2012 Oscar Nominations

For the films of 2012
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by criddic3 »

one can't make a movie about this subject and NOT be political.
Apparently, you can. Isn't that why we are discussing the decision not to make Zero Dark Thirty overtly political?
Before today, Spielberg was tied with Mervyn LeRoy, who directed 8 Best Picture nominees (none of which won) with only 1 Best Director nomination. Imagine that happening these days!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but many of those years included up to 10 nominees for Best Picture? Spielberg's nominations for Director came in years when Picture and Director were bound to match up with 5 nominees in each category. Since they only recently went back to the more than 5 standard, it would have technically been harder for Spielberg or any modern director to encounter that same scenario.
Last edited by criddic3 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by FilmFan720 »

Mister Tee wrote:
FilmFan720 wrote: Oh, factoid worth noting: this is Spielberg's 7th nomination for directing, matching the totals Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese hit last year. That ties with David Lean and Fred Zinnemann, and, unless I'm forgetting someone, is toppped by only Wilder's 8 and Wyler's maybe-not-out-of-reach 12.
That is true.

Spielberg has also now directed 9 Best Picture nominees, which is tied with John Ford for the second most ever. Wyler directed 13 nominees. Of course, Spielberg and Ford have each only won Best Picture once.

Before today, Spielberg was tied with Mervyn LeRoy, who directed 8 Best Picture nominees (none of which won) with only 1 Best Director nomination. Imagine that happening these days!
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by ITALIANO »

FilmFan720 wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote: Bigelow and Haneke have much more in common stylistically than Bigelow does with Russell or Zeitlin.
What?! I know that it's early morning in the US but... come on, rolotomasi...

And did Inglorious Basterds promote torture? This is also new to me.

I honestly don't think that they excluded Bigelow this year because she's a woman. She was a woman even the year she won - and for a movie that was the war equivalent of this year's The Impossible. They probably just realized that she's an overrated director - you may not agree with them, but I don't think thare are other, hidden reasons, really.

And of course she just didn't take a screenplay someone she didn't know anything about had written and passively filmed it. From what I have read and heard, even on this board, even from those who liked it, Zero Dark Thirty is (also, and very much) Bigelow's movie. She's as responsible for those choices as her screenwriter is (just as she was responsible for The Hurt Locker). And this is why you like her so much, by the way - but others are free to dislile her. It's possible that she just narrowly missed the nomination - and I feel that the movie itself would have narrowly missed Best Picture in the old five-slots format.

And - I realize that I am very European in this, so I expect that you'll disagree - one can't make a movie about this subject and NOT be political.
This won't happen often, so I thought I would point it out...ITALIANO, I agree with everything you just said in that post!

Good to know... but it's not that difficult to agree with me...
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by FilmFan720 »

ITALIANO wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote: Bigelow and Haneke have much more in common stylistically than Bigelow does with Russell or Zeitlin.
What?! I know that it's early morning in the US but... come on, rolotomasi...

And did Inglorious Basterds promote torture? This is also new to me.

I honestly don't think that they excluded Bigelow this year because she's a woman. She was a woman even the year she won - and for a movie that was the war equivalent of this year's The Impossible. They probably just realized that she's an overrated director - you may not agree with them, but I don't think thare are other, hidden reasons, really.

And of course she just didn't take a screenplay someone she didn't know anything about had written and passively filmed it. From what I have read and heard, even on this board, even from those who liked it, Zero Dark Thirty is (also, and very much) Bigelow's movie. She's as responsible for those choices as her screenwriter is (just as she was responsible for The Hurt Locker). And this is why you like her so much, by the way - but others are free to dislile her. It's possible that she just narrowly missed the nomination - and I feel that the movie itself would have narrowly missed Best Picture in the old five-slots format.

And - I realize that I am very European in this, so I expect that you'll disagree - one can't make a movie about this subject and NOT be political.
This won't happen often, so I thought I would point it out...ITALIANO, I agree with everything you just said in that post!
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by FilmFan720 »

Interesting fact I just noticed...for two years in a row, one of the Best Picture nominees was the Palme d'Or winner. This has only happened once before (1993-1994, The Piano and Pulp Fiction), although in 1979 you had 1 Palme d'Or winner (Apocalypse Now) and one eventual Palme d'Or winner (All That Jazz). This is the first time that it has happened where one of the Palme d'Or winners wasn't a tie (Apocalypse Now, All That Jazz and The Piano all tied with non-Best Picture nominated films) and the first time a foreign-language film is one of the nominees.

Needless to say, none of those films won Best Picture.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by ITALIANO »

rolotomasi99 wrote: Bigelow and Haneke have much more in common stylistically than Bigelow does with Russell or Zeitlin.
What?! I know that it's early morning in the US but... come on, rolotomasi...

And did Inglorious Basterds promote torture? This is also new to me.

I honestly don't think that they excluded Bigelow this year because she's a woman. She was a woman even the year she won - and for a movie that was the war equivalent of this year's The Impossible. They probably just realized that she's an overrated director - you may not agree with them, but I don't think thare are other, hidden reasons, really.

And of course she just didn't take a screenplay someone she didn't know anything about had written and passively filmed it. From what I have read and heard, even on this board, even from those who liked it, Zero Dark Thirty is (also, and very much) Bigelow's movie. She's as responsible for those choices as her screenwriter is (just as she was responsible for The Hurt Locker). And this is why you like her so much, by the way - but others are free to dislile her. It's possible that she just narrowly missed the nomination - and I feel that the movie itself would have narrowly missed Best Picture in the old five-slots format.

And - I realize that I am very European in this, so I expect that you'll disagree - one can't make a movie about this subject and NOT be political.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by rolotomasi99 »

anonymous1980 wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:Anyways, eliminating the torture controversy as a possible reason and considering no other woman have been nominated since her win, I am going to say yes the white male majority in the Academy Directing branch is threatened by Bigelow's talent. She is better at this game than most men, and this pisses them off. Thankfully the DGA includes TV directors which is much more diverse in terms of race and gender than the directors in the Academy.
I disagree with this. I don't think sexism is a major factor in Bigelow's snub. Them simply liking the other five films better is probably the most major factor. Nothing to do with her gender.
Do you believe in general sexism has never been a factor in the Directing category, or just it was not a factor with Bigelow? If other women had been nominated since Bigelow I would more easily accept this. I know it has only been a few years, but WINTER'S BONE really, really deserved a Directing nomination. We shall see what happens in the next few years.
"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:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by rolotomasi99 »

criddic3 wrote:
danfrank wrote:I'm overall pretty pleased, as Oscar nominations go. The biggest shock for me was Bigelow being left out for Director. It's clearly a director's film, shot brilliantly. I think the reason she was left out is because the film is too muddy in its point of view. It doesn't really take a stand. It just presents itself and lets the viewer struggle with the darkness of the subject matter. It doesn't reinforce those who want to celebrate Bin Laden's murder, nor those who want to condemn it. Neither does it guide those who are ambivalent. It very well might not have cracked the top 5 for best picture.
It's a damned if you do-damned if you don't situation. If you get political about the story (in either direction), you risk alienating half the movie-going population. If you remain somewhat neutral and try to tell the story directly, based only on the narrative of the events presented to you, those who want to have a political advocacy-film will criticize you for being "too timid." Maybe the Academy wanted to have it both ways. Praise the film with Best Picture nomination for presenting a relevant event, but criticize Bigelow for not taking a political stand. Then again, maybe they just liked Michael Haneke's film more.
Why is it Bigelow's fault the film was not more political? I know people like to say the director is the author of the film, but I am pretty sure Boal was the one who decided not to put any partisan dialogue in any character's mouth. Bigelow respected the screenplay and decided to shoot it the way it deserved -- no fist pumping or hand wringing. I love movies with strong points of view like NETWORK or BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, but not all films have to be pushing a certain point of view. It is what I liked so much about THE HURT LOCKER. It just presented the story of these soldiers and war in general without taking a stand on this specific war or attack Bush.

Also, I would think the folks who voted for Haneke were the smart ones who also voted for Bigelow. It is the directors nominating Russell and Zeitlin who punished Bigelow. Obviously I cannot prove this, but Bigelow and Haneke have much more in common stylistically than Bigelow does with Russell or Zeitlin.
"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
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by anonymous1980 »

rolotomasi99 wrote:Anyways, eliminating the torture controversy as a possible reason and considering no other woman have been nominated since her win, I am going to say yes the white male majority in the Academy Directing branch is threatened by Bigelow's talent. She is better at this game than most men, and this pisses them off. Thankfully the DGA includes TV directors which is much more diverse in terms of race and gender than the directors in the Academy.
I disagree with this. I don't think sexism is a major factor in Bigelow's snub. Them simply liking the other five films better is probably the most major factor. Nothing to do with her gender.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by Big Magilla »

I have no problem with most of the inclusions. It's the exclusions, particularly of Hawkes, Trintignant and iegelow that irk me. Trignant was an uphill battle, but Hawkes was a bit of a shock and Bigelow's omission is a real head-scratcher.

Here's an idea - since they like to play games so much, throwing the nominees at us in no particular order, maybe they can do the same with the awards - have the Price/Waterhouse rep hand the presenters an envelope as they go on stage and have to open it to see what category they're presenting. Oh, the ego-bruising! Imagine Tom Hanks having to present Best Sound, Jean Dujardin Best Supporting Actor, Meryl Streep Best Costume Design while Octavia Spencer gets to present Best Picture.
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by criddic3 »

danfrank wrote:I'm overall pretty pleased, as Oscar nominations go. The biggest shock for me was Bigelow being left out for Director. It's clearly a director's film, shot brilliantly. I think the reason she was left out is because the film is too muddy in its point of view. It doesn't really take a stand. It just presents itself and lets the viewer struggle with the darkness of the subject matter. It doesn't reinforce those who want to celebrate Bin Laden's murder, nor those who want to condemn it. Neither does it guide those who are ambivalent. It very well might not have cracked the top 5 for best picture.
It's a damned if you do-damned if you don't situation. If you get political about the story (in either direction), you risk alienating half the movie-going population. If you remain somewhat neutral and try to tell the story directly, based only on the narrative of the events presented to you, those who want to have a political advocacy-film will criticize you for being "too timid." Maybe the Academy wanted to have it both ways. Praise the film with Best Picture nomination for presenting a relevant event, but criticize Bigelow for not taking a political stand. Then again, maybe they just liked Michael Haneke's film more.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Bog
Assistant
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by Bog »

I am by no means an Oscar historian, especially of ancillary type facts, do we think this was MacFarlane's idea to start his hosting gig 6 weeks early? If it wasn't his idea, I think it would have happened before this year. Has anyone ever so overtly promoted his/herself and his/her film prior, during, and after just being there to read names as much as Emma Stone (whom I actually love)? Has there been a time when an Academy associated human (president or something) was nowhere to be found on nominations morning? Will Seth MacFarlane possibly not wear a tux or even a tie for the Oscars?
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Mister Tee wrote:Zero Dark Thirty, though, seems to have hit a wall. Bad publicity? Too late a debut? Prejudice against women directors? (No, I don't believe that -- but someone will argue it) There are so many surprises here that we can have dozens of discussions, unlike past years where we've had to stretch to muster interest or suspense.
Fine, I will. I applauded Bigelow's Oscar win because I thought she was the most deserving nominee for Directing. THE WHITE RIBBON, A SERIOUS MAN, and BRIGHT STAR would have also been worthy winners, but their directors were not nominated. As a bonus, I was happy to see a woman finally win the award. It was not the primary reason for my happiness, and I certainly do not think they should have (or did ) give it to Bigelow simply to make history. The same was true when Ang Lee became the first person of color to win the Oscar for Directing -- I applauded the significance of his win, but I was just happy the most worthy nominee received the award.

I admit I was a bit naive in thinking Bigelow's win would open up the door for more women directors being nominated. However, despite the following year seeing two Best Picture nominees directed by women, the Director category was once again filled with white men. The year after that saw a return to the status quo -- only films directed by white men nominated for Best Picture or Directing. I am certainly happy to see ZERO DARK THIRTY and LIFE OF PI in the Best Picture category and Ang Lee among the nominees for Directing. However, women are still being ignored.

As for what specifically happened with Kathryn Bigelow, I am sure many people will say the torture controversy sunk her, but that only reinforces my feelings that the real culprit was sexism. ZERO DARK THIRTY was nominated for Best Picture so clearly the attacks on the films content was not enough to alienate everyone. Also, the torture aspects of the film come from the screenplay, which was nominated. Boal has been very clear he is the one who wanted to include the use of torture by the CIA, yet for some reason Bigelow is punished. Italiano calls her a fascist, yet the way the torture scenes were shot was perfect. They were shown in an unflinching but dispassionate manner. Some argue this proves Bigelow approves of torture, but that is complete bullshit. Compare any of the violence in ZERO DARK THIRTY to DJANGO UNCHAINED. Now that film is morally reprehensible. Tarantino wants the audience to literally cheer every time a racist person is killed. He revels in the violence and feels there is nothing wrong with a person brutally and violently murdering anyone even remotely connected to slavery (including other slaves).

I am certainly glad Tarantino was not nominated for Directing, but not because of the violent content of the film and more to do with his directorial choices. However, he was nominated for the cinematic ally superior but equally reprehensible INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. That film absolutely advocated torture, and yet it was nominated for Best Picture, Directing, Writing, and a slew of other Oscars. Why would the torture in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS not disqualify Tarantino from a nomination but the torture in ZERO DARK THIRTY somehow hurt Bigelow?

Anyways, eliminating the torture controversy as a possible reason and considering no other woman have been nominated since her win, I am going to say yes the white male majority in the Academy Directing branch is threatened by Bigelow's talent. She is better at this game than most men, and this pisses them off. Thankfully the DGA includes TV directors which is much more diverse in terms of race and gender than the directors in the Academy.
Last edited by rolotomasi99 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by ITALIANO »

anonymous1980 wrote: For me, that's very refreshing and a sign that there's still a classy section within the Academy.
For me too. It also reminded me that the Oscars, with all their flaws, can still be more interesting than the Golden Globes or other precursors - something that I tend to forget, I must admit.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 2012 Oscar Nominations

Post by Mister Tee »

FilmFan720 wrote:Tee, great analysis (and I for one am excited for the next month plus of trying to figure this one out), but figuring 1995 gave us one of our worst Best Pictures that comparison doesn't alieviate any fears here!
I almost mentioned that, but didn't want to harsh the mellow.

Bog, I've been so busy of late that it was only late last evening that I drew up an alphabetical list for myself; it was too late to post here (and I figured hardly anyone would see it, anyway). But I know my post would have led off with something like "Amy Adams will be fortunate to have her fate decided early"...when, in fact, the way they did it, she came LAST. I had the same reaction you did when Waltz's name was read first -- "Wow; they're really doing them randomly". I wonder if it was an Academy decision, or a MacFarlane idea?

Oh, factoid worth noting: this is Spielberg's 7th nomination for directing, matching the totals Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese hit last year. That ties with David Lean and Fred Zinnemann, and, unless I'm forgetting someone, is toppped by only Wilder's 8 and Wyler's maybe-not-out-of-reach 12.
Post Reply

Return to “85th Nominations and Winners”