Back in the early days of Oscar watching, the trades and the long lead film critics got to see movies early. There wasn’t a thumbs up, thumbs down for Oscar mentality back then. They weren’t looking at horses readying themselves for a race and making a judgment on whether the horse could go the distance or not. Now, so many people are given the opportunity to see movies early and not to the best effect. It used to be bad. It has gotten so much worse. Watching the folks I know worry about revealing what they’ve seen and what they know suggests, to me, that people are putting way too much faith in the Oscar blogger as the almighty oracle. It may be time once again to bring back the mantra “nobody knows anything.”
I don’t know what this brave new world is doing or has done for the health or state of films anymore. I’ve seen a lot of change in the past ten years — some of it good, some of it terrible. I don’t know that the movies have gotten any better but I do think criticism of them has gotten much more harsh, as if the very idea that they would be worthy of Oscar consideration immediately downgrades them. How could they ever live up to being the greatest film of the year? Whatever dreams we have in our heads about the movies, how can they not fall short? And when one comes along that transcends the nonsense it feels almost like a miracle.
The pressure cooker gets extremely tight as the year rolls around to the end, as publicists must wait for the online reaction long before it ever gets to the public. Not only that but they must balance the swollen egos of disgruntled journalists, critics or bloggers who feel they are getting the short shrift. Bloggers have also back down if they are being held to an embargo that doesn’t apply to film critics. Some do, some don’t. But the point seems lost in all of this. It’s the movies, stupid.
And so here we are, on the eve of Oscar season proper and the buzz online feels like a water cooler. Some amount of dignity gets lots in the process. I’m not excluding myself from this. I am hoping for something higher than this need to be FIRST. First isn’t always better, as we all know from losing our virginity. First isn’t better and it doesn’t make us better because we see things first. I am hoping that the snake stops eats its own tail before too long.
We don’t need to pull the trigger so quickly. If I learned anything from the guy whose name I forgot in a Venice loft many years ago, as the clock struck 2am — don’t rush the climax. Delaying things is far more preferable.
I beamed this out to Twitter and got this response moments ago from In Contention’s Guy Lodge, “Is that your way of saying that people who don’t love Invictus are ‘wrong’?” And I answered that it wasn’t any one movie but all of them. This idea of somehow elevating those who have access is just silly. Trust no one. Slow and steady gives you much better climaxes wins the race.
45 Responses for "Madness and Craziness"
umm, this post kinda turned me on…(and made me feel bad for whoever that first time guy was).
But seriously, this is one reason why Up in the Air feels like a good pre-precurssor bet– it’s buzz hasn’t peaked (climaxed?) yet. You alluded to this the other day Sasha, and I think it’s right on the money.
Great article, Sasha. It’s so easy, in the heat of awards season, to get more wrapped up in the possible prestige than the actual quality of the films. I think it’s especially true when a movie is singled out for a particular performance or technical aspect; the movie itself becomes a second thought, as though it’s only a vehicle for that aspect to win its Oscar glory. Of course, it’s great to see an actor, a screenplay, or a sound guy to get the credit he/she/it deserves, but in the end, it’s about embracing the art, loving a movie for everything it is (when that’s possible). If we stopped consistently considering movies, especially those released around this time of year, through a lens of award potential, I think we could all have a deeper, more personal love for film as a whole.
Great post! With this being my first year of really following the oscar race I find myself asking this question: Are some movies made purely as Oscar bait? I hope not but as some movies change release dates I wonder, particularly with Nine. I mean aren’t their bonafide singers albeit nonames who can sing and act. I am kind of leary of movies whose casts are stacked with oscar winners, it has me drifting more towards independent film, those pictures play more organic and visceral as opposed to the more streamlined mega-oscar movie.
Perhaps “It’s the movies, stupid”, should be the site’s new mantra (maybe sans “stupid”), just to remind everyone that at the end of the day, awards are pretty meaningless.
I’ve talked to a couple of people who have attended industry screenings of UP IN THE AIR. They all enjoyed it but none seemed to really view it as Best Picture material.
mamma mia, you breaka’ my heart.
Nine is quietly walking on top of all the dead bodies lying on the ground, one by one :
Up in the Air
Precious
Invictus
The Hurt Locker
An Education
J§J
Bright Star
and so on…
As the name of the game this year seems to be : “let’s try to stop the unstopable”.
At the end of the day there will be only three movies left from this year of very poor cinema : Nine, Inglorious Basterds, and Avatar (the last one for its new technologies).
HA! I figured it was Invictus too. That’s funny.
N8, if you hadn’t already won the holiday giveaway, I’d try to rig it so you would.
It’s also come to the ridiculous point where some people (readers, publicists, bloggers) don’t think a movie is worthy of writing about if it doesn’t have a shot at the Oscars.
Vincere, Summer Hours, Flame & Citron — none of those 3 films were their countries official submission for the Oscar bake-off, and we can only imagine the politics, powergrabbing, and backstabbing that prevented their inclusion.
But I guarantee you this. Those 3 movies that didn’t get invited to the ball are finer films than at least 3 of the ugly stepsisters on the Gurus Top 10 candidates for Best Picture.
Seems strange that Guy Lodge would jump to the conclusion that “First isn’t better and it doesn’t make us better because we see things first,” was a reference to Invictus.
After all, Invictus isn’t one of the movies that was screened for a select few in September and got the blogboys’ gondolas rocking like herniated ballsacks. Invictus is not a movie that requires a pilgrimage to a Utah ski resort so you can bow down to the enormous ebony Buddha in hermetic seclusion. It’s not a movie you have meet over lunch at the Four Seasons so you can collect awkward creepy snapshots like serial killer souvenirs.
Some movies get their first screenings in a setting accessible to people who might not have time for movie premieres that demand a 3-day trip to London to get a VIP ticket. Invictus is one of those movies.
That’s how I interpret “first isn’t better.” Because I’m one of the regular guys who doesn’t need face-time with the director in return for shilling his film. The few special screenings I’ve been to actually interfere with my ability to watch them objectively. It’s damn hard to give your full attention to a film when you know the stars and director are just offstage — or in the row right in front of you.
The PR pampering is a kick and thrill, but it fucks with your mind, dude. Just as they intend for it to.
At the end of the day, after all the buzz and blogging and speculations, I don´t think the situation for the average academy voter changed at all in the last ten years.
It´s the oscar nerds world, that changed. I believe the common academy dude doesn´t follow those internet speculations or critics reviews that much. They put their DVDs in the player at christmas holiday, are excited to see “Precious” sweeten their mood (or “Hurt Locker”, if you will) and try to place their votes with fevered shivery hands (missing the correct spot and accidentally mark something like “White Ribbon” with their cross (while the bloggers start screaming: Wow! They are hip now!”)
The blogs are for the nerds like us – but we don´t vote the winners…
I am still skeptical that anything any of us says has any impact on any outcomes. Little bits of stroking and walking around money creating delusions among the poor and non-glamorous. That’s the change (and not much of a change either).
But it’s been a grand decade for movies themselves.
This year, a juggernaut will win (should`ve last year but we know what happened). That is either Avatar or Holmes. Other movies are all “O-kay, if there`s nothing else…” but since there will be “else”, they can hope for BP/BD split, most likely Reitman or Bigelow for BD and Avatar or Holmes for BP. Unless the winner takes both categories.
I really wonder if the Internet has an effect on AMPAS voters. I think blogging affects— other bloggers…
But AMPAS? Are they even online?
The Internet affects movies most in terms of the impact it has had on movie ad-buying in NEWSPAPERS. It’s down, way down. And is closing newspapers all over the country as we know.
So the Internet affects — people who use it. And I have no information that AMPAS reads anything but Olde School ink.
HOWEVER, what does influence AMPAS? I think TV talk show appearances like the David Letterman freak out over “Brothers” and Natalie Portman.
Then last night he had Gabourey Sidibe, who I really think shut down her own Oscar nominee chances when Letterman asked, “If you can just walk in and in three days walk off with the lead in a movie, how do you think that affects the people who go to acting school, and study and study and do workshops?”
And she said, “They can all be teachers.” And she giggled and got a big laugh from Dave and from the audience.
But I didn’t hear the members of the Acting Branch, who HAVE done all the things Dave mentioned, and who take their work very, VERY seriously, laughing. Oh no.
That remark was enough to label her as a lucky amateur who they certainly aren’t going to honor with a nomination, if she thinks all their lifet-time of studying etc. is going to end up in teaching. No matter how true it may be.
If they have to choose between her and Helen Mirren or Abbie Cornish…they are going to choose Dame Helen or the beauteous blonde Cornish.
She came off looking like a one shot lucky amateur one trick pony.
I was shocked…and saddened.
But then how many Academy members saw that? I’m betting a lot. Ad in You Tube repeats and that’s A LOT. Of angry, acting branch members. Who she just irrevocably insulted.
#14 “But AMPAS? Are they even online?”
No, but their kids and grandkids are. And they talk. So buzz spreads. You don`t need to see things these days to know whether they are good, bad, big or small. You don`t need to read Twilight or see the movies or read anything written about the cast and the phenomenon and you`ll still know enough to carry on a competent conversation. Because people talk and you listen or at least overhear.
I take this article as a direct response to yesterday’s podcast on In Contention and not any one film in particular. Nine, The Lovely Bones, and Invictus were discussed on the podcast but neither Kristopher Tapley nor Anne Thompson were allowed to discuss it in print.
I see it as an issue of pride (understandably so) and one of practicality. Both sites live on traffic and ad revenue and are established. If Kristopher is important enough to see these films in advance, he should be important enough to discuss them before anyone else. Or at least around the same time as the trades. For whatever reason, that does not appear to be the case.
Kudos to Ryan for shining a light on the ridiculous reporting that went on between Up in the Air, /film, and firstshowing.net.
I’ll say this much. Oscarwatching has changed ALOT since 2000.
I had the same reaction to Sidibe’s comment as you did, Stephen, as have others I’ve heard from who sure as hell weren’t laughing. You can bet her handlers will be on top of it.
Loyal, you would be wrong about that. I have never listened to Anne and Kris’ podcasts. Trust me, anyone can get access if they want it badly enough. My point is that it isn’t exclusive anymore because it can’t be. Things are so spread out. And as for Academy members – I know many of them read this site because I hear from them. I have been doing this for ten years — longer than anyone else except Tom O’Neil. Poland and Anne Thompson were doing it in print long before and Kris Tapley and Nat Rogers were not that far behind. However newbies on the scene also get immediate access and they have no “power.” Publicists are doing their best to curtail the media monster – I don’t think what they’re doing is wrong – I don’t think what Kris and Anne or anyone else is doing is wrong either. What I think is wrong is the way movies are seen and judged based on what a very small group of people (who aren’t in the right frame of mind to begin with) think. Films are judged by them, established as winners or losers, slapped up on some list somewhere as to “what’s ahead right now” – and truthfully, it’s all bullshit.
There is no there there. It is without substance and without a balanced long view. It is just chatter.
The chatter is about positioning in the Oscar market. It has long since stopped being about love of movies. I try to keep this site focused on the love for the films but it is not easy.
Even without listening to the podcast, the article is timed perfectly with what they were discussing, intentional or not. There is a debate to be had. Even Poland has a bee in his bonnet this morning about who’s first and if it even matters anymore.
“However newbies on the scene also get immediate access and they have no power.”
“What I think is wrong is the way movies are seen and judged based on what a very small group of people (who aren’t in the right frame of mind to begin with) think.”
Care to elaborate? I can think of one really ridiculous recent example.
You know, Sasha, I come here because, among other things, you and Ryan don`t seem to be studio plants which other bloggers seems to be more or less. Sometimes is very easy to spot then studio intervetion happened. I mean, everyone can change their opinion but when a naysayer suddenly becomes the biggest believer, or when crap gets raves from someone who then urges everyone to give crap a chance although there`s almost a consensus it`s crap or some other highly suspicious “damage control”-like blogging occurs, one loses respect in the blogger and simply doesn`t take them seriously. Just my two cents.
Well, it is mostly stuff that goes on behind the scenes and never makes it out to blogs but is buried on lists, like the Gurus or whatever. It is no different from Team Jacob and Team Edward. It feels like, to me, that people start taking sides. This could be total paranoia on my part but if feels that way. And what I mean by there is no “there” there, is that usually we are debating the films up against critics’ reviews and public response. It was only last year and now this year that debates are between a small group of people about films that are still waiting at the starting gate. It is madness.
“It is madness.”
No, it’s Oscar season. Same shit, different year.
And I agree Bambi – the money thing is a slippery slope. A successful blog with a lot of visitors should be able to advertise and make money. If you’re a nice person you’re not going to feel right about taking money from people and then shitting on their movie. Therein lies the rub. But once you stop trusting the blogger everything is lost. As it is every season people doubt my own perspective since there are so many studio ads on the site. I decided long ago not to trash any movie that hadn’t yet opened to the public – I did it before I ever started taking ads. But one always feels conflicted. I would say that is true about anyone doing a blog.
Bit of a strong reaction to a harmless snapshot, Ryan. At least we know your consistent claims of never reading the site are bullshit now.
Anyway, with petty personal disdain out of it, I agree with most of Sasha’s post. But it’s also the hide and seek game studios play that happens to build this feeding frenzy on the titles, so there isn’t an innocent party here, except maybe the movies — and even then…
I also think Guy was wrong to jump to the conclusion he did, for obvious reasons. I don’t think he understood the background here and made a snap judgment, but obviously if he had been in on the similar conversation you and I had this week, Sasha, I think he would have been a little more engaging.
At the end of the day, speaking purely for myself, it’s not a desire to be “first.” I like to be prepared to discuss a film when the starting gun is fired, that’s all. My role, for better or worse, has become part of that early discussion. But “first” is not the luxury some might think it is. In fact, it has become something of a liability.
Sasha, I understand you won`t trash the movie. But that`s different from calling shit a diamond or overpraising a so-so thing that you know is shit or so-so. You either won`t say anything or you make a neutral comment like “haven`t seen it yet”, “can`t talk about it yet”. You don`t go “John Turturo stuck underneath Devastator balls is the most soul-stirring scene of the decade, ballsy(x 50) masterpiece late career run for Michael Bay”, do you?
Kris, i agree about the liability, which is why I don’t go out of my way to see movies early. The times when I have seen them early it has been to my own detriment – like King Kong, like The Kite Runner. My own opinion, I have concluded, doesn’t really help me in terms of watching the Oscar race. Guy ended up agreeing with me on Twitter, btw.
But it wasn’t even Invictus I was talking about – it is the whole culture of right now. It is giving me an uneasy feeling.
I don’t know what you mean about “petty personal disdain out of it.” I really wasn’t referring directly to you or about you at all. And as I said, I included myself in it. It is all of us. It is what this has become. Our sad legacy.
That was still in reference to Ryan’s comment about the Bridges photo. Sorry.
Oscarwatching was a lot more fun when there were fewer kids in the sandbox. There definitely appears to be an influx of bloggers/film journalists this season, and I’m not entirely certain these websites actually care about the films in the race. On the surface, it appears to be about traffic grabs and wanting a piece of the September-March pie. Reminds me of the Ian Malcolm quote about using power that didn’t require any discipline to attain it.
It was a much more innocent time debating whether or not Traffic and Erin Brockovich would cancel one another out. But change is inevitable.
Well, studios do encourage bloggers because they are hotbeds for planting and anti-planting. Perhaps that`s why they pop up so fast and so many. Studio patronage or something akin to that.
Sasha runs a classy joint. Integrity.
I have no doubt Academy members read this stuff and hear about it, but I am still skeptical that it changes results. I just believe that there are other far more powerful factors shaping a race (studio politics, personal taste, relationships) and what they read in the Oscarwatching miniverse at most just confirms their feelings…. lots of the stuff we read and write just cancels out anyway.
aside: given history and the crap he took, any props Kris gives PJ is authentic. Truly. My eyes popped.
“Trust me, anyone can get access if they want it badly enough.”
If I can get access, anyone can.
“Ryan, At least we know your consistent claims of never reading the site are bullshit now.”
My consistent claims a couple of months ago were honest to god truth, Kris. I don’t appreciate the bullshit remark, and I don’t much appreciate that your constant carping about getting your due credit now requires that I need to spend a few minutes every day making sure I’m not stepping on your tender toes. The drudgery of watching my back is only alleviated by the pleasure I get when I find that you’re often not first out of the gate as you claim to be.
My reaction to Guy might not have been so strongly worded if you hadn’t on several occasions asked Sasha to keep her own dog on a leash.
Anyway, Kris. Of course you know I visit the site because I comment there from time to time. And when I do, I don’t come around telling you that you’re “bullshit.” I try to joke around and participate like any other reader. That you try to make it sound like I’m on stealth missions is further evidence of your odd paranoia.
One of the many things I don’t understand of the awards season is the embargoes. I can see why bloggers and critics accept them, you can see the movie before it opens and so you can tick that movie off your list when all of them come in just few weeks.
But what’s the advantage for the studios? If the movie is good, you’ll have lots of praise coming at the very same moment. But if the movie isn’t that good, conversely you’ll have a lot of bad reviews coming together. Isn’t that too risky for the studios? I believe that many simultaneous bad reviews will not only kill a movie’s chances for awards, but the BO too (partially, at least). But on the other hand, I think good or rave reviews don’t really need to come at the same time to boost the movies chances. A good movie is a good movie, no matter what.
And as it’s quite unlikely that studios will take risks blindly, then I find myself thinking what do they really get with the embargoes. I can’t find an answer.
(I exclude from this discussion any moral implication of embargoing (?) information that would be unacceptable on any other field (i.e. politics). I assume that as long as everyone implied accepts it, there’s no point in discussing it).
Not paranoid, Ryan. Just defending myself against what I thought was an unnecessary swipe. My apologies.
Accepted. Truce?
Until the next incident…
Of course.
This why the net authorities won’t grant me a Twitter permit.
Get a room you two! Gotta love the sexual tension in here. I blame Sasha’s slow and steady climax talk.
Has anyone else been laughing out loud from this conversation between Ryan and Kris?
Yikes, my Twitter remark to Sasha was tongue-in-cheek. I assumed it was read that way. Truly sorry if anyone was offended.
And Ryan, given that I think we’ve always had a polite rapport, I’d rather you didn’t refer to me as Kris’s “dog,” if it’s all the same to you.
Now it feels like a tag team match. Ryan Adams and Sasha Stone vs. Kris Tapley and Guy Lodge.
Personally I think all 4 of you should go up against Uwe Boll.
Haha! Not fighting with anyone … just clarifying intent. Tone can get so mangled on the internet.
Yeah… but its funnier to assume that you are fighting, even if you aren’t really.
I’m serious about the Uwe Boll thing btw. I just watched the first twenty minutes of Alone in the Dark again yesterday and I still can’t get past that point.
“Has anyone else been laughing out loud from this conversation between Ryan and Kris?”
I’ve been smiling. I hope Kris has.
“Ryan… I’d rather you didn’t refer to me as Kris’s “dog,” if it’s all the same to you.”
You’re so sharp. I’m gonna have to start spelling L-E-A-S-H around you. See, that alone demonstrates your pedigree is more show dog than lap dog, Guy. Me, I’m stone-cold guard dog junkyard dog. No offense intended, dawg.
“Now it feels like a tag team match. Ryan Adams and Sasha Stone vs. Kris Tapley and Guy Lodge.”
Ricky, I imagine if you knew the whole inside story you’d see we’re more like George & Martha vs. Nick & Honey.
Now THERE’s a fun casting game! As hosts of the more senior site, I guess you and Sasha are George and Martha? (The conversation is taking place in your living room, after all.)
If you’re trying to lead up to “Hump the Hostess,” you can put on the brakes right now, friendo.
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.