O3… Looking Ahead
I am a big proponent of the notion that Phase II of the Oscar season – post-noms – is a second race. And there may be some big surprises this year… but probably not.
In the Top 8 categories, the nominations fell in such a way to make it even more clear in most categories than it was before.
For instance, Penelope Cruz is back to being a near-lock for the otherwise snubbed Vicky Cristina Barcelona with Ms WInslet out of that race. I think Wall-E is now a near-lock to win Best Original Screenplay with the three underdog nominations and only Milk in its way in a real way. (Remember, everyone votes for the win, making it more of a popularity contest, and Milk will likely get its consolation prize in Actor.)
The only Top 8 race I now see as seriously competitive is Best Actor, where Penn, Rourke or Langella will win, but it could easily be any one of the three. A bit less competitive is Best Actress, where Winslet has a lead over Streep and everyone else is just happy to be there (especially Barker & Bernard, even while losing out on Kristin Scott Thomas).
Outside of the Top 8, the big battle is between The Dark Knight and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which go head-to-head in Art Direction, Cinematography, Film Editing, Makeup, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects… aka, the only categories aside from Mr Ledger where there is any chance to win gold.
I am willing to take a flier on 6 of the Top 8 categories with wins for Slumdog Milionaire in Picture, Director, and Screenplay (plus Film Editing, Sound Editing, Score and Song, assisted by the lack of Springsteen), and the other 5 Oscars going to 5 different movies/performances.
So…
I see 7 Oscars for Slumdog Millionaire.
2 for Wall-E
And somewhere between 2 and 4 apiece for Button and/or Batman.
I don’t think there will be more than 1 win for any other film.
CHARTS
Picture
Actor/Supp Actor
Actress/Supp Actress
Screenplays
Director
The Reader going to the Oscars for BP… just reminds me of the Cardinals going to the super bowl… Have to say I have much more love for Kate than I do for Kurt though…
what was I sayin about second round? Shannon, all the way, here we go…
I don’t think Milk for screenplay or Davis for supporting actress should be counted out.
With regard to the former race, WALL*E vs. Milk on screenplay, you say that actor will be Milk’s consolation prize. But that’s a shaky thing, as you say yourself, as there are two other very real prospects for Best Actor. On the other hand. WALL*E has Best Animated Feature locked up. Some of the Academy will consider that sufficient and think about Milk for screenplay — especially those intending to vote for Langella or Rourke in Actor.
Dark Knight fanboys can cry me a river (with 8 nods the movie got more than it deserved).
Overral though, the actual nominations are ever worse than I expected/hoped. Leaves a bad taste.
Robert Downey Jr. nomination is an embarrsment (perhaps no other nomination sums up the total idiocy of AMPAS quite to the same degree).
I am amazed by how poor these people’s tastes are. Even the Directors, Editors and Cinematographers seem to fail to understate what makes for an excellent member of their group. Just plain awful.
If Slumdog Millionaire wins best score than, well at this point the it’s not the question of if… Eh.
I don’t understand Indy 4 snubs, especially in the Visual Effects, Art Direction and Sound Editing/Mixing categories. The Most downright underrated film of the year, that’s put together as well as any other but is being ignored simply due to meanspiritdness. The screenplay shortcomings are big but so are the ones in Iron Man, Slumdog Millionaire, Ben Button, etc.
Here’s a case when even good movies get too much love while others simply get passed over, even in categories in which they are stronger.
Is there anyone out there who’s absolutely happy with the nods?
Man, my predictions were way off. I thought there’d be some Woody love sneaking into BP.
I don’t really mind “The Reader” getting a BP nom; it’s more deserving than “Frost/Nixon”.
The biggest surprise was Sally Hawkins — I thought she was this year’s Cotillard (sp?)
This could be one of the most dull Oscar shows ever — five okay movies (well, “Milk” was near great).
Now this is what I like to see: Dave makes some cold hard predictions, with the knowledge that we’re going to ride his ass forever if he was off. That’s ballsy.
The Dark Knight is the first film since almost famous to get support from every guild (except SAG) and miss out on a Best Picture nod. I sort of hate the Reader for this, except that I put the Reader ahead of Dark Knight in my own top ten. I think I like the Dark Knight a whole lot more now that the academy snubbed it. since Harvey Weinstein’s been a real force in the oscars (when his film, English Patient, won in 1996) blockbusters have in general not been accepted at the oscars, excepting the Lord of the Rings. Before English Patient you regularly had films like Forrest Gump, The Fugitive, Dances with Wolves, Field of Dreams, etc major blockbusters in their years, nominated for best picture. Since Weinstein’s influence and Titanics win, blockbusters have generally left the BP race and interest in the oscars has plummeted year after year. Dark Knight could have brought back the old feeling of relevancy that the oscars used to have in the nineties and before, it’s a shame it missed out on picture and director.
The combo of these nominees (The Reader?! Seriously?) and the sight of Jackman doing musical theater= snooze fest. Hope there’s a good hoops game on that night.
TDK sold fewer tickets in 08 than THUNDERBALL did in 65/66, so to say it should be up for a BP nod due to its box office success suggests that a lot of other films, many of which seem equally mediocre after a few years, were “snubbed” too. The Oscars isn’t a popularity contest, at least not one based on box office popularity. Get over it, guys.
FUCKING THUNDERBALL? FUCKING THUNDERBALL? You are bringing up fucking THUNDERBALL in 1965/66 in comparison to a movie RELEASED IN 2008? Are you fucking kidding me? You live up to your fucking name. NO FUCKING DOUBT!
I noticed that they didn’t announce producers for The Reader during the nominations. Is the plan to get posthumous nominations for Pollack and Minghella?
I can’t really understand these noms… Then again, it’s the academy, so i can’t be to suprised. The two most acclaimed films of the year, WallE and Dark Knight, are not up for Best Picture. Let’s say the NFL took the two teams with the best record during the regular season and booted them from playoff competition. When the eventual champ is crowned… are they really the champ? No! The two best team weren’t in the playoffs. If they are there and lose… that’s one thing. But not allowing them in the race… Got me, Man!!!
I stand by my comment. THUNDERBALL sold more tickets than TDK. To act like TDK is our era’s GONE WITH THE WIND, when it’s really yes (the truth hurts) the THUNDERBALL of 2008, is really, to cite my moniker, “off the mark.”
Myka: damn right. Damn right. The Academy needs a voting overhaul or weighted voting, because this sort of logic does not equating to anything sensible. We really do… LIVE IN A WORLD… where the Academy believes TOKEN nominations make up for out and out snubbing in the BP category. Absolutely astounding in it’s ignorance.
Off the Mark: ticket sales are about as reliable to a modern comparison as comparing Reagan’s inaugural ratings to Obama’s. It’s a DIFFERENT TIME. Stating that the biggest grossing film of this decade is not a big deal being ignored at the Oscars, is fucking ridiculous. If you want to post here. Would you mind using analogies applicable with the 21st century? Seriously, it’s embarrassing, but thank you for playing.
A lot of times the higest grossing movies aren’t the best. Not to say Dark Knight didn’t deserve something, but who cares what makes the most money? Fast and the Furious made a lot of cash too.
Perm: the technical awards pretty much say this; “This movie is incredibly well made.” So no one can care, but that’s what they say. Some of the members of the Academy apparently only care about movies featuring Nazis and those Nazis getting theirs. So those people voted against the Dark Knight.
Again Perm; it’s not just the money. It’s a lot of money. It’s not just the critical praise. It’s a lot of critical praise. It’s the simple fact that given the right choice to make. This Academy will always make the wrong choice. This is their status quo.
I thought they would make this simple. They decided against the simple and in turn made themselves irrelevant. Not only because they snubbed the Dark Knight. They also snubbed the people who saw it and bought it in droves.
You can hate the geeks all you, but they are viewers. The Academy just gave millions of viewers a reason to change the channel once supporting actor is given away.
Those other movies got lots of critical praise as well. Which is most important in giving awards. Money is incidental when handing out awards based on quality, as Fast and the Furious shows that lots of shit can make money and excellence sometimes doesn’t. Was Taxi Driver one of the biggest hits of the year? Would you nominate Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, because it also made a ton of money.
I will let a talkbacker sum this up for you Perm.
Academy to American moviegoers: FRAK YOU.
by Pennsy Jan 22nd, 2009
08:31:05 AM
The Visitor: $9.4m
Frozen River: $2.3m
Frost/Nixon: $8.8m
The Reader: 7.9m
Rachel Getting Married: $10.7m
The Wrestler: $5.5m
The Dark Knight: $531 million If that’s not just bending and submitting to the arthouse circuit, I’m not sure what does.
That’s the point you and most of this blog are missing Perm. They are bending to only ONE TYPE of MOTION PICTURE. They have bent themselves over more in the last 5 years, as if they are making up for a mistake.
It’s one thing to state you are rewarding the best. It’s another thing when you are not. When the more critically loved films of the year are given TOKEN nominations. It just shows, that the Academy is phasing it’s own self out of relevance. Which is such a dumb fucking move in the 21st century.
How none of you can see past your own biases to get that we are seeing the slow death of the last great award show in front of our eyes. Well, good on you, but this show staked it’s own self this morning, and I am supposed to be happy about this? Really?
Re: “The Reader” credits. The credits list four people as “producer,” but only three can be nominated (two of them, BTW, are Minghella and Pollack). Plus, there’s the drama of Rudin taking his name off it, to further muddy the who-is-nominated waters.
TITANIC made boatload of cash. Won Best Picture. Ergo?
TDK is not this years THUNDERBALL. Based on admissions that is a correct statement. Based on any other criteria its a very flawed argument. When THUNDERBALL was made films were rolled out, there was no national phenomenon. Nothing like the media saturation of today. Films were hits back then yes, but there was no feeling of something instantaneously clicking with the zeitgeist.
The sad reality of the nominations is that only a few members see all the films they need to. Exceptions are the tech guilds who take this stuff seriously.
Big Perm says “Was Taxi Driver one of the biggest hits of the year?”
Yes it was a critical and boxoffice hit.
IO very convienently leaves out:
Benjamin Button: 102m
Slumdog: 42m
And look at the reviews of the nominated films. They ARE the most critically loved films. Just because your critically loved film didn’t make the cut, doesn’t mean those films haven’t gotten good reviews.
JBD, true that Taxi Driver made more than I thought. I knew it was a hit but I didn’t think it was that big…still, it was no Dark Knight, or even Rocky (at that time).
Perm: TDK is just as critically reviewed or more so than all of the nominees. You are just looking for a reason, and there is no reason. The Academy has decided to rename itself the Academy of Arthouse Films and Sciences.
Again: it has always been about the show, the impact of TDK’s BP nomination on the show, and the resulting show itself. The AAHF&S has decided against being an Academy of all films, and decided to pick a certain part. Which is ridiculous.
While I feel TDK should win going away for last year. You simply cannot ignore the fact, that the Academy decided to turn it’s back on the people. Hell; it even decided against turning itself into an interesting show by not nominating TDK or even Wall fucking E.
They have decided against the movie-going public. Which should make the eventual ACADEMY AWARDS REALITY show, coming 2012 all the more interesting. We will be able to see all of our favourite cast and crews from the years best films, compete in gripping competitions. See our judges Ben Lyons, Robert Osbourne, and Rose McGowan vote on who deserves immunity and which contender should be eliminated.
Also make sure to tune in on 22nd of February for the SERIES FINALE! Two hours of highlights of that year’s season, and all the awards that matter!
THE ACADEMY AWARDS REALITY SHOW! ONLY ON BRAVO! SEE WHAT HAPPENS!
The future they could of avoided. If only they gave a crap about the people!
Hey, I agree with you that TDK could have been nominated just fine and wouldn’t seem out of place at all. I have no desire to see the Reader. But you’re just pissed that your movie didn’t get nominated, it has nothing to do with the future of the ceremony and the people.
Call it a hunch, but I think IO really dug The Dark Knight…
“I don’t understand Indy 4 snubs, especially in the Visual Effects, Art Direction and Sound Editing/Mixing categories.”
Simple – Lucas ain’t in the Guild. ILM have gotten the bum’s rush time and time again. Golden Compass over Transformers? Narnia nominated but not Revenge of the Sith. Uh-huh.
Oh, and the Dark Knight / Nolan snub is so ridiculous it’s actually kinda funny. There are NASA rockets made with less precision than that movie.
IO, please post complaints that the Academy is “irrelevant” a couple dozen more times. I haven’t quite gotten the message yet.
Seriously, re: “they have decided against the movie-going public,” this is nonsense. They didn’t decide for *or* against the movie-going public, because that decision was never on the table. Academy members are mailed out some ballots, and they fill in their favorite movies, performances, and other creative accomplishments. In some cases, sure, they vote for their friends. But nobody is OR SHOULD BE filling out their ballots thinking, “Hey, I’m going to vote for the favorite movies of the public!”
It’s the ACADEMY Awards. Not the “Academy’s guess about what the public likes” awards. You want an awards body that’s about the people’s choices? Go to the People’s Choice Awards. It’s called the People’s Choice Awards, because they award the people’s choices. The Academy Awards, on the other hand — and admittedly this is so counterintuitive — awards the Academy’s choices.
Complain all you want about Academy members voting their own hearts. Complain all you want that the Academy must be comprised of a bunch of pompous gasbags because they don’t reflect popular opinion. Prognosticate all you want that the Oscars will become irrelevant. (Preferably, limit such complaints in this blog to less than 100,000 words and 5000 separate posts.)
But complaining that the Academy Awards isn’t what it isn’t supposed to be? Weird. Irrational. Annoying.
THUNDERBALL was the most popular film in the James Bond franchise
Agreed about Thunderball. It would be difficult to understate the phenomenon that Thunderball was in its day. Bond mania peaked when that movie came out, and it pervaded pop culture to a degree not all that far removed from what Star Wars did in 1977.
I lost track of what point is being made by the comparison to Thunderball, though. It, like The Dark Knight, missed Best Picture nominations. But Star Wars, The Sixth Sense, and Lord of the Rings all made it. Just like with arthouse films, some make it and some don’t. And it’s not critical reception, box office performance, or guild awards that determine what the Academy nominates. The Academy is its own entity with its own tastes.
Personally, I’m very disappointed The Dark Knight and WALL*E didn’t make it in. But when has the Academy ever perfectly lined up with my tastes — and why should it?
Sam, thanks for the common sense. Seriously.
The Academy is no more obligated to reflect the popular taste than I am when I make my Ten Best list for the year. If that means viewership of their award ceremony goes down, oh well. No skin off my nose. IO, are you an ABC shareholder or something?
Myka: Stats don’t determine quality in art. In baseball, either the ball goes over the fence or it doesn’t. The guy catches the fly or not. He’s safe at home or not. Objective stuff (allowing for the occasional blind ump). Simply not the same thing as the Oscar nominations, with a large group of people voting their preferences, which are determined by personal taste, personal relationships, impatient whim or eeny-meeny-miney-mo.
Thanks for your comments, Sam. I was really just making the point that saying something was hugely popular and a zeitgeist film isn’t a good argument for why it should be entitled to a PB nod. If THE DARK KNIGHT was snubbed, it was snubbed because it was artistically deserving, not because it was soooo darn popular. As has been said a million times before: the Oscars aren’t the People’s Choice Awards.
It’s not as if Oscar never nominates a culturally popular / box-office success choice for Best Picture. From the last 30 years alone:
All three “The Lord of the Rings” films, “Gladiator,” “The Sixth Sense,” “Titanic,” “Forrest Gump,” “The Fugitive,” “Ghost,” “Fatal Attraction,” “E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial,” “Tootsie” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”
Perhaps in some voters’ eyes, the superhero aspect of “The Dark Knight” kept it from the top honor.
Offthemark I’m no TDK fanatic at all. In fact I think the film is a bit of a mess narratively and succeeds on the strength of Nolan’s vision and Ledgers performance. And I completely get the Bond mania at the time. It must have been as crazy as movies got at that time.
What I was trying to express is that no matter how huge THUNDERBALL was during its peak, there is simply no comparison to the amount of coverage between TDK and THUNDERBALL worldwide. There was no day and date back then. No internet. No 500 tv channels. No 10,000 blogs. The amount of coverage TDK got was exhausting compared to any 60s release. But hold on… I guess you could also argue that because there was less it was more focused… ie no other movie stories apart from Bond.
LOL. My nostalgia now is making me change my initial argument! Being a kid who was around when JAWS opened, I can profess that in hindsight the phenom seemed bigger to me than TDK but only because the competition for my attention was quite limited.
I think what happened here is that many people simply placed The Dark Knight lower than their number 1 or 2 choice. It may have shown up as a choice on many ballots, but below Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire. Therefore, it didn’t get enough number 1 votes to make it into the top five. So that isn’t so much a conscience effort to shut it out as it is a case of other films being chosen ahead of it.
“Titanic” made it in because it was never seen as a “popcorn flick” and didn’t have to overcome the comic book image. Fair or not, it was always going to be difficult for “The Dark Knight” to succeed where “Superman” (1978) and “Spider-Man 2” (2004) failed. Money speaks, and so do good reviews, but summer blockbusters have a hard time being taken seriously as Best Picture contenders. I suspect that “The Dark Knight” got closer than any such film since “Jaws,” (substitute “The Fugitive” or other if you like) though.
As soon as the word ‘frak’ appears in an argument, the argument has immediately been lost. (And I say this as a big BSG fan).
Big Perm,
While I can see that IO may be leaning too heavily on the factor of popular taste in the case he makes for “Dark Knight”‘s BP nomination, the thing is, if you use critical acclaim as the governing criterion, then “Dark Knight” really does wipe the floor with “The Reader,” which had a mixed critical reception. Also, if you look at the DGA, PGA, and WGA–and I do think the guilds matter–then again, you get unanimous love for “Dark Knight” and no love for “The Reader.” The HFPA is the only other group of film lovers who have adored “The Reader,” and, well, their legitimacy is questionable.
Personally, I think “The Reader” is a very difficult film for anyone to passionately embrace. It’s a Holocaust movie that isn’t really about the Holocaust in any meaningful way. It’s a film of slick surfaces and fine performances that nevertheless offers next to nothing to engage with emotionally or intellectually. And, well, it’s pretty dull and starchy to boot. I should add that I really like Daldry’s two previous films, so I wasn’t inclined to dislike it going in (also a fan of Winslet and Fiennes…who both do their usual nuanced work in frustratingly opaque roles).
Given all that, the Academy giving “Reader” a big, wet kiss arguably pushes them further towards irrelevance than the “Dark Knight” snub. But being as big a fan of “Dark Knight” as I am, I can’t help but agree with IO in general; it’s just that I think pointing to the critical and guild love for “Dark Knight” (oh, and let’s not forget that “Dark Knight” was a LAFCA runner-up!) in addition to the popular favor showered upon it would help his case.
Benjamin Button more well-received? It scored a 72% on rotten tomatoes. Wall-E & Dark Knight scored 97% & 95% respectively.
Face it, the the nominees were recognized as needing the nomination business, Wall-E & Dark Knight not so much. Cold, calculated.
Well, if you went by the cream of the crop at Rotten Tomatoes so we’re talking about respected professionals and not Pete Jerkoff from AICN, Dark Knight got 90% (still great) and Benjamin Button got 77% (not bad, I guess that’s a B). So it’s not as if it is critically reviled either.
I haven’t seen The Reader so I can’t speak to the qualities of it, but it’s an actor’s movie and actors make up most of the voters. Of course movies like those get the edge. Brett mentions DGA, PGA, and WGA…absolutely. But that doesn’t take into account SAG, which is the majority.
fucking scott speedman was more convincing and had more depth and range of emotion in ‘the strangers’ than fucking brad pitt did in fucking ‘button’. that’s the most bullshit nom in the history of bullshit noms and if he fucking wins i will seriously fucking upchuck. the end.
Gee, I wonder if buisness will pick up for Frost/Nixon after people start seeing Michael Sheen kicking ass in Underworld: Rise of the Lycans?
I have been reading these posts laughing my ass off. You guys are so lame–arguing over whether passing over Batman makes the oscars irrelevant….just when were they relevant to being with? They were started by studio heads to promote their movies. This is the same group that nominated Dr. Doolittle and The Towering Inferno for best picture. The Oscars are fascinating every year because they are about show business…not film artistry OR rewarding popular films.
I also love this idea that the academey members gets together in a room and make some decisions…let’s all snub The Dark Knight! Yeah. But you know, it will lower our TV ratings…FUCK RATINGS, etc. The ballots are done individually, without any big overall plan.
I especially love the comment made by some idiot that it was over for the Oscars–they had a nice run. Well, they didn’t give best picture to The Wizard of Oz, It’s a Wonderful Life, E.T., Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Arc…and they’ve given Oscars to Cher, Prince, and Three 6 Mafia. Somehow I think Oscars are just going to be fine…or as fine as they’ve ever been.
What we love about the Oscars is not only when they get it right…but also how wrong they often get it.
Funny how the Writer’s Guild scored 4 out of 5 for Adapted Screenplay but only 1 out of 5 for Original Screenplay (though I’m probably a few weren’t qualified to begin with). So would that give the upper hand to “Milk” for Original Screenplay?
And is this the first year a film shot digitally was nominated for Best Cinematography, let alone two films shot digitally (well, one partially shot digitally)?
zen again after packing a sad about pitt, i’m a bit confused about one of those charts. kate w is ranked on the ‘best actress’ chart for ‘revolutionary road’, am i missing something or is that a cock-up, dp?
Dave, you say you think Slumdog will win Best Sound Editing? Do you know what Sound Editing is? Especially as opposed to Sound Mixing. Do Academy members even know? Sound editing is the creation of individual sounds – something Wall-E deserves to win for – whilst sound mixing is the layering of all the individual aural elements into the mix to create a cohesive whole – something Slumdog probably deserves to win for give or take The Dark Knight.
I really want some Dark Knight technical winner to call out the Academy. That’d be excellent and probably liven up what is sure to be a dull dull dduuulllll show. Hugh Jackman has his work cut out for him.
that comment brings up a salient point: the nomination process of the academy awards are the purest because members of each individual branch of the academy nominate what they consider the best examples of excellence in their craft – the members of the sound branch who vote on the best sound editing/mixing are sound editors/mixers themselves so they know their stuff – but in the final round when all academy members from all branches are allowed to vote on the winners of each category, the proceedings inevitably get dumbed down with actors voting on sound mixing and visual effects people voting on writing, etc., and it all gets a bit dodgy (at least this is my understanding of how the voting works, someone please set me straight if i’ve got it wrong).
so in way, when people say, ‘it’s an honour just to be nominated’, i always think that getting nominated actually IS more of an honour and an indication of excellence in your field than winning the actual statue.
the nomination process IS the purest. my proofreading blows
Big Perm,
Yeah, “Dark Knight” did get passed over by SAG for an Ensemble nomination, but then again, so did “The Reader.” I don’t see how the “Reader”‘s single SAG nod for Winslet in Supporting indicates great passion from the actors’ branch for the film; Winslet all by her lonesome received one more nomination than the film did, so it’s just a case of her peers adoring her and agreeing with the overall consensus that this is her year (I wish the “Reader” and “Rev Road” roles were written with as much depth as her past roles in “Eternal Sunshine” and “Little Children,” among others, but it was decided that it’s time for her to win the statue before her ’08 films had even screened, so their quality has become besides the point.)
I guess I could see “The Reader” being an actor’s movie in that it features good and respected actors in leading roles, and they do a typically fine job in it (and young Kross, for his part, nails the haunted, soulful quality necessary to play a young Fiennes, which is impressive for a newcomer). But like I more or less said before, the central characters are thinly defined, and kept at an emotional remove from the audience, so it’s hard for to accept it as *that* stellar an actor’s showcase.
…and they’ve given Oscars to Cher, Prince, and Three 6 Mafia.
The Oscar for Prince is the best music choices the Academy ever made. Mentioning that in the same sentence as Three 6 Mafia and Cher’s acting award is bizarre.
Are you dissing Cher’s award? The Academy could do worse than looking back at that and realising females can do more than just uglify themselves or portray famous people.
you forgot prostitutes with hearts of gold, kam
The oscars have nothing to do w/ art! It’s politics. The best film of the year rarely gets BP, and many time isn’t even nominated.
Citizen Kane didn’t win BP
2001: Space Odessey wasn’t nominated
Raging Bull lost
Goodfellas lost
Pulp Fiction, LA Con., City of God, and so on.
To say the Oscars know much about great films or art is insulting!!!
further to my comment above, looking to properly educate myself on the oscar nomination/voting process rather than assume i know how it works, i went a-wandering in cyberspace and came across these two contradictory sites:
this simple, concise explanation of the voting/nomination process for oscar from ‘fairvote’:
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=706
and this from DoP caleb deschanel, which totally contradicts fairvote’s first paragraph under the ‘how do oscar nominees get chosen’ heading, which contends that only the branch members choose the ‘best insert category here’ winners in the final round, with the exception of best pic for which everyone votes. caleb deschanel:
http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/about/voting_video.html?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=390&width=834
caleb and the accompanying blurb under the ‘final balloting process’ heading describe the final round of voting as i understood it to be, with all members able to vote for the winners in all categories (i notice deschanel also describes the nomination process as ‘pure’ or something to that effect, which i was sort of chuffed about)
so which one is it? i’m well and truly confused now. does anyone have the definitive explanation? i find it quite fascinating, but i may be a far-too-easily-amused minority of one.
Citizen Kane didn’t win BP
No, they gave it to John Ford’s How Green Was My Valley instead, which is also a masterpiece.
Seriously, the whole notion that the 1941 BP was some egregious crime against art and humanity needs to fucking die already, it’s not as if they gave the award to Tarzan’s Secret Treasure.
myka: Okay, I’ll leave art out of it. But that still won’t make the sports analogy work. Politics wins.
And I don’t think anyone here suggested that “the Oscars know much about great films or art.” Some voters do, some don’t, and for some it’s not a factor (“Let’s see, Sean Penn gave a better performance, but Brad Pitt was cool to me on the set, so…”).
Bob: Agreed. The Valley win over Kane used to upset me until I grew up, saw Valley another time or two and realized that Ford is just as much of a genius as the young Welles. Kane would still get my vote, but Valley would probably be my second choice. Luckily, Ford’s rep has risen in recent years, so you rarely see a noted critic ragging on Valley for the Academy’s alleged crime anymore.