83rd Academy Awards Nominations

[MovieWes]

I've always thought that because films set in the past generally employ more artisans - designers, set builders and other craftsmen - than do contemporary films and that's what entices people in the Academy who are not actors, writers or directors, to vote for them in the hope that their success will encourage producers to make more such films and maybe employ them.

It never occurred to me that voters in artisan jobs would vote along these lines. I guess I just thought that voters voted for the films they liked best, not those that employed a lot of people. I was under the impression that it was the revenue generated from box-office and DVD sales that encouraged producers to make the more lavish and/or tech-heavy films, not accolades.



Edited By MovieWes on 1296104247

[MovieWes]

I'm just saying that it appears that in recent years, the Academy has been getting younger and, in turn, has gotten into the habit of awarding films that they are more likely to relate to than pompous old-fashioned films like The King's Speech. The Social Network shares more in common with the past 6 or so Oscar winners than it does with the traditional fare that they awarded consistently between 1981 and 2003. It's not like I never expect another period epic to ever win Best Picture again. I'm just saying that, for now, the Academy seems locked into a pattern of awarding films with contemporary settings that address contemporary issues. It actually kind of reminds me of 1975-1980, when the Academy gave the Best Picture Oscar seemingly every year to contemporary films that addressed issues that I guess younger voters at that time could relate to (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Rocky, Annie Hall, The Deer Hunter, Kramer vs. Kramer, Ordinary People) before going back to awarding the traditional epics and period films like they'd done in the past.

Of course, I wasn't alive in the mid to late 70s, so I have zero insight into those Oscar races. Perhaps some of the older members can tell me if I'm on the right track or if I'm grasping at straws.



Edited By MovieWes on 1296103685

[Big Magilla]

Wes - you lose me with this contemporary films vs. films set in the past argument.

I've always thought that because films set in the past generally employ more artisans - designers, set builders and other craftsmen - than do contemporary films and that's what entices people in the Academy who are not actors, writers or directors, to vote for them in the hope that their success will encourage producers to make more such films and maybe employ them.

When you have two leading contenders set in the past, whether it's The Lion in Winter vs. Oliver! or Amadeus vs. A Passage to India or Titanic vs. L.A. Confidential, it's generally the more elaborate film that wins.

More recently, though, it's been the more austere film that has won regardless of setting, i.e. Million Dollar Baby over Aviator and The Hurt Locker over Avatar so, yes, the tide is turning, but not because the old guard is dying off so much as the number of artisans within the Academy is decreasing while the number of actors, directors and writers within the Academy remains strong.

[rain Bard]

I thought that, a few spectacular set-pieces aside (the light-cycle chase being the most memorable), the effects in Tron Legacy, and particularly the attempt at making Jeff Bridges look younger, felt like a rush job. A creepy step backward in both concept and execution. I was pleased that some in the industry seem to agree with that general view.



Edited By rain Bard on 1296093667

[MovieWes]

Just an observation... has it occurred to anyone that maybe... JUST MAYBE... the Visual Effects branch's snub of TRON: Legacy could be a protest against the influx of 3D movies that permeated the market in the past year? With the exception of Alice in Wonderland, all the nominees were strictly 2D releases.



Edited By MovieWes on 1296089752

[rolotomasi99]

rolo, I've come to realize it's going to take me some time to fully answer your queries about Spielberg. The environment in which he emerged is so different from the one that exists today that there are elements of it that I (and other oldsters) take for granted but that of course wouldn't be apparent today.

I was born in 1983, so my first knowledge of Steven Spielberg was as the guy who made JURASSIC PARK. I saw that movie five times on the big screen. I still have never seen a movie more times than that in theatres. It was amazing to me. I was also aware of SCHINDLER'S LIST at the time, but did not see it until I was in college. After JURASSIC PARK I saw all the Indiana Jones series. I liked them, but to this day I do not understand why people take them so seriously. E.T. was next, which I loved. As I became a teen I moved on the JAWS and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, both of which I thought were amazing. It was not until I saw THE COLOR PURPLE in high school that I took him seriously as a director, and then of course SAVING PRIVATE RYAN came out and it seemed like he officially became a national treasure.

It just seems odd to think that there was some sort of scandal at the time of 1985 because Spielberg had not won an Oscar. Neither had Kubrick, Scorsese, Altman, Lynch, or a host of other great directors. I can understand why the general public would think Spielberg deserved to be recognized (much like they do with Nolan), but from what you are saying it seems like critics and the DGA were angry with the Academy for not recognizing his genius. Did critics and industry people really think he was "due" an Oscar at that point in his young career?

I do look forward to a longer explanation. Thank you for offering to think about it over the weekend.

[rolotomasi99]

I guess he is going to have to just suck it up and make a Holocaust film or period piece if he wants to be nominated.

Or he could start making movies that are even remotely as good as even Spielberg's worst popcorn movies.

If you want more movies like 1941, THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, and THE LOST WORLD, than I totally understand why you do not like Nolan. In fact, it is actually a compliment to him for you to say his movies are not "good" since you clearly have a very bizarre definition of what a "good" movie is.

[Mister Tee]

rolo, I've come to realize it's going to take me some time to fully answer your queries about Spielberg. The environment in which he emerged is so different from the one that exists today that there are elements of it that I (and other oldsters) take for granted but that of course wouldn't be apparent today.

So...give me some time, through the weekend anyway, and I'll try to put together an explanantion of why he was "treated" he way he was by the Oscars. It's a little convoluted, and will take me that long gto explain coherently.

I will, though, at least partially echo what Eric says here: Spielberg's status after his first decade was immeasurably higher than Nolan's is today. In Jaws, he had made the biggest blockbuster of his time -- a Titanic -- and, though it was considered 100% popcorn, few questioned it was about the tastiest popcorn many of us had known. He followed it up two years later with a soulful sci-fi film, one that even critics applauded (he fnished third, beind Woody Allen and Bunuel, in the NY critics' voting, while Star Wars made no appearance). He had his first flop, 1941, but quickly bounced back in consecutive summers with the huge hit Raiders of the Lost Ark and then the even-bigger, new all-time grosser ET, which again bought him critical respect (best director from the finicky National Society). No one questioned he was one of the most exceptional talents to emerge in many years.

But he was still hobbled, in terms of prizes, by the perception he didn't deal with adult themes. That's what I'll try to get into over the next few days.



Edited By Mister Tee on 1296081237

[MovieWes]

I would also like to point out that while The Social Network does have its contemporary alternatives, those films are either too light-weight (127 Hours, The Kids Are All Right, Toy Story 3) or have showed that they don't enough broad support (Black Swan, Inception) to actually siphon enough votes away from The Social Network. The only contemporary picture that I can actually see challenging The Social Network for votes is The Fighter, but even that seems to be a little bit improbable.

On the other hand, The King's Speech has two other films vying for the votes from the more traditional voters: True Grit and Winter's Bone. I think that we can actually scratch Winter's Bone from the equation because it is way too light-weight to even be taken seriously as a contender. That leaves us with True Grit, which is actually a film that I can see appealing to both younger and older voters. In fact, I would say that it is the one film in the lineup with significant cross-generational appeal. Yes, it's a period piece, but it is also an action picture from a directing duo with a massive "fanboy" following and is already a huge blockbuster. It's a film that I can see racking up a ton of second and third place votes across the board.

In the end, though, I think that we need to go back to the whole Best Director usually means Best Picture rule. Yes, recently there have been a lot of splits, but by and large, this is a good rule to go by and there hasn't been a Picture/Director split since Crash. Especially when there is as much uncertainty as there is right now, I think that we need to look at other races where there was significant uncertainty, particularly the 2006 race when it was a foregone conclusion that Martin Scorsese was going to win Best Director. Let's be honest here... there is no way that Tom Hooper is going to win Best Director, just as there was no way that Alejandro Gonzales-Innaritu was going to win in 2006 even though Babel was being touted by many as the odds-on favorite in a tight-three way race between that, The Departed, and Little Miss Sunshine. There was never any doubt in my mind that The Departed wasn't going to win as the entire race leading up to the nominations was Dreamgirls vs. The Departed. With Dreamgirls out of the way, it was smooth sailing. It had also dominated the critics awards in a way that neither Babel nor Little Miss Sunshine did. Marty was always the favorite to win Best Director and the film itself was the favorite to win Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Film Editing. It won. The Social Network is in the same position that The Departed was in. It will win too.

Also, there has never, ever ONCE been a film to win both Best Picture/Director from the NYFCC, LAFCA, BSFC, CFCA, NSFC, and the BFCA as well as Golden Globes for Best Picture/Director to lose the Academy Award for Best Picture. Not even once. The Social Network won all of those awards. Brokeback Mountain didn't. Saving Private Ryan didn't. L.A. Confidential didn't. Just something to think about.



Edited By MovieWes on 1296086136

[Eric]

I guess he is going to have to just suck it up and make a Holocaust film or period piece if he wants to be nominated.

Or he could start making movies that are even remotely as good as even Spielberg's worst popcorn movies.

[MovieWes]

These aren't the days of English Patient, Out of Africa, The Last Emperor. These are the days of The Departed, Slumdog Millionaire, No Country for Old Men. The Academy's tastes have changed. And that's by infusing it with younger, hipper voters, and watching the aging relics of the past who reject modern innovation for staid traditionalism have been slowly passing on. I'm not saying this is why The King's Speech won't win...after all, Crash, a serious crowd pleaser and critical milquetoast managed to beat the prevailing Best Picture frontrunner.

Yet, there's a difference in the crowd pleasing quality of Crash compared with The King's Speech. Critics generally regard Speech as one of the year's best films. Crash couldn't ever claim that. Perhaps Shakespeare in Love IS the best comparison in the last two decades (though, you may have to go back to Chariots of Fire to find a better comparison).

I think that another difference between Crash and The King's Speech is that, regardless of whether or not it was embraced by critics, Crash tackled a relevant issue of our times, was contemporary, and offered a gritty realism that probably appealed to some of the younger members of the Academy. It was also a safe alternative for some of the older voters to get behind and still feel "hip" or "with it" without sacrificing their values. Sure, Brokeback Mountain also tackled relevant issues and was fairly contemporary, at least topically, but it was also a very controversial picture and probably terrified a lot of the older and/or more conservative members of the Academy.

It should also be pointed out (I'm not sure that it ever has) that Crash was the ONLY 2005 nominee that actually took place in the last 25 years at the time of its release. All the other films were period pieces (Brokeback Mountain took place between 1963 and 1982, Capote in 1959, Good Night, and Good Luck in 1953, and Munich between 1972 and 1974), so I wouldn't be surprised if it got a lot of votes from both younger voters who could relate to the setting and topicality of the film and the older, more conservative voters that I described above who were uncomfortable voting for the other four more traditional but overtly liberal alternatives.

[jack]

Yeah, I'd say it's misrepresentative to say Nolan will get nominated (or that Fincher did get nominated) for changing style. In each case, it's a matter of changing genre. Nolan's big Oscar hopefuls of the last few years have simply not come in the genres the Academy likes to honor; this is why I analogize him to Spielberg, for all those years when he had difficulty getting Academy validation.

See, that is what I am not getting. Spielberg's first three Oscar nominations were for CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF A THIRD KIND (sci-fi), RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (campy adventure), and E.T. (kiddy sci-fi). It was not until he did a very serious and sweeping period piece based on a beloved novel by a Pulitzer winning writer that he was ignored. It was like the Academy only liked Spielberg the kid, not Spielberg the adult. The same thing happened again when he was ignored for EMPIRE OF THE SUN.

On the other hand, Nolan has been nominated by the DGA but snubbed by the Academy for MEMENTO (dark and psychological thriller), THE DARK KNIGHT (dark and psychological comic book), and INCEPTION (dark and psychological sci-fi). I guess he is going to have to just suck it up and make a Holocaust film or period piece if he wants to be nominated.

A dark and psychological Holocaust film or a dark and psychological period film? That's the question.

As his next film is the third and final Batman movie all we can do is wait and see what he gives us after that. Having said that I wouldn't Nolan to chance the way he makes his films just so he could maybe win an Oscar. I'd like to think that he follows a similar path like Peter Jackson where he wins his Oscar (for directing) by making the type of film he wants to make.

[rolotomasi99]

Yeah, I'd say it's misrepresentative to say Nolan will get nominated (or that Fincher did get nominated) for changing style. In each case, it's a matter of changing genre. Nolan's big Oscar hopefuls of the last few years have simply not come in the genres the Academy likes to honor; this is why I analogize him to Spielberg, for all those years when he had difficulty getting Academy validation.

See, that is what I am not getting. Spielberg's first three Oscar nominations were for CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (sci-fi), RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (campy adventure), and E.T. (kiddy sci-fi). It was not until he did a very serious and sweeping period piece based on a beloved novel by a Pulitzer winning writer that he was ignored. It was like the Academy only liked Spielberg the kid, not Spielberg the adult. The same thing happened again when he was ignored for EMPIRE OF THE SUN.

On the other hand, Nolan has been nominated by the DGA but snubbed by the Academy for MEMENTO (dark and psychological thriller), THE DARK KNIGHT (dark and psychological comic book), and INCEPTION (dark and psychological sci-fi). I guess he is going to have to just suck it up and make a Holocaust film or period piece if he wants to be nominated.



Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1296074122

[OscarGuy]

I guess that's one good thing about being disconnected from this year's competition. It has allowed me to look at the race without being rah-rah about any one contender. I know who I would like to win, but I also know the chances of each win and don't really expect much.

Right now, I don't even care who wins Best Picture because I know that the films I love so far are not going to. 127 Hours, Inception, Black Swan. They aren't contenders. Now, The Social Network remains the only one of the 10 I haven't seen. Despite being released on DVD two weeks ago, Netflix doesn't have disks and won't until the first week of February. And since I liked, but wasn't impressed with The King's Speech outside of its performances (and really who can be shocked that it was nominated for Sound Mixing...)

Now, when I see Social Network (it's sitting at the top of my queue for whenever the discs become available), I may change my mind, but for a couple of weeks, I can look at this race with a jaundiced eye.

Right now, it's rough to predict who could win Best Picture. One of the reasons a number of films have won in the last decade that wouldn't have won under the '80s/'90s model was that the Academy was recognizing directors who've made an impact on filmmaking but who weren't going for the grandiose, lavish spectacles. When you have names like Martin Scorsese, The Coen Brothers and Danny Boyle taking director and picture, it tells you something about the Academy's voting record.

These aren't the days of English Patient, Out of Africa, The Last Emperor. These are the days of The Departed, Slumdog Millionaire, No Country for Old Men. The Academy's tastes have changed. And that's by infusing it with younger, hipper voters, and watching the aging relics of the past who reject modern innovation for staid traditionalism have been slowly passing on. I'm not saying this is why The King's Speech won't win...after all, Crash, a serious crowd pleaser and critical milquetoast managed to beat the prevailing Best Picture frontrunner.

Yet, there's a difference in the crowd pleasing quality of Crash compared with The King's Speech. Critics generally regard Speech as one of the year's best films. Crash couldn't ever claim that. Perhaps Shakespeare in Love IS the best comparison in the last two decades (though, you may have to go back to Chariots of Fire to find a better comparison).

This is Harvey Weinstein at work. His win at the PGA is a testament to his return to the Oscar race. He's not going to rest on his laurels when he has a film like King's Speech pushing for dominance. We could have another split like in 1998 where Fincher, who will win Best Director, loses Best Picture to the crowd pleaser. After all, I feel about Shakespeare in Love how I felt about King's Speech. They were both good movies whose hype is overplayed. I don't see how Helena Bonham Carter gave one of the year's five best supporting performances, yet she's nominated and has been set in stone for some time.

The biggest question for me is how similar to Shakespeare in Love this film will be. Harvey worked his magic 12 years ago, but can he do the same this year.

The only major factor that plays better for King's Speech than Social Network is that PGA win. Some remind us of Little Miss Sunshine winning the award. It's a great comparison that could prove out in the end, but when you look back at the 1998 race, even Saving Private Ryan took out Shakespeare in Love for Best Picture at the PGA. King's Speech proves a bit stronger. The key for SiL that year was its SAG ensemble win. It was the only major award the film picked up that could have presaged a Best Picture win. Of course, SAG ensemble is the worst of precursors, so it's hard to pinpoint that as the singularity that pushed it over the top. And that's especially notable since Little Miss Sunshine also won the SAG Ensemble award. So, we don't exactly have a favorable comparison. The one difference here is that Little Miss Sunshine had a third of the nominations count as King's Speech.

So, it's impossible to really pinpoint what factors will play in Social Network's favor. Will the Academy rebel against Harvey Weinstein as they had since Shakespeare in Love won? Or will they hand him a major victory when he starts playing hardball?

[Precious Doll]

.

On the other hand, what will Sasha Stone and Jeff Wells do if not only The Social Network loses Best Picture, but Natalie Portman loses Best Actress? Jump out the window? Give up blogging?

One could only hope they throw their computers away forever. (I don't and won' go to their sites).