You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Best Picture’ category.
Over the past two weeks we’ve been revealing our choices for most of the Oscar categories. Here is a handy recap of those picks! Refer to this page often during tonight’s telecast to see if you should be agreeing with the winners! (Hint: use the “John” column)
| Adam | Brian | Jared | John | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Picture | Hugo | The Artist | Midnight in Paris | |
| Director | Allen | Scorsese | Havanavicius | Malick |
| Actress | Mara | Mara | Williams | Streep |
| Actor | Dujardin | Dujardin | Dujardin | Oldman |
| Supporting Actress | Bejo | Bejo | Spencer | Chastain |
| Supporting Actor | Hill | Nolte | Branagh | Plummer |
| Original Screenplay | Midnight in Paris | Margin Call | The Artist | Midnight in Paris |
| Adapted Screenplay | Hugo | The Descendants | Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy | |
| Art Direction | Midnight in Paris | Hugo | Hugo | Hugo |
| Cinematography | The Tree of Life | Hugo | The Tree of Life | The Tree of Life |
| Costume | Anonymous | Jane Eyre | ||
| Film Editing | Hugo | Moneyball | The Descendants | |
| Makeup | Harry Potter | The Iron Lady | Harry Potter | The Iron Lady |
| Score | The Artist | The Adventures of Tintin | ||
| Song | The Muppets | The Muppets | The Muppets | |
| Sound Editing | Transformers | The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo | Transformers | Drive |
| Sound Mixing | Transformers | The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo | Transformers | Transformers |
| Visual Effects | Transformers | Rise of the Planet of the Apes | Harry Potter | Transformers |
| Animated Short | A Morning Stroll | A Morning Stroll | A Morning Stroll | Wild Life |
| Live Action Short | Time Freak | Time Freak | ||
| Documentary Short | Saving Face | The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom |
None of the films nominated for Best Picture are even close to my Top 10, and some (I’m looking at you War Horse & Tree of Life) are some of the worst movies I’ve seen all year. Way to go Academy. Your complete inability to select enjoyable and well made movies has hit an all-time low.
My writeups, if you haven’t already gathered, rank the nominees in reverse order of how I like them. But here, as John mentioned, we’re ranking the best picture movies as if we were Oscar voters.
1. The Artist. Yeah, picking this film is almost cliche at this point in awards season. But that’s only because it is the best film of this lot by leaps and bounds. The others really aren’t in the ballpark. At this point I’ve waxed rhapsodic about so many aspects of the movie that really, all that’s left to say is that all these wonderful aspects of the film: writing, directing, acting, cinematography, just everything all combines together into one really great movie.
2. Midnight in Paris. It is a sign of how poor an Oscar year it is that when I saw the film over the summer, I was wavering over whether I thought I’d give it Oscar consideration and now it is my second-favorite film of those nominated. It is light, fun, and not particularly deep.
3. The Help. It is a decent movie, and pretty much nothing like what people are projecting onto it. Race issues get people riled up, and I don’t know if that’s good or bad, but if you can look past all that, you’ve got a fine movie. Maybe a little bit bloated and unfocused at times, but it is funny, warm, and entertaining. Not one of the nine best movies of the year, but certainly no outrage.
4. The Descendants. And here’s the part of the list with films that make me go, “Eh.” I currently have this film as the 36th best movie of the year. There are certainly plenty of good things about the movie, like George Clooney and Judy Greer and Matthew Lillard and Shailene Woodley constantly being in a bikini. Each of us has voiced our problems with the plot, chiefly the underdeveloped plotline surrounding the land deal.
5. Moneyball. As I’ve mentioned, great job figuring out how to turn the book into a movie, but they didn’t get quite all the way there. Every single supporting character seemed underdeveloped and underutilized to me. But hey, it is hard to be angry about a best picture-nominated film about the economics of baseball.
6. Everything Loud and Incredibly Close. Another one of those issue movies where people make all sorts of outlandish claims about the film trying to “solve” some really huge issue and obviously failing to do so. It is insane, to me, that anyone could think this film was about healing the wounds from 9/11. Sure, clearly, the events form the backdrop here, but the movie is much smaller than that. It is about a kid who lost his dad, isn’t particularly close to his mom, and is trying to figure out his world.
7. War Horse. Not as bad as some people would have you believe, but hardly a great movie. My biggest problem was that it was hard to get attached to any character, so while obviously it was sad when they died and happy when they lived, it wasn’t that sad or happy.
8. Hugo. Just a bad movie and and a horrible movie-watching experience. Sure, it is pretty and it is great that it references the birth of cinema. But I dunno, I prefer my movies to have an interesting story and not be boring.
9. The Tree of Life. Speaking of boring movies that don’t have a story! Look, I understand if you want to make the argument that this film is high art. I won’t even disagree. But as a movie, it is horrendous. One of the items on the film’s imdb trivia page states that in an Italian theater, two reels of the film were switched and nobody realized the mistake for an entire week. If your film can be shown out of order for an entire week, there is something seriously, fatally, tragically wrong with it. I’m not saying it is the worst movie I’ve ever seen in my life, but I’m also not saying I’ve ruled it out.
Unlike other categories where voters pick one nominee, in Best Picture they rank them 1-9. Therefore my pick the winners post will follow the same format.
1. Midnight in Paris. In a season filled with nostalgic pursuits, this is the only one that seriously worked for me. It’s just an absolute delight and I had so much fun watching it. It has an enjoyable, original story and fills it with interesting characters. They’re most characters you’re already familiar with, but the film’s takes on them and their interactions are a good time. It’s all just a whimsical fantasyland. And its simple if elegant message about the nature of the past and nostalgia hit home for me.
2. The Tree of Life. Ambitious, beautiful, moving, grand. I love its structure of wispy memories paired with gorgeous music. It’s a bizarre creature that washed over me and I loved it. Plus it’s the only nominee with dinosaurs.
3. The Help. Probably the film here that surprised me the most. It’s very entertaining and I found it really effectively evoked a time and place (which always helps get me through the times the schmaltz gets dialed up to eye-rolling level). Great performances as well.
4. The Descendants. I didn’t love it, but it has some undeniable beautiful, heartfelt sentiments and moments. Even as the stories never really came together in a satisfying manner – this is the only movie where I wanted to hear more about a perpetual trust! – a sense of sadness settled within me. I have a lot of goodwill for this film though I wanted it to be more.
5. The Artist. I just never took to this like everyone else seems to have. It’s fine enough, but there’s just not enough there. It gets some flak for being slight in that it’s thematically light, but its bigger sin is being narratively slight. Not enough happens and the thrill of the silent, black and white aesthetic wears off.
6. Moneyball. I can’t deny its technical proficiencies, but even after a second viewing it still feels like maybe a quarter of a story. I just think the filmmakers concentrated on parts of the Moneyball story that I find less interesting.
7. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. I never expected to like this and hell if it isn’t… adequate. It can be contrived and exasperating, but its unique perspective and occasional moments of earned emotion pull it through.
8. Hugo. It just didn’t do much for me. In fact, it mostly just bored me. I kept waiting for the magic to begin… then it ended. I guess my hard heart is a tough nut to crack.
9. War Horse. I’m going to ruin this movie for you: it’s just a damn horse. So when people do a bunch of stupid stuff for the main character they’re doing stupid stuff for a horse. And judging from the music you’d think the horse scores a winning touchdown every 20 minutes or so. Still, it has a few good WWI scenes.
Eight months ago, Brian made the stupid bold prediction that the final Harry Potter would get a Best Picture nod and be a favorite for the win. Now that Deathly Hallows Part 2 has racked up great reviews and is earning dough at an impressive rate (killing our summer box office predictions), its Best Picture chances is the top topic among the Oscar blogosphere. Lost in the analysis of the Lord of the Rings precedent, its mega box office returns, and the widespread affection for the epic series is an underreported factor that overrides all of that: the movie makes no goddamn sense.
First we dressed up as Helena Bonham Carter, then we haggled over a sword for some reason, then we collected some tears, then we talked to some ghosts, then we went to heaven, then we came back, then we ...
I’ve seen every film exactly once but haven’t read any of the books beyond the third. As the series progressed the plots got more and more unintelligible. I understand the largest audience for the films are those who read and loved the books and want to see how they get adapted for the screen. They are made for an audience that doesn’t leave the theater discussing Harry and Voldemort’s latest exploits but the choices the filmmakers made: which scenes to cut, what subplots to highlight, how to visualize a written description, etc…
I didn't know who this person was but according to the reaction of the girl next to me in the theater I was supposed to be upset he died
But take it from someone who just wants to watch these movies as only movies: they are impossible to follow. If Part 2 was an original story I’d say it smacked of being made up as they went along. It’s not a bad movie – it’s my favorite since number 5 – but I more or less had to stop thinking about who people were and why things were happening and enjoy the visuals and the natural thrill of the series’s big climax.
(On a side note, how disappointing is it that the series builds up all this mythology about the types of spells in the Harry Potter world yet wizard wars devolve into shooting at each other from wands like Star Wars blasters?)
So think about the hurdles that Harry Potter has to overcome to get a Best Picture nomination. As Academy members hear about the film’s buzz and pop in their screener, how many will have read the books? How many will have seen all the movies? If they haven’t, they aren’t going to have any idea what the hell is going on. And that’s not a good thing when you need to rack up a bunch of #1 votes.
Update: I’m happy this post is getting the occasional link and I hope people enjoy my exhaustive look at voting procedures (who wouldn’t!). However, further reporting after the announcement in the change in the Best Picture nominating rules – particularly by Steve Pond at The Wrap – revealed that some of my initial assumptions were incorrect. I have inserted some updates to clarify where necessary. The original post:
This morning the Academy announced changes to the Best Picture nomination process. After two years of ten nominees, the number of nominated films may now vary between 5 and 10. Only films that receive at least 5% of first place votes may qualify for a nomination, though five is the minimum.
The intention of this rule change is great. Ten felt unwieldy at times, with a few also-also-rans filling out the slate. Allowing the quality of that year’s contenders determine the number of slots makes a lot of sense.
It’s too bad they bungled the math so bad.
Breaking 5%
In the Academy press release, Executive Committee members claimed they pored over the data from recent years to see what would have happened under the new 5% scenario. “In studying the data, what stood out was that Academy members had regularly shown a strong admiration for more than five movies,” said retiring executive director Bruce Davis. In the eight years before the expansion to ten nominees, the new system would have resulted in slates of 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 nominees. Note that there’s one number missing: 10.
I know this isn’t a large sample size, but in all the years they tested, a 5% threshold never reached the maximum number of allowed nominees. This means that the 5% rule is not tweaking the list of eligible candidates, it is the sole determinant of the nominees. (Update: Not entirely true. See below.)
An Elegant System Tossed Away
Why does that matter? Because the current system is surprisingly well-devised. A good voting system should accurately reflect voters’ preferences and diminish the temptation to vote strategically (“game the system”). The Oscar’s current voting process does this well.
Alternate Voting: Rather than voting for one film to nominate for Best Picture, voters submit a ranked list 1-10 of nominees. To count these ballots, the accountants make a pile for each film that receives a #1 vote. Any film that receives 1/11th of all #1 votes gets a nomination and those ballots are set aside. Next, the movie that receives the fewest #1 votes gets eliminated. Those ballots get transferred to the #2 film on each list. It does get a little more complicated, but essentially round after round of eliminations eventually results in ten films crossing the nomination threshold. Even though voters submit up to ten films, each voter only has one vote.
This process frees the voter to vote however she wishes. She doesn’t have to consider the “electability” of her number one choice. She can put any film at #1, no matter how remote its chances. If that film doesn’t have enough support, her vote transfers to her #2 choice. Her vote is not wasted. This isn’t like a political race where a vote for a third party is essentially meaningless. (Update: It turns out that any film that receives fewer than 1% of first place votes does get redistributed.)
Surplus Votes: Realistically, voters have preferences beyond seeing just one film nominated. Maybe they want a certain one to win the Oscar, but would also really like to see another one nominated. In such a scenario, the voter may be tempted to vote for the one she likes less just to help it get nominated if she thinks the one she prefers will get lots of other support. This is especially true in races where it’s dead certainty that a contender will receive a nomination (Avatar, The King’s Speech, etc…)
The Oscar vote tabulators take this into account. If one nominee receives 20% more votes than it needs, all that film’s votes get reassigned to the next film on the ballot on a pro-rated basis. So if a film needs 500 votes to get nominated and receives 1000 votes, all those votes will be reassigned to the next film on those ballots and be worth 50% of a vote. So now the voter doesn’t even have to worry about wasting her vote on an obvious front-runner! A portion of her vote will go to another favorite. (Update: The surplus rule isn’t entirely thrown out either, it turns out. A film that receives 20% more of the 1st place votes it would have needed to cross the 1/11th threshold still has its votes redistributed on a pro-rated basis. The result is a distribution for films that receive more than roughly 11% of first place votes.)
The combination of Alternate Voting and reassigning surplus votes makes for a system that removes most incentives for gaming the system. Voting strategically isn’t going to get a voter much further than simply voting with her heart.
(Update: With Steve Pond’s reporting, we now know that the surplus rule is applied first. Then any film with less than 1% of first place votes gets redistributed. After that one round of redistribution, all films with 5% or more of first place votes receives a nomination for Best Picture. The result is many fewer wasted ballots than I feared, but still many more than under the previous voting system.)
An Arbitrary Threshold
No need to fill all of this out
I understand the desire to adjust the number of nominees based on the qualities of the contenders. “A Best Picture nomination should be an indication of extraordinary merit,” says Davis. “If there are only eight pictures that truly earn that honor in a given year, we shouldn’t feel an obligation to round out the number.” But requiring at least 5% of #1 votes is not the way to do it.
First, the number of films receiving 5% of #1 votes is not necessarily indicative of the strength of that year’s slate. More than anything it indicates the strength of the front-runners. If there is a strong front-runner or two, those two films could easily account for more than a third of #1 votes. Even if other potential nominees are broadly well-respected, it will be tough for many to hit that 5% level.
Awards Daily, a popular Oscar site, did a simulated ballot for its readers last year using the same voting system as the Academy. The top three vote-getters netted 65.6% of all #1 votes. As you can see, this left very little room for other films to also hit 5%, even well-respected ones that garnered lots of support once votes were reallocated. I know the audience for an Oscar blog is going to be different from the Academy membership, but similar patterns could certainly emerge.
A year that has many nominees wouldn’t mean that the crop of films that year was better. It most likely means the field is more even with no one or two films leading the pack and snapping up extra #1 votes.
So the 5% rule doesn’t have much to do with film quality, despite the justification from the Academy. What it DOES do is eliminate the also-rans. In a year with just a couple true contenders to win Best Picture, let’s just abandon the pretense and not nominate a bunch of films that have no chance to win, even if the consensus considers them great. In years that have a lot more films in the running for the win, let them in even if not all of them are that good. I don’t think this is what the Academy is trying to do but it least it would make sense.
The usual voting system spelled out above comes into play to determine nominees among eligible films. But the 5% target is so high that never once in the eight test cases the Academy studied was the usual counting system necessary. Eleven films would have to receive 5% of #1 votes before the weighted ballots came into play. That is very, very unlikely.
(The usual voting process could also come into play if less than five films hit 5%. In fact, only four films did so on the Awards Daily 2009 simulated ballot.)
Barring the unlikely event that more than ten or less than five films reach the 5% threshold, the slate of Best Picture nominees will be entirely composed of those films that hit the threshold. No alternate voting. No reallocation of excess votes. And therefore lots of incentive to vote strategically as voters try not to waste their ballots on long-shots.
An Example in Screwy Voting
We’ll use my 2009 Best Picture mock ballot as an example. My top five votes would have been:
1. In the Loop
2. Zombieland
3. The Informant!
4. An Education
5. Up
I had little expectation that In the Loop would garner a Best Picture nomination. But it wasn’t impossible. It was in the conversation for a screenplay nod and with ten nominees something could sneak in out of left field. Its chances were low but not nil. There was no risk to voting for it, however, because if it got eliminated my vote would move down to my #2 film, then #3, etc… Realistically this ballot would have resulted in a vote for An Education or Up as numbers 1-3 got eliminated.
Now, I really loved An Education. I wanted it to get nominated and I was concerned it was on the bubble. With the 5% rule, it doesn’t just need my vote to get nominated. It needs my #1 vote. So now I have a dilemma: do I vote for In the Loop, the film that I loved the most even though its chances were very slim under the old rules and are much slimmer with a 5% threshold, knowing that if it doesn’t hit 5% my vote will count for absolutely nothing? Or do I vote for An Education in case it needs my vote to cross 5%? The rational vote is the latter and I don’t think that’s a good thing.
Bad incentives make economists angry!
Think about it like this: I have two preferences. The primary preference is to get a nomination for In the Loop. The secondary one is to help An Education elbow out its competition for the final few slots. The old system lets me have both my preferences and assigns my vote based on how others vote. If my vote for In the Loop helps it, then my vote goes there. If my vote for In the Loop doesn’t help, then at least my vote can help my secondary objective. Under the 5% rule, I must make the choice and risk wasting my vote if I choose wrong.
Ultimately, there’s no reason to submit a list of ten films on the nomination ballot any more. In fact, there’s no reason to vote for more than one. Either your #1 choice gets 5% of votes and it is nominated or it doesn’t reach 5% and it’s not nominated. That’s it.
(Update: With the subsequent further clarification, the problem of strategic voting is somewhat diminished but still prominent. A voter can vote for a real long-shot with no risk. Once that film is eliminated the vote will redistribute to the next film on the ballot. However, a ballot is still wasted if the first place vote goes to a film that receives between 1% and 4.999% of first place votes. This is enough to give an informed voter pause and strategically alter her vote.)
Rational Voters?
All this analysis depends on voters being rational. Strategic voting is an issue only when voters understand the voting system. I think it’s fair to say Academy voters never really understood it to begin with and there’s a good chance the 5% rule will make it seem closer to their misunderstanding of what the process is anyway (i.e., they think it works like a political race). In 2009 there was a nonsensical campaign to list The Hurt Locker at #1 and Avatar at #10 thinking that it would somehow hurt Avatar.
I also don’t think Academy voters have been voting with their heart much anyway. I suspect many put at #1 the Oscar contender they liked the most, not their favorite film regardless of its place in the Oscar race. Therefore, the history of a combination of laziness and being too stupid to realize they don’t have to vote strategically could mute the effect of the new rule.
The new rule was devised with the help of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the firm that does the ballot counting for the Academy. These are smart accountants. Did they not advise the Academy on the obvious problems of an arbitrary 5% threshold? It’s possible they realized that the 5% rule doesn’t affect the vote too much due to the unoriginality of Academy voters who all vote for the same group of potential nominees.
I sing the praises of the current voting process with its alternate voting system, but the Awards Daily experiments show that #1 votes are still king. Categories with five slots rarely have a nominee that finished outside the top six (or seven) in #1 votes. Very often after the lengthy vote reallocation process, the nominees are just the ones who got the most #1 votes. So maybe the results end up about the same.
I do think it makes it harder for smaller films. Does something like Winter’s Bone even bother with a Best Picture campaign knowing that 5% is going to be tough to reach? Because now it’s not only facing the normal challenges of a minnow candidate, but it also must face people thinking it has no chance to reach 5% so they won’t be wasting their vote on it. The type of momentum a smaller film needs to generate simply never materializes.
(Update: Now that we know there is a round of surplus rule reallocation and vote redistribution for films that received less than 1% of first place votes, this problem is somewhat diminished. Realistically, a film can receive a little less than 5% – maybe even as low as 4%? – and pick up some support via reallocation and redistribution.)
John’s Perfect Solution
All that said, I love the idea of altering the number of nominees based on the quality of films in the running. The Academy just needs better criteria. I’m sure they could unleash an egg head (like me! I’ll do it!) to create some sort of complex formula that measures broad-based consensus support for films.
But I think a workable solution is easier. The current ballot counting system is iterative. Votes are counted, films are eliminated, votes are reallocated, and the votes are counted again. Repeat until there are ten nominees. Simply cap the number of times you eliminate and reallocate votes. I don’t know what the optimal number of rounds is, but analyzing the data of past years should come up with a good number. 15? 20? If round after round passes without the slate of ten filling out, that’s a sign that there is no broad consensus on what films are quality enough to be nominated. That is the whole point, right?
In the 2010 Awards Daily example, the first six nominations were secured in three rounds. The next didn’t come until round 17. The last three came in round 20 when literally every other film had been eliminated. I think in this case it’d be fair to take the first six or seven qualified nominees and call it a day.
Realistically the round limit would probably have to be determined by how far apart the remaining potential nominees are. If there’s not a lot separating them then there is no consensus and you can be okay nominating none. But looking at it from a round-perspective should be a much better indicator of quality than an arbitrary 5% target.
Academy, please feel free to use my system. Just toss me a few tickets to the ceremony!
(Update: The rules clarification doesn’t prevent my solution from being the perfect one!)
Can you believe we analyzed all sorts of Oscar categories this year but never did Best Picture? This makes us the worst Oscar blog ever. How can we move on from 2010 without it?
So I’m going to knock this out real quick. The Oscar blog licensing folks will shut us down otherwise.
My 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 10th choices are easy. The other six are all sort of a jumbled together and their relative order could change by the day. If I were an actual voter, I would probably only list the top two as I have no real preference between the next six.
But anyway:
1. Inception
2. The Social Network
3. Black Swan
4. The King’s Speech
5. The Fighter
6. Toy Story 3
7. True Grit
8. Winter’s Bone
9. 127 Hours
10. The Kids Are All Right
The end.
Oscar nominees are announced on the 25th. Yay! So let’s summarize what we (the royal we, at least) know. Keeping in mind, of course, that when it comes to the Academy, no one knows anything. Especially me. This time: Best Picture
VIRTUAL LOCKS
- The Social Network
- The King’s Speech
- Black Swan
- The Fighter
- Inception
- True Grit
Before the PGAs, The Social Network had won everything. Now it is has just won almost everything. It could mean we are seeing the start of the inevitable front-runner backlash, but that’s a discussion for after nominations. When word of The King’s Speech first arrived, you could hear lots of collective groaning about Oscar bait and how the Academy is a complete sucker for anything to do with British royalty. Two funny things, though: pretty much everyone actually likes the film, and it really isn’t Oscar baity at all. Speaking of unlikely Oscar movies, how about a ballerina horror film likely to pull down $100 million at the box office? Black Swan pulled off the trick. The Fighter, led by a strong cast, seemed to peak at the right time, nomination-wise, and should continue the Academy’s love affair with boxing movies. One of the few movies released prior to Oscar season likely to get an Oscar love in major categories, Inception pretty much speaks for itself. A vast, cold, scifi/psychological epic, it is completely unlike traditional Oscar movies and yet so obviously one. Perhaps the easiest prediction, before any of these movies had been seen, was that Joel and Ethan Coen remaking a classic western would be a best picture nominee. But hey, they still had to follow through on the thing, and by all accounts, True Grit does so.
LIKELY IN
- Toy Story 3
- The Kids Are All Right
Metacritic has Toy Story 3 has the second-best reviewed wide release of 2010, as does imdb (to different movies, interestingly enough). So clearly lots and lots of people really like this film. Up‘s nomination last year showed that the move to ten best picture nominees allowed the Academy to be OK with nominating an animated film for the big prize, so there’s no real reason it should miss. I’ve heard a couple people theorize that The Kids Are All Right‘s spot is in danger. I certainly don’t know enough to dispute that, I’m just a little hard-pressed to see how it could miss when its rivals appear to be indier and/or not having the support from at least one acting nomination, like this one.
LAST TWO IN
- Winter’s Bone
- The Town
I have this (completely unfounded, I’m sure) feeling that a lot of the love for Winter’s Bone comes from Hollywood patting itself on the back for supporting indie movies and wanting to show they are totally OK with films taking place in America’s backwoods. I’m not sure if anyone really loved The Town, but undoubtedly many people liked it, so I’m wondering if its broad appeal could lead it to nab the final slot for the big prize.
FIRST ALTERNATE
- 127 Hours
Most predictions you’ll read have the prior two films and 127 Hours in a battle for the final two spots. This one was directed by recent Oscar winner Danny Boyle and features a likely Oscar-nominated performance by Oscar co-host James Franco. So it certainly has a legit chance. I just happen to think it peaked a little too early and that it wasn’t quite compelling enough to hold up.
DARK HORSES
- Blue Valentine
- The Ghost Writer
- Shutter Island
- Another Year
- The Way Back
- Biutiful
- How to Train Your Dragon
If voters want to get indie and perhaps prove a point, they may turn to Blue Valentine. The Ghost Writer connected with a good number of people, and the Academy wasn’t afraid with The Pianist to give awards to Polanski. I’m still confused at why Shutter Island, a Martin Scorsese film that grossed over $100 million domestically isn’t making a bigger play here. I’ve prattled on a number of times about the Academy’s love for Mike Leigh, the logic certainly applies to Another Year. I’m not sure if The Way Back isn’t good or is a victim of a poor release strategy, but it was supposed to be a contender and then it wasn’t, for reasons still unclear. John says Biutiful and How to Train Your Dragon are dark horses, and he is smarter than I am.
SHOULDA BEEN A CONTENDER
- Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
- Please Give
Oscar nominations arrive Tuesday, January 25. To prepare, we’re giving you our sharpest insight and predictions. Today: What disappointing nominations do you anticipate?
Jared:The Fighter should be KO’d
At first I wondered if the cut of The Fighter in my theater was different than what everyone else seemed to have saw. But no, the audience in my viewing seemed to have enjoyed themselves. So I’m left to conclude that David O.Russell managed to incorporate some subliminal message telling people they love the movie and my brain just isn’t wired to receive said messages (kinda like how I can’t see those 3-D Magic Eye pictures). Because the film is bad, failing on nearly every conceivable level, other than the acting.
I’d call the story cliche, but that would assume there was any semblance of a story. We get very clear depictions of each character’s lot in life, but no clue as to got they got from point A to B. To wit, the relationship between Mark Wahlberg and Amy Adams is almost entirely glossed over. They meet, go out on a date, some undefined time apparently passes and then they are inseparable. Time, I should point out, is also irrelevant to the filmmakers. Anyone have any clue the time between Wahlberg’s first fight show in the film and his title bout? Melissa Leo and Christian Bale both see their characters kinda sorta maybe have a change of heart, but it isn’t clear how superficial that change is or why we should care. Of course, that little change is really the only character or plot development in the entire film.
But OK, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with a simple story. The Fighter is a boxing movie and obviously a good chunk of boxing movies involve the fights, and it is hard to advance the story too much while the main character is in the ring. But here’s why I’m absolutely appalled David O. Russell is on the shortlist for a best director nom: the boxing is depicted as if he really rather doesn’t like the sport. The final match aside, the fights are glossed over at best, portrayed as some weird rejected video game cut scene at worst. Not even bland, the fighting scenes are, if you’ll excuse my limited vocabulary, stupid. They aren’t suspenseful, interesting, exciting, or even artistic. Just a complete waste of time.
"Say hi to yourself for me."
Absolute worst of all, though, was the character interactions. It felt like a quarter of the movie could be described in the following three beats: Character A says a line talking at character B. Character B “responds” with something no human would say and tangentially relevant to what character A said. Then there’s a cue (be it in the dialogue or visual) about how these people are white trash. I could see a line or two for comic relief, maybe, but the filmmakers felt this bizarre need to consistently unsubtly describe the characters and their town as white trash. It wasn’t funny, it wasn’t clever, it was just obvious and worse, it was mean.
So when Mo’Nique reads off The Fighter as a best picture nom, I’m going to be disappointed that a movie which had great acting, but failed on nearly every conceivably important other level is taking the place of so many other actually watchable films.
John: Man the levies, nomination waves are coming!
The nomination wave: it’s a common occurrence in Oscar season. A beloved film gets support across all guilds, sweeping many to nominations even if their work wasn’t as exemplary. It’s going to happen to two supporting actresses this year.
She wasn't nearly as committed to head enlargement in The King's Speech
The first, and most prominent, is Helena Bonham Carter in The King’s Speech. Carter is a great, versatile actress, but this is such a nothing performance. It’s not like she’s bad, but she’s a stock supporting character without a ton to do. She’s more interesting this year in both Alice in Wonderland and Harry Potter. Even she admits to being puzzled over why this performance is getting singled out for award attention.
I'm wicked strong willed!
The other is Amy Adams for The Fighter, a sentiment I know is not shared by many. I’ve actually seen plenty of arguments that she’s the supporting female star in the film and not supposed category front runner Melissa Leo. I just don’t think she does much beyond sporting a Boston accent. The film’s treatment of her character bothered me, and part of it is due to her performance (though the bulk is probably the script’s fault).
I’ve always said I’m an Amy Adams fan, but this is the third time I’ve come to complain about her on this blog so maybe my affection is waning? But maybe she just gets recognized for the wrong roles. Oscar nod for Doubt, critical acclaim for Sunshine Cleaning, and a probable nod for The Fighter, but not enough support for Enchanted or Julie & Julia.
Brian: The Town will rob a nomination from a more deserving film
Jared and John adeptly discussed why The Town is overrated last month. As Jared put it in his elegant way, “Frankly, I don’t even think the film is particularly good genre fare, much less a good movie.” So since they’ve covered much of why its bad, especially the horribly underdeveloped relationship between Ben Affleck and Rebecca Hall, I’ll keep my entry to this category short.
A Best Picture nom for The Town would be an embarrassment as it would only provide fodder for those critics who last year assailed the Academy’s decision to expand the category to 10 films. “It will allow mediocre, commercially successful films to sneak in,” they warned — and The Town is just that. After last year, when the final 10 offered a little something for everyone to be happy about, I hoped that these concerns would be laid to rest. But I imagine they will reappear on Tuesday when The Town gets its undue recognition.
Does anyone know why we love each other?
How anyone can deem that the best of the year is beyond me. The characters were one-dimensional (ooh, Jeremy Renner as a hothead!), the stakes were non-existent, the shootout at Fenway was cool to watch but ultimately unfulfilling, and the heists were forgettable. It’s as if the Academy has a Departed hangover and thinks that all Boston-related movies are somehow deep because people have funny accents. (Also see: The Fighter) So put this down as my big disappointment.
Recent Comments