The Bagger talks about the closed and open races. But it’s interesting because he’s talking about how lacking the Oscar race is now that Best Pic is done and delivered.
How can we liven this baby up?
”It must have been the hand of Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack, because Elie Wiesel asked to see me after the screening and he hugged me and said how much he loved the movie.” (Wiesel, through his agent, declined to comment.) But suggest that mining affection for Minghella and Pollack could help The Reader, and Weinstein gets irked. ”People who say things like that underestimate Academy members,” he barks, then adds, ”But maybe your theory’s correct, because Anthony and Sydney are going to win.”
31 Responses for "Best Picture Gone but not Forgotten"
If the Reader somehow manages to win Best Picture, dear Lord in heaven….
Sorry, I haven’t seen it. I reached my quota of WWII – Holocaust – Jewish themed movies with Valkyrie, and I suspect that the Academy members are the same. How many WWII-Holocaust-Jewish themed movies came out over the holidays? I think someone counted 6.
Honestly, I do not understand why everyone is so upset that Slumdog is a lock. It’s nothing new. In the past few years, I knew going in that No Country would win, that The Departed would win, etc… Almost every year BP feels locked (BM v Crash, an anomoly).
Actually this year there are true exciting races for a change. All the acting categories (except Heath) are up in the air and it’s pretty exciting to see how it will go, as recent years have been extremely predictable (Mirren, Whittaker, Day-Lewis, etc…)
I think Minghella/Pollack adoration is canceled out by Weinstein’s past bully antics. Winslet and Cruz will win on their own merit, admiration etc not because of Harvey’s involvement.
Besides, Academy has already honored Minghella and Pollack in the past.
So you’re gonna buy another Oscar, are you Weinstein you fickle pig?
It won’t matter. That trophy is, in my opinion, meaningless. None of these films deserve the title of Best Picture (well, maybe Milk).
I’m with you, Nick K. I’d love to see “Milk” win. But I’m expecting and really won’t be upset when Slumdog takes it. I haven’t been able to see The Reader yet but from all reports (especially at AD) it sounds like it has its merits but is not BP material.
UGH, can The Weinstein Company just go down in flames to the fiery depths of hell already?
The EW article is quiet interesting. And not becasue it talks about crazy Weinstein. But because it mentions how Slumdog may have peaked. Which is an interesting point to bring up. Has it peaked? It seemed that the Golden Globes was where it took off. After that many of the non-Academy obsessed took note of the film. While for us the movie was always a lock, I think the Globes was where the casual viewers took notice. And ever since, Danny Boyel, Dev Patel, Freida Pinto and even Anil kapoor have been EVERYWHERE! On every major talk show, at every major award ceremony. They’ve almost become household names. But now what? The Oscars 2 weeks away and the SLumdog fever seems to have relaxed a bit and The Readers suprise nomination has suddenly made it more interesting. For better or for worse, has The Reader become the more talked about film now? I mean, yes Slumdog won the DGA and PGA and will likely win the WGA tommorow, but again, a week and a half before ballots are due. A lot can happen in that time.
I mean I’m only speaking out of my ass, but it is possible that maybe The reader might pull a crazay upset of Crash proportions! I pray not. Regardless of the fact that i don’t like the Reader all too much, A Reader win would mean a Weinstein win…and who REALLY wants that???
This race should be much closer than Slumdog being the crazy favorite & The Reader popping up as spoiler or TCCOBB breaking through somehow. Milk deserves to be in the conversation. A 4 horse race? NEVER.
Slumdog wins easily. Has a film ever won the DGA, PGA, WGA, & SAG and lose the Oscar? I doubt it.
“Sorry, I haven’t seen it. I reached my quota of WWII – Holocaust – Jewish themed movies with Valkyrie, and I suspect that the Academy members are the same. How many WWII-Holocaust-Jewish themed movies came out over the holidays? I think someone counted 6.”
What a prejudiced post. I didn’t realize that Holocaust movies meant they were “Jewish” themed, nevermind that you’re expressing your tiredness of “Jewish” themed newbies. Screw you.
Um, sorry, Harvey and Miramax. Nice try on attempting to make this BP thing semi-climactic, but it ain’t. It’s Slumdog’s, or if we really want to buy into this challenger thing, Milk could possibly, possibly (but not likely) upset. The ONE film of the five nominated that has zero shot is The Reader. I loved both Minghella and Sydney, but that’s not enough to give their film something it didn’t earn (even though it really didn’t earn the nomination to begin with).
It’s not happening. The end.
I don’t understand. By all accounts Harvey Weinstein is generally disliked and thought of as a bully by those both in the industry and those outside the industry. Why then would the Academy continually reward him? If people don’t like him they should punish him and not show his films any love. He is only as powerful as those around him make him.
The Reader is, quite simply, not one of the 5 best films of the year. If we all know that, how can those who are considered the elite, not know it? And, if it is simply because Harvey is “powerful” or whatever, that still doesn’t make sense, because if no one likes him why the hell do they keep rewarding his movies? Is he really paying people off? Do the people in the Academy really need money that badly that they are willing to tarnish the reputation of the organization they are a part of simply for some extra cash? Are they that greedy and stupid? Do they honestly, genuinely think The Reader is better than The Wrestler, The Dark Knight, Revolutionary Road, Wall-E, In Bruges, Let The Right One In, Doubt, Gran Torino, etc, etc, etc? Why!!!?
Pointless article since Slumdog is winning. There will be no upset. Game over.
“And the Academy Award for Best Picture of the Year goes to …
Frost/NixonThe ReaderSlumdog MillionaireMilkThe Curious Case of Benjamin Button!Not gonna happen, but it’s the only one of the five that sounds right when you say it out loud.
Anything is possible. No one thought The Reader would make it this far, so what’s stopping it now?
I think Slumdog is going to win… but The Reader is nipping at its heals.
Quite honestly, the Best Picture race is so dull for me this year, because the only one I actually enjoyed was Milk and it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell. I would have much rather seen Doubt, WALL-E, Revolutionary Road and The Wrestler in with Milk than the other four contenders.
Regardless of whether The Reader or Slumdog comes out on top, my reaction will be a resounding “meh,” because in spite of the embarrassment of riches we were provided with this year in films, the fact that these five were the ones chosen as the cream of the crop proves (to me anyway) that rumor and word-of-mouth mean more to the Academy voters than actually seeing the films themselves and coming up with their own list of five.
I hope Weinstein campaigns so hard that “Milk” wins (and I love Slumdog, by the way…). Wouldn’t it be funny if he campaigned so hard against Slumdog just to see another film win it?
Honest question. What makes this years race lacking and boring and last years not.
I was bored and beat down with the NCFOM accolalacokindes as it swept every guild and precursor.
The Oscar itself seemed a foregone conclusion. So why was last year the “well deserved coronation”, and this year is “lacking”?
Just curious.
And I will add that I believe Slumdog and Button are better than NCFOM.
Slumdog wins. These stories are only valid in years where…
1) the potential upsetter gets a second lease on life after the nomination
2) some consensus within the Academy has formed around it, and
3) the other nominees are lagging significantly behind.
The Reader’s box office is pretty crummy, its reviews are still negative, we have not yet heard any inside rumblings about it being the favourite of a lot of people (with Shakespeare and Crash, this much was clear), and nominees like Milk and Button have wider support among the actors and crafts. The Reader is not the number two, let alone the winner.
I was bored and beat down with the NCFOM accolalacokindes as it swept every guild and precursor.
The Oscar itself seemed a foregone conclusion. So why was last year the “well deserved coronation”, and this year is “lacking”?
I think that’s a really good question. And I don’t really know the answer. I guess that there were other films in the mix that seemed like real threats – Juno and There Will Be Blood. This year it doesn’t feel like the frontrunner has a challenger. I’m not sure why.
No Country For Old Men was the Coens, Cormac McCarthy, Roger Deakins, Carter Burwell, Javier Bardem and Tommy Lee Jones. It was an all-around baitier proposition than Slumdog, but not in a bad way.
accolalacokindes??? What??
I think my cat stepped on the computer and I didn’t proofread. That’s weird.
@ David
Totally a question i was wondering myself!! So many people seem to be calling this year’s awards boring or lacking simple because two of the awards have a very clear front-runner. But just last year we had a similar situation, but last year No Country’s win was a bigger no brainer than Slumdog’s supposed win this year. And Like Paul Outlaw pointed out, No Country was FAR more batier than Slumdog (Again, not in a bad way). It’s just odd people are calling this year boring because we had a VERY similar situation just last year!
Also, I don’t get the love for the 2007 movies in general. So many people saying that 2008’s movies sucked in comparision. When if you remove No Country and There Will Be Blood, the mix wasn’t so much differant. And even the top 5 was kinda ho-hum. I mean how did Michael Clayton beat out The Diving Bell and the Butterfly? There were just as many flaws last year. Perhaps the TDK one just hurts more becasue it lost to a not so loved The Reader.
I persaonlly don’t see much differance in this year and every other year.
I agree with Michael. Almost EVERY year there is a virtual lock on BP. ML do you have ANY evidence that The Reader is nipping at Slumdog’s heels. Really ANYTHING??? At least Crash had the SAG as a precursor. Please, some evidence, otherwise it’s just Weinstein spin and we shouldnt be validating it with articles and posts
And BTW one of the reason Slumdog is locked as Ive said before is that there is such a diverse opinion as to what is No.2. I remember the article with “dozens” of Academy members that said Frost/Nixon was their no.2, and have read articles where all other three nominees are talked about as no. 2. Like it or not, Crash WAS the no. 2 talk leading up to the Oscars and was the likelist choice for an upset
I actually really liked Michael Clayton.
Then again, Diving Bell and the Butterfly was an amazing piece of work (Max von Sydow was robbed of another Oscar!).
1. No Country was a brilliant, brilliant film. It had almost no mistakes. Every film this year has several mistakes at least.
2. I love Slumdog. I saw it again tonight and loved it even more than the second time.
3. OmarS, Juno was the worst critically acclaimed movie nominated in 2007. It had the same Metacritic Rating as Milk, which comes in second this year. The Reader is the worst critically rated film to be nominated in the Metacritic era, at least. Ben Button at 69 is also among the worst. Frost/Nixon at 74 isn’t too hot.
My five would have been:
Slumdog
WALL-E
Milk
The Dark Knight
Doubt/Rachel Getting Married/Frozen River (I know haha no shot in hell)
I still like The Reader more than Slumdog “Millin air”
Alas, my vote only counts at the box office
sorry scott but the reader is not setting the box office on fire- youre in the minority
I agree with OmarS.
With exception to 1 or 2 masterpieces last year, I have enjoyed or have been enriched by far more 2008 films than 2007. I don’t care what cinephile tells me otherwise.
Michael Clayton was better than There Will Be Blood, Juno, and Atonement.
“Also, I don’t get the love for the 2007 movies in general. So many people saying that 2008’s movies sucked in comparision. When if you remove No Country and There Will Be Blood, the mix wasn’t so much differant. ”
Come now, Omar! If you remove the top 40%, the mix isn’t so different? That’s like saying, if you just don’t count the genitals, men and women are baaaasically the same.
I found last year’s No Country sweep boring as well, as someone who much preferred There Will Be Blood. But the difference between years, if we want to call it that, is that both of those films had an aura of ‘perfectly executed modern masterpiece’ that is very rare for one, let alone two films to have in any given year. Putting aside my personal feelings about Slumdog, I feel confident that even its greatest notices are in a different ballpark, celebrating it as a “movie movie” success and a major uplift rather than, say, an exemplary work of cinema. It’s just a different tone to the discussion.
Paul Outlaw: I think our discussion of what is “baity” needs a bit more nuancing. Yes, No Country had a team of past nominees, and in that regard, was “baitier” than Slumdog. But at what point can we assess what is baity based entirely on the craftsmen and women rather than the product? No Country is a bleak, slow-paced thriller where the protagonist gets killed offscreen at the 80% mark. Its final scene is a grave discussion about a cryptic dream, which makes its character think about his mortality. Slumdog is an upbeat Rocky narrative about an underdog getting past the dregs of his life and winning the girl and the money. Its final scene is a colourful dance sequence with a huge cast, interspersed with uplifting flashbacks from the film, including cute kids smiling. Let’s not get illusions about which film is a more palatable contender here.
Leave a reply