Not to me, or many on this board, I don't think.The Original BJ wrote:And was The Departed really that much of a surprise winner?
National Society of Film Critics
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Actually, I would point to Crash as a terrific example of a film that WASN'T considered a lock for a Picture nomination that wound up a winner. The PGA/DGA nods made it seem a very likely candidate, but at this point two years ago, the poor Globe showing reduced Crash to possible status on most people's lists.Steph2 wrote:The Original BJ wrote:no number of amazing reviews will convince me that There Will Be Blood has a genuine shot at the trophy. It might not even be nominated. (I think it CAN be, but, as rain bard says, it's in no way assured.)
I think this is an important point. When in recent history (say even the past 10-20 years) has a film that wasn't considered a lock for a nomination gone on to win Best Picture? All the eventual winners were films that made most pundits' lists for Best Picture. Even "surprise" winners like Crash, Shakespeare in Love and The Departed were considered locks for a Best Picture nomination before the nominations were announced.
All of this is to say I basically disagree that a film has to be an early lock to win Best Picture. I think No Country is the only film locked in for a nomination at this point, but, depending on what the other nominees are and what happens between now and the Oscars, another film could certainly win.
And was The Departed really that much of a surprise winner?
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6398
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
The Original BJ wrote:no number of amazing reviews will convince me that There Will Be Blood has a genuine shot at the trophy. It might not even be nominated. (I think it CAN be, but, as rain bard says, it's in no way assured.)
I think this is an important point. When in recent history (say even the past 10-20 years) has a film that wasn't considered a lock for a nomination gone on to win Best Picture? All the eventual winners were films that made most pundits' lists for Best Picture. Even "surprise" winners like Crash, Shakespeare in Love and The Departed were considered locks for a Best Picture nomination before the nominations were announced.
This year, at this point, the only real perceived "locks" are No Country for Old Men and maybe Michael Clayton. After all the Guilds announce their nominations, Michael Clayton's certainty will either be cemented or eroded, and another one or two certainties will appear (Sweeney Todd? Atonement?) If There Will Be Blood is nominated at the PGA, DGA and WGA, then it could indeed become a lock, but its uncertain state right now leads me to think (looking back on past Oscar trends) that it won't win Best Picture.
And if I'm right, then No Country is probably guaranteed to win, since it is (unusually) the only real lock at this point in the race.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
actually dws, I was referring to:
SPOILERS
The fact that early in the film, he gave an "innocent" the chance to live by flipping a coin, which meant that he had no reason to kill him and wanted to let fate take it's course. The same thing happened with MacDonald, which suggests that he had no real reason to kill her anymore as she was an "innocent", so the ambiguity comes in with the fact that she refused to flip the coin, therefore he could not have, by his previous insistence, killed her without that coin flip, but he could have. The ambiguity remains in my mind.
SPOILERS
The fact that early in the film, he gave an "innocent" the chance to live by flipping a coin, which meant that he had no reason to kill him and wanted to let fate take it's course. The same thing happened with MacDonald, which suggests that he had no real reason to kill her anymore as she was an "innocent", so the ambiguity comes in with the fact that she refused to flip the coin, therefore he could not have, by his previous insistence, killed her without that coin flip, but he could have. The ambiguity remains in my mind.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Re, MacDonald in No Country:
I think the thing that might make her fate ambiguous is the fact that Bardem's character--who, through the rest of the movie had carried pretty large weaponry--isn't shown with any weapon in the house, or when he's leaving. Not that he couldn't have easily killed her with his bare hands, but I think that's where the doubt of whether he really killed her comes into mind.
I think the thing that might make her fate ambiguous is the fact that Bardem's character--who, through the rest of the movie had carried pretty large weaponry--isn't shown with any weapon in the house, or when he's leaving. Not that he couldn't have easily killed her with his bare hands, but I think that's where the doubt of whether he really killed her comes into mind.
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
Yeah, Kelly MacDonald's storyline was pretty definitely wrapped up. Just because they don't show it doesn't mean you don't know what happened.
As for There Will Be Blood, I think the Thin Red Line comparisons are apt here. There are probably enough members of the Academy to get it in the lineup, but I think the film is much to narratively and thematically challenging to really score the big prize. A nomination is this film's reward. The audience I saw it with seemed to really like, but there was still lots of grumbling after the film.
As for There Will Be Blood, I think the Thin Red Line comparisons are apt here. There are probably enough members of the Academy to get it in the lineup, but I think the film is much to narratively and thematically challenging to really score the big prize. A nomination is this film's reward. The audience I saw it with seemed to really like, but there was still lots of grumbling after the film.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
OscarGuy, I totally agree that the ending to There Will Be Blood was fitting. But that doesn't mean it wasn't abrupt -- I could see PLENTY of less adventurous Oscar voters scratching their heads at that finale.OscarGuy wrote:I didn't see the ending as abrupt at all, BJ. I thought it was absolutely fitting. I won't discuss it further b/c of who hasn't seen it, but I think the ending resolves every important character's storyline whereas No Country for Old Men left at least Kelly MacDonald's completely ambiguous.
I liked There Will Be Blood's ending more than No Country's, perhaps it built to something climactic, but I can't fathom how you could feel Kelly MacDonald's storyline was left ambiguous. (I mean, I guess we can't know for CERTAIN what happens, but I felt the film made it pretty clear.)
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
I didn't see the ending as abrupt at all, BJ. I thought it was absolutely fitting. I won't discuss it further b/c of who hasn't seen it, but I think the ending resolves every important character's storyline whereas No Country for Old Men left at least Kelly MacDonald's completely ambiguous.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Cam, with all due respect, I have to disagree with many aspects of your thesis.
First, since when has amazing reviews guaranteed a Best Picture win? Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of films with amazing reviews that weren't even nominated for Best Picture this decade alone simply because they weren't the Academy's cup of tea. You could make a very good argument that Mulholland Drive and Far From Heaven were the finest reviewed films in their years, and look how far they got with the Academy. (Incidentally, I think There Will Be Blood has a much better shot at a nomination than those two -- the period epic thing goes a long way -- but given the film's nature, it's still facing tough obstacles to actually win.)
Second, I feel like you're revising the critical histories of both the Coen Brothers and P.T. Anderson. The Coens have had plenty of films with big fans -- Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, The Man Who Wasn't There, several others. Maybe none of them were unanimous critical darlings...but Fargo came about as close to that as you can get, and you could certainly argue it was the most highly-praised film of '96. I don't understand how one can argue that the Coens are only now receiving acclaim.
Ditto Paul Thomas Anderson. True, There Will Be Blood has been his most acclaimed effort to date, but his other films were also very highly praised. Boogie Nights and Magnolia both had their vocal detractors, but so does There Will Be Blood. I guess what I'm saying is I don't see those detractors in the Academy who overlooked his earlier critical hits coming around completely to endorse this one for a win.
Third, I have seen There Will Be Blood. And perhaps this is just my opinion, but I can't see a film that features an opening twenty or so minutes without a word of dialogue, a film with a vile, despicable protagonist like Daniel Plainview, a film that runs nearly three hours that eschews narrative momentum for arty cinematography and sound design, a film that looks like an epic but whose focus only narrows as it meanders along, and a film with a shockingly abrupt finale that makes No Country for Old Men's look like a triumph of comforting resolution...nope, I can't see that film winning Best Picture.
Could I be wrong? Of course. I'm just coming around to the possibility that No Country for Old Men could win. I guess what surprises me most is that you guys seem to think there's no reason why There Will Be Blood can't win, when I'd consider an outcome to be a supreme longshot, and one of the most uncharacteristic Academy outcomes EVER.
It's a terrific film, though, so here's to hoping...
First, since when has amazing reviews guaranteed a Best Picture win? Off the top of my head I can think of dozens of films with amazing reviews that weren't even nominated for Best Picture this decade alone simply because they weren't the Academy's cup of tea. You could make a very good argument that Mulholland Drive and Far From Heaven were the finest reviewed films in their years, and look how far they got with the Academy. (Incidentally, I think There Will Be Blood has a much better shot at a nomination than those two -- the period epic thing goes a long way -- but given the film's nature, it's still facing tough obstacles to actually win.)
Second, I feel like you're revising the critical histories of both the Coen Brothers and P.T. Anderson. The Coens have had plenty of films with big fans -- Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, The Man Who Wasn't There, several others. Maybe none of them were unanimous critical darlings...but Fargo came about as close to that as you can get, and you could certainly argue it was the most highly-praised film of '96. I don't understand how one can argue that the Coens are only now receiving acclaim.
Ditto Paul Thomas Anderson. True, There Will Be Blood has been his most acclaimed effort to date, but his other films were also very highly praised. Boogie Nights and Magnolia both had their vocal detractors, but so does There Will Be Blood. I guess what I'm saying is I don't see those detractors in the Academy who overlooked his earlier critical hits coming around completely to endorse this one for a win.
Third, I have seen There Will Be Blood. And perhaps this is just my opinion, but I can't see a film that features an opening twenty or so minutes without a word of dialogue, a film with a vile, despicable protagonist like Daniel Plainview, a film that runs nearly three hours that eschews narrative momentum for arty cinematography and sound design, a film that looks like an epic but whose focus only narrows as it meanders along, and a film with a shockingly abrupt finale that makes No Country for Old Men's look like a triumph of comforting resolution...nope, I can't see that film winning Best Picture.
Could I be wrong? Of course. I'm just coming around to the possibility that No Country for Old Men could win. I guess what surprises me most is that you guys seem to think there's no reason why There Will Be Blood can't win, when I'd consider an outcome to be a supreme longshot, and one of the most uncharacteristic Academy outcomes EVER.
It's a terrific film, though, so here's to hoping...
The Original BJ wrote:Cam, I hope you don't feel ganged-up on, but no number of amazing reviews will convince me that There Will Be Blood has a genuine shot at the trophy. It might not even be nominated. (I think it CAN be, but, as rain bard says, it's in no way assured.)
No, I don't feel ganged up on. OG's assertion that the winner will be more mainstream( like Juno?), is one that has some merit. I have seen TWBB mentioned as an American Classic more than once( see the New Yorker review, earlier), and the clash of the protagonist and the antagonist(s) sounds to be relevant in this day of creeping New Fundamentalism.
I am surprised that "amazing reviews" will not sway you. Have YOU seen it, Orig.BJ?
One of the things hasn't been mentioned: the Coen Brothers( who seems to be only NOW loved) and PT Anderson, whose other works have not enjoyed the critical esteem so far evinced with TWBB, could cancel each other out, leaving Juno the win.
It is one of the most interesting years for film that I can remember, possibly rivalling 1939( that most prolific year of great films, exciting classical music and wonderful songs), and I was only two in 1939, and only look back on it myself in hindsight. Any of the top films and top performances would win, and the winner will enjoy triumphing over the others in this astounding year.
But : My money is on TWBB.
Edited By cam on 1199657139