There is much ado these days about how the Spirit Awards aren’t honoring independence anymore but are really another step in the Oscar race. I don’t know if that’s true or if the Oscar race is slowly becoming more independent, valuing and honoring films that don’t cost much money.
Maybe now they need an actual independent spirit awards that is even more independent than these to honor truly groundbreaking indie film. Beasts of the Southern Wild which was made with crowdfunding not beating Silver Linings Playbook was an example of just how dramatically the awards have changed, hewing closer to the general consensus and farther away from the fringe.
Getting the biggest boost today has to be Ava DuVernay’s Selma, which just got its first jolt with Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actress and Cinematography. None of the Feature nominees got a corresponding Screenplay nod, which is interesting, but four out of five of the Best Directing nominees have corresponding Best Picture nods – that makes this an extremely tight race.
We used to call the Spirit Awards the kiss of death for Oscar because usually a film would win there and then another, bigger movie would win the Oscar. But The Artist won in 2011 and 12 Years a Slave won in 2013 so perhaps it must no longer be referred to that way.
While Ava DuVernay does not quite make history as the first African American female to earn a Best Director nomination, she does make history with a Best Picture and Best Director nomination there, which is significant, I think, because it shows how popular Selma is right now. With three strong contenders for the win the Spirit Awards will be a nail-biter. I’m going to bet Best Picture goes to Boyhood, but that Ava DuVernay wins Best Director, which Inarritu and Linklater split that vote there. I could be wrong and we have a long way to go before then.
The predictions for the Best Picture race look eerily like the best five films the Spirit Awards just nominated for Best Picture, with one exception:
Birdman
Boyhood
Love is Strange
Selma
Whiplash
How wonderful for Ira Sachs to receive this honor in a season that has paid little attention to Love is Strange. It is sandwiched between what are considered to be among the most competitive films in the Oscar race so far, minus the Imitation Game, which did not make the list, nor did Wild, which was also eligible.
Compare this list with last year’s:
12 Years a Slave
All is Lost
Frances Ha
Inside Llewyn Davis
Nebraska
At the time, we thought four of those were sure bets for Oscar’s Best Picture but in the end, only two received crossover nominations.
The same thing happened the previous year:
Silver Linings Playbook
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Bernie
Keep the Lights On
Moonrise Kingdom
We thought three would make it but in the end, only two did.
And the year before:
The Artist
50/50
Beginners
The Descendants
Drive
Take Shelter
Two also got in.
But when we get to 2010, when there a solid 10 slots for nominations, it broadens somewhat:
Black Swan
127 Hours
Greenberg
The Kids Are All Right
Winter’s Bone
And finally, 2009:
Precious
500 Days of Summer
Amreeka
The Last Station
Sin Nombre
The question is, will this be a year where more than two get in? Where four get in? We have no way of knowing except that to say that in the years that matched this one – five Spirit Award nods to the Academy’s five slots for nominations (plus spillover films with enough votes) only two have gotten in.
It’s hard to imagine the Oscar race without:
Boyhood
Birdman
Selma
Whiplash
But in a year like this one, anything could happen.
The Best Actress lineup is also kind of strange, especially since Reese Witherspoon did not get a nomination for Wild. Julianne Moore will win there, quite easily:
Marion Cotillard
The Immigrant
Rinko Kikuchi
Kumiko, The Treasure Hunter
Julianne Moore
Still Alice
Jenny Slate
Obvious Child
Tilda Swinton
Only Lovers Left Alive
Is there specific criteria for the Spirit Award for Special Distinction? Just wondering why there’s only 1 film and how Foxcatcher was selected.
Julian, I wouldn’t give a shit. And if anybody else would care if I did anything of the sort, I wouldn’t give a shit about them either. But consider this: I didn’t even do what you’re accusing me of doing. I referred to a former user of AD as stupid and ignorant because he was, and wondered whether or not LCbaseball was said user because one or two of their comments had reminded me of comments made by said stupid, ignorant former user. But LCbaseball is not said former user! Are you kidding me? You think I was attempting to directly engage with a former user when I was simply referring to them? No-one on here has been branded as anything derogatory by me – I have criticised people’s statements and behaviour, but never their character, and I’ve never criticised anyone for having an opinion – I think I’m pretty safe in assuming this much – in my life.
And who actually gives the smallest fuck about expletives? I’m expressing how I feel. Get the fuck over it.
Not a single comment on this page that has criticised my conduct or that has taken issue with my claims has understood my points. Not a single one, and there have been several. I’m expressing myself very clearly, but it seems that some users find it easier to attribute non-existent malicious overtones to my comments. I’m sick of this shit.
Nice, Paddy. What a charmer you are.
To the very best of my knowledge, LCBaseball22 is not ‘a former user of this site’. It is – wormholes excepted – difficult to engage with former users in the here and now, after all.
You’re perfectly entitled to behave however well you please (and yes, I am perfectly capable of not caring one bit about it as of right this moment), so suit yourself. But ask yourself one question: Would you like to be called ‘stupid’, ‘ignorant’ and the rest of it (including your lovely way with expletives; THEY really bolster YOUR argument!) by anyone purely on the basis of having an opinion?
Bitch plz. I criticise people’s tastes, or their opnions, or their arguments. I called a former user of this site stupid and ignorant, because they were. And if anybody wants to have a go at anybody else on the grounds of credibility, they better be sure their argument is faultless, and the fuck it’s insulting to criticise someone for a spelling error – if you don’t wanna be insulted, check your fucking spelling and grow a thick skin fs. But the fuck I ever taunted anybody.
Julian, you’re interpreting my comments in the simplest way you can, attributing to them qualities which you can easily argue they possess, but which they don’t, and you’re doing it to bolster your argument. Don’t think you can tell me what I’ve done or what I’ve meant. I meant.no malice and caused no offence.
It’s also none of your motherfucking business so keep your fucking nose out of it.
Benutty: The reason why the Selma surge might hurt Interstellar is because they are both Paramount properties, as far as I recall. So Paramount just might put all their money on Selma and tone down the campaign for Interstellar…?
But I agree with you in principle: The one factor that might make Interstellar a BP nominee is the fact that it’s the one movie that obviously appeals to the crafts contingent of the Academy. That might be enough so save it a spot.
“I have not spoken out of turn to anyone on this site, nor insulted any of the readers who have commented here.”
Wrong. Calling people stupid, unintelligent, taunting them about their spelling abilities? That’s insulting, especially since the only reason you seem to do so is because of some site you prefer. Get a grip.
Conclusion: given past trends between BP winners and aggregate review sites, it’s very unlikely that Imitation or Theory will win. That is all.
YES!! My first big nomination of the season. I sure hope I win. It would mark the first time an actress wins for IS and O, which everyone knows I’m getting this year!
A few things:
I don’t care if your a ‘friend’ of this site, Paddy, you’re tone is akin to the schoolyard bully. It’s off-putting.
I haven’t bullied anyone. Vigorous debate does not equate to bullying. I have not spoken out of turn to anyone on this site, nor insulted any of the readers who have commented here. If anyone is incapable of tolerating my tone, which is never intended to be malicious or to cause offence, then that’s their problem.
Anyways, I’m not sure which pertinent point you are referring to
This one: Metacritic is the outlet most often considered by those who actively participate in evaluating and propelling the Oscar race. – the point being that the conversation sparked by Metacritic is of greater value to the Oscar race than individual scores of any website or critics group.
But you can’t deny the correlation between acting nominations in recent years between the two bodies. Like every other body that announces a group of nominees and winners, the Spirits announce to Academy members that “this person is worthy of AN award.”
So there’s a strong correlation between acting candidates eligible for both Spirit Awards and Academy Awards. Great. But consider the fact that both groups draw from relatively similar pools – usually considering little else than well-reviewed American films – and the correlation begins to make much more sense. Thing is, if the Spirit Awards held any genuine influence in the race, rather than their nominations simply happening to relate closely to the Academy’s due to circumstance and coincidence, then we’d see a lot more of their influence in the months December-February. So, in an even and proportionate manner, if the Spirits can be credited with giving Emma Stone a boost in the race, then surely Andrea Suarez Paz can expect to receive one too.
In ten years following it, I recall not one occasion on which Spirit nominations were brought up as significant in the context of the Oscar race. People tend to forget about them, and Film Independent seems to like it that way. The race is propelled by groups which seek to bear influence on it.
Disagree if you want (you seem to like to).
Fuck this shit. Are people on here not capable of comprehending that I might simply, sincerely disagree with them? That I’m perhaps not being a contrarian for the sake of it? I’m not disagreeing with people to be a dick, whether or not y’all find that hard to believe. I disagree because ten years following the race has taught me a few things, such as the fact that the Spirit Awards rarely hold the slightest bit of influence on the race, and that they don’t seem to care.
Benutty, you’re right about UNITED 93. I don’t like the movie so I tend to overlook it (more like forget it exists), but I can definitely see it vying for the 10th even 9th slot. Remembering that BLOOD DIAMOND got those many nominations has nearly ruined my holiday, so thanks AD.
My personal preferences came together somewhat like this, with my twenty favorites.
1. PAN’S LABYRINTH, Guillermo del Toro
2. CHILDREN OF MEN, Alfonso Cuaron
3. THE LIVES OF OTHERS, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
4. TRIAD ELECTION, Johnnie To
5. VOLVER, Pedro Almodovar
6. THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY, Ken Loach
7. THE HOST, Bong Joon-ho
8. THE QUEEN, Strephen Frears
9. REPRISE, Joaquim Trier
10. THE DEPARTED, Martin Scorsese
11. INLAND EMPIRE, David Lynch
12. MY BROTHER IS AN ONLY CHILD, Daniele Luchetti
13. THIS IS ENGLAND, Shane Meadows
14. PERFUME: THE STORY OF A MURDERER, Tom Tykwer
15. I DON’T WANT TO SLEEP ALONE, Ming-liang Tsai
16. BLACK BOOK, Paul Verhoeven
17. BRAND UPON THE BRAIN!, Guy Maddin
18. STILL LIFE, Zhang-ke Jia
19. FIREWORKS WEDNESDAY, Asghar Farhadi
20. CASINO ROYALE, Martin Campbell
Bryce, I mostly agree with you and the nomination counts of those spots 6-10 films confirm as much, but United 93 would have made the lineup for sure. It would be extraordinary for Greengrass to be in Director without a corresponding BP nom in a field of 10. I’d guess Notes on a Scandal misses in favor of United 93. And Children of Men over Little Children.
Expanding upon you guys talking ’06. I presume had it been a 5-10 BP lineup, like we have nowadays,slots 6-10 would probably have come out from the pool of 6. PAN’S LABYRINTH 7. DREAMGIRLS, 8. BLOOD DIAMOND 9. NOTES FROM A SCANDAL, and battling to squeak into the 10th slot, LITTLE CHILDREN vs. CHILDREN OF MEN, with some Academy members conceivably putting ALL MY CHILDREN on their ballots, you know how they get easily confused, right? Right?!
“The nomination count leading to BP nomination thing doesn’t hold true in years where there are only 5 BP nominees. What happened when the BP lineup increased to 10 is that spaces opened up for the films that DID show up in many below-the-lines. In many ways the increase was made FOR this to happen–so that films with broad support in many categories could find a way into the BP lineup when it otherwise wouldn’t. Dreamgirls would have made the BP list in a year of 10.”
True, I missed that. But it’s actually not so clear, because they’re still voting for 5 movies now. So, yeah, in a year of exactly 10, sure, maybe it would have been in, but in a year of 5-10, like we’re in now, it’s not so clear at all. Remember, we could simply get 5 nominees instead of 9, we know it’s (quite) possible… It depends on how much passionate support there would have been for it under this kind of system, which is really hard to say; it had no director/screenplay/editing nominations (only acting, 3 song noms and 3 technical noms), which is a huge sign of weakness, and which is something that could easily happen to Interstellar as well.
“for AMPAS members who have an appreciation/love/support for technical-based, effects-heavy, epic films, Interstellar has NO competition. All of those voters will put it #1 because it’s actually a solid piece of craftsmanship in a lot of ways. Selma on the other hand is competing with many other films that appeal to fans of the biopic/historical/American topical sensibility.
The BP lineup is NOT about the 9 or 10 BEST, HIGHEST RATED films of the year. It’s about the high profile films that appeal to specific demographics of the Academy and which films in those demographics will win out over their direct competitors. That’s why every year you can more or less break the lineup down into “types” or “slots” of films.”
This is a very good point. It’s not clear if all the “slots” are going to be filled every year, but it’s probable, and recent history seems to confirm it. And, indeed, if any effects movie is likely to get in this year, it’s most probably Interstellar…
Also, while the Critics Roundup is cool because it is more selective in which critics it aggregates, it’s also problematic for that same reason. It’s an entirely SUBJECTIVE site. It’s a site that could be used to help predict how AMPAS will vote if there was a branch of the Academy that was selective and snobby about who could and could not cast a vote. You’re not truly an aggregating site if you don’t include or even ATTEMPT to include any and all opinions on a given topic.
Oops the above is re: Claudiu not Julian.
re: Bryce’s “I would add Anne Hathaway who, *in my opinion*, is the true standout in INTERSTELLAR and Nolan’s best female character, ever. She should be considered in the Best Supporting Actress category.”
90% agree, but would say Lead not Supporting. She is the best and (my argument) most important part of the film.
re: Julian’s “remember Dreamgirls?”
The nomination count leading to BP nomination thing doesn’t hold true in years where there are only 5 BP nominees. What happened when the BP lineup increased to 10 is that spaces opened up for the films that DID show up in many below-the-lines. In many ways the increase was made FOR this to happen–so that films with broad support in many categories could find a way into the BP lineup when it otherwise wouldn’t. Dreamgirls would have made the BP list in a year of 10.
re: Julian’s “(Interstellar will lose further momentum as Selma surges ahead…”
But they are not in direct competition with one another. Someone that places Selma #1 on their ballot is not likely to also put Interstellar #1 on their ballot. The thing that most people aren’t acknowledging is that for AMPAS members who have an appreciation/love/support for technical-based, effects-heavy, epic films, Interstellar has NO competition. All of those voters will put it #1 because it’s actually a solid piece of craftsmanship in a lot of ways. Selma on the other hand is competing with many other films that appeal to fans of the biopic/historical/American topical sensibility.
The BP lineup is NOT about the 9 or 10 BEST, HIGHEST RATED films of the year. It’s about the high profile films that appeal to specific demographics of the Academy and which films in those demographics will win out over their direct competitors. That’s why every year you can more or less break the lineup down into “types” or “slots” of films.
Paddy:
Listen, I’m glad you brought my attention to the Critics Round Up site (I can only endorse an aggregate site that takes into consideration the standard, rather than the popularity, of critics), but metacritic is kind of an institution by now, a new site is not gonna change that overnight. Metacritic is still better for assessing a general sentiment on current movies, because it includes a varied sample of high brow and more populist opinions. It’s probably a better reflection of how the Academy might swing their vote as well.
I think both sites are useful, though, so there’s absolutely no need to call people stupid and ignorant and ‘unintelligent’ (even bitching about their spelling abilities, ever heard of typos??), just because they refer to the one over the other.
I don’t care if your a ‘friend’ of this site, Paddy, you’re tone is akin to the schoolyard bully. It’s off-putting.
I enjoyed it quite a bit, but even in a weak year, I’m really having a hard time seeing WHIPLASH nominated for Best Picture (and Director, as most prognosticators seem to be indicating).
Jus remember, where “hell on earth” is the customary absence, by death/disappearance/abandonment, of a woman from a middle-aged dude’s life.
And I was kidding abt waiting for an answer I was working on smth anyway, I just come here to take a break now and then.
Thank you Bryce! Now, I got my answer I can finally go to bed (2:15am) in peace. Your words sound very thoughtful, so I’ll sleep upon them and maybe tomorrow I’ll see her performance in a different light.
Happy Turkey Day!
Christophe, I don’t know if you agree, but a lot of Nolan’s dialogue, while remaining informal, is distractingly stilted, borderline Dante-sque. To me, Hathaway is the only actress who has been able to malleate his conversation and his speeches because she’s able to invoke an especially nonchalant breed of stoicism to this kind of performance that Marion Cotillard, for instance, is innately incapable of — and of course, that is not to say Hathaway isn’t capable of the opposite, as we saw in RACHEL GETTING MARRIED. She remains so underrated, Academy Award and all.
Bryce,
Really? Why is that? You know, I adore Anne Hathaway, yet for the very first time she didn’t do it for me. Dunno if her character or her performance is to blame, but she seemed to me like she was just a bland prop used as a counterpoint to McConaughey’s character. So I’d love to hear more from your pov.
*In my opinion,* the most deserving actor of an Academy Award nomination from a Nolan film has been Guy Pearce (MEMENTO), then of course Ledger was iconic and unbelievable, third, I wouldn’t have mind one bit had Tom Hardy (TDKR) received one fraction of the awards love Ledger got. And now, I would add Anne Hathaway who, *in my opinion*, is the true standout in INTERSTELLAR and Nolan’s best female character, ever. She should be considered in the Best Supporting Actress category.
*in my opinion*
from a Nolan film to make the cut, iirc. While Nolan’s films tend to be more balanced ensemble pieces with no true standouts, I personally thought Leo and Marion were deserving on nomination for Inception and alas neither made the cut. So while I would champion again for lead actor and supporting actress nominations I am afraid the Academy will let us down once again…
Should Interstellar receive multiple acting nominations? Yes! Will it? Probably not, considering Ledger is the only actor f
“Honestly, I’m almost sure it’ll be 0-1 acting nominations for Interstellar. (I’m leaning towards 0.) I’m pretty sure most of the regulars here agree with this point of view.”
I agree. I’ll be hugely surprised if Interstellar receives any acting nominations.
Which someone else entirely is that? I don’t believe I’ve changed my username on here at all…
Sorry about the “her” thing Paddy, I guess I just assumed based on the username. Anyways, I’m not sure which pertinent point you are referring to but I was responding to this very clear statement you made…
“Where Oscar is concerned, Metascores are the most reliable indicators”
Now unless you were talking specifically about the WINNER this statement is wrong as I very clearly outlined…
I didn’t ignore your analysis, LCbaseball. I just didn’t reply to it. Nor did you reply to my argument that it wasn’t just the specific scores but the influence of Metacritic within the trajectory of the race – indeed, your reply to that argument suggests that it is you who have ignored me. So if you think that your analysis destroyed my statements, you’re entirely incorrect. Your analysis is irrelevant to the only pertinent point I made in my argument.
From the tone of LCbaseball’s comments to their subjects, from his / her (note that I didn’t type solely ‘her’, which I wonder may be some catty homophobic and/or sexist slur in its above usage in relation to my identity, though I’m not sure, and not even slightly offended either) obstinateness and block-headedness to some of the specific, high-minded remarks, I’m wondering if LCbaseball isn’t someone else entirely. Someone whom I did not miss from AD because, quite simply, they were very stupid and very ignorant…
I can vouch for LCbaseball22’s sincerity and genuine identity.
“Thanksgiving is no time for squabbles!” said nobody ever.
In fact I challenge anyone to find a film in my Top 100 let alone Top 50 (other than Top Gun) that does not have at least “fresh” rating (as far as I’m aware there are no others)
http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=lcbaseball22&perpage=50
http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=lcbaseball22&perpage=100
“for example if I say I enjoy Gone With The Wind and Ben-Hur I will sound like a tasteless dimwit to most AD readers”
Not to me.
“things like nomination count that lead me to believe BP nomination for it (Interstellar) is guaranteed.”
Maybe very likely, but definitely not guaranteed – remember Dreamgirls? Plus (see below) you might be giving it nominations it’s actually not that likely to get…
“Where my Interstellar doubts come in are which of the three main actors will be nominated–at one point I had all 3 nominated”
Honestly, I’m almost sure it’ll be 0-1 acting nominations for Interstellar. (I’m leaning towards 0.) I’m pretty sure most of the regulars here agree with this point of view. (This kind of statement might lead to backlash, though, so maybe I shouldn’t be saying it…)
LCBASEBALL22,
I hope you don’t refrain yourself from watching a film that appeals to you just because it has a bad rating. Sometimes there are gems that have been ignored or misunderstood by critics, or guilty pleasures that can be very enjoyable to watch despite their lack artistic significance. But I understand what you mean. I’m a middle-brow kind of guy myself, so for example if I say I enjoy Gone With The Wind and Ben-Hur I will sound like a tasteless dimwit to most AD readers, but I will sound like a boring over-intellectual cinephile to my friends and family.
And I see that PADDY conveniently ignored my analysis that destroyed her statements regarding BFCA vs Metacritic…
Also for the record I myself am considered a “movie snob” by many because I have a passionate love of classic films and I strongly resist watching any film that is not well regarded by at least one of the rating metrics, be it RT, IMDB, BFCA, MC, etc
PADDY, who says I can’t spell? Ever heard of typos? Yeah, I typed too fast and didn’t proofread before I submitted the comment with who’s instead of whose, but unintelligent? I happen to have an engineering degree, thank you very much. Sure, I know it pisses people off when I refer to films such as Tree of Life as “style over substance” but I would argue that I’m not a liberal arts major and my mind was not designed to analyze abstract shit…
Benutty: Boy, you’re gonna be disappointed on nomination day! Interstellar won’t get near the performance categories (maybe it could have, if Chastain wouldn’t rule herself out because of the AMVY part). Just MAYBE it will sneak into the BP lineup. With a 8-10 nominees I could see it getting through, mostly because of the support of the crafts categories. Nolan won’t get into BD. No way. Not the way the race is going right now (Interstellar will lose further momentum as Selma surges ahead… and if either Into the Woods or Unbroken gets a good reception that will only contribute to its downfall).
any site who’s review aggregate rating for Inception is only a 58, err yeah all credibility lost
Just because it’s a Christopher Nolan blockbuster that you enjoyed doesn’t mean that it has to receive a strong score on a review aggregator site. That’s bollocks. If you had even the slightest idea of the standards of Critics Roundup you’d not base its credibility on such a minor, and entirely understandable detail. And don’t start laying this on me and my opinions, because I love Inception. I imagine you just don’t have a lot of respect for films that don’t abide by mainstream, conventional methods of film production, film directing and film distribution.
Don’t even think about making such nonsensical judgements around me. And don’t even think about criticising anybody else’s credibility when you can’t even spell. I will gladly resort to being a major movie snob (with the noted exception in said character of being entirely capable of enjoying and appreciating blockbusters) and read you for filth for your narrow-minded, unintelligent understanding of film.
LCBaseball22, check your email.
LC, there is no doubt in my mind that both Interstellar and Nolan will receive their nominations. What I’m taking with a grain of salt is the opinion of anyone that doesn’t include both of them in their predictions because I don’t think they’re taking an objective look at the race (if they were, they’d be including them). Where my Interstellar doubts come in are which of the three main actors will be nominated–at one point I had all 3 nominated, but now my GoldDerby picks only include Chastain and McConaughey (McConaughey being the Jonah Hill, Christian Bale of my 2014 picks and Chastain getting in for the more recognized film Interstellar over the less recognized AMVY. I wish Hathaway would get a deserved Lead nom).
To point I’m simply making though (and I suppose it’s a bit Devil’s Advocate because it goes against the logic of my favorite director getting in) is that there’s a noticeable trend not only for 4 out of the last 5 years, but 9 out of the last 10. Excluding 2011 which saw 3 films with scores lower than 85 nominated we have to go all the way back to 2003 to find such a film, which was Seabiscuit with an 83.
Yeah, I noted a little while ago some ridiculously low scores for Interstellar (in the 20 to 40 range, as well as many 50’s and 60’s) from BFCA members that are probably the sole reason the film is not above 85. Yes, surely the BFCA metric needs to be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to very divisive films such as Tree of Life and Interstellar. Personally I think the former is a piece of crock but I hope the Academy views Interstellar similar to Tree of Life or even more favorably. While Interstellar may not be Nolan’s best film, he deserves his due. He has been nominated by the DGA 3 times and all 3 times shut out by AMPAS.
“But the burning question in the race is if the Academy will finally come to its senses and honor the Susan Lucci of the category. At first glance, the odds might not look promising for Christopher Nolan, who was snubbed for “Dark Knight” trilogy and “Inception.” But “Interstellar” is his most Academy-friendly film to date — and I mean that as a compliment. This meditation about love and mortality set in outer space feels like “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” doused in Steven Spielberg-esque sentimentality. Even if the film is divisive, the weighted balloting (which uses math that asks each member to rank their favorites) could help Nolan — all he needs is a passionate group of colleagues to champion his $165 million epic.”
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/oscars-will-christopher-nolan-finally-land-a-director-nomination-1201350134/
LC, I was just having a bit of fun with you re: football and basketball 🙂
LC, I think a major thing that the BFCA score theory doesn’t take into account are other factors independent of scores/reviews that lead a film to a BP nomination. For instance, I’m a known advocate for Interstellar here and I’ve pointed out things like nomination count that lead me to believe BP nomination for it is guaranteed. Yet it falls outside of your BFCA score range. As did The Tree of Life in 2011, right? What propelled The Tree of Life to its nomination? I’d say the Palme d’Or certainly helped. I’d say strong advocacy by its supporters helped. Masterful technical achievement and bravery on the part of its director helped. And why was its score so low? Why is Interstellar’s?
If we use Metacritic as an example, Interstellar has a 25 from James Rocchi. TWENTY-FIVE. Even the film’s biggest detractors wouldn’t say it deserves that low of a score, but surely ONE score like that drags it down. The Tree of Life got a 38 from Roger Moore. The problem with scores is that every now and then someone with the power will abuse it to serve their own agendas. Can we prove that Rocchi and Moore had agendas against those films? No. Is it odd that their scores are so incomparably low and in being so drag the film’s score down? Yes. On the flip side, if we put so much faith in scores, how are we to applaud Turan’s decision to not add his less than 100 score for Boyhood? Don’t we have a falsely higher score for Boyhood because of it? If that’s true then we should acknowledge the possibility of falsely lower scores for other films.
@ ZACH
Sooo are we to assume that Ann Hornday has already seen Unbroken, Into the Woods, and even Exodus? You can’t put out a legit Top 10 without seeing all the potentially good films, right?
First of all it is BASEBALL (I did not play basketball or football beyond grade school, unlike baseball and fyi 22 was my jersey # it is not my age)
Secondly, I will point out that unfortunately with what I last knew of what others are predicting if things remain as they are we may already have the 10 (or less) accounted for right here…
Boyhood – 96
Whiplash – 93
Birdman – 91
Gone Girl – 90
The Imitation Game – 90
Selma – 90
American Sniper – 88
The Theory of Everything – 88
The Grand Budapest Hotel – 87
Foxcatcher – 85
My hope is that Grand Budapest (which was such a pointless and silly film) misses the cut as well as another one or two making room for Interstellar, which is either an exception to the general rule of thumb or gets a bump when a few critics who are known to have seen the film and loved it finally report in with their scores…
Ann Honadays top ten
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-best-movies-of-2014-boyhood-force-majeure-selma-and-more/2014/11/25/c09403ae-70ed-11e4-8808-afaa1e3a33ef_story.html
Here’s an example from 2012 of a forum where I keep tabs on the scores and you can see that the last edit was early January, before the nominations were announced. You can also see that all 9 of the eventual nominees are in that 4 star range (85 and up)
In regards to this year here’s the 2014 page where we can see what we theoretically be looking at so far for this year’s pool of BP nominees
Boyhood – 96
The Tale of the Princess Kaguya – 93
Two Days, One Night – 93
Whiplash – 93
Life Itself – 92
The Missing Picture – 92
Birdman – 91
Force Majeure – 91
Guardians of the Galaxy – 91
The LEGO Movie – 91
National Gallery – 91
Burning Bush – 90
Gone Girl – 90
The Imitation Game – 90
Selma – 90
Wild – 90
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes – 89
American Sniper – 88
Captain America: The Winter Soldier – 88
Edge of Tomorrow – 88
Ida – 88
Nightcrawler – 88
Red Army – 88
Starred Up – 88
The Theory of Everything – 88
The Grand Budapest Hotel – 87
How to Train Your Dragon 2 – 87
Snowpiercer – 87
Calvary – 86
Citizenfour – 86
Love is Strange – 86
The One I Love – 86
Big Hero 6 – 85
The Case Against 8 – 85
Foxcatcher – 85
A Most Violent Year – 85
X-Men: Days of Future Past – 85
I’m guessing some of those are documentaries or obscure foreign films as tend to get mixed in, which makes it a bit hard to filter down and there’s noticeably significantly more 4 star titles this year so far compared to 2012, but things are still in fluctuation with a lot of titles and many are on the bubble…
LCFOOTBALL, I would imagine that their scores stay relatively unchanged through the years as compared to others like RT and Metacritic. Anyway, thank you for always bringing up those scores because it’s now something I can use when making my own analyses 🙂
I’m not entirely sure Benutty but I was following their site closely (before it became CriticsChoice.com in fact) for a number of years and I don’t recall significant changes after the fact…
“WW, Pulp Fiction did not win best picture that year. Forrest Gump did.”
He meant that it won the Spirit award, I believe.
P.S.: Very nice analysis, Benutty. You’re right, this could be telling as to who will the acting Oscars.
LCBASKETBALL, do the BFCA scores change (perhaps increase) once the BP nominations are announced/years have passed? Were all of those films in past years above your threshold at the time of their nomination? (Genuinely curious. The BFCA score thing is something new to me and I’ve never heard of/paid attention to it in the past).
Paddy, I think there’s a distinction to be made between “influential” and “having an effect on.” To say that the Spirits influence the Oscar race sort of implies that they seek to and/or that Oscar voters look at them as a standard to judge their votes by, neither of which I think are true. But you can’t deny the correlation between acting nominations in recent years between the two bodies. Like every other body that announces a group of nominees and winners, the Spirits announce to Academy members that “this person is worthy of AN award.” That isn’t to be taken lightly. The actors that are left off ANY list of nominees that roll out are names that aren’t coming up in conversations about that specific award. Whether you want to admit it or not, having your name left out of ANY CONVERSATION at this point can have a snowball effect and as the season progresses your name may come up less and less. (On that note, I think it’s interesting the way sites are buzzing about The Imitation Game’s “snub” because it’s keeping their name in the conversation more than it probably would have been if it was nominated).
It’s quite simple–when big name actors are in films with Oscar buzz that qualify for the Spirits, they get Spirit nominations ~75% of the time. This year, in as competitive of a year as it is, it seems damaging to campaigns like Reese, Hilary and Amy that qualified for an award/be in a conversation they aren’t going to get/be in. I think it’s something to keep in mind and to discuss. Disagree if you want (you seem to like to).
Also, I checked out that Critics Round Up site you mentioned and any site who’s review aggregate rating for Inception is only a 58, err yeah all credibility lost…
Sorry PADDY but I don’t see any remotely reliable indicators there (with the exception of the winner) even if we don’t consider outliers such as The Blind Side and Extremely Loud. Films anywhere from 62 on up have been nominated. On the other hand all but 3 of these films were 85 or higher on the BFCA site and could have been correctly predicted for nominations based on that metric…
METACRITIC SCORES FOR BEST PICTURE NOMINEES 2009-2013
2009:
The Hurt Locker- 94
Up- 88
An Education- 85
Avatar- 83
Up in the Air- 83
District 9- 81
Precious- 79
A Serious Man- 79
Inglorious Basterds- 69
The Blind Side- 53
2010:
The Social Network-95
Toy Story 3- 92
Winter’s Bone- 90
The King’s Speech- 88
The Kids Are All Right- 86
127 Hours- 82
True Grit- 80
Black Swan- 79
The Fighter- 79
Inception- 74
2011:
The Artist- 89
Moneyball- 87
The Tree of Life- 85
The Descendants- 84
Hugo- 83
Midnight in Paris- 81
War Horse- 72
The Help- 62
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close- 46
2012:
Zero Dark Thirty- 95
Amour- 94
Argo- 86
Beasts of the Southern Wild- 86
Lincoln- 86
Silver Linings Playbook- 81
Django Unchained- 81
Life of Pi- 79
Les Miserables- 63
2013:
12 Years a Slave- 97
Gravity- 96
American Hustle- 90
Her- 90
Nebraska- 86
Dallas Buyers Club- 84
Captain Phillips – 83
The Wolf of Wall Street – 75
Philomena – 76
overall I’ve been quite pleased with how they seem more able to judge a film on it’s own merits putting aside genre biases and the like
I find that far more applicable to the critics on Metacritic and Critics Roundup. Metacritic is the outlet most often considered by those who actively participate in evaluating and propelling the Oscar race. A low score on RT, for example, wouldn’t normally hurt a film’s chances in the standings as much as a low Metascore. But Academy voters will vote for what they like regardless of any aggregators’ opinions.
Benutty, stats change from year to year, as you’ve noticed in your research. The rules they may seem to indicate only apply when they fit the race. I’ve spent far too many years studying statistics in attempting to predict what any group in the race will do, and each time I’ve tripped up due to my reliance on those figures. Whichever way you choose to look at it, the Spirit Awards have rarely, if ever, been regarded as influential in the race. I recall no significant examples of people discussing them at length in either the critical December or January periods.
Steven Kane, you’re right. I blew it. I was thinking of Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary’s Oscar win for Original Screenplay.
Benutty,
Hawke was helped immensely by that nomination. JK Simmons is the no brainer winner, but Hawke’s work in Boyhood was very very impressive.
I guess I’m praying this is another anomaly year though or else Interstellar with only an 80 doesn’t get in.
And personally I’ve often felt that the BFCA has the best mix of taste, appreciating both the usual suspects and quality populist entertainment, as least as reflected in the final scores. Yeah they’ve got some crackpot critics accounted for but overall I’ve been quite pleased with how they seem more able to judge a film on it’s own merits putting aside genre biases and the like…
“Where Oscar is concerned, Metascores are the most reliable indicators”
Since when? I know there’s a correlation with Oscar BP WINNERS but is there with nominees? I shall look at that this morning. There has been an undeniable correlation over the past decade with BFCA scores and Oscar nominees though, 85+ being the pre-requisite all but the 2011 anomaly year.
Im a little surprised by the good-not great reviews that The Imitation Game is receiving thus far because I read some of the reviews and they SOUND stronger than the rating they are receiving. I also keep watching online reviews of the film from various online critics and bloggers who think the movie is just super. So, the disconnect between, say, Metacritic (so far, a score of 70-71ish) and the online critic/blogger community (even the BFCA at a 90) is somewhat strange.
In terms of the relationship between Spirits and Oscars, I think I’m most interested in how it propels or hurts ACTING campaigns, and the likelihood of actors showing up with AMPAS after missing a Spirit nom they were eligible for. Looking back:
2013:
– all 4 Oscar winners won Spirit
– 9 of 9 Oscar nominees eligible at Spirit were nominated by Spirit
2012:
– 4 of 6 Oscar nominees eligible at Spirit were nominated by Spirit (Weaver, DeNiro missed out)
– Bradley Cooper (SLP) seemed like a surprise entry into the Oscar race. Debatable that it started with his Spirit nom? Thanksgiving time that year the Gurus had him in 6th place, but it’s worth noting that their picks were only distributed between 6 actors + 2 one-vote wonders that year (this year distributed between 9 + 4 one-vote wonders).
2011:
– 5 of 9 Oscar nominees eligible at Spirit were nominated by Spirit (Clooney, Close, Branagh, Bejo missed out)
– Debatable that Spirit launched Bichir’s campaign? He wasn’t on Gurus’ radar Nov 8 or Dec 6 of that year (Spirit nominations announced Nov 29).
2010:
– 8 of 8 Oscar nominees eligible at Spirit were nominated by Spirit
– all 5 Lead Actress Oscar nominees were Spirit nominees
2009:
– 8 of 9 Oscar nominees eligible at Spirit were nominated by Spirit (Gyllenhaal missed out, Renner nominated for Oscar in 2009, Spirit in 2008)
2008:
– 6 of 12 Oscar nominees eligible at Spirit were nominated by Spirit (Brolin, Tomei & all 4 Doubt actors missed out)
– I’m guessing it’s possible that Doubt (limited premiere in December) hadn’t been seen by the time Spirit nominations were decided???
– Gurus include Jenkins as #1 darkhorse contender Nov 26, was listed 8th of 10 actor possibilities prior to Spirit noms
In these 6 years:
– 40 of 53 Oscar nominees eligible at Spirit were nominated by Spirit
– eventual Oscar winners have never been left out of Spirit nominations when they were eligible for it.
Translating this to 2014, the current Oscar hopefuls that missed out on Spirit nominations that they were eligible for:
– Swank, Jones (The Homesman)
– Witherspoon, Dern (Wild)
– Cumberbatch, Knightley (The Imitation Game)
– Adams, Waltz (Big Eyes)
– Wilkinson (Selma)
– Cooper (American Sniper — what was the budget on this? was it Spirit eligible?)
– Isaac, Brooks (A Most Violent Year)
– Aniston (Cake)
and who may have been propelled into and/or up the ranks by their Spirit nomination:
– Ejogo (Selma)
– Cotillard (The Immigrant)
– Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler)
– Chastain (A Most Violent Year)
– Hawke (Boyhood)
WW, Pulp Fiction did not win best picture that year. Forrest Gump did.
Tom Wilkinson/LBJ is a contender.
blizzards, I share in your delight. Lav Diaz has an extraordinary gift for filmmaking. I often look to the Spirit Awards to find my favourite films of recent years recognised, and I’m thrilled that rhey’ve obliged with choosing Norte this year.
LCbaseball, BFCA scores rly don’t hold much weight. That’s a group of largely irrelevant critics, most of whom don’t even get their reviews featured on Metacritic, never mind Critics Roundup. Where Oscar is concerned, Metascores are the most reliable indicators, and both The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything are lagging behind the other contenders in this regard.
Norte got a nom. Wohoo!!
“NOPE! Has anyone been reading reviews of The Imitation Game? It’s not the acclaimed film people think it is, and I wish most pundits recognized that. Same goes for Theory of Everything.”
Well they aren’t getting many reviews like The King’s Speech did but both are holding well with the BFCA at 90 and 88, respectively.
For a real contrast, let’s go back to the first decade of the Independent Spirit Awards.
I’ve listed the Best Film winner and another noteworthy Indie nominee that didn’t make the Best Picture cut at the Oscars.
1985 Best Film: ”After Hours”; fellow nominee: ”Blood Simple”
1986 Best Film: ”Platoon”; fellow nominee: ”Blue Velvet”
1987 Best Film: ”River’s Edge”; fellow nominee: ”The Dead”
1988 Best Film: ”Stand and Deliver”; fellow nominee: ”Hairspray”
1989 Best Film: ”Sex, Lies & Videotape”; fellow nominee: ”Drugstore Cowboy”
1990 Best Film: ”The Grifters”; fellow nominee: ”Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer”
1991 Best Film: ”Rambling Rose”; fellow nominee: ”My Own Private Idaho”
1992 Best Film: ”The Player”; fellow nominee: ”Bad Lieutenant”
1993 Best Film: ”Short Cuts”; fellow nominee: ”Ruby in Paradise”
1994 Best Film: ”Pulp Fiction”; fellow nominee: ”Wes Craven’s New Nightmare”
That first decade of Indie Spirit Best Film nominees represented 51 movies.
And in that 10 years, only 2 of them went on to Oscar Best Picture nominations: ”Platoon” and ”Pulp Fiction.” (And both won!)
But nowadays, we expect the annual batch of Indie Best Film nominees to include at least 2 Oscar Picture nominees.
At the beginning, the Indies recognized more outliers; now, they are just another stop on the Oscar campaign trail.
Both The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything play well with audiences and have great acting. I don’t know if Theory was eligible. I think both will do well in upcoming awards in terms of nominations.
Roberto, if that’s the Oscar BP lineup, then catatonia will set in for the moviegoing audience and prove the Academy doesn’t give a shit about mainstream filmmaking.
Tony, Amen brother. I think these pundits are predicting Imitation Game and Theory only because they’re “Oscar films”. The reviews for them haven’t been overly spectacular.
According to Awards Circuit:
1. Selma
2. The Imitation Game
3. Boyhood
4. Unbroken
5. Birdman
6. The Theory of Everything
7. Into the Woods
8. Whiplash
9. Gone Girl
Alt: 10. A Most Violent Year
which is to say Selma could win and it’s stronger now than it was yesterday.
Surprised by the Selma strength. Honestly would not have thought twice if it had been passed over since it is so late.
the Selma recognition is important because it is arriving late. One thing for a Weinstein film to break late, as with American Hustle, but few can do it. It’s a lot of work in a small amount of time to get your film seen and considered seriously. Indicates that people are watching it and responding. If American Hustle had had the goods for the long haul it could have won. its late arrival wasn’t a problem
I’m stoked Stand Clear of the Closing Doors got some attention. I really hope I get to see that one of these days.
I’m also glad they acknowledged Kumiko and Dear White People, though since I think DWP is the best film of the year to date, I’m annoyed it got shunted over to the First Feature and First Screenplay categories.
Can we do 2011 all over again and nominate drive for best picture?
Assuming that The Imitation Game was eligible, it’s a bit of a surprise that it was shut out entirely. I’m sure once the critics’ awards get started the movie will likely get recognized. Harvey shouldn’t worry”
NOPE! Has anyone been reading reviews of The Imitation Game? It’s not the acclaimed film people think it is, and I wish most pundits recognized that. Same goes for Theory of Everything.
“The Spirits as precursor kick in if any of those films miss out on GG writing nominations”
Actually if any film misses out on a GG screenplay nod I don’t think it’ll necessarily be that much of an issue. Keep in mind that the GG does not have dual original and adapted categories, so there are bound to be movies left out at the Globes that eventually make it in the corresponding category at the Oscars.
I haven’t seen many of the films nominated, but I’m glad that Obvious Child got some love (which hopefully translates into a Golden Globe nod for Jenny Slate). Under the Skin and Ida making it in the International category was also deserved.
Assuming that The Imitation Game was eligible, it’s a bit of a surprise that it was shut out entirely. I’m sure once the critics’ awards get started the movie will likely get recognized. Harvey shouldn’t worry.
I was a little skeptical of Selma given the ambition of the project and that DuVernay had not made a major studio film before, but after seeing the trailer and hearing the raves I’m much more excited to see it. I’ve liked Oyelowo and Ejogo (as well as the rest of the cast) in other movies so I’m glad they’re finally getting the recognition they deserve.
This should be a very interesting Oscar season, for sure.
If it’s only 2 again then I’d guess/take Selma and Boyhood over Birdman, but then again Birdman is Fox Searchlight and they’ve done well pushing Oscar films…
I LOVE that best actress lineup. I hope Moore doesn’t win, she has the Oscar in the bag and doesn’t need this.
Glad to see Birdman, Whiplash, Nightcrawler get plenty of love. Very curious about Selma and hope it lives to the hype. I was getting worried about it at first, but sounds like I can breathe easy. No Russo nom? Bummer.
Paddy,
People have noted that Birdman, Selma, and Boyhood all missed a script nomination. The Spirits as precursor kick in if any of those films miss out on GG writing nominations or the WGA (especially Linklater). Then that’s the first dent in their armor. We’ll quickly see if the acting snubs from Imitation or Theory begin to carry over into Guild nominations or critics awards as well.
So happy, as always, to see Tilda Swinton recognized for her imaginative work, again. One of the great actresses getting in over one of the great (debatable) movie stars. Bravo
Glad they snubbed both Thoery and Harvey’s Imitation Game. If they were that loved across they would have gotten into foreign film like Under the Skin and Mommy.
If The Imitation Game was eligible for main awards, then it’s no surprise to see it absent from the Best International Film lineup since it wouldn’t have qualified for that award. As for The Theory of Everything, which people are stating was not eligible, it’s also no surprise – that International Film selection is mighty strong, and if this is the kind of group that’ll nominate Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter for two awards before it even has a US release date – shit, it doesn’t even have a non-festival release date set for anywhere in the world, never mind already opening – then I wouldn’t imagine them picking Theory as one of their favourite non-American productions of the year.
Kumiko won’t even feature in the awards race next year, providing it’s even released next year (I assume it will be). Not even among critics’ groups, unless it’s v lucky. So this is a significant win for the film; ditto the miraculous and extremely promising nod for my favourite film of 2013, Norte, the End of History. Not gonna stop banging on about that one #sorrynotsorry
None of the Feature nominees got a corresponding Screenplay nod, which is interesting
Love Is Strange did. But only Love Is Strange. But consider the fact that Big Eyes, which is not to Film Independent’s usual tastes, which received no other nominations and which has been trashed by a number of high profile critics, did garner a Screenplay nomination… over Boyhood! Which brings me to my main point…
There is much ado these days about how the Spirit Awards aren’t honoring independence anymore but are really another step in the Oscar race.
That’s just the current perception. Fast forward one month… fuck it, one week even, and people will have largely forgotten about these nominations. The fact that Oscar favourites are represented across the Spirit Awards’ slate this year, as in many recent years, is, indeed, a sign that the Oscars are embracing independent film more than they used to, but it’s not a sign that this group matters at all within the race. If they wanted to, they wouldn’t position their nominations in November, and they wouldn’t schedule their show after Oscar ballots have been submitted. And if people even wanted to consider them as an influential precursor, they’d ensure that their choices mattered more within the race. But just wait and see how quickly people drop Love Is Strange from their potential spoiler predictions when it picks up fuck all buzz from the critics’ groups in the coming weeks.
For now, these are the only substantial nominees that people have to go on. Wait until they have Golden Globe and Critics Choice nominees to ponder over. They’ll forget that the Spirit Awards even exist.
Nice to see films like Birdman and Selma on top. If latter turns into the force to reckon with I kind of know it will, I think we should start saving up a slot for Carmen Ejogo in Best Supporting Actress. I remember seeing her in that horrible Sparkle film, thinking even back then, that boy, what a beautiful and talented actress completely wasted in such an ill-conceived pic. Well, timing is perfect : she got the biggest exposure of her career this year as the female lead of a summer hit (The Purge : Anarchy made 110M worldwide on a 9M budget) so playing the role of her career (to date) this year seems like perfect timing.
P.S. Sasha/Ryan I sent you an e-mail this morning, did you get it ?
Glad they snubbed both Thoery and Harvey’s Imitation Game. If they were that loved across they would have gotten into foreign film like Under the Skin and Mommy.
Kumiko, the Tresure Hunter? *heads over to wikipedia* Well now i’m intrigued!
I think this will be a year where at least three of the ISA BP nominees are also Oscar BP nominees–Boyhood, Birdman, Selma. It could be a four year if Whiplash also makes the Oscar BP cut, which it could, but I’m a little more tentative with that one than with the other three.
Personally, I’m super happy about watching the greatest actress of all time, the one and only Marion Cotillard being nominated for an Independent Spirit Award for her insuperable performance as Ewa Cyluska in The Immigrant! It fills me with joy and excitement. She should sweep all the awards with her immensely powerful and hauntingly beautiful work in Gray’s film. Any list of Best Actress contenders would look empty without the incomparable Marion Cotillard of either The Immigrant or Two Days, One Night in the lead. Both performances should be considered among the 10 greatest performances ever put on film. She gave the absolute best (Two Days, One Night) and the absolute second best female performance (The Immigrant) at the same year. I’ll be more than thrilled to watch her win a second Oscar for either. I’m also extremely excited (not to sound mean) about watching Reese Witherspoon being snubbed for Wild. Having seen the film in a screening, I must say that her work there, whille really good, is far from Oscar-worthy. Watching her being snubbed in favor of sublime work (and truly Oscar-worthy work) by actresses as talented as Tilda Swinton for her exceptional performance in Jarmusch’s Only Lovers Left Alive (I’m sure obviously there’s not a chance she’s going to be acknowledged for her tremendous turn from the Oscars though), I’m over the moon. Bringing groundbreaking talents for towering work in front and snubbing Oscar vehicle turns by limited actors always feels great!
I’m not at all surprised by Reese Witherspoon’s not turning up. “Wild” was a snore. I watched the WHOLE film and still don’t know why she was doing all that hiking.
I’ll acknowledge I have not seen Selma yet but I do hope Ava DuVernay does not win Best Director over Inarritu and Linklater. The feeling I have here, based on their previous works and their movies nominated this year, is that Inarritu and Linklater are filmakers with a unique vision. Their movies could not have been made by anybody else. Selma is a biopic that may be well made, but I am betting it’s just another decent biopic but not much more. I am not a huge biopic fan I’ll admit, and I am quite glad to see true imagination present with those spirit nominations, with nods for two great vampire stories (Only lovers left alive, A Girl walks home alone at night) and other great original pieces of art like Whiplash, Love is Strange, Nightcrawler, The Immigrant. Looking forward still to watch Selma and see my prejudice against biopics turned upside down. This year, except for St Laurent, Mr Turner or Foxcatcher, movies based on actual events or people left me unenthusiastic at best.
I’m thrilled with the major nominations for Love Is Strange, which is one of my favorite films of the year. On par with Boyhood. Nothing else has touched them yet, for me. Whiplash came closest.
God, it really WAS a bad year for women in film.
I have to say that I’m happy that Reese was not nominated, I can’t stand her at all.