MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland


The 3 inevitable Oscar winners also win PGA tonight…
Slumdog, Wall-E, Man on Wire.
Need more be said?

Be Sociable, Share!

22 Responses to “PGA”

  1. IOIOIOI says:

    Yeah: Ben Button and Kung-Fu Panda. Put some skin in the game.

  2. movielocke says:

    Man on Wire I’m worried about. it’s a fun movie. when was the last time the voters who watch all the docs voted for the fun (and popular) choice? Bowling for Columbine? I think that Trouble the Water and The Betrayal are huge threats and potential big upsets there.
    But congrats to Slumdog, the most deserving film seems to keep winning and leading. and that’s terrific.

  3. Tofu says:

    Slumdog is winning Best Picture? So there it is. Saves us the trouble of watching. 🙂

  4. jeffmcm says:

    Two out of three ain’t bad.

  5. chris says:

    There are “fun” heist elements in “Man on Wire,” but that’s an odd choice to describe the film’s overall impression, I’d say, what with the dissolution of friendships involved, the sadness about a feat that can never be pondered again and the destruction of the World Trade Center hovering over the entire film.

  6. Roman says:

    Backlash, oh backlash? Can you hear me? Where areeeeeeeeee yooooooouuuuuuuuuu? We realy need you right about now!

  7. IOIOIOI says:

    Backlash? Nah. Reality. One picture is the quintessential Hollywood freakin film. While the other is about a slum in Mumbai, and it’s people hate the film being referred to as SLUMDOG. So you put two and two together, and you get four.
    Also; this is the Academy. They love giving ONE OSCAR, and thinking it covers the entire film. So you give Boyle Director, Ben Button Picture, and everyone goes home slightly perklempt. Fun times for all.

  8. Hallick says:

    I do not see the Academy giving Benjamin Button the Best Picture award just because Danny Boyle wins Best Director. Firstly, because I don’t buy the 1 pic/1 trophy theory; and secondly, I don’t think Benjamin Button has enough people who really, really, REALLY! love the film. I think the largest representative positive reaction for it has been somewhere in the realm of “general respectful enjoyment”. Don’t you need drum beating of some kind to pull off the big win?

  9. Hallick says:

    Given the Academy Awards of the last 67 odd years or so, if The Curious Case of Bejamin Button won Best Picture and nothing else, that would be the first time in a lonnnnnnnnnnnng time for that to happen. I don’t think there’s a Best Picture winner since 1941 (the year “Rebecca” won the top prize) that didn’t also at the very least take either an acting prize, the directing prize, or the screenplay prize.
    If this is basis enough for a flimsy predictor, then the case for TCCBB winning Best Picture is in trouble, since Brad Pitt definitely isn’t going to win Best Actor; Taraji P. Henson won’t win Best Supporting Actress; David Fincher probably won’t win Best Director; and Eric Roth almost certainly won’t win for Best Adapted Screenplay.
    Looking at the past 68 years or so of winners, it seems to be in the stars that Slumdog Millionaire and Danny Boyle (or Simon Beaufoy) are shoe-ins. But then again, the great thing about the future is how often it confounds the certainties of the past. Of course, I personally still don’t see an upset for Benjamin Button in the works.

  10. IOIOIOI says:

    Hal: Crash.

  11. Hallick says:

    “Hal: Crash.”
    Nope. I thought that might’ve happened too, but Crash won Best Picture AND Paul Haggis took home the Best Original Screenplay Oscar for it that year. Still not a one-off winner.

  12. IOIOIOI says:

    How exactly is Ben Button going to be a one-off winner? Heck. Most of Mumbai’s nominations are musical. Bat got more TECHNICAL nominations. So I am at a loss as to how Ben Button is a one-off assumed winner?

  13. jesse says:

    Didn’t Gladiator take Best Picture without taking director, screenplay, or any acting stuff? I know it got some techie awards but I remember thinking at the time, “wow, so Traffic was the best-directed, best-written, best-edited movie of the year, with some of the best acting to boot. But apparently Gladiator was just better overall.” Chicago also came close: it got editing and supporting actress, so more than Gladiator, but still not screenplay or directing or lead acting.
    I’m not saying it’ll happen for Ben Button — Hallick is right that there doesn’t seem to be a drum beating for it. But the Picture/Director splits have happened more often in recent years. It had only happened a handful of times when Shakespeare/Spielberg split it for the ’98s, and then it started happening every couple of years: 2000, 2002, 2005. This actually caused me to overzealously bet on such sorta-surprise splits in my last few Oscar pools. But this year I think Boyle and Slumdog are pretty locked.

  14. IOIOIOI says:

    Everyone thought Brokeback was a lock. See what happened there? I’m thinking it’s a similar situation this year. I could be wrong, but I am willing to put it on the line.

  15. Bob Violence says:

    jesse: Gladiator won Best Actor.

  16. Triple Option says:

    I think Button has a great shot of winning best adpt screenplay. If the Oscars didn’t have such a history of making the screenplay award to be their “oh we really like you, I just wish I could give you something” consulation prize, I, personally, would think Button would be the odds on favorite. But the same people who gave Emma Thompson a writing award (YEAH, I said it!) are bound to get Little Miss Juno and throw a bone to Slumdog. Not saying Slum is undeserving, just thinking that’s where the sympathy vote rings out.

  17. David Poland says:

    Ben Button has as much chance of winning Best Picture as The Dark Knight.

  18. Roman says:

    David, you only say it because you are confident that The Dark Knight is not going to win (and I agree with that). In terms of its pure chances, however, Button would have been slightly ahead.
    I actually believe that in many other situations, Button would not have been nominated for Best Picture in the fist place while Slumdog (sadly) would have been nominated almost any year. This being, relatively speaking, a very weak year for Best Picture contenders, it feels like voters were not left with much of the choice and voted for movies that looked like BP material.
    Not to say that Benjamin Button is a weak film (it is not, in fact it’s a film I admire) but it a kind of film that usually ends up being 6th or 7th on the ballot (I don’t know if my analogies make any sense to any one else – I’m thinking movies like Walk the Line here). So no, it is not going to win. That said, the Dark Knight comparison was a bit of a stretch.

  19. Triple Option says:

    Uhh, Roman, I think he was making a joke.

  20. jesse says:

    I’ll be damned… I could’ve sworn Crowe won for Beautiful Mind, but you’re right, he did win for Gladiator. Still, to me the Gladiator and Chicago wins show that you can win the big prize without a lot of major enthusiasm about major aspects of the production.

  21. Hallick says:

    IOI: It would be a “one-off” win because it would only win Best Picture without also either an acting prize, the directing prize, or a screenplay prize. Look back through the past winners, and that’s something that doesn’t really happen. Not saying that it CAN’T happen, just that it’s incredibly unlikely, especially for this movie in particular.
    jesse: Gladiator and Chicago both had passionate blocs of voters in their respective camps. I’m not feeling the same for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button this year. Flat-out raves weren’t in the cards for it, and that’s probably going to be the deciding factor.

  22. Hallick says:

    I dunno Triple O. Eric Roth’s been getting whipped on with the “It’s Forrest Gump all over again!” talk for his script a bit much to be confident that he’d win it. But if BB is going to win anything, this would be the best shot in the major categories. I still think Slumdog will take it though.

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