
7. A Star is Born B- (oddly, the first one I have bought on blu)
8. Vice C+
I like your analysis. It’s too bad that a movie like 3B wasn’t able to overcome the backlash that it got last year. But it is what it is. No matter what happens, there will always be people that will say that if I like Green Book or Three Billboards, there must be something inherently wrong with me. But it is what it is.
3Billboards was a dangerous film with a dangerous message. I am seriously not surprised, Trump won, when american audiences can’t simply understand why films like La La Land, Three Billboards, Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan are so dangerous for the audiences to digest. The subtext, the ideas beneath are outrageous, all together.
I know you’ve mentioned this before, Jesús
Would you want to expand on those thoughts a little, and explain again why you feel that way?
(I’ve still not caught up on my prerequisite MCU homework! I’ve a question about that, if you can reply briefly to tell us again what you mean about the subtext of these 4 movies you cite. Just briefly, or as much as you feel like.)
Of the ones you listed, Black Hawk Down is one hell of an epic war film. The battle of Mogadishu, man. Awesome.
the “battle” were 2 dozens scared marines who shouldn’t have been there, in the first place, killing over 1,000 people (mostly civilians) on their way back to safety… it’s one of the worst crimes against humanity portrayed as “story of heroism” ever shot… it’s even worse than “Birth of a Nation” in that sense, it’s pure racism on screen… when the somalians aren’t portrayed as hordes of unnamed, unfaced zombies, they’re portraied as literally monkeys, if I remember correctly – I only saw the film once, and it was purely scientific purpouse to watch it till the end – with a shot of some hanging from the helicopter. Is that film perfectly made? Sure. It is a shame and should be forbidden and only shown by scholars to learn of how dangerous film can be? Sure, too.
GREEN BOOK wasn’t a shock to me at all… It was either going to be that or ROMA pretty much since the GG’s… I enjoyed the movie. It’s definitely not my favorite of the bunch (BKKKM) or my least favorite (BoRhap). I at least found GB entertaining enough to warrant repeat viewings, and I enjoyed the humor way more than I expected to. Plus I thought Viggo’s “stereotypical” portrayal was great. I say “stereotypical” because if it was truly offensive you’d think that Vallelonga would’ve spoken up about in the beginning. If it doesn’t offend him it shouldn’t offend anyone IMO. Plus Ali was great and a fine winner… They just need to make a new category for these situations… BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A LEAD ROLE haha.
I think people are missing an angle here. Was the Best Picture a “surprise” winner? No. Was it a “lucky” winner? Yes?
Think about it
1. Who in their right mind thought that Star is Born would faceplant the way it did with the awards? It checked ALL the boxes. Huge box office hit. Huge star in Cooper. Crossover star with massive pop culture juice like Gaga. Best selling soundtrack. An Academy desperate for a “hit” to win BP should have flocked to it. Sure, it wasn’t that great a film and had some major flaws, but so did the Best Picture winner. The Best Picture winner has made a nice profit, but it wasn’t like ASIB, a film repeatedly called a “cultural phenomenon” on this very site multiple times.
2. The bigger stroke of luck was Bryan Singer. His on set meltdown and firing was a problem, but let’s be real, the Bohemian team more than went out of their way to not mention him even in passing. And we all know the real reason. Singer’s private habits were radioactive and would have sunk that movie if they had truly stuck by him. But I guarantee that it finished 2nd or 3rd for Best Picture. Singer doesn’t have his issues, it wins in an eight Oscar romp.
Welcome to GREENBOOKDAILY where we will talk about Green Book every day until infinity. Tomorrow: “What Will Green Book’s Chances Be At Next Year’s Oscars?”
Is it really so bizarre that the words ‘Green Book ‘ are still being written on an Oscar site three days after Green Book wins the Oscar?
Ryan, I see you’re still writing zingers when doing so is appropriate. 🙂
I don’t think this much was written about TSOW. In fact, I don’t remember any film getting this much attention for anything. One way or another, it seems Sasha got her wish. All she is talking about is GB, because some people are talking about it non-stop apparently. Lol.
I’m pretty sure we were talking about Moonlight WAY longer & no one was complaining.
It might not be the case that a lot of people liked Green Book. It’s more that a lot of people – 1. have actually seen it. 2. did’t dislike it enough (if that makes sense). It must have had a lot of viewers (a lot more than say Roma, Vice, The Favourite, maybe even BlacKKKlansman) and was a safer and more obvious choice than Bohemian Rhapsody or Black Panther or even A Star is Born to put into number 2 or 3 on the ballot. And that’s it, that’s enough. In all honesty, I don’t think Roma came in second for BP or even third. Not under the preferential ballot, no way.
Singer doesn’t have the baggage he does (and it’s a whole luggage rack worth of it), Bohemian sweeps to an 8 Oscar win. His troubles were arguably the luckiest break the Best Picture winner had the entire Oscar season.
It was probably no surprise but that doesn´t mean it was a choice that kept pace with the artistic times. “Green Book” is a junkfood choice from the 80s. It made me feel good, too, by the way… but it was no food for the brain – that´s not.
I was waiting for something to happen in Roma and suddenly it ended…that’s not even close to the junk food category…
I’m glad Viggo mortenson jumped board this movie. He made it comedic fun and sublime
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47388146
This may be the last straw. Let’s cancel the Oscars.
lol
Wow. The person who wrote that article is a bloody idiot.
The BBC has gone to the dogs, as they say.
« I like to think I have a sense of humour. »
Nope! Those spoof dresses are a thousand times more respectable than your own oscar-nominated work.
Green Book won because more people liked it. No matter what you may think of the film it’s not a combination of Birth Of A Nation and Triumph Of The Will . The people who think that should get a life . Also this my way or the highway mentality is laughable. The amount of hate for a movie about friendship and understanding is frightening.
By the by, one plausible non-woke reason people could have questioned the love for the Best Picture winner was its director missing a nomination as well as losing WGA.
It’s the first movie ever to win BP after missing out on both of those (directing nomination and WGA win), indeed.
It’s been three days, basically no one really cares that strongly at this point. Seriously.
It is worth noting that if stories are to be believed, the winning film’s campaign very effectively rallied their voters to deliberately downvote a rival film enough to swing the margin on the preferential ballot. If you effectively target the right bloc of voters, you can actually have fewer number one votes than your rival film but still win Best Picture. The potential for this quirk of preferential voting to become weaponized is pretty high, and I am curious if the Academy will begin signalling that organized campaigns to vote films 7th or 8th will not be tolerated moving forward.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The only way to successfully game the preferential ballot would be knowing the complete preferences of voters and knowing the exact order of how films will be eliminated. Two things that are, for all intents and purposes, impossible in Best Picture voting.
It seems reasonable to assume that voters care more about their #1 preference than their #7, i.e. it would be easier to convince a voter to flip their #7 and #8 choices than to change their #1 vote. So if a campaign emerged to try and discredit a film, it is a reasonable strategy to try and convince people who (let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Green Book campaign is attacking Roma) are voting neither Roma nor Green Book on their #1 slot to push Roma further down on their ballot and thus possibly behind Green Book. This will lead to an extra vote for Green Book in the final round, all without changing anyone’s number one preference. In the old system, this was not possible. You needed to either convince someone to change their #1 choice from Roma to something else, or to switch from something to Green Book.
Again, depending on the assumption that campaigns and outside information/smears affect films that voters care less for more, we have an argument that states that it’s easier to affect the results of the preferential voting than the plurality one. There are, of course other arguments that say the opposite is true, and I’m not necessarily claiming the preferential ballot is overall worse at being gamed than the plurality ballot was, but there is a new way of potential success via strategic campaigning now.
“Roma nor Green Book on their #1 slot to push Roma further down on their ballot and thus possibly behind Green Book. This will lead to an extra vote for Green Book in the final round, all without changing anyone’s number one preference.”
Let’s say a Favourite voter sincerely prefers Green Book to Roma, and accordingly would rather see Green Book win than Roma. Green Book would then, obviously be ranked higher than Roma on that ballot. Which would mean, then, that were the Favourite were to be eliminated and Green Book and Roma were still in contention, the vote gets transferred to Green Book, period. It doesn’t matter if Green Book was ranked 2 and Roma was ranked 3, or if Green Book was ranked 2 and Roma was ranked 8 , “burying” Roma on the ballot does not affect the outcome. Not one bit. The vote will go to Green Book and not Roma.
Regardless, – and I hate to belabor this point but it really is an important point – successful strategic voting in this context is wholly and completely dependent on knowing the order of how films will be eliminated and on knowing voter’s preferences. Which no one knows. No one knows with any reasonable certainty that Roma and Green Book would be the final two films, because no one has access to that information. Green Book certainly did not last until the final round of voting in any of the polls that Sasha and I ran on Facebook, and it did not make it to the final round in Dr. Rob’s poll.
I am not saying that the preferential ballot is completely invulnerable to strategic voting – in fact, compromising on a winner is in effect a form of strategic voting. But that’s kind of the point behind preferential, anyway – to ensure the winner has broad support from the majority of voters.
But I will continue to push back on the idea that the preferential ballot can be gamed to a meaningful extent (i.e. outcomes are actually impacted) by “burying” because the very way ballots are counted means that those bottom ranks do not matter unless every other film above the bottom gets eliminated.
But let’s say that you’d have more than one studio creating a backlash against the considered frontrunner (like Roma), trying to get people to rank it very last. What’s significant about people ranking the frontrunner last is that at that point it’s literally “anything else than this film”. With Green Book at least in the final round, if it was against Roma, it would have gotten the vote. But if it would have been The Favourite in the final round with Roma, it would have been The Favourite. Thus when you can’t get people to vote for your film as #1, you can try to push the frontrunner to the bottom slot so that when there’s redistribution, your film gets the vote instead, even though it’s not the #1. It’s sabotaging and gaming but it’s uncontrollable sabotage and uncontrollable gaming because you can’t know whether your film will be the one to benefit from this.
And I’m not sure people are so precise when they rank the lower positions. If someone things that Green Book and Roma are both fine, it might be that asked on different days, they’d rank those films in a different order. In that case backlash against Roma could make a voter like this think a little less of Roma in which case it’d be likelier that they’d rank Green Book ahead of it
“It’s sabotaging and gaming but it’s uncontrollable sabotage and
uncontrollable gaming because you can’t know whether your film will be
the one to benefit from this.”
Which doesn’t make it an especially effective strategy that can actually affect the outcome, then. Which kinda defeats the purpose of having engaged in said strategy in the first place.
Sure, if a voter already prefers Green Book, it doesn’t matter if they put Roma right behind it or at the end of the ballot.
But if a voter has no strong preference, e.g. they have Roma at #5 and Green Book at #6 and they don’t really mind either, it is possible that a good campaign trick can make them push Roma to #8 and thus Green Book gaining its vote. It matters if the two switch places. Which, I’m arguing, is a form of gaming that can happen under the preferential ballot and not the plurality one, and, I believe, can happen to a substantial degree.
And also, while it’s obviously true that one can’t know exactly how the films will get eliminated, it’s not that hard to guess the relative strength of the films. If I were the Green Book campaign, I would’ve been more concerned with Roma than with Vice, for it was clear that it has a better shot at winning Best Picture. (Otherwise the whole idea of predicting the Oscars falls.)
Actually it is hard top guess the relative strength of the films. Roma regularly took at least 35-40% of the #1s in all the polling I’ve seen. Bohemian Rhapsody regularly had like 0-1% of the #1s but given it won four Oscars it probably did not finish in last place in Best Picture balloting. We can conjecture and speculate but not to any reasonable degree of accuracy without actual polling of the actual voters.
“But if a voter has no strong preference, e.g. they have Roma at #5 and
Green Book at #6 and they don’t really mind either, it is possible that a
good campaign trick can make them push Roma to #8 and thus Green Book
gaining its vote.”
Except such a “campaign trick’ would be expressly forbidden by Academy rules as it would certainly have to include directly referencing other nominees by name.
What I meant as a campaign trick is like pushing a narrative about Netflix, or similar moves. Or, from a different perspective, the smear pieces on Green Book. Those are the tricks I mean.
And clearly, without conducting polls, we can, especially in clearer years, estimate the strength of the films. Especially since we’re only really interested in who the frontrunners are. We know that La La Land was a stronger contender than Lion. We knew that before the ceremony. We know Three Billboards was a stronger contender than The Post. We knew that before the ceremony. The whole reason for Oscar pundits to exist is to know these things. In most years, it’s clear what the top two-three films are. Those are the ones to take down via the means I mentioned.
And I would disagree with just about everything you have said. Especially after the results of this year where nearly everyone was sure Roma was going to win despite very divided industry precursors.
Smear campaigns are of course tricks, but there’s a gigantic gap between those and then getting voters to rank something specific lower on their ballot.
I just wish any other film, like Blakkklansman, had won. Everyone would just say “ oh, nice surprise” instead of all this constant whining. On both sides.
Thank you, Sasha. I was disappointed that Green Book won, but yeah lots of people did really enjoy it. I thought it was fine, but not Best Picture material. The Academy did not agree. So what? See you at the movies!
No, it was not a shock in terms of stats. Green Book won the PGA. Going back the last 10 years, only Moonlight was able to win Best Picture without winning PGA or SAG ensemble.
is it better to be in a movie that stands the test of time and doesnt win best picture or to be in a movie that win best picture but doesnt stand the test of time ?
The first one. Its better to be Kingpin, Dumb and Dumber and There’s Something About Mary than English Patient, Shakespeare in Love or American Beauty.
It’s better to be Fargo and Big Lebowski than all of those other films.
Sidveryvic, the answer to your question may vary depending on many factors. However and in any event, it will take time to tell which movie stands the test of time.
I liked There’s Something About Mary.
It is mind boggling to me that THIS is the film Sasha is going to the mat for. Of all the winners and losers in Oscar history, THIS is the one that she is taking the bullet for.
Paul Schrader said it best; “You can’t compete with mediocrity.”
Schrader posted this last night:”got enmeshed in a process that made me
care about awards I didn’t even respect. learned anew never to
underestimate the power of mediocrity.”
Great writers sure know how to write cool sentences.
Every good writer knows how to use passive verb structures to deflect responsibility away from the subject of sentences — to make the subject look like passive victims of circumstances.
Paul Schrader is a genius, I think we can all agree. His contribution to world cinema is immeasurable.
But the fact is, Schrader didn’t “get enmeshed” in the Oscar process like some poor little anchovy trapped in a tuna fishman’s net.
Nope. He became convinced that he had a good chance to win this award that he claims to disrespect. And he showed up to see if he could get one of those repugnant trophies to take home with him.
He’s a genius, so we can’t assume anybody duped him into going to the big show. He rightly believed that he might win an Oscar.
So he wanted one.
Until he didn’t get one.
And when he didn’t get one he’s right back to pissing on the process.
Nobody needs to be a genius to understand how he feels. We just have to think back to the childlike truths we were taught by Aesop in the tale about sour grapes.
Paul Schrader is a legend of American cinema.
Great writer. Shitty attitude.
Largely accurate…but: Schrader wouldn’t be that ‘Great writer’ without his “shitty attitude”.
He’s always been a curmudgeon.
true true true.
Don’t ever change, Mr Schrader! We love you just the way you are!
To be fair, Ethan Hawke got jobbed out of a nomination. I do wonder if his pithy but on the nose observations about superhero movies and formerly prestige pictures pissed off an increasingly risk averse industry.
He said that in 2018 One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest would have difficulty getting made today and in 1975 it was one of the biggest hits of the year. That had to ruffle feathers.
KB, I view Sasha’s post as going to the mat over principle.
except paul schrader should stick to making movies with porn stars or straight of VOD movies.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ccb044d8e480b8c75448fd10c1a688afc3a26c64ddeb14c28e5ff122c5e4e311.png
The Canyons is a really good film. If only people gave it a chance rather than pre-judge it because of Lindsay Lohan. It was also one of her best performances. Very reminiscent of her younger breakthrough yeats and Mean Girls.
I’ll be glad if Sasha keeps talking about this film. I have only seen it once and, like many people, I found it likeable although not earth-shattering, but my appreciation for it grows the more I hear outraged reactions to its winning.
Sasha states it well. So, well, that it’s a strong argument to get rid of Preferential voting. Instead of awarding the best, strongest work, it seems aimed at the lowest common denomitor.
Upfront, I must note that I have never liked the Preferential ballot – just like I’ve never liked the Electoral College when it comes to Presidential elections. The candidate with the most votes should win. Period.
If that means going back to 5 nominees – so much the better. Never liked the expansion, either.
But the truth is that the winners in the last decade were usually far better than in two decades before preferential voting. “Moonlight”, “Spotlight” probably would never win if there was simple majority voting. We’d have “La La Land” and “The Revenant” with Oscars. And this year we still could have “Green Book” because this is the film which won with “Roma”, “The Favourite” and “Vice” in the ‘original screenplay’ category where the majority voting is still used.
That being said – it’s a good winner. Surely not the best ever :), but solid one – and far better than many winners in the Oscar history.
Highly debatable. For every SPOTLIGHT or BIRDMAN there’s an ARGO or GREEN BOOK.
And, the 90s had SCHINDLER’S LIST and UNFORGIVEN, the 00s HURT LOCKER and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. A wash at the top.
So The Hurt Locker, Moonlight, 12 Years, and Shape of Water were all the “lowest common denominator?”
Some denominators are lower than others.
Still remain firm that most #1’s should win (and we don’t know for certain that some of those you cite wouldn’t have had the most at the top)
I didn’t want Green Book to win, but agree, the amount of screams saying it was a surprise – even telecasters – was a little dramatic. My friend Daniel Joyeux wrote an amazing piece assessing the way the voters might go through that preferential ballot. I read it three times, with Green Book projected to defeat Roma in the latter rounds. And it was undeniable.
It was a surprise if you followed the old model of how the Oscars worked, like I did. The film with the most nominations and the frontrunner for Best Directing, in the past, would naturally be the overwhelming frontrunner for Best Picture.
“Green Book”‘s lack of a nomination in Directing, in the old days, would have instantly discounted it as a serious Best Picture contender. “Wings” and “Grand Hotel” are historical curiosities. “Driving Miss Daisy” was the only true anomaly, with “Argo” winning because Ben Affleck was widely seen as snubbed (and he still won the DGA).
We must now come to terms with the fact that Directing and Picture are now cleft in twain. The best stat is no longer the DGA, but the PGA which also uses a preferential ballot.