“Old endgame lost of old, play and lose and have done with losing.”
–Samuel Beckett
The Oscar race is all over but the shouting. History will be made one way or another. History already has been made once the Academy pushed their ballot deadline to occur before the big guilds announced. That one little move forever altered the race, throwing it into complete chaos. The truth is we think we know how it will go. After all, can thousands upon thousands of people be that unpredictable? How much of Argo’s success is based on the movie itself and how much is based on the groundswell of support for Ben Affleck in opposition to the Academy’s snub? It’s hard to say. I’m sure fans of the film will stand by it and brush off the director snub. But anyone who’s been paying close attention to the race can’t help but stare right at it. The timing is just too suspect. Timing is a funny thing — you can be caught up in the moment and not yet have the perspective to look at it objectively. History might clarify things a bit more.
For instance, the torture debate around Zero Dark Thirty? All but evaporated but the damage was done. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were publicists behind some of that, even though at the time it didn’t seem like it. Ditto with the congressman hoping to embarrass Steven Spielberg and Tony Kushner by demanding they “fix” Connecticut’s vote. He laughed that it had anything to do with Oscar campaigning but come on, dude, who are you trying to kid?
Time is the great equalizer. We’ll know in five or ten years what this Oscar season really meant. For now, we all have our ideas about the various narratives.
The one thing I don’t think the world needs is another parrot of objective Oscar coverage. What this year was greatly missing was any kind of strong critical voices. Stu Van Airsdale left his post at Movieline and Mark Harris left Grantland for the year and that left us with objective Oscar coverage and advocacy. We still have the Carpetbagger, David Poland but Jeff Wells has turned into a one-man take-down machine which has rendered his voice as useless as my own. We advocates did what we usually do to little or no success in either direction but I figure, better than that become one more person huddled on the wall telling everyone what we can all plainly see with our own eyes.
But we’re going to see it out, by god, this historic unpredictable year. People always say they want the Oscars to stop being so predictable — well, the Academy tried to be unpredictable but the giant industry guilds tried to shove predictability right back down their throats: your Oscars will be what we say it will be. Even so, if Argo is going to be our predictable Best Picture winner, a new oddity has emerged.
For the first time in many many decades, Best Director is up for grabs — really up for grabs. When it was Driving Miss Daisy up for the Oscar, Oliver Stone had won the DGA and then won the Oscar. The other splits that there have been between Picture and Director tend to side with the DGA. But the DGA picked Affleck, in keeping with the years where Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard were snubbed but then won it. Yet Argo has been winning everything, as your typical award season winner would do — a Slumdog Millionaire kind of sweep of the precursors so already it feels bigger than both of those other movies. Of course, there are more awards now than there ever have been and more Oscar coverage than there ever has been.
This season comes with conflicting pairings at every turn. As disappointed as I am that the industry appears to have shunned Lincoln, I’m thrilled that the overall made such an impact on the American public. Fans of the film write me from all over the country to talk about how meaningful it was for them. Surely that has to be worthwhile. Life of Pi has made over $500 million worldwide. And our Oscars appear to be once again choosing a movie that is plug-and-play, appealing to people of every intellectual level, economic status and country of origin. The last two winners were that way — perhaps that’s the only kind of film that can win.
One thing I find fascinating by the industry’s embracing of Argo and the unwillingness of journalists to question its subject matter is how much things have changed since I’ve been watching movies. For Valentine’s Day I watched Annie Hall. It struck me how critical Woody Allen’s view of Hollywood is in the film, “all you do is give out awards here – best fascist dictator Adolph Hitler.” To him, Hollywood was silly. They kept throwing awards at him anyway because deep down in places they don’t talk about in public, no one really wants to languish in ass-kissing buffoonery that is the awards race.
But that kind of criticism is mostly lost now because money and profit is so hard to come by. You have to stay relevant, you have to go to the awards shows, you have to do it because the movie needs you to. We’ve moved away from a star-driven system so stars no longer have the luxury to not show up. Even Woody Allen eventually had to suck up to save his film business. I never thought I’d see the day when Woody Allen would appear at the Oscars. But he did.
Robert Altman made The Player, a film so dead on about Hollywood no one has ever topped it. In it, the studio mogul kills the screenwriter and gets away with it. Not only that, but he gets the screenwriter’s girlfriend too. The more bad things he does the higher he climbs. “Movies now more than ever” is the motto of the up and comer. When I look around today at the Critics Choice awards standing ovation for Ben Affleck and their broadcast’s bizarre decision to not show Tony Kushner accepting his award — and how no one cared because the ratings soared — I have to figure, Altman’s vision of Hollywood has been realized. There is no Robert Altman around now. In his place are people who see Hollywood as a healthy, thriving dream factory. The Artist and now Argo both idealize Hollywood — and the people who run it. John Goodman stars in both as a lovably hated studio guy.
Though Argo might be about the cheap effects movies in Hollywood in the 1970s and how the naive Iranians fell for it, it is about the ultimate good Hollywood does; even a scrappy, forgotten producer can help bring the hostages home. Similarly, the CIA is portrayed as aw shucks nice guys just doing a good deed. Maya from Zero Dark Thirty is shunned. Abe Lincoln dragged across the mud after 150 years and portrayed as a racist but Hollywood and the CIA? They’re the heroes.
It’s not a comment on Argo so much as the industry that has embraced it – an industry that is more and more made up of exactly the same people. There aren’t critics and bloggers anymore – they are one in the same. They all vote on roughly the same awards now. They are the ones who are buying this idea that Movies Now More than Ever is the new normal. I can dig it but I just wish Robert Altman were still around to remind us that are two ways of seeing things.
The Gurus voted on whether or not social networking has been bad for the Oscar race. And I have to think so. Twitter is now an angry mob. That made it great when it came to Anonymous and getting Obama re-elected but it surely sucks now when the only way you can win the day is by being the cool pick. It’s no longer enough that we have critics and box office – now we have Twitter.
We were also asked if the Academy should go back to five – and I’d have to say yes. If they value their film directors they will do just that if, for no other reason, they won’t have five best directors standing there with nothing to do. As the awards race changes, we Oscar watchers must change. And as Thomas Jefferson once said, “when you feel you are at the end of your rope, tie a knot in it and hold on.”
I remember watching the Oscars in 2002 w/a couple of good friends, and we were doing all the usual snarky commenting on this and that. As the NYC montage was wrapping up, I figured it was the perfect time to say something smartassed: “Unfortunately, Woody Allen couldn’t be here to—HOLY SH*T!!!” Left us all gobsmacked, it did, although given that it was the first post-9/11 Academy Awards, and remembering how seeing Manhattan back in the day made NYC seem like the most interesting and romantic city imaginable, it really did make perfect sense. (Give me a break, OK? I was 18 and totally naive, and besides, you have to admit Woody did do a bang-up job of presenting the city as something approaching a life-long lover…)
we can accuse allen by many things, but what you’ve just write is simply unfair.
The Kid with a Bike, in particular – because it’s under the radar – is particularly worthy of mention.
@Sam
The Turin Horse
Oslo, August 31st
Monsieur Lazhar
The Deep Blue Sea
The Kid with a Bike
Once Upon A Time in Anatolia
All these films are from 2011, so those, along with:
The Tree of Life
The Artist
Hugo
A Separation
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
The Skin I Live In
Melancholia
The Intouchables
Le Havre
We Need to Talk About Kevin
Shame
Bullhead
… make 2011 the real banner year for cinematic excellence.
(My favorites are The Tree of Life and The Kid with a Bike)
^Well, touche!
Really, though, 1976 was a strong year at the top (for Oscar-friendly films, at least), and that’s all I wanted to say.
I swear, you couldn’t any more pseudo-intellectual by citing that film.
They could manage it by labeling others as pseudo-intellectuals based purely on their preferring one film over another.
@Sam Juliano
I’m sorry, you really think THE DEEP BLUE SEA is a better film than CARRIE? On any level? I do love Rachel Weisz, but not in this. I swear, you couldn’t any more pseudo-intellectual by citing that film. I don’t mean to be catty, but this is the kind of mentality that becomes irrelevant this kind of year. Every year there are Oscar snubs, both mainstream and unconventional. But you have to recognize a year like 1976 where 4 of the 5 Best Pictures were utterly brilliant, thrilling, or both.
And Rocky is a better film than Django.
“30 years later people will remember that Argo won Best Picture.”
And that’s the ONLY way they’ll remember Argo. If it does not win Best Picture it will evaporate from memory, unlike at least five of the other nominees. Argo needs this win desperately, unlike Lincoln, Amour, Life of Pi, Zero Dark Thirty and Beasts of the Southern Wild, whose acclaim and accomplishments already have a much firmer foundation in film history.
Even now, when you mention of 1971, you think first of A Clockwork Orange, The Last Picture Show, and McCabe & Mrs Miller (which wasn’t even nominated). The French Connection HAD to win the Oscar to even stay on the radar.
Without a corresponding BD nom, it’s no surprise that WB is throwing everything it can at this campaign. If Argo doesn’t win BP (and it doesn’t have a lot of options in other categories), it’ll be remembered in the next decade as “oh yeah – that thriller where Hollywood saved hostages, yeah, that was OK”
– pfffft! gone
30 years later people will remember that Argo won Best Picture. They don’t remember the other nominees in the same way. Extra 10M at this point is worthy for the studio to get prestige. Surely WB has spent so much more already, why stop now, to secure the win?
I read Pierre’s link. For lack of a better word, that’s retarded.
I really don’t think an Oscar is worth all that. Especially in the case of ARGO. Everyone knows about it already. Most people have seen it. It’s coming out on video next week. Lots of people have probably already voted. It’s just throwing money away.
To think of how much ten million dollars might mean to the peoples of the Congo. I mean how many chocolate bars is that anyway?
Just read your link Pierre. Truly reprehensible, even if we know it always comes down to this.
A reported $10 million is being spent to promote the Oscar wins of both Argo and Lincoln. This is unprecedented. Here’s an interesting tidbit in the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-wb-takes-a-primetime-half-hour-to-promote-ben-afflecks-argo-20130213,0,6812757.story
Sammy, looks like my namesake is talking gibberish here. Just kidding, I have no problem with you at all and have appreciated many of your comments, but must say ‘au contraire’ on Spielberg’s direction of LINCOLN. With Day-Lewis’s towering performance and Tony Kushner’s utterly brilliant script, Spielberg’s superlative direction has helped to make LINCOLN one of 2012’s greatest cinematic achievements. Sorry to hear you and your friends had issue with something I thought was irrefutable.
I’m with Pierre on his response to “Oh Really” and “watermelons” and his typically astute assessment of the situation!
And “Oh Really” I hate to burst your bubble, but 1976 (as well as 77 and 78) were the worst years of the 1970’s, a fact that was almost unanimously agreed upon during my own site’s close examination of that year just two weeks ago.
You ask what was so great in 2012?
How about these?
The Turin Horse
Oslo, August 31st
Lincoln
Les Miserables
The Life of Pi
Monsieur Lazhar
Zero Dark Thirty
Amour
The Deep Blue Sea
Django Unchained
Holy Motors
The Impossible
The Kid with a Bike
Mea Maxima Culpa
The Central Park Five
Once Upon A Time in Anatolia
and for most:
The Master
Argo
Silver Linings Playbook
Tabu
As far as 1976, you are really stretching it to include the likes of CARRIE, OUTLAW JOSIE WALES and BOUND FOR GLORY, not to mention ROCKY, one of the Academy’s most laughable Best Picture choices. I’ll give you ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN, yes.
But in your examination of 1976 you don’t even have the foreign film treasures called right, when you note the overrated Wertmuller film SEVEN BEAUTIES.
The best foreign language films of that year are:
The Ascent (Shepitko)
Duelle (Rivette)
L’Innocente (Visconti)
Ai No Corrida (Oshima)
Sebastiane (Jarmen)
Face to Face (Bergman)
On balance 2012 > 1976.
“Oh Really” said: Where are all these “great” films from 2012?
“Watermelons” said: Maybe they’re outside the narrow genre boundaries outlined in your post.
May I also point out, Watermelons, that Oh Really’s examples didn’t include anyfilms featuring Kate Winslet (Enigma, A Kid in King Arthur’s Court)?
@Ryan – I am in Europe.
ah, thanks Sammy. I’m not thinking clearly today.
Today I watched the movie Lincoln again with my friends. Good material but Spielberg’s direction just killed that movie. How did he get that best director nod? – amazing! It is simply not FLOWING unlike Argo, The Artist, Slumdog Millonaire etc. Also I did not like the ensemble acting at all. It has many copy-paste scenes with no directorial effort.
Daniel Day Lewis – He is good but not at the level of the role Daniel Plainview. Spielberg’s dull direction sort of limited his acting.
Lincoln has no chance against a film like Argo. I am not saying Argo is a masterpiece but at least it flows and direction is much better.
Today I watched the movie Lincoln again with my friends.
yeesh, what time of the morning do theaters open up in your town?
Where did those 20 voter results posted by David come from? Nothing on that website. Just trying to wind up some folks I think.
phantom, I agree with your scenarios. While the oscars are getting closer, I don’t see a split. I would switch Lincoln for a Pi win although I’d be happy for either.
@Tero That’s true about Woody Allen. lol Funny how that turned out.
Right Bryron, should we all abandon our leftist politics and join with the right wing, Tea Party advocates now that you have expressed your lethargy?
You are in the wrong place buddy!
At least we agree that ZERO DARK THIRTY is a great film. But your reasons expressed in the last two sentences are off the mark. People just prefer ARGO, LINCOLN, THE LIFE OF PIE, and perhaps LES MISERABLES.
I really don’t think academy voters are embracing Argo to show pity for Ben Affleck. I think they decided to vote for it long ago because it makes the film industry look noble. (Isn’t that an oxymoron?) At any rate, even this long-time Oscar observer and supporter has become more than jaded with the film industry as a whole. I’m tired of the violent crap Hollywood is producing week after week. And I’m tired of the film industry’s leftist/pro-Democrat bias and their lock-step support of Captain Cool in the White House. Zero Dark Thirty is the best film of the year but the academy’s political commisars of the left have deemed it counter-revolutionary and academy voters will obey the party line.
I am STILL not sold on Argo winning Best Picture. If the Academy didn’t opt for a BP/BD split in the last two years when there were Scorsese/Hazanavicius and Fincher/Hooper battles, I honestly don’t see how everyone can be so sure one will occur this year. OK, I DO see, I DO know Argo has pulled off a clean sweep so far, but still, I think whoever wins BD will win BP, as well…and in my opinion IN THIS ORDER that’s how it could play out :
1. Steven Spielberg (+Picture, Adapted Screenplay, Actor, S. Actor, Score, Editing)
2. Ang Lee (+Picture, Score, Cinematography, Visual Effects, Sound, Sound Editing)
3. Michael Haneke (+ ALL four : Picture, FL Film, Actress, Original Screenplay)
4. David O. Russell (+ Picture, Actress, S. Actor, Adapted Screenplay)
I would love Lincoln, I would like Life of Pi, I would be pleased for Amour and…nope, that’s about it if I want end this on a positive note.
P.S. Sure there is that 1% scenario, the RIDICULOUSLY unlikely, best kept Hollywood secret of all time, super secretive write in campaign which would SOMEHOW result Ben Affleck winning Best Director and then Best Picture. I know it sounds impossible, mainly because it IS, but then again, looking back at what the seemingly uberpowerful Clooney-Affleck duo could pull off in the last few weeks, I would be only surprised, not shocked if somehow they could pull this off, too. I would have probably considered the PGA-DGA-SAG Ensemble trio ‘impossible’, too, but they managed to win those, as well.
Try that again, The Buddy System
This whole article reminded me of another great musical: City of Angels and the movie moguls song, The Buddy System.
In a year that is considered crowded with so many good films, if SLP, wins picture or director what does this say about the academy? Politics, money, Harvey, wishy washy etc. I can not see SLP hold up over time at all. The others I can see as becoming classics.
David, thanks for the info. [two comments up give or take]
—
I personally don’t believe it meant anything in particular. Twenty voters are too few to represent mathematically the entire universe of the Academy.
That said, and temporarily to act […] like a cat, I am curious to know who those twenty people are. Because, apparently, they may be friends with similar taste. [I love SLP. But the score-deviation is too high in its favor; the sample group here surely represents SLP as an OBVIOUS front-runner — WHILE IN REALITY it is not.]
^haha.
SLP Fan Club – The Academy Edition.
This is getting unnecessary. Rope of Silicon asked 20 members of the academy.
1st: Silver Linings Playbook – 12
2nd: Argo – 4
3rd: Life of Pi 2
4th: Beasts of the Southern Wild, Amour – 1, 1
Best Director:
1st: Russell – 16
2nd: Lee, Spielberg – 2, 2
Best Actress:
1st: Lawrence – 11
2nd: Watts – 4
3rd: Riva 3
4th: Chastain, Wallis – 1, 1
Best Actor:
1st: Day-Lewis, Cooper, 8, 8,
2nd: Phoenix – 2
3rd: Washingon, Jackman – 1, 1
Best Supporting Actress:
1st: Weaver – 8
2nd: Hathaway, Field – 7
3rd: Adams – 3
4th: Hunt – 2
Best Adapted Screenplay:
1st: Silver Linings Playbook – 15
2nd: Argo – 4
3rd: Beasts of the Southern Wild- 1
Best Original Screenplay:
1st: Django Unchained – 15
2nd: Zero Dark Thirty – 3
3rd: Moonrise Kingdom – 2
It was a great moment with Woody and NYC. Today it feels like he should have said: “Please, come to New York to shoot your films. It’s a beautiful city. Come to New York, because I have to make my films in Europe from now on”.
I didn’t like Prometheus either; I did, however, think it had an interesting concept, but executed it poorly. TDKR I liked very much, though, it’s in my top 10 of the year.
Did you happen to notice this line, on the very page you sent me to and written by the very person who posted the video? “New films, old films, classic films, beloved films… no movie is without sin!” Need I elaborate? Or is my point pretty much clear by now?…
“Maybe you can forgive those sins… I can forgive some, but most of them, NOT.” Obviously, I can and so can many, many others.
“I know I may be in the minority, but majority isn’t always right you know…” Believe me, I’m all for that. But the majority isn’t always WRONG either. Don’t persecute the majority! (I’m not even joking, a lot of people do that these days when it comes to opinions about art…)
“just for the mere shock value.” – That’s your opinion. I didn’t think that was the reason at all. Do you have any proof of this claim? Or at least some valid argument?
“And in TDKR, I must add, I consider it a fascist, dangerous film, fully backing up the “antisystem = terrorist” equation, by puerile manipulation.” – see above. It’s called an opinion and it’s not in any way equivalent to the truth. If I consider No Country for Old Men or Pulp Fiction, for example, dangerous films (arguments can easily be made) does that mean that they are?
“By the way, I’m not native English-speaker, probably my name wasn’t hint enough.” I don’t understand how you could possibly think I didn’t get that… And, by the way, I myself am nowhere near any English-speaking countries. I’m born and raised in Romania.
[For the time being I still haven’t read other watchers’ comments – in case I am being redundant. But this is the original me.]
—
—
(“)Should AMPAS go back to 5 Best Picture Nominees?
No, please.
With preferential votes/ballots, at least technically one can be certain that up to 10 Best Picture nominees fall into a more or less sensibly acceptable range. And remember, despite more than 5 pictures […], people, understandably, still kept saying (asking/whining) why their favorites have been “snubbed”.
However, AMPAS, if they’d like, depending upon how they see the so-called overall quality during a given year — as they have done to certain categories in certain years – could “go back” to Five Best *CASE-BY-CASE*.
[Imagine a year like this to have come in future – how MANY other films than the first five for which you would have felt bad?]
—
Do the right thing, (please,) AMPAS.
Where are all these “great” films from 2012?
Maybe they’re outside the narrow genre boundaries outlined in your post.
At this point it certainly seems the Academy may consider tinkering with its awards process. We won’t really know, however, until after the awards are handed out. Is it the timing of the nominations vis a vis the guilds and other institutions? Is it the best picture category having 5 to 10 slots but director only 5? Or is it the preferential ballot?
Although I wasn’t crazy about the switch to more than 5 best picture nominees, I’m not sure that’s a problem. Nor do I think that preferential voting is a necessarily bad idea.
I do suspect, though, that things might work better if there were a stable number of potential best picture nominees — plus a corresponding number of best director nominees.
Certainly social media has heated up the intensity of campaigning, which always might get out of hand from time to time. Let’s face it: the proliferation of electronic media in recent years has changed our world in every way imaginable — and there’s not a lot we can do about it.
What I’d like to do is blame it all on Harvey.
“It just sucks because 2012 was such a quality year”
Better than 1976? Really?
Did 2012 produce a horror film more powerful than “Carrie”?
Did 2012 produce a western better than “The Outlaw Josey Wales”?
Did 2012 produce an audience picture more uplifting than “Rocky”?
A truly frightening urban isolation thriller such as “Taxi Driver”–did 2012 have one of those?
What about a musical biopic the calibre of “Bound for Glory”?
Films about the media–“Network”, “All The President’s Men”–any truly great ones of this sort from 2012?
Does Italy still make films such as “Seven Beauties” (the year’s Oscar winner for Best Foreign Language film) and “1900” (both from 1976)?
Where are all these “great” films from 2012?
After watching both Argo and Lincoln during the Chinese New Year vacation, between the two, I actually enjoyed the more serious Lincoln much more. To me, Argo is a good movie, but not a great one. It is very Hollywood. Perhaps the subject itelf does not interest me. It happened in the early 80, and most people in Taiwan have not suffered this political hostage situation as those in USA, therefore cannot relate to the subject of hostage in the foreign country. Instead, Lincoln’s subject actually strikes more universally here.
Then I realize that Oscar or many critics awards are very much in USA or English speaking country like UK, Australia. Argo’s subject should have a better appeal there.
Still, wish every film wins whatever awards they deserve.
@Zach
I too thought that SLP “voter” you mention had to be closely associated with or in SLP as well–I even mentioned that in the thread which contained the comment about the LA Times report–not that I expect anyone to remember my note somehow…..
I don’t believe Woody Allen was “selling out” by making an appearance at the Oscars. He didn’t have a film up at the time and he was asked to promote and do a tribute to NYC.
I remember him saying he thought there were other directors that were worthier to make a tribute to NYC (naming Scorsese and Spike Lee). However, he did it because it was a special time after 9/11.
It’s telling that after his one and only appearance at the Oscars, he stayed true to his person principles and never attended one again (even when he was nominated/won or had actresses nominated/win since then).
Sasha–
Allen brought a lawsuit against his producer (Doumanian) but that was in early 2001…it settled in late 2002. I don’t see how that impacted his decision to do the Oscars. I remember it being about celebrating NYC post-9/11…
I don’t remember reading about any link…but then my memory’s never been that amazing.
“Sorry I was blogging then and I distinctly remember it being about money and funding. He was being sued I think at that time…right?”
Really?
Sigh…
You still don’t understand the criticism of ZD30 and never will. Of all the people writing about film, I would have expected you to get it.
the entertainment press has covered itself in shame over ZD30, but they cover themselves with shame daily, and that’s way down the fixit list.
I agree with just about everything you said, Sasha.
You seem to be grasping at why this voting process has become so vanilla – social media, lack of criticism, more than 5 Best Picture nominees – but I’m not so sure about the last one.
If there is one year in which Best Picture and Best Director should not line up, I think this year is a fair choice. I can completely see why someone would pick Lincoln as Best Picture and ANG LEE as Best Director. Argo just isn’t strong enough to contend with either of those two films, and several others not in the Best Picture/Director discussion. Argo better than Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained, or Beasts of the Southern Wild? Yeah, right.
In the end, Argo will fall in amongst the likes of Rocky, Ghandi, Going My Way, You Can’t Take it With You, and Gladiator, among others, as solid movies that aren’t nearly as good as their competition those years. It just sucks because 2012 was such a quality year, better than even those other years (1976, 1982, 1944, 1938, and 2000).
But no, those polls always have outliers, even in sure-thing categories like DDL this year.
@Natasha
I NEVER give much credence to those random polls they do every year. But I do find them fascinating. The one in the LA Times the other day that just gave everything to SLP was ridiculous, though. She couldn’t even justify Jacki Weaver. Seriously I think she had to be in the film.
@Robert A.
Good heavens–Do these publications (EW today and a Los Angeles Times article that included 3 Oscar voters a few days ago) go after outliers on purpose? Watts with three votes and the other two votes for Best Actress split? 2 for Helen Hunt versus the three for Hathaway? If anything–both publications seem to indicate that DeNiro is getting quite a bit of support. The closest thing to a sure thing is DDL for actor, and even the Los Angeles times showed us some outliers on that….so will there be surprises….or not? I wish there were a lot more of these reports on actual Oscar voters though I’m not discrediting the pundits. For some reason I’m thinking despite that chart near the top that Lincoln isn’t even a solid number two. So it may or may not be Argo, but even if it isn’t…..it isn’t Lincoln, either.
At least I’m just intrigued and not invested emotionally so much in this year’s proceedings.
That was the 2009 year when Kate Winslet received a SAG Best Actress nomination for Revolutionary Road, but ended up winning for The Reader for the Best Actress Oscar. But, she was also nominated for The Reader in the Supporting category for a SAG.
That was an amazing time for Oscar-winner Kate “The GREAT” Winslet (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Titanic) and I am glad you brought it up so I can relive the memories!
Someone can correct me, and on this site, I expect them to.
I’m not sure when the SAG began giving out awards, but I researched back to 1995. From what I read, only once has the Best Actress Oscar winner not received a Best Actress SAG nomination for the same film. That was the 2009 year when Kate Winslet received a SAG Best Actress nomination for Revolutionary Road, but ended up winning for The Reader for the Best Actress Oscar. But, she was also nominated for The Reader in the Supporting category for a SAG.
That’s sort of an oddity anyway since due to the placement of Winslet’s categories. So if you exclude that mishap, then it’s never happened.
Riva did not receive a SAG nomination this year. Does that hurt her chances of this supposed upset that some people are speculating will happen? Looks like the odds are stacked against her.
Cotillard’s upset came late when she took the BAFTA over Christie. But she also had a SAG nomination.
I agree with you totally on the Argo being not the best but in a year where Silver Linings is waiting in the wings…..I’d rather have ARGO….I also disagree with Alonso…..Crouching Tiger was a MASTERPIECE! granted Hulk was a flop at least Ang Lee was open to experiment….the other director I worship is Ridley Scott (although I haven’t seen Prometheus) Whilst I agree that the top three films should read Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty, Life of Pi in any order….In an objective reality any of those should be best picture…..
I still could not forgive Weinstein for inflicting The English Patient, the Artist on us although Shakespeare in Love was much preferred to the odious Saving Private Ryan (the story was FLAWED)
just my two cents.
I was one of those people seriously opposed to increasing the number of nominees for Best Picture from 5 to 10.
I like it more now that it’s now a range from 5-10 although having 9 movies nominated makes it seem like they could have just let one more in.
However, now I see Best Picture as less of the best movies of the year (the top of the top) and instead is now more of a look at what the year had to offer in films. I think this is a good thing because different people will disagree on what the top five films are, and when we have distinct “genre” films, well-done Hollywood or even foreign productions, smaller indie and foreign films out there, it’s good to showcase the diversity of film in the Best Picture category. Also, I think 2010 really showed that some times increasing the number of nominees do make sense.
I know Best Picture is supposed to be Best Picture, but seeing how everyone disagrees on what the Best Picture truly is or what should make up the top five (it was rare to have all the BP nominees align with the Best Director category, for example), I think having the possibility of 10 (if the year calls for it) is appropriate.
Of course we’ll have some years where we have a Blind Side or an Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, but it’s not as if we haven’t had some clunkers in the Best Picture category when it was only five nominees.
I think that they should increase the categories to 5-10 just like what they did for picture. Going back to 5 would once again limit smaller films to get in. Now they can include Afleck and Bigelow with the other five.
For Valentine’s Day I watched Annie Hall.
Nerd. 🙂
I’m seriously going with LIFE OF PI for BP and BD. It’s just sitting back being quiet while everyone else is fighting it out and people really like it. The voters have had enough time to just sit with their screeners and watch the nine films and let it sit. And I think it’s the type of movie to have lots of number 1s. All the pundits have forgotten about it because it didn’t make any noise. I’m going with a NG, NG for my actual pick this time.
Woody Allen came to the Oscars that year to show his support for attracting filmmakers to go to New York to make their films after 9-11. It was a wonderful invitation to do business in a city that had suffered so greatly.
He was also a breath of fresh air on that Oscar telecast. I remember he was very funny, extremely articulate, unassuming, and totally passionate about film and New York. He made fun of himself, a tue comic at heart. It was one of the Oscar highlights of the last 20 years.
Do I really neet to head you up to the (in)famous videos of “Everything Wrong with ….. in 3 minutes”
The Prometheus video essay is embarrassing in its humor and illiterate in its film criticism. That’s everything wrong with that video in one sentence.
time-space manipulation
I have some terrible news for you about filmmaking.
The official reason he was there was to pay tribute to New York after 9/11 and introduce the montage. The financial/publicity motives i did not pick up on, but I may be wrong. I’m sure there must have been something underneath.
The Argo fans can always say what the want. But we’ve never had a year like this one, where the bloggers and close followers of the race predominantly predicted Lincoln after seeing the films. Then everyone predicted Lincoln after the nominations. Then Argo swept every major guild and televised award show. Even without much below-the-line support. It’s unprecedented. The only times in modern history a film has ever swept the precursors, (1) it had a Director nomination, and (2) it was the film we all knew was going to win from day one anyway (Slumdog, ROTK).
Logic errors or no (and I thought there were several as I was watching it – not off of some dumb site that tries to find everything), I’d rater watch TDKR any day of the week over The Avengers.
Do I really neet to head you up to the (in)famous videos of “Everything Wrong with ….. in 3 minutes” There are two really nice additions over Prometheus and The Dark Knight Rises, but thank you, I noticed 90% of those embarrassing points on the first viewings of both films.
They’re really stupid films, I must say. I am not surprised by the high % of positive reviews, coming from the corporations they’re coming, you know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BWnTW4rL0U
that’s the Prometheus one…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2tE-BCwZtw
… and that’s The Dark Knight Rises.
Maybe you can forgive those sins… I can forgive some, but most of them, NOT. Specially when they underestimate the intelligence of the audience by cheating, time-space manipulation and full-blown contradictions just for the mere shock value.
And in TDKR, I must add, I consider it a fascist, dangerous film, fully backing up the “antisystem = terrorist” equation, by puerile manipulation.
I know I may be in the minority, but majority isn’t always right you know… “1 million flies can’t be mistaken”.
By the way, I’m not native english-speaker, probably my name wasn’t hint enough.
I take offense!
Jesus Alonso: ““The Dark Knight Rises” […] embarrassing for ANY intelligent viewer, on all levels […] This is NOT open to discussion”
It has scores of 78% on Metacritic and 87% on Rotten Tomatoes. So what you’re saying is the critics on those sites are roughly 80% morons. Do you even realize how much more likely it is that YOU’RE actually the one who’s not intelligent enough?… The obvious narrow-mindedness you display in that last sentence should, upon further analysis, be your first big clue; that is, if you’re not, in fact, too dumb to even read the signs.
How nice it must be to have so much confidence, though… You MUST teach me how to be like that some day! But no, wait, then I might also become an arrogant prick that has no idea what he’s talking about – no, thanks!
P.S.: Please take some spelling lessons or, alternatively, try to express your opinions in a language you can actually correctly write in from now on. OR you might try not calling people idiots for liking a film in the future. It’s your call, dude! Think about it!
Sasha- It was a tribute to New York in the first Oscar after 9/11.
“Similarly, the CIA is portrayed as aw shucks nice guys just doing a good deed. ”
Another reason to dislike Hollywood- this would NEVER happen if there was a Republican in power, even if it was a good president.
Of course, I know these days a good Republican president isn’t a lot less unlikely than a year in which Harvey Weinstein doesn’t have a horse in the race, but my point still stands.
Woody Allen went to the Oscars right after 9/11 to show his support for NYC and introduce a montage of famous NYC movies.
“Woody Allen went because they were having a tribute to NY in film.”
It was more than just that.
It was the post-9/11 ceremony and he was there to introduce a film about NYC–his city.
Sorry I was blogging then and I distinctly remember it being about money and funding. He was being sued I think at that time…right?
“Woody Allen went because they were having a tribute to NY in film.”
It was more than just that.
It was the post-9/11 ceremony and he was there to introduce a film about NYC–his city.
In case people haven’t heard yet, EW came out with its Oscar predictions. Here’s how they’re predicting the major awards.
BP: Argo at 20%, followed by Lincoln at 16% and SLP at 15%.
Best Actress: Lawrence at 30%, followed by Riva and Chastain at 25%.
Best Actor: DDL at a 60% cakewalk.
Best Supporting Actor: De Niro at 31%, followed by TLJ at 30% and PSH at 20%.
Best Supporting Actress: Hathaway at 40%, followed by Field at 35%.
Best Director: Spielberg at 27%, followed by Ang Lee at 25%, O. Russell 22%, Haneke at 21%, and Zeitlin at 5%.
Original Screenplay: Amour
Adapted Screenplay: Lincoln
They also polled five Oscar voters with the following results:
BP: Argo 2, SLP 1, Life of Pi 1, Beasts 1.
Director: Ang Lee 3, Spielberg 1, O. Russell 1.
Actor: DDL 4, Cooper 1.
Actress: Watts 3, Lawrence 1, Wallis 1.
Supporting Actor: De Niro 2, TLJ 1, Hoffman 1, Waltz 1.
Supporting Actress: Hathaway 3, Hunt 2.
Obviously, take these with a huge grain of salt.
I remember the headlines made about snubbing Beresford for director, and then adding insult to that injury, they rewarded his movie Best Picture! “Driving Miss Daisy – the movie that apparently directed itself” or words to that effect. Well AMPAS collectively will look as foolish as that year if they split the two big prizes. I think right now that they will, but either way the split goes (if it is a split) will look conspicuous.
“Argo, the best movie that apparently directed itself” or Ang Lee Best Director Oscar winner – but what did he direct?The traffic? Not the ‘best picture’ of the year if it goes to Argo or Lincoln in their eyes. However that anomaly occurred – and i believe it to be that, it will ricochet on for years to come. AMPAS has to be careful what it wishes for. It is wonderfully delicious that in the year they expanded Best Picture to 10 (ostensibly to appear more in touch with the public’s tastes and provide broader canvas for films to be recognised) the film that won had the least public awareness (box office wise) and managed to beat the giant 3D movie in so doing.
As an outsider, this all makes for the most exciting telecast to come, as if the Oscar night is a ‘horror’ film, and we think we know who is getting to get it in the end, but watching the unveiling of the ‘horrors’ is the fun part. I’d be just as happy for the killer to be Pi or Lincoln than Argo. Throw in a couple of red herrings on the night to throw us off the scent ala ‘Hugo’ and you’ve got a classic thriller.
@Sasha
Woody Allen went because they were having a tribute to NY in film.
By the way, I loved “The Player”, back then. It was so robbed of so many nominations…
What can I say? I feel really frustrated by this Oscar picks. I must say that lobbying is killing the fun, there were years where the 5 Oscar nominees had at least place in 4 of their picks, on my top 10, but now out of these 9, I’ve seen only 3 so far (had other priorities, and you know, I am not paid for this) and one of them is the Best Picture frontrunner… looking at my provisional top 10 of 2012 which is still way to go before being “solid”, the only film that seems pretty guaranteed to end in top 10 position is “Django Unchained”. “Silver Linings Playbook” is still barely in the top 10, due to fall out quite easily, and it is mostly because of the superb acting job rather than a story that falls at the third act into one of the biggest and worse Hollywood clichés… even thought that is probably the original book’s fault (I wish they dared to do a “The Mist” with it). “Argo”, is now at #15… And it’s not that my picks for the top 10 are actually obscure, cult choices (well, Nacho Vigalondo’s “Extraterrestrial” admitedly, is), but in some cases they have been heavily lobbied for some Oscar recognition (“The Impossible”, provisional #1). The Avengers (#2) rejected to play the BP game and still got a more than deserving VFX nom. “Cabin in the Woods” and “Looper” have been buzzed through 2012 as “deserving” of at least a Best Original Screenplay nom (failed, more undeservingly in the case of the horror clichés reimagination than in the much championed time-travel cheat game). “Skyfall” (#5) is one film that I feel embarrassed it didn’t achieve a Best Picture nomination, fueled by the Bond Anniversary and its undeniable high quality.
And worse of it all, it’s the year of horrid films with horrid screenplays but high profile concepts and directors and cast being championed for Best Picture… “The Dark Knight Rises” and “Prometheus” were embarrassing for ANY intelligent viewer, on all levels, and a high treason to the rich heritage of their own franchises. This is NOT open to discussion, specially since Resident Evil V was a better constructed, more honest, and with more clever ideas than any of those high profile blockbuster. Shame on the Nolans and Scott and his writers.
I have high hopes for Lincoln, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Amour. On a next level, I hope Life of Pi, doesn’t embarrass me (Ang Lee is great but I still remember Hulk and Crouching Tiger and Hidden Dragon which were both tremendous letdowns to me). I will go to Les Miserables and Zero Dark Thirty with an open mind, but also, I don’t get a right vibe from them, for different reasons (even thought I loved Hooper’s direction in The King’s Speech, but jumping to a musical?).
So, out of the nominees, that I am still to see, I’m pretty confident on Haneke’s to make the cut to a possible top 10 of the year, Lincoln has a really good chance given I’ve read it’s not the usual Spielberg, but a restrained one – I’m sold on that. And Beasts looks A-M-A-Z-I-N-G beforehand.
The rest… I just don’t know. I wish they HAD the guts to go for Avengers, Chronicle, Impossible, Skyfall or even The Campaign (which I loved, surprisingly) rathen than your usual Oscar fluff, specially Argo.
I think you’re not being fair to Woody Allen. We all know the reason he showed up, it had nothing to do with accepting any awards.
I think you’re not being fair to Woody Allen. We all know the reason he showed up, it had nothing to do with accepting any awards.
What was the reason? By the way, I love Woody and his movies.