This weekend, the all important Ace Eddies will be held and two films will win in their individual categories – drama and musical/comedy.
The common wisdom right now is that BOYMAN or BIRDHOOD will prevail – and that Boyhood will win in drama and Birdman in comedy. BUT.
There are some rules that have been consistently true about the Eddies and the Oscars. The first is that no film has ever won Best Picture without an editing nomination since Ordinary People, over 30 years ago. The second thing is that since the Ace Editors expanded back in 1998 to separate films into drama and comedy/musical, there has never been a film that was in the comedy category and nominated for an Oscar that hasn’t won.
This year the only film from the comedy category to earn an Oscar nod is The Grand Budapest Hotel. History tells us that will win based on what they’ve done in the past. If it doesn’t win, and it goes to the favorite – Birdman – that will be a first in their history.
Thus, I will predict The Grand Budapest Hotel to prevail in the Comedy category but I will also add that 2015 feels like an odd year. Partly because of the wacky way it’s been going and partly because of the dramatic difference in the dates of Oscar ballots and nominations. In some ways it feels like “all bets are off.” Put it this way – Birdman is going to have to be REALLY popular to break those two historical precedents – to win Eddie without a corresponding Oscar nom, and to win Best Picture without a corresponding Oscar nom in editing. If it manages either or both of these I would expect you have a robust contender on your hands that will likely sweep the season.
The win in the drama category is also going to be interesting. I don’t know how you don’t give it to Boyhood when you consider what that movie is – and how it leans so heavily on the editor, in this case, one of the few women to be nominated, Sandra Adair. But this, too, will test the popularity of Boyhood on a much larger scale as we head towards the DGA awards. For some reason it seems like the showier editing might upstage Boyhood – particularly American Sniper, which is my prediction to win this award. It’s just a hunch and bears no weight on Boyhood’s potential Best Picture win – it’s just that I have a feeling Sniper is going to win the Eddie and then win the Oscar.
Let it be said again that I would prefer to see Boyhood win this as I think (not being an editor) it deserves it, along with Best Picture.
In documentary I think it could go to Vivian Maier, which has more showy editing than Citizen Four but I can’t not predict CitizenFour and go agains the consensus.
In animated – I think The Lego Movie takes it but honestly, Big Hero 6 has amazing editing…it’s a tossup for me and many are predicting the Boxtrolls.
Final predictions
American Sniper (but I am hoping for Boyhood)
Grand Budapest Hotel (but it could be Birdman)
Citizenfour (watch out for Vivian Maier)
The Lego Movie (but it could really be Big Hero 6)
You tell me what you think?
(polls)
The Charts
The Ace Eddies
Won Ace | Won Oscar
2014 | |
American Sniper | American Sniper |
Boyhood | Boyhood |
Gone Girl | |
Imitation Game | Imitation Game |
Nightcrawler | |
Whiplash | Whiplash |
Birdman | |
Guardians of the Galaxy | |
Into the Woods | |
Inherent Vice | |
Grand Budapest Hotel | Grand Budapest Hotel |
2013 | |
Captain Phillips | Captain Phillips |
12 Years a Slave | 12 Years a Slave |
Gravity | Gravity |
Her | Dallas Buyers Club |
Saving Mr. Banks | |
American Hustle | American Hustle |
August: Osage County | |
Nebraska | |
Wolf of Wall Street |
2012
Argo+ | Argo+ |
Life of Pi* | Life of Pi* |
Lincoln* | Lincoln* |
Skyfall | |
Zero Dark Thirty* | Zero Dark Thirty* |
Silver Linings Playbook* | Silver Linings Playbook* |
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel | |
Les Miserables* | |
Moonrise Kingdom | |
Ted |
2011
The Descendants | The Descendants* |
Hugo | Hugo* |
Moneyball | Moneyball* |
War Horse | |
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo | The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo |
The Artist | The Artist+ |
Young Adult | |
Midnight in Paris | |
Bridesmaids | |
My Week with Marilyn |
2010
The Social Network | The Social Network* |
The King’s Speech | The King’s Speech+ |
Black Swan | Black Swan* |
Inception* | 127 Hours* |
The Fighter | The Fighter* |
Alice in Wonderland | |
Easy A | |
The Kids Are All Right* | |
Made in Dagenam | |
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World |
2009
The Hurt Locker | The Hurt Locker+ |
Avatar | Avatar* |
District 9 | District 9* |
Star Trek | Inglourious Basterds* |
Up in the Air* | Precious+ |
The Hangover | |
500 Days of Summer | |
A Serious Man* | |
It’s Complicated | |
Julia & Julia |
2008
Slumdog Millionaire | Slumdog Millionaire+ |
Milk | Milk* |
Benjamin Button | Benjamin Button* |
Frost/Nixon | Frost/Nixon* |
The Dark Knight | The Dark Knight |
Wall-E | |
In Bruges | |
Mamma Mia! | |
Tropic Thunder | |
Vicky Cristina Barcelona |
2007
The Bourne Ultimatum | The Bourne Ultimatum |
Into the Wild | Into the Wild |
Michael Clayton* | Diving Bell |
No Country for Old Men* | No Country for Old Men+ |
There Will Be Blood* | There Will Be Blood* |
Hairspray | |
Juno* | |
Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End | |
Ratatouille | |
Sweeney Todd |
2006
Babel* | Babel* |
Casino Royale | Children of Men |
The Departed* | The Departed+ |
The Queen* | Blood Diamond |
United 93 | United 93 |
Thank You for Smoking | |
The Devil Wears Prada | |
Dreamgirls | |
Little Miss Sunshine* | |
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest |
2005
Brokeback Mountain* | Cinderella Man |
The Constant Gardener | The Constant Gardener |
Crash+ | Crash+ |
Good Night, and Good Luck* | |
Munich* | Munich* |
Charlie and The Chocolate Factory | |
The Family Stone | |
Pride & Prejudice | |
Wedding Crashers | |
Walk the Line | Walk the Line |
2004
Collateral | Collateral |
Finding Neverland* | Finding Neverland* |
Kill Bill Vol. 2 | |
Kinsey | |
Million Dollar Baby* | Million Dollar Baby+ |
The Aviator * | The Aviator* |
De-Lovely | |
Eternal Sunshine | |
The Incredibles | |
Ray* | Ray* |
Sideways* |
2003
Cold Mountain | Cold Mountain |
Master and Commander* | Master and Commander* |
Mystic River* | City of God |
The Return of the King+ | The Return of the King+ |
Seabiscuit* | Seabiscuit* |
(COMEDY OR MUSICAL): | |
Bend It Like Beckham | |
Finding Nemo | |
Lost in Translation* | |
Pirates of the Caribbean | |
School of Rock |
2002
The Hours* | The Hours* |
Gangs of New York* | Gangs of New York* |
About Schmidt | |
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers | Lord of the Rings: Two Towers * |
Minority Report | The Pianist* |
(COMEDY OR MUSICAL): | |
About a Boy | |
Adaptation | |
My Big Fat Greek Wedding | |
Chicago+ | Chicago+ |
Punch-Drunk Love |
2001
A Beautiful Mind + | A Beautiful Mind+ |
Black Hawk Down |
Black Hawk Down |
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone |
|
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring* |
Lord of the Rings* |
Memento | Memento |
(COMEDY OR MUSICAL): |
|
Gosford Park * | |
Amelie | |
Monsters, Inc. | |
Moulin Rouge! * |
Moulin Rouge* |
The Royal Tenenbaums | |
Shrek |
2000
Billy Elliot | Wonder Boys |
Cast Away | |
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon* | Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon* |
Gladiator+ | Gladiator+ |
Traffic* | Traffic* |
Film Editing – Musical or Comedy | |
Almost Famous | Almost Famous |
Best In Show | |
Chocolat * | |
O Brother, Where Art Thou? | |
Shanghai Noon |
1999
American Beauty + | American Beauty* |
The Insider* | The Insider* |
The Matrix | The Matrix |
The Sixth Sense * | The Sixth Sense* |
The Talented Mr. Ripley | The Cider House Rules* |
Film Editing – Musical or Comedy | |
Analyze This | |
Being John Malkovich | |
Election | |
Man On the Moon | |
Run Lola Run |
“I tend to think people who like BIRDMAN are the type of people who let movies wash over them and they don’t get caught up in accuracies and explanations.”
I’m sort of both of those. What I want is to be sucked into the movie’s world, and not be pulled out. But I also very much care about cohesion and sense, because if I see something in the movie that doesn’t feel right (for whatever reason, and there are many possibilities), it pulls me out of that world, even if just a little bit, and I don’t like that. (Or if I find out about it afterwards, or figure it out on my own, and it bothers me, it affects my subsequent viewings of that movie.) I don’t know… I might be over-analyzing the issue of over-analyzing now. 🙂
Well . . . if you want Sarah Palin to be a presenter at the Oscars (heh, for BEST SONG), then . . .
why not have Clint Eastwood and a chair present Best Producer while you’re at it?
@Claudiu Just because people pick a movie apart doesn’t mean they’re right. Take the Cinema Sins guys. I watch their videos all the time because they’re funny but a lot of the time they pick on things that aren’t wrong because they’re mistaken. I tend to think people who like BIRDMAN are the type of people who let movies wash over them and they don’t get caught up in accuracies and explanations. I like BIRDMAN, but I also didn’t give a crap about the “inaccuracies” in either SELMA or AMERICAN SNIPER. They’re movies to me, not science. lol Once Roger Ebert linked to a video of a guy who was supposedly explaining why THE DARK KNIGHT was so bad because of the perspective or point of views Nolan used. It was like an hour long and I couldn’t understand why anyone would take the time to do that. To me that’s just people looking for a reason to justify why they don’t like something that other people love. I think Ebert was convinced, which is kinda sad. I really don’t understand the motivation in having to prove how bad a movie is with so-called facts. In my opinion, those people should just stay home and do equations or puzzles or something. I think when they look at a Monet all they see are dots.
Robert, thanks for directing me to Nathaniel Rogers (in another thread)! His Birdman podcast (http://thefilmexperience.net/blog/2014/11/2/podcast-birdman-pride-and-nightcrawler.html) with 1-2 people who also didn’t like the movie (for the same reasons as others) answered most of my questions. He (and the other guy who liked it) came up with specific and convincing arguments as to what they thought the movie was saying, and addressed some of the other specific criticisms in the process, which is what I wanted to hear. I’m at peace at last… 🙂 I just need to watch Birdman one more time now, to form some definitive conclusions, see if I still love it and disagree with its critics.
Big thanks to everybody who answered my plea!
“Because at this point it feels too much like homework?”
I know, you’re right, guys, and I’m not trying to waste anybody’s time here, believe me – I’m probably wasting too much of my own on it, as it is… So all should feel more than free to step out of the conversation at any time! You’ve provided valuable insight already, and have made me feel a little better about it, even though my central problem hasn’t been resolved, exactly. Which is: why is it SO EASY for those who dislike Birdman to come up with such specific and convincing arguments for that point of view, including with reference to the message being deep or not, and those like me, who like it, find it to be such homework – and, in my case, near-impossible – to do so? My own possible conclusions, that I draw from this… I find both of them quite unpleasant. 🙁 But it’s OK, if there’s no answer, there’s no answer! I can live in the dark – I’m good at that, actually. I was just hoping there was an answer, that’s why I started this whole thing…
”OK – then, surely, if there’s no “right” or “wrong”, one can come up with equally convincing (and equally subjective, while also equally objective-seeming) pro-Birdman arguments, that negate those of the people who dislike it. Yet, nobody seems to be doing this. And I don’t understand WHY… :((”
To quote Oscar Hammerstein’s lyrics in ”South Pacific”: ”Who can explain it? Who can tell you why? Fools give you reasons. Wise men never try …”
”Brokeback Mountain cannot be moved into a more favorable future for a gay cowboy movie because it had a huge hand in creating that favorable future. It’s like a time travel paradox. Without Brokeback, changes might have taken a lot longer or maybe not even happened.”
If ”Brokeback” had any effect on feature movies, you could fool me. It’s not as if the dam broke open for other gay love stories to get Oscar nominations. So far, it seems to be a fluke. … If there are any changes happening in the LGBT arena, it’s on TV: The gay sex scenes in ”How to Get Away With Murder” and HBO’s ”Looking” are breaking new boundaries, and that’s arguably territory that the U.S. ”Queer as Folk” (2000) got to, before ”Brokeback” (2005).
I give you…Jamie Dornan, ahem, I mean, Christopher: https://twitter.com/search-home
Also common sense dictates what accounts one might want to check out on a regular basis, like TCM or Ryan Adams’ among a handful others.
Otherwise I’m in the dark. Is it really that cool in there?
I can feel it – American Sniper wins Best Picture!
Sarah Palin should be the one to introduce the “harrowing” trailer during the Oscars telecast, the segment reserved for each of the Best Picture nominees. I would LOVE it if this came to be!
I agree wholeheartedly, Daveylow — and this is the textbook definition of a movie that’s “ahead of it’s time,” yes?
You’re both wrong. 😛 Brokeback Mountain cannot be moved into a more favorable future for a gay cowboy movie because it had a huge hand in creating that favorable future. It’s like a time travel paradox. Without Brokeback, changes might have taken a lot longer or maybe not even happened.
Yo sorry for the last minute heads up this is related to a previous and recent thread. Unavailable on home video or any streaming service and a must watch. Set your DVRs!
https://twitter.com/NextOnTCM/status/561313118257967105
Bryce is the Alan Turing of Twitter. He’s a twitter insider, he knows everything there is to know about twitter — but his presence on twitter is highly classified, top secret.
“OK – then, surely, if there’s no “right” or “wrong”, one can come up with equally convincing (and equally subjective, while also equally objective-seeming) pro-Birdman arguments, that negate those of the people who dislike it. Yet, nobody seems to be doing this. And I don’t understand WHY… :(( ”
Because at this point it feels too much like homework?
– if there’s no “right” or “wrong”, one can come up with equally convincing pro-Birdman arguments… Yet, nobody seems to be doing this. And I don’t understand WHY… :(( ”
– Because at this point it feels too much like homework?
or could be everyone is stunned speechless to see julian the emperor and I agree about anything.
If anyone thinks this year the comments are angrier than you weren’t here the year of The Social Network. God forbid if you didn’t love that film that year.
But I think the saddest year of comments was the year of Brokeback Mountain. A lot of appreciation for the film but not by the Academy which was so upsetting. And people mocking the film in public because of the subject matter. If that film had come out a few years later I think it would have definitely won. It won every other major award.
If that film had come out a few years later I think it would have definitely won.
I agree wholeheartedly, Daveylow — and this is the textbook definition of a movie that was “ahead of it’s time,” yes?
“I should just be giving up on this movie, and start hating it like everybody else
My dear, why would you do such a thing? *sigh*”
I’m not saying I WILL ever do it. I’m saying, given everything I’ve heard about it, I just don’t see how I will be able to JUSTIFY (to myself, or anyone else) the fact that I won’t.
“None of this is fact. Only opinion.”
OK, but it SOUNDS like fact, and the unanimity among people who discuss the movie in depth makes me think it might be. If it’s not fact that the movie is pretentious, unnecessarily/ineffectually ambiguous, cliched and devoid of deeper meaning, then how can one PROVE this? Because I don’t find it plausible anymore, given everything I’ve heard. I can’t agree to disagree anymore, now I’d just feel stupid and out of the loop.
“But minds can be altered and persuaded. I’ve changed my mind on movies as I contemplate on them over time. Humans are fallible. We can all be seduced by frauds.”
But we can also be convinced by superior minds, no? And I’m pretty sure Ryan and all of the other smart people who have expressed their dislike of Birdman are not frauds.
“people should be allowed to like what they like and dislike what they dislike.”
But I don’t want to BE ALLOWED to like it. I want to EARN THE RIGHT to like it. I want to understand it at least close to as well as those who hate it. And I’m not sure I do anymore. Their views on the movie give me the impression that they know things I don’t.
“We’re talking about subjective opinions.”
OK – then, surely, if there’s no “right” or “wrong”, one can come up with equally convincing (and equally subjective, while also equally objective-seeming) pro-Birdman arguments, that negate those of the people who dislike it. Yet, nobody seems to be doing this. And I don’t understand WHY… :((
Corvo, nobody says that, stop putting words in people’s mouths.
Ryan, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with you more than with these Jennifer Lawrence digs. I’m cackling.
“Still, it’s a blast to watch the awards pageant as sheer circus spectacle.”
My personal motto and the truth right there.
“It just seems very personal and angrier this year than in years past.”
Yeh, me too, Alicia. It’s a good thing the movies and performances I am passionate about this year are not in the running so I can just sit back, relax, and listen to the mob.
Like Ryan says above, most of us come here for the movies. The Oscars is that annual and interminable family picnic where loose tongues, jealousy grudges and food fights occur. *ducks flying salad*
The DGA will tell who wins best picture. It could be another split this year. Eddies may not get a clear picture of who’s going to win the top two categories best picture and best director. Acting races, best actor they could be a upset but the rest are all locked.
” I loved [‘Birdman’], but I’m simply not smart enough to be able to counter these people’s arguments effectively, or even figure out whether they are clearly right about the movie sucking, and I am clearly wrong.”
Why the need to ”counter these people’s arguments”? If you love ”Birdman,” that’s great. I happen to love ”Boyhood.” It’s silly to debate taste. We’re talking about subjective opinions. They aren’t ”right” or ”wrong.” They just are. And at this point, nothing anyone can say will change my opinion of ”Boyhood,” any more than anyone can change your opinion of ”Birdman.” Let’s just be respectful of each other and let the Oscar race run its course.
”Am I the only one that noticed how very little both Thompson and Adair actually had to say about the EDITING of Boyhood? All Adair talks about is the relatability of the film, but nothing about the work or art of her editing.”
Talk about seeing what you want to see! You realize that the writer excerpted those quotes from longer conversations, right? I bet that Adair ALSO did talk about her art of editing in ”Boyhood,” but the writer chose to spotlight the quotes that seemed most germane to him. It’s not as if the article ran the entire transcript of each conversation. Yes, it was … EDITED. … It’s really stretching to diminish Adair’s work based on this select quote of hers. If you are genuinely interested in learning more about Adair’s art of editing, feel free to read this full interview with her at Indiewire:
http://www.indiewire.com/article/how-boyhood-editor-sandra-adair-helped-shape-the-films-12-year-evolution-20140717
P.S. The initial Editing article is at Thompson on Hollywood, but Anne didn’t write it. It’s by Bill Desowitz.
This race is giving me serious stomach aches this year. I am actually starting to stay away from a lot of message boards because of the vitrol (not this board). I agree with Anotinette – people should be allowed to like what they like and dislike what they dislike. It just seems very personal and angrier this year than in years past.
re: “Never gonna happen, but I fully believe that they should do away with the director and editor categories.”
I think they should do away with the Best Picture category if anything. Name the 10 best films as voted on and don’t declare any of them the winner. Keep all the other categories and add one for casting and one for newcomer/breakthrough that isn’t restricted to one field (include actors, cinematographers, composers, directors, etc. all together, and any not-previously-Oscar-nominated person is eligible).
Name the 10 best films as voted on and don’t declare any of them the winner.
Since I only ever care about the BP winners that I agree with, that’s exactly the purpose the nominations serve for me. From the time I was a wee lad, Oscar nominations have ALWAYS provided me with a rough guide to what movies I should check out.
I’m literally talking about my own regard for the Oscars since the age of 12 or 13 … and let’s be honest, 95% of people who casually notice “Nominated for ___ Oscars” or “Winner of the Academy Award for Best ____” know nothing about any of this arcane deep-background Oscar-esoterica that some of us like to delve into.
The best way for me personally to observe the Oscars is to examine it as a cultural snapshot, an industry marketing tool, social-media fodder, media phenomena — and for taking the pulse of Hollywood to see how sick or healthy Hollywood is.
The Oscars can never Tell Me What’s Best. I already know what I think is Best without 6000 millionaires trying to convince me they’re “right.” (and that’s a false way of expressing it too, because the Academy doesn’t give a shit whether we think they’re “right” or not. It’s their party. We’re just peeping toms and pesky gate-crashers to them.)
There’s no right or wrong about it. A person’s personal taste either coincides with “Oscar taste” or else it doesn’t.
And even THAT is a falsified way of looking at the Oscars. Since we CAN NEVER KNOW if Gravity only lost to 12 Years by ONE VOTE or 20 votes or 2000 votes, to claim something like, “wow, the Academy loves The King’s Speech” is as silly and reductive as saying “wow, America loves George Bush.” Why do we say such blunt clumsy things? Just because somebody won by barely a handful of votes?
Ridiculous. Half of America knows George Bush wasn’t all that, and half the Academy knows the same thing about The King’s Speech.
Don’t we all have a more refined sense of perception than to think The Entire Academy swarms all over Fincher like vicious fire ants trying to diss him to death?
Trust me, thousands of Academy members are just as sickened as some of us are by Tom Hooper having an Oscar and Fincher going home empty-handed.
Sorry sorry sorry, but I’m not actually very interested in what a high-school dropout like Jennifer Lawrence thinks is the “best” movie of the year. I would, however LOVE to see Terrence Malick’s ballot. Pity those two ballots probably cancel each out like mixing Matter and Anti-Matter in a shake-and-bake sack.
I watch the Oscars to enjoy the moments when the balance tips the scales in the direction of What Martin Scorsese Likes, but I could not possibly give fewer fucks whenever the scales tip more toward What Kirstie Alley Likes.
I like Kirstie Alley just fine, but I don’t need her telling me what movies are BEST. I’m smarter than she is, especially when it comes to KNOWING WHAT I LIKE.
And yet, Kirstie Alley’s ballot counts just as much as David Fincher’s ballot. Think about that. Never forget that, you guys.
That’s democracy, and we all know how badly democracy has fucked up America at various times in American history (as well as all the times democracy has made America proud).
Still, it’s a blast to watch the awards pageant as sheer circus spectacle. And it provides a terrific topic that attracts movielovers to this site — a site where most of us realize that our rock-solid respect for Movies goes far beyond our wavering respect for the Oscars.
“You love your movies! Don’t ever change your mind because someone else doesn’t like them.”
I know what you’re saying. Don’t deny your feelings. But minds can be altered and persuaded. I’ve changed my mind on movies as I contemplate on them over time. Humans are fallible. We can all be seduced by frauds.
“I especially like how Richard Linklater and Sandra Adair seamlessly have handled the passage of years without posting time stamps. I hope your brethren use the same criteria.”
WW, first, thanks for the compliments. Editors, even though they are knowledgeable in their craft, react to movies like anyone else, viscerally. Art seduces us like drugs. Some people prefer to hallucinate with marijuana, others cocaine. There’s no account for tastes. Never gonna happen, but I fully believe that they should do away with the director and editor categories. That when the Best Picture is announced, the people who should go up on the podium to accept the award are the producer, director and editor.
“I purposefully used the phrase “art of editing” because I don’t think there’s anything artistic about the way Boyhood was edited.”
In your opinion, obviously, Benutty. The professionals evidently disagree with you. And what is “art of editing”? Editing is already an art form. That’s like saying the “art of art.” Some people like their art to be arty and painterly. Other keen eyes can appreciate and detect the invisible strokes.
Speaking of editing capable of inducing a state of discomposure, what was THE PAPERBOY of 2014? Or was it overall a boring year?
I should just be giving up on this movie, and start hating it like everybody else
My dear, why would you do such a thing? *sigh* Okay kids, gather ’round. I have a message for all of you.
You love your movies! Don’t ever change your mind because someone else doesn’t like them. Who cares what they think? None of this is fact. Only opinion. That’s the danger with the Academy Awards. Some people take their opinion as fact. It is not. It doesn’t matter how long they’ve been around, or how qualified they’re supposed to be, it’s still an opinion. If I think your favorite movie stinks, don’t listen to me either. It’s my opinion. If you think my favorite movie stinks, great! That’s why we don’t wear the same pants. We’re all different people. We shouldn’t like the same things. If we all did, something would be horribly, horribly wrong.
We’re in a race right now. We all want our favorites to win. That’s why we’ve hit the argument stage. Pretty soon, it’ll be time to get out and push. What someone says about your favorite film says nothing about you as a person. A great man once said : “This is war, Peacock. Casualties are inevitable. You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.” So please do not allow your brain to be eggs. Enjoy the battle if you can. We’ve got miles to go yet.
WW, thank you for linking to that Thompson article on the editing. Am I the only one that noticed how very little both Thompson and Adair actually had to say about the EDITING of Boyhood? All Adair talks about is the relatability of the film, but nothing about the work or art of her editing.
Curiously, Thompson had a lot of specific things to point to re: editing for all 4 of the other nominees…………………
My counter to what Claudiu has posted just above this, mainly this argument made by the person he quoted “The problem with Birdman ultimately is this: It’s a movie that so obviously pines for seriousness, but in a deceptively light form (the comic aspect of the movie), it’s trying to deliver a message but at the same time trying to obscure that message so it seems shrouded in ambiguity.”:
I really, really like Birdman. One of the things I was immediately drawn to was this exact thing. I AGREE that the movie pines for seriousness in a deceptively light form. For me, this absolutely 100% makes it work so well and what the story and message is trying to achieve.
I see every aspect of Birdman representative of “cinema vs. theater.” The fluidity of the one-take is a cinematic trick that when used in the setting of a theater gives the audience the feeling of being AT the theater, both on and off stage with the same continuousness that actors experience theater. Thematically it reminds us of stream of consciousness writing, where one thought seamlessly bleeds into another, and not by transition but by pivots (just as the camera pivots and follows characters in the film). The dialogue is purposefully trite because it reminds us of how Shakespeare–the ultimate example of theater–enveloped seriousness and contemporary political/moral/social climates in his comedies. In plays characters don’t have the luxury of shrouding their dialogues in rich metaphors and complicated symbolism because theater is an immediate and fleeting art form–the audience hears words that are immediately replaced with new ones by the next line, if they’re going to grasp deeper meaning from the action it has to happen quickly and be easily attainable. Film audiences and readers have the luxury of revisiting scenes in a way that a live audience does not. Birdman plays with this constantly. The conversations about love that Emma and Ed have on the rooftop are eye-rollingly cliche, but they HAVE to be because they’re in a scene in a play, probably a Shakespearean one. The thing we love most about Sanchez’s score is that it is alive, in the same way that a theater score is alive–we can believe that he is hidden below the right row of the movie theater playing the drums live for us, watching the play and hitting his cues based on the movements of the characters.
I mean, I could go on and on.
Alan of NY, I purposefully used the phrase “art of editing” because I don’t think there’s anything artistic about the way Boyhood was edited. Is it a lot of WORK going through 12 years of film? Surely. Was it handled as artistically or precisely as I think it could have been? No. Sorry.
and re: “The scenes were cut so well together that you don’t even notice for a moment that the characters have just aged before your eyes.”
100% disagree. I was removed from the thread of the story EACH AND EVERY TIME THIS HAPPENED. Horseshit garbage editing.
Zooey, I meant about the Eddie leading to a BP win not a Film Editing win.
(I hope the moderators let me post this, because I’m at my wits’ end, and I don’t know what else to do here…)
OK – I have a challenge for you guys! 🙂 I need the help of some Birdman fans, if there are any here (that feel strongly enough about it to help me out)… It seems every thinking person in this world hated this movie, and for mostly the same reasons (which will be given below). I loved it, but I’m simply not smart enough to be able to counter these people’s arguments effectively, or even figure out whether they are clearly right about the movie sucking, and I am clearly wrong, or if it’s, at least, dependent on the person, and not a fault of the movie itself.
I feel stupid that I simply can’t hate the movie too, like all the cool kids, so I’m going to try one last, desperate thing: let other people, smarter than I, try to see if they can come up with a good rebuttal to this person’s comments on the movie, which, I believe, reflect rather well pretty much everybody’s criticisms of it. I’m sorry if you think this means I can’t think for myself – maybe you’re right, even though you should know I’ve tried, and I just can’t find the arguments, but don’t FEEL, in my heart of hearts, that I should just be giving up on this movie, and start hating it like everybody else. Which is why I’m asking for your help… Can anybody, please, help me?
The person who wrote the initial comment will, of course, be able to counter any arguments brought forth to defend Birdman, should there be any (I’m hoping against hope). I will confirm the person’s identity, should they decide to come forth and defend their point of view, which I believe they will, since they seem to feel rather strongly about it, as does everybody else who hates the movie. I hope they can forgive me my little indiscretion (not asking for permission), but, if they can’t, they should at least know that I take these things to heart, and I have been very upset by all of the hate this movie has been receiving. I’m not doing this for fun, or to try to play a sick joke on anybody… Besides, the post is public, so I could have just linked to it instead. I just think this is better for all those involved.
Here is the comment in question, word for word, edited only as far as spacing of paragraphs goes, to avoid that the poster be TOO easily identified, in case they should wish to avoid it:
“I still don’t really like it, despite all of the technical flair with which it’s executed (and the ensemble doing pretty much exemplary work). What I see is still a script laden with pretension heavy as lead. I don’t think the writing is anywhere near as inspired as some of the technical marvels at display. There are numerous examples: The most satiric moments in the movie (the scene with the critics for example) is a cheap shot (that Barthes allusion is pointless and not very well executed), the rendezvous at the bar with the theater critic is a parody (I only accept it as somehow valid if the entire movie is seen through the prism of Riggan’s madness, and that’s not really interesting to me, because he’s not an interesting character to begin with, an ignoramus, basically, but an ignoramus devoid of comical meaning – as a case study his is more tedious than tragic).
Everything Inarritu says about modern life (the usual qualms of the contrarian) is so basic to invite only a shrug. He doesn’t say anything that I would consider challenging or deep. He says whatever is expected of the modern-day contrarian who views Hollywood with disdain and thinks social media have a corrosive influence on our everyday existence, our ability to be in sync with ourselves and the reality at hand. Whether he is right or not, is not really important. It doesn’t enhance the art, it only enhances his agenda.
The problem with Birdman ultimately is this: It’s a movie that so obviously pines for seriousness, but in a deceptively light form (the comic aspect of the movie), it’s trying to deliver a message but at the same time trying to obscure that message so it seems shrouded in ambiguity. But Inarritu at heart is not an ambiguous filmmaker, he is a didactic, message-driven filmmaker. His technical solutions are well-executed this time around, but the core of his movie is the same old Inarritu: ‘The world is fucked, but I have figured out what’s wrong. Now go, follow me!’ To me, that’s not interesting. I want artists probing questions, not pointing to solutions.”
Thompson on Hollywood rates the 5 best editing Oscar nominees, with quotes from the editors themselves:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/ranking-the-5-best-editing-oscar-nominees-20150129
Koles, you’re right. I thought ”Black Hawk Down” WAS a Best Picture nominee, but that was back in the day (2002) when there were only 5 of them. Had it been expanded, it probably would’ve made the cut. It was on AFI and NBR’s top 10 list. And Ridley Scott got an Oscar and DGA nomination for directing it.
“it’s happened only twice: ”Bourne Ultimatum” (2007); ”Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” (2011).”
Three times actually. “Black Hawk Down” (2001)
”As a filmmaker who has worked with many editors and who has edited his own work, and who has intimate relationships with film editors in his life, I would say that you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
Alan of NY, thank you for sharing your eloquence and insights on the topic. I agree that the best kind of editing serves the story and doesn’t necessarily call attention to itself. I especially like how Richard Linklater and Sandra Adair seamlessly have handled the passage of years without posting time stamps. I hope your brethren use the same criteria. But I fear, like Steve50, the voters will go for the ”flashiest” work; the movie with the most hyper quick-cutting.
Keifer, I couldn’t agree more with you about ”Bullitt,” which won only 1 Oscar: for Editing. … Nowadays, it’s so rare for a movie to win the Oscar for Editing without being a Best Picture nominee. Since 2000, it’s happened only twice: ”Bourne Ultimatum” (2007); ”Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” (2011).
Wasn’t Moneyball also nominated for BP?
I think so too – not being an editor and not being able to speak for what they value but I would suspect that Birdman makes an argument to get rid of editing altogether, to create a film that doesn’t need one, in fact.
Kind of a weird claim, no? Not only was the editing in Birdman crucial to its success (not many cuts, but the few that were there needed to be perfect), but unless single-take-shot-through films become anything more than an occasional production stunt (more Russian Ark than Birdman), I can’t imagine how film as a medium can exist without editing.
That said, I’m really pulling for Whiplash in drama (because that film lives and dies by how effectively and energetically it’s strung together – and does it ever live!) and, perhaps against consensus, Inherent Vice in comedy (because the film has a seamlessly constructed tone and cadence that works perfectly with how the story rolls out, plus I walked out of the theater feeling kind of like I just smoked a bowl, which is indicative of some good craft, at least). However, I agree that the drama categorically is certainly going to Boyhood or American Sniper, and comedy to Grand Budapest or Birdman. Pity,
Oh wow, I’m tired. The Descendants didn’t win BP. I know. I know. The Artist did. Sorry, guys. I think I was thinking about the year when “The Departed” won My bad.
I also sometimes yearn for the days when a an editor like Frank P. Keller won for the movie “Bullitt” in1968). He walked off with the best editing award because it was so richly deserved. One of the best edited film ever.
I’ll bring up another AMPAS travesty when they failed to reward “The Exorcist” best editing in 1973. While “The Sting” (the winner) contains very good editing, “The Exorcist” is a master class of how to edit a film magnificently. When you watch it again, pay particular attention to the editing and I think you’ll agree with me.
I actually thought “The Grand Budapest Hotel” contained “so so” editing. I thought the film dragged, especially the last 1/2 hour.
The very fact that in “Boyhood” the characters seamlessly mature before our very eyes is a true testament to the editing talent of Sandra Adair (and Richard Linklater’s direction). People must realize how difficult this project was to produce . . . and get developed. Once the film was in the can, it was up to Adair to fine-tune the instrument. I hope she wins (deservedly).
On a similar note, “Birdman” seems to be a lock for the cinematography award, which interestingly has historically been paired with at least a Best Editing nomination.
I, for one, would like to see a few molds broken. In 2011, one of the biggest shocks of the evening was the editing Oscar going to “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” – a movie which lacked a BP nomination, and beating The Descendants (BP winner), Hugo, The Artist, (BP nominees) and Moneyball.
I don’t think many people saw that one coming.
🙂 Fair enough…
“Well said! Although, personally, I think it’s probably a little more due to the writing and directing, and less to the editing. ”
Ha! I’m also with the school of thoughts that best editing or best anything in a movie is something that doesn’t call attention to itself. If you can bring an audience deep into the experience of a story without them knowing how you did it, then it’s like the work of … a master.
“I can’t really tell you if an editor of a movie who’s responsible for (I’m guessing) 30-40 cuts in the film like Birdman is better or worse than an editor who’s responsible for hundreds and literally thousands of cuts like in Whiplash. How do you award something like this?
Also the editing award is kinda silly because the voters have no idea what kind of footage the editor ended up with. Some directors have their vision so set that there are very little wiggle room, some shoot movies like a documentary and rely on the help of the editor to distill the story from a gazillion feet of footage.”
That’s exactly the kind of stuff I was thinking/wondering about.
“How a 2 hour 45 minute movie full of ordinary moments can be so enthralling is a miraculous combination of writing, directing and editing.”
Well said! Although, personally, I think it’s probably a little more due to the writing and directing, and less to the editing. 🙂
“So do you prefer Boyhood’s editing over all of the other nominees, and over Birdman, Alan?”
I really can’t tell you. I’m with the school of thoughts that if the whole movie works, then it’s an editing job well done. The job of an editor (or any craft) is to serve the story and the vision of the director. I understand the need to create an award for the editor to recognize their contribution.
I can’t really tell you if an editor of a movie who’s responsible for (I’m guessing) 30-40 cuts in the film like Birdman is better or worse than an editor who’s responsible for hundreds and literally thousands of cuts like in Whiplash. How do you award something like this?
Also the editing award is kinda silly because the voters have no idea what kind of footage the editor ended up with. Some directors have their vision so set that there are very little wiggle room, some shoot movies like a documentary and rely on the help of the editor to distill the story from a gazillion feet of footage.
Among the Eddie nominees that I have seen – Boyhood, Gone Girl, Imitation Game, Nightcrawler, Whiplash, Birdman and Grand Budapest Hotel, I’d single out Birdman as the one who should not belong on the list. Not that the movie was badly edited, nor that the editor wasn’t clever, but to me, Birdman is more a director movie, than an editor one. The stunt is in the staging and filming, not in the editing room so I am not baffled at the Oscar snub. The rest of them are very worthy of the nomination. And if I were forced to give an award, I’d give it to my most favorite film Boyhood.
How a 2 hour 45 minute movie full of ordinary moments can be so enthralling is a miraculous combination of writing, directing and editing.
It needs to be pointed out that piecing together 12 years of footage to maintain that kind of consistency and mood over nearly three hours is no mean feat. Not to mention that there was no luxury of reshooting ANYTHING in case something didn’t quite gel. Gripe about gimmicks all you want but it wasn’t just Linklater’s insistence of no overt timestamping cues as the film went along, it was how seamless the film was cut.
I can’t say I was bored at Boyhood but I don’t think it needed to be 2 hours and 45 minutes. Some scenes did go on too long. So I understand why someone else might be bored.
Is the Best Editing award at the Oscars voted on by the entire voting body? So would editors necessarily vote for the same films as actors and production designers and sound people?
I didn’t think The Imitation Game was the best movie of the year but I liked the way it was edited.
I just saw Budapest one more time on the big screen and the editing is quite lovely.
There are so many ways to edit a movie, I don’t know how people decide how to vote in this category. Maybe they vote for what they like? Or the most obvious editing?
I have to agree with another poster that the editing in Boyhood isn’t mind boggling or anything. It’s certainly fine but not something I can see lots of people voting for unless they simply love the movie a lot.
Any 3 hour movie that feels like 12 years shouldn’t win Best Editing, I mean duh.
“The scenes were cut so well together that you don’t even notice for a moment that the characters have just aged before your eyes.”
Yeah, that’s true, and I noticed that, of course. It’s the pacing of the story I had some small problems with, I didn’t think all of what was shown was necessary/essential at all. Like some of the parts with the second husband (third “father”). Or some of the scenes at the post-graduation party (I’m talking very short stuff). And I’m sure there are other examples, if I think about it. Anyway, I can’t say there’s any particular scene I feel is completely superfluous (which is why I say I liked the editing, overall), they all add stuff to the characters (which is why I’m such a fan of the writing for this movie, as for all Linklater movies) but A LOT of them felt drawn out, too long and not in the good way.
Or does that responsibility (for deciding exactly what scenes are included and what scenes aren’t) fall on the director? This is what I always get confused on, so I’d appreciate a clear, definitive explanation of how much the director gets involved in all of this. 🙂
Kinda off-topic:
I’ve watched Silence of the Lambs for the gazillionth time and I can’t understand why it didn’t also win the Best Editing prize at the Oscar. It was as amazing as the performances and scripts.
@SASHA
“I think so too – not being an editor and not being able to speak for what they value but I would suspect that Birdman makes an argument to get rid of editing altogether, to create a film that doesn’t need one, in fact.”
Sadly Best editing can often mean “Most” Editing.
So do you prefer Boyhood’s editing over all of the other nominees, and over Birdman, Alan? (There’s no subtext, I’m just curious.)
A win for “Boyhood” would not be because of what was or wasn’t cut, but (as it should be) how well it’s seamlessly strung together.
The scenes were cut so well together that you don’t even notice for a moment that the characters have just aged before your eyes. I enjoyed the movie, but I really appreciated the way it was edited. Even though I was hoping for “Birdman” to win. Or at least be nominated! It seems every year there’s a very deserving film that gets snubs out of the editing category. But that argument can be for a different day.
“As a filmmaker who has worked with many editors and who has edited his own work, and who has intimate relationships with film editors in his life, I would say that you have no idea what you’re talking about.”
OK then, I guess you’re probably right. I apologize for my ignorance! (I’m not being sarcastic.)
“I know you don not like this film .”
No, I do, and I actually like the editing too. I don’t think it’s TREMENDOUS, though. Not better than ALL of the other nominees.
Edkargir, I put Boyhood in third channeling the voters’ mind, not of my personal opinion. 🙂
Corvo, and Alan, Boyhood is the best edited movie since the Hurt locker.
There is not one scene or one second of this film I would have cut .
2hrs 45 movie that’s never boring .
I know you don not like this film . It will be a crime if Sandra Adair does not win the Oscar.
“Argue this point all you want, but the art of editing is NOT the ability to take footage from the last 12 years and pare it down to one, tediously long and monotonously told ~3 hour film. Boyhood is the LAST film that should ever be honored for its editing.”
As a filmmaker who has worked with many editors and who has edited his own work, and who has intimate relationships with film editors in his life, I would say that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Boyhood got nominated for BOTH the Oscars and the Eddie. Geez! I guess they’re a bunch of loonies according to you.
Since 1999. Sorry for the mistake 🙂
@ Benutty,
you’re not exactly right. Since 1998 (when they separated the categories) ONLY 3 times has the Academy honored a film without an Eddie WIN:
2000 Traffic
2011 The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
2013 Gravity
All the rather surprising Oscar choices (The Matrix, The Bourne Ultimatum) were Eddie winners first. So I would say that the Eddies are rather good at foreseeing the actual winner.
So, when is this thing? Tonight?
“I believe you DO need at least a nom in editing, though, to win BP…unless they throw that out the window this year, too, of course.”
I just though of another way to put things (and one I don’t see how you can argue with): Last year, Gravity was, we basically KNOW this, very close to winning Best Picture (the PGA tie, the DGA win, the many Oscars won, the many prizes won everywhere, the small number of awards won by 12 Years a Slave throughout the season, not just at the Oscars). Gravity had 2 MASSIVE, ENORMOUS statistical problems that, put together, are A LOT bigger problems than the mere lack of an editing nomination, voted on by less than 200 people (the WGA+Oscar screenplay snubs, which is a combination of snubs that has ALSO not produced ANY BP winners since the 1980s, like the editing snub -, and the SAG Ensemble snub, which hadn’t allowed any movie to win BP since 1996, which was the first year the SAG even awarded that prize).
Now, since we ALL BUT KNOW for a fact that Gravity was close last year, it means it IS possible (and I never said last year Gravity had no chance, I only said 12 Years was the clear favorite – I always thought Gravity had a shot at an upset, and I believe it could have happened) to win BP, given the right circumstances, even with A LOT MORE than an editing snub to have to deal with (I imagine Brokeback Mountain wasn’t exactly far from winning in its year either – it still won BD, so it had enough non-homophobic supporters, clearly). So, if even Gravity, with all of its huge statistical problems, and no major BP precursor wins, was so close to pulling it off, then to say Birdman can’t win BP without the editing nod, or even that it can’t ever be the favorite, is, I believe, very much an exaggeration, and completely unfounded. It’s like saying Gravity was nowhere near winning Best Picture last year – is anyone really going to claim that? The circumstances for the editing stat to be broken are more than right this year, the support for Birdman is clearly there, the snub has a logical explanation that in no way diminishes the movies’ chances to win BP, and everything else falls into place. There isn’t enough for it to be a lock, but there’s way enough for it to be the favorite, DGA win or no DGA win…
“Whether Birdman wins Best Picture or not will have nothing to do with whether it was nominated in the Editing category.”
Honestly, as anti-stats as that sounds, this sounds almost 100% true to me, given the exact situation this year.
“So if Birdman wins over GBH, then I’d say that the editing snub at the Oscars was a fluke, and effectively has greater chance of overcoming that odd and be a greater contender to Oscar BP.”
It would definitely be very telling, because it would show that it was close to being nominated (because it would be defeating a movie that WAS nominated). And losing wouldn’t mean much, in Birdman’s case. It could still have been close – or it might not even matter if it was or not, for the reason discussed. I have literally NO idea if it WILL win or not, so I have no expectations here.
“But if Boyhood wins, and anyone but Birdman wins on the other side, then I’d say that Boyhood has a greater chance to win Oscar BP.”
Agree with that. But clearly things won’t be settled, or anywhere near it, no matter the outcome here.
“And also something tells me that at the Oscars the Editing award and the BP award will not go to the same movie.”
It does seem very unlikely, since Birdman isn’t nominated, and I don’t believe in Boyhood winning (the Oscar) either. If Birdman wins here, and Boyhood does too, then Birdman is ahead for BP, so it’s still very unlikely to happen. If Boyhood loses here, I doubt it’s winning the Oscar, though it might. And even if it wins, and Budapest wins, which of the two do you think it’s more likely will win the Oscar? I think Budapest.
“For this award I am definitely rooting for Whiplash. Because it actually DID have the best editing, dammit!”
Yeah, me too.
“Argue this point all you want, but the art of editing is NOT the ability to take footage from the last 12 years and pare it down to one, tediously long and monotonously told ~3 hour film.
Boyhood is the LAST film that should ever be honored for its editing.”
In my far-from-expert capacity, I agree with this.
Thanks for the link, B.
[Queen of the Desert]
I initially thought they’ve remade one of my favorite mainstream movies from Australia The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert . . . . xD
I know it’s just a teaser, but anything with Nicole Kidman — I’m in.
For this award I am definitely rooting for Whiplash. Because it actually DID have the best editing, dammit!
I guess I should rather say ‘of’ instead of ‘in’
But anyway — by God, have you guys seen this? It has the looks of one of the more significant motion picture events of 2015
http://youtu.be/wp20Kn2VbYE
“Will the Editors Clear Things Up?”
No they won’t. The Eddie winner (either comedy or drama) will not win the Oscar for Editing. And also something tells me that at the Oscars the Editing award and the BP award will not go to the same movie.
Thanks, Sasha, for pointing out the comedy Eddie winner are always the one that’s nominated at Oscar Editing. Very interesting. So if Birdman wins over GBH, then I’d say that the editing snub at the Oscars was a fluke, and effectively has greater chance of overcoming that odd and be a greater contender to Oscar BP. But I too think that GBH will take the Eddie.
I haven’t seen American Sniper, so I can’t totally judge, but I just can’t imagine how it can be flashier and showier than Whiplash? I’d put Boyhood in third place. But if Boyhood wins, and anyone but Birdman wins on the other side, then I’d say that Boyhood has a greater chance to win Oscar BP.
I think The Imitation Game had the best editing of the year. The decisions of when to cut between past/present are so perfect and utterly important to the thread of the film. Outstanding imo. In contrast, similar decisions made in American Sniper are less effective.
And the editing of Nightcrawler is 1000x better than Whiplash if we’re talking about how editing helps build tension and suspense.
Argue this point all you want, but the art of editing is NOT the ability to take footage from the last 12 years and pare it down to one, tediously long and monotonously told ~3 hour film. Boyhood is the LAST film that should ever be honored for its editing.
There’s some very good editing in the Drama category: Boyhood, Whiplash, Gone Girl (probably my favorite, and editing that movie wasn’t easy). American Sniper is probably my least favorite, I found pacing to be a little off and not quite on par with Eastwood’s previous movies.
I think Whiplash and Birdman are taking the awards. I’d love Budapest to win it too.
Speaking of movies with many “action sequences”/”shots being fired at other humans”
IMHO
Editing in JOHN WICK > Editing in SNOWPIERCER > Editing in THE GUEST > Editing in THE WINTER SOLDIER > (x1000) > Editing in THE EXPENDABLES 3 > Editing in AMERICAN SNIPER.
Wow, in 2011 The Descendants beat out Hugo, Moneyball, War Horse, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo at the Eddies. That has to be one of the worst decisions ACE has ever made. I admire slow, non-flashy editing, but it is just ridiculous to say The Descendants was better edited than those four films.
@Too Many AJs
Agreed. All these folks saying Bidrman has no chance of winning Best Picture because it was not nominated for Editing at the Oscars are being silly. If any film since Ordinary People has a chance to break that precedent, it would definitely be Birdman. One of the things even people who dislike Birdman praise is how little and invisible the editing was. Birdman was not snubbed by the Academy in this category any more than The Artist was snubbed because it did not receive a sound nomination. The Artist had one of the most clever uses of sound I have ever seen in a movie, but that was not enough to secure it a nomination in that category. Likewise, Birdman’s few edits were cleverly invisible, but that does not mean it is going to get nominated for its editing. Whether Birdman wins Best Picture or not will have nothing to do with whether it was nominated in the Editing category.
My amateur take for Birdman deprived of Oscars Best Editing nom is that perhaps the collective body of voters just didn’t view it as traditional enough, as well as the convention of the fair and fierce competition among the other top-tier contenders. I’d like to think that they admired or respected it but have decided to leave it off the final list for such reasons combined (etc.) — but I could simply be wrong.
Anyway, glad to see GONE GIRL on the list.
For some reason, in addition to the Fincher-like dark tone, which I adore, EDITING #in his films (lately) is another aspect for which I’ve been clamoring! (I would be glad, too, for GONE GIRL to win if possible.)
Anyway, for now, . . .
. . . I’d go for #AMERICAN SNIPER and #BIRDMAN.
But I won’t be surprised if the one in the Drama cat turns out to be WHIPLASH or GONE GIRL (or THE IMITATION GAME), and the other goes to BUDAPEST or INHERENT VICE (despite the latter not being nominated for the gold guy’s Editing).
”For some reason it seems like the showier editing might upstage Boyhood – particularly American Sniper, which is my prediction to win this award.”
Sasha, I think you might be right. I don’t see this as a slam-dunk for ”Boyhood” at all. Recent Eddie Award winners lean toward intense action and gunfire: ”Captain Phillips” (2014), ”Argo” (2013), ”The Hurt Locker” (2010), ”The Bourne Ultimatum” (2008), etc. Lots of rapid-fire cutting often has the edge. ”Boyhood” is the antithesis of that. Yes, there is the logistic feat of editing 12 years of footage, but it’s also gentle and laidback. Even though ”Boyhood” won the Editing prize from the L.A. Film Critics, ”American Sniper” probably will win the Eddie with its showier work.
10. Damian Szifron, Pablo Barbieri Carrera – WILD TALES **
The most notable feats of storytelling by the cutting room, indexicality and punctuation I saw in 2014 picture were
1. Sandra Adair – BOYHOOD
2. Barney Pilling – THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
3. Valentyn Vasyanovych – THE TRIBE
4. Leslie Jones – INHERENT VICE
5. Anna Mass – LEVIATHAN
6. Kirk Baxter – GONE GIRL
7. Marion Monnier – EDEN
8. Spencer Averick – SELMA
9. Tom Cross – WHIPLASH
10. Damian Szifron, Pablo Barbieri Carrera
Even the BOYHOOD lovers should admit that in no ways it could be considered the best edited movie of the year.
Recently, the award has gone to the flashiest editing (like costume design goes to the most bizarre costumes).
Since the editing award used to go hand-in-hand with BP, I guess that’s a step in the right direction because it shows AMPAS voters have at least noticed something specific about the category, but it’s no longer an indicator of BP.
I believe you DO need at least a nom in editing, though, to win BP…unless they throw that out the window this year, too, of course.
RUN LOLA RUN was considered a comedy?
I think the reason why Birdman didn’t get an Editing Oscar nom is that the editors didn’t want to award a film with so few cuts. I mean, the way the film was shot basically rendered the editor irrelevant, right? Sometimes you can replace “Best” with “Most” and get a more accurate picture of what AMPAS is going for (Most Makeup, Most Visual Effects, etc.). Birdman probably has the least editing of any film to ever be nominated for Best Picture. So if there’s a film that could win Best Picture without an Editing nom, this is it. I also think Grand Budapest Hotel will win the Comedy Eddie for this reason.
I think the reason why Birdman didn’t get an Editing Oscar nom is that the editors didn’t want to award a film with so few cuts. I mean, the way the film was shot basically rendered the editor irrelevant, right?
I think so too – not being an editor and not being able to speak for what they value but I would suspect that Birdman makes an argument to get rid of editing altogether, to create a film that doesn’t need one, in fact.
Where you say Kramer vs. Kramer it’s actually 1980 with Ordinary People.
Oh thanks…..
I don’t understand the correlation between the Eddies and the Oscar for BP. A lot of time the Eddie noms and the Film Editing Oscar noms don’t match up more than 3/5 and it’s the Film Editing Oscar category that has the Ordinary People precedent, not the Eddies.
In fact, not only is the Eddie award is a weak indicator of how a film will play in BP at the Oscars, it’s also a weak indicator of which film will win the editing Oscar.
What we SHOULD look at is what TYPES of films win editing awards–loud, quickly-paced, oftentimes gun-heavy films. I think we’re looking at American Sniper (or Whiplash) and Birdman.
The Comedy category at the Eddies is so entirely irrelevant to the conversation of predicting the Oscars.