New Academy Rules

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
Side note: in 1999, if you had said that the next two Oscar winners from American Beauty were going to be Chris Cooper and Allison Janney (as opposed to Bening and the kids), would anyone believe you?

For Chris Cooper, I would've believed you. I think I might have predicted a nomination for him. He certainly probably came quite close (possibly ahead of John Malkovich and Christopher Plummer) and he was coming off of a very strong year with both American Beauty and October Sky. I think I could have believed he'd win next but I doubt I could've seen his work in Adaptation. coming.

[Okri]

re: # of best picture nominees

I have to admit I'm fine with 5, 10 and the variations in between. I almost like the variations the best because it feels like it might more accurately reflect a great year vs a not so great one. It doesn't always end up that way, of course, but the potential always seems like it's there. And to be honest, I don't think there have been substantially more BAD films nominated in the line-up of more than five. I mean, I don't think The Blind Side is actually a lesser film than The Reader. It feels like the quality control with five should be stronger, but I don't think that reflects what actually happens.

re: American Beauty

I remember being shocked that Lisa Schwarzbaum and Owen Gleiberman didn't put the film in their individual top tens in Entertainment Weekly that year. When doing their personal oscar picks from the nominees, h\e said Mendes but not the film; she said the film but went with Jonze (I think) for best director. That stated, I think the combination of the internet (and the way it connected cinephiles, particularly young cinephiles) and the DVD era allows for re-evaluations all the time. And maybe Alan Ball drifting to television hurt too (I find the complaints Sabin cites, being overly broad and obvious, describes both True Blood and Six Feet Under)

Side note: in 1999, if you had said that the next two Oscar winners from American Beauty were going to be Chris Cooper and Allison Janney (as opposed to Bening and the kids), would anyone believe you?

[Big Magilla]

I have no idea where all this stuff about American Beauty is coming from.

The film had, has, and probably always will have a strong reputation among cinephiles.

Stay off of social media. It will just drive you crazy.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
I think it's a multi-step process: 1) Those who always hated the film, happy to join in when 2) The social developments of the past 4 years have made a middle-aged white guy's libidinous urge for his daughter's girlfriend a singularly unpopular subject 3) With Kevin Spacey's particular and flagrant creepiness, as you say, the cherry on top.

I'm not sure the first group really has much to do with it. Who were the people who always hated the film? They're not print film critics. These were voices very much on the outside: dissenting veterans like Pauline Kael, message board squabblings, and some things in between (I have no idea if David Poland or Jeffrey Wells hated it, but that sort of thing). Y'know, back when The Internet was an old place. And I maintain: this group generally speaking had no problem with the taboo subject matter. If anything, they compared it negatively to Todd Solondz's Happiness. They generally objected to the fact that it felt overly broad and obvious, like a sitcom. The new dissenting voices rose to prominence on Social Media (between 2012 and 2015), which thrived on an economy of Hot Takes. "Hot Take: American Beauty is actually awful." Yes, they objected to dated elements of it but they were generally focused on how "wrong" it was from a societal perspective. I do not think that Group One walked so that Group Two could run. Group Two had no idea Group One ever existed, would have discovered American Beauty regardless, and come to the exact same conclusions about it because those conclusions became a cottage industry.

Let me put it this way: the dissenting voices on The Internet are different from the dissenting voices on Social Media. The latter barely knows the former ever existed.

I could go on about the disorienting flip in pop culture that took place in the first half of the 2010s. One of the best examples I can think of was how Lena Dunham went from beloved to absolutely despised.

[Mister Tee]

American Beauty stands at 4.0 average rating in Letterboxd, which is pretty respectable. I dare to say that the bashing against the film comes from the animosity towards Kevin Spacey rather than the film itself.

I think you’re right. Spacey’s presence now amplifies the creepiness factor tenfold.

I think it's a multi-step process: 1) Those who always hated the film, happy to join in when 2) The social developments of the past 4 years have made a middle-aged white guy's libidinous urge for his daughter's girlfriend a singularly unpopular subject 3) With Kevin Spacey's particular and flagrant creepiness, as you say, the cherry on top.

[danfrank]

American Beauty stands at 4.0 average rating in Letterboxd, which is pretty respectable. I dare to say that the bashing against the film comes from the animosity towards Kevin Spacey rather than the film itself.

I think you’re right. Spacey’s presence now amplifies the creepiness factor tenfold.

[mlrg]

American Beauty stands at 4.0 average rating in Letterboxd, which is pretty respectable. I dare to say that the bashing against the film comes from the animosity towards Kevin Spacey rather than the film itself.

[Mister Tee]

Mister Tee wrote
The scary thing is, today, people are actually pushing for the inclusion of such films. I'll always remember the cheer I heard when The Blind Side was read out as nominee.

Are you being facetious?

Unhappily, no. I was watching the live announcement, and, when the title was read off, someone whooped with delight.

[Mister Tee]

Tbh, I don't know that eras rules about being nominated for Best Foreign-Language Film vs. the other categories.

The rule was relatively simple: for Foreign Language Film, you were eligible the year you were submitted by your country of origin. For all other categories, you were eligible the year in which the film was first exhibited in LA.

What complicated those years is, many films debuted in NY during the Fall (often first at the NY Film Festival), but didn't play LA till after January. It further complicated things that, from 1972 to 1974, the NY Critics (who were far more Oscar-influential than the National Society) went on a three-year binge of choosing Foreign-Language Films for best film -- after having never chosen one prior (and none subsequently, till Roma in 2019 -- unless you count The Artist). It happened that all three of those films (Cries and Whispers, Day for Night, Amarcord) fell into the NY Fall/LA post-January slot (Discreet Charm, which won National Society but not NY, had opened in both cities in 1972).

It's anyone's guess whether they'd have made the Academy cut in their years of NY victories -- though it seems an easy supposition that Cries and Whispers could have replaced The Emigrants. It was pretty remarkable that C&W had enough strength it managed all the top categories a year later (and won the cinematography prize). The others, I don't know -- they held up a year on with the writers and directors, but they were always the most conscientious branches. Best picture might have been a stretch for either.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
The scary thing is, today, people are actually pushing for the inclusion of such films. I'll always remember the cheer I heard when The Blind Side was read out as nominee.

Are you being facetious?

Mister Tee wrote
If you don't insist on December-to-December year designations, I'd argue the greatest period of movie releases (on a NY schedule) of my lifetime was March 1971 to March 1972. This encompassed The Conformist, Carnal Knowledge, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Klute, Sunday Bloody Sunday, The Last Picture Show, The French Connection, Straw Dogs, A Clockwork Orange, Cabaret, The Godfather and (if you extend just a few days) The Sorrow and the Pity. (With, as supporting contenders, Taking Off, Bananas, The Go-Between, Who is Harry Kellerman...?, Billy Jack, Fiddler on the Roof, Dirty Harry, The Hospital, and The Garden of the Finzi-Continis.) That's a decade of great stuff on today's calendar.

Yup. Haven't gotten anything like that in my lifetime. On the other hand, television has been the stuff of miracles in my life.

Mister Tee wrote
And, yeah, I still stick by American Beauty. As I'm sure I've said here many times before, when people say a film's reputation has collapsed, it generally only means people who never liked it have bullied their taste through and made it accepted wisdom in certain circles. I'm always going to march to my own drummer.

Well... in this case it means other things. American Beauty's decline has little to do with the fact that the prevailing negative views of it at the time have won (i.e. it's a glorified sitcom) but rather that cultural attitudes have changed and there's [currently] little redeeming value in the story of a straight white dude who has a mid-life crisis and wants to fuck his daughter's friend, nor its emphasis on questioning materialism, status quo, and establishment. Back in 1999, American Beauty was a film for the left. Today, I'd imagine it has more support on the right.

To say that American Beauty would never be made today is an uninteresting claim. It's the product of a pre-social media era of a different attitudes and values. Long since forgotten is the fact that Alan Ball was inspired by the Amy Fisher scandal to write the film (by the way: currently Amy Fisher is a webcam model). But today in 2021, American Beauty is certainly one thing that it never quite was in 1999: dangerous. It's dangerous in 2021 to suggest that somebody like Lester Burnham deserves sympathy. Long-winded but I'd go so far as to say that American Beauty might be a better film today.

[mlrg]

I'd argue the greatest period of movie releases (on a NY schedule) of my lifetime was March 1971 to March 1972. This encompassed The Conformist, Carnal Knowledge, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Klute, Sunday Bloody Sunday, The Last Picture Show, The French Connection, Straw Dogs, A Clockwork Orange, Cabaret, The Godfather and (if you extend just a few days) The Sorrow and the Pity. (With, as supporting contenders, Taking Off, Bananas, The Go-Between, Who is Harry Kellerman...?, Billy Jack, Fiddler on the Roof, Dirty Harry, The Hospital, and The Garden of the Finzi-Continis.) That's a decade of great stuff on today's calendar.

Totally agree. The set of nominees from 1971 is probably one of the best ever, at least for me.

[Sabin]

mlrg wrote
As for 1975 we have two masterpieces, Barry Lyndon and Cuckoos Nest, a cult classic, Jaws, and a pretty good film, Dog Day Afternoon. I haven’t seen Nashville yet but the other nominated films of the year are pretty dreary. At least judging by the acting categories. And Amarcord is also stupendous but for me it’s a 1974 film.

Tbh, I don't know that eras rules about being nominated for Best Foreign-Language Film vs. the other categories. The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie won Best Foreign-Language Film but was nominated for Best Original Screenplay the same year, whereas Day for Night and Amarcord had their Foreign-Language Film victories one year but showed in the other categories the following year. Additionally, I can only assume the reason why Cries and Whispers was not nominated was that The New Land was selected by Sweden instead (good year for Sweden: The Emigrants picked up four Academy Award nominations, The New Land won Best Foreign-Language Film, and Cries and Whispers swept the critics). That said, it just seems so silly to me.

Instead of the lineups that we have, we could be looking at a lineup where the Academy nominates:
1971: The Emigrants instead of Nicholas and Alexandra for Best Picture.
1972: Cries and Whispers instead of The Emigrants (or Sounder or Deliverance)
1973: Day for Night instead of A Touch of Class
1974: Amarcord instead of The Towering Inferno (thus creating one of the all-time great lineups)

I'm sure the counter argument is that perhaps they would not have been nominated because all of them needed a year or so to pick up the momentum needed to break through.

[Mister Tee]

[
Off-topic: was 1975 really seen as a great year overall or just a great roster? Because expanding the roster to ten and including the likes of, sure, Amarcord, but also Day of the Locust, Shampoo, The Sunshine Boys, and whatever else would mean that nobody would look to 1975 as one of the great rosters. That distinction would be instantly void.

In fact I remember, at the end of 1975, a conversation with a still-friend, where he made the argument that, though he loved the few top movies of the year, he didn't think there was much beyond them (Shampoo was the only one that didn't represent a steep drop-off in quality) -- whereas, in the year prior, once you got past the best picture list (disregarding The Towering Inferno), there was still Murder on the Orient Express, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Day for Night, A Woman Under the Influence, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, Badlands, The Sugarland Express, Harry and Tonto... A roster of ten might have made a better argument for 1974 as the pinnacle. Which matters more -- peak value, or line-up depth?

1972 might actually challenge 1975 for supremacy, if only I thought more highly of Sounder (it's a pleasant-enough movie, but I never got all the hoo-ha). Both '72 and '75 are to be commended for their defiance of the era's worst tendency: sticking in one true white elephant every year -- Dr. Dolittle, Airport, NIcholas and Alexandra, A Touch of Class (1969 had two, Hello, Dolly! and Anne of a Thousand Days). The Towering Inferno was pretty much the last such entry, until Ghost 16 years later -- not that there weren't bad movies nominated subsequently, but they were bad in a normal dreary-taste range, as opposed to "we don't care how big and dumb these movies are, we want to nominate them". The scary thing is, today, people are actually pushing for the inclusion of such films. I'll always remember the cheer I heard when The Blind Side was read out as nominee.

If you don't insist on December-to-December year designations, I'd argue the greatest period of movie releases (on a NY schedule) of my lifetime was March 1971 to March 1972. This encompassed The Conformist, Carnal Knowledge, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Klute, Sunday Bloody Sunday, The Last Picture Show, The French Connection, Straw Dogs, A Clockwork Orange, Cabaret, The Godfather and (if you extend just a few days) The Sorrow and the Pity. (With, as supporting contenders, Taking Off, Bananas, The Go-Between, Who is Harry Kellerman...?, Billy Jack, Fiddler on the Roof, Dirty Harry, The Hospital, and The Garden of the Finzi-Continis.) That's a decade of great stuff on today's calendar.

And, yeah, I still stick by American Beauty. As I'm sure I've said here many times before, when people say a film's reputation has collapsed, it generally only means people who never liked it have bullied their taste through and made it accepted wisdom in certain circles. I'm always going to march to my own drummer.

[mlrg]

I’m with you Sabin. I still think American Beauty is really great.

As for 1975 we have two masterpieces, Barry Lyndon and Cuckoos Nest, a cult classic, Jaws, and a pretty good film, Dogday Afternoon. I haven’t seen Nashville yet but the other nominated films of the year are pretty dreary. At least judging by the acting categories. And Amarcord is also stupendous but for me it’s a 1974 film.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote

Sabin wrote
The tricky thing is balancing A) What deserved a nomination? vs B) What would they have given it to? Like, 1999 leaps to mind instantly, as it should have, but for all we know the sixth nominee was The Hurricane. At five nominees, the Academy embarrassed themselves in The Great 1999.

1962 and, I'd say, 1969 were similar, in having so many impressive options that you can't believe how many stinkers got on the ballot instead. But that was always part of the game. (The saving grace in each of those three years was that, none of the stinkers won -- though I know some disagree about 1999.)

I was *THIS* close to making a reference of the sort. If American Beauty's reputation was generally in decline, the last four years have sent it plummeting. I'm sure that Eric is perfectly satisfied at that sight.

I still think it's excellent.

Mister Tee wrote

Sabin wrote
That said, I think 1997 would have featured a very respectable group of ten nominees. And even if there were bound to be some I didn’t like or love, 2001 and 2008 probably warranted an expanded roster. And I certainly thin 2012 and 2019 did and in retrospect certainly 1993.

Of course, it's not as if you can't find individual years where there were enough strong candidates to fill a wider slate. (2013, 1991, 1988, 1979, beyond those you mention.) But, prior to 2009, everyone understood there were only five slots, and it made the achievement of securing one of those slots more prestigious. If you miss a field of 10, only a niche group is going to care.

Because you're not a baseball fan, you probably don't appreciate the baseball analogy, but, from the establishment of the major leagues until 1995, you had to win your league or division to get to the post-season; suddenly, the Wild Card meant some deserving runners-up also got to compete (which retroactively would have eliminated some legendary pennant races fans savor to this day). Bob Costas put it in a way that resonated for me: "The Wild Card is for people who think Casablanca would be a better movie with two Ingrid Bergmans, one to stay by Paul Henreid's side and the other to go off with Bogart."

It just all feels part of the participation-trophy culture: let's make more people feel like they're special, too, instead of trying to truly award excellence.

I'm not a baseball fan (yet) but that's a great analogy. The expansion of the lineup has turned Best Picture into a participation award.

Mister Tee wrote
Go bigger. How many times in all Oscar history? Especially if we use the standard of, say, 1975 (maybe the best roster ever), or even 1974, where 4-of-5 met a high bar. Some of the years in the 50s approach laughibility as is; expand to 10 and they're ludicrous.

Off-topic: was 1975 really seen as a great year overall or just a great roster? Because expanding the roster to ten and including the likes of, sure, Amarcord, but also Day of the Locust, Shampoo, The Sunshine Boys, and whatever else would mean that nobody would look to 1975 as one of the great rosters. That distinction would be instantly void.