Questions/Thoughts for the Moment

[Reza]

Gotta say, I wonder how some of the elder denizens have managed to enjoy the Oscars for four+ decades without throwing temper tantrums and wanting to just not bother.

Throwing temper tantrums along the way has all been part of the overall Oscar thrill. I came to it by way of Roy Pickard's book, "The Oscar Movies: From A to Z" which had a list of the top 5 nominees. My first Oscar telecast (not live) in Pakistan was the year Jack Nicholson won for Cuckoo's Nest. My first live show was when Terms of Endearment won. I was at University in Indiana and a group of us gathered and I remember there was a competition to see who could predict the winners. I won and the prize was the Richard Avedon poster of Nastassia Kinski with the snake around her. The only show I've missed seeing live since then was the one when Unforgiven won - saw it finally years later on YouTube. The last few years I haven't been able to see the show live as it is not shown until a few hours later in the day. I have relied on this group and some of the old friends from here who post the winners live on Facebook which I follow. The show is Sunday night - early Monday morning 6am Pakistan time so I'm always late at work on Oscar Monday. Truth be told the obsession hasn't worn off and each year is a thrill waiting to see who will win.

[danfrank]

Gotta say, I wonder how some of the elder denizens have managed to enjoy the Oscars for four+ decades without throwing temper tantrums and wanting to just not bother.

I’ve been watching about 50 years. When I was a kid I watched it because my parents watched it (it was on much earlier on the West Coast), and it became more exciting when i had actually watched some of the performances and films nominated (Shelley Winters in Poseidon Adventure!). Also as a kid your taste isn’t as good as the Academy’s, so it’s easy to be convinced of the prestige. I’ve kept watching in part out of habit, but it’s really the principle of intermittent reinforcement—the most powerful kind—at work. My favorite movie as a teen was Annie Hall and I was thrilled that it actually won. There have been lots of disappointments and lot of “meh” predictable choices, but then a Moonlight will win and restore my faith. In the end I care about movies, and craft, and great acting. The Oscars, deservedly or, not, remain the grand prize. As a bonus, I like fashion and love to see what the stars are wearing.

[Mister Tee]

Okri wrote
Gotta say, I wonder how some of the elder denizens have managed to enjoy the Oscars for four+ decades without throwing temper tantrums and wanting to just not bother.

I can only imagine watching the ceremonies of 1967 and 1969 and being hooked for life. Hell, that's how it was for me. I saw Braveheart win in 1996 and I'm in for life.

Of course, when I started, it was still a Super Bowl-level national event -- a night when no other network bothered airing original programming, because they knew they'd get destroyed in the ratings.

But getting hooked was a process. First year (1962), I watched through the louver-door panels that separated my bedroom from our living room while my parents watched (it helped that I'd see some of the winners -- The Miracle Worker, The Music Man, The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm). The following year, I insisted I get to stay up for it (it started 10PM on the East Coast, usually ran till around 12:30AM), so got to see Sidney Poitier win (another movie I'd seen prior). But my real in-for-life year was 1965, and it was because of The Sound of Music and Lee Marvin (Julie Christie was actually my disappointment, because it wasn't the other Julie) -- so, Sabin, no need to feel embarrassed about Braveheart.

There were always disappointments, but the high points -- Midnight Cowboy! George C. Scott! (despite his refusal to attend) Jane Fonda! (despite her radical image) Bob Fosse! (who had no chance) -- brought me deep enough in that even a godawful year like 1973 (the mediocrity of The Sting only looking good next to the awfulness of Save the Tiger/A Touch of Class -- the all-time worst actor/actress tandem) couldn't shake me for long.

To answer okri's query more directly...I'd say at no time since then have I found it harder to care than in these past two years. I'm hoping it's, like so much, COVID-influenced, that something better will follow. (Remembering that Parasite's win was but two years back.) But reading some of the other sites, following the Twitter wars that drain all the fun (and frequently go after my preferred films), I do get weary of the whole thing, and wonder why I didn't pick something less irritating to devote so much of my life to.

[mlrg]

Okri wrote
Gotta say, I wonder how some of the elder denizens have managed to enjoy the Oscars for four+ decades without throwing temper tantrums and wanting to just not bother.

I can only imagine watching the ceremonies of 1967 and 1969 and being hooked for life. Hell, that's how it was for me. I saw Braveheart win in 1996 and I'm in for life.

Interesting that I’ve been obsessed with the Oscars since I was ten but really don’t know how it started. I have another obsession which is the band U2 (although lately their music is pretty shitty) and in that case I know exactly when and where it started (in case you wonder it was watching the videoclip of Lemon back in December 1993).

[Sabin]

Okri wrote
Gotta say, I wonder how some of the elder denizens have managed to enjoy the Oscars for four+ decades without throwing temper tantrums and wanting to just not bother.

I can only imagine watching the ceremonies of 1967 and 1969 and being hooked for life. Hell, that's how it was for me. I saw Braveheart win in 1996 and I'm in for life.

[rolotomasi99]

Am I leaving anybody off?

I am hoping for an Oscar miracle where Jason Isaacs is nominated for MASS. I would love for his co-star Reed Birney to be included as well, but I know that would take more than a miracle.

I generally dislike category fraud, but I would not object too loudly if Andrew Garfield was nominated here for THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE. If he could pull off a double Oscar nomination along with SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME being nominated for Best Picture, it would certainly make for a great story the press could focus on. This of course would bring publicity the Academy so desperately needs to drive up those ratings.

[Okri]

Gotta say, I wonder how some of the elder denizens have managed to enjoy the Oscars for four+ decades without throwing temper tantrums and wanting to just not bother.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
The crash-and-burn of Don't Look Up, Nightmare Alley and Being the Ricardos has drastically reduced the supporting actor field. I see it as pretty much being down to Ciaran Hinds and Kodi Smit-McPhee (either of whom might have vote-siphoning fellow nominees, Jamie Dornan and Jesse Plemons). I could see either winning. Am I forgetting someone important? (I don't really believe in the Bradley Cooper thing, but I'll mention him for the record.)

I was thinking about writing this somewhere else but...

BAFTA and SAG haven't chimed in yet but Best Supporting Actor is shaping up to be one of the weakest of my life. The HFPA cited Jamie Dornan and Ciaran Hinds for Belfast and Kodi Smit-McPhee for The Power of the Dog, who must be considered the usual suspects at this point, as well as Troy Kotsur for CODA who seems to be joining their ranks. Not a fan of the film but you can see the more interesting film it should be emerge when he's on-screen. Besides, it's always nice to see a real underdog get a moment like this. I'll admit to being agnostic on Jamie Dornan's chances. He's certainly good enough in the film (maybe better than Hinds) but truly, what is his Oscar clip as "Pa?" His arc is on the margins of an oddly structured film. I'm truthfully more certain of Hinds, Kotsur, and Smit-McPhee than him.

Beyond that, who do we have?

The HFPA also nominated Ben Affleck for The Tender Bar, a film which I haven't seen and have little inclination to do so. In a year that already saw an Uncle-Nephew flick get buried (C'mon C'mon), this one seems like an even lesser event. My gut says chalk it up to flukey HFPA star-fuckery.

I hate that the Critic's Choice Awards exist and I hate that with the HFPA's recent flameout they have an even larger window of relevance. Anyway, this group co-signed Dornan, Hinds, Kotsur, and Smit-McPhee and gave us Jared Leto for House of Gucci and J.K. Simmons for Being the Ricardos. They both have factors working against them: Leto's performance is pretty divisive and Simmons is perhaps too much of an ensemble player. Either way, both of these films seem to be fading from the conversation a bit and seem like Best Actress shots.

In these situations, what we generally do is look to the Best Picture contenders and figure out who's got a role that can get swept along. That leads us to: Bradley Cooper, Jesse Plemons, Mike Faist, and Mark Rylance.

Bradley Cooper has picked up some mentions here and there. He's very funny but the biggest knock against him isn't length of time but his total irrelevance to the plot. Beatrice Straight put William Holden in his place. Bradley Cooper is just an insane obstacle to overcome.

Jesse Plemons is going to get an Academy Award nomination at some point. It's a real shame that category fraud possibly robbed him last year, as both Kaluuya and Stanfield are more leads than supporting. But he has very little to do in The Power of the Dog than be a nice presence. It's possible but I struggle to fathom what his scene would be.

Mike Faist in my opinion is the one performer in West Side Story who elevates the material and offers something new. I couldn't catch him acting. It's a beautiful performance that oddly seems to be left out of a conversation that so far has centered around Zegler, DeBose, and Moreno. Considering that West Side Story is now officially a massive flop, I wonder if enough voters will even see the thing to nominate him.

That leaves Mark Rylance, who (as Daniel put it) "gives the kind of terrible performance that could only come from a great actor." I don't quite agree but one thing is certainly true, reports of Don't Look Up's demise have been greatly exaggerated (on this board, at least). My bet is that if you like Don't Look Up, you probably like Mark Rylance and that -- coupled with his previous win, and Britishness -- might be enough.

Am I leaving anybody off? I had Robin de Jesus for a bit for Tick, Tick... Boom! because I have a hunch that film is well-liked within Academy circles.

As for who I'm rooting for, truly I don't know if Mike Faist is left off the list. Most are to me just triumphs of casting.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
There are two reasons for which Spider-Man: No Way Home might make the cut.

The first is, as I've said before, for what it means to the industry. The second is that people genuinely love it. Not everyone, of course, but middle-aged people, and older people, who have ventured out to see it, as well as the youngsters who were most instrumental in its early success.

Well, the latter point is news to me. I wasn't aware that NWH was a cross-generational hit.

I guess where I'm at, with regards to the "should it be nominated?" question is it really depends on what the an expanded-to-ten Best Picture roster was supposed to be designed for. Let's be honest, it was designed as a response to the outrage of The Dark Knight not making the cut, much as the changes implemented following #OscarSoWhite. With that in mind, sure, a well-liked blockbuster smash should be nominated. My personal feelings are that Spider-Man: No Way Home left me a little flat but I'm still going to prefer it to at least half of the nominated films this year. I tend to think that the films the Academy are going to choose this year are going to be as forgettable a slate as any we've had in ages, so anything that makes it more meaningful is probably a good thing.

I'll take it one step farther. I have a personal rule that I'm sort of testing out as I age into my fourth decade of half-life. Barring going with something truly memorable and meaningful, I would prefer the Academy honor a travesty than something forgettable. In no way shape or form did Green Book deserve to win Best Picture but I haven't lost a minute of sleep since Roma lost and I never much got my hopes up that The Favourite had a chance. As someone who is fascinated by the Academy as a rolling historical document, I would much prefer Don't Look Up take the prize (which tells us a lot about the industry) over Belfast or The Power of the Dog (which tell us nothing). I have had countless conversations over the last two weeks with people about why they love Don't Look Up or hate it. I have had no conversations with people about Belfast or The Power of the Dog. Those who have seen it give short answers.

[Big Magilla]

There are two reasons for which Spider-Man: No Way Home might make the cut.

The first is, as I've said before, for what it means to the industry. The second is that people genuinely love it. Not everyone, of course, but middle-aged people, and older people, who have ventured out to see it, as well as the youngsters who were most instrumental in its early success.

There are two scenes that are cited for this unabashed joy. One is a genuine spoiler, so I won't reveal it, but the other is the worst kept secret of the year, the return of Andrew Garfield and Toby Maguire as co-heroes in roles that are much more substantial than their rumored cameos.

Nominated or not, a joint appearance by Tom Holland, Garfield, and Maguire as presenters, would give a big lift to the Oscar presentation this year.

[Reza]

Ultimately, my point stands though. How do we feel about The Towering Inferno today. You might look at it and say that The Towering Inferno represents something both commonplace of the time and marginally unprecedented in production (two studio co-production). The only case I can make for Spider-Man: No Way Home is that it represents pretty much the ONLY studio success story of the year: the continued theatrical success of the MCU and their lifting effect on movie theaters during uncertain times.

So are you saying that the reward for that should be a Best Picture nod for Spider-Man?

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
And, you know: how about a cheer for the days when four of the five were movies that good? -- and all, except The Conversation, significant box-office successes?

I would but it's a bit fruitless. There has never been a lineup in my moviegoing life (1995) where a lineup included anything the calibre of Chinatown, The Conversation, The Godfather: Part II, and Lenny. Not to derail the conversation further but the 1994 race carried over to VHS the following year and I've always considered that lineup to be pretty great.

I opened the conversation up a bit wider a few months ago asking about what might have occurred had Scenes from a Marriage not been ruled ineligible. Perhaps we might be looking at one of the great lineups of all time... or perhaps we'd be talking about how The Towering Inferno took Lenny's spot.

Ultimately, my point stands though. How do we feel about The Towering Inferno today. You might look at it and say that The Towering Inferno represents something both commonplace of the time and marginally unprecedented in production (two studio co-production). The only case I can make for Spider-Man: No Way Home is that it represents pretty much the ONLY studio success story of the year: the continued theatrical success of the MCU and their lifting effect on movie theaters during uncertain times.

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
Just FYI: The Towering Inferno was there because it was the kind of crud the studio blocs were pushing through in those days (see: Airport in 1970), but also because it was a then-unheard-of dual studio project. Both Warner Brothers and Fox had purchased separate "novels" about a fire in a high-rise (called, I believe, The Tower and The Glass Inferno -- see how the marketing geniuses came up with their title?), and, rather than compete a la the comet movies of 1998, they pooled their resources to make one big shlock-a-thon. With the superstar headline cast, the movie was a can't-miss commercial smash, and no one was surprised to see it slip onto the best picture list.

So, maybe we should just be glad it didn't win.

[danfrank]

The "stupid disaster movie" is actually great fun. Not unlike the slasher films of today where you root for all the stars as they die in gruesome fashion. Nothing can be more camp than seeing the great "Bernadette" die falling from that outdoor elevator as she quietly hands over a child to Faye Dunaway and slips off down into the darkness.

lol

[Big Magilla]

1974 was an unusual year.

The Towering Inferno was one of the better disaster films. It was released the same year as the almost unwatchable Earthquake. Still, the popular hit that should have gotten that slot was Murder on the Orient Express.

Also MIA for Best Picture was Day for Night, which should have been the third foreign language film in a row nominated after The Emigrants and Cries and Whispers ahead of Amarcord which was similarly ignored the following year.

Then there's the case of Scenes from a Marriage, absurdly ruled ineligible because it was shown on Swedish TV in late 1973 where no one in Hollywood would have been able to see it.

Those two films would more likely have been more likely nominated over Lenny and The Conversation in just a year earlier, which along with Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Harry & Tonto, would have been the kind of films that stood a better chance in a field of ten nominees.

Then came 1975 in which the first summer blockbuster Jaws became the first of such films nominated for Best Picture.