The State Of The Race

[Sabin]

I think that will be the lineup as well, and quite frankly it makes me rather pleased indeed. I don't think 'American Gangster' is a successful picture at all and I don't know many others who would say it is; whereas 'The Departed' was entirely confident in the story it was telling, 'American Gangster' seems entirely unconfident. I have a difficult time seeing 'No Country for Old Men' or 'There Will Be Blood' winning Best Picture but they stir something in the viewer that is entirely missing from 'American Gangster'. Of the five presumed nominees at this point, I think the only one that fits traditional Oscar fare is 'Into the Wild', which I'm fairly confident will not be come to pass.

This will be the first year since I started watching films where I can say that three of my five favorite films this year are likely to be nominated. 'Michael Clayton' is a fine piece of pop art posing as high drama (which I'll take to stodgier procedural any day), and 'American Gangster' has flourishes of amusement weighed down by gross Hollywood pandering, more of a contract negotiation than an actual story.

[Penelope]

I was talking about the winner, Penelope.

American Gangster
Into the Wild
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

It feels kinda right.

We were talking from two different perspectives.

But, even then, I still doubt American Gangster will win over No Country; this has nothing to do with bias: I still think No Country can win, especially over such a lineup.

[rolotomasi99]

I'm beginning to think the nods might be:

American Gangster
Into the Wild
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

It feels kinda right.

i could actually live with that line up! :p

[OscarGuy]

I was talking about the winner, Penelope. I wasn't talking about No Country not getting a nomination. I'm beginning to think the nods might be:

American Gangster
Into the Wild
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

It feels kinda right.

[Penelope]

I was talking about nominations, not a win.

[OscarGuy]

Come on Penelope, do we need to forget how strong Fargo and L.A. Confidential were with critics? Or even Sideways. Let's not forget the Crash/Brokeback incident. Even The Departed didn't pick up the lion's share of critic's awards. The only two films since I started keeping track in 1996 to bypass the critics/voters divide were American Beauty and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

Pull your bias out of this and think about it being Ridley Scott, being a $100 M+ movie that has broad support among audiences and the "insider" info Damien posted below.

[Penelope]

I don't think American Gangster will replace No Country For Old Men--that movie is simply too strong in terms of critical praise and pre-cursor awards to ignore; I suppose it could replace There Will Be Blood, if it's as divisive as some say it is.

Aakash, actually some of us were upset that the Academy bypassed Cold Mountain; true, there were those on the board who threw confetti in the air when it was snubbed, but it was nothing compared to the Dreamgirls snub, and some of us (myself, for example) thought it was fully deserving of a Best Pic nod, moreso than not only Seabiscuit, but also the unbelievably dull Master and Commander, the mediocre Lost in Translation and the I'll-never-understand-the-popularity-of Bored of the Rings: The Return of Sleep.

[OscarGuy]

I just thought of something. I've been saying for awhile that the critics groups are fine and all, but that sweeps don't always pan out, matter of fact, they seldom do outside of the lead acting acting categories.

Now, hear me out and think about it before saying it's just 'cause I don't like No Country for Old Men.

American Gangster is relatively middle brow. It was popular enough to pass $100 M at the box office. It was critic-proof. We all dismissed it because of the lashing it got from critics, but there was a secret desire of some or it to fail. But 79% RT average isn't critical acclaim but it's a positive enough response to pose a threat.

Ridley Scott's a very respected director who has delivered a lot of popular films that critics generally like (Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Black Hawk Down). Sure he's had some major clunkers, but with those four films alone, Scott could play very well with Hollywood voters. The film is middle-of-the-road enough that it could pose a threat to the critics darlings There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men.

It features "period" sets and costumes, stars actors Hollywood actors generally like and respect: Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe and Ruby Dee.

If this film gets nods for PGA and DGA, I think it may become the film to beat...or at least Ridley Scott the director to beat...

[Akash]

Thanks Damien. It makes perfect sense to me that Oscar voters would replace a mediocre film like Atonement with something even worse like American Gangster. Remember in 2003 when many of us were cheering because they showed remarkable resistance to the Weinsteins and snubbed the underwhelming Cold Mountain? We were so pleased until we slowed down and realized that this omission was just to make room for the much lousier Seabiscuit. So I don't expect this year to be any different.

If there's one silver lining, it's that a nomination for an unworthy mess like Michael Clayton allows George Clooney to show up at the Oscars again. And that's always a good thing.

[rolotomasi99]

I spoke to a publicist who handles Oscar campaigns. He said that, to his surprise, two films which are being spoken of particularly favorably among industry-ites are Michael Clayton (which doesn't actually surprise me) and American Gangster (which does).

On the flip side, reaction to Atonement has been overwhelmingly unfavorable, and the response to Sweeney Todd is largely of indifference. Oh, Into The Wild seems to be quite popular in Hollywood.

are you trying to make me cry?

what does it say about me that i care about the opinions of people who think AMERICAN GANGSTER is a better movie than ATONEMENT?

INTO THE WILD for best picture is certainly not objectionable, and MICHAEL CLAYTON is certainly preferable to THE KITE RUNNER.
i could live with a SWEENEY TODD best picture nom if it did not include director or actor nominations.
i understand I'M NOT THERE is just too weird for them, but they have to be the biggest assholes imaginable to not recognize the achievement of THERE WILL BE BLOOD, even if it is not their cup of tea.

[Damien]

I spoke to a publicist who handles Oscar campaigns. He said that, to his surprise, two films which are being spoken of particularly favorably among industry-ites are Michael Clayton (which doesn't actually surprise me) and American Gangster (which does).

On the flip side, reaction to Atonement has been overwhelmingly unfavorable, and the response to Sweeney Todd is largely of indifference. Oh, Into The Wild seems to be quite popular in Hollywood.

[rain Bard]

Hard to believe people who haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet can be so convinced of its Oscar-baity-ness. Having seen it, I remain skeptical. I'm having trouble imagining the profile of the Academy member who picks it as #1 over No Country For Old Men. I think this guy probably has it placed about right.

You keep saying this. But rain Bard, what if this were 1980 and you've seen an advance screening of "Raging Bull"? Would you be just as skeptical of its Oscar chances?

I've only said it out loud a few times so far...

As to the Raging Bull question. Good question. My answer: Well, maybe. I dunno. I was only 7 in 1980 but it seems like the 1970s were a time when more artistically ambitious fare was likely to earn Oscar recognition, and there'd be no reason to think 1980 would be any different. From this vantage point Raging Bull seems less daring an Oscar pick than Apocalypse Now or All That Jazz the year before, but maybe that's the result of Scorsese's subsequent canonization. At any rate, with a Taxi Driver BP nom under his belt, it seems like Marty would be a more Oscar-friendly director in 1980 than PTA in 2007.

Again, this perception may be overly colored by the film's widespread acclaim and appeal since its release, but Raging Bull doesn't seem to me to be nearly as confounding of expectations of what made a "good movie" in 1980 as There Will Be Blood seems today. Even the Thin Red Line contains, from my perspective, fewer uncomfortable frictions in it than Anderson's film.

I could be dead wrong though. Maybe people will love TWBB in greater numbers than I think will.

I guess where I pipe up is when I hear people calling it a lock. That's really going too far, from where I sit.

[Sonic Youth]

Akash, you're way too panicky.

Yes, I know. Say it with me: "Don't forget, this is the same group that picked 'The Green Mile' and 'Chocolat'." Horrifiying in and of itself. But that's just one end of the specturm. AMPAS is more diverse than that. They're also the same group that nominated "Babel" and "The Thin Red Line" and "Lost in Translation" and "Pulp Fiction" and "Fargo". Putting aside these films' merits or lack thereof, they did NOT have obvious Oscar appeal and can't be pigeonholed so easily.

There have always been films that felt like AMPAS ready-mades that don't make it. 2006's "Dreamgirls" of course, but also "World Trade Center". (Now, THERE'S a film that should have been called "For Your Consideration.") It's really not such a given, although it is aggravating when it happens. So far, I've seen no indication that The Kite Runner will get anything more than a tech nom or two. I'm even doubting its screenplay chances (although the WGA noms may change that.)

[Sonic Youth]

Hard to believe people who haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet can be so convinced of its Oscar-baity-ness. Having seen it, I remain skeptical. I'm having trouble imagining the profile of the Academy member who picks it as #1 over No Country For Old Men. I think this guy probably has it placed about right.

You keep saying this. But rain Bard, what if this were 1980 and you've seen an advance screening of "Raging Bull"? Would you be just as skeptical of its Oscar chances?



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1198604640

[Akash]

Hey, I hope you guys are right. I hated the book, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to hate the movie as well. It's not like I want to see it nominated. It's just that among the films with nomination potential, I don't see another option for the kind of false uplift and limp social commentary that the Academy almost always rewards with at least a Best Picture nomination.



Edited By Akash on 1198467518