text:
Movies - The Oscars posts
Friday September 06, 2013Early Oscar Predictions: The Signal and the Noise, Noise, Noise
The other day, Amir, on Nathaniel Rogers' Film Experience site, threw up a post about the 10 biggest awards-season flops: movies that had buzz, then didn't. A few of these speak ill of the Academy (both "Zodiac" and "In the Wild" deserved more attention), but most ("Bobby," "J. Edgar") speak ill of the buzz machine, which makes noise without knowledge, without, often, having seen the movie in question. This machine, some combo of PR and online prognostication, seems to be getting bigger and louder.
Interestingly, Nathaniel himself has just joined the main online prognosticators, David Poland's Movie City News' Gurus of Gold, which, a few weeks ago, tossed up its early predictions for 2013's best picture. (Click for a bigger version. Or go right to the source.)
Many haven't seen the movies in question yet so I'm sure we'll have a few "J. Edgar"s in the group. But most have seen "Lee Daniels' The Butler," and yet there it is, up there at the top." It's such a nothing movie, such awful history. But then "The Help" was nominated. Awful has nothing to do with it.
Question. Do buzz machines like MCN actually help promote the unworthy? In Nathan Silver's dichotomy, do they create any kind of signal or simply more noise?
On his site, Nathaniel often goes over past Oscars, and what should have been nominated (or should have won) instead of the mediocrity that did. The Academy, like any group, has a long legacy in this regard. But does the machine contribute to this problem? By forcing the discussion into what will be nominated rather than what should be nominated?
Stay tuned.
Tags: Oscars, 2013 Oscars, Movie City News, Nathaniel Rogers
No Comments yet | Permalink
Zack Wagman Ranks the Best Pictures: from 'Casablanca' to 'Crash'
Zack Wagman Ranks the Best Pictures
1. Casablanca (1943)
2. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
3. Annie Hall (1977)
4. Schindler's List (1993)
5. Chicago (2002)
6. The Godfather Part II (1974)
7. The Godfather (1972)
8. All About Eve (1950)
9. Amadeus (1984)
10. The Apartment (1960)11. Forrest Gump (1994)
12. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
13. Braveheart (1995)
14. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
15. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
16. No Country for Old Men (2007)
17. Titanic (1997)
18. Gladiator (2000)
19. The Departed (2006)
20. Oliver! (1968)21. Gone with the Wind (1939)
22. Rocky (1976)
23. On the Waterfront (1954)
24. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
25. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
26. American Beauty (1999)
27. Ghandi (1982)
28. The Sound of Music (1965)
29. The Sting (1973)
30. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)31. Unforgiven (1992)
32. The French Connection (1971)
33. The Deer Hunter (1978)
34. Patton (1970)
35. It Happened One Night (1934)
36. An American in Paris (1951)
37. West Side Story (1961)
38. The Hurt Locker (2009)
39. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
40. Million Dollar Baby (2004)41. Platoon (1986)
42. Rebecca (1940)
43. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
44. Rain Man (1988)
45. Terms of Endearment (1983)
46. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
47. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
48. My Fair Lady (1964)
49. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
50. Marty (1955)51. Ordinary People (1980)
52. Ben-Hur (1959)
53. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
54. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
55. The English Patient (1996)
56. Dances with Wolves (1990)
57. The King's Speech (2010)
58. The Artist (2011)
59. Out of Africa (1985)
60. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)61. All the King's Men (1949)
62. The Lost Weekend (1945)
63. Chariots of Fire (1981)
64. Gigi (1958)
65. From Here to Eternity (1953)
66. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
67. The Last Emperor (1987)
68. Cavalcade (1933)
69. The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
70. Grand Hotel (1932)71. Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
72. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
73. Crash (2005)
Haven't Seen
A Man for All Seasons (1966)
Tom Jones (1963)
Hamlet (1948)
Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
Going My Way (1944)
Mrs. Miniver (1942)
How Green Was My Valley (1941)
The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
Cimarron (1931)
The Broadway Melody (1929)
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928)
Wings (1927)
Zack's Comment
I wanted to write in "Pocahontas" but they wouldn't let me...
My comment
But if we started there, where would we end? Before or after Ed Wood? Interesting fifth choice, btw. I guess I had the same problem with "Chicago" that I do with most CGI movies: a sense of claustrophobia.
OK, who's next?
Tags: Oscars, Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, Casablanca, Crash
No Comments yet | Permalink
Five Reasons Why Seth MacFarlane's 'We Saw Your Boobs' is the Best Thing To Happen to Oscar in Years
Let me count the ways.
- The Oscars tend to skew female and gay.
- There is no greater straight male song about the movies than "We Saw Your Boobs." It's what every straight guy remembers. Many a gay guy, too. Don't even get me started on gay women.
- It was presented within a framework—Capt. Kirk returning from the 23rd century to warn host Seth MacFarlane his Oscar show was about to go down in disaster—that softened it. That made it palatable.
- That framework—Capt. Fucking Kirk—is also a straight-guy framework.
- Better, that framework gets out in front of the obvious ragging-on-the-Oscar-host that we've been subjected to for the last 15 years.
I was dubious about Seth MacFarlane hosting. I'm not a fan of his shows. I laughed at "Ted" but felt unclean afterwards. And to be honest, a lot of his bits tonight were merely so-so. But "We Saw Your Boobs"? Not just comedically brilliant, but tactically brilliant for the demographic that Oscar needs to bring back to the show. It's the viral moment Oscar needs. See it here.
Seth MacFarlane and the L.A. Gay Men's Chorus singing about boobs.
"Reaction shots" from actresses like Charlize Theron made it twice as funny.
Tags: Oscars, Seth MacFarlane
2 Comments | Permalink
Crunching the Numbers: What are the Most- and Least-Popular Best Picture Winners of All Time?
Welcome to Oscar day.
As mentioned in yesterday's post, my friend Vinny crunch the numbers of the first 71 readers (we're now close to 100) who ranked the best picture winners. He explains his methodology here:
I started out sorting results by "Rank" (Ex.: "The Godfather at No. 1; "Crash" at No. 77), but soon switched to "Percentile Rank" (0% to 100%, with 100% being best) because it gives a better sense of the popularity of the films. Emily, for example, who only watched 21 movies, ranked "Slumdog Millionare" as her least favorite (#21), putting that film on even footing with a very good film that was ranked #21 by someone who has seen most or all of the best pictures. CM Gardner saw 81 filmes and ranked "Schindler's List" as #21. Putting it in terms of percentage makes it easier to see how people feel about the movies.
So what are the most-popular best pictures? Here is our top 20:
No. | Title | Year | Views | Avg Score |
1 | The Godfather | 1972 | 67 | 84.36 |
2 | Casablanca | 1943 | 67 | 82.87 |
3 | All About Eve | 1950 | 61 | 80.6 |
4 | The Godfather Part II | 1974 | 62 | 79.36 |
5 | Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans | 1928 | 29 | 78.67 |
6 | Annie Hall | 1977 | 66 | 75.34 |
7 | Schindler's List | 1993 | 66 | 71.66 |
8 | Gone with the Wind | 1939 | 64 | 70.86 |
9 | Lawrence of Arabia | 1962 | 55 | 69.6 |
10 | The Silence of the Lambs | 1991 | 69 | 68.65 |
11 | One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest | 1975 | 66 | 68.33 |
12 | The Apartment | 1960 | 56 | 67.35 |
13 | On the Waterfront | 1954 | 55 | 67.13 |
14 | Amadeus | 1984 | 62 | 67.04 |
15 | No Country for Old Men | 2007 | 67 | 64.97 |
16 | It Happened One Night | 1934 | 50 | 64.07 |
17 | Rebecca | 1940 | 49 | 62.91 |
18 | The Deer Hunter | 1978 | 49 | 62.41 |
19 | The Bridge on the River Kwai | 1957 | 47 | 62.02 |
20 | All Quiet on the Western Front | 1930 | 30 | 59.1 |
I'm pleasantly surprised that "Annie Hall," a favorite of mine, ranks so high. I expected "Lawrence" to be a bit higher. But overall these are the expected best-of-the-best-pictures. The best pictures with status and gravitas.
All the decades are represented: One from the 1920s (an unofficial one, unfortunately), three from the '30s, two from the '40s, three from the '50s, two from the '60s, five from the 1970s, one from the '80s, two from the '90s, and one from the aughts. We'll cut the 2010s some slack. As Karen C. sang, it's only just begun.
The next 20:
No. | Title | Year | Views | Avg Score |
21 | The Departed | 2006 | 58 | 59 |
22 | West Side Story | 1961 | 61 | 58.18 |
23 | Unforgiven | 1992 | 56 | 57.98 |
24 | The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King | 2003 | 64 | 56.86 |
25 | Midnight Cowboy | 1969 | 55 | 56.49 |
26 | The Best Years of Our Lives | 1946 | 33 | 56.48 |
27 | The Hurt Locker | 2009 | 65 | 55.42 |
28 | The Sound of Music | 1965 | 62 | 54.52 |
29 | From Here to Eternity | 1953 | 45 | 54.2 |
30 | American Beauty | 1999 | 66 | 54.18 |
31 | The French Connection | 1971 | 47 | 53.64 |
32 | Ordinary People | 1980 | 48 | 52.92 |
33 | Platoon | 1986 | 53 | 52.74 |
34 | Terms of Endearment | 1983 | 52 | 48.36 |
35 | Kramer vs. Kramer | 1979 | 58 | 48.35 |
36 | The Sting | 1973 | 49 | 48.34 |
37 | The English Patient | 1996 | 60 | 47.14 |
38 | A Man for All Seasons | 1966 | 37 | 46.91 |
39 | Hamlet | 1948 | 30 | 46.38 |
40 | Patton | 1970 | 35 | 45.91 |
I think of "West Side Story" as firt tier but modern moviegoers have generally been tough on musicals. Surprised "The English Patient" is so high. Don't people listen to Elaine Benes? Or Brenda? Ditto "Kramer vs. Kramer." "Better than 'Hamlet.'"
The next 20:
No. | Title | Year | Views | Avg Score |
41 | My Fair Lady | 1964 | 58 | 45.69 |
42 | An American in Paris | 1951 | 48 | 45.34 |
43 | The Lost Weekend | 1945 | 34 | 44.9 |
44 | Grand Hotel | 1932 | 29 | 43.68 |
45 | The Artist | 2011 | 65 | 43.06 |
46 | The Last Emperor | 1987 | 47 | 42.46 |
47 | Chicago | 2002 | 60 | 42.34 |
48 | All the King's Men | 1949 | 29 | 42.13 |
49 | In the Heat of the Night | 1967 | 45 | 41.91 |
50 | Titanic | 1997 | 69 | 41.11 |
51 | Wings | 1927 | 20 | 40.99 |
52 | Ben-Hur | 1959 | 51 | 40.18 |
53 | How Green Was My Valley | 1941 | 29 | 39.9 |
54 | Shakespeare in Love | 1998 | 69 | 39.61 |
55 | Mutiny of the Bounty | 1935 | 28 | 39.53 |
56 | The King's Speech | 2010 | 64 | 38.16 |
57 | Mrs. Miniver | 1942 | 26 | 38.13 |
58 | You Can't Take it With You | 1938 | 29 | 38.11 |
59 | Oliver! | 1968 | 42 | 37.41 |
60 | Rocky | 1976 | 55 | 36.58 |
"An American in Paris" should be higher. I'm also a fan of "The Last Emperor," if only to look at its beautiful colors. One of these days I'll have to finally see "Ben-Hur," if only for the Gore Vidal subtext.
Heading to the bottom now.
No. | Title | Year | Views | Avg Score |
61 | Ghandi | 1982 | 51 | 36.15 |
62 | Million Dollar Baby | 2004 | 60 | 35.54 |
63 | Rain Man | 1988 | 60 | 35.44 |
64 | Slumdog Millionaire | 2008 | 71 | 34.93 |
65 | Out of Africa | 1985 | 48 | 34.19 |
66 | Gladiator | 2000 | 66 | 34.18 |
67 | Forrest Gump | 1994 | 71 | 34.08 |
68 | The Life of Emile Zola | 1937 | 11 | 32.69 |
69 | Chariots of Fire | 1981 | 51 | 32.37 |
70 | Marty | 1955 | 32 | 31.52 |
71 | Tom Jones | 1963 | 30 | 30.96 |
72 | Dances with Wolves | 1990 | 56 | 30.19 |
73 | A Beautiful Mind | 2001 | 66 | 26.39 |
74 | Gigi | 1958 | 34 | 25.88 |
75 | Braveheart | 1995 | 61 | 25.47 |
76 | Driving Miss Daisy | 1989 | 56 | 25.24 |
77 | Gentleman's Agreement | 1947 | 26 | 24.97 |
78 | Going My Way | 1944 | 19 | 22.32 |
79 | The Great Ziegfeld | 1936 | 16 | 18.19 |
80 | The Greatest Show on Earth | 1952 | 28 | 15.23 |
While I'm surprised moviegoers have been as unimpressed with "Gentleman's Agreement" as I've been, these are definitely the "meh" best pictures. How sad that the Academy has given us so much "meh" under the guise of "best."
Finally, the dregs:
No. | Title | Year | Views | Avg Score |
81 | Crash | 2005 | 62 | 14.92 |
82 | Around the World in 80 Days | 1956 | 32 | 13.2 |
83 | Cimarron | 1931 | 12 | 12.61 |
84 | Cavalcade | 1933 | 12 | 8.44 |
85 | The Broadway Melody | 1929 | 13 | 5.63 |
An argument can be made that unfamiliarity breeds contempt, since the bottom five is littered with the best pictures most of us haven't seen. An easier explanation is the moviegoers who have seen them, and ranked them, are the Oscar watchers, the true cineastes, who are more discriminating in their tastes. They're a tougher crowd. Which makes "Crash"'s bottom-five turnout all the more impressive.
Have you had your say yet? (VOTE HERE.) It's never too late. This is an ongoing project. Because it's not just the Academy judging movies; it's moviegoers judging the Academy.
The movie readers consider the best of the best pictures didn't win best director.
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, Vince Houmes, The Godfather
2 Comments | Permalink
Crunching the Numbers: Which Best Pictures are Most-Seen, Least-Seen, and Most Beloved?
Our friend and neighbor and oft-time reader, Vinny, who has his own blog, The Sayings of Uncle Vinny, recently crunched the numbers on the 71 readers who have ranked Oscar's best picture winners. This is what he came up with.
Some analysis of votes received in Erik Lundegaard's "Rank Oscar's Best Picture Winners."
First, a note on "ranking" vs "percentile rank."
I started out sorting results by "Rank" (Ex.: "The Godfather at No. 1; "Crash" at No. 77), but soon switched to "Percentile Rank" (0% to 100%, with 100% being best) because it gives a better sense of the popularity of the films. Emily, for example, who only watched 21 movies, ranked "Slumdog Millionare" as her least favorite (#21), putting that film on even footing with a very good film that was ranked #21 by someone who has seen most or all of the best pictures. CM Gardner saw 81 filmes and ranked "Schindler's List" as #21. Putting it in terms of percentage makes it easier to see how people feel about the movies.
What do we love? What do we hate?
"The Godfather," no surprise, has the best overall ranking, with an average percentile rank of 84.4% (+/- 16). It was seen by nearly everyone (67 of the 71 readers). It's also the least-hated film on the list. Its lowest score was 30.3%, which might sound bad, but the next least-hated film is "Schindler's List," which still hit a low of 24.4% on somebody's list. From there the "minimum" scores swiftly descend into the low teens, with a full 75 of the 85 films hated by someone: Each of them scored in someone's bottom 10%.
Here are the nine films that stayed out of the bottom 10% on everyone's lists:
title | year | Avg Score | Lowest Score |
The Godfather | 1972 | 84.36 | 30.3 |
Schindler's List | 1993 | 71.66 | 24.39 |
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest | 1975 | 68.33 | 19.05 |
Casablanca | 1943 | 82.87 | 18.57 |
In the Heat of the Night | 1967 | 41.91 | 14.81 |
The Bridge on the River Kwai | 1957 | 62.02 | 13.21 |
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans | 1928 | 78.67 | 12.82 |
The Best Years of Our Lives | 1946 | 56.48 | 11.29 |
Hamlet | 1948 | 46.38 | 10.34 |
Only three films failed to crack the top 50% on anyone's list: "The Broadway Melody" (27% at its highest), "The Great Ziegfeld" (41%) and "Cavalcade" (41%). In the same way that very few movies were hated by nobody, very few movies didn't have some love showered on them by somebody: 77 of the 85 made it into the top 20% of at least one list.
Here are those unbeloved eight films:
title | year | Avg Score | Best Score |
The Broadway Melody | 1929 | 5.63 | 27.16 |
The Great Ziegfeld | 1936 | 18.19 | 41.18 |
Cavalcade | 1933 | 8.44 | 41.38 |
Cimarron | 1931 | 12.61 | 71.43 |
The Greatest Show on Earth | 1952 | 15.23 | 75.29 |
Rocky | 1976 | 36.58 | 76.32 |
Tom Jones | 1963 | 30.96 | 78.21 |
Marty | 1955 | 31.52 | 79.66 |
Opinion differed the most on "All Quiet on the Western Front", where 30 voters gave a spread (standard deviation) of 30 points around the average score of ~60%. Nobody was confused about "The Broadway Melody," whose standard deviation was only 7.5% around a score of 5.6%. Ouch!
What have we seen?
The average voter has seen 57 of the 85 films. Two people have only seen 21 while three saw all 85. The least-seen movie was "The Life of Emile Zola," with only 11 viewings. Two films, "Forrest Gump and "Slumdog Millionaire," were seen by everyone.
Here are the 10 most-viewed best-picture winners. Well, 14 most-viewed. A big tie at the end there. Second sort on chronology:
title | year | TimesViewed |
Forrest Gump | 1994 | 71 |
Slumdog Millionaire | 2008 | 71 |
The Silence of the Lambs | 1991 | 69 |
Titanic | 1997 | 69 |
Shakespeare in Love | 1998 | 69 |
Casablanca | 1943 | 67 |
The Godfather | 1972 | 67 |
No Country for Old Men | 2007 | 67 |
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest | 1975 | 66 |
Annie Hall | 1977 | 66 |
Schindler's List | 1993 | 66 |
American Beauty | 1999 | 66 |
Gladiator | 2000 | 66 |
A Beautiful Mind | 2001 | 66 |
And here are the 10 (well, 11) least-viewed best-picture winners:
title | year | TimesViewed |
The Life of Emile Zola | 1937 | 11 |
Cimarron | 1931 | 12 |
Cavalcade | 1933 | 12 |
The Broadway Melody | 1929 | 13 |
The Great Ziegfeld | 1936 | 16 |
Going My Way | 1944 | 19 |
Wings | 1927 | 20 |
Mrs. Miniver | 1942 | 26 |
Gentleman's Agreement | 1947 | 26 |
Mutiny of the Bounty | 1935 | 28 |
The Greatest Show on Earth | 1952 | 28 |
More to come...
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, Oscars, Best Picture, The Godfather, Vince Houmes
No Comments yet | Permalink
My Q&A with Oscar's Lawyers
During the day, as many of you know, I'm the editor-in-chief for a national legal publication. Mornings I do this. Recently I combined interests. For the most recent issue in Southern California I interviewed the general counsel and main lawyer (John Quinn and David Quinto, respectively) for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. The Oscars.
It was fun and informative. I never thought about gatecrashers at the Oscars before--not being a gatecrasher myself and never guarding a gate worth crashing. I never thought that the script for the show has to go through lawyers:
Me: Earlier you mentioned you have to look at the Academy Award show script for approval. What are some examples of things you've flagged in the past?
Quinto: One year there was a joke about an actress that suggested she had been having sex out of wedlock with a minor.
Quinn: And we said, "You really can't do this."
Quinto: And the response from the producer was, "Look, I heard a joke about Jerry Buss going to Cedar Sinai to wait for his next wife to be born." And I said, "That's completely different. The imputation of a lack of chastity to a man is a lot different than the imputation of a lack of chastity to a woman. Plus, what you don't know," I said to the producer, "is that the Academy had a dispute this year with that particular actress." The Academy had threatened a lawsuit. The whole thing was resolved confidentially. But if anyone had a reason to be sore with the Academy at that moment, it was that actress. That was one time I raised a challenge.
Me: Was it listened to?
Quinto: It was listened to. Another time there was a hysterically funny joke about an unnamed baseball player on steroids, and ABC broadcast standards said, "Look, people will tell in a nanosecond that this joke is about Barry Bonds. We'll be sued. So the joke has to be cut." And I said, "No, no. I'm a litigator. And as a litigator, I can tell you Barry Bonds will not sue. If he were to sue all his medical records would be open to discovery. He doesn't want that." So they kept it in. I thought it got good laughter during rehearsals but they cut it on the basis that it didn't get enough laughs.
I love all that. I love this sentence: "The imputation of a lack of chastity to a man is a lot different than the imputation of a lack of chastity to a woman." It's not funny cuz it's true.
Then there's the discussion of the riders (in effect since 1950) that Oscar winners must sign:
Quinn: When you receive your Oscar, before you take physical possession, you'll be asked to sign a rider for a first refusal agreement. Basically, before transferring or selling it to anybody, you will offer it to the Academy for one dollar. The Academy is of the view that Oscar statuettes shouldn't be articles of commerce. They are unique recognitions of achievement, and they shouldn't be purchased and sold in the marketplace. So from time to time, somebody tries to sell one, and we're in court seeking injunction against the sale.
Check out the whole Q&A. Digital version is here. A friend who once lived and worked in Hollywood called it "the best behind-the-scenes-at-the-Oscars piece I've read since Edgar Bergen won the Woodie." Which I think is a compliment.
Tags: Oscars
No Comments yet | Permalink
Edward Copeland Ranks the Best Pictures: from 'Casablanca' to 'The Broadway Melody'
Edward Copeland Ranks the Best Pictures
1. Casablanca (1943)
2. The Godfather (1972)
3. Annie Hall (1977)
4. All About Eve (1950)
5. The Apartment (1960)
6. It Happened One Night (1934)
7. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
8. On the Waterfront (1954)
9. Amadeus (1984)
10. Schindler's List (1993)11. Gone with the Wind (1939)
12. The Godfather Part II (1974)
13. Terms of Endearment (1983)
14. No Country for Old Men (2007)
15. A Man for All Seasons (1966)
16. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
17. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
18. The Last Emperor (1987)
19. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
20. The Sting (1973)21. The Departed (2006)
22. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
23. West Side Story (1961)
24. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
25. Unforgiven (1992)
26. Grand Hotel (1932)
27. From Here to Eternity (1953)
28. Rebecca (1940)
29. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
30. In the Heat of the Night (1967)31. Ghandi (1982)
32. My Fair Lady (1964)
33. Marty (1955)
34. American Beauty (1999)
35. Forrest Gump (1994)
36. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
37. Out of Africa (1985)
38. Rocky (1976)
39. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
40. Oliver! (1968)41. Chicago (2002)
42. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
43. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
44. The Sound of Music (1965)
45. The French Connection (1971)
46. The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
47. Gigi (1958)
48. Hamlet (1948)
49. How Green Was My Valley (1941)
50. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)51. All the King's Men (1949)
52. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
53. Tom Jones (1963)
54. The English Patient (1996)
55. The Lost Weekend (1945)
56. Ordinary People (1980)
57. Cavalcade (1933)
58. Patton (1970)
59. An American in Paris (1951)
60. The Hurt Locker (2009)61. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
62. Crash (2005)
63. Going My Way (1944)
64. Wings (1927)
65. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
66. The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
67. Chariots of Fire (1981)
68. Rain Man (1988)
69. The Artist (2011)
70. Mrs. Miniver (1942)71. The King's Speech (2010)
72. Titanic (1997)
73. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
74. Dances with Wolves (1990)
75. Platoon (1986)
76. Braveheart (1995)
77. Ben-Hur (1959)
78. The Deer Hunter (1978)
79. Gladiator (2000)
80. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)81. Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
82. Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
83. Cimarron (1931)
84. The Broadway Melody (1929)
Haven't seen
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928)
Edward's comment
I've seen "Sunrise" and it would rank high but I left it out since it doesn't count as a best picture winner.
My comment
Interesting. We may have to amend the interactive feature. Well, we'll have to amend it anyway in a week when we get a new best picture, but Edward is right. "Sunrise" was voted the "Unique and Artistic Picture" in 1929. The "Outstanding Picture" that year, forerunner to best picture, went to "Wings." See his fascinating blog post on this and other Oscar subjects.
But considering how well "Sunrise" had held up and "Wings" has not, it makes me wish the Academy had kept the former category. One wonders what it would have looked like through the years, and what artistry it might have inspired in other filmmakers.
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, Casablanca
No Comments yet | Permalink
Anne Thompson Ranks the Best Pictures: from 'Lawrence of Arabia' to 'Going My Way'
Anne Thompson Ranks the Best Pictures
1. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
2. The Apartment (1960)
3. It Happened One Night (1934)
4. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
5. Annie Hall (1977)
6. All About Eve (1950)
7. The Godfather (1972)
8. Gone with the Wind (1939)
9. Casablanca (1943)
10. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928)11. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
12. The Godfather Part II (1974)
13. The Last Emperor (1987)
14. Unforgiven (1992)
15. No Country for Old Men (2007)
16. On the Waterfront (1954)
17. Schindler's List (1993)
18. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
19. A Man for All Seasons (1966)
20. Amadeus (1984)21. Platoon (1986)
22. Ben-Hur (1959)
23. Titanic (1997)
24. The Deer Hunter (1978)
25. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
26. An American in Paris (1951)
27. The Sound of Music (1965)
28. Oliver! (1968)
29. The Departed (2006)
30. From Here to Eternity (1953)31. Patton (1970)
32. Gladiator (2000)
33. Hamlet (1948)
34. Braveheart (1995)
35. The Hurt Locker (2009)
36. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
37. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
38. Tom Jones (1963)
39. The English Patient (1996)
40. Terms of Endearment (1983)41. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
42. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
43. The King's Speech (2010)
44. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
45. Gigi (1958)
46. Out of Africa (1985)
47. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
48. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
49. The Lost Weekend (1945)
50. How Green Was My Valley (1941)51. Rebecca (1940)
52. American Beauty (1999)
53. Forrest Gump (1994)
54. The Artist (2011)
55. Ghandi (1982)
56. The French Connection (1971)
57. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
58. Ordinary People (1980)
59. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
60. Rain Man (1988)61. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
62. West Side Story (1961)
63. Chariots of Fire (1981)
64. Dances with Wolves (1990)
65. Rocky (1976)
66. The Sting (1973)
67. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
68. Grand Hotel (1932)
69. Chicago (2002)
70. Marty (1955)71. Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
72. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
73. My Fair Lady (1964)
74. Crash (2005)
75. Wings (1927)
76. Going My Way (1944)
Haven't seen
The Broadway Melody (1929)
Cimarron (1931)
Cavalcade (1933)
The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
Mrs. Miniver (1942)
All the King's Men (1949)
The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
Anne's comment (on her Twitter feed)
Cinema buffs, I warn you that ranking the Best Picture Oscar winners is a serious time suck.
My comment
Indeed. The biggest issue with these movies is the lack of passion we have, for or against, for most of them. Most are just shrugs. Makes me almost happy for "Crash." Something to make me shake my first rather than toss up my hands.
Ms. Thompson can be followed, of course, at Thompson on Hollywood
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, Lawrence of Arabia, Going My Way, Anne Thompson
No Comments yet | Permalink
The Worst Best Picture
Thus far, 61 people have sent me their rankings of the Academy's choices for best picture from 1927 to 2011. That's about 55 more people than I thought we were going to get. Two days ago I listed off who's winning in the best best-picture race. This is a post about who's losing. Which is the worst best picture the Academy has chosen?
It's not much of a surprise.
Oddly, save for that one film, there is generally less agreement on which of the Academy's best pictures is worst. Those 61 readers chose 19 different movies in the No. 1 slot but 29 different movies for last place.
Here are the 18 best pictures who received just one vote as our worst best picture:
- The Broadway Melody (1929)
- Cimarron (1931)
- The Great Ziegfield (1936)
- How Green Was My Valley (1941)
- Mrs. Miniver (1942)
- Midnight Cowboy (1969)
- The French Connection (1971)
- Terms of Endearment (1983)
- Amadeus (1984)
- Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
- Unforgiven (1992)
- Titanic (1997)
- Chicago (2002)
- The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
- Million Dollar Baby (2004)
- The Departed (2006)
- Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
- The Hurt Locker (2009)
I know. "Unforgiven"? "Amadeus"? But there 'tis.
Four movies received two votes each:
- Rocky (1976)
- Gandhi (1982)
- Forrest Gump (1994)
- Shakespeare in Love (1998)
Five movies received three votes each:
- Cavalcade (1933)
- The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
- Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
- Dances with Wolves (1990)
- A Beautiful Mind (2001)
There's a surprise, at least to me, for our second-worst movie. With four votes:
- Braveheart (1995)
No surprise at all, as I said, with our choice for the worst best picture the Academy ever chose. In a landslide with 16 votes:
- Crash (2005)
Make sure you get your votes in. We'll be parsing the numbers on a deeper level soon.
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, Crash, Braveheart
1 Comment | Permalink
GOB Bluth (Kevin) Ranks the Best Pictures: from 'The Godfather Part II' to 'The Greatest Show on Earth'
GOB Bluth (Kevin) Ranks the Best Pictures
1. The Godfather Part II (1974)
2. The Sound of Music (1965)
3. No Country for Old Men (2007)
4. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
5. Terms of Endearment (1983)
6. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928)
7. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
8. The Godfather (1972)
9. Schindler's List (1993)
10. Gone with the Wind (1939)11. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
12. Casablanca (1943)
13. Forrest Gump (1994)
14. Annie Hall (1977)
15. All About Eve (1950)
16. Ordinary People (1980)
17. The Departed (2006)
18. Braveheart (1995)
19. Gladiator (2000)
20. American Beauty (1999)21. The Hurt Locker (2009)
22. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
23. It Happened One Night (1934)
24. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
25. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
26. The French Connection (1971)
27. Unforgiven (1992)
28. Patton (1970)
29. On the Waterfront (1954)
30. Dances with Wolves (1990)31. Platoon (1986)
32. Ghandi (1982)
33. The King's Speech (2010)
34. A Man for All Seasons (1966)
35. The Deer Hunter (1978)
36. Rocky (1976)
37. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
38. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
39. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
40. The Sting (1973)41. Chicago (2002)
42. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
43. Titanic (1997)
44. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
45. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
46. My Fair Lady (1964)
47. Chariots of Fire (1981)
48. West Side Story (1961)
49. An American in Paris (1951)
50. The Apartment (1960)51. Rain Man (1988)
52. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
53. Gigi (1958)
54. The Lost Weekend (1945)
55. How Green Was My Valley (1941)
56. Going My Way (1944)
57. From Here to Eternity (1953)
58. The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
59. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
60. The English Patient (1996)61. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
62. Oliver! (1968)
63. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
64. All the King's Men (1949)
65. Grand Hotel (1932)
66. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
67. Marty (1955)
68. Amadeus (1984)
69. The Artist (2011)
70. Ben-Hur (1959)71. Out of Africa (1985)
72. Mrs. Miniver (1942)
73. Rebecca (1940)
74. Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
75. Hamlet (1948)
76. The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
77. Crash (2005)
78. The Last Emperor (1987)
79. Tom Jones (1963)
80. Wings (1927)81. Cimarron (1931)
82. Cavalcade (1933)
83. The Broadway Melody (1929)
84. Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
85. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
My comment
A third reader listing all 85 movies! And another victory for Coppola and another defeat for the Academy in 1952, which chose "Greatest Show" over "High Noon," and didn't bother to nominate "Singin' in the Rain." Agree with the low placement for "Around the World in 80 Days," which is dullsville, a Cinemascope travellogue; but "Last Emperor" below "Crash"? I'll take the former just for its colors. Its yellows.
In other news, how's the magic show coming?
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, The Godfather, The Greatest Show on Earth
No Comments yet | Permalink
David Murphy Ranks the Best Pictures: from 'Lawrence of Arabia' to 'Crash'
David Murphy Ranks the Best Pictures
1. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
2. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928)
3. The Godfather Part II (1974)
4. The Godfather (1972)
5. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
6. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
7. Annie Hall (1977)
8. Casablanca (1943)
9. The Apartment (1960)
10. Patton (1970)11. On the Waterfront (1954)
12. Oliver! (1968)
13. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
14. Schindler's List (1993)
15. Unforgiven (1992)
16. The Last Emperor (1987)
17. West Side Story (1961)
18. The Deer Hunter (1978)
19. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
20. Rebecca (1940)21. The French Connection (1971)
22. No Country for Old Men (2007)
23. Platoon (1986)
24. The Departed (2006)
25. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
26. The Hurt Locker (2009)
27. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
28. Rocky (1976)
29. An American in Paris (1951)
30. Amadeus (1984)31. Ghandi (1982)
32. Out of Africa (1985)
33. From Here to Eternity (1953)
34. Ordinary People (1980)
35. The Sting (1973)
36. Terms of Endearment (1983)
37. All About Eve (1950)
38. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
39. Dances with Wolves (1990)
40. In the Heat of the Night (1967)41. Tom Jones (1963)
42. Ben-Hur (1959)
43. Marty (1955)
44. Gone with the Wind (1939)
45. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
46. My Fair Lady (1964)
47. The Lost Weekend (1945)
48. All the King's Men (1949)
49. A Man for All Seasons (1966)
50. How Green Was My Valley (1941)51. Chariots of Fire (1981)
52. Rain Man (1988)
53. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
54. Mrs. Miniver (1942)
55. Titanic (1997)
56. Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
57. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
58. It Happened One Night (1934)
59. Hamlet (1948)
60. The English Patient (1996)61. Grand Hotel (1932)
62. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
63. The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
64. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
65. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
66. The Sound of Music (1965)
67. Braveheart (1995)
68. Wings (1927)
69. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
70. Chicago (2002)71. Gigi (1958)
72. Gladiator (2000)
73. American Beauty (1999)
74. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
75. Forrest Gump (1994)
76. The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
77. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
78. Going My Way (1944)
79. Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
80. The Broadway Melody (1929)81. Cavalcade (1933)
82. Cimarron (1931)
83. Crash (2005)
Haven't seen
The King's Speech (2010)
The Artist (2011)
David's comment
Realized I hadn't seen the last two, but then I've been so disappointed in who wins the Oscars that it made it really hard to rank the films I just didn't like. I had to find the films I just thought had no business being on the list and start from there, meaning that from about Gone With the Wind down, those films are ones that I just don't care about at all.
Years ago, I decided I'd watch all of the Best Picture nominees, so I had to sit through Cimarron, Cavalcade, and those other early winners that really aren't very good. I still think Lawrence is the best film Hollywood has made, but most of the Top 20 became more of an enjoyability/achievement/theme discussion. Should something as huge as Lawrence go up against Annie Hall? Patton against Waterfront? I split the difference. But what bothers me the most is the way you can tell how much the Weinstein Bros. have influenced the process from the 90's on. My head hurts.
My comment
RE: Harvey Weinstein: Yep. He's pushing "Silver Linings Playbook" this year. We all want an SOB on our side but most of the time Harvey's on the other side.
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, Lawrence of Arabia
No Comments yet | Permalink
What's the Best Best Picture?
As of now, 61 people have sent me their rankings of the Academy's choices for best picture from 1927 to 2011. That's about 55 more people than I thought we were going to get.
We'll crunch the numbers in more detail soon, but I thought I'd let you know the tally so far.
For the No. 1 slot? The best best picture? Nineteen different movies got votes.
Five movies got one vote each:
- Gone with the Wind (1939)
- The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
- The Sound of Music (1965)
- The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
- The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
Two movies got two votes:
- Amadeus (1984)
- No Country for Old Men (2007)
Four movies got three votes:
- The Apartment (1960)
- Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
- Schindler's List (1993)
- American Beauty (1999)
Four movies got four votes each:
- Sunrise: A Tale of Two Humans (1928)
- One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
- Annie Hall (1977)
- Titanic (1997)
Two movies are tied for third place with five votes:
- Casablanca (1943)
- The Godfather (1972)
In second place, with six votes:
- The Godfather: Part II
And leading the pack with eight votes:
- All About Eve (1950)
"Eve" is surprising. So are the four votes both "Titanic" and "Sunrise" received: the former because I thought it wasn't well-liked; the latter because it's a silent film most of us (including me) haven't seen.
No complaints, by the way, if you haven't voted.
A few of these movies also made the worst list. Which we'll get to next.
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, All About Eve
3 Comments | Permalink
Thomas Meier Ranks the Best Pictures: from 'Sunrise' to 'Broadway Melody'
Thomas Meier ranks the Oscar winners for best picture
1. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928)
2. Casablanca (1943)
3. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
4. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
5. All About Eve (1950)
6. Gone with the Wind (1939)
7. The Hurt Locker (2009)
8. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
9. Annie Hall (1977)
10. It Happened One Night (1934)11. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
12. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
13. Schindler's List (1993)
14. The Deer Hunter (1978)
15. West Side Story (1961)
16. How Green Was My Valley (1941)
17. The Godfather Part II (1974)
18. The Godfather (1972)
19. Rebecca (1940)
20. On the Waterfront (1954)21. Out of Africa (1985)
22. Unforgiven (1992)
23. Platoon (1986)
24. Amadeus (1984)
25. An American in Paris (1951)
26. All the King's Men (1949)
27. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
28. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
29. The Artist (2011)
30. Midnight Cowboy (1969)31. Patton (1970)
32. Ordinary People (1980)
33. From Here to Eternity (1953)
34. The English Patient (1996)
35. Terms of Endearment (1983)
36. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
37. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
38. The Departed (2006)
39. The French Connection (1971)
40. No Country for Old Men (2007)41. American Beauty (1999)
42. Chariots of Fire (1981)
43. A Man for All Seasons (1966)
44. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
45. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
46. The Apartment (1960)
47. Tom Jones (1963)
48. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
49. The Last Emperor (1987)
50. Rocky (1976)51. The Sting (1973)
52. Gigi (1958)
53. Hamlet (1948)
54. Titanic (1997)
55. Marty (1955)
56. The Sound of Music (1965)
57. Grand Hotel (1932)
58. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
59. Wings (1927)
60. The Lost Weekend (1945)61. Crash (2005)
62. Ben-Hur (1959)
63. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
64. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
65. My Fair Lady (1964)
66. The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
67. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
68. Dances with Wolves (1990)
69. Ghandi (1982)
70. The King's Speech (2010)71. Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
72. Oliver! (1968)
73. Mrs. Miniver (1942)
74. Gladiator (2000)
75. The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
76. Chicago (2002)
77. Forrest Gump (1994)
78. Rain Man (1988)
79. Braveheart (1995)
80. Cimarron (1931)81. Cavalcade (1933)
82. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
83. Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
84. Going My Way (1944)
85. The Broadway Melody (1929)
My comment
Another reader listing all 85 movies. Wow. Takes effort to do the '20s and '30s best pictures. Those don't just turn up every day on Turner Classics.
I like how Thomas' best and worst are like a metaphor for the 1920s: Riding high in 1928, the crash in 1929.
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, Sunrise: A Tale of Two Humans
No Comments yet | Permalink
Branimir Djurovic Ranks the Best Picture Winners: from 'The Godfather' to 'Cavalcade'
Branimir Djurovic ranks the Oscar winners for best picture
1. The Godfather (1972)
2. Gone with the Wind (1939)
3. The Godfather Part II (1974)
4. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
5. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
6. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
7. Annie Hall (1977)
8. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
9. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
10. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928)11. The Deer Hunter (1978)
12. On the Waterfront (1954)
13. No Country for Old Men (2007)
14. Casablanca (1943)
15. Ben-Hur (1959)
16. The Departed (2006)
17. American Beauty (1999)
18. Unforgiven (1992)
19. Wings (1927)
20. Schindler's List (1993)21. Gladiator (2000)
22. It Happened One Night (1934)
23. Amadeus (1984)
24. The Apartment (1960)
25. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
26. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
27. Rocky (1976)
28. From Here to Eternity (1953)
29. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
30. Terms of Endearment (1983)31. Platoon (1986)
32. Marty (1955)
33. The Last Emperor (1987)
34. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
35. Chicago (2002)
36. The Sting (1973)
37. The French Connection (1971)
38. The English Patient (1996)
39. My Fair Lady (1964)
40. Tom Jones (1963)41. All About Eve (1950)
42. The Hurt Locker (2009)
43. Forrest Gump (1994)
44. Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
45. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
46. An American in Paris (1951)
47. The Sound of Music (1965)
48. Ordinary People (1980)
49. Hamlet (1948)
50. Rain Man (1988)51. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
52. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
53. Grand Hotel (1932)
54. How Green Was My Valley (1941)
55. Titanic (1997)
56. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
57. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
58. Gigi (1958)
59. Oliver! (1968)
60. Rebecca (1940)61. The Artist (2011)
62. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
63. Dances with Wolves (1990)
64. West Side Story (1961)
65. Out of Africa (1985)
66. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
67. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
68. The King's Speech (2010)
69. Crash (2005)
70. Chariots of Fire (1981)71. Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
72. All the King's Men (1949)
73. Braveheart (1995)
74. Cimarron (1931)
75. The Broadway Melody (1929)
76. Cavalcade (1933)
Haven't Seen
Ghandi (1982)
Patton (1970)
A Man for All Seasons (1966)
The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
The Lost Weekend (1945)
Going My Way (1944)
Mrs. Miniver (1942)
The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
My comment
I can't believe so many people have seen "Cimarron"! Did anyone see the 1960 remake with Glenn Ford? It actually has a higher IMDb rating (6.3) than the 1931 best-picture winner (6.0).
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, The Godfather
No Comments yet | Permalink
Jorge Rodrigues Ranks the Best Picture Winners: from 'All About Eve' to 'Driving Miss Daisy'
Jorge Rodrigues ranks the Oscar winners for best picture
1. All About Eve (1950)
2. The Apartment (1960)
3. Annie Hall (1977)
4. The Godfather Part II (1974)
5. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
6. Schindler's List (1993)
7. It Happened One Night (1934)
8. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
9. Rebecca (1940)
10. Casablanca (1943)11. Gone with the Wind (1939)
12. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928)
13. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
14. American Beauty (1999)
15. From Here to Eternity (1953)
16. All the King's Men (1949)
17. The French Connection (1971)
18. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
19. The Godfather (1972)
20. On the Waterfront (1954)21. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
22. Patton (1970)
23. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
24. No Country for Old Men (2007)
25. The Deer Hunter (1978)
26. The Artist (2011)
27. West Side Story (1961)
28. Wings (1927)
29. The Departed (2006)
30. Gladiator (2000)31. Ghandi (1982)
32. Amadeus (1984)
33. Unforgiven (1992)
34. Terms of Endearment (1983)
35. Ordinary People (1980)
36. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
37. The Last Emperor (1987)
38. The King's Speech (2010)
39. Chicago (2002)
40. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)41. The English Patient (1996)
42. The Lost Weekend (1945)
43. Braveheart (1995)
44. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
45. The Hurt Locker (2009)
46. Mrs. Miniver (1942)
47. Crash (2005)
48. The Sound of Music (1965)
49. An American in Paris (1951)
50. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)51. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
52. Out of Africa (1985)
53. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
54. Hamlet (1948)
55. Platoon (1986)
56. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
57. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
58. Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
59. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
60. A Man for All Seasons (1966)61. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
62. Titanic (1997)
63. Rocky (1976)
64. The Sting (1973)
65. Ben-Hur (1959)
66. Chariots of Fire (1981)
67. Oliver! (1968)
68. Marty (1955)
69. Going My Way (1944)
70. The Great Ziegfeld (1936)71. Cimarron (1931)
72. The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
73. Cavalcade (1933)
74. The Broadway Melody (1929)
75. How Green Was My Valley (1941)
76. Grand Hotel (1932)
77. Dances with Wolves (1990)
78. Gigi (1958)
79. Tom Jones (1963)
80. Rain Man (1988)81. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
82. Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
83. My Fair Lady (1964)
84. Forrest Gump (1994)
85. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
My comment
I've got nothing but love for "All About Eve." When I first saw it, maybe 20 years ago, I was dazzled by its wit and wondered where ours had gone.
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, All About Eve
No Comments yet | Permalink
Steve Schweighofer Ranks Oscar's Best Picture Winners: from 'Lawrence of Arabia' to 'The Greastest Show on Earth'
Steve Schweighofer ranks the Oscar winners for best picture
1. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
2. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
3. Annie Hall (1977)
4. The Godfather (1972)
5. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928)
6. From Here to Eternity (1953)
7. All About Eve (1950)
8. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
9. On the Waterfront (1954)
10. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
11. The Hurt Locker (2009)
12. The Godfather Part II (1974)
13. Schindler's List (1993)
14. The Last Emperor (1987)
15. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
16. The Deer Hunter (1978)
17. The English Patient (1996)
18. It Happened One Night (1934)
19. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
20. No Country for Old Men (2007)
21. Unforgiven (1992)
22. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
23. Dances with Wolves (1990)
24. American Beauty (1999)
25. The Departed (2006)
26. West Side Story (1961)
27. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
28. The Apartment (1960)
29. Ordinary People (1980)
30. Tom Jones (1963)
31. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
32. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
33. The Sting (1973)
34. The French Connection (1971)
35. Gladiator (2000)
36. Amadeus (1984)
37. Patton (1970)
38. Rebecca (1940)
39. Out of Africa (1985)
40. Terms of Endearment (1983)
41. Platoon (1986)
42. Ben-Hur (1959)
43. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
44. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
45. Hamlet (1948)
46. Chariots of Fire (1981)
47. A Man for All Seasons (1966)
48. Wings (1927)
49. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
50. Casablanca (1943)
51. My Fair Lady (1964)
52. The King's Speech (2010)
53. Titanic (1997)
54. Gigi (1958)
55. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
56. Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
57. Mrs. Miniver (1942)
58. Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
59. Ghandi (1982)
60. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
61. The Sound of Music (1965)
62. An American in Paris (1951)
63. Chicago (2002)
64. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
65. Gone with the Wind (1939)
66. All the King's Men (1949)
67. The Artist (2011)
68. Braveheart (1995)69. The Lost Weekend (1945)
70. Oliver! (1968)
71. How Green Was My Valley (1941)
72. The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
73. Marty (1955)
74. The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
75. Rain Man (1988)
76. Rocky (1976)
77. Forrest Gump (1994)
78. Cavalcade (1933)
79. Grand Hotel (1932)
80. Going My Way (1944)
81. Cimarron (1931)
82. The Broadway Melody (1929)
83. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
84. Crash (2005)
85. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
Steve's comment
that was fun
My comment
All of them? Impressive. Glad you enjoyed it. A lot of war at the top.
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, Lawrence of Arabia, The Greatest Show on Earth
No Comments yet | Permalink
Joe D. Ranks Oscar's Best Picture Winners: from 'Cuckoo's Nest' to 'Dances with Wolves'
Joe D. (not that Joe D.) ranks the Oscar winners for best picture
1. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
2. The Deer Hunter (1978)
3. On the Waterfront (1954)
4. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
5. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
6. No Country for Old Men (2007)
7. The Sound of Music (1965)
8. Terms of Endearment (1983)
9. A Man for All Seasons (1966)
10. Gone with the Wind (1939)
11. The Godfather (1972)
12. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
13. Casablanca (1943)
14. Platoon (1986)
15. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
16. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
17. The Apartment (1960)
18. Annie Hall (1977)
19. From Here to Eternity (1953)
20. All About Eve (1950)
21. The French Connection (1971)
22. The Godfather Part II (1974)
23. My Fair Lady (1964)
24. It Happened One Night (1934)
25. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
26. Rain Man (1988)
27. The Sting (1973)
28. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
29. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
30. An American in Paris (1951)
31. The King's Speech (2010)
32. West Side Story (1961)
33. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
34. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
35. Oliver! (1968)
36. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
37. Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
38. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
39. Patton (1970)
40. Ben-Hur (1959)
41. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
42. Forrest Gump (1994)
43. Chariots of Fire (1981)
44. Out of Africa (1985)
45. Titanic (1997)
46. Gladiator (2000)
47. Dances with Wolves (1990)
My comment
"Cuckoo's Nest" is getting a lot of love. Makes me want to watch it again. "You wanna watch baseball? The World Series? Put up that hand, Chief!"
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures
1 Comment | Permalink
Dan Heilman Ranks Oscar's Best Picture Winners: from 'Cuckoo's Nest' to 'Crash'
Dan Heilman ranks the Oscar winners for best picture
1. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
2. The Godfather Part II (1974)
3. No Country for Old Men (2007)
4. Schindler's List (1993)
5. The Deer Hunter (1978)
6. The Godfather (1972)
7. Annie Hall (1977)
8. Unforgiven (1992)
9. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
10. Rain Man (1988)11. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
12. The French Connection (1971)
13. The Hurt Locker (2009)
14. Terms of Endearment (1983)
15. Tom Jones (1963)
16. The Artist (2011)
17. Rocky (1976)
18. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
19. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
20. Platoon (1986)21. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
22. Ordinary People (1980)
23. The King's Speech (2010)
24. Braveheart (1995)
25. Patton (1970)
26. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
27. My Fair Lady (1964)
28. The Last Emperor (1987)
29. The Sting (1973)
30. Chicago (2002)31. Ghandi (1982)
32. A Man for All Seasons (1966)
33. Amadeus (1984)
34. The Departed (2006)
35. American Beauty (1999)
36. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
37. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
38. Chariots of Fire (1981)
39. Gladiator (2000)
40. The Sound of Music (1965)41. Out of Africa (1985)
42. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
43. Dances with Wolves (1990)
44. Oliver! (1968)
45. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
46. Titanic (1997)
47. Forrest Gump (1994)
48. The English Patient (1996)
49. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
50. Crash (2005)
Dan's comment
Listed only those from my lifetime.
My comment
Good plan. And 50 is quite enough. Both ways.
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, Crash
No Comments yet | Permalink
Dback Ranks Oscar's Best Picture Winners: from 'Sunrise' (Best) to 'Gandhi' (Worst)
Dback ranks the Oscar winners for best picture
1. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928)
2. Gone with the Wind (1939)
3. All About Eve (1950)
4. Casablanca (1943)
5. West Side Story (1961)
6. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
7. Amadeus (1984)
8. Chicago (2002)
9. The Godfather (1972)
10. The Sound of Music (1965)11. Gigi (1958)
12. The King's Speech (2010)
13. Annie Hall (1977)
14. Schindler's List (1993)
15. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
16. Rebecca (1940)
17. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
18. Ordinary People (1980)
19. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
20. How Green Was My Valley (1941)21. The Hurt Locker (2009)
22. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
23. The Departed (2006)
24. Grand Hotel (1932)
25. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
26. American Beauty (1999)
27. No Country for Old Men (2007)
28. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
29. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
30. The Artist (2011)31. Platoon (1986)
32. Oliver! (1968)
33. From Here to Eternity (1953)
34. Gladiator (2000)
35. The English Patient (1996)
36. Forrest Gump (1994)
37. Unforgiven (1992)
38. Terms of Endearment (1983)
39. The Deer Hunter (1978)
40. The Godfather Part II (1974)41. The French Connection (1971)
42. Patton (1970)
43. It Happened One Night (1934)
44. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
45. My Fair Lady (1964)
46. Tom Jones (1963)
47. The Apartment (1960)
48. Ben-Hur (1959)
49. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
50. An American in Paris (1951)51. All the King's Men (1949)
52. Braveheart (1995)
53. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
54. Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
55. The Sting (1973)
56. Dances with Wolves (1990)
57. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
58. Rain Man (1988)
59. Titanic (1997)
60. Going My Way (1944)61. The Last Emperor (1987)
62. Chariots of Fire (1981)
63. Out of Africa (1985)
64. Crash (2005)
65. Ghandi (1982)
Dback's comment
When in doubt, consult Danny Peary's "Alternate Oscars" to get reminders of the many, many gems the Oscars didn't give Best Picture to, or oftentimes didn't even nominate.
My comment
Apparently someone doesn't like the '80s. Wow. Four of the five worst? And "Gandhi" the worst of the worst? Well, it was a bad decade for movies. My main memory of seeing "Ghandi": everyone walking out the theater with peaceful, beatific expressions on their faces ... until we got into our cars and became our usual asshole selves.
OK, who's next?
Chris Nelson Ranks Oscar's Best Picture Winners: from 'Annie Hall' (Best) to 'Crash' (Worst)
Chris Nelson ranks the Oscar winners for best picture
1. Annie Hall (1977)
2. Gone with the Wind (1939)
3. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
4. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
5. Schindler's List (1993)
6. Terms of Endearment (1983)
7. Rebecca (1940)
8. All About Eve (1950)
9. Ordinary People (1980)
10. Casablanca (1943)11. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
12. Amadeus (1984)
13. Platoon (1986)
14. Titanic (1997)
15. Gladiator (2000)
16. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
17. The Deer Hunter (1978)
18. The Godfather Part II (1974)
19. Unforgiven (1992)
20. The Sting (1973)21. Grand Hotel (1932)
22. No Country for Old Men (2007)
23. The Hurt Locker (2009)
24. On the Waterfront (1954)
25. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
26. The Sound of Music (1965)
27. The Apartment (1960)
28. Rain Man (1988)
29. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
30. The Last Emperor (1987)31. Out of Africa (1985)
32. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
33. The King's Speech (2010)
34. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
35. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
36. The Artist (2011)
37. Dances with Wolves (1990)
38. My Fair Lady (1964)
39. Rocky (1976)
40. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)41. The French Connection (1971)
42. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
43. An American in Paris (1951)
44. The Godfather (1972)
45. The Departed (2006)
46. American Beauty (1999)
47. Forrest Gump (1994)
48. Patton (1970)
49. Chicago (2002)
50. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)51. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
52. Ghandi (1982)
53. Gigi (1958)
54. The English Patient (1996)
55. A Man for All Seasons (1966)
56. Tom Jones (1963)
57. West Side Story (1961)
58. Ben-Hur (1959)
59. Chariots of Fire (1981)
60. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)61. The Lost Weekend (1945)
62. Mrs. Miniver (1942)
63. Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
64. From Here to Eternity (1953)
65. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
66. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
67. All the King's Men (1949)
68. Hamlet (1948)
69. Marty (1955)
70. Gentleman's Agreement (1947)71. Going My Way (1944)
72. Oliver! (1968)
73. How Green Was My Valley (1941)
74. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
75. The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
76. The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
77. It Happened One Night (1934)
78. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
79. Wings (1927)
80. Braveheart (1995)81. Crash (2005)
Haven't Seen
Cimarron (1931)
Cavalcade (1933)
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928)
The Broadway Melody (1929)
Chris' comment
"Laughter through tears is my favorite emotion." DON'T JUDGE ME.
My comment
Way to rock the list and "Annie Hall," which I love.
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, Annie Hall
No Comments yet | Permalink
Endora Ranks the Best Pictures: from 'The Apartment' to 'A Beautiful Mind'
Endora Ranks the Oscar winners for best picture
1. The Apartment (1960)
2. Gone with the Wind (1939)
3. Annie Hall (1977)
4. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
5. Terms of Endearment (1983)
6. Amadeus (1984)
7. You Can't Take it With You (1938)
8. Rebecca (1940)
9. All About Eve (1950)
10. Titanic (1997)11. Casablanca (1943)
12. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
13. The English Patient (1996)
14. The Godfather Part II (1974)
15. The Godfather (1972)
16. American Beauty (1999)
17. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
18. The Last Emperor (1987)
19. West Side Story (1961)
20. The Departed (2006)21. The Lost Weekend (1945)
22. My Fair Lady (1964)
23. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
24. An American in Paris (1951)
25. From Here to Eternity (1953)
26. Hamlet (1948)
27. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
28. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
29. It Happened One Night (1934)
30. The Sting (1973)31. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
32. Tom Jones (1963)
33. Marty (1955)
34. Oliver! (1968)
35. Dances with Wolves (1990)
36. On the Waterfront (1954)
37. Schindler's List (1993)
38. Unforgiven (1992)
39. Ben-Hur (1959)
40. A Man for All Seasons (1966)41. Platoon (1986)
42. The Sound of Music (1965)
43. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
44. Ghandi (1982)
45. The French Connection (1971)
46. Out of Africa (1985)
47. Patton (1970)
48. The Deer Hunter (1978)
49. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
50. The Hurt Locker (2009)51. Chariots of Fire (1981)
52. Around the World in 80 Days (1956)
53. Gigi (1958)
54. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
55. No Country for Old Men (2007)
56. Mutiny of the Bounty (1935)
57. The Artist (2011)
58. Ordinary People (1980)
59. Mrs. Miniver (1942)
60. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)61. Braveheart (1995)
62. Forrest Gump (1994)
63. Rocky (1976)
64. Gladiator (2000)
65. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
66. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)
67. Grand Hotel (1932)
68. Chicago (2002)
69. The King's Speech (2010)
70. The Broadway Melody (1929)
71. Rain Man (1988)
72. Crash (2005)
73. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Endora's comment
Thanks for this, Erik.
My comment
Wow, 73 of the 85 best picture winners. That's impressive. I've only seen 70. And that's being generous. (I need to see about 10 of those again to see how they stand up.)
BTW, "Titanic," your No. 10, is more popular than I thought. As is "Gone with the Wind" (your No. 2). Not to mention "Annie Hall." But "Annie"'s always been popular with me. Not to mention Annie.
OK, who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures
1 Comment | Permalink
Reed Ranks the Best Pictures: from 'The Godfather' to 'Crash'
Reed Ranks the Oscar Winners for Best Picture
1. The Godfather (1972)
2. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
3. The Godfather Part II (1974)
4. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
5. Annie Hall (1977)
6. Casablanca (1943)
7. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
8. Amadeus (1984)
9. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
10. Rebecca (1940)11. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
12. On the Waterfront (1954)
13. Rain Man (1988)
14. Schindler's List (1993)
15. Platoon (1986)
16. All About Eve (1950)
17. Rocky (1976)
18. Patton (1970)
19. The Last Emperor (1987)
20. The Hurt Locker (2009)21. No Country for Old Men (2007)
22. Braveheart (1995)
23. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
24. Ghandi (1982)
25. The Apartment (1960)
26. Terms of Endearment (1983)
27. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
28. The Artist (2011)
29. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
30. The Deer Hunter (1978)31. Gone with the Wind (1939)
32. Ordinary People (1980)
33. The Departed (2006)
34. The Sting (1973)
35. The English Patient (1996)
36. The French Connection (1971)
37. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
38. American Beauty (1999)
39. Unforgiven (1992)
40. Forrest Gump (1994)41. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
42. From Here to Eternity (1953)
43. Marty (1955)
44. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
45. Gladiator (2000)
46. Crash (2005)
Reed's comment
I kept trying to find "Goodfellas," "Chinatown," and "The Pianist" in here, but of course they didn't win. "Chinatown," well, it was a strong year and the movie that won is my #3, so I can't really complain. Still miffed about Art Carney, though. All in all, a better group of films than I had expected. Note - films seen too long ago to remember ("Kramer vs Kramer," "Sound of Music," "Ben-Hur," "Chariots of Fire") relegated to "unseen."
Who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures
No Comments yet | Permalink
Uncle Vinny Ranks the Best Pictures: From 'The Godfather Part II' (Best) to 'Shakespeare in Love' (Worst)
Uncle Vinny Ranks the Oscar Winners for Best Picture
1. The Godfather Part II (1974)
2. The Godfather (1972)
3. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
4. Midnight Cowboy (1969)
5. The Deer Hunter (1978)
6. Casablanca (1943)
7. On the Waterfront (1954)
8. Platoon (1986)
9. A Man for All Seasons (1966)
10. Unforgiven (1992)11. Rebecca (1940)
12. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
13. The Artist (2011)
14. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
15. The Sting (1973)
16. Ghandi (1982)
17. Hamlet (1948)
18. An American in Paris (1951)
19. In the Heat of the Night (1967)
20. All About Eve (1950)21. No Country for Old Men (2007)
22. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)
23. Annie Hall (1977)
24. Grand Hotel (1932)
25. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)
26. Amadeus (1984)
27. The Hurt Locker (2009)
28. The French Connection (1971)
29. Rain Man (1988)
30. Schindler's List (1993)31. Rocky (1976)
32. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
33. Chariots of Fire (1981)
34. Terms of Endearment (1983)
35. The Lost Weekend (1945)
36. The Apartment (1960)
37. The Sound of Music (1965)
38. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
39. Million Dollar Baby (2004)
40. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)41. Forrest Gump (1994)
42. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
43. My Fair Lady (1964)
44. The English Patient (1996)
45. Gladiator (2000)
46. Braveheart (1995)
47. Dances with Wolves (1990)
48. Out of Africa (1985)
49. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
50. American Beauty (1999)51. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
Uncle Vinny's comment
I barely remember "Out of Africa." And, funnily enough..."The Lost Weekend" is a blur.
Who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures, Vince Houmes
1 Comment | Permalink
Tim Ranks the Best Pictures: From 'American Beauty' (Best) to 'Crash' (Worst)
Tim's Ranking of the Best Picture Oscar Winners
1. American Beauty (1999)
2. Casablanca (1943)
3. Schindler's List (1993)
4. Annie Hall (1977)
5. The Hurt Locker (2009)
6. Out of Africa (1985)
7. Rain Man (1988)
8. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
9. Gone with the Wind (1939)
10. Slumdog Millionaire (2008)11. Unforgiven (1992)
12. The Sting (1973)
13. All About Eve (1950)
14. Ben-Hur (1959)
15. Chariots of Fire (1981)
16. The Sound of Music (1965)
17. Ordinary People (1980)
18. Dances with Wolves (1990)
19. Titanic (1997)
20. No Country for Old Men (2007)21. Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
22. Platoon (1986)
23. The Godfather (1972)
24. The Artist (2011)
25. The Last Emperor (1987)
26. Forrest Gump (1994)
27. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
28. The English Patient (1996)
29. Shakespeare in Love (1998)
30. Braveheart (1995)31. Marty (1955)
32. The Apartment (1960)
33. Crash (2005)
Tim's comment
Holy moly.
Who's next?
Tags: Ranking Oscars Best Pictures
1 Comment | Permalink
Now YOU Can Rank Oscar's Best Picture Winners
It began more than a year ago when I ranked the 2011 best picture nominees by IMDb score.
Then I wrote a post in which I ranked all of Oscar's best picture winners, from 1927 to 2011, by IMDb rating.
Then I wondered: How would I rank them all? So I did.
Now I'm wondering how you would rank them.
I went to wallopin' webmaster Tim with a question: Can we create a simple way for readers to rank the 85 best picture winners? We need to make sure all of the movies are on the screen at the same time. (That's tough doing.) We need a way to eliminate all of the unseen movies. (Even I haven't seen them all.) Then there should be a way for readers to share their list either here or abroad. (Because that's the fun part.)
Tim went to work and ... Here it is! An interactive page in which YOU rank every Oscar best-picture winner from 1927 to today.
Feel free to play around with it. Fee free to send me your list with any comments or suggestions.
What you may find? If you're a movie lover? There will be 10-20 movies that you know will be at the top of your list, and 5-10 movies that you know will be at the bottom of your list; then there will be a whole lot of meh in the middle. The Academy is good at this: declaring meh the best.
What I've realized looking at this list again? The most recent years have been a drag. There's not much since the mid-1990s that make my top 20. I think just "No Country for Old Men." Most of the others elicit a shrug. Maybe this will change with time.
But enough from me. Have at. Enjoy. Argue.
Tags: Best Picture, Oscars, Movie Lists
No Comments yet | Permalink
The 2011 Best Picture Nominees by IMDb Ranking: Revisited
Last February I posted the IMDb ratings for the nine best-picture nominees from the 2011 movie season, professed perplexity at "The Help"'s relatively high rating (8.0, or third-best among nominees), as well as "The Tree of Life"'s relatively low one (7.1, or second-to-last among nominees), and promised to revisit in a year or so to see how IMDb's raters, whoever they were, had sorted it out.
Longtime reader, and inveterate IMDb watcher, Reed, warned me, in the comments field, that "Tree of Life" would plummet. "It is not a movie that will be appreciated outside of a theater setting," he wrote, adding parenthetically, "Yes, I know almost all movies' IMDb ratings decline over time because the demographics shift, but I imagine that casual viewers will be particularly unkind to 'Tree of Life'..."
He was right. But they were even more unkind to another of the best picture nominees:
2011 Best Picture Nominee | 2012 IMDb | 2013 IMDb | Difference |
The Artist | 8.4 | 8.1 | -3 |
Hugo | 8.2 | 7.7 | -5 |
The Help | 8.0 | 8.0 | 0 |
Midnight in Paris | 7.8 | 7.7 | -1 |
Moneyball | 7.7 | 7.6 | -1 |
The Descendants | 7.7 | 7.4 | -3 |
War Horse | 7.3 | 7.2 | -1 |
The Tree of Life | 7.1 | 6.8 | -3 |
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close | 6.4 | 6.8 | 4 |
2012 ratings taken during February 2012; 2013 ratings taken the morning of January 5, 2013
"Hugo"? Really, people?
Scorsese's kid drops 5, "The Artist," "The Descendants," and "The Tree of Life" all drop 3, "Midnight in Paris," "Moneyball" and "War Horse" all drop 1, "The Help" stays the course, while "Extremely Loud," lambasted by the critics a year ago, rises an astonishing 4 points.
The best movie of the bunch is now tied for last; one of the worst is now second and holding.
The way of the world. It's not cream that rises. Help.
"The Help" doesn't change; "Extremely Loud" gets closer; "Hugo" barely hangs on.
Tags: IMDb.com, Oscars, 2011 Oscars, The Help, The Tree of Life, Martin Scorsese
No Comments yet | Permalink
Wait, What Exactly is Acting CIA Director MIchael Morell Saying About 'Zero Dark Thirty'?
Michael Morell, the acting director of the CIA, took the odd step of sending an internal memo to his agents externally, via the CIA's website, to talk about the inaccuracies in Kathryn Bigelow's film "Zero Dark Thirty."
Some of the stuff he talks about is of the "Who gives a shit?" variety. Hundreds of agents are reduced to a dozen? That's always done. That's dramatic license. Because hundreds aren't a story; one is.
But Morell's key point is his second point:
Second, the film creates the strong impression that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were part of our former detention and interrogation program were the key to finding Bin Ladin. That impression is false. As we have said before, the truth is that multiple streams of intelligence led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was hiding in Abbottabad. Some came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques, but there were many other sources as well. And, importantly, whether enhanced interrogation techniques were the only timely and effective way to obtain information from those detainees, as the film suggests, is a matter of debate that cannot and never will be definitively resolved.
Except he's not making much of a point, is he? He says it's false that enhanced interrogation techniques were part of the program that led to Bin Ladin. Then he says, "Some [of that intelligence] came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques, but there were many other sources as well."
Wait, what? I'd heard no info that led to OBL came from tortured detainees.
I mean, how is Morell not contradicting himself in this graf? Is he saying that the intel gathered through enhanced interrogation came from a source other than the CIA? Because if that's the case, that, for me, falls within the realm of dramatic license, and "Zero Dark Thirty" is off the hook.
Again, the issue for me with this film is the misrepresentation of the efficacy of torture. Period. But if that efficacy is not misrepresented, if in fact some of our OBL intelligence came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques, and if ZDT doesn't overplay its hand in this regard, then I'm interested again.
Morell, in attempting to edify, actually muddies the waters. Makes me think of a fictional CIA director from a 1970s movie: "You miss that kind of action, sir?" "I miss that kind of clarity."
Tags: CIA, Zero Dark Thirty, Kathryn Bigelow
No Comments yet | Permalink
The Two Controversies of 'Zero Dark Thirty'
There are two controversies about "Zero Dark Thirty" but only one gets written about. That's the "does it or doesn't it?" controversy: Does the film suggest that the "enhanced interrogation methods" of the Bush administration, i.e., torture, led to the intel that led to Osama bin Laden? Many critics have said yes. Owen Gleiberman said yes, almost enthusiastically, on December 5:
Part of the power of Zero Dark Thirty is that it looks with disturbing clarity at the ''enhanced interrogation techniques'' that were used after 9/11, and it says, in no uncertain terms: They worked. This is a bin Laden thriller that Dick Cheney and Barack Obama could love. At the same time, the film spins its fearless — and potentially controversial — stance toward the issue of how the U.S. treats its prisoners into a heady international detective thriller.
David Edelstein said yes less enthusiastically on December 2:
It also borders on the politically and morally reprehensible. By showing these excellent results—and by silencing the cries of the innocents held at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and other 'black sites'—it makes a case for the efficacy of torture.
Glenn Greenwald, safely on the other side of the Atlantic, compiles a list.
I first became aware of the controversy last week via Dexter Filkins in The New Yorker and was astounded.... by how long it took the controversy to come to light. That's the second controversy. By this point, "Zero Dark Thirty" had already won how many year-end awards? From how many organizations and critics groups? New York Film Critics Circle, Boston critics, D.C. critics, National Board of Review. And it took Dexter Filkins and Frank Bruni in The New York Times to bring the controversy to light?
What the fuck were the critics thinking?
Maybe they were thinking what I was thinking when I saw the trailer last month. It begins with hints of the torture to come, and some part of me thought, "Wait. The movie isn't suggesting we got good intel from this torture, is it?" But that thought, that blip, was ignored because the rest of the movie looked fucking good. It looked serious and important, and—I'll say it—2012 has been a lousy year for movies. We needed something good to come along, something serious and important to make us excited about the movies again and wash away the bad taste left by the dreck of summer: all those big and bombastic and flailing and flopping pictures. "Zero Dark Thirty" looked IT. It looked like THE ONE.
Now even Washington, D.C. is getting involved. Senators Diane Feinstein, John McCain and Carl Levin, after a screening of ZDT, sent a letter to Sony Pictures chairman Michael Lynton condemning the film:
We believe the film is grossly inaccurate and misleading in its suggestion that torture resulted in information that led to the location of Usama bin Laden...
The use of torture in the fight against terrorism did severe damage to America's values and standing that cannot be justified or expunged. It remains a stain on our national conscience. We cannot afford to go back to these dark times, and with the release of "Zero Dark Thirty," the filmmakers and your production studio are perpetuating the myth that torture is effective. You have a social and moral obligation to get the facts right.
The response from Bigelow and Boal thus far? Flailing and flopping. They talk about how the movie is not a documentary. They bring up the irrelevant fact that the U.S. government did torture people—as if that were the controversy. Here's Bigelow a few days ago:
The point was to immerse the audience in this landscape, not to pretend to debate policy. Was it difficult to shoot? Yes. Do I wish [torture] was not part of that history? Yes, but it was.
Here's Boal:
The movie has been, and probably will continue to be, put in political boxes. Before we even wrote it, it was (branded) an Obama campaign commercial, which was preposterous. And now it's pro-torture, which is preposterous... Everything we did has been misinterpreted, and continues to be...
I'm not saying the film is a documentary of everything that happened, but it's being misread... Look at it as a movie and not a potential launching pad for a political statement.
That's some weak tea.
How could they not know? That they were stepping into one of the most heated debates of our time? And how could Bigelow, who wishes that torture had not been part of our history, misrepresent the efficacy of that very torture?
Now the critics are splashing us with their own weak tea. Jeff Wells, over at Hollywood Elsewhere, who is insanely anti-"Lincoln" in the best-picture Oscar race, and thus insanely pro-"Zero Dark Thirty," makes the following argument in the wake of the Senators' letter:
Obviously Al Qaeda allies were tortured during the Bush admistration so what's the problem? How do Diane Feinstein, Carl Levin and John McCain know for a fact that no good information resulted from torture? They believe this because they've been told this, but how do they really know?
His first sentence is again not the issue. The rest of his argument confuses things even more. His goal is obfuscation here. The tactic of lawyers and pundits when the facts aren't on their side. Because it really comes down to this:
- Does "Zero Dark Thirty" show that intel gathered via torture led us to Osama bin Laden?
If the answer to that is "Yes," they've misrepresented the facts as we know them. Their only possible saving grace is that they know other facts, more so than Senators McCain, Feinstein and Levin of the U.S. Armed Services Committee. If so, then they should own up. They should let us drink that strong tea. But if they drew the line themselves between torture and the intel that led to Osama bin Laden, a mea culpa of the most massive kind is in order.
Does she or doesn't she? Some say she still does.
Tags: Zero Dark Thirty, Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Osama bin Laden, Owen Gleiberman, Jeffrey Wells, David Edelstein, Dexter Filkins
1 Comment | Permalink
Oscar Predictions ... for 2014?
Most of us are busy enough trying to keep track of (and see) this year's Oscar contenders, whatever they might be (only 23 days, 11, 58 minutes as of this writing, according to the clock on the Film Experience site), but Jeff Wells over at Hollywood Elsewhere is all "Been there, done that" with 2012 movies. He's moved onto 2013 movies and the 2014 Oscars, listing the top 16 likeliest of probable picks, from John Wells' "August: Osage County" (No. 1) to Baz Luhrman's delayed "The Great Gatsby" (No. 16).
Based upon storyline and past performance, I'd put "12 Years a Slave" ("A man living in New York during the mid-1800s is kidnapped and sold into slavery in the deep south") by Steve McQueen ("Shame," "Hunger") higher than #15. Ditto "Foxcatcher" by Bennett Miller ("Moneyball," "Capote," "The Cruise") at #9. (#9.... #9...)
BTW: The cast in these two movies alone? Benedict Cumberbatch, Brad Pitt, Michael Fassbender, Paul Dano, Paul Giamatti, Michael Kenneth Williams, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Alfre Woodard. Sorry. That's just the cast for "12 Years a Slave."
The past is always bleak. The future is always bright.
Chiwetel Ejiofor in "12 Years a Slave." The past is bleak, the future is bright.
Tags: Jeffrey Wells, 2013 Oscars, 12 Years A Slave, Steve McQueen
No Comments yet | Permalink
Quote of the Day
"When I arrived in L.A. [in 1974, to receive an honorary Academy Award for his lifelong contribution to film and film preservation], I thought that the Oscar was like our Legion of Honor. But it's much more important than that because everyone and his brother gets one of those eventually. An Oscar is truly a serious matter. I didn't realize how much it meant. It's comparable to being chosen as a master craftsman by one's fellows in the time of the guilds."
--Henri Langlois, in the documentary "Henri Langlois: The Phantom of the Cinémathèque" (2004). Langlois, who is considered the father of film preservation, the auteur theory, and the Nouvelle Vague, took film more seriously than the Academy. He took the Academy more seriously than the Academy.
Quote of the Day
"The fact that the Oscar telecast is a bust, that it is doomed—almost designed—to be a bust, and that the varying degrees of bustness are all that separates one year from the next, should neither surprise nor even dismay us, because the Academy Awards are like teen-age sex. It's all about the fizzing buildup, and the self-persuading aftermath: the occurrence itself, nowadays, is nothing but fumble and flub..."
-- Anthony Lane, "The Oscars: Man or Muppet?" on The New Yorker site, in what is easily the best post-Oscar commentary. Most critics fulminate. They snipe. Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes of The New York Times write about the Academy's doomed ratings ... even though, they admit, the ratings were up 3.7 percent. The Hollywood Reporter slams host Billy Crystal, as it slams all hosts, even though he was funny and got off several of the evening's best lines, particularly: "Nothing takes the sting out of these tough economic times like watching a bunch of millionaires giving golden statues to each other." Julia Turner over at Slate.com actually criticized the way Penelope Cruz looked. ("The look is blah ... stupid princess gown.") Lane keeps the proper distance. He expects little and is amused when he gets less. He unleashes bon mots with a shrug. All other critics should read and learn.
"Ryan Seacrest," Lane writes, "whose very name resembles a brand of luxury yacht, so smooth are the waves on which he sails through life..." Choppier waters here thanks (and yes, thanks) to Sacha Baron Cohen.
3 Comments | Permalink
The 2011 Academy Awards - Postmortem
At the start of the evening I said I wanted one thing: pleasant surprises. I didn't get any and won my Oscar pool—or at least split it four ways: with Mr. B, Mr. P and Jayne. If Viola had won I would've won it outright. But how can you not love Meryl? And her speech? In 2005, I wrote an MSNBC piece on which performers were overdue for an Oscar, and brought up her name even then:
An argument could be made that the actress most-due is Meryl Streep. Yes, she's won, twice in fact (lead and supporting), but not since 1982. Since then she's been nominated nine times (eight lead, one supporting). Time to get her out of her seat already.
Even so, this was the wrong year. Should've been Viola's year.
So what were the surprises--pleasant or otherwise? That "The Artist" won? Dujardin? Davis? "Midnight in Paris"? "The Descendants"? That Billy Crystal was funny? It seems we have the Academy figured out. Too bad.
I guess the big surprise for us was that Uncle Vinny left early. What the hell, dude? I kept looking for you to share something and found you gone.
The line of the night, at our party, came from David, who, after Penelope Cruz said something innocuous like "And the winner is...," but in her dynamite accent, and of course looking like she does, David, after a pause, asked, "Can we rewind that?"
Our 2012 Oscar party.
Mr. B raises faux-Oscar high after tying with three others for first place. But he gave a helluva speech.
Woody Allen at the Oscars 2002
I saw this video clip on Slate.com today of Woody Allen's only Oscar visit in 2002. It was great seeing it again. I realized what a terrific person he was, and how much fun it was just listening him. And I thought of that old joke. Y'know, this... this guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, uh, my brother's crazy; he thinks he's a chicken." And the doctor says, "Well, why don't you turn him in?" The guy says, "I would, but I need the eggs." Well, I guess that's pretty much now how I feel about my relationship with Woody. It's totally irrational, and crazy, and absurd. But I guess I keep going through it because ... I need the eggs.
Tags: Woody Allen, Oscars
1 Comment | Permalink
Lancelot Links: Oscar Edition
- The most interesting piece I've read this Oscar season is the least-surprising. Three reporters at The LA Times, John Horn, Nicole Sperling and Doug Smith, finally break the cloak on anonymity that has always surrounded the Academy and give us exact numbers ... and it's pretty much as we always suspected: Oscar is old, white and male. Specifically, he's 94% white, 77% male, and with an average age of 62. I once compared the Academy to Gordon Jump on "WKRP in Cincinnati" and it's not far off. The surprise? I always assumed the Academy was made up of past nominees and winners but 64% of its members, including TV stars Erik Estrada and Gavin McLeod, have never been nominated. So how did they get in? We don't really get that from the Times. We don't get a sense of who gets invited and why. Apparently women and non-whites are still vast minorities in terms of even new membership. At the same time, I don't think this kind of rash action is doing anyone any good:
"People of color are always peripheral," said veteran African American character actor Bernie Casey ("Under Siege"), who said he recently quit the academy because he was disenchanted with its racial makeup.
- The audio of my recent turn talking Oscars on "Karl Show! (Starring Jason)" is up. Love the "Citizen Kane" gif they gave me. What am I trying to get the masses to applaud for there? "Young Adult"? "Tree of Life"? CRITIC LUNDEGAARD FOUND IN LOVE NEST WITH "FILM."
- "Kids Re-enact the Oscar Nominees" is a cheap laugh but I laughed out loud for the "Moneyball" version.
- More kids: Guyism.com's Ryan Jones interviews kids on the upcoming Oscar ceremonies. LOL line: "What's the favorite movie you've seen over the last year?" "'Dolphin Tale.'" "'Dolphin Tale'? How does that compare with 'The Tree of Life'?"
- Nathaniel Rogers temporarily leaves his Film Experience site to pen an interesting piece, over at Slate, in which he breaks down who and what gets thanked, and when, during Oscar acceptance speeches. Basics: God beats Oprah but loses to Meryl Streep.
- Slate also has a piece, by Elbert Ventura, about how sneakily profound "The Descendants" is, but he doesn't say anything I didn't in my review last November. Oh, except that the movie is as existential and profound as "The Tree of Life." Because it's not.
- Via the eagle-eyed Uncle Vinny: Dave Weigel breaks down "The Iron Lady." Cleavage and all.
- A Harvard freshman, Ben Zauzmer, has created a mathematical formula for predicting the Oscars, although—caveat!—he says it's not foolproof. His method would've predicted correctly 19 of 20 in 2009 but only 16 of 20 in 2010. Still, he offers his 2011 predictions. Let's hope he's wrong about Meryl. (So odd to be rooting against Meryl.)
- Meanwhile, FilmJerk.com's numbers cruncher makes his own predictions. And yes, Virginia, there are differences. Jerk goes Clooney over DuJardin, Davis over Streep, Bejo over Davis. Oddly, among his formulations, "hotness" isn't a factor. Which, with the average Academy member, it totally is. I'd stick with the Harvard kid.
- The Seattle Times' Moria Macdonald makes her predictions (and lets her wishes be known) in the eight major categories. For what it's worth, she agrees with young Ben on everything but, well, Meryl.
- Via Le Monde, Césars 2012: le triomphe de "The Artist." Peut-etre a Hollywood aussi? Question: Why do they use the English version of the title ("The Artist") in a French newspaper? Do they call it "The Artist" in France? Not "l'Artist"? FWIW: Dujardin lost out on meilleur acteur to Omar Sy, but Bejo won meilleure actrice. So Gordon Jump is alive and well and living in France.
- David Denby has a nice homage to silent film in the latest New Yorker. To which everyone should be subscribing.
- Then Denby goes through the looking glass with fellow critic Richard Brody to talk about silent films via a silent film. Fun.
- Oh, don't forget this: My Oscars page.
- Finally, in 2005, I wrote a piece for MSNBC on who was most due for an Oscar. Among my choices? Martin Scorsese, Jeff Bridges, and Glenn Close. Done, done, and... probably not.
No live-blogging tonight kids. Oscar hosting. But I'm sure I'll have an opinion or two when the night is through...
Oui, vous est tres jolie. Je t'aime, vraiment. Mais... meilleure actrice?
No Comments yet | Permalink
From 'Godfather' to 'Crash': My Rankings of Most Every Best Picture Winner Since 1927
That's what surprised me most. Not that I loved or hated most of the best picture winners since 1927 but that I didn't have much feeling one way or another. "The Departed"? "The English Patient"? "Rain Man"? "The Deer Hunter"? "In the Heat of the Night"? "From Here to Eternity"? "Lost Weekend"? Did I even see "Lost Weekend"? What do I really remember about it? Maybe better put that in the NOT SEEN group. Only fair.
In his discussion yesterday on the New Yorker site, critic Richard Brody said the switch from five best picture nominees to 10, or 9, or what have you, was a good thing, because it inspired passion among moviegoers. Which is something the Academy is generally good at tamping down. These films are sometimes an example of that.
I certainly have passion for my top 10. I have a different kind of passion for my bottom five. But the middle took a lot of rejiggering and soul-searching. How to rank this movie? By my feeling upon first watching it? By my feelings now? By how much I'd like to watch it again? By how deep it is, or how well it tells its story, or exemplifies its genre?
I wound up choosing an awkward mix of all of these criteria and it was still tough. I kept going back and forth. Am I putting this one low because so many people like it? Am I putting this one high because so many people don't? It's hard to separate your feelings from society's but you give it a go. In the end I thought "Would I rather watch 'Lord of the Rings: Return of the King' right now or 'Driving Miss Daisy'?" I may be the only person this side of Bruce Beresford who would answer the latter. Probably not him, either.
Revelation: I like big and boldly drawn: "My Fair Lady" and "Gone with the Wind" and "Patton" and "Titanic." Yes, "Titanic." A friend of mine, a songwriter, always runs across contemporaries who disparage middle-of-the-road work, but he says that's what he strives for. He thinks of it like a mountain, where the middle is the highest point, and the hardest to attain. Some of these big movies do that.
Lesser revelation: I dig the '70s. It was the glory period of American filmmaking, easy riders and raging bulls and all that. It was also the period I first became aware of the Oscars. I was coming of age then. The Academy seemed important then. Maybe it was. Maybe it honored more important movies. And even when it didn't, as in '76, choosing "Rocky" over "All the President's Men," "Network" and "Taxi Driver," well, its choice was still a good movie. "Rocky" is another boldly drawn story but finely defined along the edges. It has patience and grit. It tells its tale really, really well. It's not its fault it had so many awful children.
Sometimes the titles get in the way. They're so storied, I think, "Shouldn't this be higher?" Then I think about what the film is, what it lacks, and go, "Meh."
But, really, you can make your argument for No.s 25 through 60 and I'll probably buy it. To do this properly, I'd have to watch all of these movies again but who wants to do that? They're only best pictures.
Final note: I've also included a column on the greatest disparities between my opinion and the mass opinion on IMDb. No surprise: The movies I love and they didn't tend to be musicals. There's a +63 variance for "An American in Paris," +41 for "West Side Story," and +35 for "My Fair Lady." The next one is "Titanic," which feels like a musical. On the other side of the equation, movies they loved and I didn't, we have the recent and the blockbusty: "Forrest Gump" at -57, "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" at -52, and "Braveheart" at -50. We agreed on exactly two: "The Godfather" and "Cuckoo's Nest."
Enjoy. Your results will vary.
MOVIE | IMDb RANK | IMDb RATING | IMDb VOTES | ME v. IMDb |
1 | The Godfather (1972) | 1 | 9.2 | 535,083 | 0 |
2 | Annie Hall (1977) | 25 | 8.2 | 87,916 | 23 |
3 | Casablanca (1943) | 6 | 8.7 | 209,989 | 3 |
4 | The Godfather, Part II (1974) | 2 | 9.0 | 336,575 | -2 |
5 | One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) | 5 | 8.8 | 300,314 | 0 |
6 | On the Waterfront (1954) | 12 | 8.4 | 52,369 | 6 |
7 | Amadeus (1984) | 12 | 8.4 | 128,078 | 5 |
8 | Lawrence of Arabia (1962) | 11 | 8.5 | 98,407 | 3 |
9 | All About Eve (1950) | 12 | 8.4 | 43,955 | 3 |
10 | An American In Paris (1951) | 73 | 7.2 | 11,808 | 63 |
11 | Unforgiven (1992) | 22 | 8.3 | 135,496 | 11 |
12 | My Fair Lady (1964) | 47 | 7.9 | 35,262 | 35 |
13 | Gone With the Wind (1939) | 25 | 8.2 | 106,428 | 12 |
14 | The Bridge On the River Kwai (1957) | 12 | 8.4 | 76,003 | -2 |
15 | No Country For Old Men (2007) | 25 | 8.2 | 274,692 | 10 |
16 | West Side Story (1961) | 57 | 7.7 | 37,371 | 41 |
17 | The Sting (1973) | 12 | 8.4 | 85,891 | -5 |
18 | Rocky (1976) | 34 | 8.1 | 143,362 | 16 |
19 | The Silence of the Lambs (1991) | 6 | 8.7 | 344,094 | -13 |
20 | Patton (1970) | 38 | 8.0 | 49,384 | 18 |
21 | The Sound of Music (1965) | 47 | 7.9 | 68,810 | 26 |
22 | The Last Emperor (1987) | 54 | 7.8 | 33,160 | 32 |
23 | American Beauty (1999) | 10 | 8.5 | 389,392 | -13 |
24 | Schindler's List (1993) | 3 | 8.9 | 375,193 | -21 |
25 | Hamlet (1948) | 47 | 7.9 | 6,557 | 22 |
26 | The French Connection (1971) | 47 | 7.9 | 42,667 | 21 |
27 | All Quiet On the Western Front (1930) | 34 | 8.1 | 28,205 | 7 |
28 | The Deer Hunter (1978) | 25 | 8.2 | 117,540 | -3 |
29 | Midnight Cowboy (1969) | 38 | 8.0 | 42,805 | 9 |
30 | It Happened One Night (1934) | 22 | 8.3 | 32,375 | -8 |
31 | Titanic (1997) | 64 | 7.5 | 336,027 | 33 |
32 | The Apartment (1960) | 12 | 8.4 | 49,785 | -20 |
33 | Dances With Wolves (1990) | 38 | 8.0 | 94,144 | 5 |
34 | All the King's Men (1949) | 62 | 7.6 | 5,597 | 28 |
35 | A Man For All Seasons (1966) | 38 | 8.0 | 14,614 | 3 |
36 | Kramer Vs. Kramer (1979) | 57 | 7.7 | 40,353 | 21 |
37 | Platoon (1986) | 25 | 8.2 | 145,818 | -12 |
38 | The Hurt Locker (2009) | 57 | 7.7 | 137,683 | 19 |
39 | In the Heat of the Night (1967) | 38 | 8.0 | 26,928 | -1 |
40 | Rain Man (1988) | 38 | 8.0 | 165,428 | -2 |
41 | Driving Miss Daisy (1989) | 66 | 7.4 | 30,411 | 25 |
42 | Gandhi (1982) | 34 | 8.1 | 71,833 | -8 |
43 | Rebecca (1940) | 12 | 8.4 | 45,011 | -31 |
44 | Million Dollar Baby (2004) | 25 | 8.2 | 204,335 | -19 |
45 | Slumdog Millionaire (2008) | 25 | 8.2 | 269,582 | -20 |
46 | Chariots of Fire (1981) | 73 | 7.2 | 20,114 | 27 |
47 | Chicago (2002) | 73 | 7.2 | 99,936 | 26 |
48 | Terms of Endearment (1983) | 70 | 7.3 | 21,085 | 22 |
49 | The English Patient (1996) | 70 | 7.3 | 72,322 | 21 |
50 | Gladiator (2000) | 12 | 8.4 | 397,268 | -38 |
51 | You Can't Take It With You (1938) | 38 | 8.0 | 10,500 | -13 |
52 | Shakespeare In Love (1998) | 70 | 7.3 | 97,391 | 18 |
53 | The Departed (2006) | 9 | 8.5 | 368,308 | -44 |
54 | The King's Speech (2010) | 25 | 8.2 | 155,972 | -29 |
55 | The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) | 3 | 8.9 | 501,289 | -52 |
56 | How Green Was My Valley (1941) | 47 | 7.9 | 8,993 | -9 |
57 | Ordinary People (1980) | 54 | 7.8 | 20,192 | -3 |
58 | The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) | 22 | 8.3 | 21,793 | -36 |
59 | From Here To Eternity (1953) | 47 | 7.9 | 19,141 | -12 |
60 | A Beautiful Mind (2001) | 38 | 8.0 | 202,651 | -22 |
61 | Gentleman's Agreement (1947) | 66 | 7.4 | 5,688 | 5 |
62 | Braveheart (1995) | 12 | 8.4 | 327,548 | -50 |
63 | Forrest Gump (1994) | 6 | 8.7 | 446,991 | -57 |
64 | Out of Africa (1985) | 76 | 7.0 | 25,363 | 12 |
65 | Going My Way (1944) | 66 | 7.4 | 4,143 | 1 |
66 | Tom Jones (1963) | 77 | 6.9 | 4,857 | 11 |
67 | Oliver! (1968) | 64 | 7.5 | 12,026 | -3 |
68 | Around the World In 80 Days (1956) | 80 | 6.8 | 9,129 | 12 |
69 | The Greatest Show On Earth (1952) | 81 | 6.7 | 5,186 | 12 |
70 | Crash (2005) | 38 | 8.0 | 217,777 | -32 |
HAVEN'T SEEN | IMDb RANK | IMDb RATING | IMDb VOTES | ||
Wings (1927) | 54 | 7.8 | 3,792 | ||
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928) | 12 | 8.4 | 15,384 | ||
The Broadway Melody (1929) | 82 | 6.4 | 2,466 | ||
Cimarron (1931) | 84 | 6.1 | 1,744 | ||
Grand Hotel (1932) | 62 | 7.6 | 7,300 | ||
Cavalcade (1933) | 83 | 6.3 | 1,426 | ||
Mutiny On the Bounty (1935) | 47 | 7.9 | 9,276 | ||
The Great Ziegfeld (1936) | 77 | 6.9 | 2,583 | ||
The Life of Emile Zola (1937) | 66 | 7.4 | 2,376 | ||
Mrs. Miniver (1942) | 57 | 7.7 | 6,058 | ||
The Lost Weekend (1945) | 34 | 8.1 | 14,287 | ||
Marty (1955) | 57 | 7.7 | 8,028 | ||
Gigi (1958) | 77 | 6.9 | 7,472 | ||
Ben-Hur (1959) | 25 | 8.2 | 76,925 |
Tags: Oscars, IMDb.com, Best Picture
4 Comments | Permalink
From 'Godfather' to 'Cimarron': The 84 Best Picture Winners as Ranked by the Nerds of IMDb.com
I realized too late that yesterday's post about IMDb rankings of every best picture winner since 1927 should've included the entire list as sorted by ranking. Here it is, with my notes:
RANK | MOVIE | IMDb RATING | VOTES | NOTES |
1 | The Godfather (1972) | 9.2 | 535,083 | But of course. |
2 | The Godfather, Part II (1974) | 9.0 | 336,575 | But of course II. |
3 | The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) | 8.9 | 501,289 | NERDS! |
Schindler's List (1993) | 8.9 | 375,193 | Overrated. Is it just me and David Mamet on this one? | |
5 | One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) | 8.8 | 300,314 | Yep. |
6 | Forrest Gump (1994) | 8.7 | 446,991 | Wow. Most people are as dumb as Forrest — and not nearly so nice. |
The Silence of the Lambs (1991) | 8.7 | 344,094 | It's not bad but not top 10. | |
Casablanca (1943) | 8.7 | 209,989 | Tied for sixth. I'd have it higher. |
9 | The Departed (2006) | 8.5 | 368,308 | Way lower. Sorry, Marty. |
10 | American Beauty (1999) | 8.5 | 389,392 | Lower. Sorry 1999 me. |
11 | Lawrence of Arabia (1962) | 8.5 | 98,407 | About right. |
12 | Gladiator (2000) | 8.4 | 397,268 | Lower. |
Braveheart (1995) | 8.4 | 327,548 | Should've been Apollo 13. | |
Amadeus (1984) | 8.4 | 128,078 | I could see this again right now. | |
The Sting (1973) | 8.4 | 85,891 | ||
The Apartment (1960) | 8.4 | 49,785 | ||
The Bridge On the River Kwai (1957) | 8.4 | 76,003 | ||
On the Waterfront (1954) | 8.4 | 52,369 | Higher. | |
All About Eve (1950) | 8.4 | 43,955 | This one, too. |
Rebecca (1940) | 8.4 | 45,011 | Hitchcock's only best picture winner. And it's Selznick's. | |
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928) | 8.4 | 15,384 | Never seen it. Bad me. | |
22 | Unforgiven (1992) | 8.3 | 135,496 | I'd say it deserves to be higher, but I keep hearing Clint's voice saying "Deserve's got nothin to do with it." |
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) | 8.3 | 21,793 | Hasn't aged well. Unfortunately. |
It Happened One Night (1934) | 8.3 | 32,375 | To be honest, this neither. |
25 | The King's Speech (2010) | 8.2 | 155,972 | This one will go down. |
Slumdog Millionaire (2008) | 8.2 | 269,582 | You, too. | |
No Country For Old Men (2007) | 8.2 | 274,692 | This one will go up. | |
Million Dollar Baby (2004) | 8.2 | 204,335 | I liked the ending. | |
Platoon (1986) | 8.2 | 145,818 | Haven't seen since 1986. |
The Deer Hunter (1978) | 8.2 | 117,540 | Tied with Deer Hunter. Appropriate. | |
Annie Hall (1977) | 8.2 | 87,916 | "Alvy Singer! Am I right?" This is top 5 for me. |
Ben-Hur (1959) | 8.2 | 76,925 | Have I ever seen this? Without commercials? | |
Gone With the Wind (1939) | 8.2 | 106,428 | Once the mightiest. Now kinda like its title. |
34 | Gandhi (1982) | 8.1 | 71,833 | Gandhi ... |
Rocky (1976) | 8.1 | 143,362 | ... and Rocky duking it out at 8.1. | |
The Lost Weekend (1945) | 8.1 | 14,287 | Money's on "Gandhi." |
All Quiet On the Western Front (1930) | 8.1 | 28,205 | The highest-ranked pre-GWTW movie. I need to see it again. |
38 | Crash (2005) | 8.0 | 217,777 | Oh, fuck you. |
A Beautiful Mind (2001) | 8.0 | 202,651 | Really? | |
Dances With Wolves (1990) | 8.0 | 94,144 | Eh. | |
Rain Man (1988) | 8.0 | 165,428 | Meh. | |
Patton (1970) | 8.0 | 49,384 | Yeah. | |
Midnight Cowboy (1969) | 8.0 | 42,805 | ||
In the Heat of the Night (1967) | 8.0 | 26,928 | ||
A Man For All Seasons (1966) | 8.0 | 14,614 | ||
You Can't Take It With You (1938) | 8.0 | 10,500 | ||
47 | The French Connection (1971) | 7.9 | 42,667 | Definition of 'gritty.' |
The Sound of Music (1965) | 7.9 | 68,810 | Oh, Julie. Higher. |
My Fair Lady (1964) | 7.9 | 35,262 | Oh, Audrey. Higher. |
From Here To Eternity (1953) | 7.9 | 19,141 | Oh, Burt. Eh. |
Hamlet (1948) | 7.9 | 6,557 | O that this too too solid film should melt... |
How Green Was My Valley (1941) | 7.9 | 8,993 | ||
Mutiny On the Bounty (1935) | 7.9 | 9,276 | The third Gable on the list. |
54 | The Last Emperor (1987) | 7.8 | 33,160 | Colors. I remember exquisite colors. |
Ordinary People (1980) | 7.8 | 20,192 | For a while I was Tim Hutton. |
Wings (1927) | 7.8 | 3,792 | Never seen. |
57 | The Hurt Locker (2009) | 7.7 | 137,683 | Is this the pro-"Avatar" vote or something? |
Kramer Vs. Kramer (1979) | 7.7 | 40,353 | What's this movie like now? Anyone? |
West Side Story (1961) | 7.7 | 37,371 | Git your ass up there. |
Marty (1955) | 7.7 | 8,028 | ||
Mrs. Miniver (1942) | 7.7 | 6,058 | ||
62 | All the King's Men (1949) | 7.6 | 5,597 | |
Grand Hotel (1932) | 7.6 | 7,300 | ||
64 | Titanic (1997) | 7.5 | 336,027 | Great spectacle. I'd have it higher. |
Oliver! (1968) | 7.5 | 12,026 | Consider yourself/ About right. |
66 | Driving Miss Daisy (1989) | 7.4 | 30,411 | A better movie than people remember. |
Gentleman's Agreement (1947) | 7.4 | 5,688 | Movies about prejudice don't age well, do they? |
Going My Way (1944) | 7.4 | 4,143 | ||
The Life of Emile Zola (1937) | 7.4 | 2,376 | ||
70 | Shakespeare In Love (1998) | 7.3 | 97,391 | Will never live it down. |
The English Patient (1996) | 7.3 | 72,322 | ||
Terms of Endearment (1983) | 7.3 | 21,085 | Wasn't this better that this? | |
73 | Chicago (2002) | 7.2 | 99,936 | Shouldn't the fishnets alone boost its rating? |
Chariots of Fire (1981) | 7.2 | 20,114 | "Chariots of Eggs" |
An American In Paris (1951) | 7.2 | 11,808 | So, SO wrong to be down here. | |
76 | Out of Africa (1985) | 7.0 | 25,363 | |
77 | Tom Jones (1963) | 6.9 | 4,857 | |
Gigi (1958) | 6.9 | 7,472 | ||
The Great Ziegfeld (1936) | 6.9 | 2,583 | ||
80 | Around the World In 80 Days (1956) | 6.8 | 9,129 | So dull. |
81 | The Greatest Show On Earth (1952) | 6.7 | 5,186 | Yep. But where's its buddy, "Crash"? |
82 | The Broadway Melody (1929) | 6.4 | 2,466 | |
83 | Cavalcade (1933) | 6.3 | 1,426 | |
84 | Cimarron (1931) | 6.1 | 1,744 |
TOMORROW: My choices....
How Do Best Pictures Rate on IMDb?
My recent post about the IMDb ratings of current best picture nominees, along with the usual slew of "worst best-pictures" articles, or revisionist or do-over Oscar picks, made me wonder how every best picture winner has fared with IMDb users—or at least those IMDb users who bother to rate films.
Which are the highest-rated best picture winners? Which are the lowest-rated? Which pictures get votes and which are ignored?
No big surprise: Recent best picture winners get rated more often, way more often, than older best picture winners. In the past 20 years, there are only three films that haven't been rated by more than 100,000 users: "Chicago," "Shakespeare in Love" and "The English Patient." Meanwhile, of the first 45 best picture winners—i.e., from 1927 to 1971—only two films, "Casablanca" and "Gone with the Wind," have generated more than 100,000 votes. Most people can't be bothered with what's old. Those who can, like me, can't be bothered to rate them on IMDb.
The films with the lowest vote totals also tend to have the lowest ratings. That was a bit of a surprise to me. I thought that the few fans of, say, "Cavalcade" (1933), would skew its results up, but it's simply logic. Lesser movies just don't get watched, and thus don't get rated, particularly if they're older. Among best picture winners, "Calvacade," from 1933, has the fewest votes: 1,426.
A note to IMDb: Isn't it time to increase the decimal? Ten of the 84 films are tied with an 8.4 rating. Nine are tied with an 8.0 rating. That's too many ties. Give us that hundredth already.
Now on with the countdown.
Here are the highest-ranked best picture winners on IMDb:
IMDb RATING |
The Godfather (1972) | 9.2 | 535,083 |
The Godfather, Part II (1974) | 9.0 | 336,575 |
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) | 8.9 | 501,289 |
Schindler's List (1993) | 8.9 | 375,193 |
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) | 8.8 | 300,314 |
Forrest Gump (1994) | 8.7 | 446,991 |
The Silence of the Lambs (1991) | 8.7 | 344,094 |
Casablanca (1943) | 8.7 | 209,989 |
The Departed (2006) | 8.5 | 368,308 |
American Beauty (1999) | 8.5 | 389,392 |
Lawrence of Arabia (1962) | 8.5 | 98,407 |
Again, it skews recent. Of the top 11, more than half were released in the last 20 years. Only two—"Lawrence" and "Casablanca"—were released prior to 1970.
Here are the bottom 10:
IMDb RATING |
Cimarron (1931) | 6.1 | 1,744 |
Cavalcade (1933) | 6.3 | 1,426 |
The Broadway Melody (1929) | 6.4 | 2,466 |
The Greatest Show On Earth (1952) | 6.7 | 5,186 |
Around the World In 80 Days (1956) | 6.8 | 9,129 |
Tom Jones (1963) | 6.9 | 4,857 |
Gigi (1958) | 6.9 | 7,472 |
The Great Ziegfeld (1936) | 6.9 | 2,583 |
Out of Africa (1985) | 7.0 | 25,363 |
Chicago (2002) | 7.2 | 99,936 |
Chariots of Fire (1981) | 7.2 | 20,114 |
An American In Paris (1951) | 7.2 | 11,808 |
It skews old. We get the forgotten BPs of the 1930s, the bloated spectacles of the 1950s, plus a few recent head-scratchers. But "An American in Paris" at 7.2? Really? IMDb's voters don't like musicals, do they? The great musicals of the early sixties, "My Fair Lady" (7.9), "The Sound of Music" (7.9) and "West Side Story" (7.7) all get less love than the abyssmal "Crash," which is somehow still perched at a lofty 8.0.
Something is even more apparent when you look at each decade's highest- and lowest-ranked films:
Decade | Highest-Ranked | Rating | Lowest-ranked | Rating |
1930s | It Happened One Night | 8.3 | Cimarron | 6.1 |
1940s | Casablanca | 8.7 | Gentleman's Agreement | 7.4 |
1950s | The Bridge on the River Kwai | 8.4 | The Greatest Show on Earth | 6.7 |
1960s | Lawrence of Arabia | 8.5 | Tom Jones | 6.9 |
1970s | The Godfather | 9.2 | Kramer vs. Kramer | 7.7 |
1980s | Amadeus | 8.4 | Out of Africa | 7.0 |
1990s | Schindler's List | 8.9 | Shakespeare in Love | 7.3 |
2000s | Lord of the Rings: Return of the King | 8.9 | Chicago | 7.2 |
It's the dude angle, the fanboy angle. The highest-ranked films above are testosterone-heavy. From the 1950s on, in fact, it's tough to find a leading woman in the mix. Diane Keaton in "The Godfather" maybe? Mozart's wife in "Amadeus"? Cate Blanchett in "LOTR: ROTK"? On the lowest-ranked side, it's all female-centered stories ("Chicago") or empathetic male stories ("Kramer vs. Kramer"), or both ("Shakespeare in Love"). It's hardly a scoop that IMDb's users are young and male but it is sad. The Academy is historically dismissive of female-centered stories. IMDb's voters turn out to be worse.
As I was compiling the above, I noticed that the highest-ranked of the highest-ranked movies was "The Godfather," while the highest-ranked of the lowest-ranked movies was "Kramer vs. Kramer," both from the 1970s. It led me to break down the ratings by decade:
Decade | Avg Rating |
1970s | 8.35 |
1990s | 8.16 |
2000s | 8.13 |
1940s | 7.94 |
1960s | 7.88 |
1980s | 7.72 |
1950s | 7.66 |
1930s | 7.48 |
The 1970s, with its great slew of American films, is rightly in first place. The 1950s is weighed down by a few of the Academy's tepid choices ("Greatest Show," "Around the World"), as is the 1980s ("Ordinary People," "Chariots of Fire," "Driving Miss Daisy"). The '90s and 2000s are obviously too high but what are you gonna do? They'll come down.
For completeists, here's the entire list:
MOVIE | IMDb RATING | VOTES |
The King's Speech (2010) | 8.2 | 155,972 |
The Hurt Locker (2009) | 7.7 | 137,683 |
Slumdog Millionaire (2008) | 8.2 | 269,582 |
No Country For Old Men (2007) | 8.2 | 274,692 |
The Departed (2006) | 8.5 | 368,308 |
Crash (2005) | 8.0 | 217,777 |
Million Dollar Baby (2004) | 8.2 | 204,335 |
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) | 8.9 | 501,289 |
Chicago (2002) | 7.2 | 99,936 |
A Beautiful Mind (2001) | 8.0 | 202,651 |
Gladiator (2000) | 8.4 | 397,268 |
American Beauty (1999) | 8.5 | 389,392 |
Shakespeare In Love (1998) | 7.3 | 97,391 |
Titanic (1997) | 7.5 | 336,027 |
The English Patient (1996) | 7.3 | 72,322 |
Braveheart (1995) | 8.4 | 327,548 |
Forrest Gump (1994) | 8.7 | 446,991 |
Schindler's List (1993) | 8.9 | 375,193 |
Unforgiven (1992) | 8.3 | 135,496 |
The Silence of the Lambs (1991) | 8.7 | 344,094 |
Dances With Wolves (1990) | 8.0 | 94,144 |
Driving Miss Daisy (1989) | 7.4 | 30,411 |
Rain Man (1988) | 8.0 | 165,428 |
The Last Emperor (1987) | 7.8 | 33,160 |
Platoon (1986) | 8.2 | 145,818 |
Out of Africa (1985) | 7.0 | 25,363 |
Amadeus (1984) | 8.4 | 128,078 |
Terms of Endearment (1983) | 7.3 | 21,085 |
Gandhi (1982) | 8.1 | 71,833 |
Chariots of Fire (1981) | 7.2 | 20,114 |
Ordinary People (1980) | 7.8 | 20,192 |
Kramer Vs. Kramer (1979) | 7.7 | 40,353 |
The Deer Hunter (1978) | 8.2 | 117,540 |
Annie Hall (1977) | 8.2 | 87,916 |
Rocky (1976) | 8.1 | 143,362 |
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) | 8.8 | 300,314 |
The Godfather, Part II (1974) | 9.0 | 336,575 |
The Sting (1973) | 8.4 | 85,891 |
The Godfather (1972) | 9.2 | 535,083 |
The French Connection (1971) | 7.9 | 42,667 |
Patton (1970) | 8.0 | 49,384 |
Midnight Cowboy (1969) | 8.0 | 42,805 |
Oliver! (1968) | 7.5 | 12,026 |
In the Heat of the Night (1967) | 8.0 | 26,928 |
A Man For All Seasons (1966) | 8.0 | 14,614 |
The Sound of Music (1965) | 7.9 | 68,810 |
My Fair Lady (1964) | 7.9 | 35,262 |
Tom Jones (1963) | 6.9 | 4,857 |
Lawrence of Arabia (1962) | 8.5 | 98,407 |
West Side Story (1961) | 7.7 | 37,371 |
The Apartment (1960) | 8.4 | 49,785 |
Ben-Hur (1959) | 8.2 | 76,925 |
Gigi (1958) | 6.9 | 7,472 |
The Bridge On the River Kwai (1957) | 8.4 | 76,003 |
Around the World In 80 Days (1956) | 6.8 | 9,129 |
Marty (1955) | 7.7 | 8,028 |
On the Waterfront (1954) | 8.4 | 52,369 |
From Here To Eternity (1953) | 7.9 | 19,141 |
The Greatest Show On Earth (1952) | 6.7 | 5,186 |
An American In Paris (1951) | 7.2 | 11,808 |
All About Eve (1950) | 8.4 | 43,955 |
All the King's Men (1949) | 7.6 | 5,597 |
Hamlet (1948) | 7.9 | 6,557 |
Gentleman's Agreement (1947) | 7.4 | 5,688 |
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) | 8.3 | 21,793 |
The Lost Weekend (1945) | 8.1 | 14,287 |
Going My Way (1944) | 7.4 | 4,143 |
Casablanca (1943) | 8.7 | 209,989 |
Mrs. Miniver (1942) | 7.7 | 6,058 |
How Green Was My Valley (1941) | 7.9 | 8,993 |
Rebecca (1940) | 8.4 | 45,011 |
Gone With the Wind (1939) | 8.2 | 106,428 |
You Can't Take It With You (1938) | 8.0 | 10,500 |
The Life of Emile Zola (1937) | 7.4 | 2,376 |
The Great Ziegfeld (1936) | 6.9 | 2,583 |
Mutiny On the Bounty (1935) | 7.9 | 9,276 |
It Happened One Night (1934) | 8.3 | 32,375 |
Cavalcade (1933) | 6.3 | 1,426 |
Grand Hotel (1932) | 7.6 | 7,300 |
Cimarron (1931) | 6.1 | 1,744 |
All Quiet On the Western Front (1930) | 8.1 | 28,205 |
The Broadway Melody (1929) | 6.4 | 2,466 |
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1928) | 8.4 | 15,384 |
Wings (1927) | 7.8 | 3,792 |
The Best Picture Nominees by Current IMDb Ranking
- The Artist: 8.4
- Hugo: 8.2
- The Help: 8.0
- Midnight in Paris: 7.8
- Moneyball: 7.7
- The Descendants: 7.7
- War Horse: 7.3
- The Tree of Life: 7.1
- Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close: 6.4
I'm a bit surprised that "The Help" is that high but I shouldn't be. I'm a bit surprised that "The Tree of Life" is that low but I shouldn't be. I should revisit in a year and see what's changed. Someone remind me. Vinny? Reed?
"The Help": It's funny cuz it's untrue.
Tags: IMDb.com
2 Comments | Permalink
The Bechdel Test, Stein, Hemingway and Woody Allen
"What's even more embarassing about this film [Midnight in Paris] is that one of the more important historical figures that Gil interacts with is Gertrude Stein. For those of you who aren't familiar with her, Stein is one of the most famous writers, and lesbians, in American history. And Woody Allen has the nerve to not have her speak to another female character in the entire film?"
--Anita Sarkeesian, in her video, The 2012 Oscars and the Bechdel Test, below, at the 3:30 mark. (But keep reading beyond the video.)
"Miss Stein was very big but not tall and was heavily built like a peasant woman. She had beautiful eyes and a strong German-Jewish face that also could have been Friulano and she reminded me of a northern Italian peasant woman with her clothes, her mobile face and her lovely, thick, alive immigrant hair which she wore put up in the same way she had probably worn it in college. She talked all the time and at first it was about people and places.
"Her companion [Alice B. Toklas] had a very pleasant voice, was small, very dark, with her hair cut like Joan of Arc in the Boutet de Monvel illustrations and had a very hooked nose. She was working on a piece of needlepoint when we first met them and she worked on this and saw to the food and drink and talked to my wife. She made one conversation and listened to two and often interrupted the one she was not making. Afterwards she explained to me that she always talked to the wives. The wives, my wife and I felt, were tolerated...
"'I said to my wife, "You know, Gertrude is nice, anyway." ...
"'I never hear her,' my wife said. 'I'm a wife. It's her friend that talks to me.'"
--Ernest Hemingway, "A Moveable Feast"
Tags: Bechdel Test, Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris, Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein
2 Comments | Permalink
Quote of the Day
"...rarer has it been clearer to me that 'the Academy' is not a monolithic individual entity we conveniently paint it as for the purpose of analysis, but a hive of conflicting individual opinions and personalities. The new voting structure for the Best Picture race is a case in point. We know each of these nine nominees received at least 5% of the number-one votes cast, suggesting a diverse range of committed camps. The people responsible for The Tree of Life being on the list are not the same people who put War Horse there, who in turn are different from the sneaky contingent who came through for Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.
"There's evidence of contrasting impulses within individual branches, too. Are the actors who rallied for Demián Bichir the same ones who are high on Rooney Mara? Are there Academy screenwriters who are equally jazzed about Bridesmaids and A Separation? I'm sure there are some — speaking as the person whose best-of-2011 list found room for Margaret and Immortals — but I'm sure you'd find plenty more who are befuddled by at least one of those nominations. Get angry with the Academy if you like, but wonder first what — or who — you're even getting angry with."
-- Guy Lodge, "Stuck in the middle with you: Thoughts on the Oscar nominations," on the "In Contention" site. Which is now, what, HitFix? Too bad.
No Comments yet | Permalink
Oscar: Doing the Wrong Thing
I'm finally getting together my invites for the Oscar party on Sunday, Feb. 26 and got distracted on the oscar.go.com site. Is that an official site of the Academy? It looks to be. There's oscars.org as well, which is definitely official, but I assume the organization runs both.
Anyway I was distracted by a "Celebrate the Movies" photo gallery that is also advertising the Oscar broadcast this year and the Oscars and the movies in general. One photos shows Tom Cruise in "Top Gun" with the line WE SHOWED YOU HOW TO BE A MAVERICK; another shows Audrey Hepburn in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" with the line WE SHOWED YOU HOW TO HAVE STYLE. Etc.
It's halfway to annoying. But it went the entire way with the following slide:
YOU showed us how to make a change? How about Spike Lee did? Or not even. He made a good, incendiary movie, which, in a weak year, didn't get nominated for best picture or director or cinematographer. It got ignored by the Academy—infamously—in favor of past pleasantries. Yet here you are using it to promote yourself.
All are more accurate.
The Return of Karl Show! (Starring Jason)
A few months ago I was on the Portland radio show Karl Show! (Starring Jason) to talk about movies and reviewing movies. Tomorrow night, Friday night at 8 pm (PST), I'll be back on to talk about this year's Oscars: the good, the bad and "War Horse."
You can listen live here.
The podcast will be available on the Karl Show! (Starring Jason) website.
Something Rotten Among the Best Picture Nominees
In case you were wondering how the best picture nominees look as ranked by Rotten Tomatoes ...
By Top Critics:
- The Artist: 100%
- Moneyball: 97%
- Midnight in Paris: 95%
- Hugo: 92%
- The Descendants: 90%
- The Tree of Life: 88%
- War Horse: 82%
- The Help: 68%
- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: 51%
By all critics:
- The Artist: 97%
- Hugo: 94%
- Moneyball: 94%
- Midnight in Paris: 93%
- The Descendants: 90%
- The Tree of Life: 84%
- War Horse: 76%
- The Help:76%
- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: 46%
What surprised me? Not the less-than-spectacular numbers for "Tree of Life," which I expected, since I know some critics didn't like it or didn't have patience for it or it wasn't what they want in a movie.
I'm a bit surprised that "The Descendants" wasn't higher. Fifth of the nine nominees? Behind "Midnight in Paris"?
I'm even more surprised that "War Horse" didn't tank. Top critics gave it 82%. Maybe we need to redefine "top."
But I'm most surprised that "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" wound up with the kind of low numbers I thought "War Horse" would have. "Extremely" is considered rotten in both rankings. Has any best picture nominee ever had such low RT ratings? Even "The Blind Side," which also starred Sandra Bullock, went 62%/66%.
After a quick search, I discovered "The Reader" went 56%/62% in 2008. So there is rotten precendent, just not as rotten. The connection, of course, is that both films were directed by Stephen Daldry.
Oscar Watch: Why the Best Picture Nominations are (August) Wilsonian
I find it interesting that the movie with the most Academy Award nominations, "Hugo" with 11, is directed by an American but set in France, while the movie with the second-most nominations, "The Artist" with 10, is directed by a Frenchman but set in America. Artistic tips of the hat, as it were.
The nine nominees are also Wilsonian, as in August, in that almost every decade from the 20th century is represented:
- 1900s: Hugo
- 1910s: War Horse
- 1920s: The Artist, Midnight in Paris
- 1930s: The Artist, Hugo
- 1940s:
- 1950s: The Tree of Life
- 1960s: The Help
- 1970s:
- 1980s:
- 1990s:
- 2000s: Moneyball, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
- Contemporary: The Descendants
Too bad we couldn't have added this one:
- 1970s: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
I can't think of other 2011 movies—decent ones—that would fill out the other decades. I'm not talking brief flashbacks, such as in "Moneyball," with a young Billy Beane in the 1980s. I'm talking something longer and deeper (and uncut).
Another question: Which of the above films is least nostalgic about the period it portrays? "Midnight in Paris" cautions against nostalgia but still gives us rip-roaring times with Hemingway and Fitzgerald and Marion Cotillard. "The Artist" is a very relevant movie, I would argue, but its raison d'etre is a form of nostalgia. "War Horse"? It's nostalgic for John Ford movies. "The Help"? Paints pretty pictures of a brutal period; of the great American tyranny.
No, the above film least nostalgic about its time period is "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy." Probably why it didn't get nom'ed.
Who could forget all those crazy times in Mississippi, 1964?
Oscar Watch: Has "The Artist" Already Won Best Picture?
Last night, the Directors Guild of America (DGA) awarded its "Outstanding Achievement in Feature Film" Award to Michel Hazanavicius for "The Artist."
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the DGA is the best single predictor of the Academy Award for best picture. Here are the DGA's award winners since 1990. The DGA feature-film achievements that didn't go on to win best picture are highlighted in bold:
- 2011: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
- 2010: Tom Hooper, The King's Speech
- 2009: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
- 2008: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
- 2007: Ethan and Joel Coen, No Country For Old Men
- 2006: Martin Scorsese, The Departed
- 2005: Ang Lee, Brokeback Mountain
- 2004: Clint Eastwood, Million Dollar Baby
- 2003: Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
- 2002: Rob Marshall, Chicago
- 2001: Ron Howard, A Beautiful Mind
- 2000: Ang Lee, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
- 1999: Sam Mendes, American Beauty
- 1998: Steven Spielberg, Saving Private Ryan
- 1997: James Cameron, Titanic
- 1996: Anthony Minghella, The English Patient
- 1995: Ron Howard, Apollo 13
- 1994: Robert Zemeckis, Forrest Gump
- 1993: Steven Spielberg, Schindler's List
- 1992: Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven
- 1991: Jonathan Demme, The Silence of the Lambs
- 1990: Kevin Costner, Dances with Wolves
Seventeen-for-21. If we predicted that well, Vegas wouldn't let us in.
Each discrepancy has an explanation. Blame homophobia for 2005, xenophobia for 2000, Harvey Weinstein's hefty push for "Shakespeare in Love" for 1998, and who knows what in 1995. Opiephobia? Howard didn't even get nom'ed by the Academy for "Apollo 13," which is much better film than the eventual winner, Mel Gibson's "Braveheart."
I suppose the question is: How Francophobic is the Academy? Un peu? And for those who are, well, Hazanavicius has Harvey Weinstein and his heft on his side. To me that means done, over and out. La course est terminee. Felicitations, M. Hazanavicius.
First Bejo, now the DGA.
Tags: The DGAs, Oscars, The Artist
2 Comments | Permalink
Who Were the Oscar Frontrunners Last Summer?
I took these screenshots July 4th on the "In Contention" site, which is devoted to all things Oscar. I wanted to see how far-ranging their predictions were. Who was considered a front-runner back then? Who had the buzz? And whose buzz proved short-lived?.
From the photos alone you get a sense of the evanescence of buzz. "J. Edgar" as leading best picture contender? Spielberg touted for his direction of "War Horse"? Where does this buzz come from? Publicists? Why aren't we shooing this shit away? More: Why do we need to talk about anything we haven't seen? What's the point in it? Not to get too Yoda here but all of our lives we look away to the future, to the horizon. Never our minds on where we are. Hmm? What we are doing.
This is IC's tally:
- Best Picture: 7 of 9. They missed "The Help" and "Moneyball." They thought "Ides of March," "J. Edgar" and "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy."
- Best Directing: 3 of 5: Picking Eastwood and Spielberg, missing Malick and Allen.
- Best Actor: 3 of 5. Missing Bachir and Pitt. Was there really a time when Jeremy Irvine was touted as best actor?
- Best Actress: 2 of 5. No Viola, Rooney or Michelle. Back when people still thought highly of "Martha Marcy May Marlene." Well, some people.
- Best Supporting Actor: 2 of 5: Missed Hilly, Nolte and Von Sydow for Broadbent, Brooks and P.S. Hoffman
- Best Supporting Actress: 0 for 5. Fun! Including two performances (Tomei and Watts) that barely left a mark.
In the acting categories alone, they were 7 for 20.
This is not to slam IC, which has good writing, even if the site itself has gone over to Hitfix; it's not to slam the work of the artists who didn't make the cut, since we can argue about that forever. (Charlize, honey, you wuz robbed!) It's just a reminder, I guess. I like thinking about what we once thought about. That's my Yoda problem. All my life I've looked back into the past. There's less money in it but greater clarity.
Oscar Reaction: Cieply and Barnes, Seemingly Disconnected
It's been a while since I voiced disagreement with the New York Times' resident movie-industry writers Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes but they had a line in their latest piece about the Academy Award nominations ("Nine Films Vie for Best Picture") that stopped me cold:
"In a seeming disconnect, only one best actress nominee, Viola Davis of 'The Help,' appeared in a film nominated for best picture."
Really? A seeming disconnect? The Academy is male dominated and tends to nominate movies that are male dominated. Best pictures have historically featured leading men, not leading women. Don't they know this? I wrote the following for MSNBC seven years ago:
In the first 15 years of the Academy (roughly 1928-43), the woman who won best actress appeared in that year's best picture three times: Luise Rainier for "The Great Ziegfield" in 1936, Vivien Leigh for "Gone with the Wind" in 1939, and Greer Garson for "Mrs. Miniver" in 1942. ...
Did women's stories suddenly seem silly and unimportant after D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge? Perhaps. Because the next time a best actress appeared in a best picture wasn't until 1977: Diane Keaton for "Annie Hall." During that same period, 15 best actors starred in best pictures, and to this day, best pictures tend to be testosterone-filled enterprises: "Braveheart" and "Gladiator" and the like. It's the Academy's way of telling women their stories don't matter. I'm surprised there's not a bigger outcry over this.
True, I'm discussing winners and Cieply and Barnes are discussing nominees; and true, in the previous two years, with best picture nominees swollen to 10, more of the films of best actress nominees wound up among the best picture nominees: three in 2010 ("Black Swan," "The Kids Are Alright," and "Winter's Bone") and three in 2009 ("The Blind Side," "An Education" and "Precious").
But these are historic anomalies. The previous year, only one best actress nominee, Kate Winslet, had her film, "The Reader," among the best picture nominees. In 2007? One again: Ellen Page for "Juno." 2006? Helen Mirren in "The Queen." 2005? Zilch. Nada. Bupkis.
It is a seeming disconnect that women's films are ignored in this manner. But Cieply and Barnes should know that it's been a seeming disconnect since around World War II.
Meryl Streep may look shocked, but she knows, as Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes apparently don't, that the films of best actress nominees tend not to garner nominations for best picture. Of the 14 films for which she's been nominated best actress, only one* has been nominated best picture.
*Answer in the comments field below.
Tags: Michael Cieply, Brooks Barnes, Oscars
4 Comments | Permalink
And the Nominees Are ... : The Box Office
The expansion of the best picture nominations from five to 10 in 2009 was all about box office. (See this chart.) Academy tastes and popular tastes no longer meshed, or studios stopped distributing quality films, or quality films no longer attempted popular appeal, or quality films only appealed to oldsters who waited for the DVD to become available on Netflix. It can get pretty tricky, in a chicken-and-egg kind of way, when you attempt to break down why the system broke down.
But it did. While the nominees for best picture historically included a top-5 film, and often the No. 1 movie of the year (see: 1967 to 1977), by the mid-2000s the nominees couldn't even crack the top 10. Between 2004 and 2008, the highest-grossing best picture nominee in terms of box office ranked as follows: 22nd, 22nd, 15th, 15th and 16th.
So in 2009 the Academy decided to double the best-picture nominees to get popular films such as "The Dark Knight" involved. How has this worked?
Well, its first year, the whole thing was probably unncessary, since "Avatar," the highest-grossing movie of the year, the decade, and all-time in terms of both dometic and international box office, would've been nom'ed anyway. But "Avatar" did get nom'ed. As did "Up," the No. 5 film, and "The Blind Side," at No. 8. Three films in the top 10! That hadn't happened since 1997.
In 2010, the No. 1 movie, "Toy Story 3," was again nominated best picture. As was No. 6, "Inception," and No. 13, "True Grit." Still working.
This year? A different story.
The No. 1 box-office hit? The last "Harry Potter," which wasn't among the nominees. The remainder of the top 5 is strewn with the latest iterations, or regurgitations, of pop-cultural junk food: "Transformers," "Twilight," "Hangover" and "Pirates of the Caribbean."
Pixar couldn't even help since their 2011 offering, "Cars 2," while a box-office hit at No. 8, was never a critical hit and never an Academy consideration.
This is where this year's nominees—nine with the new rules—wound up in terms of domestic box office:
BO Rank | Movie | Distributor | Dometic BO | Widest Dist. |
13 | The Help | BV | $169,598,523 | 3,014 |
43 | Moneyball | Sony | $75,524,658 | 3,018 |
47 | War Horse | BV | $72,285,180 | 2,856 |
57 | Midnight in Paris | SPC | $56,446,217 | 1,038 |
58 | Hugo | Par. | $55,887,402 | 2,608 |
67 | The Descendants | FoxS | $51,259,658 | 878 |
128 | The Tree of Life | FoxS | $13,303,319 | 237 |
131 | The Artist | Wein. | $12,119,718 | 662 |
136 | Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close | WB | $10,737,239 | 2,630 |
I spend a lot of time looking at box office but even I was shocked by the numbers. Less "The Help" being the highest-ranking best-picture nominee at No. 13 than the rest of it. "Moneyball" is really the second-highest-grossing film among the nominees? "The Artist" is really only at $12 mil?
"Justin Bieber: Never Say Never" grossed more than all but two of these films?
In other words, a few years after irrevocably altering historic Academy parameters for the sake of popularity and TV ratings, we're right back where we started from: no No. 1s, no top 10s. It's like a reverse of Al Pacino's famous line in "Godfather III": Just when the Academy thinks it's brought us together, we're pulled apart.
And the Nominees Are ... : A Comparison
Arguing with the Academy over its nominations is like arguing with your grandparents over politics. Even if they could hear you, there's not much point in it. You'll never agree.
Or will you? I'm curious how my 2011 Oscar nominations compared with the Academy's:
- BEST PICTURE: Four of five. I would've assumed "Tree of Life" not making the cut rather than "Young Adult."
- BEST DIRECTOR: Three of five. I'm fine with their choices. It's a tough category. As best picture used to be before the New Happiness.
- BEST ACTOR: Three of five. I'll take my five.
- BEST ACTRESS: Two of five. Grandma likes biopics more than I do. And she thought that Charlize Theron was just mean.
- BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: One of five, the likely winner, Christopher Plummer.
- BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: One-half of five, Jessica Chastain, but for a different movie. I went "Taking Shelter," they went "The Help." I trended young, as AMPAS used to in this category.
- BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Three of five. But I'm fine with their choices. Well, I would've gone Diablo over Woody, but you know how much Grandpa likes Woody. Plus that Diablo was just mean. And didn't she used to be a stripper or something?
- BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Four of five. They went "Ides of March," I went "Captain America." I stand by the good Captain.
So more agreement than not in the non-acting categories (14 out of 20), and more not than agreement in the acting categories (6 1/2 out of 20). Particular disagreement with supporting and with women.
Overall, though, in a squeaker, I find I do agree with the Academy more than not: 20 1/2 out of 40.
"Charlize was just mean in that movie."
And the Nominees Are...
I'm not a fan of the snubbed meme but "Young Adult" was snubbed, man, massively snubbed. It was the best picture of 2011 that didn't get ... what ... anything? Not even Charlize Theron? Not even Charlize Theron. No Diablo Cody, no Jason Reitman. Nothing. Please see it anyway. It was just one of the best movies of the year.
And if you'd asked me which was more likely: that "War Horse" wouldn't get nominated best picture or "The Adventures of Tin Tin" wouldn't get nominated best animated feature, I would have bet $1,000 on the former.
"The Artist" has 10 noms. Does that lead? No, "Hugo" with 11. "The Descendants" has five noms. It feels like it's "The Artist"'s to lose right now.
Other surprises? Pleasantly, both Terrence Malick (for best director) and "The Tree of Life" (for best picture) were nominated. Albert Brooks was not. No Leo DiCaprio or Michael Shannon, either. No...
Here, let's take it category by category:
- The Artist
- The Descendants
- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
- The Help
- Hugo
- Midnight in Paris
- Moneyball
- The Tree of Life
- War Horse
What percentage of the vote did you need again to make this list? And by how much did "War Horse" and "Extremely Loud" squeak over? And by how much did "Young Adult" not? "War Horse," Jesus. It's a horrible lie of a film. But its main character was brave ... was brave ... was brave ...
- Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"
- Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
- Terence Malick, "The Tree of Life"
- Alexander Payne, "The Descendants"
- Martin Scorsese, "Hugo"
No Bennett Miller. A bit of a surprise. No David Fincher, who got the DGA nod. Malick instead. Good for the Academy. All the nominated directors' films were nominated best film, but it still feels like a two-film race: "The Artist" vs. "The Descendants."
- Demián Bichir, "A Better Life"
- George Clooney, "The Descendants"
- Jean Dujardin, "The Artist"
- Gary Oldman, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"
- Brad Pitt, "Moneyball"
Demian! Bro. Now we have to all see that movie when it arrives. Oh, it came and went? Last July? Apologies. Lo siento. Put it in your queue, Netflixers. Quickly, quickly. No Leo nod for "J. Edgar," no Fassbender for "Shame," no Michael Shannon for "Take Shelter." Somewhere, Vinny cries.
- Glenn Close, "Albert Nobbs"
- Viola Davis, "The Help"
- Rooney Mara, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"
- Meryl Streep, "The Iron Lady"
- Michelle Williams, "My Week with Marilyn"
Did I happen to mention yet that my choice for best actress of the year, the whole fucking year, Charlize Theron in "Young Adult," not even nom'ed? She should've gained 40 pounds for the role. Admittedly, thankfully, it's a stacked category this year, but two of the frontrunners, Streep and Williams, didn't do much for me. Plus I'm tired of these statuettes going to biopic (rhymes with myopic) portrayals. Well, clears the field for me. Makes rooting interests easier. Go Viola!
- Kenneth Branagh, "My Week with Marilyn"
- Jonah Hill, "Moneyball"
- Nick Nolte, "Warrior"
- Christopher Plummer, "Beginners"
- Max Von Sydow, "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"
I guess the narrative will be that Max von Sydow, a surprise, nudged out Albert Brooks, a perceived front-runner. But in a certain sense I still don't know what Jonah Hill is doing on this list. Or Kenny B for that matter. Or, hell, Nolte. When did that push begin? Can we see Oscar ad budgets for each film?
- Berenice Bejo, "The Artist"
- Jessica Chastain, "The Help"
- Melissa McCarthy, "Bridesmaids"
- Janet McTeer, "Albert Nobbs"
- Octavia Spencer, "The Help"
Where's Shailene Woodley? Where's Evan Rachel Wood? I'd take off Bejo (much as I enjoy seeing her on the red carpet) or McCarthy (much as I enjoy a comedic role being honored; but let's face it, she won it for the heart-to-heart at the end).
- Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"
- J.C. Chandor, "Margin Call"
- Asghar Farhari, "A Separation"
- Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
- Annie Mumolo and Kristen Wiig, "Bridesmaids"
Farhari is a pleasant surprise here. I like the "Margin Call" shoutout. Deserved. Diablo, you wuz robbed.
- George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon, "The Ides of March"
- John Logan, "Hugo"
- Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"
- Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash, "The Descendants"
- Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, "Moneyball"
I still would've given it to "Captain America" over "Ides of March." I'm serious. You try to adapt a 70-year-old comic book, see how far you get.
Enough for now. Thoughts?
Seriously, Academy?
Tags: Oscars, Charlize Theron, Young Adult, Woody Allen
No Comments yet | Permalink
And the Winner Should Be...
And the winner should be...
Terrence Malick's "The Tree of Life"
Because: The dinosaur, which bothers so many, is exactly the point. The movie focuses on a boy and a family in Waco, TX, in the 1950s but it includes the beginning and end of time. It enfolds religion with science. In doing so, it attempts to answer the question that Job, and all of us, ask of God: Why do you allow such suffering? In the Old Testament, God answered, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth?" Terrence Malick takes us there. No other movie has this scope or this ambition. Few ever have. This is what movies were meant to do.
Chance: In hell. Probably won't even get nom'ed.
- Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
- Terence Malick, "The Tree of Life"
- Bennett Miller, "Moneyball"
- Nicolas Winding Refn, "Drive"
- Martin Scorsese, "Hugo"
And the winner should be...
Terrence Malick, "The Tree of Life"
Because: For the reasons above. For the patterns of life. For the intermingling of science and religion. For reminding us that nature is what we are while grace is what we aspire to be.
Chance: Fat.
- Jean Dujardin, "The Artist"
- Michael Fassbender, "Shame"
- Gary Oldman, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"
- Brad Pitt, "Moneyball"
- Michael Shannon, "Take Shelter"
And the winner should be....
Brad Pitt
Because: He showed his age, his lighter side, his rage, his humor. Because he was interested and interesting.
Chance: Pretty good. Some say Pitt, some say Clooney. They could be the tomato-tomatah of this year's Oscar race.
- Juliette Binoche, "Certified Copy"
- Viola Davis, "The Help"
- Rooney Mara, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" *
- Charlize Theron, "Young Adult"
- Mia Wasikovska, "Jane Eyre"
And the winner should be....
Charlize Theron
Because: She created one of the most original characters to come out of Hollywood in years—and she did it flawlessly. Because she made us care about an awful, awful person. Because while her character's personality was an outlier, her situation was representative and sympathetic. Because she made us laugh. Because in the end she was just like us: she didn't change.
Chance: The buzz, stronger this summer, is currently elsewhere. But make no mistake: this is a stacked best actress roster.
- Paul Bettany, "Margin Call"
- Michael Lonsdale, "Of Gods and Men"
- Brad Pitt, "The Tree of Life"
- Christopher Plummer, "Beginners"
- Jeffrey Wright, "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"
And the winner should be....
Christopher Plummer
Because: He embodied a character, who, in the few years between living a lie and dying of cancer, lived. Because the joy in him was passed on to us. Because that's a rare gift.
Chance: He's the frontrunner.
- Jessica Chastain, "Take Shelter"
- Mélusine Mayance, "Sarah's Key"
- Judi Dench, "My Week with Marilyn"
- Evan Rachel Wood, "The Ides of March"
- Shailene Woodley, "The Descendants"
And the winner should be....
Shailene Woodley
Because: She dipped beneath the surface of the pool and broke down and broke our hearts.
Chance: Not good. But a nom would be nice.
- J.C. Chandor, "Margin Call"
- Diablo Cody, "Young Adult"
- Étienne Comar and Xavier Beauvois, "Of Gods and Men"
- Terrence Malick, "The Tree of Life"
- Annie Mumolo and Kristen Wiig, "Bridesmaids"
And the winner should be....
Terrence Malick, "The Tree of Life"
Because: "The nuns taught us there were two ways through life: the way of nature and the way of grace. You have to choose which one you'll follow. ... Grace doesn't try to please itself. Accepts being slighted, forgotten, disliked. Accepts insults and injuries. ... Nature only wants to please itself. Gets others to please it, too. Likes to lord it over them. To have its own way. It finds reasons to be unhappy when all the world is shining around it. And love is smiling through all things."
Chance: I think it'll have to accept being slighted, forgotten, disliked.
- John Logan, "Hugo"
- Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely, "Captain America"
- Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"
- Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash, "The Descendants"
- Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, "Moneyball"
And the winner should be....
Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, "Moneyball"
Because: The movie is based upon a true story about a group of misfit ballplayers who get together and do well, and against all odds ... win nothing. They don't win the World Series. They don't go to the World Series. They're always stopped. So the big question for anyone watching with any knowledge of baseball history is ... how do they end it? They ended it with a man who was bloody from being first through the wall. They ended it with a guy who hit a homerun and didn't know it. They ended with the hero caught in a moment of indecision and tension but possible epiphany and release. They ended it in a place that allowed us to carry something beautiful and fragile from the theater.
Chance: Good. Although that would be two years in a row for Sorkin. "The Descendants," I assume, is the big competition here.
Your results may, and should, vary...
Tags: Aaron Sorkin, Oscars
2 Comments | Permalink
My 2011 Oscar Nominations: Clooney, Streep Snubbed!
After the Oscar noms come out tomorrow morning we'll have the usual endless talk of how the Academy snubbed this or that actor or director. Not a fan. The very nature of the conversation is snubbing someone, since it implies that one of the nominees isn't good enough to have been nom'ed in the first place. If the conversationalists owned up to it ... But they never do. They talk as if the Academy left off this or that front-runner when it had an infinite number of open slots.
Here are my choices in the eight main Oscar categories. As always, this is preference not prognostication. I guess I snubbed Meryl Streep and George Clooney, didn't I, for the likes of Mia Wasikovska and Michael Fassbender. I also chose Brad Pitt twice. What's the opposite of snubbing? Hugging? Spooning? I found the two screenplay categories the toughest to complete, because Original Screenplay had too many possibilities and Adapted too few. I got to four quickly but the fifth required work.
Feel free to post your rooting interests, or anyone I've missed, below. I'll post my winners later today.
Best Picture |
Best Director |
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Original Screenplay
Best Adapted Screenplay
* Review of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo," posted later this week. I have yet to see "Albert Nobbs."
Golden Globes Better than the Oscars?
Two days before the Golden Globes, Slate published an article by Tom Shone, the author of Blockbuster: How Hollywood Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Summer, on how the Golden Globes isn't cheap cousin to the Oscars; it's better than the Oscars.
The piece is classic Slate, i.e., contrarian, but Shone's argumentation is sloppy, like GG acceptance speeches, and for a second I thought about responding. Then I read the comments field and realized several readers had done the work for for me.
A reader named Josh B. writes:
Mr. Shone isn't comparing apples with apples. It's easier to reward the right people and films when you give out twice as many awards. For instance, in 1988, the Globes didn't choose Tom Hanks in Big over Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man (which is what the author implies in his list at the end of the article). Rather, both Hanks and Hoffman won acting Globes that year, but in different categories.
Then Ben F. writes:
You also conveniently forgot a few [Golden Globes' picks]:
- "Avatar" and James Cameron beat "The Hurt Locker" and Kathryn Bigelow
- "Evita" and Madonna beat "Fargo" and Frances McDormand
- "Scent of a Woman" beat "Unforgiven" and "Howards End"
I think both groups make poor choices. Oscars tend to be self-serious while the Globes tend to be star worshiping.
Makes one almost not-wish for the death of comments fields.
Shone also ignored such recent, weak, GG best-drama winners as "Babel" in 2006 (over "The Departed"), and "Atonement" in 2007 (over "No Country for Old Men"). I might add that Shone's opening, in which he imagines a world in which the Golden Globes has the authority of the Oscars, is similar to the opening of a 2005 article I wrote on the National Society of Film Critics. I'm not suggesting plagiarism, of course. I'm merely suggesting that even contrarian articles might not be very original.
Tags: Golden Globes, Ricky Gervais, Oscars
No Comments yet | Permalink
The Return of the Disagreeables
wo years ago, I entitled a blog post about the three New York Times film critics' annual Oscar picks "The Disagreeables," since its critics, A.O. Scott, Mahnola Dargis and Stephen Holden, agreed on only four nominees out of 45 slots. Three were "Hurt Locker"-related and they all wound up with Oscars: best pic, best director, best original screenplay. The fourth was Colin Firth, best actor, for "A Single Man." Missed by a year.
A week ago Sunday, The Disagreeables returned in an equally disagreeable mood. Of the now-40 slots (five each for eight categories: best picture, director, actor, actress, plus the two supporting and screenplay options), they agree on ... three and a half. Each has both Christopher Hampton ("A Dangerous Method") and Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin ("Moneyball") nominated for best adapted screenplay. Each has David Cronenberg ("A Dangerous Method") nominated for best director. The half is Brad Pitt for best actor, whom they all choose but for different roles. Scott goes "Tree of Life," Dargis and Holden "Moneyball."
Since agreement is boring this is how you want it. My disagreement with the Times has to do with placement. They line them up in order of status within the Times—Scott, Dargis, Holden—when I'd put Holden between the other two because he seems the middle-ground between Scott's adamant populism ("Warrior" and "Bridesmaids" as best-picture nominees) and Dargis' equally adamant minimalism ("Mysteries of Lisbon" and "Poetry" as best-picture nominees).
Even Scott's attempts at being outre seem conventional compared to Dargis. For best supporting actor, he chooses, among others, Jonah Hill ("Moneyball"), John C. Reilly ("Cedar Rapids"), and Andy Serkis ("Rise of the Planet of the Apes"). Dargis counters with another "Cedar Rapids" player, Isiah Whitlock Jr. (Clay Davis from "The Wire"), adds the little-mentioned but quite good Jean-Pierre Darroussin from "Le Havre," and tops it off with Cosmo the dog from "Beginners." This last is either a bit of a cheat or payback for the fudged 1927 Oscar vote.
Two categories I'd like the Times to add for next year? Best documentary and best foreign-language film. New York gets so much more of both of these than the rest of the country. It would actually be nice to see their picks there.
I'll do my list soon. I'll have to. The real nominees are only a few weeks away.
I can haz Oscar nom?
Tags: The Disagreeables, Manohla Dargis, AO Scott, Stephen Holden, Oscars, The New York Times
No Comments yet | Permalink
Oscar Watch: Have the DGAs Whittled Us Down to Five Best-Picture Candidates?
The nominees from the 64th Annual Directors Guild of America Awards are out:
- Woody Allen, "Midnight in Paris"
- David Fincher, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo"
- Michel Hazanavicius, "The Artist"
- Alexander Payne, "The Descendants"
- Martin Scorsese, "Hugo"
Why do the DGAs matter? Because, for those who still care about this kind of thing, the DGAs are the most accurate, single predictor of which film will win the Academy Award for best picture. In the 63 awards seasons we've had since the DGAs began in 1948, the DGA has accurately predicted the Oscar winner for best picture 50 times. In this century it's happened every year except 2000, when the DGA chose Ang Lee ("Crouching Tiger") and the Academy went for "Gladiator"; and 2005, when the DGA again chose Ang Lee, who won the Oscar for best director, but whose picture, "Brokeback Mountain," lost to somethingorother.
A little history among the nominees.
This is Woody Allen's fifth DGA nomination. Previously, he'd been nominated for "Annie Hall," "Manhattan," "Hannah and Her Sisters," and "Crimes and Misdemeanors." He won for "Annie Hall." Same as with the Academy.
Fincher has been nom'ed twice ("Benjamin Button" and "The Social Network") and never won. It's the first nom for Hazanavicius. Payne was nom'ed for "Sideways" in 2004.
And it's the eighth feature-film nomination for Scorsese: "Taxi Driver," "Raging Bull," "Goodfellas," "The Age of Innocence," "Gangs of New York," "The Aviator" and "The Departed." He won for "The Departed." Little-commented-upon: the DGAs screwed him over for "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" first.
Question 1: Why is there such synchronicity between the DGAs and the Academy? Does the DGA try to predict the Oscar winner? Or does the Academy, which is dominated by actors, follow the DGA's lead, as actors follow the lead of a director during filming? Or is it something else entirely?
Question 2: Has any picture won the Oscar for best picture without its director being nom'ed for a DGA? I.e., are we now down to five best-picture candidates?
Here's a quick check:
- In 1989, when Oliver Stone won the DGA for "Born on the 4th of July," Bruce Beresford, whose "Driving Miss Daisy" was the eventual Oscar winner, was NOT among the DGA nominees.
- In 1968, when Anthony Harvey won the DGA for "The Lion in Winter," Carol Reed, whose "Oliver!" was the eventual Oscar winner, was NOT among the DGA nominees.
- In 1967, when Mike Nichols won the DGA for "The Graduate," Norman Jewison, whose "In the Heat of the Night" was the eventual Oscar winner, was NOT among the DGA nominees. (He was a "finalist" who didn't make the cut to "nominee.")
- In 1952, when John Ford won the DGA for "The Quiet Man," Cecille B. DeMille, whose "The Greatest Show on Earth" was the eventual Oscar winner, was NOT among the DGA quarter-finalists. (He was among the DGA's 18 "nominees," but that's a bridge too far.)
- In 1948, when Joseph Mankiewicz won the DGA for "A Letter to Three Wives," Laurence Olivier, whose "Hamlet" was the eventual Oscar winner, was NOT among the DGA quarter-finalists.
So there is precedence but not much: five times in 63 years. And never since 1989.
Thoughts? Does it feel like we're down to "The Descendants" vs. "The Artist"? If so, whom would you choose?
And who's missing from among the noms? Some say Spielberg and "War Horse." Others say Bennett Miller and "Moneyball." I say where's Terrence Malick?
Tags: The DGAs, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Fincher, Alexander Payne, Oscars
No Comments yet | Permalink
This Year's Best Picture Winner?
Last Sunday I was almost moved to tears by the trailer for the film "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close," starring Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock and Thomas Horn, which will be released on Christmas Day 2011.
Today, I read this column by Jeff Wells, in which various best picture contenders are examined and dismissed ("The Descendants," "Moneyball"), and which concludes with these paragraphs:
...when Gabe The Playlist begrudgingly said there "wasn't a dry eye in the house" toward the end of a recent NY screening of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, I felt a little button-push sensation in my chest. I thinking it might be the one....maybe. He said he's not a Stephen Daldry or a Sandra Bullock fan and that he didn't care for the Asperger's kid, but he still recognized or acknowledged that it delivers the emotional payoff that it set out to deliver. ... So it's looking like Extremely Loud might have an edge at this stage.
Then I looked at my review for last year's best picture winner, "The King's Speech." It begins with this admission before I dismissed the film as a minor film:
When I first saw a trailer for "The King's Speech," I was almost moved to tears.
So it looks like "Extremely Loud" is on the right track anyway. Its trailer nearly moved me to tears. Now let's see if the film is the right kind of sappy for the Academy.
Tags: Thomas Horn, Tom Hanks, September 11, 2001, World Trade Center, Oscars
No Comments yet | Permalink
The First Best Actor?
"That year [1927], Rin Tin Tin was designated the most popular performer in the United States, and his four films—A Dog of the Regiment, Jaws of Steel, Tracked by the Police and Hills of Kentucky—were box office hits as well as critical successes. The Academy Awards were presented for the first time, and Rinty received the most votes for Best Actor. But members of the Academy, anxious to establish the new awards as serious and important, decided that giving an Oscar to a dog did not serve that end, so the votes were recalculated and the award was diverted to Emil Jannings, for his performances in both The Way of the Flesh and The Last Command."
--Susan Orlean, "Rin Tin Tin: The Life and the Legend," pp. 88-89. Orlean will appear next Friday, October 28, at SIFF Uptown for a reading, a Q&A, and a showing of the Rin Tin Tin silent film "Clash of the Wolves."
The original Rin Tin Tin in "Hills of Kentucky" (1927).
1 Comment | Permalink
Dreams: Don't Present at the Academy Awards with your Shirt Untucked
A dream last night. Freudians, start your engines.
I was in a conclave of tables off to the side at an awards ceremony—backstage yet onstage—and was about to announce one of the awards. Was Ben Stiller there somewhere? I wasn't thinking anything of the task, figured it would be a breeze, but when I stood up I had problems with the flap of my fly—it was turning out, exposing the metal teeth—and trying to fix it I wound up pulling out my tucked-in shirt, even as I was being pulled toward the stage. Introductory music was playing and I was walking with Patricia and my name was announced in grand fashion. It was the Academy Awards and I was walking onstage with my white dress shirt untucked and slightly wrinkled. Would that look cool? Wouldn't that look...disrespectful? Worse, I couldn't remember what award I was presenting. What was it again? And where were my glasses? I couldn't read the cue cards! I whispered all this to Patricia in a panic and she calmed me and said we would get through it, but the walk to the lectern seemed to take so long that by the time we arrived we felt we were behind. The music stopped and everyone waited and I glanced hurriedly over the lectern, which was electronic, flashing different kinds of data, including something in the upper right corner about ... was that the award?
"And now, the award for ... " I stumbled. "...sexiest..."
"... new male lead," Patricia finished.
There was silence. It seemed wrong, what I'd said, but I clutched onto the hope that it was right. Then a film clip started, an older woman being interviewed about a tragic event, possibly the Holocaust, and it was over and we were backstage and I'd been wrong, and I was trying to both justify myself and sort through the enormity of just how wrong I'd been.
Tags: Anne Hathaway, Dreams, Oscars
1 Comment | Permalink
What Liberal Hollywood? Anna Faris and the Laws of Date Night
A few weeks ago, in the April 11 edition of The New Yorker, there was a good article by Tad Friend on the comedic actress, and Washington state native, Anna Faris, which didn't seem to get much attention in the blogosphere—other than a curt dismissal on Hollywood Elsewhere—because it was only available in the digital and print editions. It wasn't online. It wasn't free.
But the best part of the article wasn't the stuff on Faris so much as the stuff on women, comedy and movies in general. The writer lists off the almighty Laws of Date Night that keep women and comedy separate and unequal:
- Men rule. (I.e., they pick the movie.)
- Men are simple. Don't confuse them. (Unnamed producer: "Men just don't understand the nuances of female dynamics.")
- If a woman is the star, it better be a romantic comedy. (Tad Friend: "Unless she is Angelina Jolie.")
- Women don't have to be funny. (Preston Sturges: "A pretty girl is better than an ugly one.")
- Also, women aren't funny. (David Zucker: "Maybe women have a built-in dignity...")
- Really, they're not. (Kennan Ivory Wayans: "If Will Ferrell was a girl, and she's got a belly and a hairy back, she's not running down the street naked.")
I gained newfound (firstfound?) respect for Seth Rogen, Feris' co-star in "Observe and Report," who observed (and reported), "If 'Pineapple Express' had been about two girls, they wouldn't have made it. And if I were a woman I wouldn't have a career."
Friend contrasts female comedians in movies with female comedians on TV, where they're doing just fine, thank you, but the discussion reminded me, yet again, how unliberal Hollywood is in practice. Liberalism means feminism, or includes feminism, and yet what's feminist about 99 percent of the product coming out of Hollywood? Nothing. The opposite. Hollywood isn't even conservative on the matter. It's Confucian.
Tags: What Liberal Hollywood, Women in Film, The New Yorker,
1 Comment | Permalink
Quote of the Day
"Who would want to break into it? It's like a bank that's already been robbed."
—Randy Newman, backstage at the Oscars, after a college reporter asked him about breaking into the music business. (As recounted in Michael Cieply and Brookes Barnes' article, "Younger Audience Still Eludes the Oscars," in The New York Times.)
No Comments yet | Permalink
What I Said About the Oscar Winners Before They Became Oscar Winners
Best Picture:
When I first saw a trailer for "The King Speech" I was almost moved to tears. I thought: "Colin Firth seems amazing. Geoffrey Rush looks like he's having a ball." Then I thought, "Except it feels like I've seen the entire movie now but for the last 10 minutes. And I can guess those." (Psst: The speech goes well.)
And Colin Firth is amazing, Geoffrey Rush seems like he's having a ball, and the entirety of the movie is in the trailer except for the last 10 minutes. And you can guess those. ...
"The King's Speech" is a smart movie that's fun to watch. I expect Oscar and BAFTA nominations for Firth, Rush, and Seidler. I was moved by the montage of the British people listening to the speech, all ears turned, all with a shared purpose. Other than that, there's not much to say. It's all in the trailer.
Best Director:
Tom Hooper went unmentioned in my review.
Best Actor:
Firth does an amazing job making us care about this man born to privilege. We get a sense of how trapped he is by circumstances. He is, in fact, doubly trapped: by his role, which he can never escape, and by his speech impediment, which won't let him carry out that role.
Best Actress:
Oddly, I didn't mention Portman's performance in my review. Bad critic. I think I assumed everyone thought it amazing. I didn't know I'd be arguing with folks who found it one-note without finding, say, Jennifer Lawrence's performance in "Winter's Bone" one-note. But I did say this, which is the essence of the movie to me:
Has any recent movie gotten us into the head of its main character as well as this one? I kept having to take deep breaths after it was over. I'd been holding my breath for the last half hour along with Nina.
It helps to think of the white-swan part of Nina's personality as less about innocence than control. Sure, Nina is sexually innocent, but one suspects it's a direct result of her control and discipline. I mean, she doesn't think about touching herself until Leroy suggests it? Until it might help get the part she covets? I'll masturbate, but only to be good in the role. One way to get students to do their homework.
Best Supporting Actor:
OK, so how does it differ [from "Rocky"]?
For one, "The Fighter" has the advantage of being mostly true.
It has the added advantage of Christian Bale's over-the-top, look-at-me-I'm-not-Batman performance as Dicky Eklund, a one-time middleweight contender, trainer to his half-brother, Mickey Ward (Mark Wahlberg), and crack addict. ...
Wahlberg is fine, but he's playing his gentle-voiced, blending-into-the-background leading man again. (See: "Planet of the Apes," "The Truth About Charlie," "The Italian Job.") He's a bit dull. In this way, the movie parallels its own story. Just as Dicky overshadows Mickey, so Bale's performance overshadows Wahlberg's. I'm not sure if this is ultimately a strength or a weakness, but I wish Wahlberg's characters had as much in them as Wahlberg seems to.
Best Supporting Actress:
The HBO doc is, in fact, a turning point of the movie. It's the moment Mickey comes to his senses about Dicky, Dicky half comes to his senses about himself, and the family's eyes, at least momentarily, are opened. For a second I condemned this family, the awful mother, Alice (an incredible Melissa Leo), and those harpyish sisters, for needing HBO to show them how their son/brother lives. A second later I realized we all need such docs about our loved ones. My older brother is an alcoholic, about which he and I have no delusions, but I don't know how he spends his days. The people closest to us are still unknowable.
Best Original Screenplay:
These early scenes—the clash between an uptight, stammering royal and an iconoclastic, unlettered therapist—are the best in the film. We get one good line after another from screenwriter David Seidler: My favorite exchange:
Bertie starts to light a cigarette from a silver case.
Lionel: Please don't do that.
Bertie: I'm sorry?
Lionel: I believe sucking smoke into your lungs will kill you.
Bertie: My physicians say it relaxes the throat.
Lionel: They're idiots.
Bertie: They've all been knighted.
Lionel: Makes it official then.
Best Adapted Screenplay:
There's such a joy of intellect in Aaron Sorkin's scripts that he's almost unamerican. He makes brains and articulation seem like a superpower. He makes them seem cool.
His characters have so much to say that they don't have the time to stop and say it; they have to keep moving. Sorkin was made to write the script for "The Social Network," the story of the founding of Facebook, because it, too, is about supersmart, superarticulate people who are perhaps too smart and articulate for their own good. They speak before they should.
This was actually a fairly humbling exercise, for this reason if no other: In the future, I'll need to come up with superlatives besides "amazing" to describe great acting.
Live-Blogging the Oscars
1:50 PM, PST: Patricia and I were going to be hosting an Oscar party tonight but poor Patricia came down with the crud and we thought better to keep it mellow and not infect anyone. So instead of a party it'll be just P and me and a cat named Jellybean (a rejected Lobo B-side, I believe).
But their loss is your gain. Or their gain is your loss. I.e., I'll be liveblogging the Oscars.
In the meantime my votes: Who I'd choose if I could ch-ch-choose. (That's a "Simpsons" reference, not a "King's Speech" reference.) This is want-to-win, not think-will-win. Off the top of my head. Or heart:
- Picture: "True Grit"
- Director: Darren Aronofsky, "Black Swan"
- Actor: Jesse Eisenberg, "The Social Network"
- Actress: Natalie Portman, "Black Swan"
- Supporting Actor: John Hawkes, "Winter's Bone"
- Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo, "The Fighter"
- Original Screenplay: Christopher Nolan, "Inception"
- Adapted Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin, "The Social Network"
- Animated Feature Film: "Toy Story 3"
- Art Direction: "Inception"
- Cinematography: "True Grit"
- Costume Design: "Alice in Wonderland"
- Documentary: "Restrepo"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Film Editing: Andrew Weisblum, "Black Swan"
- Foreign Language Film: N/A. I've only seen "Biutiful" and was disappointed.
- Makeup: N/A. Haven't seen anyof these.
- Original Score: Hans Zimmer, "Inception"
- Original Song: Randy Newman, "We Belong Together"
- Sound Editing/Mixing: What do I know about these categories? Less than I know about the others.
- Visual Effects: "Inception"
A lot of these choices are razor-thin. "True Grit" barely over "The Social Network." Eisenberg barely over Bridges. Aronofsky and Portman because they get you in the head of the character. It's Dostoevsky-type stuff.
The main one I want to win apparently has no shot: "Restrepo." Maybe someday people will know.
See you in a bit.
3:30 PM: Some Oscar linkage before the broadcast:
- John Lopez of Vanity Fair with a funny piece: "The Complete Procrastinators' Guide to Oscar voting." Best Foriegn Language film made me laugh the hardest. In my head. It wasn't LOL.
- The great baseball writer Roger Angell talks about the Oscars. Big surprise, he does it well.
- If you're still filling out your ballot, Richard Brody of The New Yorker can help.
- Nathaniel Rogers over at Film Experience is already live-blogging the red carpet.
Talk of the town.
4:20 PM: Question: How come Nathaniel hasn't mentioned Mila Kunis' outfit yet? She's definitely living up to her Black Swan character in that thing. She's even handling Ryan Seacrest well. On the red carpet he asks, "How did you ge that role?" Doesn't it sound like he's asking: "How did YOU get that role?" I barely see the dude but every time it's nails-on-a-chalkboard.
I'm trying to make up for the lack of females here by being catty during the red carpet for Patricia:
"Where did Cate Blanchett get that dress? From Rachel on 'Glee'?"
I know. Needs work.
From Patricia: "What's up with all these strapless gowns? I'm not a fan of strapless gowns. For the last five years there's been nothing but strapless gowns."
Patricia on Jennifer Lawrence: "She looks gorgeous. And that is a beatiful dress. And it has straps on it!"
4:55 PM: Does Sandra Bullock look like she's had some recent work done? She looks tight and unhappy. P not a fan of the red dress, either. Strapless.
E! broadcasters: "Let's talk about Celine Deon." Patricia: "Why?"
And there's Jeff Bridges. He'd be back anyway to present best actress but finds himself nominated again. Is that like picking up a spare after a strike? Do you get more points in the final tally this way?
Hey, how many other Oscar livebloggers give you bowling metaphors during the red carpet?
5:05 PM: WTF? I thought the show started at 5:00 not 5:30. Oh, man. See you in a half hour.
5:53 PM: Odd opening, no? It's nice to see the lines of "Winter's Bone" side by side with the lines of such blockbusters as "Toy Story 3" and "Inception"; but Anne Hathaway (AH) and James Franco (JF) going through the year's best picture nominees seemed much ado about not much. (Though I loved her wink at Colin Firth's Duke of York.) And what's with the "Back to the Future" homage? Because AH and JF are the future of movies? I'm confused.
Having the moms and grandmoms stand up was cute. But then they begin with "Gone with the Wind"? "Let's celebrate the best of this year ... by looking back 72 years."
First award: Art Direction. Patricia wanted "Inception." Instead: "Alice in Wonderland."
Second award: Cinematography. I wanted "True Grit." Instead: "Inception." Wally Pfister: "Thank you... for all the respect you've shown to all the cinematographers." Except, of course, Roger Deakins.
6:00 PM: OK, I'm fine with Kirk Douglas. But one should never milk it when one is holding the winning envelope. Just say the name. And one should get offstage when the winner (here: Melissa Leo) gets on it. Though.... Holy crap! She just swore on international television. Fun! She gives one of the oddest acceptance speeches but looks great.
Is anything going right here? Justin T. and Mila K. have nothing going on. Weak back-and-forth. iPhone apps jokes. Blech.
The best line so far is from the winner of the short animated film. "Our picture is about a creature no one pays attention to, so this award is wonderfully ironic."
Animated feature? Pixar. "Toy Story 3." I wonder if Vegas would even accept money on that bet.
6:22 PM: AH with a story about the first Academy Awards, which leads to an intro of ... Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem? I am SOOOOO confused.
Adapted Screenplay: Should be Sorkin. And it's Sorkin. Hugs for and from Aranofsky and Eisenberg. Let's see how articulate he is. Hey, shout-out to Paddy Chayefsky! Cool. "I wrote this movie but Darren Aronofsky made this movie." Classy. "This movie is going to be a source of pride for me for the rest of my life." Classy again.
Now original screenplay. Getting the writers out of the way early, apparently.
And it's David Seidler for "King's Speech." Christopher Hitchens is throwing a fit somewhere but screw him. I'm happy for this guy ... who can't find the mic. "The writer's speech, this is terrifying. [pause] My father always said to me I would be a late bloomer." Great line. Dude has something of Norman Mailer about him, doesn't he? He's been through battles.
6:50 PM: BTW, family and friends: P is already back in the bedroom, coughing and achey. Poor thing. Just me out here alone in the living room. Well, "alone." I've got a beer.
Another odd bit: AH singing a short, angry song about Hugh Jackman and JF showing up in drag. Plus a Charlie Sheen joke. Is it me or does this feel like the worst Oscar show ever?
Foreign language film. Hey, Denmark in the house!
Best supporting actor. Why Reese Witherspoon as presenter? Who won supporting actress last year? (Psst: Monique.) This category is stacked. First time I've applauded tonight: for John Hawkes. But I'm glad with Christian Bale winning—if only so the world can hear his British accent. "Bloody hell." "Mate." Overall, a weak acceptance speech for him. He blew it all at the Golden Globes.
Apologies. Ducked out. Had to get P advil and water and search for a thermometer. Has anyone seen it? She said she left it on the bedside table.
So I've come back to a tribute to... sound? Music? The sound of music? Yes. Best original score. I've heard Desplat will win for "TKS." But "TSN" was quite good, too. As was "I." And it goes to "TSN."
Now it's sound, mixing, for .. "Inception." Hey, nice looking sound engineer! Lora Hirschberg. Waving to the back row.
Now sound editing. Also "Inception." That happens often, doesn't it? The sound awards going hand in hand? How often? Anyone know?
7:30 PM: Best line of the night so far: Catie Blanchett's "Gross" for the "Wolfman" clip. And she didn't even have to watch the entire movie. As expected, it wins best makeup. Expertise in the service of mediocrity.
Costume design? I've heard "Alice." And it's ... "Alice."
I like Jake G's message about seeing short films throughout the year because it might help you with your Oscar ballot.
But it's the "best live-action short" guy with the Sideshow Bob haircut, Luke Matheny, who steals the show. He wins for "God of Love" and says the following with genuine enthusiasm and meaning:
I should've gotten a haircut. [crowd laughs] Hey, everybody. Thanks to the Academy for this amazing honor, I need to salute my fellow nominees ... I invite the world to check out these films, they can be found on iTunes, you're gonna love 'em ... Finally [I'd like to thank] my mother, who did craft services for the film [crowd laughs], my dad, the state of Delaware, and last but not least, my brilliant composer and love of my life: Sasha Gordon, you're my dream come true.
Now documentary feature. Will we get to see Banksy? Will we hear about the global financial meltdown? We'll hear about the global financial meltdown. "Inside Job" wins.
Now a standing ovation for Billy Crystal. Is that a sign of how badly things are going tonight? Come back, Billy! Come back!
Visual effects. "Inception"? "Inception."
Film editing. This is a big one. Could be a sign of best picture. And it's ... hey! "The Social Network"! Fingers crossed, babies.
Here's our tally thus far: "inception": 4; "The Social Network": 3; "The Fighter": 2; "The King's Speech": 1
7:50 PM: Original song. Who cares? I care! Randy Newman wins! Plus his speech is great. He and Luke Matheny in a competition for best accepatance speech thus far.
Final four. Could "The Social Network" pull it out? The tension is ... ehh. I guess it'd be nice but I'm not losing sleep.
But why bring out Hilary Swank simply to introduce Katherine Bigelow? Why waste the time? Hollywood, I dunna understand thee.
Best director: C'mon, Fincher! Fincher Fincher Fincher. And it's ... Tom Hooblah! As expected. So odd. BAFTA gave the award to the American, Fincher, for "The Social Network," and we give it to the Brit, Hooper, for "The King's Speech." Grass is greener, I guess. Except they're right this time. Our grass is greener.
Jeff Bridges suddenly seems so at home on the Oscar stage, doesn't he? He fills it.
My god, Natalie Portman looks loverly. And they chose a great clip for her. And they chose her.
Now Sandra Bullock with best actor. Do we like these personal intros? I guess we do. Sandra is particularly good with Jeff Bridges and Colin Firth. And it's Colin Firth. "I have a feelng my career has just peaked." Classic Brit line. And then the threat of the dance moves. Post-speech commentary. Me: "Very British." Patricia (back from the dead): "Sooooo cute.
So now it's all pretty much a foregone, in'it? The only hope was Fincher, with director, but Hooper got director, so "TKS" will get picture, too. As it does. Just after a great intro by Steven Spielberg, reminding everyone, particularly the "losers," of the good company they keep:
In a moment, one of the 10 movies will join a list that includes "On the Waterfront," "Midnight Cowboy," "The Godfather" and "The Deer Hunter." The other nine will join a list that includes "The Grapes of Wrath," "Citizen Kane," "The Graduate" and "Raging Bull." Either way, congratulations, you're in very good company.
So (with apologies to Alvy Singer) here's my awards for the awards show:
- Best dressed (female): Mila Kunis
- Best dressed (female again: because who cares about best-dressed males?): Natalie Portman
- Best woman who stunned me with her beauty all over again: Halle Berry
- Best acceptance speech: Firth, Sorkin, and Newman were all good, but I give it to the kid: Luke Matheny
- Best intro: Steven Spielberg
- Biggest surprise: Probably Melissa Leo's f-bomb. There weren't many surprises tonight. Or laughs.
The show was an odd mix of youthful hosts, giving it a go but not being particularly funny, and constant looks back to "Gone with the Wind" and "sound" and "Bob Hope" for no reason I could fathom. Rather than focusing on this year, it kept darting back 70, 80 years, to apparently remind everyone of the glorious history of the movies. Yet when it had a chance to honor that glorious history of movies now, with Coppola and Godard, it did so off-stage. Almost every move was wrong: from the Hugh Jackass song, to the "mashup" of faux musicals, to the iPhone app. What a waste. Bring back the comedians. Give us new producers. Something.
On the plus side, we found the thermometer.
Tags: Oscar, Mila Kunis, Luke Matheny, Anne Hathaway, Restrepo, James Franco
17 Comments | Permalink
Are Best Picture Nominees Making a Box-Office Comeback?
In June 2009, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences announced a break with more than 65 years of tradition by doubling the number of best picture nominees from five to 10. It's obvious why they did this. During the 2000s, the Academy was no longer nominating box office champs, and the ratings for the TV broadcasts were down, and there was fear that Oscar was on the verge of irrelevancy.
So what's happened since?
Last year, box office champs were indeed nominated, including "Avatar" (No. 1), "Up" (No. 5), and "The Blind Side" (No. 8), and the ratings for the TV broadcast did indeed go up: by 14 percent. Some may argue that's a lousy tradeoff: a 100 percent increase in best-picture nominees to get a 14 percent increase in TV ratings. But it's been done. Can't be undone.
But the move also seemed to allow the Academy to ignore box office altogether when it came time to actually giving out its awards. For more than 20 years, the best picture winner had the best or second-best box office among the nominees. ("American Beauty" was an exception: it had the third-best box office among 1999's nominees.) "The Hurt Locker" last year? Eighth among the 10 nominees. That's the same as fourth among five, and that hasn't happened since 1988, when "The Last Emperor" got the Oscar. More telling: "The Hurt Locker" ranked 116th for the year. The previous box-office low for a best-picture winner, as far as I can tell, was "Crash": 49th in 2005.)
Most important, and despite the above calculations (fourth of five = eighth of 10), the doubling-down of BP noms has made it difficult to compare current nominees with past nominees to see where we stand. The Academy has disconnected itself from its past.
This year's best-picture nominees, for example, the ones that feel like best picture nominees (as opposed to, say, "The Blind Side"), are doing shockingly well at the box office. To wit:
- "True Grit." Only two Coen brothers' movies have grossed over $50 million: "Burn After Reading" in 2008 ($60m) and "No Country for Old Men" in 2007 ($74m). Six of their 15 films didn't even gross $10 million. But "True Grit"? It's already shot past $150 million and could wind up the 11th or 12th highest-grossing film of the year.
- The Coens, though, are Steven Spielberg compared to Darren Aronofsky, whose films have grossed, chronologically, $5, $5, $12 and $29 million. But "Black Swan," about ballet of all things, starring a girl of all things, is about to pass $100 million in U.S. grosses. (It's currently at $96 million.)
- "Black Swan" has done better than even "The Fighter," which is about boys and boxing. But David O. Russell's film is still doing well: $82 million. As is "The King's Speech" ($84 million), which is coming on gangbusters. In fact, every movie by a best director nominee is in the top 50 in terms of annual box office.
Having every best picture nominee in the top 50 used to happen all the time, even as recently as the 1990s, when it happened four times (1990, 1991, 1992, 1997). But in the 2000s it happened only once, in 2000, and the trend was definitely in the opposite direction. In 2006, for example, every best picture nominee save one ("The Departed"), finished out of the top 50.
So it would be nice to compare this year with previous years to see where we stand. But we can't. We resort, as Nathaniel resorted here, to guessing games. We resort to sounding like lawyers drawing up a contract:
- IF the Academy were still nominating five best pictures nominees, and ...
- IF those five nominees were the five nominees in the best-director category ("The Social Network," "True Grit," "The Fighter," "Black Swan" and "The King's Speech") ...
- THEN the five best picture nominees would all be in the top 50 in terms of annual box office for the first time since 2000.
The irony. The Academy doubled its best-picture nominees to 10 for fear of box-office irrelevance. But the change has frustrated our abiity to gauge its current box-office relevance.
Oscar Talk: "Most Noms" = "Best Picture"?
Because "The King's Speech" received the most Oscar nominations yesterday, 12, there's a lot of talk that it's now the frontrunner to win best picture. Example of such talk here. Hair-pulling and general cursing from Jeff Wells here.
But nobody bothered to answer the question I want answered: How often does the film with the most nominations win best picture?
So here's the recent history:
- 2009: Tie between "Avatar" and "The Hurt Locker" with nine nominations each. "The Hurt Locker" wins best picture.
- 2008: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" garners 13 noms. "Slumdog Millionaire" wins best picture.
- 2007: Tie between "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood," with eight each. "No Country" wins.
- 2006: "Dreamgirls": eight noms. But not one for best picture, which "The Departed" wins.
- 2005: "Brokeback Mountain" has the most noms: eight. We all remember how that turned out.
- 2004: 11 nominations for "The Aviator"; "Million Dollar Baby," with seven noms, wins.
- 2003: All "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King": 11 noms, 11 wins, includiing BP.
- 2002: "Chicago": 13 noms. "Chicago," surprise best picture winner.
- 2001: "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring": 11 noms. "A Beautiful Mind": BP.
- 2000: "Gladiator," 12 noms and the victory.
Result: Five times in the last 10 years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2007 and 2009), the movie with the most noms won best picture.
Meaning 50-50. Meaning less.
Oscar Snubs Everyone!
So the smoke has cleared from the Oscar nominations ... and everyone keeps blowing more smoke.
Google "Oscars" and "snubbed" and you get 259,000 results, including 708 under Google News. People love this shit. They're not just writing their outrage, they're tweeting their outrage, fans and stars, while pubs like Hollywood Reporter fan the flames. No. 2 on HR's list was Danny Boyle. "Though 127 Hours was nominated for best picture," it wrote, "the director was not." Yes. Same for five other directors. The categories are lopsided. So is singling out Boyle considered a snub of Lisa Cholodenko ("The Kids are Alright"), Debra Granik ("Winter's Bone") and Lee Unkrich ("Toy Story 3"), whose pictures were all nominated? Should I fan those flames? HOLLYWOOD REPORTER SNUBS FEMALE, ANIMATED DIRECTORS ON "SNUBBED" LIST!
Worse, almost no one does the hard work of pointing out who's just taking up space on the Academy's list. If you're saying somebody should be snubbed in, you have to tell us who should be snubbed out.
This was actually the subject of my first blog post, ever, way back on February 14, 2008:
if you're going to say Joe Wright and Sean Penn both deserve director nods, tell us who didn't deserve them. Julian Schnabel? Jason Reitman? Tony Gilroy? Yes, Angelina Jolie was great. So choose her over whom? Ellen Page? Cate Blanchett? And really? Christian Bale and/or Ryan Gosling over Tommy Lee Jones or Viggo Mortensen or Johnny Depp or George Clooney or Daniel Day-Lewis? If you're adding, you gotta subtract. If you're going to bitch about the Academy, you've gotta play within their parameters.
Things have only gotten worse. Everyone's got an opinion now, and the technology to broadcast it, but they think their opinion doesn't cost. It always costs. As a better writer once said: There's nothing free in this world but the grace of God.
The Oscar Noms! With a Surprise Ending!
I didn't get up early to watch the Oscar nominations read live at 5:30 PST as I've done in the past. Instead I got up at six, as usual, showered, grabbed coffee, and read them online via IMDb.com. Much more civilized.
My first thought? No surprises. I thought: Nathaniel over at Film Experience had all of these 10 best picture nominees yesterday. Maybe we should just go through Nathaniel instead of AMPAS.
- 127 Hours
- Black Swan
- The Fighter
- Inception
- The Kids Are All Right
- The King's Speech
- The Social Network
- Toy Story 3
- True Grit
- Winter's Bone
Actor? Great group. No weak spots:
- Javier Bardem for Biutiful
- Jeff Bridges for True Grit
- Jesse Eisenberg for The Social Network
- Colin Firth for The King's Speech
- James Franco for 127 Hours
Actress? Another strong group, but ...
- Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right
- Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole
- Jennifer Lawrence for Winter's Bone
- Natalie Portman for Black Swan
- Michelle Williams for Blue Valentine
... no Hailee? She must be in supporting.
- Amy Adams for The Fighter
- Helena Bonham Carter for The King's Speech
- Melissa Leo for The Fighter
- Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit
- Jacki Weaver for Animal Kingdom
Yep. Too bad. She deserved to be in the lead category. But hardly a surprise. Business as usual, in fact.
Supporting actors? Did they ...
- Christian Bale for The Fighter
- John Hawkes for Winter's Bone
- Jeremy Renner for The Town
- Mark Ruffalo for The Kids Are All Right
- Geoffrey Rush for The King's Speech
Yes, they did! They included John Hawkes! Alright! No Pierce Brosnan but that would've been a stretch. In fact, is the "Ghost Writer" anywhere? Nope. Not in one category. More proof, as if we need it, that America is not Europe. America is more puritanical. Even Hollywood is puritanical.
Director? Consider it the Class of 1999/2000. The Coens are old hands here.
- Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan
- Ethan Coen, Joel Coen for True Grit
- David Fincher for The Social Network
- Tom Hooper for The King's Speech
- David O. Russell for The Fighter
I'd replace Hooper or Russell with Nolan, but, again, this is hardly a surprise. (Read Nathaniel on the third-time snub of Nolan.)
In fact, where are the surprises?
Fourth from the end, in the "Best Documentary, Features" category.
Not only was "Waiting for Superman," which won the PGA last week, not nominated, but neither was "The Tillman Story." Both, I thought, would elbow out my favorite, "Restrepo," which I think is one of the best movies of the year, documentary or feature, but "Restrepo" made the list.
- Exit Through the Gift Shop: Banksy
- GasLand: Josh Fox
- Inside Job: Charles Ferguson
- Restrepo: Tim Hetherington, Sebastian Junger
- Waste Land: Lucy Walker
I would've put "A Film Unfinished" on that list as well, if it were eligible (not sure if it is), but it's still a strong list. I haven't seen the two "Lands," "Gas" or "Waste" (isn't that the same?), but the others are all worthy. "Exit" is unique, but parts of it are a bit of a larf, maybe the whole thing, so I wouldn't vote for it. "Inside Job" is a traditional, talking-head doc, and important, but, as I've written, hardly told me anything I didn't know.
But "Restrepo"? With apologies to Banksy: That's art.
See you February 27th. Maybe we'll even be pleasantly surprised that evening.
ADDENDA: A good post on Oscar snubs from The Film Experience.
Meanwhile, the smartest comment about "Waiting for Superman" being snubbed is in the comments field at Hollywood Elsewhere from a reader named Martin Blank. He writes: "Waiting for Superman got snubbed because it's anti-union. And Hollywood is a union town." As soon as you read that, you go "Of course."
No Comments yet | Permalink
Me and Manohla Sittin' In a Tree...
I'm beginning to enjoy the annual feature, "And the Nominees Should Be," from the three movie critics at The New York Times, almost as much as all of the inevitable nitpicking and second-guessing when the nominees themselves are announced, this year, on Jan 25. It's fascinating to see where the three critics agree (if they do), and with whom I agree (if I do).
One thing for sure: they agree more this year than last. Last year, for the 45 slots in the eight categories (best pic, director, the four actings and the two writings), they agreed on only four: "The Hurt Locker" for best picture, Katherine Bigelow for best director, Mark Boal for best screenplay, and Colin Firth for best actor.
(Aside: Three of those four wound up winning Oscars. Maybe if you can get the three Times critics to agree, you can get the industry to agree.)
So who do they agree on this year?
For Best Picture, with 10 nominees each, just "Carlos," a five-hour-long French film, which came to Seattle for one show for one weekend, and which I'm still smarting about not seeing. Bring it back!
Director? Nada. A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis both went Aronosky for "Black Swan," and Dargis and Stephen Holden both went Olivier Assayas for "Carlos" and Fincher for "The Social Network," but no threesies. Interestingly, Scott chose three female directors: Lisa Cholodenko for "The Kids Are Alight," Sofia Coppola for "Somewhere," and Debra Granlik for "Winter's Bone." Dargis chose none.
Our threeway have their greatest agreement on Actor: They all went with Jesse Eisenberg for "The Social Network," James Franco for "127 Hours," and Edgar Ramirez for "Carlos." Dargis, interestingly, went with three actors in French productions: Ramirez, Vincent Cassel in "Mesrine" (for which he won the Cesar two years ago) and Tahar Rahim in "Un Prophete" (for which he won the Cesar last year.) Don't know if I can fault her. Though I probably won't leave out Firth.
Actress? Just one agreement: Natalie Portman in "Black Swan."
Supporting actor? Christian Bale in "The Fighter." But two favorites whom I thought out of the running, Pierce Brosnan in "The Ghost Writer" and John Hawkes in "Winter's Bone," wound up on both Scott's and Dargis's lists. Fingers crossed.
Nothing close to agreement on supporting actress. In fact, only two names wound up on more than one ballot: Greta Gerwig for "Greenberg" (Scott and Dargis) and Barbara Hershey for "Black Swan" (Dargis and Holden).
Screenplay? Only adapted had a threepeat: the Coens for "True Grit."
As for which critic I most agreed with? Last year it was Dargis. This year it's ... Dargis. (You and me, Manohla!) I particularly like the sensibility behind her 10 films—four of which I haven't seen:
- Black Swan
- Boxing Gym
- Carlos
- The Ghost Writer
- Inception
- A Prophet
- The Social Network
- Sweetgrass
- True Grit
- Wild Grass
I hope to do my own "And The Nominees Should Be..." before Jan. 25.
Tags: Manohla Dargis, AO Scott, Stephen Holden, Oscars, The New York Times, The Disagreeables
No Comments yet | Permalink
Ten Top 10 Movies of 2010
It's mid-December and the top 10 lists are coming fast and furious ... and annoying. Critics struggle to post their annual top 10 lists earlier and earlier (to be first) even as studios release their most critically acclaimed movies later and later (to stay in the minds of Academy members as balloting progresses). Thus top 10s are full of movies that haven't been released in a theater near me ("The King's Speech"), have just been released ("The Fighter," today), or which showed up for one showing in one weekend in October and are otherwise available, thus far, only in truncated versions (Olivier Assayas' "Carlos"). No wonder people pay less and less attention to these lists. The now is future.
That said, here are ten Top 10s. Extra points, kids, for including "Un Prophete" or "Restrepo."
- Anthony Lane at the New Yorker leaves off "top" for "10 Movies I Liked." Including: "Un Prophete" (no. 1), "The Father of My Children," "Life During Wartime," "Dogtooth," "Toy Story 3," "I Am Love," "The Social Network," "Mother," "Winter's Bone" and "Sweetgrass." (Not "Wild Grass"; "Sweetgrass.")
- His colleague David Denby (do they talk? Pal around? Drink beers? Fake punch each other in the shoulder?) went with a "Best and Worst List." He says the best movie of the year is "The Social Network," then adds, "The Fighter," "Company Men," "The Ghost Writer," "Toy Story 3," "Winter's Bone" and "Please Give." For docs he chooses three of my five: "Restrepo," "Inside Job" and "Exit Through the Gift Shop." For "big deal aesthetic disasters" he points to "Alice in Wonderland" (flat, repetitive), "Inception" (absurdly overelaborate and empty), and "Black Swan."
- In another, bloodier vein there's Stephen King over at EW. His goes: 10) "Green Zone" 9) "Jackass 3D" 8) "Monsters" 7) "Splice" 6) "Kick-Ass" 5) "Takers" 4) "The Social Network" 3) "Inception" 2) "The Town" and 1) "Let Me In." Cute.
- Jeff Wells over at Hollywood Elsewhere? 10) "The King's Speech" 9) "Toy Story 3" 8) "Inception" 7) "Rabbit Hole" 6) "Let Me In" 5) "The Ghost Writer" 4) "Greenberg" 3) "The Fighter" 2) "Black Swan" and 1) "The Social Network." (Wells gets extra points taken away for flailing against the L.A. Critics' decision to award Niel Arestrup's mob boss in "Un Prophete" their best supoorting actor award. Sure, the critics went for outside the box, but Wells, in his slam, comes across as decidedly provincial.)
- Richard Corliss at Time magazine gets a little mainstream: 10) "Four Lions" 9) "Waiting for 'Superman'" 8) "Green Zone" 7) "Wild Grass" (not "Sweet Grass") 6) "Rabbit Hole" 5) "The Social Network" 4) "Life During Wartime" 3) "Never Let Me Go" 2) "Inside Job" and 1) "Toy Story 3."
- AFI gets into the act and goes alphabetical with: "127 Hours," "Black Swan," "Inception," "The Fighter," "The Kids Are All Right," "The Social Network," "The Town," "Toy Story 3," "True Grit" and "Winter's Bone."
- For the grand man, Roger Ebert, it goes: 10) "The Ghost Writer" 9) "The Kids Are All Right" 8) "The American" 7) "The Secret in their Eyes" 6) "Inception" 5) "Winter's Bone" 4) "I Am Love" 3) "Black Swan" 2) "The King's Speech" and 1) "The Social Network."
- For the trend searcher, A.O. Scott: 10) "Exit Through the Gift Shop" 9) "Secret Sunshine" 8) "Last Train Home" 7) "127 Hours" 6) "Greenberg" 5) "The Kids Are All Right" 4) "Somewhere" 3) "Carlos" 2) "Toy Story 3" and 1) "Inside Job."
- Tim Robey over at The Telegraph gives us: 10) "Inception" 9) "The Ghost Writer" 8) "How to Train Your Dragon" 7) "Dogtooth" 6) "The Kids Are All Right" 5) "I Am Love" 4) "I Am Love" 3) "Toy Story 3" 2) "Un Prophete" and 1) "The Social Network."
- Finally, there's David Edelstein: 10) "Despicable Me" 9) "Marwencol" 8) "Exit Through the Gift Shop" 7) "Vincere" 6) "Mother and Child" 5) "Another Year" 4) "Toy Story 3" 3) "Please Give" 2) "Client 9" and 1) "Winter's Bone."
So that's two "Un Prophete"s (Lane and Robey) and only one "Restrepo" (Denby). But four "The Kids Are All Right"s (AFI, Ebert, Scott and Robey) and two "Please Give"s (Denby and Edelstein)? The world is mad.
"The Social Network," no surprise, wound up on eight of the 10, with only Scott and Edelstein abstaining. You don't get to Oscar without making a few top 10 lists.
"Toy Story 3"? Also eight of 10, with only King and Ebert kicking it to the curb.
"Winter's Bone" on five lists? Yep. Including Lane, Denby, AFI, and Ebert. Edelstein thought it the best movie of the year.
"Inception" also wound up on five lists (King, Wells, AFI, Ebert and Robey).
"The Ghost Writer," being resurrected by European breezes, wound up on four lists (Denby, Wells, Ebert, Robey).
"Inside Job"? Three lists (Denby, Corliss, Scott).
Of the three late-season, buzz films, "King's Speech" made just two lists (Wells and Ebert), while both "Black Swan" (Wells, Ebert and AFI) and "The Fighter" wound up on three (Denby, Wells, AFI).
And no "A Film Unfinished" at all? Guess the Holocaust is so over.
My top 10 will come later. When I get a chance to see, you know, "The Fighter" and "The King's Speech" and "Black Swan." For the five-hour "Carlos," at this moment I can only dream.
Qui est Jeff Wells? Il est mort. MORT!
Tags: Roger Ebert, Un Prophete, Jeffrey Wells
3 Comments | Permalink
You Don't Get to Best Film Without Making a Few Enemies
The Washington, D.C. Area Film Critics Association just announced its awards:
Best Film:
The Social Network
Best Director:
David Fincher (The Social Network)
Best Actor:
Colin Firth (The King's Speech)
Best Actress:
Jennifer Lawrence (Winter's Bone)
Best Supporting Actor:
Christian Bale (The Fighter)
Best Supporting Actress:
Melissa Leo (The Fighter)
Best Acting Ensemble:
The Town
Best Adapted Screenplay:
Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network)
Best Original Screenplay:
Christopher Nolan (Inception)
Best Animated Feature:
Toy Story 3
Best Documentary:
Exit Through the Gift Shop
Best Foreign Language Film:
Best Art Direction:
Luke Freeborn, Brad Ricker and Dean Wolcott (Inception)
Best Cinematography:
Wally Pfister (Inception)
Best Score:
Hans Zimmer (Inception)
In the comments field to his post about the awards, Jeff Wells says the D.C. association is more of a bellwether to Academy tastes than similar associations in L.A. and N.Y. Maybe, but it's still not much of a bellwether. Here are D.C.'s best picture winners over the last nine years:
- "Up in the Air"
- "Slumdog Millionaire" *
- "No Country for Old Men" *
- "United 93"
- "Munich"
- "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
- "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" *
- "Road to Perdition"
In terms of best picture, only three matches (*). It's still a wide-open field, kids.
Three things about The New York Times post-Oscars article
Three things about The New York Times post-Oscars article: "Academy Smiles with Both Faces."
Missing for many industry insiders was the organic sense of drama that came with past shows in which a popular film like "Titanic" or "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" built to a climax by picking up prize after prize — or when "The Aviator" built momentum through the minor awards in 2005, only to see the major Oscars slip away as "Crash" claimed the top prize. In those shows the awards actually were the entertainment.
This obviously confuses 2004 ("Aviator") with 2005 ("Crash"), or 2005 with 2006, depending on how you're scoring. It's since been corrected online but it went out in the print edition and it highlights what's wrong with the sentiment. There's rarely any kind of entertainment in the awards themselves. There may be surprises and shocks and disgust but not entertainment. What is this asking anyway? That the giving of awards be constructed as well as a play or movie? That's absurd.
By contrast, Sunday's entertainment value was in many ways grafted on in a process that could seem vaguely dishonest at times. If "Up in the Air" was so worthy of monologue attention, why was it snubbed in all six categories in which it was nominated?
This is similarly absurd. First, I don't remember too much attention being paid to "Up in the Air." And even if, so what? The show is the show and the awards are the awards. It would be nice if the twain met, but, ahem, that twain left the station a long time ago. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Spotlighting the incongruence, "The Hurt Locker," the big winner with six trophies including best picture, was also one of the least-watched films in its theatrical run to ever win the top prize. It sold about $14.7 million in tickets in North America and about $6.7 million overseas. On its opening weekend in two theaters in New York, its screenwriter, Mark Boal — now an Oscar winner — stood on street corners with his teenage nephew handing out free tickets to passersby with the idea that if they could stack the house, perhaps the theater owners would book it for another week.
The bigger story is less "The Hurt Locker"'s box office than the role Summit Entertainment played in not getting it out there. The evidence is right there in the above graf: They did such a poor job that the screenwriter and his nephew were forced to market for them! What was the Summit marketing team doing at the time—gearing up for the Sept. release of "Sorority Row"? "The Hurt Locker" is a movie that basically played in select cities. Its widest release was 535 theaters. Half of the best picture nominees were released into more than 3,000 theaters. "Up in the Air" got more than 2,000 theaters, "Precious" more than 1,000. Even "An Education" managed 700+. Only "A Serious Man," among the nominees, had a more limited release than the eventual best picture of the year. Someone besides me needs to start trashing Summit for this.
1 Comment | Permalink
Dead-blogging the Oscars
So what's it all mean?
For the first time since 1997 three films in the top 10 annual box office were nominated best picture, including the no. 1 movie of the year, and for the first time a movie that didn't even place in the top 100 annual box office won best picture. Don't know if the former explains the latter. I.e., we'll give you your blockbusters among the nominees, which allows us to choose small within the nominees. It'll be interesting to see if this becomes the new norm.
More likely it's indicative of what the studios think of quality movies these days. The heads-of-state at Summit Ent., I'm sure, are happy this morning, since their studio won twice as many Oscars as any other, but they should be shamefaced. They released nine pictures in 2009 and only one of them, "The Brothers Bloom," was released smaller, and more quietly, than the best picture of the year, "The Hurt Locker":
Row | Movie Title (click to view) | Total Gross / Theaters | Opening / Theaters | Open | ||
1 | The Twilight Saga: New Moon | $296,307,000 | 4,124 | $142,839,137 | 4,024 | 11/20/09 |
2 | Knowing | $79,957,634 | 3,337 | $24,604,751 | 3,332 | 3/20/09 |
3 | Astro Boy | $19,551,067 | 3,020 | $6,702,923 | 3,014 | 10/23/09 |
4 | Sorority Row | $11,965,282 | 2,665 | $5,059,802 | 2,665 | 9/11/09 |
5 | Push | $31,811,527 | 2,313 | $10,079,109 | 2,313 | 2/6/09 |
6 | Bandslam | $5,210,988 | 2,121 | $2,231,273 | 2,121 | 8/14/09 |
7 | Next Day Air | $10,027,047 | 1,139 | $4,111,043 | 1,138 | 5/8/09 |
8 | The Hurt Locker | $14,700,000 | 535 | $145,352 | 4 | 6/26/09 |
9 | The Brothers Bloom | $3,531,756 | 209 | $90,400 | 4 | 5/15/09 |
Apparently they thought twice as much as "Next Day Air," which was released into twice as many theaters as "The Hurt Locker." They thought four times as much as "Bandslam," and five times as much as "Sorority Row," even though none of these films wound up making as much as "The Hurt Locker." They thought that quality didn't matter and suffered financially as a result. Now, for the moment, quality matters. They have a feather in their cap but their cap is ridiculous.
How much did Summit blow it with "Hurt Locker"? Jeff Wells had a good post last November indicating how clueless most people, most New Yorkers even, were about the movie. He writes:
It's one thing for these women not to have seen an Iraq War film, but to draw a total blank at a mention of the title? This obviously says nothing about the quality of the film, and almost everything about the lackluster marketing effort by Summit.
But in the end they got away with it. They let the Academy do their marketing for them and will now do well in the DVD rental market. If that's a market one wants to rule.
As for the show? Scattered thoughts from our crazy party.
- Guests started showing at 3 pm for the red carpet. We were watching E!, with Ryan Seacrest, whom I can barely stand to look at let alone listen to. I don't know how he doesn't die of embarassment from being Ryan Seacrest. The feelers he has out are so attuned to the slightest rise or fall of anyone within the show-business community and he responds accordingly: sucking up to the big boys, such as James Cameron, dismissing the lesser mortals, the mere artists. He almost condescends to them. I'll say this, though. I liked him when he was with Sandra Bullock. That's how good Sandra Bullock is. He should interview no one but Sandra Bullock:
Ryan: I don't where to start.
Sandra: Just stop.
- Everyone agreed Sandra looked beautiful. Everyone was aghast at Charlize Theron's dress—the roses over the boobs. Patricia: "That's not even a good color on her." I commented that J. Lo looked great. Jolie: "When doesn't she?"
- George Clooney is growing his hair out. Like me. Copycat.
- Vince on Miley Cyrus' posture: "Stand up, my dear. Stand up! My goodness." Jolie commented that Miley displays a lot of charisma on her show but having seen her on nothing but red carpets she feels like a Celebrity Apprentice waiting to happen.
- Innovation #1: The top 10 acting nominees introduced at the top of the show. Agin it.
- Innovation #2: A musical number by someone other than the host, or hosts, in this case by Neil Patrick Harris. It was a good-enough number whose theme fit the co-host format ("You can't do it alone"), and some of the lines were laugh-out loud ("I can't think of botox without you all..."), and the showgirls were, as Patricia said, showgirls, but it still felt light. Maybe it didn't celebrate THE MOVIES enough. The Academy is still looking for another Billy Crystal: someone who can be off-the-cuff funny, do musical numbers, and prick the sensibilities of Hollywood just so while celebrating what they do. No one's had that touch, or charm, since.
- Innovation #3: The co-hosts. Jeff: "I'm predicting this is not going to work." But it worked not badly. To Zac and Taylor: "This is you in five years." Loved the intro of Agnes Mishkin (i.e., Penelope Cruz) as much as I love Penelope Cruz. The most bizarre interlude was the funniest: the clip of Alec and Steve sleeping together. I roared because it was such a great parody of the way we sleep. Or maybe because it points out how unknowable we all are.
- Ryan Bingham looked good accepting his Oscar. T-Bone Burnett looked tall. He's the new Michael Jackson with his perpetual sunglasses.
- Line of the night? Robert Downey, Jr.: "...a collaboration of handsome gifted people and sickly little mole people."
- Interesting, unexpected tribute to John Hughes. Die young, get tribute.
- Line of the night? Ben Stiller: "It's amazing how far technology has come."
- Speech of the night? Geoffrey Fletcher, in a fairly big upset, winning best adapated screenplay for "Precious," and he feels the weight of the moment. "This is for everyone who works on a dream every day."
- Line of the night? Steve Martin a second later: "I wrote that speech for him."
- P.S. But what's up with showing every black person in the crowd for Fletcher's win? Morgan Freeman? He wasn't involved in "Precious." I know it was unprecedented, but still.
- OK, so what asshole, who won best supporting actor last year, is so self-involved he couldn't come back this year to present the award for best supporting actress? So they had to get Robin Williams to do it? Tim: "Wasn't it Heath Ledger?" Oops.
- We boo the lack of clips for cinematography. If there should be clips for any category, it's cinematography.
- Line of the night? From "Up"'s Michael Giacchino: "If you want to be creative, go out there and do it. It's not a waste of time." Nice.
- A shot of George Clooney, bobbing his head goofily to the soundtrack for "Up in the Air." Rico: "You know, I love that guy."
- Worst cutaway of the night: from Ric O'Barry and his mild proselytizing. C'mon, kids, it's for dolphins! And this is the guy who trained Flipper! By the way, Fisher Stevens may have produced "The Cove" but you get the feeling he didn't do a thousandth of the work as Louie Psihoyos. Yet he took all the credit. I agree with Jeff Wells here. Effin' actors.
- Innovation #4: Getting people who know the best actor/actress nominee to talk about their career, to talk about working with them, etc. An improvement over last year's innovation, in which it was former winners talking to current nominees. Makes it more personal. It worked as soon as Michelle Pfeiffer started talking about Jeff Bridges, how he was husband, father and actor on the set of "The Fabulous Baker Boys," and got him to tear up. BTW: When I die, I want Oprah to deliver the eulogy.
- Line of the night? Tim Robbins quoting Morgan Freeman on the set of "Shawshank": "You know what friendship is? Friendship is getting the other person a cup of coffee. Can you do that for me... Ted?"
- In the middle of Jeff Bridges' speech, Mr. B: "He's so high."
- At the end of Jeff Bridges' speech: Tim: "The Dude abides." Vinnie: "I don't know about you but I take comfort in that."
- "Meryl. What can I say?" Stanley Tucci gives Meryl great intro.
- Speech of the night? Sandra Bullock. Here. "We are all deserving of love." Very, very nice.
- How much is the Academy giving away these days? Coppola and Spielberg awarding best director to Scorsese? Barbra awarding best director to K. Bigelow? But Barbra couldn't fade into the background, could she? She held the answer, made us wait, said "The time has come." Could've done without that.
- Worst music of the evening: Kathyrn Bigelow becomes the first woman to win Best Director and the orchestra serenades her offstage with "I am Woman." Tacky.
- Best pic. "The Hurt Locker." So even with the innovation of 10 nominees and a new way of scoring, the insiders still knew. There are no surprises.
Me, I won our Oscar pool with 16 of 21 correct. (We don't do short subjects.) Then clean-up, sobering up, the icky feeling of the Barbara Walters special. Bed, bed, bed.
New day! New year! Pierce Brosnan for best supporting actor!
The Dude, more than abiding.
Oscars: Which are the Real Best Picture Nominees?
It's a shame A.O. Scott can't remember back to December. In his day-of-the-Oscars piece he writes:
By the time it opened in December, "Avatar" was the movie that everyone in the world had to see, as soon as possible, and it held on to that status week after week.
The second part is truer than any movie since "Titanic." The first part? I remember otherwise. It opened at no. 1, certainly, with $77 million for the weekend, which ain't bad, but it's hardly the movie that everyone in the world had to see as soon as possible. Here are "Avatar"'s various rankings. All Time Domestic: #1. All Time Worldwide: #1. Yearly 2009: #1. Yearly Opening Weekends 2009: #5. Five? Yep. The movie that has now grossed more than twice as much worldwide than any movie besides "Titanic" opened poorer than the following 2009 films: "New Moon," "Transformers 2," "Wolverine" and "Harry Potter." I know everyone didn't need to see it opening weekend because I was there and it was pretty easy to get a seat. What distinguished "Avatar" is what distinguished ol' man river: it just kept rolling along.
Then there's this:
The 10-film best picture list, while it was created in part to ensure the presence of hits, also makes room for more smaller-scale, artistically ambitious movies than before. And one of these, "The Hurt Locker," has emerged as the main rival to "Avatar" — and even, in the view of some handicappers, the favorite.
I know Scott isn't implying this but it sounds like he's implying that "The Hurt Locker" wouldn't have been nominated if the best picture list hadn't been expanded (idiotically) to 10 pictures, but that's nonsense. In fact I'm not sure what the point of Scott's Oscar piece is. He talks up the big and small, the blockbuster and the long tail, and adds, "The money to produce and publicize the kind of middle-size movie that has dominated the Oscar slates in recent years is drying up." Which middle-size movie in what recent years? "The Departed"? "Million Dollar Baby"? "Juno"? Are these middle-sized movies? If anything, recent years have been dominated by the small and indie, haven't they? I guess I wouldn't appreciated greater clarification. If I were Scott's editor, I would've asked for it.
But the article does bring up an interesting point: Which five nominated movies wouldn't have been nominated if the best picture list hadn't been expanded (idiotically) to 10 pictures? This is what we've got (ranked by U.S. box office):
- "Avatar"
- "Up"
- "The Blind Side"
- "Inglourious Bastards"
- "District 9"
- "Up in the Air"
- "Precious"
- "The Hurt Locker"
- "An Education"
- "A Serious Man"
So which wouldn't the Academy have chosen? Starting up from 10, let's eliminate "A Serious Man," which not enough people took seriously (or saw), as well as "An Education," which is an impeccably done coming-of-age story but didn't make the impact, either critically or commercially, it needed to get Academy notice. "District 9"? The only sci-fi movies that get nom'ed are no. 1 at the box office for the year; this thing was no. 27. Pass. "Up," too. It's my favorite of 2009 but it's an animated feature, animated features rarely get nom'ed, and it has its own category now anyway. And if there's a God in heaven and sense in the Academy (not sure which is the greater likelihood), "Blind Side," an awfully mediocre movie, wouldn't have been part of the discussion.
Hey, that's five. Easier than I thought. So the nominees would've been:
- "Avatar"
- "Inglourious Bastards"
- "Up in the Air"
- "Precious"
- "The Hurt Locker"
That wouldn't have been so bad, would it?
No live-blogging this evening. Hosting. Talking. Drinking. Groping. (That means you, Tommy.) For live-blogging go to Brother Nathaniel.
Dead-blogging tomorrow. Enjoy the show, everyone.
"The Hurt Locker" has the long tail? Has A.O. Scott even seen us?
The Most Crucial Difference Between "Avatar" and "Hurt Locker"
Despite this year's best picture race being unprecedented—10 nominees, etc.—all of the prognosticators think we're down to a two-horse race, "The Hurt Locker" and "Avatar," and they all point out the obvious differences between the two: $2.5 billion worldwide (and counting) vs. $18 million worldwide (and not); sci-fi fantasy vs. gritty reality; Cameron vs. Bigelow. But everyone's ignoring the most crucial difference:
The sci-fi fantasy set on a moon in a far-off galaxy is a greater critique of the Bush administration than the gritty war film set in Baghdad in 2004.
Make of that what you will.
As for which will win? As I said, we're in unprecedented territory. But let me resurrect a chart from last June showing the annual box office rankings of the various best picture nominees for the last 18 years, with the eventual winner in red:
The Annual Box Office Rankings for Best Picture Nominees, 1991-2008*
Year |
BO rank |
BO rank |
BO rank |
BO rank |
BO rank |
2008 |
16 | 20 |
82 | 89 |
120 |
2007 | 15 | 36 | 50 |
55 |
66 |
2006 | 15 | 51 | 57 |
92 |
138 |
2005 | 22 | 49 |
62 |
88 |
95 |
2004 | 22 | 24 | 37 |
40 |
61 |
2003 | 1 | 17 | 31 |
33 |
67 |
2002 | 2 | 10 | 35 | 56 |
80 |
2001 | 2 | 11 | 43 |
59 |
68 |
2000 | 4 | 12 |
13 |
15 |
32 |
1999 | 2 | 12 | 13 |
41 |
69 |
1998 | 1 | 18 | 35 | 59 |
65 |
1997 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
24 |
44 |
1996 | 4 | 19 | 41 |
67 |
108 |
1995 | 3 | 18 | 28 | 39 |
77 |
1994 | 1 | 10 | 21 |
51 |
56 |
1993 | 3 | 9 |
38 |
61 | 66 |
1992 | 5 | 11 |
19 |
20 |
48 |
1991 | 3 | 4 |
16 |
17 |
25 |
* Best picture winner in red.
Even when the Academy went rogue in 2004 and stopped nominating any picture that was popular, they still went for the first- or second-highest-grossing film among the nominees. Only once in the last 18 years, in 1999, did they pick outside the top two: "American Beauty," which was still third.
As for how the box-office rankings look this year?
BO Rank |
Film |
Bonafides |
1 | Avatar | 9 noms; Golden Globe |
5 | Up | 5 noms; most Best Animated Film awards |
6 | The Blind Side | 2 noms |
25 | Inglourious Bastards | 8 noms; SAG ensemble |
27 | District 9 | 4 noms |
38 | Up in the Air | 6 noms; National Board of Review |
65 | Precious | 6 noms; Indy Spirit |
131 | The Hurt Locker | 9 noms; DGA; PGA; WGA; BAFTA; NY Film Critics; LA Film Critics; National Society of Film Critics; Most Film Critics |
135 | An Education | 3 noms |
145 | A Serious Man | 2 noms |
So "Hurt Locker" has all of those bonafides but...131st? That would be unprecedented. As would a sci-fi pic winning best pic. So pick your unprecedenteds.
The only other movie that seems to have a chance is "Inglourious Bastards." Lotsa noms, did OK at the box office, beloved by critics, it's Holocausty-y, and, one imagines, it's getting the Harvey Weinstein push. Plus it won the SAG ensemble award, and there are more actors in the Academy than any other profession. It would be a good split-the-difference vote anyway.
My guess is "Avatar" but don't bet the house on it.
My choice is "Up."
Their Oscar Noms
The assumption has always been, my assumption has always been, that the increase from 5 to 10 best picture candidates is the direct result of low ratings, which is the direct result of the increasing divide between box office and the Academy, but an argument could be made that the problem is less the Academy's unpopularity (as measured by box office) than its predictability (as measured by Hollywood insiders).
I thought of this as Tom Sherak, president of the Academy, and Anne Hathaway, Julie Andrews impersonator extraordinaire, announced the nominees this morning at 5:40-ish a.m., Pacific coast (my coast) time. Actor: Bridges, Clooney, Firth, Freeman, Renner. Actress: Bullock, Mirren, Mulligan, Sidibe, Streep. Director: Bigelow, Cameron, Daniels, Tarantino, Reitman. It's everyone that everyone has been predicting. So how nice to hear, you know, "A Serious Man" and "Up" nominated for best picture. On the other hand, how awful to hear "The Blind Side" and "District 9" nominated for best picture.
There were some surprises in the other categories. Maggie G. taking away Julianne Moore's spot in the best supporting actress category. Matt Damon actually getting nom'ed for "Invictus," and Tucci actually getting nom'ed for "Lovely Bones." Damon's nom, for his duller performance in "Invictus" rather than his much more fun performance in "The Informant!," is reminiscent of last year, when Brad Pitt got nom'ed for his duller performance in that Netflix favorite, "Benjamin Button," while being ignored for his standout comic turn in "Burn After Reading." Plus ca change.
The big question about the 10 nominees (which, again, I'm agin), will be whether the sheer number of nominees will make the final winner harder to predict. Somehow I doubt it. My early picks for March 7:
- Picture: "Avatar"
- Director: Katherine Bigelow
- Actor: Bridges
- Actress: Bullock
- Supporting Actor: Waltz
- Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique
- Original Screenplay: "Inglourious Basterds"
- Adapted Screenplay: "Up in the Air"
- Foreign Language: "The White Ribbon"
- Animated: "Up"
Surprises shouldn't matter, of course. Quality should matter. At the same time, Hollywood, if anyone, knows that once you stop surprising, people stop showing up.
Full list of nominees here.
ADDENDUM: After looking over my own choices from yesterday, the big dark-horse disappontments, those actors that actually had a chance in hell of getting nom'ed, include supporting actors Alfred Molina in "An Education" and Christian McKay in "Orson Welles and Me" (once again, the Academy gives Orson Welles the shaft), and Cotillard getting no love for "Public Enemies." (But if Ms. Cotillard needs love, or just wants to help me with my French, I'm easy to find.)
Screenplays were interesting. I agreed with the Academy on four of the five for Original (I chose no-chance-in-hell "Funny People" over haven't-seen-yet "The Messenger"), while we agreed on only one of the five in Adapated ("Up in the Air"). I was on the fence for "An Education" anyway, and "In the Loop" is inspired for a change. But I'm not a big "Precious" fan; and "District 9" is way, way overrated, for all of the reasons I stated back in August. How much harder to adapt "Where the Wild Things Are," which is, in book form...15 pages? Twenty? And kids' pages? And where was "Wild Things"? I picked it in six of my nine categories. The Academy picked it in zero of theirs. I guess, in the end, that's not much of a surprise, either.
Zero noms? Time to roar our terrible roars and gnash our terrible teeth.
My Oscar Noms
The Academy Award nominations will be announced tomorrow morning by Anne Hathaway, and the following aren't so much predictions as preferences. I tried to stay in those categories where I didn't feel too out of my element. Feel free to post your own picks, or protests, in the comments field below. Oh, and the pictures don't necessarily indicate preferences, either. Some are simply dark horses. Some are horses so dark no one can see them.
Best Picture (assuming a U.S. production)
- "Avatar"
- "Fantastic Mr. Fox"
- "The Hurt Locker"
- "The Informant!"
- "Inglourious Basterds"
- "A Serious Man"
- "The Soloist"
- "Up"
- "Up in the Air"
- "Where the Wild Things Are"
Best Director (assuming not)
- Olivier Assayas, "L'Heure d'ete"
- James Cameron, "Avatar"
- Joel and Ethan Coen, "A Serious Man"
- Spike Jonze, "Where the Wild Things Are"
- Steven Soderbergh, "The Informant!"
Best Actor (assuming Bridges; I haven't seen "Crazy Heart" yet)
- Jeff Bridges, "Crazy Heart"
- Matt Damon, "The Informant!"
- Robert Downey, Jr., "The Soloist"
- Colin Firth, "A Single Man"
- Max Records, "Where the Wild Things Are"
Best Actress (assuming nothing)
- Abbie Cornish, "Bright Star"
- Penelope Cruz, "Broken Embraces"
- Yolonde Moreau, "Seraphine"
- Carey Mulligan, "An Education"
- Meryl Streep, "Julie & Julia"
Best Supporting Actor (caveat: I never saw "The Messenger")
- Tom Hollander, "In the Loop"
- Christian McKay, "Me and Orson Welles"
- Alfred Molina, "An Education"
- Benoit Poelvoorde, "Coco Before Chanel"
- Christoph Waltz, "Inglourious Basterds"
Best Supporting Actress
- Marion Cotillard, "Public Enemies"
- Vera Farmiga, "Up in the Air"
- Catherine Keener, "The Soloist," "Where the Wild Things Are"
- Mo'Nique, "Precious"
- Julianne Moore, "A Single Man"
Best Original Screenplay
- Judd Apatow, "Funny People"
- Mark Boal, "The Hurt Locker"
- Joel and Ethan Coen, "A Serious Man"
- Pete Docter, Bob Peterson and Thomas McCarthy, "Up"
- Quentin Tarantino, "Inglourious Basterds"
Best Adapated Screenplay
- Wes Anderson and Noah Bambaugh, "Fantastic Mr. Fox"
- Scott Z. Burns, "The Informant!"
- Susannah Grant, "The Soloist"
- Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers, "Where the Wild Things Are"
- Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner, "Up in the Air"
Best Cinematography (Caveat: I only know so much)
- Barry Ackroyd, "The Hurt Locker"
- Lance Acord, "Where the Wild Things Are"
- Roger Deakins, "A Serious Man"
- Robert Richardson, "Inglourious Basterds"
- Dante Spinotti, "Public Enemies"
Best Documentary (Cavet: I only saw so many)
Which Host with What Most?
I agree with the Hollywood talent agent in this Patrick Goldstein post: Having Ricky Gervais host the Golden Globes is the Globes' gain and the Academy's loss. He's one of the funniest men on the planet, and, being British, he's at least somewhat international, although I doubt his shows carry far into Europe, let alone Asia or Latin America. His movies certainly don't.
So what's the Academy looking for in a host? What's their goal—to increase U.S. ratings or international ratings? "Both," I'm sure someone would say. But if they had to choose, wouldn't they want the latter rather than the former? And what are the international ratings of the Academy Awards? I remember how common it once was to talk about "a billion people watching" but they haven't trotted that one out in a while, and a quick Google search gives us, at best, vague reports, like this one from Variety: "Some suggest that as many as 800 million people watch the Oscarcast worldwide." I like that. Some don't even "say" it; some merely "suggest" it. Some gossip that... Some spread rumors that... It's called news.
The U.S. numbers, meanwhile, are no mere suggestions, and they are definitely dropping. No year in the '90s dipped below 40 million—with the high point being the 57 million who watched "Titanic" win—while no year in the last five years has risen above 40 million. These ratings drops correlate with the drop in the box-office numbers of the best-picture candidates, so one wonders how much a host can counter this trend. Isn't that what the idiotic expansion of the best-picture candidates is for?
Even so, who would you pick as your Oscar host? Another funny TV star—like Johnny Carson, David Letterman or Jon Stewart? Another funny movie star—like Bob Hope, Billy Crystal or Steve Martin? A song-and-dance man like Hugh Jackman? Apparently the show's new producers, Bill Mechanic and Adam Shankman, are seeking co-hosts, rather than one host, to appeal to the different demographics in our increasingly fragmented country in our increasingly international world. So who could that be? Brad and Angelina? Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts? Justin Timberlake and Beyonce? Who matters in the movie world anymore?
This last question actually clarifies. If movie stars no longer matter, as the box-office numbers indicate, you go with what does. Thus: Welcome! To the 82nd Annual Academy Awards! With presenters: Harry Potter! The Dark Knight! Optimus Prime! Captain Jack! Spider-Man! Iron Man! And Darth Vader! And now, here's your hosts, Shrek and Donkey!
Why We're Getting 10 Best Picture Nominees
The Annual Box Office Rankings for Best Picture Nominees, 1991-2008*
Year | BPN BO rank | BPN BO rank | BPN BO rank | BPN BO rank | BPN BO rank |
2008 | 16 | 20 | 82 | 89 | 120 |
2007 | 15 | 36 | 50 | 55 | 66 |
2006 | 15 | 51 | 57 | 92 | 138 |
2005 | 22 | 49 | 62 | 88 | 95 |
2004 | 22 | 24 | 37 | 40 | 61 |
2003 | 1 | 17 | 31 | 33 | 67 |
2002 | 2 | 10 | 35 | 56 | 80 |
2001 | 2 | 11 | 43 | 59 | 68 |
2000 | 4 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 32 |
1999 | 2 | 12 | 13 | 41 | 69 |
1998 | 1 | 18 | 35 | 59 | 65 |
1997 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 24 | 44 |
1996 | 4 | 19 | 41 | 67 | 108 |
1995 | 3 | 18 | 28 | 39 | 77 |
1994 | 1 | 10 | 21 | 51 | 56 |
1993 | 3 | 9 | 38 | 61 | 66 |
1992 | 5 | 11 | 19 | 20 | 48 |
1991 | 3 | 4 | 16 | 17 | 25 |
* Best picture winner represented in red.
Want one more?
Year | BPN BO rank | BPN BO rank | BPN BO rank | BPN BO rank | BPN BO rank |
1970 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 11 |
The problem isn't the number of nominees. The problem is the disconnect between studios, distributors, audience and the Academy. We don't make best pictures anymore. And if we do make them we don't distribute them. And if we do distribute them we don't go see them. And if all three happen, but the movie happens to be a cartoon or a superhero film, the Academy can't be bothered.
I'll say it again. The Academy is fixing something that ain't broken (the tradition of five nominees) because of something that is hugely broken. All of the above.
BTW: I charted the above for the drastic change that took place in 2004, but I never noticed —until I created this graph — how the best picture winner is almost always (eventually) the no. 1 or 2 box office hit among the five nominees. That's good to know. Or at least it was in the era of five nominees. Now it's useless knowledge.
2 Comments | Permalink
And the nominees are...doubled
At least according to this Variety report. Beginning next year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences will nominate 10 best picture candidates rather than the five they've been nominating since 1944.
Some may applaud the move. It certainly gives the "Dark Knight"s of the world a better chance to show up. But the Academy is messing with tradition, and for a seemingly short-term gain in ratings and relevance.
My immediate reaction? Feels desperate.
UPDATE: It's 10 minutes later and the whole thing smells. The major studios, which can't make best pictures anymore, want their pictures nominated "best" nonetheless. The Academy, which can't seem to nominate popular and critically acclaimed pictures like "Dark Knight" and "WALL-E," wants relevance and ratings. This is the compromise. But it's a bad one. I remember baseball player Keith Hernandez arguing once that you only mess with tradition if the new rules increase strategy. That's why he was in favor of the three-point play in basketball and against the DH in baseball. The former increased strategy, the latter decreased it. Here? It dilutes it. Ten nominees means there will be more flotsam ("Frost/Nixon") and jetsam ("The Reader") in the race; stuff to push aside to get at the real race.
Bottom line: they're fixing something that's not broken (the five nominee slots) because of something that is (the major studios don't make best pictures anymore). What a shame.
The Do-Little Academy
"The Academy Awards race was hardly a gentleman's game in the 1960s. If campaigning was less costly and public than in more recent years, it wasn't due to a sense of decorum as much as to the fact that the Academy itself was half the size it is today, much more heavily populated with rank-and-file studio employees, and thus easier to manipulate and control. Oscar prognostication was not yet a blood sport; each year, the movies that would be the subject of campaigns were selected by their studios, and then essentially dictated to selected gossip columnists and writers from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and the Los Angeles Times, the only major publications that then took much notice of the nominating process."
— from Mark Harris' "Pictures at a Revolution," pg. 385
No Comments yet | Permalink
Auteur, Auteur
"Beatty had tried to plan his entire career by studyng the work of directors he admired, but as Bonnie and Clyde's producer, suddenly he was feeling impatient with auteurism. 'To attribute [movies] wholly to their directors—not to the actors, not to the producer, not [to] the leading lady...well's that's just bullshit!' he fumed. 'Those pictures were made by directors, writers, and sound men and cameramen and actors and so forth, but suddenly it's "Otto Preminger's Hurry Sundown"... It's not healthy."
— from Mark Harris' "Pictures at a Revolution," pg. 247, citing a Beatty quote from The Bonnie and Clyde Book
"If [Mike] Nichols felt relaxed as production [on The Graduate] began, the reason was probably that, as he puts it, 'I saw the whole thing—I knew what the movie was.' In that, he was a minority of one."
— from Mark Harris' "Pictures at a Revolution," pg. 312, citing an author interview
"The auteurist critics look for recurring patterns, the incandescent joining of visual style and idea. You can't find such patterns, or even a consistent visual motif, in [Victor] Fleming's movies. But you can find a powerful grasp of fable... He didn't direct the entirety of either of his two classics [The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind], and he wasn't, by definition, an auteur. But this absence from the list of the blessed suggests a fault in auteur theory and not in Fleming—a prejudice against the generalists, the non-obsessed, the "chameleons," as Steven Spielberg called them, who re-created themselves for each project and made good movies in many different styles."
— from David Denby's article "The Real Rhett Butler: The forgotten man behind two of Hollywood's most enduring classics," in the latest New Yorker
No Comments yet | Permalink
"The Graduate": Not Starring Robert Redford
[Mike] Nichols, who had championed the idea [of casting Robert Redford as Benjamin Braddock in The Graduate], surprised himself by turning the actor down. "We were friends, we had done Barefoot, I was playing pool with him, and I said, 'I'm really sad, but you can't do it. You can't play a loser,'" says Nichols. "He said, 'Of course I can play a loser!' I said, 'You can't! Look at you! How many times have you ever struck out with a woman?' And he said, I swear to you, 'What do you mean?' He didn't even understand the concept. To him, it was like saying, 'How many times have you been to a restaurant and not had a meal?'"
— from Mark Harris' "Pictures at a Revolution," pg. 237
2 Comments | Permalink
Slumdog Watch - I
Earlier this week I postulated whether "Slumdog Millionaire" could enter the top 10 box-office hits of 2008. Here's a quick update:
Current position: 16th
B.O. total: $135.3 million
Last week's total: $6.9 million
Distance from 15th place ("Chronicles of Narnia"): $6.3 million
Distance from 10th place ("Horton Hears a Who"): $19.2 million
The good news is it's doing better than my model. Based on last weekend, I postulated a 26 percent dropoff but it did better on weekdays, comparatively, and, for the week, fell by only 24 percent.
The bad news is it lost another 500 theaters on Friday, and estimates have it dropping off 41 percent from the previous Friday.
Outlook? Not good.
1 Comment | Permalink
Slumdog Legs
Amazing. Since it was released in early November, there have only been five weeks when its weekly box office dropped. This is mostly the result of the way Fox Searchlight rolled it out: nonexistently (10 theaters), slowly (600+ around Christmas), wide after the Oscar noms (1,411), and nearly superwide after the best-picture victory (2,943). But even with this roll-out, the audience had to be there and it was.
This is a type of film we haven't seen in a while. A word-of-mouth film. A film with legs.
Put it this way: Its opening weekend, according to box office mojo, was the 2,297th-best since 1980. It's 10th weekend? Second-best. Only Titanic had a better 10th weekend. Only Titanic!
But the question, for me, remains: Does "Slumdog" have the legs to break into the top 10 for all 2008 releases?
As you know, if you read this blog (I'm rather obsessed with it), there have only been seven years in Oscar history in which not one of the best picture nominees cracked the annual top 10 box office: 1947, 1984... and the last five years in a row. But that's assuming "Slumdog" won't crack the top 10 for 2008 releases. But might it?
Let's calculate. This weekend it fell off 26 percent from the previous. That ain't bad, particularly since Fox Searchlight is slowly removing it from theaters. So let's assume a 26-percent weekly dropoff for the rest of its run. What do we wind up with?
By June 11th, "Slumdog"'s weekly box office will be down to around 100K, while its total domestic box office will be up to around $153 million. This will place it 11th for the year, ahead of "Sex and the City" but $1.5 million behind "Horton Hears a Who" for 10th place.
So, give or take some percentage points, it could happen. If it did, it would be the first best picture nominee to crack the yearly top 10 since 2003. And even if it doesn't? It simply confirms that word-of-mouth pictures, not to mention dramas set in foreign lands (and starring actual foreigners!), not to mention quality pictures, can still sell in America. If anyone in Hollywood is paying attention.
No Comments yet | Permalink
Quote of the Day
"We all have the right to be free from the interference of petty, small-minded, single-track dirty sniffers who feel that they have to justify their official existence. The motion picture industry is often faced by pressures from narrow, ignorant individuals and groups. Some of them may have the best intentions in the world. But it's a mistake to take that pressure lying down."
— Samuel Goldwyn on HUAC, from the documentary "Goldwyn: The Man and His Movies"
1 Comment | Permalink
Quote of the Day
"Other highlights for me — two faces: Philippe Petit's, for balancing an Oscar on it, and Penelope Cruz, for just having it."
— Adam Wahlberg on the Oscars
No Comments yet | Permalink
Live-Blogging the Oscars
3:50 PM: It won't start for more than an hour but thought I'd try a test run. I also want people to know that I'm not doing the traditional liveblog format with the newest entry highest up — meaning you have to read bottom to top. Here it's top to bottom. Like normal. Apologies if this require frequent scrolling.
Patricia's in the kitchen getting stuff ready, Jellybean's sniffing around, wondering why the furniture's changed. She suspects somethng's up. She's right.
Oscar picks are done. P and I disagree on seven of the 21 categories: Supporting Actress (she: Tomei, me: Cruz), Foreign (she: Bashir, me: Class), Editing (she: Button, Me: Slumdog), Cinematography (she: Dark Knight, me: Slumdog), Art Direction (she: Dark Knight, me: Button) and the Sound categories (she went WALL-E, I went Dark Knight). For what it's worth. Not much.
Watching the red carpet shows. Ryan Seacrest to Danny Boyle: "And you brought people from the slums, did you not?" Yuck. I'm forced to mute it every other second out of embarrassment.
4:35: First guests arrived, Jayne and Alex. Laura, our neighbor down the hall, can't make it because she's feeling under the weather. The men at the party will be bummed even if they don't know it yet.
Ryan Seacrest to Josh Brolin: "Why was it important to tell the story of Harvey Milk?" Sheeeesh. Is it me or does Ryan S. make it seem like he's going out of his way to talk to these, you know, "actors" and "directors"?
Holy smack, Penelope Cruz looks beautiful! And Marion Coutillard. And Javier Bardem. OK, I'll stop or this will be pretty boring. Please forgive. I haven't liveblogged before.
5:00: It begins: Hope Putnam, last year's winner, all of five years old, arrives in her PJs. She's ready for a long show.
On the tube, I like the pans down the dresses of the women. It's something that appeals to both men and women: women like the dresses, men like the pan. On the other hand, how sexist is this? If the camera were my eyes, wouldn't I get slapped?
Hey! They're not starting at 5, after all. It's all red carpet. Was I the only one who didn't know this?
Patricia on Miley Cyrus: "That is SUCH an ugly dress."
I have Mike Smith on my left arguing for "Iron Man" as best picture because there's a purity and snappiness to it. It's not a bad argument. Not a great one, but not a bad one.
Hugh Jackman arrives: Now it begins. I like the open, the song and dance. "How come comic book movies are never nominated/How can a billion dollars be unsophisticated?" And the bit with Anne Hathaway was wonderful. "Oh, Nixon." Seriously, they should do a musical together. Plus the close where he declares himself WOLVERINE. That's a guy who knows how to have a good time.
Supporting Actress: The party reaction to the five former winners talking up the category: "Oh, is this going to be a long night?" "Are they going to do this with sound editor, too?" Etc. But I liked the close-up of Viola Davis tearing up. Very sweet. And now I'm one for one. Penelope! I could listen to her accent all night.
The screenplay awards: Great, great speech by Dustin Lance Black. And love the back-and-forth between Steve Martin and Tina Fey. Please more comedians. Please.
When Slumdog wins for adaptated, my friend Jim, across the room, thrusts a fist into the air and announces "I'm taking no prisoners!"
I have to slow down a bit, join the party, this liveblogging/hosting thing is difficult. Plus I need a beer.
6:22: Beer got. So far no surprises with the awards. We're up to costume design. Nobody in the room (my room) has apparently seen "Australia." No one in the room (my room) has seen and really likes "Benjamin Button." We have about 25 people here. And, yes, now costume design to "The Dutchess." No surprises.
So far we've got a five-way tie for first. Five-way.
6:40: A cinematography win for "Slumdog." And still a five-way tie. Too many of us are apparently reading Entertainment Weekly. Was the Joaquin Phoenix thing necessary? I haven't been paying attention to that news but it seems... not very classy.
I find it interesting, too, that Jessica Biel, in her speech, brought up Thomas Edison, since the reason Hollywood exists is because early filmmakers fled the east coast for the west coast to avoid Edison's litigation.
BTW: Where's Hugh Jackman? He did the opening number and then...disappeared.
6:50: How about Seth Rogan laughing at James Franco's tortured German pronunciation? "It's funny cuz it's German."
Ah, Hugh is back! And he's gonna sing again! Yay!
Wait, is this too Broadway? Well, now Beyonce's there, so... LOVE the way she sings "Dustin' off my tails..." Yes, dust. Please, dust.
7:06: Supporting actor, with five previous winners introducing the five nominees. So apparently it's just for the acting categories. I'll refrain from talking about Philip Seyour's skicap. Other blogs I'm sure are all over it.
OK, I LOVE that they have Christopher Walken introducing Michael Shannon. Shannon could play Walken's son. He should play Walken's son. In some movie somewhere.
But I assume this is Heather Ledger's award. I assume there'll be a standing ovation.
And it is. And there it is. Even so, I'm glad. And unsurprised.
Best documentary: The room (my room) just applauded Philippe Petit's antics and coin tricks onstage. Fun stuff. Everyone, see "Man on Wire." Of course I'd love to see ALL of the docs, as Bill Maher suggested, but most don't play in Seattle, even though it's a pretty good movie town.
The sound awards: How often does the sound mixing and sound editing differ? And do we still call that a Nehru jacket?
I'm on my third beer. I'm still tied for first. It's still a five-way tie.
Actually, after the editing award for "Slumdog," Hope, last year's winner, drops, leaving a four-way tie: me, Jim (who's taking no prisoners) Mike (Hope's dad) and Brenda.
8:09: Sorry for being away so long. I had to take a souvenir bat away from a little girl. Then I tried to take another souvenir bat from a little boy. I suppose I should put the souvenir bats away before the kids arrive.
Hey, one of the first big surprises of the evening! "Departures," from Japan. Everyone should still see "The Class" and "Waltz with Bashir." And it would be nice to see "Depatures," too. But...same problem as before. It's not playing here. I wonder if it'll ever play here.
Memorium time: This is always so sad. Cyd Charisse. Bernice Mac, so young. Nina Foch.... Roy Scheider... I didn't know Manny Farmer died!... James Whitmore and that great scene from "Shawshank"... Charlton Heston... Sydney Pollack... Paul Newman...
I wonder over the lack of Heath Ledger, but Mr. B reminds me that Heath died last January, in time for last year's Oscars, which is when he was remembered. It's so odd. He's been in our consciousness so much this year as the Joker, it's hard to remember he's been dead for over a year already.
We're at best director now, and still in a four-way tie for first. Three of those people, including me, have Mickey Rourke for best actor. And that's the only difference. If Sean Penn wins, Brenda wins. If Mickey Rourke wins, it's a three-way tie for first. That's assuming no big surprises and a come-from-behind win by someone else.
Nope. Danny Boyle.
Oo, good Tigger reference. This is a great speech. Well, until the last line. "Mumbai, you dwarf even this tiny statuette..." Yeah, thanks, dude.
Best actress. Standing o for the women. Very classy. Shirley Maclaine talking up Anne Hathaway is a very, very sweet moment.
Yep, another non-surprise, but, what the hell, I love Kate Winslet, and I love her shampoo bottle reference. And the whistle from her dad! Very cute. Some had disparaged her performance but... let me put it this way. The movie was less imperfect than the book because the movie had Kate Winslet.
Best actor. Wow, that's a helluva roster for the best actor nominees. But why isn't Daniel Day Lewis among them? Last year's winner. And doesn't it take away a bit of a charge, a bit of energy, to have this kind of same-sex intro? Who's Adrienne Brody going to be kissing — Ben Kingsley?
Nice Robert De Niro intro for Sean Penn. And Ben Kinglsey asks the right question with Randy the Ram: Why do we care? It is because of Mickey Rourke. Indeed. Maybe that's why he should win...
And he doesn't! Sean Penn! Standing o. "You commie, homo-lovin' sons of guns." Great line. And then he gets serious. As he should. We live in serious times. He's a double winner now. Joining Spencer Tracy, Frederich March, Marlon Brando, Jack Nicholson, Tom Hanks. Others? I used to know this stuff.
Best picture: How interesting that the accompanying pics with each nominee are full of NON-best picture winners: "Citizen Kane," "Saving Private Ryan," etc. The Academy saying, "Whoops, whoops, whoops..."
And the Oscar goes to...
Yep, "Slumdog Milionaire." As someone here dryly says: "Shocking."
So Brenda wins our pool, with 19 out of 21 correct. I tied for second with 18 out of 21. Which means it wasn't exactly a surprising year...
Enough of this. Clean-up duty. It'll be interesting to read what other people thought. Me, I don't even know what I thought. I was too busy doing this.
The Backwards Threats of Hollywood Execs
Some executives, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect their relationships with those who vote for prizes, have said in the last few weeks that they do not expect their studios to make any movie in the foreseeable future as a specific Oscar bet.
If honors happen to come, as they came to "The Departed," a Warner film that was a surprise best-picture winner in 2007, so be it. But few are looking to make the next "Frost/Nixon," a smart, critically acclaimed film that got Ron Howard a nomination as best director this year.
Look, I enjoyed "Frost/Nixon" well enough. But threatening not to make the next "Frost/Nixon" is like, I don't know, threatening not to serve a baked potato at your next dinner party. Not many people are going to lose sleep.
Read Cieply's entire piece. On the one hand, the lament of these executives is part of my lament: In recent years, the Academy hasn't been nominating box-office hits for best picture. Let's trot out that stat again. Since 1944, when the Academy finally settled on five best picture nominees, there have only been seven years when not one of the best-picture candidates was among the year's top 10 box-office hits: 1947, 1984...and the last five years in a row.
But blaming only the Academy for this is both dishonest and hypocritical. Me, I mostly blame the studios. Here's the bigger problem: Best pictures are no longer perceived as movies for all of us. They've become, as in the language above, niche pictures, and one niche of many. Here's your gory horror, your chick flick, your urban comedy. Here's either your gross wish fulfillment (the superstrong and superpowerful) relased into 4,000 theaters in the heat of summer, or here's your small, sad slice of reality (the superweak) released into select cities in the dark of December. The former's fun, the latter's "important," and never the twain shall meet. Anymore.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the consolidation of these niches makes each niche more like itself. The gory horror film becomes more gory; the chick flick becomes pinker and fluffier; the serious film becomes deadly, sadly serious. And the idea of a best picture "for all of us" becomes just that: an idea.
Thus the primary threat above — that the majors will no longer make and/or target specific films as Oscar candidates — is amusing in two ways. One: the majors haven't even been producing many best-picture-type movies in recent years — they leave that to the indies — so threatening not to do what they're already not doing is, yes, not a viable threat.
More importantly, removing the "best-picture niche" may allow what elements are in that niche (seriousness, etc.) to bleed into other niches and create something that's both important and not limited. I.e., something for all of us.
It's not only not a threat; it might even be a solution.
See you in a few hours.
No Comments yet | Permalink
Much Ado About Oscar — Days 2 & 3
Here are links to Days Two and Three of the Oscar Symposium over at Nathaniel R.'s place. At the end of Day 3 we also lay out our will win/should win list. Turns out we agree with each other a lot — perhaps too much — and those choices also agree with our perception of what the Academy will do. I can't remember a year when so much of what I thought should win was what I thought would win. Chalk it up to the limited choices? Whatever, just don't confuse the agreeableness with any kind of passion. These really are the ho-hum Oscars for me. I'm not hugely rooting for anything, I'm not hugely rooting against anything. But I'll still try to liveblog the sucker.
Meantime, my friend Tommy directed me to this neat little Oscar quiz. I got 24 of 31. Please someone do better.
Nat & Tim & Kris & Karina & Ed & Erik
I recently participated in a three-day symposium about the Oscars over at Nathaniel R's excellent Film Experience Blog. Make sure you check out the "chatty moviegoer" comments at the end, too. In some ways they're having a livelier discussion than we had in the symposium. Probably because they aren't saddled with the word "symposium."
Silver on Oscar Gold
One of the sites I turned to regularly, desperately, during the recent presidential campaign was Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com. In the run-up to the election, some friends felt that Silver leaned left too much, but, as it turned out, he didn't lean left enough. He predicted 338 electoral votes for Obama, who wound up with 365.
Silver started out as a stats-head for one of my loves, baseball, and now he's entering another: movies. Specifically: the Oscars. New York magazine asked for his predictions on the six major categories and he obliged:
Picture: Slumdog Millionaire (99% chance)
Director: Danny Boyle, SM (99.7%)
Actor: Mickey Rourke (71%)
Actress: Kate Winslet (67.6%)
Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (85.8%)
Supporting Actress: Taraji P. Henson (51%)
For most of these, of course, you don't exactly need to build statistical software and use logistics regression. But his choice, or his software's choice, for supporting actress is intriguing. I read deeper but the rationale didn't make much sense:
Penélope Cruz, who won the BAFTA for her role in Vicky Cristina Barcelona, would seem the logical default. But computer sez: Benjamin Button's Taraji P. Henson! Button, which looks like a shutout everywhere else, is the only Best Picture nominee with a Supporting Actress nod, and Best Pic nominees tend to have an edge in the other categories.
Except we're not talking about the other categories, we're talking about this category. And in the last 10 years, say, how often has a supporting actress winner been the sole best-pic representative in her category? Once. Ten years ago, when Judi Dench won for "Shakespeare in Love" and none of the others had best-pic cred. And how often has the winner not come from a best-pic nominee when a best-pic representative was available? Five times: Angelina Jolie for "Girl, Interrupted" in 1999, Marcia Gay Harden for "Pollock" in 2000, Rene Zellwegger for "Cold Mountain" in 2003, Rachel Weisz for "The Constant Gardener" in 2005, and Jennifer Hudson for "Dreamgirls" in 2006.
So why is the best pic nomination for "Button" a trump card for Henson? I don't get it. If anything, this category has always read as the "babe" category:
1999: Angelina Jolie, "Girl, Interrupted"
2000: Marcia Gay Harden, "Pollock"
2001: Jennifer Connelly, "A Beautiful Mind"
2002: Catherine Zeta-Jones, "Chicago"
2003: Renee Zellwegger, "Cold Mountain"
2004: Cate Blanchett, "The Aviator"
2005: Rachel Weisz, "The Constant Gardener"
2006: Jennifer Hudson, "Dreamgirls"
2007: Tilda Swinton, "Michael Clayton"
The question for this category isn't "Who's in a best picture nominee?" but "Who do the mostly old, mostly male members of the Academy want to fuck this year?" Talent aside, that's why most of us are guessing Penelope Cruz.
Of course crunching fuckability into an algorithm may even be beyond the scope of the man who predicted such a sure victory for Obama.
Tags: Nate Silver, Oscars
No Comments yet | Permalink
The EW Fall Preview Issue: A Look Back
First, "Harry Potter" is on the cover, and of course that film got pushed ahead to a summer release date so no one's even seen it. Then, month to month, here's the big movies they target and anticipate:
- September: "Miracle at St. Anna"; "Burn After Reading"; "Appaloosa"
- October: "High School Musical 3"; "Body of Lies"; "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist"
- November: "Australia"; "The Road"; "The Soloist"
- December: "Revolutionary Road"; "Marley & Me"; "Doubt"
And what of the best picture nominees? "Milk" and "Button" and "Frost" get middling write-ups, while "The Reader" and front-runner "Slumdog" aren't mentioned at all. It took a second to remember that, oh yes, "Slumdog" had distribution difficulties. From the August 31st New York Times:
"Slumdog Millionaire" was originally a Warner Independent Pictures release, but last May, Warner Brothers closed its two independent divisions, PictureHouse and Warner Independent, in an effort to cut costs. Now the company will work with Fox Searchlight Pictures to distribute Mr. Boyle's film in North America. ... Jeff Robinov, president of Warner Brothers Pictures Group, said Warner was working with Fox Searchlight to release the film because of the studio's crowded calendar. "With the recent additions to our slate, it became impossible for us to release 'Slumdog Millionaire' in this calendar year," Mr. Robinov said. "Danny very much wanted to get it released this year," said Peter Rice, president of Fox Searchlight, "and we have a long relationship with him."It's easy to forget how quickly a non-entity can become an inevitability. And vice-versa.
Oscar Acceptance Speech of the Day
"You know, when you grow up in the suburbs of Sydney or Auckland or Newcastle, like Ridley or Jamie Bell — well, the suburbs of anywhere — a dream like this seems kind of vaguely ludicrous and completely unattainable. But this moment is directly connected to those childhood imaginings. And for anybody who's on the down side of advantage and relying purely on courage, it's possible. Thanks very much."
— Russell Crowe after winning best actor for "Gladiator."
Tags: Russell Crowe, Oscars, Gladiator
No Comments yet | Permalink
And the Award for Least-Seen Best Picture Nominee Goes To...
As I mentioned earlier, only two best picture nominees since 1980 haven't wound up among the year's top 100 box-office hits — "The Dresser" in 1983 and "Letters from Iwo Jima" in 2006 — and yet we have three this year alone. Amazing. The sad part is they're not even great films. Maybe "Milk" but that's it. I mean if the Academy is going for quality over popularity, as David Carr suggests, why not choose quality? Instead of a bland mediocrity that pleases neither moviegoers nor critics.
"Milk," by the way, has the best shot of cracking the top 100. It's currently at no. 104, only $1 million behind no. 101, "Street Kings," a dirty-cop movie starring Keanu Reeves that opened in over 2,000 theaters in April. Yes, that sentence is sad in so many ways.
1 Comment | Permalink
Quote of the Day
— Film critic/historian David Thomson in Nick Madigan's article "Best pic noms elicit strong reactions" in Variety magazine, encapsulating a trend I've been writing about for years.
No Comments yet | Permalink
The Lundys: Best Reviews of Best Pics
No science in mine. Not a speck of it. Just reviews that confirmed or articulated what I felt was right or wrong about a movie. Mostly wrong, this year. Many people have said that 2008 was a pretty crappy year for movies, but, to me, it was really only an off-year for the prestige pictures. Overall, it was a great year. Just look at 2007. The big box-office pics were either lame threequels ("Spider-Man 3," "Pirates 3," "Shrek the Third") or noisy remakes ("Transformers"), while 2008 gave us, among the top five box-office hits, "Dark Knight," "Iron Man" and "WALL-E." Not bad.
From the winning reviews, you can probably guess which movie I'm rooting for on Oscar night. It has no shot but... Doesn't mean I'm not rooting.
Apologies, too, to all the critics whose reviews I missed. I'm not much of a surfer. I don't even have nominees for best reviews of best picture candidates. Only winners. Maybe next year.
OK, on with the countdown.
For best review of Stephen Daldry's "The Reader," the Lundy goes to... Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal! (Applause) Mr. Morgenstern wins the award even though, and this is extremely embarrassing, I haven't been able to read his entire review. (Thanks for nothing, WSJ.) After scanning the Rotten Tomatoes site, though, Mr. Morgenstern most exactly articulated the biggest problem with both movie and book:
The Reader remains schematic, and ultimately reductive. It really is about literacy, which proves to be a dismayingly small answer to the enormous questions posed by Hanna's dark past.I can talk more about this later, but: Yes. "The Reader" begins as a sexual coming-of-age film, veers into a Holocaust picture, and winds up as an "ABC Afterschool Special": Hanna Schmitz Learns to Read. With such a trajectory (which is more obvious in the book, since the movie includes Kate Winslet's great performance), it can't help but feel small and unworthy. Academy, I'm looking at you.
For best review of Ron Howard's "Frost/Nixon," the Lundy goes to... David Edelstein of New York Magazine! (Applause) I love in particular Mr. Edelstein's early slams of Nixon the man. Criticism is not for the impartial, political or otherwise, a fact that many editors at many newspapers — trying to hold onto every loudmouthed conservative subscriber — don't seem to understand. Edelstein also gets to the heart of what's weak with "F/N":
Frost/Nixon is unsatisfying even if, like me, you're a lifelong aficionado of Nixon-bashing. [Screenwriter Peter] Morgan makes him out to be a Great White Whale, but when he sat down with Frost, Nixon was already dead in the water—convicted by his own words in White House transcripts to the point where even his Republican allies had long deserted him. And with selective editing, Morgan makes it seem as if Frost got Nixon to admit more than he actually did. The original Watergate interview is now on DVD, and there are self-exculpatory escape clauses in every interminable, circumlocutory utterance. When Frost read aloud from the White House transcripts, Nixon's eyes darted around as he searched his brain for linguistic loopholes. In Frost/Nixon, Langella's heavy features move slowly; he seems to be plumbing the depths of his soul and glimpsing, for an instant, the abyss. Alas, the shit that dribbles from Langella's mouth is still Tricky Dick's.For David Fincher's "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," the Lundy goes to... David Denby of The New Yorker! (Tepid applause. Some hoots.) Mr. Denby actually reviews, or takes apart, all of the Oscar candidates in his piece — save "Milk," which he roots for — and he's good on all of them. But particularly "Button":
As Benjamin makes his way, many people puzzle over the discrepancy between his age and his temperament. But who cares? The movie is given over to an infinitely patient and scrupulous working out of its own bizarre premise, and you come away from its sombre thoroughness with the impression that something profound has been said without having any idea what it could be.For Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Milionaire," the Lundy goes to... Manohla Dargis of The New York Times! (Hoots. Cries of a New York bias.) Ms. Dargis' reviewed the film when it was merely a film — one of many coming out that month — as opposed to the Oscar frontrunner for best picture, but, from that early, uncluttered vantage point, she still manages to articulate what is both appealing about the film, and, more importantly, what is false about it:
In the end, what gives me reluctant pause about this bright, cheery, hard-to-resist movie is that its joyfulness feels more like a filmmaker's calculation than an honest cry from the heart about the human spirit (or, better yet, a moral tale). In the past Mr. Boyle has managed to wring giggles out of murder ("Shallow Grave") and addiction ("Trainspotting"), and invest even the apocalypse with a certain joie de vivre (the excellent zombie flick "28 Days Later"). He's a blithely glib entertainer who can dazzle you with technique and, on occasion, blindside you with emotion, as he does in his underrated children's movie, "Millions." He plucked my heartstrings in "Slumdog Millionaire" with well-practiced dexterity, coaxing laughter and sobs out of each sweet, sour and false note.And finally, the last Lundy of the evening, for best review of Gus Van Sant's "Milk," goes to... Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic! (tepid applause; shrugs; people grabbing their coats and leaving en masse) Mr. Sullivan is the only non-critic in the bunch, but his early take on "Milk," written from a more personal perspective, articulated something about the film I hadn't taken in. It opened the film for me. That's basically what you want from a critic:
Milk was a radical; but he was also a businessman. He had one true love; and yet couldn't integrate it into a successful long-term relationship in his short life-time. He was a man of the streets and yet he also had to become a symbol of establishment power. The scene when he both stokes a rally-cum-riot and then calms it down captured the tension perfectly. He was a man of politics, but he was also only a politician in order to have the chance to be a human.
The movie's brilliance is not that it begins and ends with his death as a reflection on the first and last things; it is that it begins and ends with Milk's love for another human being as well. This reach for intimacy - always vulnerable, always intimate, never safe - endures past movements and rallies and elections. These manifestations of the political are the means to that merely human end.
Which is why, in so many ways, the gay movement, at its very best, is something holy.That's it, folks. Thanks for coming. And keep reading the critics.
Pedigree of a Slumdog: PGA, SAG, DGA...
Then factor in the Producers Guild of America, which began giving awards in 1989. How many times has a movie won the DGA and the PGA and not won best picture? Three times: In 1995 when the guilds chose "Apollo 13" and the Academy chose "Braveheart"; in 1998 when the guilds chose "Saving Private Ryan" and the Academy chose "Shakespeare in Love": and in 2005 when the guilds chose "Brokeback Mountain" and the Academy chose "Crash." That's 84 percent.
(BTW: Isn't it amazing how the guilds had the better choice each disagreeable year?)
Then factor in the Screen Actors Guild, which began giving awards in 1996. This is the fifth year all three guilds agreed. They agreed in 1999 ("American Beauty"), 2002 ("Chicago"), 2003 ("Lord of the Rings: Return of the King") and last year ("No Country for Old Men"). Of course each of those pictures won the Oscar. Now we're talking 100 percent.
In other words, if you choose anything other than "Slumdog" in your Oscar pool, you're rolling with some pretty loaded dice.
Mood Fight
First there was that odd, Joker-mask video he did for his Carpetbagger blog. Then last week he clapped the Academy on the back for choosing quality (meaning: "The Reader") over popularity (meaning: "The Dark Knight").
But yesterday? He launched into one of my least-favorite journalistic devices: How the popularity of this or that film reflects the nation's mood.
The Times is infamous for doing this. Just last year, on May 15th, Michael Cieply implied that the upcoming summer movies, including "The Dark Knight," "Tropic Thunder" and "Pineapple Express," were just too dark. "The mix," he wrote, "may not perfectly match the mood of an audience looking for refuge from election campaigns and high-priced gas, said Peter Sealey, a former Columbia Pictures marketing executive…"
Turns out "The Dark Knight" was just the refuge people were looking for. So Brooks Barnes took over, and on July 28th, wrote the following: "The brooding film, directed by Christopher Nolan, also fits the nation's mood, Warner Brothers executives said."
Problem solved. We weren't repelled from the movie because it reflected our mood; we were drawn to it. Once it became clear we were drawn to it.
See what fun you can have with the nation's mood?
Carr, whom I love, and who's a better writer than both Cieply and Barnes, has actually done something worse. He begins his article, "Riveting Tales for Dark Days," by once again lauding the Oscar nominees. They are, he says, an upbeat lot, particularly compared with the gloom of last year's "No Country" and "There Will Be Blood." They reflect our nation's can-do spirit in troubled times. In one graph he dismisses what he's doing and then keeps doing it:
Using the Oscars as a prism on national consciousness is a hoary, time-worn activity perpetrated by those of us who must find meaning in sometimes marginal work. But it does seem worth at least a mention this time around that both the Academy and audiences are showering love on such upbeat movies at a rough time in history.Why is this worse? Let's let "X" stand for "What people would do or are doing because of the nation's mood."
Cieply's X wasn't verifiable but predictive. It was two months down the road when only idiots like me would remember that he, or someone he had quoted, had made such a prediction.
Barnes' X was verifiable and correct. People were in fact going to see "The Dark Knight."
Carr's X? Verifiable and incorrect. And not just incorrect in a small way. Incorrect in a way that refutes his entire premise.
He mixes two unstable elements. He writes that January box-office receipts are up by 10 percent (true) and that the Oscar nominees are more upbeat than last year (true-ish, though there's nothing as purely pleasant as "Juno" in the mix). So he concludes people are drawn to these upbeat best picture nominees.
Problem? For whatever reason (and I blame the studios as much as anyone), we're not drawn to these upbeat nominees. We're drawn to "Paul Blart: Mall Cop," which has made, as of today, $69.3 million. The nominees, save for "Button," have all made less. Some a lot less: "Slumdog" ($59.5M), "Milk" ($21.9M), "Frost/Nixon" ($12.9M) and "The Reader" ($10.2M). In fact, as I mentioned yesterday, Brandon Gray, over at boxofficemojo.com, has written that these nominees are, at the time of the noms, the least-attended ever. (I'm still interested in his math on this, by the way.)
In Carr's defense, and despite the "showering love" line above, he does say that the upbeat nominees "reflect an appetite on the part of the Academy, and by proxy, the public, for a nice, big chunk of uplift."
That's a nice one. Using the Academy as a stand-in for the public when the two have never been further apart.
So I'm a little worried about David Carr. He's better than this.
No Comments yet | Permalink
Who Sees the Oscar Nominees Anyway?
Gray comes to this conclusion about Oscar and box office:
Slumdog Millionaire was a snowballing success prior to the Oscar nominations and Gran Torino, which received zero nominations for instance, was a hit, and neither picture's status fundamentally changed after the nominations were announced.He also mentions in passing the b.o. difficulties of "Frost/Nixon" but no one seems to be taking Universal to task for this. When the movie had buzz in December, Universal kept it limited (205 theaters). After the noms, they opened it wider (1,000+ theaters), but by then it had been overshadowed by both "Button" and "Slumdog," and word-of-mouth wasn't great, and people stayed away. Maybe they would've anyway. Who knows? But Universal pushed it for the Oscars, and then relied on the Oscars to push it to the public. Didn't work.
In better news, Focus Features, a Universal subsidiary on life-support, finally opened "Milk," one of the best films of the year, wider. It plays in 882 theaters today. About effin' time. Yet it's still the only best pic nominee not to play in at least 1,000 theaters.
No Comments yet | Permalink
Robert Downey Jr. Quote of the Day
"I'm not very popular for saying this, and the missus tells me to keep it on the QT, but lately for me, the biggest, most commercial projects that I've done are the most creatively satisfying, the most collaborative and the ones that the audiences respond to. And I jump off and do an indie, and they can't hit their ass with both hands, it's 50 monkeys f–––ing a football and then you have to go and pump your kidneys dry in Sundance."
— Robert Downey, Jr., during the annual Oscar roundtable discussion in Newsweek.
No Comments yet | Permalink
Milk Left Out
But — that said — what a great group over at filmexperience! Nathaniel R. was nice enough to post the MSNBC quiz and dozens of his readers posted their results. I should immediately apologize for the Frank Langella question. Some actors in some roles make an early impression that never goes away, and, for me, Langella will always be Zorro. That's how I first saw him. At age 11. Later when he became a star on Broadway as Dracula, I'd think, "Hey, it's Zorro." When he played the villainous chief of staff in "Dave" I went: "Dude: Zorro!" On and on. Nixon, too. Still, I should've made the answer easier. Because how can you not imagine him as Jack the Ripper?
No apologies to anyone who got no. 14 wrong. That was a gimme.
One reader, meanwhile, suggested no. 8 didn't have much to do with the Oscars. For those who haven't taken the quiz (and c'mon already), here it is:
At the time of the nominations (Thursday, Jan. 22), how many of the best picture nominees had been seen in more than 1,000 theaters in the U.S.?
A. All five
B. Four
C. Three
D. Two
E. One
F. None
The answer is One, "Benjamin Button," and for a second I agreed with the reader. A second later I thought: Actually this is the most relevant question in the quiz. It's not some factoid only the most insane person would know (see: no. 2); it's about how isolated our supposed best pictures have become. Again: read this.
I found it particularly instructive that many of Nathaniel's readers thought "Milk" was one of the most-distributed nominees when, as of today, it's the least. Its theater-high was 356. Hell, every best-picture candidate expanded the weekend after the Oscars except for "Milk," which remains in its truncated state of 250. I'm no insider or businessman but... Does that make sense? Is there a plan here? Who's running Focus Features anyway?
Only a handful of best-picture nominees this decade haven't been distributed into at least 1,000 theaters: "Gosford Park" (918), "Lost in Translation" (882), "The Pianist" (842), and, the winner of the least-distributed best-pic nominee of the decade, "Letters from Iwo Jima" (781). If "Milk" doesn't expand, it will more than halve that mark.
So what is Focus Features saying? That it can sell "Brokeback" but not this? That Americans are more willing to understand the people who bombed Pearl Harbor, speaking in Japanese, than the people who opposed Prop. 8, speaking in English?
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it until someone gives me a response I understand: How good can the studios be if they can't sell quality?
1 Comment | Permalink
The Quiz...and How Nathaniel R. Nudged Me Off the Fence
As promised, the Oscar quiz is up on MSNBC.com. Here.
I was going to add what's below to yesterday's post but decided not to spoil it for those brave few:
- Everyone's trumpeting Meryl Streep's 15th nomination. Most add that she's got two wins without specifying those wins. Here's a reminder: She's got a supporting ("Kramer vs. Kramer") and a lead ("Sophie's Choice"). Which means Hilary Swank, among others, has won more best actress Oscars than Meryl Streep. Hell, the last time Streep won, fellow nominee Anne Hathaway was six months old.
- Not only has Stephen Daldry, director of "The Reader," been nominated more times (3) than any of the other directing nominees, including Ron Howard and Gus Van Sant, but, astonishingly, he's only made three feature-length films. Which means he's been nominated for every film he's ever made. For the record, his three films are: "Billy Elliott," "The Hours" and "The Reader." I know, me neither.
Interestingly, I was on IMDb.com this morning, and one of the links on their daily "Hit List" was entitled: "Notes on the Oscar Nominations" from filmexperience.blogspot.com. I clicked, not exactly holding my breath. Most mainstream stuff is dull reportage that ignores fascinating but easy-to-find details (like Daltry, above), and most blogs are noisy little affairs that make me want to run away, take a shower, and not have an opinion for the rest of my life. This was neither. It was fun, charming, smart. As soon as I saw this graphic I knew I was in the right place:
Some of the stuff I knew nothing about (costume design?), some I knew all too well ("Harvey Weinstein is Back. God Help Us All."), but all of it was fun to read.
Even better was host Nathaniel R's live-blogging of the SAG noms, and his disappointment that "Milk" didn't win the cast award. I wrote about the SAGs this morning, but dispassionately, as Oscar indicators. Nathaniel helped push me off my fence. Because he's right. Both "Milk" and "Slumdog" are very good movies, and I'll be fine if "Slumdog" wins best picture, but if we're talking about ensemble cast acting, "Milk," with Penn, Franco, Hirsch, et al., has it all over "Slumdog," which is a director's movie. Freida Pinto is stunning, lovely to look at, and her part works, but... It ain't the same league.
Anyway, if you haven't, take the quiz already. And remember the thing about Daltry.
Tags: Oscars, Nathaniel Rogers
No Comments yet | Permalink
"Slumdog"? Final Answer
I was thinking similar thoughts when "Slumdog" won the Producers Guild Award over the weekend. Sure, the PGAs picked "No Country for Old Men" last year, which went on to win best picture, but the year before they went with "Little Miss Sunshine" (no), and the year before that, "Brokeback" (unfortunately, no), and the year before that, "The Aviator," and in 2001, "Moulin Rouge!" Not exactly tea leaves.
I was ready to raise similar flags of caution when "Slumdog" won the cast award from the Screen Actors Guild, since that award predicts the Oscar-winner only 50 percent of the time. But then a different thought hit: "OK, how often has a movie won all three awards and not won the Oscar for best picture?"
Answer? In the 12 years since the SAG awards arrived on the scene, the GGs, PGAs and SAG cast award have agreed only three times: in 1999, with "American Beauty"; in 2002, with "Chicago"; and in 2003, with "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King." All of those films went on to win the Oscar.
I'm still waiting on the DGAs, but more and more it looks like "Slumdog" is the final answer.
Batman and Oscar: A History
I'm in the midst of writing an Oscar quiz for MSNBC.com — the fifth I've done in five years. It should be getting old but it's not. Basically I look at the nominees, dig, find interesting facts, write the questions. I don't know if this makes for good questions but it definitely makes for interesting answers.
The quiz will probably go up tomorrow or the next day but here's a headstart on one aspect that I found fascinating.
Although "The Dark Knight" didn't get any best picture respect, it did receive eight nominations overall — twice as many as any superhero film has ever garnered. The previous record-holder was "The Incredibles," with four, but you can also make an argument for "Superman: The Movie," which, in 1979, received three noms and one "Special Achievement" award for visual effects. I assumed this meant the Academy ignored visual effects until recently but they actually began nominating in that category in 1939 ("The Rains Came" over "The Wizard of Oz"), but for some reason stopped throughout most of the 1970s. Instead they just gave out these "Special Achievement" awards. If they'd actually done the nom'ing, "Superman: The Movie" would've had four noms as well.
Here's a list of AA nominations for superhero movies, in chronological order, with wins in italics :
- "The Mark of Zorro" (1940): Original Score
- "Superman: The Movie" (1978): Editing; Original Score; Sound
- "Batman" (1989): Art Direction-Set Decoration
- "Batman Returns" (1992): Makeup; Visual Effects
- "Batman Forever" (1995): Cinematography; Sound; Sound Effects Editing
- "The Mask of Zorro" (1998): Sound; Sound Effects Editing
- "Spider-Man" (2002): Sound; Visual Effects
- "Spider-Man 2" (2004): Sound Mixing; Sound Editing; Visual Effects
- "The Incredibles" (2004): Animated Film; Sound Mixing; Original Screenplay; Sound Editing
- "Batman Begins" (2005): Cinematography
- "Superman Returns" (2005): Visual Effects
- "Iron Man" (2008): Sound Editing; Visual Effects
- "The Dark Knight" (2008): Art Direction; Cinematography; Editing; Makeup; Sound; Sound Editing; Visual Effects; Supporting Actor
Yes, mostly in Sound and Visual Effects, and mostly for Batman, Superman and Zorro — characters created before 1940. No "X-Men," for example, despite two good movies with tons of visual effects, and, I assume (not that I know), Sound.
The main point is this: Despite a seeming defeat, "The Dark Knight," and Heath Ledger in particular, expanded Oscar's palette.
Tags: Batman, Oscars, Zorro, Superman, Iron, Man, Spider-Man
No Comments yet | Permalink
B.O. for Best Pics
"Plus de 4 millions de Shrektateurs"
That 4 millions isn't euros; it's people. It's asses in the seats. That's how movie popularity is tabulated in France. As opposed to in the U.S. where it's all about the dollars, and where, if you're paying any attention at all, you have to adjust for inflation to get the true measure of a movie's popularity.
Feel free to let each measurement stand for each culture.
So it's the Friday after the noms and the studios are busy things. Universal, unwilling to do the heavy lifting for "Frost/Nixon" in December, is finally expanding Ron Howard's film from 153 theaters to more than 1,000. Other films that are expanding: "Slumdog Millionaire," "The Wrestler," "Rachel Getting Married," "Revolutionary Road." There's a pattern, and it follows the pattern of previous years, and it's getting a little old.
That said, here's how the best picture nominees look in terms of box office before the expansion:
Movie | Domestic $ | Thtr High | 2008 BO Rank |
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button | $104M | 2988 | 22 |
Slumdog Millionaire | $44M | 582 | 62 |
Milk | $20M | 356 | 111 |
Frost/Nixon | $8M | 205 | 145 |
The Reader | $8M | 507 | 148 |
Kudos to the way Paramount handled "Benjamin Button." It put it out there in December. It didn't wait for the Academy to bestow what it would. More congrats to Fox Searchlight who pushed "Slumdog" in the right ways.
But — and I've said it before — what lazy bastards over at Universal. In some ways "Frost/Nixon" is the most accessible of these films and yet it is, until the noms, the least-available. 145th??? I'm almost hoping it bites it at the box office during the next few weeks. Just to show Universal. Of course they'd probably take the wrong lesson away from the experience and stop getting involved in films like "Frost/Nixon" altogether.
Meanwhile, their art-house division, Focus Features, rumored to be on life-support, appears to be doing nothing with "Milk." Of the little-seen best picture nominees, it's the one that's not expanding, and it's the one, along with "Slumdog," that's most deserving of a big audience.
Feel free to let that irony stand for the culture.
1 Comment | Permalink
Note to the Academy: Why So Serious?
The Oscar nominations were finally announced this morning, and, as soon as Forest Whitaker said "Frost/Nixon," alphabetically passing up "The Dark Knight," I knew that, unless the Academy subscribed to Comcast's idiotic system of alphabeticization, they had turned their backs on the Batman. Bummer. I was beginning to root for him.
So after all of the guesses, here and here and here, these are our (or their) best picture nominees:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire
What does this mean? As I wrote last January, since the Academy finally settled on five best picture nominees in 1944, there have only been six years when there wasn't a top 10 box office hit among the nominees: 1947, 1984...and the last four years in a row: 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. This year, unless "Benjamin Button" can make another $50 million without getting swamped in the process (it's currently at $103 million), it'll probably be five years in a row. Stunning.
In the past I didn't quite know who to blame for this divide between supposed popularity and supposed quality. The Academy? The studios? Moviegoers? But not this year. "The Dark Knight" was a critically acclaimed, monster box office hit with tons of buzz. In terms of domestic, unadjusted dollars, it was the no. 2 movie of all time. Yes, it was about superheroes, and no superhero film has been nominated before; but before "Lord of the Rings" no fantasy film had been nominated, either. The rule sticks until something breaks it. This year? Didn't break. And it was the year to break it. We're not talking about crap like "Spider-Man 3." We're talking about a pretty good movie. One of the five best of the year? Maybe. I'd take it over "Frost/Nixon" and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" anyway. Don't know about "The Reader" yet. Haven't seen it. (Psst. It's about the Holocaust.)
Besides, in the past, the Academy has nominated some popular but fairly suspect films for best picture. "Love Story"? "The Towering Inferno"? "Three Coins in a Fountain"? "Ghost"? It's hardly a body to hold its nose.
Given the chance, who would I have nom'ed? I don't know. Because of the studios' idiotic system of rolling the best films out in piecemeal fashion at the end of the year, I haven't seen, oh, "Doubt" or "The Reader" or "Revolutionary Road" yet. I'd definitely nom "Milk" and "Slumdog." I'd think about "In Bruges" and the forgotten but expertly crafted and genre-busting (or genre-solildifying) "Appaloosa."
And I'd think about "The Dark Knight." More than the Academy seemed to anyway.
ADDITION: Yeah, should've known. Harvey Weinstein was the man behind the push for "The Reader," just as he was the man who pushed "Shakespeare in Love" to the crown in '98. Shame. Much talk about the next Batman villain. I suggest "Weinstein."
Tags: Batman, The Dark Knight, Oscars, Oscar Box Office
1 Comment | Permalink
The Man Who Sold "Crash" to the World
When Crash won the Oscar for best picture, I was half-drunk at a party in Seattle but sobered up quickly. I had to. I'd promised my editor at MSNBC that if the unthinkable did happen, if Crash won best picture that night over Brokeback Mountain, I'd write a piece about it. I finished it at 10 a.m. the next morning. It included diatribe, head-shaking and a quiz. It included everything but a culprit.
Now we have one. In the Jan. 19 issue of The New Yorker, regular contributor Tad Friend writes about Tim Palen, co-president of theatrical marketing at Lionsgate, the studio responsible for, on the one hand, Fahrenheit 9/11, 3:10 to Yuma, The Bank Job and Gods and Monsters, and, on the other, the Saw films, The Punisher (both recent versions), Good Luck Chuck and Witless Protection.
These two hands are obviously my hands, critical hands, hands that divide quality from crap. They would not be Palen's.
Friend drops a bomb early:
Publicity is selling what you have: the film's stars and sometimes its director. Marketing, very often, is selling what you don't have; it's the art of the tease.
That's great, insidery detail but it feels like it's missing the point. Yes, marketing, in this sad age, is selling what you don't have. But how is that a tease? A tease is offering what you do have but not following through. Selling what you don't have? The rest of us call that a lie. Sometimes we call it a felony.
In Hollywood, they brag about it.
"The most common comment you hear from filmmakers after we've done our work is 'This is not my movie,' " Terry Press, a consultant who used to run marketing at Dreamworks SKG, says. "I'd always say, 'You're right—this is the movie America wants to see.'"
Nice. Apparently Hollywood isn't dream factory enough. Apparently Hollywood filmmakers aren't offering enough wish fulfillment. That's where marketers come in. They lie to us about the lie. If the film is crap, they figure out ways to get us to eat it. Palen is one of the best at this. He entices us into the restaurant, gets us to sit down at the table, gets us to chew. By the time we realize what we're eating, he's gone.
And, yes, he's the one responsible for the bad taste in our mouths the morning of March 6, 2006:
Paul Haggis, the writer-director of the 2005 film "Crash," says, "I came in thinking Tim was doing everything wrong. He made the poster Michael Peña screaming over his daughter, rather than selling Brendan Fraser or Matt Dillon or Sandra Bullock. I worried that the trailer, a mood piece about how people have to crash into each other to feel alive, was going to seem like overly significant claptrap. Then Tim and Sarah"—Sarah Greenberg, Palen's co-president, who handles publicity—"came to me and said, 'We're going to go for an Academy campaign.' I really, really thought they were crazy: this was a little six-million-dollar film." For the cost of three full-page ads in the Times, about two hundred thousand dollars, Lionsgate sent more than a hundred thousand DVDs of the film to every member of the Screen Actors Guild—pioneering a now common saturation technique. In a huge upset, "Crash" beat "Brokeback Mountain" and "Munich" to win Best Picture.
Remember how polarizing that battle was? That's Palen's specialty. The article opens with the premiere of Oliver Stone's W., a Lionsgate film Palen has to sell, even though, particularly for a Stone film, it's actually, unfortunately, kind of fair. Palen can't use that. "From the marketing perspective," he says, "we needed some teeth." Later, Friend writes: "Palen has always believed in being polarizing, always been willing to alienate much of the audience in order to motivate his core." Dots aren't connected, but one can't help but be reminded of someone else who sold us a W.
It's a sad article, a wag-the-dog article that is more effective for Friend's restraint. Marketers now run the show: Oren Aviv at Disney; Marc Shmuger at Universal. "Marketing considerations shape not only the kind of films studios make," Friend writes, "but who's in them." Why are stars disappearing? This is part of the reason. Why so many niche movies? This is part of the reason. Why do films no longer bind us together but keep us apart? This is part of the reason.
It's a must-read. Palen, whose mother was assistant to a cheese manufacturer, tends to use the word "cheese" to describe what he's selling. "America likes cheese," he says of Good Luck Chuck. "...straight out of the America-loves-cheese playbook," he says of an upcoming Gerard Butler trailer. It's a kind word for what he's selling. Don't bite like the Academy did.
2 Comments | Permalink
Now Playing: 678 Miles Away
Yesterday I mentioned the nine films currently in the running for the best foreign-language-film Oscar and then added, almost apologetically, that I hadn't seen any of them and had only heard of two: "Waltz with Bashir" and "The Class."
There's a reason. I tried to Netflix the films (on the off chance) but of course none are available yet, and they don't even know when they'll be available. That's of the films Netflix recognizes. Five of the nine.
So I looked them up on boxofficemojo on the off-chance they came through Seattle without my knowledge. Appears not. In fact, only one of the films ("Bashir," from Israel, which the National Society of Film Critics considered the best movie of 2008) is even playing in the U.S. If I got off my high-horse I could see it. In Vancouver B.C. The nearest showing in this country is at the Clay theater in San Francisco: 678 miles away.
I know, I know. Once these films get nom'ed, or when one wins, we'll have a better chance to see them, or it, but this is part of the problem. Increasingly, the industry relies on the Oscars to garner attention for good films ("Bashir," "Milk"), and thus hold off on distributing the good films until the Oscars are announced. Which means the Oscars are increasingly full of films moviegoers have never heard of. Which means we pay less attention to the the Oscars. And on and on.
If I were the Academy I'd tell studios and distributors to get the hell off my back already and lend a hand. Things'll go farther faster if the studios start pushing, too.
ADDENDUM: John Hartl, who should know, confirms that none of the nine have made it through the Puget Sound area. The good news: "Bashir" will be here Jan. 30; "The Class" soon after.
No Comments yet | Permalink
And Then There Were Nine...
According to Variety, the Academy Award's best foreign-lanuage film category is down to nine:
- Austria, "Revanche," Gotz Spielmann, director
- Canada, "The Necessities of Life," Benoit Pilon, director
- France, "The Class," Laurent Cantet, director
- Germany, "The Baader Meinhof Complex," Uli Edel, director
- Israel, "Waltz with Bashir," Ari Folman, director
- Japan, "Departures," Yojiro Takita, director
- Mexico, "Tear This Heart Out," Roberto Sneider, director
- Sweden, "Everlasting Moments," Jan Troell, director
- Turkey, "3 Monkeys," Nuri Bilge Ceylan, director.
1 Comment | Permalink
A Universal Lack of Focus
After potential Oscar-nominee "Gran Torino" did so well at the box office, I checked out how the other Oscar contenders are faring:
Film | Studio | Thtr High | Dom. B.O. |
The Dark Knight | WB | 4366 | $531M |
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button | Par. | 2988 | $94M |
Slumdog Millionaire | FoxS | 614 | $34M |
Milk | Focus | 356 | $19M |
Frost/Nixon | Uni. | 205 | $7M |
The box office for "Dark Knight" is obviously no surprise. It's a good film but it's in the running because of its box office. If it had made, say, $19 million, like "Milk," you'd be hearing crickets.
Kudos to Paramount. They put "Benjamin Button" out there and people are responding. Kudos to people.
The box office for "Slumdog Millionaire," meanwhile, is a nice surprise but shouldn't be. Fox Searchlight is the same studio that smartly promoted "Sideways" in 2004, "Little Miss Sunshine" in 2006, and "Juno" in 2007. Apparently they know what they're doing. Apparently they can sell a good film with universal themes even though it's set in a foreign country. How about that?
But WTF with Universal and its specialty division Focus Features? Two of the most talked-about films of the fall, "Milk" and "Frost/Nixon," and moviegoers have barely had the chance to see them. Is the studio waiting for the Oscar noms before they push? What if the noms are disappointing? What if the attention goes elsewhere? What then?
Perhaps I should cut Focus Features some slack — they slipped "Brokeback Mountain" into a homophobic America in 2005 and made $83 million — and one assumes the strategy for "Milk" is similar. But then there's this worrisome report from Patrick Goldstein.
More, Focus' strategy with "Milk" isn't looking at all like their strategy for "Brokeback." Check out the theater totals for the first seven weekends of both "Brokeback" and "Milk":
1. | 5 | 36 |
2. | 69 | 99 |
3. | 217 | 328 |
4. | 269 | 356 |
5. | 483 | 311 |
6. | 683 | 309 |
7. | 1,196 | 295 |
Meanwhile, I have no idea what Universal is doing with "Frost/Nixon." Ron Howard has had a long-time relationship with the studio. He's made 10 films for them, including five that made more than $100 million, including, from those five, two Oscar contenders ("Apollo 13"; "A Beautiful Mind"), and every one of those 10 films played on more than a thousand screens. One assumes they know what they're doing with "F/N," too. On the other hand, the studio's last movie with Howard was "Cinderella Man," which the studio opened wide and disastrously in June 2005. Maybe they're gun shy. Or maybe, to stay with the Nixonian theme, it's as Deep Throat says in "All the President's Men": "The truth is, these aren't very smart guys, and things got out of hand."
No Comments yet | Permalink
"Slumdog" Has Its Day
It was nice to see "Slumdog Millionaire" win big at The Golden Globes.
OK, it was nice to hear that "Slumdog Millionaire" won big at the GGs because, while I watched some of it while straightening up, folding clothes, etc., I went to bed before the big guns came out. A couple things that struck me as they had my spotty attention:
1. Odd to see Kate Winslet tearing up for her award for best supporting actress for "The Reader." I thought: "Doesn't she know this is the Golden Globes, the Hollywood Foreign Press, and so doesn't matter much? It's not an industry award like the Oscars. It's not a critics award like the NSFC. It's just this."
2. Glad "In Bruges" won some awards, including Colin Farrell as best actor in a comedy/musical. The film, though, should've won best comedy/musical over "Vicky Christina Barcelona." If you haven't seen it, see it.
3. Salma Hayek looks great in HD.
4. A commercial played for "Frost/Nixon" and, as usual, the VO said at the end: "Now playing." To which I responded, "Now barely playing." Expect an upcoming rant about this. At the moment, Universal has "F/N" in only 205 theaters around the country. As opposed to, say, Paramount which has "Benjamin Button" in 2988 theaters around the country. Not sure what Universal's strategy is here — particularly since they're shelling out dough for the ads.
5. Did I mention that Salma Hayek looks great in HD? For that matter, so do Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise.
So what does it mean that "Slumdog" won best drama? In terms of the Oscars, not much. The last GG/Drama winner that wound up winning the Academy Award for best picture was the third "Lord of the Rings" movie in 2003. Since then, the GGs have gone with "The Aviator," "Brokeback Mountain," "Babel" and "Atonement." None have picked up the Oscar. Some, obviously, should have, but that's a whole other can of whupass.
UPDATE: Nikki Finke live-blogged the GGs here. Good insider stuff: Who's buying what.
UPDATE: David Carr adds his thoughts — particularly on the vanishing and hobbled indie divisions of the studios.
DGAs, PGAs, AAs, Blah Blahs,
The Directors Guild of America came out with their nominees for best picture yesterday and it's the same five as the PGAs, which is the same five as Entertainment Weekly went with last week, which is the same five that insider friend of Jeffrey Wells picked in early December:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Slumdog Millionaire
Does that mean we're down to it? Is this the list the Academy will wind up with? Perhaps.
The big question is: Have the PGAs and the DGAs ever agreed on all five nominations, and, if so, what was the Academy response?
Yes to the first part. Two years ago, both the PGAs and the DGAs agreed on all five picks: Babel, The Departed, Dreamgirls, Little Miss Sunshine and The Queen. But the Academy went with only four of the five, opting for Letters from Iwo Jima over Dreamgirls. That could happen again. Hell, it might even be a Clint Eastwood movie again.
The big question is still Dark Knight. A superhero film has never been nominated best picture. But, if reports are to be believed, some members of the Academy are tired of how marginalized best picture nominees have become and want a blockbuster in there. DK is certainly that.
And keep in mind: DGA and AA best pic nominees are more likely to agree than not. Of the 40 films both bodies have nominated this decade, they've agreed on 34. Four years in a row (2002-2005), there wasn't a difference between the two.
We'll find out for sure on January 22.
Tags: Jeffrey Wells, The DGAs, The PGAs, Oscars, The Dark Knight
No Comments yet | Permalink
PGAs: Four of Five
The PGAs, or Producers Guild of America nominees, which honors producers of both motion pictures and television, were announced a few days ago, and in the key category, motion picture of the year, the nominees were:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
Slumdog Millionaire
First, it's nice the PGAs don't alphabetize the way Comcast does (yeah, I'm not letting go of that one), and, second, the list is the same list of best picture nominees EW predicted for the Oscars a few days earlier — not to mention the same list Jeff Wells (or an industry insider Friend Of Jeff Wells) mentioned in early December.
Which means?
As far as EW and FOJW? Who knows. As far as the PGAs, if recent history has any meaning, it means we're down to four of the five. Since 2004, the PGAs and the Oscars have agreed on every picture but one — with the PGA going for, in order, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" over "Atonement" (2007), "Dreamgirls" over "Letters from Iwo Jima" (2006), "Walk the Line" over "Munich" (2005) and "The Incredibles" over "Ray" (2004). Before that, the PGA sometimes picked six nominees and it gets harder to calculate.
In other words, we're down to Agatha Christie territory. The five nominees should be looking at each other, wondering which one is going to get the axe. If, again, recent history has any meaning.
One thing is for sure: The days of "Doubt" and "Australia" being among the mix are long gone.
Tags: PGAs
1 Comment | Permalink
NSFC Picks "Bashir"; Carr Says STFU
My guys, the National Society of Film Critics, in their annual first-Saturday-night-in-January meeting, went with "Waltzing with Bashir" as the best movie of 2007, with both "Happy-Go-Lucky" and "WALL-E" coming in second.
"Bashir," which I began to hear about only recently, isn't playing in Seattle yet, so I'll have to wait to see it. Not that there isn't a glut of good films out there to see. Too big a glut. Too many good films. David Carr takes this tendency apart in one of his latest columns for The New York Times. He also tells people to STFU while they're in movie theaters. Double bravo.
I've got a good STFU story myself. Remind me to tell it one of these days. But first here's the entirety of the NSFC's list:
Best Picture: "Waltzing with Bashir"
Best Actor: Sean Penn, "Milk"
Best Actress: Sally Hawkins, "Happy-Go-Lucky"
Best Director: Mike Leigh, "Happy-Go-Lucky"
Best Writer: Mike Leigh, "Happy-Go-Lucky"
Best Supporting Actor: Eddie Marsan, "Happy-Go-Lucky"
Best Supporting Actress: Hanna Schygulla, "The Edge of Heaven"
About the best picture winner, Variety writes:
"Bashir," a Sony Classics pic in the mode of the distrib's 2007 release "Persepolis," is Israeli writer-helmer Ari Folman's animated meditation on his own experience as a soldier in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. It is seen as a contender in both the animation and foreign-langauge Oscar categories but hasn't been a regular winner of major early-season kudos.As for the "Happy-Go-Lucky" juggernaut, well, I do want to see it, but I think the NSFC likes Mike Leigh a little more than I do.
No Comments yet | Permalink
Oscar Watch: NY Critics Pick "Milk"
Now it's the New York Film Critics Circle's turn. "Milk" for best picture, actor (Penn), supporting actor (Brolin). "Happy-Go-Lucky," which opened quietly in October, and whose widest release has been 202 theaters, won for best director (Mike Leigh) and actress (Sally Hawkins). Cruz won again. "Man on Wire" again. Momentum for these two.
BTW: I may preface these awards with the title "Oscar Watch," but it really doesn't mean much in terms of the Academy. Critics are critics, and, for best picture, the NY version has only agreed with the Academy twice this decade: 2007 and 2003:
2007: No Country for Old Men
2006: United 93
2005: Brokeback Mountain
2004: Sideways
2003: The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King
2002: Far From Heaven
2001: Mulholland Drive
2000: Traffic
More importantly, they've only agreed with me... a couple of times. I guess it only counts if you make a pick, and I don't remember picking much earlier in the decade, but, if I had, I wouldn't have picked what they picked. "Traffic" was a huge disappointment. Same with "Mulholland." Can't fathom "Far From Heaven" over "The Pianist." Was never a big "Lord of the Rings" guy. Despite what I wrote yesterday, I chose "Munich" in '05 but liked "Brokeback" well enough (OK, a lot). But for the last two years? Yes. "United 93" is a great, underrated movie that didn't even get nom'ed by the Academy, did it? Don't know if it'll last but it's truly powerful. And "No Country" definitely over "There Will Be Blood."
There's an article on the NYFCC site, from Stephen Garrett at Time Out New York, that touts this organization the way that I touted the National Society of Film Critics a few years ago, but either he, or they, left off some of the misses. Sure, they picked "Citizen Kane" over "How Green Was My Valley." They also ignored both "Godfather" movies in place of foreign films. The valley isn't always greener.
All of which is to say: It's a tough biz saying within a year — really, within a month — what the best pics are, and Lord knows I've changed my own mind enough times. The last two years of the '90s, my original pics were "Saving Private Ryan" and "American Beauty" but now I'd go, in a second, and with full force, for "The Thin Red Line" and "The Insider."
But it's nice to have an opinion; it's nice to care. Most years I just shrug.
No Comments yet | Permalink
Oscar Watch: L.A. Critics Pick "WALL-E"
The Los Angeles Film Critics Association announced their annual awards yesterday and not only did they go popular ("WALL-E"), they went popular twice (runner-up for best pic was "The Dark Knight"). This is in direct contrast to their recent history. Throughout the decade, L.A. critics have awarded best picture to character studies or quiet, somber films, drained of color, in which something horrific happens and is then resolved ambiguously or painstakingly:
2007: There Will Be Blood
2006: Letters from Iwo Jima
2005: Brokeback Mountain
2004: Sideways
2003: American Splendor
2002: About Schmidt
2001: In the Bedroom
2000: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Not a lot of laughs there. I guess not a lot of laughs in "WALL-E" or "Dark Knight," either. This is not criticism, by the way. My best pics this decade, which would include "Crouching Tiger" and "Brokeback Mountain," were mostly somber films: "The Pianist" in 2002, for example.
So a break from their recent history but not from their history. The Association, which has obviously differed over the years (you can see their current membership here), has often awarded bold, popular movies. I'm thinking "Star Wars" in 1977, "E.T." in 1982 and "Pulp Fiction" in 1994. I'd add "L.A. Confidential" and "The Insider," two Russell Crowe movies from the late '90s, but, as good as these movies were, I don't think they were ever popular at the box office.
Here are their picks over the years:
1999: The Insider
1998: Saving Private Ryan
1997: L.A. Confidential
1996: Secrets & Lies
1995: Leaving Las Vegas
1994: Pulp Fiction
1993: Schindler's List
1992: Unforgiven
1991: Bugsy
1990: Goodfellas
1989: Do the Right Thing
1988: Little Dorrit
1987: Hope & Glory
1986: Hannah and Her Sisters
1985: Brazil
1984: Amadeus
1983: Terms of Endearment
1981: Atlantic City
1980: Raging Bull
1979: Kramer vs. Kramer
1978: Coming Home
1977: Star Wars
1976: Network & Rocky
1975: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest & Dog Day Afternoon
Not a bad list. I'd also recommend checking out the LAFCA Web site, which is clean and well-designed for this kind of research.
The rest of their picks for this year, including Best Actor (Sean Penn) and Best Supporting Actor (Heath Ledger) can be found here.
No Comments yet | Permalink
Oscar Watch: FOJ-Dub
On the Hollywood Elsewhere site, Jeffrey Wells, who always seems to misspell my name ("Eric") whenever he reacts to one of my articles, posts an Academy insider's picks for Best Pic:
Slumdog Millionaire
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
The supposed shocker is Dark Knight, but I wouldn't be surprised and might even be happy to see it nom'ed . Either way, I get the feeling we're getting down to it. This is beginning to feel right — particularly with Doubt garnering tepid reviews. It would also mean that both Kate Winslet movies (The Reader, which I'm reading now, and Revolutionary Road) would be shut out. Again, not a surprise. Best pics tend to be male- rather than female-oriented, and have been for quite a while.
Read the whole post here.
Tags: Jeffrey Wells, Oscars
No Comments yet | Permalink
Oscar Watch: NBR Picks "Slumdog"
Best film: "Slumdog Millionaire"
Best director: David Fincher for "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
Best actor: Clint Eastwood for "Gran Torino"
Best actress: Anne Hathaway for "Rachel Getting Married"
Best adapted screenplay: Eric Roth for "Benjamin"; Simon Beaufoy for "Slumdog"
Best original screenplay: Nick Schenk for "Gran Torino"
Best supporting actor: Josh Brolin for "Milk"
Best supporting actress: Penelope Cruz for "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"
Best documentary: "Man on Wire"
Best animated film: "WALL-E"
Quick thoughts. Glad to see "Man on Wire" win. Cruz killed in "Vicky." Brolin was great but wasn't his role in "Milk" a bit small? Maybe not. Happy for my friend Deb whose friend Nick won for best screenplay and who wrote the screenplay that is garnering a legend like Eastwood acting accolades so late in his career. That's impressive. Have yet to see "Slumdog." This weekend, I hope.
Most articles mention that NBR's pick last year, "No Country for Old Men," went on to win the Oscar for Best Picture. So a good indicator, right? Well, let's pretend life goes back a little further:
2007: "No Country for Old Men"
2006: "Letters from Iwo Jima"
2005: "Good Night, and Good Luck"
2004: "Finding Neverland"
2003: "Mystic River"
2002: "The Hours"
2001: "Moulin Rouge"
2000: "Quills"
Last year was the anomaly. Only once this decade has the Board's pick gone on to win the Oscar for Best Picture. In fact, in general, NBR is one of the awards bodies I agree with the least. Their picks are rarely surprising — the way that The National Society of Film Critics can surprise ("Babe"; "Out of Sight") — and often feel safe and soft. Critics' favorites that don't have much staying power.
Oh, and among their top 10 movies for the year? This one. WTF?
No Comments yet | Permalink
What Recent Blockbuster Should've Been Nominated Best Picture?
Since the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences settled on five Best Picture nominees in 1944, there have been only six years in which no nominee was among the year's top 10 box office hits: 1947, 1984...and the last four years in a row. I wrote about this last January.
So the question: What recent top 10 box office hit has been worth nominating? Here are your choices:
1. Shrek 2
2. Spider-Man 2
3. The Passion of the Christ
4. Meet the Fockers
5. The Incredibles
6. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
7. The Day After Tomorrow
8. The Bourne Supremacy
9. National Treasure
10. The Polar Express
1. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
2. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
3. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
4. War of the Worlds
5. King Kong
6. Wedding Crashers
7. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
8. Batman Begins
9. Madagascar
10. Mr. & Mrs. Smith
1. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
2. Night at the Museum
3. Cars
4. X-Men: The Last Stand
5. The Da Vinci Code
6. Superman Returns
7. Happy Feet
8. Ice Age: The Meltdown
9. Casino Royale
10. The Pursuit of Happyness
1. Spider-Man 3
2. Shrek the Third
3. Transformers
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
6. I Am Legend
7. The Bourne Ultimatum
8. National Treasure: Book of Secrets
9. Alvin and the Chipmunks
10. 300
Of these, the only movies that had a shot at a nom, really, given the Academy's traditional predilections, are "Passion of the Christ" in 2004, "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Pursuit of Happyness" in 2006, and... that's about it. "Passion" didn't make it because, some may argue, it was too political in the wrong way. I'd argue it just wasn't good enough. "Da Vinci Code"? Again, not good enough. Same director and star as "Apollo 13" but no "Apollo 13." "Happyness"? Who knows? Probably should have been nom'ed, though — over "Babel" certainly. It's one of the few films over the last five years in which art and commerce blended well enough to create the happy medium that is usually the very thing the Academy honors. But they ignored it. Or, more precisely, it didn't make their top 5. Might've been no. 6.
Non-traditional arguments can be made for "Spider-Man 2," "The Incredibles" and "Casino Royale," but each would be unprecedented (superheroes, superhero cartoons, Bond), and it still doesn't answer the question: Whatever became of the happy medium of films like "Dances with Wolves" and "Apollo 13"? Has Hollywood changed? Has the Academy? Have we?
1 Comment | Permalink
Dark Knight + Oscar
I missed this article about the Academy Awards and box office when it came out two days ago — distracted, as ever, by the presidential campaign and the World Series — but it's certainly in my wheelhouse. Last January I wrote an article (or articles) on the subject for HuffPost, and throughout the year I've certainly blogged enough about Times' writers Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes, and the two tag-team on this one.
Here's the point: In the past, popular but lightweight movies were nominated best picture (Three Coins in a Fountain; Love Story; Raiders of the Lost Ark), while weighty Oscar nominees could be huge box office hits (Bridge Over the River Kwai; The Graduate; One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). But for the past 30 years, and particularly this decade, we've seen a split: Box office hits rarely get nom'ed and weighty best picture nominees rarely become box office hits. Last January I wrote:
How rare is it when at least one of the best picture nominees isn't among the year's top 10 box office hits? Since 1944, it's happened only five times: 1947, 1984...and the last three years in a row: 2004, 2005, 2006. What was once a rarity has now become routine.
Make that the last four years in a row. The biggest box office hit among last year's best picture nominees, Juno, topped out at 15th for 2007, $25 million behind Wild Hogs.
Now, according to Cieply and Barnes, the studios, who have been busy closing their prestige divisions, are hyping their box office hits, including The Dark Knight and Wall-E, for best picture. Good for them. Unfortunately, Cieply's and Barnes' article is also filled with the conventional wisdom of Hollywood insiders. No sentence screamed at me more than this one:
However, several [Oscar campaigners] noted a belief that audiences — weary of economic crisis and political strife — are ready for a dose of fun from the entertainment industry.
It screamed because last May, in Cieply's article about how Hollywood insiders were worried about their gloomy, sequel-shy summer box office, we got this graf:
The [summer movie] mix may not perfectly match the mood of an audience looking for refuge from election campaigns and high-priced gas, said Peter Sealey, a former Columbia Pictures marketing executive who is now an adjunct professor…
What movies, included in this "mix," did Cieply specifically mention that the audience might not be in the mood for? The comedy Tropic Thunder, which quietly made $110M, and, of course, The Dark Knight, which noisily grossed $527M. Internationally, it's approaching $1 billion.
You'd think a journalist might be shy about quoting Hollywood insiders in the exact same way after dropping a bomb like that. Not here. Seriously, I encourage everyone to read Cieply's May article. It's instructive. Hell, it's downright Goldmanesque. Nobody may know anything but some of us really don't know anything.
In the end, and depending on what gets released in the next few months, I wouldn't mind seeing Dark Knight get nom'ed. It shouldn't win, of course (Three Coins, Love Story and Raiders didn't win either), but it was a hugely popular, critically acclaimed film and in the past that's been enough for the Academy.
But that's only one part of the equation: a box-office hit will have gotten nom'ed. The other part — a weighty best picture nominee that becomes a box-office hit — will take more work. Work, I should add, the studios don't appear interested in doing.
Tags: Michael Cieply, Brooks Barnes, Oscar Box Office
No Comments yet | Permalink
And the winner is...
...Hope Putnam! All of 4 1/2 years old. She — with perhaps a hand from Dad, Mike — won our annual Oscar pool with 16 of the 21 categories correct. (We ignore the short subjects.) I came in second with 15, Brenda got 14, Tommy and Patricia 13, etc. etc., on down to Tim with 3. He picks with his heart.
It was a nice night. About 25 people, a lot of kids running around, a lot of crushed crackers on the floor afterwards. Wine, beer, bruschetta. At one point Rico threatened me but you know how architects are. I suppose I shouldn't have made his wife, Jolie, stricken with laryngitis, repeat herself unnecessarily but it seemed funny at the time. Now, too. It was great seeing Sullivan healthy and looking great. Mr. B kept score, as always. Tommy showed up in a porkpie hat, which not many people can pull off but Tommy can. Jeff S. remained pretty funny for a tall guy. His riff on the hot chicks (this year, Jessica Alba) always presenting the sci-tech awards was spot-on.
Our consensus — and despite Alessandra Stanley's opinion — was that Jon Stewart did a helluva job. He was funny, loose, stayed on message (movies, movies, movies...with some politics) and brought back the Once chick to complete her acceptance speech. That brought the house down. Our house anyway.
Looking over the list of acting winners it's all western Europe: Spain, France and two Britains. Loved all the French and Spanish — along with Jon Stewart's translation of the latter. Happy with all the choices. The movie that should've won, won. The actor that should've won, won. Wish the Coens could've gotten past their Minnesota upbringing and reveled in their moment of triumph a bit more. Or at all. Somewhere between them and Roberto Benigni lies a happy medium. Happy to see MN girl Diablo Cody win for best original screenplay and loved her shout-out to the other writers.
The women at the party loved themselves some Javier Bardem, the men loved themselves some Cameron Diaz. Everyone agreed that Helen Mirren looked stunning and sexy.
All in all, a fun night. Thanks, everyone. Let's do it again next year.
3 Comments | Permalink
Everyone deserves an Oscar nom - again
Entertainment Weekly has a piece about the 100 greatest Oscar snubs ever — you can read it here — but once again they're adding without subtracting. That's like governing without taxing. Grover Norquist would be proud.
The list is made up of actors and actresses who weren't even nominated for what we now consider classic performances. At no. 24, for example, we get Denzel Washington in Philadelphia. EW writes that Tom Hanks deserved his Oscar for the same film but "Washington, as the ambulance-chasing homophobe, had the harder task. He had to coerce audiences, ever so gently, into realizing that his character represented our own ignorance, and then drag us on his path to enlightenment."
But EW ignores its own harder task. If Washington gets a nom in 1993, who doesn't? Daniel Day-Lewis for In the Name of the Father, Laurence Fishburne for What's Love Got to Do With It?, Anthony Hopkins for Remains of the Day or Liam Neeson for Schindler's List? Who does EW snub?
It's bad enough that they're doing this from an historical perspective that allows them to seem smarter than the Academy by touting classic film roles — Rita Hayworth in Gilda (no. 21), Malcolm McDowell in A Clockwork Orange (no. 17), Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz (no. 9) — but add some teeth to the argument. Add some hand wringing. I thought their no. 6 choice was inspired: Susan Sarandon in Bull Durham. I thought: Yeah! Great performance. Totally bought her in that role. Then you look at the other best actress nominees from 1988: Glenn Close in Dangerous Liasons, Jodie Foster in The Accused, Melanie Griffith in Working Girl, Meryl Streep in A Cry in the Dark and Sigourney Weaver in Gorillias in the Mist. Now it's a little tougher. For my part, I'd pick Sarandon over Griffith or Weaver but EW doesn't want to make any hard choices, just easy ones.
Aren't these lists disposable enough? Make them about something. This list could be about how overlooked performances tend to come from genre films (horror, comedy) while the nominated performances tend to come from overserious dramatic films. And of course this is still going on. The Academy is still doing this. Talk about that and at least you're talking about something slightly relevant.
No Comments yet | Permalink
Twitter: @ErikLundegaard
Tweets by @ErikLundegaardRank the Academy Award's Best Pictures: 1927-2012
We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance (2012)
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
Secret Origin: The Story of DC Comics (2010)
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
The Legend of the Lone Ranger (1981)
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1981/2006)