Mister Tee wrote:I don’t think anyone can accuse AMPAS this year of sitting off in its own corner with obscurities. But you get the feeling some in the press will keep pushing this “out of touch” meme until the five top-grossing movies of the year are the best picture nominees.
that attack happens every year, and it always annoys me. this year, though, if the academy does not nominate either THE DARK KNIGHT or WALL-E for best picture the attack will be completely justified.
i think there are a handful of films more well made than THE DARK KNIGHT, but only one of them (MILK) has a real shot at best picture; while films like THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, and FROST/NIXON are as well made as THE DARK KNIGHT.
in the end, though, if THE DARK KNIGHT loses out on a best picture nomination to some piece of grap like GRAN TORINO simply because it is a comic book movie, the academy deserves to be derided by film commentators and ignored by the public.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Mister Tee wrote:But you get the feeling some in the press will keep pushing this “out of touch” meme until the five top-grossing movies of the year are the best picture nominees.
Can you imagine?
The Dark Knight
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Kung Fu Panda
Hancock
Iron Man
Mamma Mia! barely missed out on that, sorry guys.
*Based on worldwide gross.
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
My usual random set of musings about the soon-to-be-upon-us nominations:
Slumdog Millionaire’s awards sprint has, unbelievably, started some grumbling about the Oscars once again going for indie favorites over audience hits. How can anyone not view Slumdog as an audience hit? It’s already near $40 million in limited release, holding exceptionally well week after week, and will clearly break out when it gets a post-nominations wide release (some anchor on CNN was saying the other day how good she's heard it is; even my 80-year old mother wants to see it). I think Greg probably overshoots in predicting $200 million, but $100 seems eminently doable. If we're to the point where that sort of grosser can be labeled "elite"…
Meantime Benjamin Button will top $100 million, any day now. And either The Dark Knight or the $200-million-plus Wall E should also make the best picture list. Throw in the Ledger coronation, and possible nominations for Brad and Angelina, Kate and maybe Leo – I don’t think anyone can accuse AMPAS this year of sitting off in its own corner with obscurities. But you get the feeling some in the press will keep pushing this “out of touch” meme until the five top-grossing movies of the year are the best picture nominees.
What are the chances Slumdog gets to double digit nominations? It’s not like it can hit that goal naturally, the way Benjamin Button will with all its tech nods. But it’s been showing up in the costume, design and sound guilds, Patel has been successfully promoted for supporting actor, it’s got that song – I could see giddy overall Academy enthusiasm pushing it so it’s a lot closer to Button in total nominations than it would have seemed a few weeks ago. We've become used, in recent years, to having films get fewer nods than expected (Brokeback, The Departed). It's been a while since we had a film inflated by Academy love, a la, say, Shakespeare in Love (which deserved many of its nods, but sound and supporting actor, no way).
The Winslet situation absolutely fascinates me; it seems unlike anything we've ever encountered before. Sigourney Weaver's double Globe win in '88 is the closest precedent, but there are significant differences: 1) Weaver's best actress win was in a three-way tie, which included ultimate Oscar champ Jodie Foster; 2) Weaver competed against a very weak supporting slate at the Globes, and a very different, heavweight group at AMPAS (Pfeiffer, McDormand, Davis -- whose win I still endorse, EW be damned); 3) there was near-universal agreement that supporting was Sigourney's best Oscar shot that year, unlike this year's confusion; and 4) Weaver, while popular enough, didn't have the widespread "It's time she won an Oscar, dammit" sentiment Winslet has generated.
It certainly appears that "way overdue" feeling has reached critical mass, among fans and in Hollywood. As Rachel Griffiths put it on the E post-game show the other night, "People ask how I feel about being nominated and losing; I tell them, till Kate Winslet wins an Oscar, I have nothing to complain about". I think, given the lack of consensus in the best actress field, were Winslet to be nominated only there, she'd win. (I know: Sally Hawkins swept the classic critics' groups…but so did Imelda Staunton. When I say consensus, I mean the critics and a substantial chunk of the audience) And no doubt there are those (including me) who think it more appropriate that Winslet's at-last award come in the top-level category. But The Reader has a few special-sauce elements of its own -- the Holocaust, which Winslet and Ricky Gervais so memorably skewered on Extras, and Harvey Weinstein, who, waning power or not, has been known to bring supporting actresses home unexpectedly (hello, Ms. Paquin and Binoche). It may come down to which of the two films has a stronger profile outside the Winslet nominations (or a real box office disparity, though neither seem a world-beater at this point). Should DiCaprio or Shannon (or Mendes) pick up long-shot nods, that would clearly help the top-actress bid for Revolutionary. Conversely, should Daldry or Fiennes get unexpected nominations, that might propel The Reader vote. Or it may just come down to whether one of the two films can join Doubt, Slumdog, Button and Frost/Nixon in adapted screenplay.
And here's something to consider: suppose Winslet loses supporting actress (to Cruz, or Davis, or anyone). Can you imagine the tension Winslet would be under for the next hour or two, wondering if she's about to replicate Weaver and Julianne Moore's ignominious feat. Agony for her…but delight for Oscar geeks.
Question for the producers of this year’s Oscars: how are you going to locate the supporting awards? It’s customary to spot them, staggered, over the first hour-and-a half of the show. Many of us have always urged the more competitive of the two be held out longer (as last year, when sure-shot Bardem came first and the free-for-all female race later). This year the female race is not only the more competitive, but, as detailed above, it has potential repercussions for the lead female race; you’d instinctively say, hold that one as long as you can. But this year's supporting actor award is utterly unique – certain as far as we can know that it'll go to Heath Ledger, yet so sure to be such an enormous emotional highlight no one would want to toss it away in the early moments. A real decision there.
Back to screenplays: I was thinking the other day that In Bruges or Synecdoche NY are the sort of cultish original scripts that sometimes sneak their way into nominations despite no heat in the best picture competition. But how does one find room this year, when there are so many solid candidates for the slots? – three films that meet classic criteria (best picture contender Milk, the Pixar Wall E, and a Woody Allen) and a bunch of others that are in the Oscar gray area, for performances and potentially director (Happy Go Lucky, Rachel Getting Married, Gran Torino, The Wrestler, The Visitor). Is it just the wrong year for a fluke entry? Or could votes be so divided among those other, more mid-race efforts, that a determined minority could slip a long-shot in?
