The Best Picture Formula Ramble

[FilmFan720]

Mister Tee wrote
On one thing I definitely agree: that I used to know what a best picture felt like, and now I don't... You might argue that we don't have Oscar-type movies anymore, but I don't know -- I'd say Zero Dark Thirty or Lincoln would qualify far more than Argo...and Boyhood more than Birdman. Even There Will Be Blood more than No Country for Old Men. I just think voters aren't working within that paradigm anymore. They're not necessarily seeking The Movie That Will Hold Up in Posterity; they're happy to vote for the one they like today.

I absolutely agree with your first sentence. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of your categorizations, I don't think that they're not seeking "The Movie That Will Hold Up in Posterity." I think it's one of two things: fewer The Movie That Will Hold Up in Posterity's are being made today OR they just don't look like they used to. I'll hazard this prediction: Moonlight is going to rate very high in peoples' minds as a Best Picture winner. I could see it listed in the top twenty five best winners consistently because it's obviously quite good, the shocking nature of its win, but also its win was so meaningful.

I have been thinking about this, and I think there is another factor to consider. Now that we are a century into Hollywood history, and have decades of Oscar winners to look back on, I wonder if people's idea of what sort of films will hold up has changed. Current voters have a history of movies to look back on, and an understanding that they might not have had 40 years ago that often the films that remain classics aren't necessarily the films of the zeitgeist or the well-made films. Voters can look at a year like 1956 where The Searchers - considered one of the great American films - doesn't get a nomination in favor of the stodgy Around the World in 80 Days, or 1952 and how a Singin' in the Rain feels so much more essential today than The Greatest Show on Earth, or even a year like 1976, where the winner (Rocky) may still be beloved but not in place of Taxi Driver or Network or All the President's Men, and see the sort of film that stands the test of time. Our definition of what makes a great film has morphed through the years, to a time where we can see that Frankenstein is equal to Grand Hotel, Bringing Up Baby is greater than The Life of Emile Zola, and The Third Man is seen today much more fondly than All the King's Men.

When something like No Country for Old Men was released, with near unanimous acclaim from filmmakers who have proven themselves to be major artists (even if they don't make what used to be called an Oscar Film), it feels like an instant classic. Voters feel comfortable voting for it because it is a piece that will last.

This started in the 1990s when voters back-to-back rewarded genres that had long been overlooked by the Academy (horror and western) and even nominated a "goddamn cartoon" (as Damien would have added), and it has become more commonplace this decade. Something like Birdman couldn't have won 40 years ago, but today it perhaps looks to voters like something that the future will study and deem an important film. Giving The Imitation Game the award over it could be the equivalent in 2082 as the How Green Was My Valley over Citizen Kane award is to many today. Last year, doesn't Moonlight feel more like a game changer than La La Land (although I adore both films equally), and like the sort of film that will still be discussed decades from now. We have certainly moved on from a year where sex, lies, and videotape and Do the Right Thing are ignored in favor of Field of Dreams and Driving Miss Daisy. What were once edgy films, due to their content, style, or genre, and which had to grow into their acclaim, are now embraced on a broader scale much faster.

I don't know how much of this goes through a voters mind, but I think this shift in perspective is certainly a factor at play.

[Greg]

Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis notwithstanding, Brokeback Mountain's loss to Crash was more likely at the hands of the at-large members, the agents, publicists and other sycophants who only vote for Best Picture, not individual branch members who vote in all categories.

I thought at-large members could only vote for Best Picture with regards to nominations, but, could, vote in all categories for awards.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
It's not possible to see an in-depth analysis, but when arguably the biggest front-runner in ages loses like it did, you're saying don't speculate?

Sorry, typing from work. I should have simply wrote "It's hard not to speculate when the biggest front-runner in ages loses like it did." I should have also included the big change that occurred within the Academy.

Big Magilla wrote
People have been impugning the integrity of the Academy Awards since their inception, and with good reason, so impugn away. However, to paint all old white people with the same brush is not only unfair, it's ridiculous. Some of those old people fought the fight for fairness all through their careers. Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis notwithstanding, Brokeback Mountain's loss to Crash were more likely at the hands of the at-large members, the agents, publicists and other sycophants who only vote for Best Picture, not individual branch members who vote in all categories. Those at-large members are the ones the Academy should divest itself of.

First of all, I'm not painting all old white people with the same brush. I'm painting all old white Academy voters with the same brush. And forgive me, but it's kind of hard not to. This is the group that for years and years consistently chose, for lack of a better term, "The Wrong Movie." You can point out rare exceptions how ever much you like, but it's usually for lack of a viable alternative.

But I'll address your point directly. Here's something else I can't prove but I'll say it anyway. I'll bet a lot of those agents, publicists, and sycophants voted for Moonlight over La La Land.

[Big Magilla]

Big Magilla wrote To Sabin's point of La La Land's lack of a SAG ensemble nomination foreshadowing its Oscar loss - no. This was basically a two-character piece, there was no ensemble to speak of.

Sabin wrote Yes, as you can see I mentioned as much.

Sorry, I must have glossed over that.

Big Magilla wrote
To Sabin's comment about purging older white voters, have we seen an in-depth analysis of the results of the "purge"? My understanding is that it didn't have much of an effect. It's also pretty insulting to suggest that old white people will only vote for white bread contenders.

Sabin wrote It's not possible to see an in-depth analysis, but when arguably the biggest front-runner in ages loses like it did, you're saying don't speculate?

To your second point: yes, I'm saying exactly that. There are exceptions here and there but yes, the old white people in the Academy only vote for white bread contenders when possible. When they have no alternative but choose a No Country for Old Men or The Silence of the Lambs, yes, they venture into more ambitious territory, but if you're telling me I cannot impugn the integrity of the Academy Awards, forgive me, what did Ernest Borgnine say about Brokeback Mountain?

People have been impugning the integrity of the Academy Awards since their inception, and with good reason, so impugn away. However, to paint all old white people with the same brush is not only unfair, it's ridiculous. Some of those old people fought the fight for fairness all through their careers. Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis notwithstanding, Brokeback Mountain's loss to Crash was more likely at the hands of the at-large members, the agents, publicists and other sycophants who only vote for Best Picture, not individual branch members who vote in all categories. Those at-large members are the ones the Academy should divest itself of.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
It's also possible the November disaster had the effect of making La La seem just too flimsy -- that it was the worst possible year for THAT to be the movie people loved (because people did love it, revisionism be damned). Plus we were working in the backlash from OscarSoWhite -- to the point we had five black acting nominees, at least one (Negga) quite questionable -- so maybe picking a movie with the two whitest leads imaginable just seemed wrong. You may think, yeah, that's why I say the Academy's different now -- but my response would be, I can entirely see the pre-2016 Academy doing the same thing. We're going to have to wait and see if it's a one-off or a trend.

Yes, we are just going to have to wait and see. The upside of this is suspense until the end of the night for about four or five years. But I hesitate to chalk Moonlight's victory as evidence of group-thinking. A more likely scenario is that Moonlight's PR campaign proved very effective within inner-circles. What I will agree to wholeheartedly is that just like Jeb Bush in the 2016 Republican Primary, it was the WORST year to be that film/guy.

Mister Tee wrote
On one thing I definitely agree: that I used to know what a best picture felt like, and now I don't... You might argue that we don't have Oscar-type movies anymore, but I don't know -- I'd say Zero Dark Thirty or Lincoln would qualify far more than Argo...and Boyhood more than Birdman. Even There Will Be Blood more than No Country for Old Men. I just think voters aren't working within that paradigm anymore. They're not necessarily seeking The Movie That Will Hold Up in Posterity; they're happy to vote for the one they like today.

I absolutely agree with your first sentence. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of your categorizations, I don't think that they're not seeking "The Movie That Will Hold Up in Posterity." I think it's one of two things: fewer The Movie That Will Hold Up in Posterity's are being made today OR they just don't look like they used to. I'll hazard this prediction: Moonlight is going to rate very high in peoples' minds as a Best Picture winner. I could see it listed in the top twenty five best winners consistently because it's obviously quite good, the shocking nature of its win, but also its win was so meaningful.

Mister Tee wrote
And we have the long-standing trend of male-dominated films being the stronger best picture contenders. This year, though, seems like it's going to be different -- with Shape of Water/Three Billboards/Lady Bird, we might have the greatest best-picture-to-best-actress correlation in some time. That this aligns with what seems a political moment -- nationwide and dramatically in Hollywood -- might this be a "no bullshit this time" Year of the Woman?

If I was producing the Oscars, I would submit this as a theme immediately and enjoy the highest ratings in a decade.

Big Magilla wrote

Sabin wrote
Likewise, La La Land's lack of a SAG nomination, which brings me to my next point: when does something "matter?" When La La Land lost out on a SAG nomination, I told myself it didn't matter. Just like when Birdman missed out on an editing nomination. With Birdman, it didn't matter because it was just one take. Right? And with La La Land, it didn't matter because the film was basically a two-hander. Ultimately, I don't think La La Land lost BECAUSE it missed out on a SAG nomination. I think it lost for different reasons.

To Sabin's point of La La Land's lack of a SAG ensemble nomination foreshadowing its Oscar loss - no. This was basically a two-character piece, there was no ensemble to speak of.

Yes, as you can see I mentioned as much.

Big Magilla wrote
To Sabin's comment about purging older white voters, have we seen an in-depth analysis of the results of the "purge"? My understanding is that it didn't have much of an effect. It's also pretty insulting to suggest that old white people will only vote for white bread contenders.

It's not possible to see an in-depth analysis, but when arguably the biggest front-runner in ages loses like it did, you're saying don't speculate?

To your second point: yes, I'm saying exactly that. There are exceptions here and there but yes, the old white people in the Academy only vote for white bread contenders when possible. When they have no alternative but choose a No Country for Old Men or The Silence of the Lambs, yes, they venture into more ambitious territory, but if you're telling me I cannot impugn the integrity of the Academy Awards, forgive me, what did Ernest Borgnine say about Brokeback Mountain?

Big Magilla wrote
At this point, it looks like Call Me By Your Name's best chance at a win is Best Screenplay for 89-year-old James Ivory.

I think you're right. Possibly Best Original Song as well. Best Adapted Screenplay is a barren field this year, and so Ivory might win by default. But if there is a backlash against the film, Dee Rees might win for Mudbound.

Big Magilla wrote
Lady Bird will almost surely win Best Supporting Actress for Laurie Metcalf and Saoirse Ronan would certainly be in the mold of recent Best Actress winners, though she may be neck-and-neck with Frances McDormand and Sally Hawkins all the way to the opening of the envelope.

Having seen Lady Bird, you might be right but it's not the slam dunk you might think. Metcalf is great in a great part, but I don't think the race over yet.

[Big Magilla]

So much to take in, most of it well thought out, but then...

To Sabin's point of La La Land's lack of a SAG ensemble nomination foreshadowing its Oscar loss - no. This was basically a two-character piece, there was no ensemble to speak of. As I've said many times, this is an actor's award, not a Best Picture award. To Tee's emphatic statement that people "loved" it, I would add that other people, me included, hated it. It had nothing to do with revisionism unless you consider having non-singers sing low and off-key for two hours the new norm. I'm not sure it would have been any better had they been dubbed by real singers. I would still have thought, "is that all there is?"

To Sabin's comment about purging older white voters, have we seen an in-depth analysis of the results of the "purge"? My understanding is that it didn't have much of an effect. It's also pretty insulting to suggest that old white people will only vote for white bread contenders.

To Tee's question if this might be a "no bullshit this time" Year of the Woman, that's what I've been thinking in light of the election results and the number of women that are still coming forward with long buried revelations of sexual assault.

Previous Years of the Woman came across as artificial, but this year it's different. Women really are taking charge. Three Billboards, The Shape of Water and Lady Bird seem certain to be among the top five contenders along with Dunkirk and Call Be By Your Name, with Lady Bird, written and directed by a woman, the one that will most likely emerge as the favorite, setting up a replay of 1998 with the female centric comedy going up against the war picture (Dunkirk).

At this point, it looks like Call Me By Your Name's best chance at a win is Best Screenplay for 89-year-old James Ivory.

Lady Bird will almost surely win Best Supporting Actress for Laurie Metcalf and Saoirse Ronan would certainly be in the mold of recent Best Actress winners, though she may be neck-and-neck with Frances McDormand and Sally Hawkins all the way to the opening of the envelope.

[ThePianist]

And we have the long-standing trend of male-dominated films being the stronger best picture contenders. This year, though, seems like it's going to be different -- with Shape of Water/Three Billboards/Lady Bird, we might have the greatest best-picture-to-best-actress correlation in some time. That this aligns with what seems a political moment -- nationwide and dramatically in Hollywood -- might this be a "no bullshit this time" Year of the Woman?

I definitely agree with this sentiment. That's one of the many reasons I have 'Three Billboards' (a female-driven film that has timely political themes) winning BP over CMBYN. If it weren't for the Weinstein controversy that has opened a plethora of other scandals, I'd still be adamant 'Call Me By Your Name'' would be the Best Picture Winner.

The We Need a Winner race.
Where we spend most of the season scratching our head and looking around. Sometimes one film picks up steam and then loses it. Sometimes that doesn't even happen. But at some point, a film like No Country for Old Men or The Hurt Locker or Argo gets a boost of momentum as if picked from a smoke-filled room from conventions of yesteryear and manages to go all the way despite all perceived disadvantages.

The Threeway race.
Where the Guilds divide evenly between three or more films and we're left in suspense until the last minute. Usually, this involves films we couldn't care less about.

I feel like next years race will be combination of these 2. Everything will likely split between Three Billboards/Dunkirk/and TSOW; with CMBYN (LGBT/Progressive/Relevant) and Lady Bird (Coming-of-age/Female Driven/Written and Directed by a Female) as the critically acclaimed, passionate indie outsiders that could end up trampling all of them for the Oscar. Although, It'll likely end up being Three Billboards that beats both of them.

[Sabin]

One last point, and I promise to address all other posts tomorrow...

There really are just four different kinds of Oscar races, aren't there?

There's the Underdog race, the We Need a Winner race, the Threeway race, and the Sweep.

The Underdog Race.
Films like Brokeback Mountain, The Social Network, Boyhood, and La La Land seem to have it locked up. At a certain point, the race is declared over. And then, support rallies around another film, Crash, The King's Speech, Birdman, and Moonlight. Sometimes it happens before the guilds, sometimes after the guilds, but the underdog pulls through.

The We Need a Winner race.
Where we spend most of the season scratching our head and looking around. Sometimes one film picks up steam and then loses it. Sometimes that doesn't even happen. But at some point, a film like No Country for Old Men or The Hurt Locker or Argo gets a boost of momentum as if picked from a smoke-filled room from conventions of yesteryear and manages to go all the way despite all perceived disadvantages.

The Threeway race.
Where the Guilds divide evenly between three or more films and we're left in suspense until the last minute. Usually, this involves films we couldn't care less about.

And then finally, the Sweep.
We all know what that is. We haven't seen it since Slumdog Millionaire. Who knows when we'll see it again. Heck, I thought we were going to see it last year. Maybe one day we'll see one again, but I'm not holding my breath. We are seven years into the new decade, and in four of the last five races, the Best Picture and Director have split between two films, and in all four instances the Best Picture winner didn't take home the most awards.

[Mister Tee]

Sabin's original post, and the comments following, raise a number of thoughts. I may not be able to coherently address all of them, but here are some things I'll throw out:

I'm not entirely ready to declare that last year's result means the old farts are gone and a new world of diversity and wokeness reigns. It's entirely possible that La La Land, like The Social Network and Boyhood (or Apollo 13 and Saving Private Ryan back in the day), had just sat on top of front-runner mountain too long and people were bored with it and had an itch to do something else, something crazier. It's also possible the November disaster had the effect of making La La seem just too flimsy -- that it was the worst possible year for THAT to be the movie people loved (because people did love it, revisionism be damned). Plus we were working in the backlash from OscarSoWhite -- to the point we had five black acting nominees, at least one (Negga) quite questionable -- so maybe picking a movie with the two whitest leads imaginable just seemed wrong. You may think, yeah, that's why I say the Academy's different now -- but my response would be, I can entirely see the pre-2016 Academy doing the same thing. We're going to have to wait and see if it's a one-off or a trend.

On one thing I definitely agree: that I used to know what a best picture felt like, and now I don't. Because I go back further than most of you, my view was formed earlier, though even for me it was based on a model that predated me. Starting about the mid 40s -- about the time the best picture field was reduced from 10 to 5 -- the kind of movie that won best picture was set, partly in accord with the NY Film Critics, as, over a 20 year period, NY and Oscar mostly chose the same winners. These movies had a certain grandeur to them -- whether because of size (Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia), length (The Best Years of Our Lives, The Bridge on the River Kwai) or high moral seriousness (The Lost Weekend, On the Waterfront). Even when the 70s came along, and moviegoing tastes changed, Academy voters gravitated toward newer versions of these films -- The Deer Hunter, The Godfather, Kramer vs. Kramer. These all felt like best picture winners. During the lackluster 80s, the offerings might have been weaker, but, again, the same general outlines remained -- Amadeus, The Last Emperor, Terms of Endearment. The 90s had its share of Oscar-y films -- Schindler's List above all, but also The English Patient and Titanic. But we also got one winner -- The Silence of the Lambs -- that seemed to have been dropped from Mars. And then, in 1998, we had the extraordinary case of an Oscar movie nonpareil -- Saving Private Ryan -- losing to a delightful but far more frivolous Shakespeare in Love. I think, since then, the model has become far more unstable -- films like A Beautiful Mind and The Departed feel like they only won in conjunction with sentimental campaigns for their directors. No Country for Old Men and The Artist feel like they won because...well, SOMETHING had to win that year. Crash won from a backlash against a movie that DID fit the old model. The only best pictures in recent memory that feel like classic winners are Slumdog Millionaire and 12 Years a Slave (and the latter damn near lost). You might argue that we don't have Oscar-type movies anymore, but I don't know -- I'd say Zero Dark Thirty or Lincoln would qualify far more than Argo...and Boyhood more than Birdman. Even There Will Be Blood more than No Country for Old Men. I just think voters aren't working within that paradigm anymore. They're not necessarily seeking The Movie That Will Hold Up in Posterity; they're happy to vote for the one they like today.

I think, in many ways, Dunkirk -- though I thought it lacked dimensionality -- fits that classic model (huge grosses help, too, of course). But you're correct, we have to acknowledge the fact that, if it doesn't get a screenplay nomination or a SAG Ensemble slot, all current precedent suggests it will lose (though it could still very easily win best director). By the way, I'd simplify your criteria for "Does the screenplay omission matter?" Excluding Hamlet (not screenplay-nominated for obvious reasons), only two best picture winners post-1932 have failed to get screenwriting nods: The Sound of Music and Titanic. So, if your movie is the greatest commercial phenomenon of its era, sure, you can get by without a screenplay nomination. Otherwise, forget it.

I'm not even hazarding a guess at where the best picture race will end up this year. There seem to be half a dozen candidates, and the path between now and the first weekend in March will almost surely be crooked. Which has mostly been the case the past several years, hasn't it? In 2012, we had Argo looking good/Argo looking awful on nominations day/Argo looking and being unbeatable after the Guilds. The following year, American Hustle, Gravity and 12 Years a Slave kept shifting positions, even through the Guild wins. Then we had Boyhood looking like an unstoppable force, till Birdman swept the Guilds and ran away with it. 2015 was Spotlight in September, then maybe The Big Short, whoops-no!: The Revenant, then back to Spotlight in the end. Last year's season-long domination by La La Land was actually the rarity of recent times...and look how that paid off. The final results may too often be predictable, but the route we take to get there is anything but.

I mentioned it in the other thread, but something to ponder: the Guilds in particular, in recent years, have been rather averse to female-driven films -- especially in 2015, with Carol the most glaring instance, but also Brooklyn and Room getting less attention than anticipated (Room of course made up for it in the actual Oscar nominations). And we have the long-standing trend of male-dominated films being the stronger best picture contenders. This year, though, seems like it's going to be different -- with Shape of Water/Three Billboards/Lady Bird, we might have the greatest best-picture-to-best-actress correlation in some time. That this aligns with what seems a political moment -- nationwide and dramatically in Hollywood -- might this be a "no bullshit this time" Year of the Woman?

[ThePianist]

There's no unchallenged frontrunner here like 'La La Land' was--last year, folks. 'Dunkirk' isn't even the 'closet thing' towards one.

The best comparison I can have for this, is probably the race from 2007. The winner for every Awards Show could differ. For instance...

The Shape of Water - Golden Globe for Best Picture, Drama (Alt: 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' or 'Dunkirk')
Dunkirk - PGA Award (Alt: The Shape of Water)
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - SAG Ensemble (Alt: I honestly can't fathom anything else taking this.)
Guillermo del Toro (TSAW) - DGA Award (Alt: Christopher Nolan - Dunkirk)
Dunkirk - BAFTA (Alt: Can't fathom anything else taking this either. Unless a surprise frontrunner like TSOW comes along and takes it.)
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri - Academy Award for Best Picture (Alt: 'Call Me By Your Name.' Still has a big chance.)

[ThePianist]

Call Me By Your Name is certain to be a Fox News whipping boy

More like one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year--much like 'Moonlight' was. It's LGBT themes, are also stronger than the former. It's probably going to get the most 2 and 3 votes too.

It seems like you're underestimating this film a bit too much. 'Fox News' won't do a thing to this film.

[Sabin]

Sorry, what I was trying to say was that since purging the older white voters, the Academy is now more engaged with the wider cultural dialogue that BJ was referring to.

[Greg]

the room is now the room

???

[The Original BJ]

the room is now the room.

But is it The Room?

[Sabin]

The Original BJ wrote
Of course, we have no idea how the ranked voting system will cause this race to shake out -- for all we know, it could allow Dunkirk to prevail by cannibalizing #1 votes from the more conservative members of the Academy --

I could see that happening.

There have now been such huge changes the manner in which voters cast their ballots as well as the voters themselves that Oscar night is going to be a mystery. There are as many reasons why Moonlight won as why La La Land lost, but one thing is certain: Moonlight positioned itself as the alternative. Let's say Hidden Figures was a bigger contender. Let's say it picked up a DGA nomination and was taken more seriously, along with Moonlight. I'm not sure that La La Land would have lost then. Obviously, without the final ballot breakdown, it's all speculation. But what I do know is that Dunkirk looks a lot more like The Revenant than La La Land to me, and the question then is which film (or films) is going to position itself (or themselves) as the anti-Dunkirk.

The Original BJ wrote
-- but the idea that Dunkirk will be some unchallenged front-runner, as some at other sites are positing, seems to be a serious misread of the room right now.

Backing this point up, for the first time in the history of the Academy awards: the room is now the room. And for me, no film captures the attitude of the room more than Get Out.