In a recent Twitter debate — an never-ending Twitter debate it seems — Gregory Ellwood is nearly certain that Martin Scorsese’s Wolf of Wall Street won’t make the Best Picture. But preferential balloting helps a film get nominated – as in, passionate love for it almost equal to passionate hatred against it. When it comes time to pick a winner, however, polarizing films fall away and the bland middle often takes the prize.
In their latest Gurus of Gold chart, Wolf is on every list (also take note of Pete Hammond and Pete Howell picking American Hustle to win) but it’s low. We know because Steve Pond tells us that the preferential ballot for nominations is based on number one votes. That means, Wolf will need a goodly number of number ones to get in. I don’t see that as being a problem but perhaps I am blinded by love. To me, it’s the kind of movie people either love or they hate with no in between. This helps get it in but it means it can’t win.
Movies I can imagine a healthy number of people voting as their favorite movie of the year seem to fit all of those I have predicted for a nomination and that includes Wolf of Wall Street. But take heed of what the Hitfix guys are saying – that the movie has “repulsed” several Academy members (ya, pretty icky that 1% stuff) and even many a film critic, like David Denby, like Stephanie Zacharek, like Lou Loumenik – and even Deadline’s Anita Busch can’t stop ragging on the film. Passionate hate AND passionate love.
Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere agrees with me that it’s the year’s best film. In a year of great films overall, Wolf stands out as being one of the few with the thumbprint of genius. I don’t really need to go to the movies to find humanity, nor to have my morality aligned. I don’t need to have a movie think for me or to tell me that I should only see the good in people. What I do need a movie to do – tell a great story, even if makes me uncomfortable along the way. If I need an uplift I’ll throw on a Frank Capra movie and pretend life is really like that. Otherwise, let’s allow our artists the freedom to explore the full spectrum of the human experience, the good, the bad and the ugly of it. To me, Wolf of Wall Street is Scorsese’s Clockwork Orange. Can you imagine today’s audiences, Cinemascore and the like trying to absorb Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange? That movie is straight up satire, like Wolf of Wall Street. That movie had people — and still has people — making heroes of Alex and his gang of rapists. There have always been accusations of sexism in all of Kubrick’s work. Is that movie flat-out genius? YES. Does it tell the truth? YES. I would add David Fincher’s Fight Club and The Social Network to that list. Like Kurick, Fincher doesn’t need to hand-hold his audience through the morality. That isn’t his job as an artist. It wasn’t Kubrick’s and it isn’t Scorsese’s.
A Clockwork Orange was nominated for Picture, Director, Screenplay and Editing. But that was the 70s, yo.
Meanwhile, over at Gold Derby, they have Wolf predicted at number 5, with a potential Best Director nod for Scorsese.
I really could see it going either way. At this point my head is too full of subjective affection for the film and this director to give you a clear call about its Oscar prospects. So perhaps I am not the person to judge. Were it me, it would easily make the top five, with nods across the board. But I’m not an Oscar voter so who can say.
@Sammy. At this stage NGNG would be WOWS in, Butler out, no the other way around. Butler has all important SAG noms.
I feel sorry for Best Actor winner. DiCaprio’s performance here is the one for ages. It will inspire young people to pursue acting, and actors to make bold choices. It’ll be referenced and quoted. And when we look back we’ll see it and not whoever won Best Actor. This year had some very fine performances by very fine actors who are either beloved veterans or character actors finally getting bigger exposure or Matthew Maconaughay who turned his career around. But none of them has that legendary, iconic, balls-to-the-walls star turn that is Wolf of Wall Street. It’s one of those things that happen all the time with awards – the most deserving is left out but stands the test of time and is remembered as actual best of the year when he/she didn’t win or wasn’t even nominated. Sometimes losing is winning and winning is losing. This one is a winner of history.
NGNG – Wolf will be out and The Butler will be in…
Just left The Wolf of Wall Street about two hours ago. It was absolutely amazing! I must admit that I was worried about the long running time. I’m usually one to check my watch a half dozen times during any movie (at least a dozen times for Captain Phillips) but I was enthralled during every frame. The showing was sold out too, which I thought was pretty impressive for Huntsville, Alabama. The movie was hilarious. The entire theater erupted into laughter at least ten times. Leo should win every award they can give him for his performance. I thought he was just that good. I’ve got to agree with Sasha and say it was my favorite movie of the year, with Gravity at #2.
Just got back from seeing it.
Masterpiece.
From Leo to every supporting actor, bit part…..brilliant. It moved like a runaway train about to crash, yet somehow keeps going.
Those complaining about no ‘moral’ center are making a moot argument.
Its about vulgar, amoral people. And what I loved was that just when you thought it was going to into redemption mode and settle down, the train just keeps going down its twisted rails.
And Leo finally showed to me, what Scorsese must have been seeing all these years. I’ve been one of Leo’s biggest critics – ‘boy playing dress up’, ‘not enough authority’ etc…
This is Leo’s balls-out coming of age as an actor. He was a living, breathing thing, inhabiting all of the character’s crazy delusions.
And on down, Hill, McM, Reiner….the supporting cast of cohorts….
Scorsese has been flat to me ever since ….whenever. I was never a big fan of Goodfellas because it seemed like an attempt to recapture something from his glory years. Forced. And then came Gangs, Aviator, Casino etc….
This is the most disturbed, addled Scorsese film since The King of Comedy.
I came of the theater on such a high that I needed to come down by watching Lifetime. It was that much of a ride. It was downright visceral.
Leo deserves a nomination and won’t get it. Ill be fine with that, but this movie to me is my Lincoln of this year: it has the balls to be what its supposed to be, and people will either get it or not.
Just saw it with a large packed theater in NY. Lots of bathroom breaks from peeps. But only one older couple got up and left half way through.
Theater had lots of older folks in it. Tons of laughter throughout. Biggest overall responses were the bedroom water-splashing fight scene, The FBI on the boat scene, the lemmon quaalude sequence, and Jordan hitting Naomi/Skylar in car scene (lots of concerned “ooohs!”).
Also, people clapped when the FBI busted in.
Overall, I FELT the length in the final half hour, but was never bored. Overall, an excellent film. Leo was amazingly good. Really should get a nom. I haaaaaaated the Jonah Hill character, which means Jonah Hill did a great job. Love the actress playing Naomi. Pheww, what a hottie.
I think this film will stand the test of time and may even squeak out a few noms (maybe BP). But it prob wont win anything. Too divisive.
I saw the movie today. What can I say? I believe that it took me couple of hours of processing the film and the feelings that it left me with to accurately portray my thoughts on the film. The Wolf of Wall Street is brilliant piece of film-making that demands more than one viewing to fully appreciate its worth. Even though, on the surface, it shares tone and style with GoodFellas and Casino, I feel that it is much closer to Taxi Driver and Raging Bull in terms of the feelings that it leaves you with after you see it.
It’s a very courageous movie which tries to portray the dark nature in all of us. All the debauchery, obscene behavior and excess are products of what hunger and greed can do to someone.
Jordan Belfort is ultimately a tragic character because he is fueled by his ambition to succeed at all costs. You see, he was poor and he never wanted to be poor again. Furthermore, he had a real TALENT – that he was a great SALESMAN. So like any person with a real talent, he wanted to pursue the American Dream. Actually, after listening to an interview with Jordan Belfort himself, he states that after all these years he realizes that while Greed is bad, Ambition is good.
What is wrong with someone that wants to push the envelope and his ability to SELL ANYTHING in order to put meat on the table? Everybody does it. Everybody pushes and everyone is driven by ambition in order to succeed. The problem with Belfort is that he never knew when to quit and when to stop. But to say, that he is ultimately a douchebag and a terrible person is actually not getting him at all. Because at the end of the day, everyone strives to be rich and everyone wants to be successful in life. The question is not whether that is good or bad, but to ask what would someone be willing to sacrifice in order to get there? To cheat the system, to do so illegally, to rob people blind with no regard or moral compass, or to do so legally and morally and end up riding to work every day on the subway?
It’s amazing because, the FBI agent although proud of his actions, ends up doing the exact same thing. The Wolf of Wall Street is a film that is one of those dark masterpieces that truly shows its relevance to today’s society while at the same leaving with a disturbing aftertaste while doing it in an extremely “Fun” and exciting way. It is a dark comedy but there are some scenes which are meant to disturb you because it portrays what this guy became when he truly WENT all the way to the dark side fueled by his ambition, but more so by his GREED (i.e the excess over the top ambition) to succeed at all costs.
The performances were amazing. I saw this with my wife who is NOT a DiCaprio fan and even she left the movie theater impressed with his performance. Leo was amazing. The best compliment that I could give him is that he played the character with so much ferocity that he basically BECAME the character. At one point, although I really wanted to dig his personality (the cool clothes, the sunglasses, the charisma) there were times where I felt anger and pity towards him. The epic LEMMON 714 scene was hilarious but also very powerful. His interchange with Jonah Hill was fantastic. Dujardin impressed me as well – playing this sleazy Swiss banker. The nudity and graphic nature of sex didn’t bother me at all. At the end, the movie also leaves you with this feeling of not trusting anyone in business even if they are your best friends.
Anyway, long story short, this film is great American Film that explores the dark side of human nature while at the same time questioning the morality of Ambition (Virtue) and Greed (Vice). It is a fine line between the two and it just so happened that Mr. Belfort crossed it. What would you do?
Rating: 5/5
Maybe it’s me, but I felt like the perceived over length was part of the point. Say it “celebrated” excess all you want; as hilarious as it is, by the third act it gets extremely uncomfortable to watch. But, even then, it didn’t bother me. DiCaprio deserves a nod for that country club scene alone – what an inspired piece of physical comedy.
Either way, I can’t put it in A Clockwork Orange’s class yet, but the more time that passes since I saw it, the more I reflect on it and realize how much I loved it. It’s gone from being a highly entertaining satire to a truly great piece of dark comedy.
The last film I saw that was truly depraved was Caligula (1980), just a horrific mess of a film — The Wolf of Wall Street might explore depravity, and materialistic thinking, and an obsession with money, drugs and sex, as well as toys such as jets and yachts but it is never depraved — it might explore depravity as I have said, and it does so brilliantly, but is never offensive unless you are fifteen or under — one of the finest black comedies ever made — if the Academy fails to nominated the film, actors and director it is just another reason they need to handle who nominates what in a different manner — from A Clockwork Orange (1971) through to The Passion of the Christ (2004) and The Dark Knight (2008), the Academy has failed to many great films — to fail Scorsese and this masterpiece is very nearly criminal. How can people who are suppposed to know film, fail this film and these artists so entirely??? By far the years best film….
I wasn’t offended by Wolf. It’s about what it’s about. But I was bored by it. The country club quaalude scene was unbelievably inspired, as was the Kyle Chandler/Leo yacht conversation. Beyond those scenes, though, the whole thing felt a bit obvious to me. It skates across the surface of the whole huge story without ever convincing me the writer or director had really settled on their point of view. Clockwork Orange was and is a shocking movie. But Wolf never really seemed to come out as making any statement. About evil, the banality of evil, corruption, greed, addiction…any of it. To me, it just drove forward with a lack of real intent and WAY too much voiceover. I’m surprised by the passion for OR against the movie. I just found it pretty…blah.
The Wolf is long and disgusting? That makes me wanna see it more than ever. Well that, and knowing already that it was created by an artist of the first rank.
I’m afraid I was completely on the side of Hope Holiday, the “For Shame!” accuser that Steve Pond turned into a meg-celebrity.
A name! Thanks, Stephen.
Yes, Hope Holiday, poster girl for the non-objectification of women in film, as indicated by this still from one of her films. (if the link works)
http://arizonaslittlehollywood.blogspot.ca/2011/06/sue-ane-langdon-exposes-rounders.html
It’ll get in. It won’t win, though, of course.
I hate the preferrential balloting. A vote should count as a vote. Period. The stupid weighted Electoral College is the major reason we had to suffer through 8 years of Georgie Bush (yeah and the corrupt Florida system). It’s a stupid system, but, that’s how it is.
I think WOLF squeezes in based on raw emotion from those that love it. But, a film that got a “low C” on Cinemascore, has had numerous reports of walk-outs, AND, has now sunk to a mediocre 68 on the Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics scale, has little shot of winning many if any Oscars.
Not on my Year’s Ten Best List. I agree with Neal’s comment above^. The repetition, the ENDLESS repetition of Leo’s FIVE lonnnnng speeches to the assembled masses…So many offensive sexist scenes. Talk about the objectification of women! The women do VERY badly in the movie. No compassion anywhere, I thought. While there are some brilliant set pieces(the quaalude scene)…it just made me angry that these superemely talented people made a film that VIOLENTLY needed to be edited.
I can see it maybe flying with the techies, the below-the-line people, but the fussy actors and especially ALL THE ACTRESSES in the Actor’s Branch are not nominating this.
I’m afraid I was completely on the side of Hope Holiday, the “For Shame!” accuser that Steve Pond turned into a meg-celebrity.
Sooo disappointing…but I can see the Academy shutting out both Marty and Leo, BUT it still gets a BP nomination in a field of ten.
The repetition, the ENDLESS repetition of Leo’s FIVE lonnnnng speeches to the assembled masses…
If you listened to the speeches instead of looking at your watch and wondering how long before you could go pee, you would have heard that the speeches were the opposite of repetitive — the way the content of those speeches serves as the testimony that documents the evolution of corruption.
especially ALL THE ACTRESSES in the Actor’s Branch are not nominating this.
DONT YOU MEAN ALL THE ACTRESSES. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM, NONE OF THEM IN A ZILLION YEARS!
“Because ALL ACTRESSES THINK ALIKE!! I SWEAR TO YOU AS A GAY MAN I KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE OF ALL WOMEN. and it’s not the least bit sexist or offensive to dump ALL WOMEN into the same lifeboat with their complicated brassieres and twisted pantyhose and girdles and whatnot.”
right Stephen?
it just made me angry that these superemely talented people made a film that VIOLENTLY needed to be edited.
To be crystal clear, when people like this say a movie needs to edited, they think “editing a movie” means “making it shorter”
That’s all a movie editor does, really, right? Just keep cutting stuff out till it’s 2 hours long.
I have been reading this site for years and I feel as if Sasha’s conviction that everything Scorcese does is genius clouds some of the perspective about the films and has left her with a feeling that Scorcese is constantly being robbed by an Academy without balls. I see some genius in all of Scorcese’s work, but I also see the flaws. Aviator was not a masterpiece, nor was Gangs of New York, or Shutter Island, despite the fact that they were good films. I don’t think the Academy will ignore WOWS because something is wrong with the Academy. There is much to admire about that film. However, “Wolf of Wall Street” is not crisp, the first act is interminable, there is no sense of the time period in which the action takes place (other than the songs of the film – which are amazing) and you don’t give a flying you-know-what about Leo’s character (or anyone else’s, for that matter). And somehow, geography plays almost no part in the movie. When was the last time you watched a Scorsese film and didn’t feel like you could describe what was around every corner? These scenes feel like they could happen anytime and anywhere. That does NOT mean they’re universal. It means he sacrificed atmosphere for interminable plot. It IS however, riotously funny and, as long as you pee before you enter (it is 180 minutes long), it’s really entertaining at least 50% of the time. Oh…Jonah Hill is a bonafide film-acting genius. He just gets better and better. Leo is fine…chews scenery like you wouldn’t believe but has some top-notch comic moments. Rob Reiner is so strangely (and very possibly mis)cast.
there is no sense of the time period in which the action takes place
I like that. I like how we’re reminded that Wall Street looks the same now as it did then. The suits, the nouveau riche trappings, virtually the same WASP uniform of Ralph Lauren polo shirts that haven’t changed for 3 decades. That’s part of the point, to me. How little has changed for that class of people.
What I don’t like is jacked-up period styling made to look ridiculously outdated so audiences can find comfort in saying, “Look how silly America was back then. Sure glad we’re not that stupid anymore.”
(Not tryng to knock American Hustle. AH has a great look. I’m all for it winning Oscars for the Assholes in Wonderland 70s-fantasia it created. American Hustle was satire. Satire relies on tweaks of exaggeration. The Wolf of Wall Street is not satire. It’s interested in looking real, so we know this is the real world. Not like Barbie’s Disco Dream House).
After seeing WOWS, I agree that it’s a bit too long and could’ve been cut by about 15-20 minutes. That said, it is absolutely one of the year’s best movies. DiCaprio is fantastic and hilarious — the physical comedy in that scene of him trying to get into his car while tripping on quaaludes was hysterical. Jonah Hill is, hands-down, my Supporting Actor choice (though in fairness, I haven’t yet seen Dallas Buyers Club) and he almost steals the movie except for the fact that this film is so chock-full of awesome performances that it’s possible to steal.
Also, I must admit, I didn’t find much shocking about the film and I don’t really get any some critics are turning their noses up. What’s so offensive here?
I think WOWS will coast to a Best Picture nomination. It’s drawing enough raves that it’ll easily get the necessary 5% of first-place votes from Academy voters. Also, Scorsese may have crossed some kind of living legend threshold with the Academy — don’t forget that four of his last five features have all gotten BP nominations, and Shutter Island might’ve also made the cut had it not been released so early in the year.
Sasha – very well put. Thanks for the response!
Bryce,
I love reading Business Insider they have such insightful and practical everyday life articles like “Flying Private: own or rent?”, “Make money chartering your yacht”, “Sports Cars: used or new?”, “Mega Mansion: pay cash vs. mortgage”, “How to choose a Tax Haven? Secrecy, Efficiency and Weather”, “10 ways to get your employees to quit so you don’t have to fire them”.
Of course I’ve made up the titles but you get the idea, and btw there’s nothing wrong with being immensely wealthy as long as it’s done honestly, if that’s even possible…
Daveylow,
I wish the film would last forever and I could live in it…
taxi driver would be scorsese’s a clockwork orange: suicidal, prostitution, assassination of a senator and a palm d’or. but it’s even better: it’s scorsese’s taxi driver.
I saw wows yesterday evening. I can’t believe how some feel the movie drags. There’s 2 hr. Movies out there that feel like 5 hrs. Wows on the other hand, goes by quickly, There’s so much to take in when watching this movie; the voiceovers, music cues, powerful/hilarious performances, flashy camera moves. Everything is supremely entertaining. I need to rewatch it to know where I rank it. But I am confident enough for now to rank it amongst scorseses best.
American Hustle vs 12 Years A Slave is what it looks like to me! I really don’t see Gravity winning Best Picture, and I never did even though it is a great film. The Wolf of Wall Street makes it in for Best Picture, along with Nebraska(lock), Inside Llewyn Davis(lock), Saving Mr. Banks(you know the Oscars can’t resist this), Captain Phillips(lock), The Butler, Philomena, or August(they can’t resist these movies, and they have TWC campaigning them). Still depressed that Prisoners isn’t even being considered, but I’m used to my favorite movies getting left off the BP lineup(The Dark Knight Rises, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo). It’s a shame they can never award the actual best.
I honestly feel after reading an interview with the editor of WOWS on another site that the four hour cut was probably the version that should have been released.
I didn’t find the current three hour cut too long–and I was never bored–but I did get the sense that something was missing from certain scenes.
The critical reviews themselves actually haven’t been that divisive. Only a few reviews are negative–most of them are very positive or slightly mixed. I saw the film in the Village in NYC with a mixed audience of men and women and a lot of the women were laughing loudly.
Having just come back from WoWS (followed by grocery shopping), I now have one contender for the Big Six categories left to see — “August: Osage County.” (Sorry, Melons, but I’m not counting “Labor Day,” which I will see when they eventually release it.)
I think that Thelma and Marty really felt the pressure of getting the movie done by the end of 2013. IMHO, some scenes could have been edited out or shortened, and I got the feeling that a few scenes were cut out that could have been beneficial to keep in. (Now I shall consume my groceries!)
Sometimes I keep asking myself… how would Behind the Candelabra affect this race it it hadn’t gone cable-TV.
It had issues with pace here and there, but that’s because so many of the scenes have such brilliance and energy than anything that falls a bit short of that will slow the whole down. Not a major issue in my book.
Anything that makes me laugh that hard, the hardest in a long time, deserves to be seen again. I would imediately if the next show wasn’t sold out and I didn’t have an engagement shortly afterwards.
I haven’t seen WOWS and very likely won’t since it doesn’t appeal to me
BANNED!
I found the film to be exciting and engaging, but also…long. Rather long, and at times, painfully long. I liked the movie, but couldn’t bring myself to love it because I found the length to be excessive.
So generally speaking, we can say you have a problem with length then? Is that it?
That means, Wolf will need a goodly number of number ones to get in. I don’t see that as being a problem but perhaps I am blinded by love.
No. You’re blinded by good taste.
I saw it earlier today and if I had a ballot it would have my number one vote. I don’t frequent all the websites you do or get into twitter battles so I haven’t heard all the negative. But honestly whoever that psycho was that said it was torture needs to GTFO. It’s a normal freakin’ movie. One made by a master and acted in such a way that in a normal year my money would be on Leonardo DiCaprio to take Best Actor. But this is such a convoluted year with so much bullshit supposed to be ground breaking and everyone being polite and giving everyone a gold star and a trophy for garbage movies and crap acting. I really couldn’t tell you what will win or be nominated. But since the last 3 BP winners have been so ridiculous, we can expect anything.
The only way I can see anyone describing this film as torture is if they used to be a drug addict and the movie makes them want some really bad.
THE WOLF OF WALL STREET IS MY BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR! sorry GRAVITY.
funny
Btw saw American Hustle today, it was a fine movie with top notch acting all around but I didn’t love it. It will be one of the most (if not the most) nominated films this year. Colleen Camp…just sayin…
Saw The Wolf of Wall Street last night and it was long, politically incorrect, rude, lewd, full of debauchery and I LOVED every minute of it! DiCaprio and Hill were top notch and fully deserve nominations for Actor and Supporting Actor. In a less crowded year, Margot Robbie would be a strong contender for Supporting Actress nomination.
Could do movie have been shorter? Yes. Was it brilliant? Yes. Should it be nominated for BP and BD? Yes. Will it? Maybe.
You guys. The horror.
http://www.businessinsider.com/banker-pros-cheer-wolf-of-wall-street-2013-12
Bankers cheer The Wolf of Wall Street?
*shrug*
Cannibals cheer Silence of the Lambs.
Haven’t seen WOWS yet and look forward to soon. I have no doubt it will get a Best Picture nomination under the expanded system. Django Unchained was controversial (even if the goodies and baddies were clearcut), and look how that turned out. The Academy isn’t one to shy away from at least NOMINATING a high-profile film by a respected veteran director just because it isn’t feel-good.
And please, can we not make American Hustle this year’s target? I couldn’t stand Silver Linings Playbook, so I’m no David O. Russell/JLaw fanboy. I’m just someone who kind of loves American Hustle and thinks it was pretty flawless and more ambitious than some are giving it credit for. I’m not sure it should win over the likes of 12YAS et al, but I wouldn’t really be offended if it did. It’s not like American Hustle is being so overrated like Argo or The Artist, and it’s certainly not the frontrunner at this point like those films were this early in the season, so I don’t appreciate the hate. Some films (Chicago, The Artist, Slumdog Millionaire, and yes, even Argo) are made primarily to entertain. The Best Picture need not be the Most Important Picture, though when something is as important AND as excellent as a Schindler’s List (and arguably 12YAS among its competition), I agree it should not be denied.
Saw it yesterday. Thought it was great. Deserves awards NOMS for pic and actor and director. Never wanna see it again.
I just got back from the movie theatre 1. A-M-A-Z-I-N-G and 2. it WILL get the BP nod, probably even BD, the
new rule (5% No1 votes) helps its case a lot.
Also I think you can make argument, I guess, but I wouldn’t overuse “satire” to describe THE WOLF OF WALL STREET.
OT:
I’m counting on a Best Actor Nomination (yes, this time). Script has been reviewed as great. I’m good with the director.
https://twitter.com/tigmovie/status/415596720408371200/photo/1
I think Wolf may make in by passion vote mostly because there are no more viable alternatives.
Actually Neal makes a better case against WOLF than any review I have read. It’s too long, it’s too boring are more valid and not clueless at all unlike anything else I have read. One think I would disagree is about the technique. It’s as good as any this year. Actually, rarely matched. [spoiler alert] Jordan’s conversation with aunt Anne in that park in London. Good stuff. I’d say the cinemascore of any Kubrick would be pretty abysmal with the exception of FULL METAL JACKET. Everyone likes that.
Out here in the sticks, Wolf was the movie with word of mouth going into Christmas – and it had a very good day – nearly tying #1 The Hobbit.
Interesting that so many want a moral to Wolf. The moral seems obvious – there are a lot of god-awful sociopaths on Wall Street….. scarily sympathetic sociopaths.
I haven’t seen WOWS and very likely won’t since it doesn’t appeal to me, but I suspect its box office prospects are not so good as of today….with a CinemaScore grade of “C” it will not have great word of mouth (whether you like CinemaScore or not, it does a decent job of reflecting audience reactions from the opening day when many of the moviegoers are going to be people with intense interest in a film)….and if it does indeed die at the box office, I suspect that will also diminish its chances at nominations.
Frankly, if a film doesn’t dare to go outside of my comfort zone in style or content, I’m not all that interested in spending the time watching it.
To compare WoWS to Clockwork just shows that audiences Haven’t changed all that much – if anything, they’ve become more complacent about the films they enjoy.
Most of all, I’m absolutely loving the fact that this comes from a 71 year old filmmaker – puts the kibosh on ageism – and, from the sounds of it, positively cements his place as the greatest American film director. He hasn’t lost any juice since Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, or Last Temptation and remains a few steps ahead of his audience, not is merely keeping time wih them.
Can’t wait to see this in the next couple of days.
thanks for the words jeremy !!!
i’m gonna borrow from your post if i get asked about awards season. 😉
I would not be concerned about Wolf based on something Ellwood said. He writes pretty well but he is just not good at making predictions. Saying its snub is nearly certain just makes this obvious. After the top 3, Nebraska and Captain Phillips nothing is a lock and nothing is certainly out among 7 or 8 films.
Sasha’s analysis of this season are being perfect. And if AD’s enemy (American Hustle) stops rising, Bruce Dern will just walk away with Best Actor instead of Chiwetel, who would be 12 YAS’s big win if AH ends up with BP. And then the whole set of ”experts” will pretend they have never ridiculously underwstimated his chances… Just look at Golddebry’s charts. Virtually everyone is STILL putting him behind Redford… Ok… Chiwetel could win but thinking Redford has a better shot than Dern… Give me a break.
I haven’t seen it, but going out on a limb. DiCaprio will not be nom’d for Best Actor.
Two things:
I love that you recognized the satire of A Clockwork Orange. I think it is one of the most brilliant comedies ever.
Two, I think WoWS will be nominated. To get nominated in the first round it needs approximately 1 out of every 11 votes to put it as number 1. I don’t see that happening. But, I do think it will make it to round two as that only needs 1 percent of the votes, which is approximately 60 members listing it as #1. From there it would need an additional 240 votes at most to bump it over the 5% threshold. I think that is possible.
Having said that, I have a strong connection between WoWS and the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (which did not get a nomination), as both had polarizing subject matter
I haven’t seen The Wolf of Wall Street, but Sasha is right about the “passion vote.” Surely Sasha and Jeff Wells and a few others can’t be alone in their belief that it’s the best of the year. There are probably going to be some members of AMPAS who feel the same way and will be ranking it #1. The only question is, I guess, is will there be enough of them.
Whatever nominations it does get, it will probably not win any of them, since to win you need the consensus, as people have already said, and Wolf won’t be winning any consensus votes.
Another movie that got a very divisive reaction back in the day was Bonnie and Clyde. From everything I’ve read, that movie had some critics and moviegoers fanning themselves with the vigor of Aunt Pittypat–they felt the movie was glamorizing the criminals and were upset that the movie didn’t announce that stealing and murder is bad! I think Taxi Driver (probably on my Top 10 of all time) also scandalized some audiences.
I have no idea whether I’ll love WoWS or not, but I can’t help but love that we have “scandalous” Marty back, ruffling feathers at 71!
I enjoyed the Wolf of Wall Street. It’s debauchery in its purest and rarest form.
Leonardo DiCaprio deserves to be nominated.
And this film deserves to be nominated for Best Picture and screenplay. Bam!
I hope it is not nominated for BP or BD . Wolf is a good not great movie. It is way too long and I saw a lot better film this year . 12 years a slave is by far the best film of the year. Yes American Hustle should not have won the Nyfcc best picture award but is a better film than twows
Just came back from it myself, and thought it was definitely better than any of the prior Scorsese-Leo films(and Casino, for that matter), but I could tell it would be absurdly divisive. Now, you can point to a laundry list of now accepted great works that were divisive if you want. There’s even people out rallying behind that piece of shit The Counselor with the ol “GUYZ PEOPLE DIDN’T LIKE BLADE RUNNER IN ’81 EITHER JUST COME BACK IN 10 YEARS GUYZ”
Fact is though, divisive films don’t win consensus awards. I know we like to point to The Departed and Hurt Locker for the Academy having balls, but those films weren’t divisive the year of their release. No Country for Old Men wasn’t divisive; it was widely hailed as one of the greatest American films of the decade as soon as it came out! The only real argument was whether was as good as the also-one-of-the-greatest-American-films-of-the-decade There Will Be Blood.
Your BP winner has to be something that most of the crowd agrees on being good. Something that has a 90%+ fresh rating on RT(except Crash, one of the biggest WTFs in Oscar history). It doesn’t have anything to with the quality of the film, but it has to have a certain quality, if you follow.
Divisive films don’t win consensus awards.
(and this is the point that I remind you AH has a 90%+ rating on RT hint-hint-hint)
Yup “Wolf of Wall Street” has definitely been the most divisive movie in the pubic forums I’ve seen, like Facebook.
Post: “It’s the best movie I’ve seen all year”.
First comment: “Are you joking or not? I thought it easily the worst movie I’ve seen all year. Foul and unimpressive on so many levels.” Poster response: “The screenplay is the most brilliant script I’ve seen in years.”
Commenter response: “I’m still not sure if you’re joking. It was thoroughly horrible.”
Consider me intrigued…
Haven’t seen it yet, but planning to this weekend. It sounds raucous and ballsy – like 70s cinema at its best. Great point about Kubrick and A Clockwork Orange. Scorsese has been been downright conventional this past decade to me. Other than Goodfellas, his films had lost that sense of recklessness. WOW – with the praise and the criticisms – sounds like music to my ears.
Neal,
With all due respect, I have never understood this ‘too long’ argument. It either sucks or it doesn’t.
WOWS has been so divisive, I don’t think it’ll make best picture. Even with 10 I’m thinking it’d be lucky to get in over Philomena for 10th slot, let alone the likely 9 or less. I think people are underestimating Dallas Buyers Club. 13th slot, when it’s the favourite for supporting actor and one of the favourites for actor, and has a SAG ensemble nod? Makes no sense to me.
That aside, I’m not commenting on quality, WOWS unseen.
Nevermind, I see you said “it would need to be” meaning you haven’t seen it yet either.
The picture looks deemer than 2 days ago, but still pretty solid chances of picture and screenplay nods. Don’t rule out Scorsese because the directors love/respect him and could come through for him. Now, acting I’m not sure. Who knows. Who does Leo replace? Jonah Hill’s performance is top of the line, but in my opinion his character is even more despicable than DiCaprio’s. So the actors might not want to “get their hands dirty”…Out of all the branches I estimate it has the highest percentage of wussies and dummies.
Buford T Justice,
How you seen The Wolf of Wall Street yet? (I haven’t yet).
If you have, was it radical? (to use your word)
I well remember the Clockwork Orange as it started off a minor cult following among louts and Hooligans who wore similar outfits and took atavistic joy and sadistic pleasure in beating folks up ; it was pretty radical for the 1970’s as was ”Deliverance ” but things have chilled out a great deal since then and for WOLF to be in the same league it would need to be very radical indeed
“how could anyone NOT think that Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ was a great film.”
Okay, my own comment was a bit presumptive. I take it back.
But I still think it’s a great film.
For instance, in many respects, how could anyone NOT think that Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ was a great film. As controversial as it was, it was undeniably good. It was great storytelling, well acted, and above all, divisive. Sometimes I think movies that are divisive are the most remembered.
My five (btw) for 2004:
The Aviator
Collateral
Hotel Rwanda
Million Dollar Baby
Sideways
I have faith that The Wolf of Wall Street will be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Now, if it was only 5, I don’t think it would be then. If only 5 I would predict:
12 Years a Slave
American Hustle
Gravity
Her
Inside Llewyn Davis
But I will attach 4 more to what I think WILL be nominated:
Captain Phillips
Nebraska
Saving Mr. Banks
The Wolf of Wall Street
I personally think that movies of all kinds should get nominated for Best Picture, even if they piss off a bunch of people. I’m glad that A Clockwork Orange was. I’m dissapointed that Fight Club wasn’t, but that year, I feel the movie that got screwed the most for a Best Picture nomination was Being John Malkovich.
I saw WOW last night and, while I appreciate and respect your insights and opinions Sasha, it seems that you may be missing another aspect of the criticism coming at the film. I’m not someone who wanted to find humanity or a moral center to the movie, nor did I find it outlandish and over the top.
I found the film to be exciting and engaging, but also…long. Rather long, and at times, painfully long. I liked the movie, but couldn’t bring myself to love it because I found the length to be excessive. Not that it mirrored the excessiveness of Belfort and his comrade’s actions, but that it seemed to lose steam or become repetitive. The long scenes oftentimes took me out of the picture. I appreciated the narrative, but (given how much I love Scorcese, it pains me to say this) I found the technique a bit…I don’t know. Sloppy?
So I am not someone who hated it. But it seems that in your writing about WOW, you seem to suggest that there is something completely wrong with someone who didn’t love the film. Not just old school Academy wussies, but ANYONE who has issues with it. That it is just something that we “don’t get.” That is somehow “beyond” us. Am I wrong here?
Neal, I don’t think anyone is wrong for not liking a movie — well, I know it comes off that way sometimes, but if it didn’t grab you it didn’t grab you. I too felt it a bit long but the length didn’t bother me because ultimately it was so vividly and wildly written, directed and acted that I sacrificed that part of me that needed to get out of my chair. It is a long sit, particularly if you have to spend that much time with such a loathsome group of people but I don’t know, I feel like most of the time films are almost great — that there are so few directors who have such control so it dazzles me to watch that kind of virtuoso directing at work. But that’s MY thing. With Spielberg’s Lincoln I got annoyed at people who said it was boring or whatever because to me that signified lazy thinking. With Wolf it really is going to be a matter of taste. What bothers me are comments like “there is no humanity” — well, yeah, that’s the point. Putting moral judgments on the film is wrong to me because it misses what it’s supposed to be about. Being disgusted by it, well, that’s the intent. For me I usually weigh my experience with the film itself against what the artist/director was trying to do. Even if it doesn’t fully engage me if there is great ambition there I generally give the film a pass. What I hate in a movie more than anything is if I can get it all the first time through and find nothing more in it, no great ambition, just a cake walk. Tree of Life was like that for me — not exactly my favorite film of all time but who could not appreciate the ambition of it, the sheer daring?
It frightens me that I agree with Jeff Wells. But I love this movie. I think it’s every American Hustle isn’t and should be getting the same love. It’s up there with 12 Years and Her in my book. Fingers crossed the Academy recognizes it.