BAFTA winners

For the films of 2013
FilmFan720
Tenured
Posts: 3324
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby FilmFan720 » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:08 am

Eric wrote:Having a tough time accepting that a movie about family togetherness and legacy-building would be considered darker than a movie about Nazis, but hey.



Yeah, if we're going the route than the dark exploration of a horrible period of history is Cabaret/12 Years, and the popular entertainment (and box office blockbuster) is Gravity/Godfather.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2721
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby Eric » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:27 am

Having a tough time accepting that a movie about family togetherness and legacy-building would be considered darker than a movie about Nazis, but hey.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14622
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby Big Magilla » Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:40 am

The Original BJ wrote:In fact, about the only case I could really come up with where the reverse type of split occurred would be All the King's Men/A Letter to Three Wives, where clearly the darker, more cynical film snagged Best Picture while Director went to something more lightweight. And that might as well have been in a different century.


It was a different century!

While you make a good point that where there are splits, one of the two top awards generally goes to a serious film while the other goes to a lighter entertainment. I would put In the Heat of the Night/The Graduate forth as a case where the lighter entertainment clearly won the Best Director award while the heavier film won Best Picture. The year before All the King's Men/A Letter to Three Wives split was a true anomaly in which two heavy dramas, Hamlet and Treasure of Sierra Madre split the top prizes. This year's clearest precedent is 1972 when the slightly lighter Cabaret (it was a musical after all) won the lion's share of the awards while the heavier Godfather won Best Picture. The difference is that Fosse over Coppola was something of a shock. This year the shock will be if something other than 12 Years a Slave bests Gravity which as I illustrated below could happen with this crazy preferential nonsense. A straight most votes on the first count would likely give the Best Picture award to either Gravity or 12 Years a Slave making for a less suspenseful night but possibly an ultimately more satisfying one for most people.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby The Original BJ » Tue Feb 18, 2014 12:46 am

Gladiator isn't the only recent movie to sweep the biggest Best Picture precursors -- Globe, PGA, BAFTA -- without winning Director at any of them. The Aviator pulled off the same hat trick, leading many to predict the film would win the Oscar for Picture, Director, or both. Looking back at that race, it's amazing to think so many people -- myself included -- hedged our bets for Million Dollar Baby's momentum in Best Picture but still stuck with Scorsese for Director based on sentiment, when he hadn't won much of anything. Perhaps it's because the split the precursors gave us -- The Aviator/Eastwood -- just didn't make much sense. (And yes, I know BAFTA went for The Aviator/Mike Leigh, but in Oscar terms, it was still The Aviator/NOT Scorsese.)

Which brings me to this year. I'd like to reiterate a point made very early in the season, but which hasn't gotten much face time lately: based on the kinds of movies which split Picture and Director, there's virtually zero precedent for a 12 Years a Slave/Alfonso Cuarón split. The darker, edgier efforts pick up Director but lose Picture to the crowd-pleasers, not the other way around -- Brokeback/Crash, Pianist/Chicago, Traffic/Gladiator, Ryan/Shakespeare, July/Daisy, Reds/Chariots. I even think The Graduate/In the Heat of the Night qualifies, given that the former was so much edgier in content and form, while the latter tapped into topical concerns in a much more traditional way. (The one modern outlier would be Godfather/Cabaret, because, in a weird way, BOTH of those movies are dark/edgy AND crowd-pleasers. But that still doesn't provide a precedent for the scenario widely predicted this year.)

Even going further back -- Around the World/Giant, Greatest Show on Earth/High Noon, American in Paris/Place in the Sun -- the trend holds pretty solidly. In fact, about the only case I could really come up with where the reverse type of split occurred would be All the King's Men/A Letter to Three Wives, where clearly the darker, more cynical film snagged Best Picture while Director went to something more lightweight. And that might as well have been in a different century.

This is not to say that I think a 12 Years/Cuarón split is out of the question -- 12 Years still has racked up a pretty consistent string of Best Picture trophies this season. But, let me ask this question: based on precedent, why should I NOT predict Gravity wins both prizes?

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14622
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:27 pm

Here's one scenario as to how the preferential ballot might play out:

1st run-through totals
Gravity 30%
12 Years a Slave 30%
American Hustle 15%
The Wolf of Wall Street 7%
Captain Phillips 5%
Nebraska 4%
Dallas Buyers Club 4%
Philomena 3%
Her 2%

The preponderance of Her's votes go to American Hustle; Philomena's to 12 Years a Slave; Dallas Buyers Club's to 12 Years a Slave; Nebraska's to American Hustle; Captain Phillips' to 12 Years a Slave; The Wolf of Wall Street's to American Hustle.

Intermediate totals
12 Years a Slave 42%
American Hustle 28%
Gravity 30%

Gravity's vote are split evenly between 12 Years a Slave and American Hustle.

Final totals
12 Years a Slave 57%
American Hustle 43%

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3736
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:21 pm

Mister Tee wrote:
On the other hand, I confess I have no idea of the effect of the preferential ballot, which exists for best picture alone. We're going to get our first demonstration of how that plays out in a non-consensus year.



Yes, and this is another reason why Best Picture is quite difficult to predict. The good thing is - if 12 Years a Slave wins even just two Oscars (most probably Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress) in such a year the question mark will last till the end. But honestly I can't believe that, like at the BAFTAs, a movie - any movie - can win Best Picture with only one other Oscar - even a major one. These things used to happen only in the early 30s.

As for Bruce Dern, I'm not American so I don't know but - does he have such a legendary status? Because one can't win an Oscar - from such an immense voting group - based on personal connections alone. They can help, of course - but wouldn't be enough. But if the same role had been played by, say, Robert Redford, I'm sure that his chances would have really been solid. (And by the way, while I wouldn't vote for Dern I think he gave an impressive performance, better than McConaughey's for sure).

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14622
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:07 pm

Mister Tee wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:Magilla, I'd assume you'd get the same BBCAmerica feed in NJ that i did in Manhattan, and the version I saw ran three hours (with that same 35 minute red carpet you saw). The show was only truncated, as usual, by keeping most tech awards off-screen.


Well, that's good to know but my sleepless nights had to catch up with me some time. It had been scheduled for two two-hour showings (8-10 and 10-12) .

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5757
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:37 pm

ITALIANO wrote:And most importantly, it's (another) sign of how frail 12 Years a Slave is (unfortunately I haven't seen it yet). I know that it keeps winning Best Picture prizes, but it does so without any real enthusiasm, obviously. And let's face it, at the Oscars - even more than in other contexts - enthusiasm plays an important role. Respect alone may not be enough.

I'm thinking of other movies over the years that were considered front-runners for much of the season despite falling into the respected-not-loved category: Reds, Born on the Fourth of July, and, yes, Brokeback Mountain. Each went into the presentations thinking they'd held on just well enough to win, but fell short at the end. And they each had the advantage 12 Years doesn't have, of being the DGA winner. As you say, the Oscar can sometimes be more dependent on enthusiasm than even prelims for which we have less respect, like the Globes. (cf. Klaus-Maria Brandauer winning the Globe but losing the Oscar to the pathetic Don Ameche)

On the other hand, I confess I have no idea of the effect of the preferential ballot, which exists for best picture alone. We're going to get our first demonstration of how that plays out in a non-consensus year.

Magilla, I'd assume you'd get the same BBCAmerica feed in NJ that i did in Manhattan, and the version I saw ran three hours (with that same 35 minute red carpet you saw). The show was only truncated, as usual, by keeping most tech awards off-screen.

And I wouldn't make any comparison between Bruce Dern and Richard Farnsworth. Lumping them together reeks of "one old man's the same as the next" Richard Farnsworth had a creditable career as (mostly) a stunt man, but was hardly a Hollywood regular on the scale of Bruce Dern. I imagine a great many of the older Academy set would love to see their old pal Dernsie win (I've heard one or two express that very thought). I doubt many of them even knew Farnsworth.
Last edited by Mister Tee on Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3736
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:28 am

Yes, I know, but how shall I put it... I find it easier to compare Gravity to Gladiator or Return of the King than 12 Years a Slave to The Godfather, in all honesty! (Or, for different reasons, to Rocky, even).

And no, sorry, the Oscars don't work the way you think. It's not a question of necessarily winning many Oscars - it's a question of which Oscars you win or can win.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12175
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:21 am

The Godfather won three Oscars in 1972. Cabaret won 8. While Cabaret is still celebrated as a terrific film, there's no denying that The Godfather is one of the most respected and beloved winners in history. Just because a film loses tech Oscars to something far more technically obvious does not mean there's no love for the film.

We talk about sweeps so often that if a film doesn't sweep to a win, it's somehow less appreciated than past Best Picture winners that did. When you have a year with so much stiff competition in all categories, not just Best Picture, it should come as little surprise that the awards are divvied up like a children's end-of-year party where everyone's given a prize. It doesn't mean anything to the quality of the film. It simply means that there was too much good to ignore.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3736
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:03 am

The Abdi moment was actually nice. Had it been at the Oscars, it would have been one of those memorable surprises which nowaydays sadly don't happen anymore. And it would have been a politically-correct way of honoring black people - though not for the expected movie. So it would make sense - in many ways.
But of course at the Oscars it will be Jared Leto getting it - so what happened yesterday is only interesting for two reasons. First, it shows us that, without Leto, Best Supporting Actor would have been a truly open race.

And most importantly, it's (another) sign of how frail 12 Years a Slave is (unfortunately I haven't seen it yet). I know that it keeps winning Best Picture prizes, but it does so without any real enthusiasm, obviously. And let's face it, at the Oscars - even more than in other contexts - enthusiasm plays an important role. Respect alone may not be enough.

Michael Fassbender, a beloved, rising British star, could have easily won here - and lost. And while it's true that Jennifer Lawrence was helped by the fact that she hadn't won last year, it's evident that even Nyong'o, while still the favorite, isn't a clear-cut favorite. And I honestly don't think that Ejiofor's win yesterday can mean too much - except maybe that Di Caprio is a bit - just a bit - weaker than some of us expected (or hoped).

If 12 Years a Slave wins Best Picture, it will be one of the Best Picture winners with the least numbers of other Oscar wins. Even The Artist - a silent movie made in France - will probably have two Oscars more than McQueen's movie.

Which, of course, could simply mean that 12 Years a Slave won't win. Which in turn means Gravity (Gravity!) will - to the joy of most here but not me. And it can happen. Gravity may not be as "relevant", as "serious" as 12 Years a Slave, but it's not true that pure entertainment never wins Best Picture. If the reviews are good (and as strange as it may seem, Gravity got very good reviews), it sure can happen. And not only in the 50s. I mean, if The Gladiator, Chicago (over a Holocaust movie!) and The Return of the King can win Best Piccture, why not Gravity?

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14622
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:21 am

HarryGoldfarb wrote:I believe it is a good thing to have the Academy Awards a little bit farther in the future, getting itself some distance from the open and crowded Awards TV season. Maybe this period of time can impact with heavy weight on winners selection as voters may start to hear their own thoughts instead of doing so in a mechanical way with the consensus choice written all over their heads. So maybe (and I am saying this with the biggest sense of hesitation and doubts) Leto's name is not written in stone yet. Maybe this Abdi mention at least can give voters a second thought, a chance to reconsider the whole scenario.


Oscar voting began just two days before the BAFTAs. Many voters were waiting for a surprise or two from them, so, yes, the Abdi win could sway some voters but Leto wasn't an option there so maybe not. Fassbender's chances are dimmer. If he couldn't win on home territory after losing just about every other award to Leto, he's less likely than before to best him at the Oscars. If voters are looking to give the award to someone other than Leto or Fassbender, then Abdi would certainly be a viable choice.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 14622
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:10 am

Mister Tee wrote:Blanchett even slew Queen Judi on British soil. She's unstoppable.

But best actor remains questionable. Magilla, I don't see how you can elevate Ejiofor on the basis of this alone. He's a well-respected British veteran actor; this win on home court may mean no more than Colin Firth's A Single Man win did. I think McConaughey is the Oscar front-runner, but I'll repeat the two things I've said previously: that DiCaprio and McConaughey will not face one another this season prior to the Academy ballot; and no precursor group is as disposed to vote for Bruce Dern as the Academy voting membership.


I tried to watch the BBC America presentation but I kept dozing off and finally gave up and went to bed after Lawrence's win. I missed the whole Abdi thing. Like last year this thing played out as Highlights of the BAFTAs. The original presentation lasted at least 2 hours and twenty minutes. The delayed show ate up 35 minutes with a dimwitted meet and greet red carpet affair leaving only 1 hour and twenty minutes less commercials for the actual event. They must have cut quite a bit.

Blanchett probably is unstoppable but Dench already has ten BAFTAs including several for TV plus the BAFTA Fellowship. This makes Blanchett's third win. She still has a way to go to reach Dench-Maggie Smith territory. This may well be the year Harvey Weinstein doesn't pull off a win for someone. His substituting the real Philomena for Dench at Hollywood parties, even somehow wrangling an audience with the Pope for her, is one of his most bizarre campaigns so maybe there's more pushback than there might otherwise have been. Besides, at this point if anyone other than Blanchett wins the Oscar they'll blame it on Dylan and Mia Farrow tainting the water.

As for Bruce Dern, I still don't see it. This isn't the same Hollywood group that gave an Oscar to Don Ameche for still being around at 77. It's closer to the group that denied Richard Farnsworth an Oscar for The Straight Story.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5757
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:03 am

I stayed away from here (and the Internet in general) all day because BBC America wasn't airing the show till 8PM EST, and I wanted to experience the presentation in some version of real time.

And boy was I glad I did. If you only read about it on the page, you can't imagine the jolt when Barkhad Abdi won (Hanks & crew were besides themselves with joy). And the shocker when Jennifer Lawrence beat out Nyong'o. And the disbelief when Philomena topped 12 Years for screenplay. 12 Years -- which had for weeks been touted as sure to sweep through the BAFTAs -- looked dead in the water. Until suddenly Chiwetel Ejiofor won, and then, as has happened so often this season, the film won the top award, despite a paltry set of supporting trophies.

I don't know what this means. This weird pattern, of 12 Years losing almost everything and then winning the biggest prize, is unlike anything I've ever seen. Someone at another site said maybe Gladiator did the same, but Gladiator was a huge-grossing popular hit -- more like Gravity. It's hard to see it as the trail-setter for a highly serious film like 12 Years. But maybe it will; maybe this 12 Years/Gravity split will happen at the Oscars like it has as multiple other places. But that sort of thing would be just about unprecedented in the modern Oscar era. Even predicting a film/director split has proven massively precarious over the years.

As for the rest:

Blanchett even slew Queen Judi on British soil. She's unstoppable.

But best actor remains questionable. Magilla, I don't see how you can elevate Ejiofor on the basis of this alone. He's a well-respected British veteran actor; this win on home court may mean no more than Colin Firth's A Single Man win did. I think McConaughey is the Oscar front-runner, but I'll repeat the two things I've said previously: that DiCaprio and McConaughey will not face one another this season prior to the Academy ballot; and no precursor group is as disposed to vote for Bruce Dern as the Academy voting membership.

HarryGoldfarb
Assistant
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Venezuela

Re: BAFTA winners

Postby HarryGoldfarb » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:42 pm

I believe it is a good thing to have the Academy Awards a little bit farther in the future, getting itself some distance from the open and crowded Awards TV season. Maybe this period of time can impact with heavy weight on winners selection as voters may start to hear their own thoughts instead of doing so in a mechanical way with the consensus choice written all over their heads. So maybe (and I am saying this with the biggest sense of hesitation and doubts) Leto's name is not written in stone yet. Maybe this Abdi mention at least can give voters a second thought, a chance to reconsider the whole scenario.

Back in 1997, Burt Reynolds was definitely the man to beat. Actually, as far as I remember, everyone else was considered an also ran. Williams wasn't the best thing of his film and a lot of people didn't think the supporting category was the right place to recognize the comedian and he wasn't "old enough" to carry the "we owe you" label. But in the end we know what happened and yes, it was the safer film but also the most "beloved" actor and the previously nominated guy who prevailed. So what I am trying to bring up here is that some times we have some surprises or unexpected choices in major categories (Gay Harden, Hudson, Binoche, Coburn, Gooding Jr., Don Ameche and Kline) and maybe this prolonged time will make it harder for front runners to keep their status as such. A Bradley Cooper win would definitely be a shock but as someone already mentioned here, he's probably the most suitable candidate for a shock win. And lets not forget how musicians usually score in the acting categories. Wouldn't Leto, by this point, might be considered more of an "usual" musician-model/"ocasional" actor instead of the other way around?
Life is painless for the brainless.
- Fiyero


Return to “86th Predictions and Precursors”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests