MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

52 Weeks To Oscar aka My Oscar Yammering


Be Sociable, Share!

75 Responses to “52 Weeks To Oscar aka My Oscar Yammering”

  1. IOIOIOI says:

    If they have EYES Heat. They should realize that it’s a lot harder to make a 4 story robot a realistic concept on film then a blasted RUNNING POLAR BEAR. It’s absolute stupidity that Transformers did not win in every category in which it was nominated. You do bring up the freakin elephant in the room Heat.
    The Oscars are still seen as SPECIAL. Unlike every other award show; they are the one that still holds enough importance to draw a serious audience each year. An audience that has been putting up with their taste being snubbed year after year.
    If the general Oscar voter does not want to vote for the movie that made more over a week than any other movie in the history of the medium. Maybe they need to come to the realization that one day — sooner or later — the audience will have to get it’s due, or the specialness could dwindle away to a reality show on TLC. Where everyone has to be put through inane competitions to determine who wins each award.

  2. Cadavra says:

    Or maybe Academy voters just really, really, really hate Michael Bay.

  3. Wrecktum says:

    Did you even see Golden Compass, IOIOIOI? I ask because your dismissal of the effects appears ill-informed.

  4. Lota says:

    I actually liked all the Viz nominees but was secretly happy for Compass since that was the only movie where I was thinking WOW throughout at the effects, how effortless the magic was, as I loved the books and it really captured the feel of it. I actually picked Golden Compass to win in Dave’s survey! But alas I won;t win since I picked Lars for script and a few others didn;t win 🙁

  5. Lota says:

    any comment on Juno screenplay Dave?
    yes many of Bardem’s performances are worthy–Huevos de oro (1993) is excellent, he’s hysterical. I’d do things illegal in 50 states with Javier. He’s great.

  6. David Poland says:

    I thought Diablo was refreshingly emotional and tha the script is an absolute eye catcher. I have no problem with the win nor the sense that it was an absolute must or “important.” Deserved.

  7. Mr. Gittes says:

    A year ago everyone was talking Sweeney Todd and Charlie Wilson’s War…so what are we saying now, folks?
    Lovely Bones? Imperial Life in the Emerald City? What?

  8. Noah says:

    Revolutionary Road is my early pick for Best Picture 2008.

  9. Mr. Gittes says:

    Noah, I’ve read a 2004 draft of Revolutionary Road and, well, it’s not good – not good at all. But what do I know?
    I think Leo has a better shot at Oscar with Body of Lies.

  10. lazarus says:

    DP: Only the third time a French actress has won? You’re forgetting Juliette Binoche, their greatest export.
    Seeing what would have happened had Roderick Jaynes is a sadly missed opportunity. I would bet all the money I own that the Coens would have remained sitting, sniggering to themselves as the presenter accepted the award on Jaynes’ behalf.

  11. IOIOIOI says:

    I will spot you a Ben, Noah. If that flick wins. Wrectum; I answered your question in another thread. Unlike you possibly; I really enjoyed the Golden Compass as a movie and regret New Lines decision to hire a guy who clearly never read a book about John Ford. The thing of it remains: the Transformers had the most cutting edge effects for a film since damn near Jurassic Park. Yet the Academy decided to give the best FX Oscar to the flick that had special effects work circa as good as CGI work from 2002 at best. That’s just poppycock, sir. Pure and utter poppycock.

  12. Wrecktum says:

    Poppycock, I say! Transformers was a truly unpleasant experience for me, so I can’t agree about the effects. Loved the sound design, though.

  13. Noah says:

    Body of Lies is probably a good bet for some awards love, Mr. Gittes. Good one. How about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button? Valkyrie? Australia? I think one solid bet is that the new Indiana Jones will probably pick up a bunch of technical noms.

  14. Mr. Gittes says:

    Oh right, I forgot about Benjamin Button. I think it’s going to be a helluva year for Pitt. Burn After Reading and Benjamin Button…looks good for him — and Fincher. In fact, Benjamin Button might be everyone’s favorite for the next year.
    Valkyrie…? Australia sounds like a bust.
    The Dark Knight and Heath Ledger will get some serious consideration.

  15. David Poland says:

    I meant for Lead, Laz… correcting… thanks…

  16. IOIOIOI says:

    I really hope the Joker is one of thsoe performances that calls out for the Academy to recognize that they do work on those Summer films every year for a reason. It would also make up for what they did in 2005. The Oscars need to make things right.
    Noah; I may have been crass to you earlier, but I am being sincere. Pick the flick you believe will win best picture. If it does. You got a Ben from me.
    Wrec; sorry it was a painful experience for you. The flick simply represents one of the more outrageous steps taken in CGI by the company who remain the FACTORY LEAD. Optimus was so detailed that if we had the technology to build him. The CGI designs were thorough enough to create a blue-print for him. When you are that thorough with the creation of an effect. You should be rewared for it. Especially when the folks who won are doing effects that your companied master backed in 2000-01.

  17. RoyBatty says:

    No mention of the most real and touching moment of the entire night: Mark

  18. RoyBatty says:

    Does someone have an English translation for IOIOIOI’s last post, especially the last paragraph?

  19. jeffmcm says:

    I disliked Transformers, but I’d still say the FX work in it was pretty amazing.

  20. IOIOIOI says:

    Roy; I do not talk “WHITE PEOPLE.” It’s just so hard for me to communicate with your tribe. Here’s a translation for you from a more straight-forward syntax: GOLDEN COMPASS HAD SHIT FX. DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING LOOKED LIKE IT WAS STRAIGHT FROM 2002! THAT FUCKING SUCKS, MAN! IT FUCKING SUCKS FOR 2007 WORK!

  21. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, are you of European ancestry or are you a person of some kind of color?

  22. Crow T Robot says:

    Gotta say, the complete look of polite defeat on the Coens’ faces during each walk up to the stage was a highlight for me. Ethan seemed too ashamed to speak. A sarcastic “thank you” was all he could muster.
    But deep inside you could hear it:
    “Artless fascist fucks! We tried so hard with that ending not to get here. It was our Oscar firewall. We killed the lead off screen. We let the vicious baddie get away. We had Jones give a speech that doesn’t have anything to do with the rest of the plot. People left theaters pissed. The movie tanked. But the bastards still got us tonight. Three fucking times!”
    Hey, cheer up, guys. We still love ya. Maybe you won’t win one next year.

  23. RoyBatty says:

    “White People”??? Think you mean you don’t speak beyond the sixth grade level.
    But thanks for the “tribe” bit, which made me and my Native American forebears laugh.

  24. scooterzz says:

    i have been asking this question of io for months….what is that language?!?….where is this person located?….forget that he never makes sense….i’d just like to know where he’s coming from……

  25. crazycris says:

    Is it just me, or was this ceremony a bit boring? It’s the first time I’ve been able to see it in 7 years, and other than a few “moments” (particularly Javier Bardem winning and then my favourite: seeing “Falling Slowly” performed and watching their reaction when they won -and how wonderful was John Stewart bringing her back on stage?! Chapeau!), it all seemed a bit dull… I had a hard time staying awake! (didn’t help that the damn thing starts at 2 am over here)

  26. anghus says:

    Dave, i could not disagree with you more. Everyone i know talked about how refreshing it was for Amy Adams to do “the working song” in a simple, understated way, and that “that’s how you know” was a typical, bloated, goofy Oscar showpiece with roots in bad community theater.
    Thank god “Falling Slowly” won. Best Oscar moment of the night.

  27. IO doesn’t speak any identifiable language. He just rants in his alien gobbledeegook and expects everyone to play along.
    Transformers – As a fan of the movie I didn’t care that it didn’t win. Why? Because I was happy they gave the award to a movie that’s been deemed a “flop”. Has that branch ever given the award to a movie that grossed so little in America?
    The moment with Irglova was indeed very beautiful. I didn’t care for the movie itself, but am so happy the song won and that she got to come back and give that great bit about independent musicians.
    For fashion I’d say the best dressed was – surprise surprise – Saiorse Ronan. How did that girl get to be best dressed over the rest of Hollywood in attendance? She looked adorable and that colour was amazing AND patriotic (she’s irish). THen I’d say Nicole Kidman – although more for that necklace than the actual dress – and Kelly Preston who had a great colour in a sea of black and navy. I was disappointed Tilda (I’m sorry “Academy Award Winner Tilda Swinton) didn’t show up with an anaconda draped around her and a spider on her face, but oh well.
    What was up with John Travolta’s “hair”. That was fur more than anything.
    Here in Australia there were two interesting things.
    1) They edited out the Best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary Short categories. Strange. I was so confused as to why Cruz and some army people via satellite were on during the credits when I hadn’t seen them through the show.
    2) Nicole Kidman and Cate Blanchett, during the red carpet part, hilariously tried to escape from the Australian reporter called Richard Wilkins (aka: Idiot #1). While the Americans gladly obliged his stupid questions Cate and Nickers tried their darndest to get away. It was brilliant.

  28. TuckPendleton says:

    Best pic 2009:
    So happy for the “Once” couple. And classy for Stewart to pull the woman back onstage for her thank-yous, though I admit I also felt bad for the “lesser” winners who were also cut off, yet apparently weren’t young enough or cute enough or just didn’t rate with Stewart to be brought back onstage. One thing I have never understood — if three people are nominated, shouldn’t the acceptance speech time be elongated by at least 15-20 seconds so everyone can at least say thank you to their family? It always bugs me that this is the highest award in the industry, people work their entire life for it, and they are played off the stage ASAP so that we can have another worthless montage or sarcastic comment by the host.
    Not to mention the hypocrisy of actors getting to prattle on for as long as they like, (and you’ll notice that the guy who won for best score was not played off, even though he clearly went long) but the people who make the actors and above the line people shine are given short shrift.
    Don’t me wrong – I love what Stewart did. And watching the Once couple perform and win…well, the room was pretty dusty in the Pendleton house. But I could have done with less of Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill’s “humor” or the “salute to binoculors” (though I did laugh at the latter) in order for say, the three guys who won for sound editing, I think, to be able to say something onstage.
    I know this is all tilting at windmills, but there it is….

  29. Oh, and I’m not sure how many people here read The Film Experience blog, but he made a great point. Why didn’t Anna Faris get any oscar buzz for her role in Lost in Translation? I mean, the Academy is head over heels for mimicry performances and Faris’ performance as Cameron Diaz was totally spot on. SERIOUSLY?! 😛
    No, but really, when is Cameron Diaz going to give up this stupid routine she has going on and maybe try to actually be a film star. At least people like Lindsay Lohan make movies from time to time, all Diaz seems to do is voice Shrek movies. HATE HER SO MUCH!!

  30. Oh, here’s a question:
    He said he would if Blanchett lost, and… well… not to hand him a gun or anything, but from his lips to God’s ear.

  31. Chucky in Jersey says:

    WrestleMania XXIV is gonna be a lot more genuine than this particular Oscar night.
    Harvey Weinstein may not run Miramax anymore but he will take delight in the fact that once again Miramax bought awards. Regular Disney too.

  32. Was anyone else surprised that Bourne Ultimatum won for editing? Maybe I’m wrong here, actuall, I’m probably wrong here and I’m too lazy to look it up, but doesn’t that award usually go to a more prestigious movie? Bourne probably deserved it, though, so I won’t quibble too much.

  33. Cadavra says:

    Cameron Diaz can’t give up her stupid routine because it’s not an act.

  34. christian says:

    I’ve heard it was Colin Farell who pushed to let Marketa back onstage.
    I’ll say this again:
    Greatest. Oscar. Moment. Ever.
    And they really need to get their shit together as far as letting people talk. Ever notice that the best speeches are often from the “little folk”?
    And please, no more Rogen or Hill. I felt like I was watching a broadcast from 1977.
    And Diaz should be forced to watch SUNRISE via the Ludivico Treatment.

  35. brack says:

    Brad Renfro snubbed during the Remembrance part. Weird.

  36. teambanzai says:

    The Bourne win for editing makes sences from the standpoint of number of edits.

  37. Aladdin Sane says:

    The Academy loves editing in “semi-prestige” action flicks…in the past ten years I remember The Matrix and Black Hawk Down winning…so I don’t think it necessarily has to go to the most prestige flick ever.

  38. jeffmcm says:

    “once again Miramax bought awards. Regular Disney too.”
    Is there any movie that could have won Best Picture that you would have approved of? Or were they _not_ all Oscar-whoring money-grubbers?
    Otherwise, bullshit.

  39. hendhogan says:

    i agree less montages would be better. all these old oscar moments at the sacrifice of new possible oscar moments.
    i loved that irglova got to come back on, completely worth it. clearly best moment of the night.
    think it’s hilarious that bourne is one oscar away from tying most in the night. don’t get me wrong. enjoyed movie and think awards are deserved. just strikes me as funny.
    when i first saw rogen and hill, i thought they were going to do a parody on the coen brothers. maybe just me, but seemed that they looked similar.

  40. T. Holly says:

    teambanzai, that’s ridiculous; they were all structurally well edited except for Into The Wild and TWBB (blame that on the directors). Individual bad edits only hurt for a fraction of a second and you wouldn’t know one if you saw one (probably). It’s come to the surface that almost nobody knows the difference between sound editing and mixing. So let me break it down, nice and simple.
    Sound editing = manipulating sounds that are recorded during filming or created afterwards.
    Music editing = manipulating music, both source and composed.
    Mixing = blending all the manipulated sound and composed music for listening pleasure.

  41. teambanzai says:

    Well thank you very much for that. You took the time to write an explanation for for what I already knew clearly missing the point that I was not only making a joke about the style of editing in the Bourne film but also that I was refering to the film editing.
    I very happy that you also know the finer points of the audio portion of film making but that in no way helps with my joke about the film editing. Perhaps you would like to take a second pass at your responce now that I have clarified for you what I was making light of.
    Thank You, and don’t forget to have a nice day.
    And remember Sarcasm is just one of the many services I offer.

  42. T. Holly says:

    What do you want banzai? Everyone can see Chris Rouse worked his but off with a gazillion feet of handheld digital footage and came up with a lyrical poem. You have a problem with an award for that? I thought Diving Bell was extraordinary too — that internal voice to picture thing is hard to do. And so are head and tail trims connecting moving shots in TWBB. And classical cutting in NCFOM is nice too, but fuck them if they can’t share.

  43. teambanzai says:

    See now we’re on the same page! Actually no problem with it at all I was just making a joke. Actually I normally don’t like the quick cut editing style it’s over used most of the time. The two Bourne films Greengrass did are probably the only two films that not only did I think it worked but made sense for the context of the films.
    I still stand by my belief there’s a shit load of edits in that film.

  44. jeffmcm says:

    It won the Academy Award for Most Editing (tough to do in a year with a Michael Bay movie).

  45. T. Holly says:

    Editors don’t play god, they are slaves to the footage. Cuts per minute is pre-determined and the editor susses out where the truth lies. Same with cutting pattern, building performance and payoff. Imposition of will is a fool’s game that has to be played when things haven’t gone well and can never be made right and that has a name all editors play, it’s called cheating. If you’re going to work consistently, you have to know how to cheat as well as be a slave.
    mcm wants to step back to ridiculous.

  46. Dr Wally says:

    Agree with Bourne Ultimatum winning the editing award actually. The rapid cutting in the film actually serves a firm dramatic purpose (it’s analogous to how the perpetually running Jason Bourne experiences the world around him), and unlike some members of the ‘slice and dice’ generation, Paul Greengrass always keeps the action and spatial dynamics coherent and intelligible in any given scene. Anyways, Christopher Rouse should have won Best Editing last year for his work on United 93. All good things to those who wait. The show on the whole was ok if oddly muted. Be interesting to see the ratings……

  47. jeffmcm says:

    I’m sorry, T. Holly, but I (a) don’t feel like bowing to you as the expert on all things post-production, and (b) don’t understand your last sentence.
    I also don’t disagree with Rouse winning the award, which is a sort of combo award for United 93 and Bourne Supremacy as well (sorry to the other guy who worked on that film and didn’t win an Oscar last night).

  48. T. Holly says:

    Dr Wally, it served the dramatic purpose during months of pre-production too. Nothing post-y about it, except in the superb execution.

  49. Chucky in Jersey says:

    US TV audience for this Oscar Night is the smallest on record, off 20% from last year.
    Oscar Night has become less of a draw than the NFL playoffs.

  50. T. Holly says:

    Sorry Wally, that was for mcm; I am the King of post and pre-production and all things editing including sound.

  51. hendhogan says:

    speaking for myself, i only watched by rote rather than desire. i had no real rooting interest (other than “once” winning for best song as i really liked that song).
    the big winners were pretty much known (with the exception of lead actress that i always thought was a coin flip).
    at least in the playoffs there’s the possibility of an upset. yeah, it can happen, but it’s rare in the oscars.

  52. jeffmcm says:

    The ratings were low because there wasn’t a Titanic or Lord of the Rings in the nominees.
    T. Holly, I thought you were female?

  53. IOIOIOI says:

    You motherfuckers are so co-herent. You make the same tired points time and time again without every mixing it up. It’s always the same. There’s very little evolution to be found from any of you. Again… not a one of you… have it. If you do not understand. Have mercy on your soul because my god will have no mercy on you.

  54. hendhogan says:

    that’s studiothink, jeff. and it might be right, but i’m not convinced that’s the whole reason.
    we’re oversaturated with awards shows. you can get a pretty good consensus of the oscar winners just by seeing how they fare in show after show. again, the dark horse can/does enter the picture, but overall the show is about telling us something we already know.

  55. T. Holly says:

    IOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIO that’s the first time I could get all the way through one of your posts.

  56. jeffmcm says:

    Hendhogan, sounds like you’re making two separate points. Everyone knew LOTR was going to win Best Picture and that show was the highest-rated Oscars ever, so people aren’t watching the show expecting suspense; also this was the year without a Golden Globes, so we couldn’t be too oversaturated with awards shows.

  57. grandcosmo says:

    I don’t know where you got the idea that the 2004 Academy Awards were the highest rated ever. The highest rated awards ever were the 1970 Awards which got a Nielsen rating of 43.4%. For comparison 2004 had a rating of 26.0% and this year had a 21.9%
    As for most households watching, 1998 was the most with 55.3 million. 1999 and 2000 also had more viewers than 2004.

  58. mutinyco says:

    Even though they lost the award, the Coens still won by getting the Academy to run that photo for Roderick Jaynes.

  59. jeffmcm says:

    Hmph, I googled “Highest Rated Academy Awards Show” and it looked like it said that 2004 was the winner based on numbers of viewers, but apparently I didn’t read it closely enough.

  60. I wasn’t aware that Roderick Jaynes was a pseudonym until today. Personally, I find it hilarious.

  61. IOIOIOI says:

    T.Holly; you need 3 accounts to make a point. So mock away there, Chuckles.

  62. palmtree says:

    Isn’t it pretty clear that the writer’s strike had something to do with the low ratings? I mean, no Golden Globes or other awards shows means fewer people know/cared about the crop of movies involved. And hence, fewer people cared about the Big Show.
    Marketing rule is that people need to be told 20 times until they get it.

  63. Well, there wasn’t really a cross section of nominees, were there? The people who saw TWBB also saw NCfOM also saw MC. And considering how much money those movies made, it’s not surprising it was the lowest watch show. Only Juno probably would have gotten other people watching, but it wasn’t gonna win, so they probably didn’t.
    Can they bring back Ellen and get rid of Jon Stewart? Except for a few golden jokes it was very blah hosting.

  64. L.B. says:

    Just for fairness sake, it’s better to compare using post-cable years. A lot of things got huge numbers when there were only three channels to choose from. Even so, last night was low rated. I don’t really care. I watched to see some people I admire get honored and got to see some other deserving people get honored too. And then I saw Cody win. A little mix of everything.

  65. Hallick says:

    The show sucked, the greatness of the winners and their contagious bliss notwithstanding. You can blame the relative obscurity of the nominees for the crater in the ratings book, but in this case, along with that issue as a handicap, it was kind of like having two small market teams in the Super Bowl also playing REALLY shitty football.

  66. THX5334 says:

    Why would you let that unfunny scab work ever again?

  67. THX5334 says:

    I mean, she didn’t just cross the picket lines during the strike, she DANCED, with her little vacuum cleaner and fake cuteness.
    She has never been funny. And the way she abuses her writers and then crosses on them. Forget it.
    God please, get her off the stage and back on the meds..

  68. jeffmcm says:

    You’re not a scab if you keep doing your normal job, you’re just a picket line-crosser.

  69. LexG says:

    Anyone who’s not down with TWBB or NCFOM can get the fucking Bozack.
    Real sorry Wild Hogs wasn’t up for pic, but like someone else here said a while back, this ain’t the PEOPLE’S CHOICE AWARDS and fuck JOE SIX-WACK if he didn’t see any of these “edgy” movies.
    Anybody who doesn’t like AWESOME MOVIES is probably a BITCH-ASS with kids and wife.

  70. Bob Violence says:

    Yeah, yeah, Renfro should’ve been there, but the art-house geek in me is more pissed that Edward Yang wasn’t included.

  71. Hey, Ulrich Muhe was in an Oscar-winner just one year ago. And he was a recent BAFTA nominee. More than can be said for Renfro, unfortunately.

  72. christian says:

    No more Stewart. I tire of his snarky faces.

  73. Cadavra says:

    Who cares about the ratings? Thirty years from now, people will still be watching these movies and won’t give a rat’s ass what the ratings were the night they won.

  74. Or hey, here’s a though, bring back Steve Martin.
    At least he didn’t laugh at his own material every single time he got a response from the audience.

  75. pppatty says:

    I would have loved to see Roderick Jaynes collect his Oscar!

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon