Best Picture and Director 2005

1998 through 2007

What are your picks for Best Picture and Director of 2005?

Brokeback Mountain
23
33%
Capote
0
No votes
Crash
3
4%
Good Night, and Good Luck.
4
6%
Munich
5
7%
George Clooney - Good Night, and Good Luck.
2
3%
Paul Haggis - Crash
1
1%
Ang Lee - Brokeback Mountain
26
37%
Bennett Miller - Capote
0
No votes
Steven Spielberg - Munich
6
9%
 
Total votes: 70

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2943
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby Greg » Sun Sep 06, 2020 3:14 pm

dws1982 wrote:I think that most editors see themselves as primarily storytellers, and are naturally resistant to awarding editing jobs that seem so purely technical.


This gave me a vision of an editor filling out a nomination ballot and saying, "I'm like a director or a writer, not a lowly cinematographer or composer, dammit!"
The "national debt" isn't.

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8567
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby Sabin » Sat Sep 05, 2020 9:50 pm

dws1982 wrote
I think one shot feats like Birdman and 1917 get caught up in the debate of whether film editing is primarily storytelling or primarily a technical thing. Even if you like 1917 (and I did), the editing there is almost exclusively technical--stitching different shots together so they don't look like they're different shots, and while it does serve the story (or at least the concept that Mendes is going for), it doesn't really use editing to enhance the story or the suspense the way something like Parasite does, because by design it doesn't utilize crosscutting and contrasting shots and things like that. I think that most editors see themselves as primarily storytellers, and are naturally resistant to awarding editing jobs that seem so purely technical. (I also think that 1917 probably would've won the editing award if it had been nominated, and that a lot of editors may have suspected that as well and been less inclined to nominate it on that basis.)

Both 1917 and Birdman won Best Editing from the Broadcast Film Critics. I doubt Birdman would have won the Oscar. I think it was just seen more as a feat of cinematography because it required complicated maneuvering around corners and hallways. 1917 probably had a better chance at winning because there was just more conversation had about how it covered such a massive swath of land. I don't know if it would've beaten Ford v. Ferrari or Parasite (the front-runners) but it certainly could've.
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." ~ FDR

mlrg
Adjunct
Posts: 1307
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby mlrg » Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:04 am

Big Magilla wrote:
dws1982 wrote:I seem to to remember Eastwood at some point (not sure when) saying some positive things about Brokeback Mountain. I used to lurk (and occasionally post) at a Clint Eastwood message board and I'm pretty sure I read something about it there. I know there was some speculation in 2006 that he didn't present Best Director that year because he didn't want to give it to the gay cowboy movie, but it later came out that he had been planning to present and had to cancel to go to New York to attend the memorial service for his longtime casting director, Phyllis Huffman, who had died just a few days before.

Eastwood was a presenter at the Golden Globes that year - no info. on what he presented but it was most likely Best Director, having won there the year before as well. He was quoted as saying he hadn't seen Brokeback Mountain in the days before the Oscars but that could have been his way of staying out of the controversy. I never heard that he didn't present Best Director because he didn't want to give the award to the gay cowboy movie. Whoever said that was making it up.


Eastwood presented best director that year at the golden globes. Video can be found on YouTube

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 17238
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby Big Magilla » Sat Sep 05, 2020 7:58 am

dws1982 wrote:I seem to to remember Eastwood at some point (not sure when) saying some positive things about Brokeback Mountain. I used to lurk (and occasionally post) at a Clint Eastwood message board and I'm pretty sure I read something about it there. I know there was some speculation in 2006 that he didn't present Best Director that year because he didn't want to give it to the gay cowboy movie, but it later came out that he had been planning to present and had to cancel to go to New York to attend the memorial service for his longtime casting director, Phyllis Huffman, who had died just a few days before.

Eastwood was a presenter at the Golden Globes that year - no info. on what he presented but it was most likely Best Director, having won there the year before as well. He was quoted as saying he hadn't seen Brokeback Mountain in the days before the Oscars but that could have been his way of staying out of the controversy. I never heard that he didn't present Best Director because he didn't want to give the award to the gay cowboy movie. Whoever said that was making it up.

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 3347
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby dws1982 » Sat Sep 05, 2020 6:44 am

I think one shot feats like Birdman and 1917 get caught up in the debate of whether film editing is primarily storytelling or primarily a technical thing. Even if you like 1917 (and I did), the editing there is almost exclusively technical--stitching different shots together so they don't look like they're different shots, and while it does serve the story (or at least the concept that Mendes is going for), it doesn't really use editing to enhance the story or the suspense the way something like Parasite does, because by design it doesn't utilize crosscutting and contrasting shots and things like that. I think that most editors see themselves as primarily storytellers, and are naturally resistant to awarding editing jobs that seem so purely technical. (I also think that 1917 probably would've won the editing award if it had been nominated, and that a lot of editors may have suspected that as well and been less inclined to nominate it on that basis.)

Also, re, old people and Brokeback Mountain: I seem to remember Eastwood at some point (not sure when) saying some positive things about Brokeback Mountain. I used to lurk (and occasionally post) at a Clint Eastwood message board and I'm pretty sure I read something about it there. I know there was some speculation in 2006 that he didn't present Best Director that year because he didn't want to give it to the gay cowboy movie, but it later came out that he had been planning to present and had to cancel to go to New York to attend the memorial service for his longtime casting director, Phyllis Huffman, who had died just a few days before.

And re, 2005 in general: Munich is still my favorite movie of that lineup. Watched it again a month or two ago, and it really holds up, in my opinion. Maybe my favorite of 2005 overall, although I'd need to do some rewatches before I could give a definitive verdict.

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8567
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby Sabin » Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:41 pm

Greg wrote
Sabin wrote
If a movie isn't up for Best Editing, it means one of two things: either there's a very good reason (one shot = Birdman, 1917) or they think it's slow.

Obviously, feature-length films such as Birdman and 1917 cannot be shot all in one take; so, they actually have multiple shots that are edited together to look like one shot. I would think this would make the editing all the more impressive and actually increase the justification for a nomination.

I agree but there's something kind of joyless about that kind of editing. I'm sure there's some kind of creativity involved in executing those predetermined invisible cuts but it mostly seems like they they should be the recipient of the award for "Most Difficult Editing." I certainly could be wrong but I'm guessing that nobody gets the bright idea to cut five minutes out of a oner.

It's kind of impressive that Children of Men got nominated in retrospect.
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." ~ FDR

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 2943
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby Greg » Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:42 pm

Sabin wrote:If a movie isn't up for Best Editing, it means one of two things: either there's a very good reason (one shot = Birdman, 1917) or they think it's slow.


Obviously, feature-length films such as Birdman and 1917 cannot be shot all in one take; so, they actually have multiple shots that are edited together to look like one shot. I would think this would make the editing all the more impressive and actually increase the justification for a nomination.
The "national debt" isn't.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 17238
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby Big Magilla » Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:06 am

Big Magilla wrote
Anyway, this wasn't about Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash. It was about where Million Dollar Baby would or wouldn't have fit in the 2005 race and yes, I was an early predicter of Million Dollar Baby's 2004 win. I don't know if I was the first on the internet, but I do remember predicting it sight unseen. I don't think I've gotten many right since - The Hurt Locker, Spotlight, that's about it.

You're right. It isn't about Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash. It's about whether Million Dollar Baby could beat Brokeback Mountain. I don't see how Crash could and Million Dollar Baby couldn't.[/quote]

Perhaps it could. I don't see it for the reasons previously stated. Million Dollar Baby was a good film. It was better than the competition in 2004, but not the competition in 2005. Crash was not better than the competition in either year but was heavily supported by Academy members because it was a local product giving jobs to more in the L.A. area than any other recent film. If the release dates for Million Dollar Baby and Crash were reversed, then perhaps both could win, but if both were released in 2005, then maybe Million Dollar Baby takes votes away from Crash, but I doubt it would take any away from Brokeback Mountain.

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8567
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby Sabin » Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:27 pm

Big Magilla wrote
Some older voters didn't like Brokeback Mountain - Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis being the most vocal. Clint Eastwood claimed not to have seen it, but you're ignoring the fact that it won three Oscars to Crash's two aside from Best Picture. That didn't happen without a lot of other, less vocal, less judgmental oldsters' support. The fact that it wasn't nominated for Best Editing is neither here nor there. All five films that were nominated contained more obvious editing - the concerts in Walk the Line, the attacks in Munich, the fight scenes in Cinderella Man, the vistas in The Constant Gardener and the many scenes in Crash all had eye-catching editing.

A few things:
- Clint Eastwood didn't see it. How many older voters didn't as well? The movie clearly had an issue with older voters not wanting to see it. It's not just older voters either. At my college, I was the only student I knew who had seen it. That's why I predicted Crash would win on this board.
- I'm not ignoring the fact that it won three Oscars at all. Roma and 1917 won three Oscars too. They didn't win four.
- The fact that it wasn't nominated for Best Editing is a massive issue. That means voters thought it was slow. It has nothing to do with showy editing vs. non-showy editing. If a movie isn't up for Best Editing, it means one of two things: either there's a very good reason (one shot = Birdman, 1917) or they think it's slow. That was literally the excuse I made for Roma. "It's just not a flashy edited film." And then it lost. If it's not up for Best Editing and it's more than one shot, it's going to lose. Tons of movies with non-flashy editing get nominated every year over flashier competition. The King's Speech over Inception, The Artist over Moneyball (and The Help, Drive, and War Horse), Spotlight over The Martian (and Bridge of Spies and Sicario), Green Book over First Man (and Black Panther and A Star is Born). Slow movies don't win Oscars.

Big Magilla wrote
Anyway, this wasn't about Brokeback Mountain vs.Crash. It was about where Million Dollar Baby would or wouldn't have fit in the 2005 race and yes, I was an early predicter of Million Dollar Baby's 2004 win. I don't know if I was the first on the internet, but I do remember predicting it sight unseen. I don't think I've gotten many right since - The Hurt Locker, Spotlight, that's about it.

You're right. It isn't about Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash. It's about whether Million Dollar Baby could beat Brokeback Mountain. I don't see how Crash could and Million Dollar Baby couldn't.
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." ~ FDR

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 17238
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Sep 02, 2020 9:22 pm

Sabin wrote:I also think you're overestimating Brokeback Mountain's strength, I think. It wasn't up for Best Film Editing. It lost to Crash. The older voters didn't like it and probably didn't even watch it. I don't know how you can look at Crash and Million Dollar Baby and think that somehow Crash is the stronger bet to win under almost identical circumstances (both released in spring). I can't think of a better movie for these older voters to rally around in fear of watching the gay cowboy movie. They can just run to Clint Eastwood -- also, it's very good.


Some older voters didn't like Brokeback Mountain - Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis being the most vocal. Clint Eastwood claimed not to have seen it, but you're ignoring the fact that it won three Oscars to Crash's two aside from Best Picture. That didn't happen without a lot of other, less vocal, less judgmental oldsters' support. The fact that it wasn't nominated for Best Editing is neither here nor there. All five films that were nominated contained more obvious editing - the concerts in Walk the Line, the attacks in Munich, the fight scenes in Cinderella Man, the vistas in The Constant Gardener and the many scenes in Crash all had eye-catching editing.

Anyway, this wasn't about Brokeback Mountain vs.Crash. It was about where Million Dollar Baby would or wouldn't have fit in the 2005 race and yes, I was an early predicter of Million Dollar Baby's 2004 win. I don't know if I was the first on the internet, but I do remember predicting it sight unseen. I don't think I've gotten many right since - The Hurt Locker, Spotlight, that's about it.

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8567
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby Sabin » Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:24 pm

mlrg wrote
As I recall The Aviator was highly anticipated and seen as the movie that finally would give Scorsese the Oscar. Sideways was the critics darling but The Aviator had the large scope and anticipation of a surefire winner.

Absolutely, but the impression that I got from both of them was that they were more admired than loved by Academy voters.
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." ~ FDR

danfrank
Assistant
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby danfrank » Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:22 pm

Funny to see that Crash received 3 votes here given that it is perhaps the most reviled film in the history of this board. The revulsion, of course, only manifested because of its Oscar success; otherwise it would be a largely forgotten film, and deservedly so.

mlrg
Adjunct
Posts: 1307
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby mlrg » Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:04 pm

Sabin wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "will it or won't it succeed?" I just remember that 2004 was being talked about as a rather dire year, the first post-LOTR year, and it felt like Million Dollar Baby arrived when people were wondering "What IS going to win Best Picture?" Instantly it felt like a movie to be loved in a field of movies to be admired.


As I recall The Aviator was highly anticipated and seen as the movie that finally would give Scorsese the Oscar. Sideways was the critics darling but The Aviator had the large scope and anticipation of a surefire winner.

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8567
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby Sabin » Wed Sep 02, 2020 3:56 pm

Big Magilla wrote
Million Dollar Baby benefitted greatly from the "will it or won't it succeed" hubbub of its sudden late-year release when it was suddenly moved forward from its intended 2005 release. That it succeeded, gave it great momentum in a year when there were no strong favorites and, yes, it was a better film than the competition. That would not have been the case in 2005 in which there were at least five better films, only two of which were nominated - Brokeback Mountain and Good Night, and Good Luck. Left out of the mix were A History of Violence, The Constant Gardener and The Squid and the Whale, all of which were better than Capote, Munich and Crash.

Although both Capote and Munich made my ten best list, they did so further down. Munich benefitted strongly from its year-end release as Million Dollar Baby had the year before.

Brokeback Mountain was the overwhelming favorite, having won the preponderance of pre-Oscar awards and the Best Director Oscar. Crash was a hometown favorite filmed on location in Los Angeles when few films were anymore. There was no middle ground. If there were, Good Night, and Good Luck would have been that. Box-office was not a factor in 2005. If it were, Walk the Line would likely have been the popular choice.

I disagree with a few things in your assessment. That being said, you might be the first person on the internet to predict Million Dollar Baby, so kudos.

I'm not sure what you mean by "will it or won't it succeed?" I just remember that 2004 was being talked about as a rather dire year, the first post-LOTR year, and it felt like Million Dollar Baby arrived when people were wondering "What IS going to win Best Picture?" Instantly it felt like a movie to be loved in a field of movies to be admired. But just because that's how Million Dollar Baby's narrative could have played out in 2004 doesn't mean it could only win under those circumstances. Just because it won as a surprise doesn't mean it can't win as a sleeper. I think you're underestimating the film's appeal and quality.

I also think you're overestimating Brokeback Mountain's strength, I think. It wasn't up for Best Film Editing. It lost to Crash. The older voters didn't like it and probably didn't even watch it. I don't know how you can look at Crash and Million Dollar Baby and think that somehow Crash is the stronger bet to win under almost identical circumstances (both released in spring). I can't think of a better movie for these older voters to rally around in fear of watching the gay cowboy movie. They can just run to Clint Eastwood -- also, it's very good.
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." ~ FDR

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 17238
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:54 am

Mister Tee wrote:
mlrg wrote:If Million Dollar Baby was released in 2005 would it prevail above Crash and Brokeback Mountain?

I think it definitely would have. Million Dollar Baby didn't win in 2004 because it arrived late; it won because it was the most broadly popular of the three main contenders. In 2005, it would have been competing with two films that had significant backlashes -- Brokeback for its subject matter, Crash for its sledgehammer obviousness. It would have seemed the perfect middle-ground choice.


Responding to this quote from Best Actress - 2004, I have to say no again.

Million Dollar Baby benefitted greatly from the "will it or won't it succeed" hubbub of its sudden late-year release when it was suddenly moved forward from its intended 2005 release. That it succeeded, gave it great momentum in a year when there were no strong favorites and, yes, it was a better film than the competition. That would not have been the case in 2005 in which there were at least five better films, only two of which were nominated - Brokeback Mountain and Good Night, and Good Luck. Left out of the mix were A History of Violence, The Constant Gardener and The Squid and the Whale, all of which were better than Capote, Munich and Crash.

Although both Capote and Munich made my ten best list, they did so further down. Munich benefitted strongly from its year-end release as Million Dollar Baby had the year before.

Brokeback Mountain was the overwhelming favorite, having won the preponderance of pre-Oscar awards and the Best Director Oscar. Crash was a hometown favorite filmed on location in Los Angeles when few films were anymore. There was no middle ground. If there were, Good Night, and Good Luck would have been that. Box-office was not a factor in 2005. If it were, Walk the Line would likely have been the popular choice.


Return to “The 8th Decade”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests