ADG Winners

Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

(Damien @ Feb. 08 2011,1:25)
The warmth and the feel-good aspects of King's Speech would have prevailed over the cold preciseness of Hurt Locker in my opinion (of course, I never understood what all the fuss over Hurt Locker was about), but Bigelow would still have won Best Director.

And, of course, King's Speech could have won Best Picture while Jeff Bridges still received his award. Just think of All About Eve, Schindler's List, Out of Africa, Casablanca, Rocky, A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, etc etc.

Putting aside the famous Davis vs. Swanson scenario, I think A Beautiful Mind is the only film akin to The King's Speech insofar as to speak of the film is to speak praise of the lead performance (which, in the case of Howard's film, I am not). The King's Speech certainly could win Best Picture last year, but aside from that I doubt it would win Best Actor over Jeff Bridges, Best Supporting Actor over Christoph Waltz, Supporting Actress over Helena Bonham Carter, Original Score over Up, Film Editing over The Hurt Locker, Art Direction over Avatar, Costume Design over The Duchess, or Cinematography over anything. I think the only award it could conceivably win in tandem to Best Picture is Best Original Screenplay, but we're talking about one of the lowest awards tallies in Academy history.

All speculative, mind you, but I think it's fair to say that The King's Speech certainly could win the Oscar last year, much to the dismay of viewers.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

You're forgetting about the Harvey factor. If The King's Speech were released last year, he'd have had to juggle his support between that and Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. His heart would probably have been with King's but he wouldn't have wanted to alienate Quentin so he'd have given equal push to both, which would likely have had a muted effect on the outcome.

I don't hate the film. It is, after all, in the bottom half of my top ten list. There are elements of the film I like, namely most of the performances, the costume design and the score, though I doubt many AMPAS voters can tell the difference between what Desplat wrote and what Beethoven did. Still, wins by all three nominated actors, costume design and score would be fine with me.

On the other hand, I loathe the cliche-ridden script, the horrid camera placement and the tacky art direction. What exactly did Tom Hooper direct, aside from the camera placement? Certainly he wouldn't presume to tell half of the current British acting aristocracy how to do their jobs. Colin Firth's sister is a noted speech therapist and he got the help he neded from her to convey Bertie's stammering, thank you very much.

I wouldn't like to see Hooper or Harvey or David Siedler at the podium on Oscar night, but I will have been prepared thanks to all the on-line Oscar prognosticators telling me I will see them. We've got three weeks to go and everyone is talking about this year's Oscars as though they've already been presented.

The only currently presumed front-runner who is in trouble is Melissa Leo because of her tactless self-promotion. She's not my favorite in the supporting actress category, but it would be hypocritical for her to lose for being so out there while Harvey is rewarded yet again for his tacky self-promotion.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Big Magilla wrote:

Colin Firth vs. Jeff Bridges in a year when Sandra Bullock is the sentimental favorite, Bridges wins handily. No win for Firth, no Best Picture win for The King's Speech. It would like awarding The Private Life of Henry VIII and not Charles Laughton.
I disagree, Big, although obviously in a discussion like this all we can go on are our own feelings, hunches and opinions.

The warmth and the feel-good aspects of King's Speech would have prevailed over the cold preciseness of Hurt Locker in my opinion (of course, I never understood what all the fuss over Hurt Locker was about), but Bigelow would still have won Best Director.

And, of course, King's Speech could have won Best Picture while Jeff Bridges still received his award. Just think of All About Eve, Schindler's List, Out of Africa, Casablanca, Rocky, A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, etc etc
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

rolotomasi99 wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:Frankly, I found last year's NY/LA/NS/Bos unanimity for Hurt Locker far more surprising. I hadn't struck me that the opening week praise for the film had been so strong or widespread that it would become the first film in over a decade to sweep those groups. If any film seemed to be a critics' booster project, that was it...yet somehow it paid no price, and Social Network may be being punished for its sins.
Oh sweet Jesus! So not only was THE HURT LOCKER unworthy of winning Best Picture last year, but it is also responsible for ruining THE SOCIAL NETWORK's chance of winning Best Picture this year? That is taking the hatred to a whole new level.
Yeah, I've gotta say, I'm a little startled at the finger-wagging tone of Tee's posts. I almost hope I hate The King's Speech to understand the vehemence he's speaking with.

As for the guild itself, I think Inception and Black Swan absolutely deserve their prizes.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

I agree with Sabin's points.

Colin Firth vs. Jeff Bridges in a year when Sandra Bullock is the sentimental favorite, Bridges wins handily. No win for Firth, no Best Picture win for The King's Speech. It would like awarding The Private Life of Henry VIII and not Charles Laughton.

The Hurt Locker had a number of things going for it. It was topical, more so than The Social Network, which not everyone can relate to - everyone relates to war movies, whether positively or negatively. It was a box office flop that the critics loved, making AMPAS members sit up and take notice via their screeners. It was directed by a woman. A woman had never won an Oscar for directing before, and it was about time wasn't it? Add to that that the woman is one of several discarded wives of the chief competition. It was impossible to beat. Even the nuns loved it.

E.W.'s current Oscar issue has a profile of (Mother) Dolores Hart, the only nun in AMPAS. What did she vote for last year? Avatar, but wait... all the nuns in her abbey were mad at her because they thought she should have voted for The Hurt Locker. It would nice to see a follow-up interview after this year's awards to see which film she votes for this year and whether or not the other nuns agree with her choice. The only current nominee she mentions is Black Swan, but that's just to show she's not a prude and watches everything.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

(Damien @ Feb. 07 2011,4:02)
(Mister Tee @ Feb. 07 2011,3:32)
Frankly, I found last year's NY/LA/NS/Bos unanimity for Hurt Locker far more surprising. I hadn't struck me that the opening week praise for the film had been so strong or widespread that it would become the first film in over a decade to sweep those groups. If any film seemed to be a critics' booster project, that was it...yet somehow it paid no price, and Social Network may be being punished for its sins.

But there was no equivalent to King's Speech last year to take down Hurt Locker. Avatar was a technical marvel too lacking in terms of script, and the other main contenders. Precious and Up In The Air, were not feel-good pictures like King's Speech. If King's Speech was last year, I think it probably would have taken Best Picture away from the Locker.

I'm going to respond to both of these here...

I agree more with the first point, but it's entirely possible that The King's Speech would win last year. But it would be a late-starter, winning only the Screen Actor's Guild Award most likely, possibly no other award than Best Picture, and the collective groans would start car alarms across America.

This year was the culmination of something we saw coming to boiling point last year. The Hurt Locker was THE Critic's Film. Now, it didn't win every award out there, but it did a pretty gangbusters job. The National Society of Film Critics used to pick the left field choice, but outside of Waltz with Bashir they've been resoundingly middlebrow as of late and more so conformist than one would like. The Hurt Locker registered strongly with critics, faded with the coming Avatar onslaught, and then it reemerged and became something that people could root for, an underdog, the anti-Avatar, all small-scale action. It was a boring critic's season but it certainly got the job done of keeping the film in peoples' minds. To contrast, The Social Network appears to be fatiguing voters, and even if this is an indirect response to last year's pulpit bullying, it's still worth noting. I mean for Christ's sake! Was there a single critic that didn't pick The Social Network for Best Picture this year? Last year, we at least had a bevy of non-Hurt Locker choices. Was there a single mainstream critic that didn't pick The Social Network for Best Film this year?

It's worth remembering that the Weinsteins had their most make it/break it year in 2009 with Inglourious Basterds, Nine, The Road, and (don't laugh, it's true) Youth in Revolt. They all-but sabotaged The Road, watched Nine flame out, saw Youth in Revolt implode, and Inglourious Basterds carried the flag. They're not always amazing at juggling their contenders. They've had good years and bad years. If they had The King's Speech last year, then Colin Firth is split between his performance as Bertie and for A Single Man, and a failure to decide between the two could be hazardous. Beyond this, it's not like anyone thought that Colin Firth was due last year. The King's Speech perf would likely win out, but Jeff Bridges was winning everything in a walk for Crazy Heart. I find it difficult to imagine a year where The King's Speech wins and not Colin Firth. Additionally, David Seidler is a human interest story this year, but perhaps not so much last year against Mark Boal and Quentin Tarantino. If The King's Speech won last year, I think there might have been even more outcry than will happen this year. I maintain that The Hurt Locker was a response to Avatar, something that voters could embrace as the opposite of the other. In the same way, The King's Speech is the anti-Social Network.




Edited By Sabin on 1297124673
"How's the despair?"
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Mister Tee wrote:Frankly, I found last year's NY/LA/NS/Bos unanimity for Hurt Locker far more surprising. I hadn't struck me that the opening week praise for the film had been so strong or widespread that it would become the first film in over a decade to sweep those groups. If any film seemed to be a critics' booster project, that was it...yet somehow it paid no price, and Social Network may be being punished for its sins.
But there was no equivalent to King's Speech last year to take down Hurt Locker. Avatar was a technical marvel too lacking in terms of script, and the other main contenders. Precious and Up In The Air, were not feel-good pictures like King's Speech. If King's Speech was last year, I think it probably would have taken Best Picture away from the Locker.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

HarryGoldfarb wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:I would say there has never been a year where one film deserves to win every single critics award. Not BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, not SCHINDLER'S LIST, not AMADEUS, etc. Every year has several good films. GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, HOWARD'S END, THE KILLING FIELDS, etc. all deserved recognition in their respective years.

If you are mentioning a deserving film from the same year of the aforementioned supposed critic's baby, then The Piano should be in that list instead of Howards End considering your brought up Schindler's List, not Unofrgiven...

My mistake. THE PIANO was absolutely what I was thinking. Not sure why I put HOWARDS END.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1297114878
"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
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Mister Tee wrote:Frankly, I found last year's NY/LA/NS/Bos unanimity for Hurt Locker far more surprising. I hadn't struck me that the opening week praise for the film had been so strong or widespread that it would become the first film in over a decade to sweep those groups. If any film seemed to be a critics' booster project, that was it...yet somehow it paid no price, and Social Network may be being punished for its sins.

Oh sweet Jesus! So not only was THE HURT LOCKER unworthy of winning Best Picture last year, but it is also responsible for ruining THE SOCIAL NETWORK's chance of winning Best Picture this year? That is taking the hatred to a whole new level.

As for the critics groups, I am not even sure why they have awards. Seriously. They write reviews of films which most folks barely pay attention to, then they publish top ten lists which people pay even less attention to, and then finally they give out awards which hardly anyone besides Oscar watchers and publicists care about. Since their awards are pretty redundant anyway, why not break outside the narrow field the Academy and Guilds live by?

I am far more likely to be impressed by an obscure film or performance receiving a critics award then the same popular choices. Jacki Weaver’s nomination for ANIMAL KINGDOM is a wonderful example of the critics bring attention to a performance and film audiences and other filmmakers might have missed. I love Melissa Leo and Hailee Steinfeld, but their Oscar chances were pretty secure. The LA Film Critics Association awarding Hye-ja Kim from MOTHER is the type of choice I would expect from a critics group, not the same famous actresses over and over again.

When I think of the Academy, I think of a pretty conservative taste in films. When I think of critics, I would like to think they are a little more adventurous. There was nothing adventurous or challenging about THE SOCIAL NETWORK. David Fincher does not even think he did anything special. So why would every critics group act as if there was only one great film this year? It really felt like the critics had given up on being interested in alternative cinema.

I am not sure what other folks around here expect from critics groups, but I never wanted them to play it safe. THE SOCIAL NETWORK seems very safe. It seems like the type of film the Academy would support. That is not a comment on its quality (which I think is quite good), just on its style. It is a very well-made, funny, mainstream, crowd pleasing film. Unfortunately, it just went up against another well-made, funny, mainstream, crowd pleasing film that had the added advantage of making people cry. These two films are far more alike than most people will admit.

It is funny to watch the up and down of the past several years from the Academy. It seems like every time they stick their necks out for more challenging art house films like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN or THE HURT LOCKER, they then have to go back to safe crowd-pleasing films like SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE and THE KING’S SPEECH. The only solace I can take in them picking something as “safe” as THE KING’S SPEECH is the small possibility something as “out there” (and hopefully well made) as THE TREE OF LIFE possibly winning. Now that would be a Best Picture winner unlike anything we have ever seen.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1297114701
"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
HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

rolotomasi99 wrote:I would say there has never been a year where one film deserves to win every single critics award. Not BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, not SCHINDLER'S LIST, not AMADEUS, etc. Every year has several good films. GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, HOWARD'S END, THE KILLING FIELDS, etc. all deserved recognition in their respective years.
If you are mentioning a deserving film from the same year of the aforementioned supposed critic's baby, then The Piano should be in that list instead of Howards End considering your brought up Schindler's List, not Unofrgiven...
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

I don't doubt what you say is true, rain bard, about the podunk groups. The question is, do they actually have any effect on the Academy field, independent of the long-demonstrated effect of the core groups (NY, LA, NS and, for nostalgia's sake, NBR)? You could argue they pushed Slumdog to its inevitabilty position, but, honestly, I thought Slumdog had that year's race nailed from the moment I read the festival reviews. Natalie Portman might make a stronger case, since, if anyone can remember back 7 weeks ago, Portman won not a single one of the classic critics' prizes...yet the impression is that she's been a near universal choice, because she won virtually every non-entity group's prize.

I'd distinguish between that and what's happened with The Social Network. Social Network 1) won every reputable critics' prize and 2) was a logical candidate for doing that, because it was overwhelmingly the most highly praised film of the year, probably of the last ten years. You may not agree with that level of praise -- I don't -- but it was the widespread consensus, and the film's sweep of the legit critics' awards was thus not some attempt on the groups' part to create a groundswell, but the natural end-game of what they'd all put to paper some months earlier at the time of the film's release. That the Oklahoma City or Des Moines Film Critics joined in...I can't speak to whether that was sincere or not, since my knowledge about those groups in nil. I will, though, put forth this proposition: had all these groups been around in 1993, I'd bet the house they'd have all picked Schindler's List, as well.

Frankly, I found last year's NY/LA/NS/Bos unanimity for Hurt Locker far more surprising. I hadn't struck me that the opening week praise for the film had been so strong or widespread that it would become the first film in over a decade to sweep those groups. If any film seemed to be a critics' booster project, that was it...yet somehow it paid no price, and Social Network may be being punished for its sins.




Edited By Mister Tee on 1297110792
rain Bard
Associate
Posts: 1611
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:55 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Post by rain Bard »

Big Magilla wrote:If anything, most critics want to get people to see the films they like, so they vote for those films. If that includes AMPAS members who might otherwise ignore a certain screener, that's all to the good, but it's not their primary concern.
I'm afraid that separate off-the-record conversations I've had with members of a certain minor critics group which shall remain nameless (it's not N.Y., L.A., N.S.F.C, Broadcast, or, of course, N.B.R.) indicate that at least some critics do think precisely of trying to influence AMPAS when drawing up these awards, and in fact a good deal of the momentum of their discussions (at least in this group) pushes their decisions precisely in that direction, and away from giving awards to individuals ineligible for, or unlikely to be considered for Oscars.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

rolotomasi99 wrote:I applaud the groups that recognized WINTER'S BONE, BLACK SWAN, INCEPTION, and others for their quality filmmaking.

By this theory, assuming all the critics think one particular film is the year's best, only the first few to vote get to name that film and all the later groups MUST vote for something they don't like as much to keep up the suspense.

The National Society of Film Critics, which usually votes last, often cites films that haven't won other critics' awards, but only in years where there is a genuine group of top notch films to chose from. Giving the award to an alternate film for the sake of giving an award to an alternate film doesn't make any sense.

And where is it written that Amadeus won every critics' award? It won L.A. only. The NBR and NYFC went with A Passage to India and the NSFC with Stranger Than Paradise. The Globes gave Amadeus Best Picture-Drama and A Passage to India Best Foreign Film.




Edited By Big Magilla on 1297105525
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Mister Tee wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:Hopefully the critics have learned their lesson and will never recognize only one film with all of their awards. Clearly it pisses off the folks who worked on all those other films that were ignored, and they know how to take revenge.

Yeah -- we all saw how they turned on The Hurt Locker.

Hey, I was willing to concede THE HURT LOCKER won more critics awards than I previously thought, but it did not win every award. UP IN THE AIR won several, PRECIOUS won some, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS won some, AVATAR won a "big" one, etc.

I would say there has never been a year where one film deserves to win every single critics award. Not BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, not SCHINDLER'S LIST, not AMADEUS, etc. Every year has several good films. GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, HOWARD'S END, THE KILLING FIELDS, etc. all deserved recognition in their respective years.

If all the critics are going to have the same opinion, why not just have one critics group handing out one set of awards? I applaud the groups that recognized WINTER'S BONE, BLACK SWAN, INCEPTION, and others for their quality filmmaking.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1297101988
"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
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

rolotomasi99 wrote:Hopefully the critics have learned their lesson and will never recognize only one film with all of their awards. Clearly it pisses off the folks who worked on all those other films that were ignored, and they know how to take revenge.
Yeah -- we all saw how they turned on The Hurt Locker.
Post Reply

Return to “83rd Predictions and Precursors”