MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Oscar Nod Morning

Good early morning…

There are few real surprises in the Oscar nominations today.

1. Demian Bichir vanquished Michael Fassbender and Leonardo DiCaprio to get a Best Actor nomination.

2. Albert Brooks got left out… trumped by Jonah Hill and Max von Sydow.

3. 9 nominations for Best Picture… a surprisingly wide spread.

4. Extremely Close & Incredibly Loud got nominated for Best Picture ahead of Tinker Tailor Solider Spy and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

There are some other quirks out there (like John Williams being nominated twice and Best Song having only 2 nominees), but things are pretty much within the expected norms.

Hugo got the most nominations, 11, though its numerical leap past The Artist‘s 10 is tempered by 3 of those nods being for Sound and Visual Effects, while Artist scored 2 acting nods to Hugo’s zero. (I am personally shocked that Ben Kingsley didn’t get a nomination.)

David Fincher got “finchered” again, missing out on a directing nomination after getting one from DGA, this time losing out while Terrence Malick got in. (Spielberg was also left hanging.)

Congratulations to all the nominees.

Be Sociable, Share!

136 Responses to “Oscar Nod Morning”

  1. NickF says:

    Some very questionable choices on the full list. At this minute I don’t think I’ll be able to stomach the entire ceremony.

  2. bulldog68 says:

    Just imagine, the trailers for 21 Jumpstreet can now say “and Academy award nominee, Jonah Hill.”

  3. Jason says:

    The biggest surprise has to be Extremely Close & Incredibly Loud. I thought that movie was universally panned.

  4. Jarod says:

    So does that requirement about the movies needing to have a certain percentage of #1 votes to advance for Best Pic mean that movies that don’t emotionally “move” voters will be ignored in favor of weepy and sentimental, even more than in the past?

  5. Mike says:

    Anyone seen the two out-of-left-field animated feature films that got nominated: The Cat in Paris and Rita & someone?

  6. MarkVH says:

    Academy loves Daldry. All four of his features have been nominated. He’s automatic at this point.

  7. JS Partisan says:

    Jarod, possibly, but these are older white sort of well off white people. Certain films are always going to play to them better than other films, and that’s why something like Bridesmaids doesn’t get a best picture nom. They do what they always do with films like Bridesmaids, they give it a writing nom and one acting nom.

  8. sanj says:

    DP – are you surprised that sundance 2011 films / actors didn’t get in ?

  9. Jarod says:

    What is the age makeup of the Academy members nowadays? It seems like their selections are becoming more conservative rather than less. How many of the Best Pic nominees appeal to ANYONE under the age of 40?

  10. Kim Voynar says:

    A Cat in Paris is fantastic. Hoping it wins.

  11. Don R. Lewis says:

    This just in: All the bloggeratti attending Sundance have committed mass Harakiri at the upper Main Street bus terminal due to DRIVE not getting nominated for BP.

    Congrats to Tim League and crew for the BULLHEAD nom!

  12. Kadence says:

    I’m so sad Charlize Theron and Tilda weren’t nominated. Rooney Mara and Glenn Close got lucky but very undeserved.

  13. jesse says:

    I have to say, I’m a little heartened by the diversity of the final nine, espceially given the #1 percentage rules. Sure, you’ve got movies that range from vaguely undeserving (The Help) to absoultely mindbogglingly undeserving (ELAIC), and a lot of people will quibble with War Horse (though I liked it a lot), but in this group of nine you have a couple of sentimental beautifully made pictures by old masters (War Horse, Hugo); an out-and-out art movie (Tree of Life); a more cerebral and reflective choice I didn’t think would move enough people (Moneyball, which I find overrated, but it’s different from anything else nominated); a black-and-white mostly-silent lark (The Artist); a comedy-drama (The Descendants); and a Woody Allen fantasy (Midnight in Paris). Spielberg, Scorsese, Woody, Malick, Payne… solid bunch of filmmakers even given some questionable choices.

    It was similar when there were ten nominees: a little “too many movies” syndrome and no way in hell The Blind Side deserved a nomination (it may be even worse than ELAIC), but it also means Toy Story 3 and A Serious Man and UP and some other oddball choices snuck in.

    That said, plenty of weird choices here, I even take issue with some of the critical favorites (Nolte for Warrior? PLEASE. So many better performances this year).

  14. yancyskancy says:

    I posted this yesterday in the Friday Estimates thread:

    “Okay, one more b.s. surprise prediction: No Leo. Instead, the slot goes to a long shot such as Oldman, Gosling, Bechir or Shannon.”

    While I’m surprised I got that right, I’m bummed because my original draft said “No Leo; no Fassbender.” But I edited it before posting because I thought that was going too far.

    Really bummed for Albert Brooks; he seemed like one of the few locks. The sound editors got in, but not Brooks? Weird. I know the Oscars don’t mean much of anything in the long one, but it’s gotta hurt when you’re predicted to be nominated for months, land lots of nods and wins from other groups, and then get snubbed.

  15. Glamourboy says:

    Yeah, I’m also surprised by the complete rejection of Young Adult…no Theron, no screenplay. Surprised that Tintin didn’t make the list of animated films. No Bridesmaids for Best Picture. No Woodley for supp actress.

  16. samguy says:

    Is Best Song open to live action movies or is now just limited to animated movies?

  17. chris says:

    Mike, “Chico and Rita” is not that out-of-left-field and it’s also fantastic: jazzy scores and visuals (that sort of look like a ’60s album cover), terrific romance at the center, atmospheric (Cuba, NYC) settings. And it’s great to get a title for adults in there.

  18. John says:

    I haven’t seen PANDA 2 or PUSS N BOOTS, but how could they possibly be more worthy than TIN TIN? Honestly.

    I am also pretty stunned by the lack of an Albert Brooks nom.

  19. sanj says:

    actors under 18 got shut out – look who’s on the poster for
    Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close – its not Hanks and Bullock – its the kid .

    also on the poster for hugo – the kid – Asa Butterfield.
    11 nominations ? and the kid doesn’t get one ?

    Ronan for hanna – nothing. she’s running around
    acting her ass off – but it doesn’t pay off for oscar time.

    Shailene Woodley who is just above past teenager – didn’t make it …

    academy just didn’t like any teen actors this year –
    you all suck. try again.

    one juno / Ellen Page is enough for them …

    contagion and crazy stupid love have more than
    enough good actors – nothing .

    also roland emmerich predicted in a dp/30 he wouldn’t
    get nominated for best director but he wanted
    a few nominations on the tech side and i think he got
    at least 1.

    when you actually listen to a lot of dp/30’s – DP does
    ask them about them getting nominated for oscars
    if he think its worthy enough – half the time the
    actors are just happy to work with great directors ..

  20. AdamL says:

    I don’t even know why they bother with the song category. It ain’t the Grammys.

    How many films have been improved because they had an Oscar winning original song written for them? Even musicals are rarely in this category – not unless the songs are original – thus the one type of film which would actually benefit from a great song(s), doesn’t actually often show up in this category. It’s often some tedious thing written for the credits. I mean please, most people have left the theatre before you get 20 seconds in. It’s a nonsense.

    Ditch the category and shave 15 mins off the running time of thetelecast – people bitch about it being too long anyway.

  21. bulldog68 says:

    Is this also the first year where Pixar had a film in release but no nomination? Dreamworks gets 2 out of 5 noms. They must be happy.

  22. bulldog68 says:

    And also surprised of no Tin Tin nom.

  23. Jarod says:

    9 films nominated, and only one R rated. You can look at that as another reason why TGWTDT, TTSP, Young Adult, Ides of March, Drive, and Bridesmaids did not receive nominations. The Academy has come a long way since Midnight Cowboy. PG or PG-13 only, please.

  24. sanj says:

    anybody know how many actors under 18 are actually
    part of the academy ? 5000-6000 members – my guess
    25 – 100 ..

    teen actors have any power in there ?

    just keep giving good older actors some awards and
    wait your turn…

  25. film fanatic says:

    waiting for stephen kay to make a gloating reappearance in 5…4…3…2…1…

  26. anghus says:

    Very interesting group of nominees. The inclusion of Extremely Loud feels like the most baffling.

    Love War Horse being nominated. Im pulling for The Artist.

    Id be fine with wins for Hugo or Midnight in Paris.

    And if Brit McKenzie wins an oscar then this year will be a massive success

  27. Sport67 says:

    Happy about Extremely Loud (I love a good weeper), Jonah Hill, Rooney Mara and most of all for Nick Nolte.

  28. John –

    Kung Fu Panda 2 was my favorite film of 2011, so I’m thrilled it made the cut, even if it has no chance of winning. Puss In Boots is merely a top-notch piece of mainstream entertainment. I don’t begrudge those who dug Tintin more than I, but I did much prefer Puss In Boots. And frankly, not having seen the other two, I’m annoyed as the snub of Tintin is arguably more about the Academy’s continued fear/misunderstanding about mo-cap than issues with the technically-terrific but relatively slight adventure film.

  29. Mike says:

    I wasn’t trying to say either A Cat in Paris or Chico & Rita don’t deserve to be nominated, just asking if anyone who had saw them could recommend them, so I remember to add them to my Netflix queue, as they’re unlikely to get big theatrical releases.

    I know it won’t win, but Moneyball was my favorite of the nine BP nominees, so I’m glad it made it in. Anyone know which way the wind is blowing on the adapted screenplay heat?

    Does the editing nom still apply as the only way a film can win BP?

  30. jk105 says:

    I am repelled by the idea that 5% of the voters thought Extremely Loud was the number one film this year. Plus 5% put War Horse as number one. There is nothing wrong with liking those two films, but thinking they were the best of the year is mind boggling.

  31. Joe Leydon says:

    At the risk of pouring gasoline on the fire: In the cold light of day, is anyone really surprised by the near-total snub for Drive? I’m not saying it wasn’t a good movie. I’m just saying it wasn’t that good.

  32. Paul D/Stella says:

    Not at all Joe. Heat, for example, didn’t receive a single nomination (and it’s a much better movie, though I did really like Drive).

  33. sanj says:

    drive could have easily gotten best director / actor ..
    plus i like 3 of the songs .

    Kevin Smith red state didn’t get anywhere . we debated
    this like 3 times already .. that preacher dude did
    a great job – a bit too long but more interesting than
    anybody from the help ..

    also sundance 2011 films that didn’t make it – another earth – like crazy and martha marcy may marlene ..
    they all thought they did something different …
    not different enough – like crazy won an award too.

    thats how oscar math works – if you win one big movie award – should be easier to get an oscar nomination.

  34. anghus says:

    I was always ambivilent about Drive. I don’t think it deserved a nomination. Though all its going to do is fuel those who scream its praises that its underrated.

    And is Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close the oscars version of the globes nominating The Tourist?

  35. movieman says:

    What does Albert Brooks have to do to get some Academy love?
    He never even received a screenwriting nomination for any of his masterpieces (“Modern Romance,” “Lost in America,” “Defending Your Life”).
    And was egregiously snubbed for his scene-stealing supporting performance in “Broadcast News.”
    Dissed again, sigh.
    Oh well. At least he has all of those critic groups’ s/actor trophies to put on his mantlepiece.
    While Demian Bichir was fine in the merely OK “A Better Life” (and Gary Oldman was even better in the superb “TTSS”), neither deserved a nomination over Leo DiCaprio.
    And don’t even get me started on 9/11 porn “ELAIC.” It reeks of the same type of BP “nomination obligation” that got “Airport” and “Dr. Dolittle” nommed back in the bad old days. (At least Daldry didn’t go four for four in the directing category.)
    Was confused by the # of BP nominees overall.
    9?? Really? They couldn’t go that extra mile and nom, say, “Bridesmaids” or “Dragon Tattoo”? Or trim the fat (“ELAIC” for starters) and whittle it down to the perfect five?
    Truly batshit.
    Gee, the animation branch must really hate performance-capture ‘toons. Passing over “Tintin” for two obscure foreign lingo ‘toons feels like the ultimate slap in p/c’s face.
    The doc category is, once again, pretty lame. The mediocre “Hell and Back Again” and tree-huging snoozefest “If a Tree Falls” over….either of Herzog’s 2 docs for starters. It looks like “Paradise Lost 3″‘s award to lose.
    Only 2 nominees for Best Song? Why didn’t they just scrap the category altogether?
    Nominating “Albert Nobbs” in the make-up slot seemed a tad silly considering the fact that the movie’s biggest handicap (for me anyway) was that I never believed either Close or McTeer could have fooled anyone into believing they were men because their make-up was just so damn terrible. (As bad as Armie’s make-up was in “J. Edgar,” Leo’s was pretty damn good.)
    Not sure how “War Horse” squeaked into in the Best Picture category considering its dearth of love in other categories, but I’m glad it did.
    Does the fact that “Hugo” received none of its 11 nods in an acting category automatically doom it’s chances of (possibly) upsetting “The Artist”? And kind of bizarre that “Moneyball” (and “Dragon Tattoo”) actually received more nominations than “The Descendants.”

  36. Jason says:

    Wait – so if the Globes had nominated ‘Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close’, everyone would be blasting them for just doing it to get Hanks and Bullock to the event. But the Oscars do it, and there are no horrified reactions? As always, all of the shows pretty much mirror the others. There are no conspiracies. There are lists. And pencils. And pieces of paper. And voters. And cutoffs. So there are no differences between the Globes and the Oscars. Just minor ones here-and-there because the voting pool is different. But we’re still in the same range of similar selections, aren’t we?

  37. Rashad says:

    Sure Jarod, let’s pretend Gladiator, The Hurt Locker, The Departed, The King’s Speech, No Country, and Crash didn’t win.

  38. Jarod was merely pointing out what happened this year, and he’s not off the mark. Of the 44 nominees in the top 6 categories, just 13 of them went to R-rated films. And if you look at the films that were ‘in the running’ for Best Picture and/or other major categories, most of the ones that missed out on probable nods (Bridesmaids, Take Shelter, 50/50, GWTDT, Shame, TTSS, etc) were R or NC-17. It could be a fluke, but it’s worth noticing…

  39. yancyskancy says:

    movieman: Brooks WAS nominated for BROADCAST NEWS — maybe you meant “snubbed” to refer to his not winning? I probably would’ve voted Morgan Freeman for STREET SMART, with Brooks a close second. Sean Connery won for THE UNTOUCHABLES (technically anyway — but it was obviously a career achievement win).

  40. cadavra says:

    I saw CAT IN PARIS during its qualifying run. Very nice film, beautifully designed, not quite sure if it wants to be a comedy or not, but overall, no quibble, certainly more worthy than PUSS. Saw a trailer for CHICO AND RITA at the Nuart yesterday, so evidently it’s on its way.

    The Academy has been working tirelessly to “youthen” its membership; Dakota Fanning became a member before she was even old enough to see an R-rated film by herself. This was just a year for older-skewing movies, that’s all.

  41. movieman says:

    Yancy- You’re right; Brooks was nominated for “BN”….24 (gulp) long years ago.
    Yet considering the way the Academy has assiduously ignored Brooks over the years, the fact that my memory somehow managed to erase that one crumb they did throw him isn’t all that surprising.
    I never expected “Drive” to get the respect it deserved from Mr. Oscar, but Brooks’ nod did seem kind of inevitable. That’s probably why his snub felt so shocking. (And was apparently the reason for my temporary amnesia, lol.)

  42. LexG says:

    IF A TREE FALLS: Hey, I SAW that. Hated it. Was actively rooting for that sniveling, sociopathic lead subject with the Ed Norton voice and no moral center to get the CHAIR at the end, which I don’t think was the point of the movie.

  43. leahnz says:

    so what do i win for my ‘no dragon tattoo best pic nom’ prediction?

    i guess just being a smug prick will have to do

    hey, at least ‘the artist’ didn’t get sound editing/mixing nods…

    (man i couldn’t give two shits about this year’s oscars, very few of the people/movies i was rooting for got in – no tilda, no fassbo – except bret, and mccarthy i guess, and viola, you go chicas subvert their skinny white asses…and brad pitt for another competent, thoroughly middling turn, blech, i think i just threw up in my mouth a little — not as much of a travesty as his gormless ben button nom but instead of fassbender? YEAH RIGHT. shoulda been for o’brian in ‘tree’ if it had to be something for mr. two notes, he was actually pretty good in that)

  44. LexG says:

    Pitt commands you. Aren’t you the big RIVER PHOENIX megafan? How can you like River and not LORD FUCKING PITT, the king of all acting and awesomeness?

    I can’t ever see a vegan girly man like Phoenix doing awesome shit like SEVEN or FIGHT CLUB or JESSE JAMES.

  45. Mr. Wu says:

    The Oscars — once again proving that they, like the internet itself, are 51% B.S.

  46. JKill says:

    IF A TREE FALLS… is certainly a decent documentary, one I would recommend with no hesitation, but I’m at a loss for how anyone could be that passionate about it or prefer it to a host of other non-fiction movies that came out this year. It’s serviceable and interesting, but it totally pales and suffers in comparison to the same director’s absolutely amazing, brilliant, and riveting STREET FIGHT. I certainly want PARADISE LOST 3 to win that award. And I’m shocked the very sweet, moving, and humane BUCK was not nominated, which I thought made the short list.

  47. krazyeyes says:

    Can anyone explain why it’s being reported EVERYWHERE that Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs are being nominated for Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory?

    Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but I didn’t think either of them had anything to do with this film.

  48. JS Partisan says:

    Pitt is fantastic in Moneyball as is Jonah Hill. I am glad they got the props they deserved and it’s TIME TO AWARD PITT! If he’s really winding it down on the acting side. This may be their only chance to reward a rather worthy actor. Sure, he could get nominated for World War Z, but I am not sure we LIVE IN A WORLD where that film can get nominated for anything! If it does… wow.

  49. leahnz says:

    brad pitt nominated for convincingly playing…brad pitt

    not a single note, expression, gesture outside the pitt box…nothing provocative, no risk, no challenge, no uncomfortable places, no chances taken… just pitt playing pitt. oh the difficulty! christ

    (why would it bother anyone what river ate for dinner? says EVERYTHING about some insecure hillbilly and nothing about him – but that’s par for the course)

  50. storymark says:

    I feel Pitt is pretty different in most roles he inhabits (I can’t see anyone saying he’s playing the same role in Moneyball that he was in Jesse James, Inglorious Basterds, Burn After Reading, Fight Club, Ben Button, Troy, 12 Monkeys, Interview W/The Vampire, True Romance or any number of others, even dreck like the Oceans movies of Mr.&Mrs. Smith), so Im not sure which Pitt you’re talking about when you say he just plays Pitt. I don’t see him having a rote screen presence like so many others.

    Sure, he’s not the Holy River…. but still….

  51. jesse says:

    Yeah, we were talking the other day about Channing Tatum and Mark Wahlberg and how some actors can improve with the right directing/coaching… I’m not saying Pitt doesn’t have some inherent talent, but at the same time, it’s obvious he’s improved it and honed it over the years. His work over the past decade or so has been tremendous; there was good stuff before then, but a lot of the stuffstorymark mentions has a superlative mix of star power, iconic characterizaton, and just plain great acting. Never would’ve guessed that in ’94 or ’95, even after Twelve Monkeys.

  52. leahnz says:

    uh, when i said ‘pitt is playing pitt’ i’m talking about pitt’s perf in ‘moneyball’ – HE IS PLAYING PITT, nothing more, an utterly safe turn – where did i say all his perfs are the same? if that was unclear, my bad i guess. i’ve been on record here numerous times saying when pitt plays weirdos/character parts he can be convincing and even amusing, so i’ll say it again… but those are fairly few and far between. film acting is in the eyes, and 9 times out of 10 there is nothing going on in there, gormless, even embarrassing. has he gotten better over time? not particularly. but you boys sure do love your middling pitt

    (eta brad gormless acting is esp glaring when he’s playing against someone with genuine pathos and talent like casey affleck, almost cringeworthy)

  53. storymark says:

    Well, I don’t know Pitt personally, so I don’t feel I have the authority to say that his performance is just like the real him.

    Apparently, you do. So say “Hi” to him, Angie and the kids for me, ‘kay.

    9 times out of 10, huh? Please, list the 9 films between any of those I listed where that applies.

  54. Joe Leydon says:

    Leahnz: With all due respect, I have to disagree. I have been observing Pitt’s work for, quite literally, decades — one of the first movies I reviewed for Variety was Across the Tracks — and I have been impressed by his range. You know, Michael Caine used to get the same “always the same” rap back in the day. It was wrong for him, too.

  55. leahnz says:

    well you’re making the grave error of assuming that in the movies you listed brad isn’t gormless, arentcha storymark?

    jesse james – against affleck – gormless, mediocre

    basterds – embarrassingly, chin-jutting bad

    burn after reading – awesome

    ben button – sheer one-note mediocrity

    never seen ‘fight club’

    troy – is that a joke?

    12 monkeys – not bad

    true romance – classic

    interview w/vampire – thoroughly mediocre, dull dull dull

    how’s that? 2 out of 8, so i’ll ammend. can’t be bothered w/ all the crap inbetween

  56. leahnz says:

    ok joe…but you thought river wasn’t especially good in ‘my own private idaho’ against overwhelming convenitonal wisdom so…not sure what to say, i know i’m not alone in thinking pitt is not a great actor

    and ftr: I DID NOT SAY HE WAS ALWAYS THE SAME IN EVERY ROLE. just to be clear. that wasn’t me, someone else said that. i said he’s usually not very good. hardly the same thing.

  57. Paul D/Stella says:

    Another Pitt fan. Not everything works for me. I’m not crazy about his Inglorious Basterds performance, and sure not every role has been complex and challenging. But overall, the guy is a versatile and extremely gifted actor who usually delivers good-to-great performances. Jesse James is in my top 10 of the last 5 years and he’s excellent in it. He’s hysterical in Burn After Reading. Haven’t seen Tree of Life but the reviews are uniformly exceptional. Are there really any glaring similarities in those three recent roles?

  58. leahnz says:

    uh, to reiterate please see my post above where i comment that i did not say he’s always the same, THAT WAS SOMEONE ELSE. geeze louise

  59. Paul D/Stella says:

    I didn’t accuse you of saying anything. Just pointing out that IMO those are three great performances as well as roles that demonstrate his versatility.

  60. JKill says:

    I feel weird even defending Pitt because he now consistently gives great, diverse performances in interesting, worthwhile productions…but I have to say I don’t think Affleck’s phenomenal performance in JESSE JAMES works without the enigmatic, complex performance Pitt is giving in return.

    Also, Leah you should really see FIGHT CLUB!!

  61. leahnz says:


  62. LexG says:


  63. Paul D/Stella says:


  64. JS Partisan says:

    Yeah Pitt is playing Billy Beane and google some video of Beane, and you can see how awesome Pitt’s performance is in that film. That aside, I hate throwing it out there but it’s an honest question: how can you be a movie fan and not have seen Fight Club?

  65. sanj says:

    favorite pitt movie = fight club.

    waiting for the 25th anniversary of the movie – by then
    pitt will finally do a dp/30 and DP can get Ed Norton
    too. so i’ll wait till the year 2024 for dp/30 fight club 25 years later. hopefully nobody eles has thought of the idea first.

  66. leahnz says:

    jts since the ‘brad brigade’ is kinda creepy, i will go to my grave never having seen ‘fight club’ (eric’s with me…at least in my own fantasy)

  67. Glamourboy says:


    I guarantee you that you are not the first person who has ever fantasized about doing a DP with Brad Pitt and Edward Norton.

  68. sanj says:

    its the ideas from fight club that still work now
    like with all those occupy protests – i think of
    fight club..

    also i find it funny when the cartoon network airs fight
    club sometimes…

    pitt has tree of life and moneyball – must be nice for him.

    on another note – you guys aren’t giving enough credit to DP – he sometimes hits it with the dp/30’s .
    he’s got most of documentaries – international movies dp/30’s plus he got Jessica Chastain in a dp/30
    called “The Year Of Jessica Chastain” that was in august 2011 – months before anybody else …she had 3 movies coming out … plus it could have easily been
    year of Olivia Wilde who had like 4 movies come out this year… and maybe all of this was luck.

    so in some movie catagories DP beat all you other super important film critics for interviews.

    i will be amazed if pitt or clooney do a dp/30 before the oscars. they just too famous. don’t think they could
    add anything new.

  69. leahnz says:

    shit had to sidle back to say because i spaced it, thrilled for gary oldman, who actually can act – like there’s no tomorrow even, hurray! (pitt and oldman vying for the same acting award is like some kind of perverse joke, ha ha very funny universe, psyche!)

  70. JS Partisan says:

    Oh you stop it Hawaiian Kiwi :P!

  71. leahnz says:

    nevahhh!!!!! (i’m also russian) nah, ok i’m done, the salt mines beckon. but seriously, oldman, what a lovely surprise

  72. anghus says:

    Pitt is a talented guy. And like Clooney he’s getting better with age.

  73. leahnz says:

    holy shit, still here due to urgent email so apparently not done but what the hell is it with this place, americanitis?

    so bizarre, i don’t know a single person who thinks brad pitt is a talented actor, quite the opposite. he’s not playing as many pretty boys now so there’s that, true.

    (The Academy: when i agree with them they’re ok, when i don’t they’re a bunch of old spoons)

  74. storymark says:

    “i don’t know a single person who thinks brad pitt is a talented actor,”

    ….says the only person in the room who thinks he’s not. Huh.

  75. leahnz says:

    yeah, that makes no sense (still here, can’t get away). currently i’m the only person with the nerve to speak up, or nobody wants to be seen to agree with me, or this small room is inexplicably brad-centric. whatever. but i’ve read several other sites today with people disparaging pitt’s nom – esp at the expense of the likes of fassbender – and i work with some pretty accomplished people in film-making who think pitt’s nom is a big sad sigh. so you can comfort yourself in thinking this little room is representative of everybody, but no. (i should prob add i think ‘moneyball’ is a good movie)

  76. cadavra says:

    Truth to tell, I’ve never been much of a Pitt fan and certainly not one of Hill, but I have to give the devils their due: both were terrific in MONEYBALL and deserved their nominations. And if you had told me six months ago that I’d be typing these words, I woulda called the Funny Farm and had you hauled away. But there you go.

    Also thrilled for Oldman; that kind of internalized performance is difficult to pull off and even more difficult to attract voter attention.

  77. yancyskancy says:

    I definitely prefer the oddball Pitt of BURN AFTER READING, SNATCH and the like. I don’t think he’s a bad actor at all; but he rarely compels me in “straight” roles. That said, I liked him in MONEYBALL — a good fit if not a stretch. Haven’t seen JESSE JAMES.

  78. movieman says:

    Yowza, Leah!
    We’ve had some admittedly minor disagreements before (albeit none of which automatically spring to mind), but you can definitely put me in Brad’s Fan Camp.
    Sure, he’s occasionally been wooden in roles that he was miscast in (“Interview With the Vampire,” that Tibetan Europudding thing, “Joe Black,” “Troy”), but when he’s on, he’s really ON.
    “Thelma and Louise,” “A River Runs Through It,” “Kalifornia,” “Legends of the Fall,” “Se7en,” “Twelve Monkeys,” “Fight Club,” “Snatch,” “Babel,” “Jesse James,” “Burn After Reading,” “Benjamin Button,” “Basterds,” “Tree of Life,” “Moneyball.” That’s an extraordinary body of work for anyone.
    And there are very few actors these days–his buddy George Clooney being one of the ew exceptions–who coasts so charmingly in “star vehicles” that you’re reminded of the era when movie stars really knew how to be movie stars: the “Ocean’s” trilogy, “Mr. and Mrs. Smith,” “Spy Game,” even Gore Verbinski’s underrated “The Mexican.”

  79. chris says:

    Your proud refusal to see one of Pitt’s best performances while talking about how limited he is, is what doesn’t make sense, Leah. I don’t love Pitt but your stridence makes me like him more than I actually do. Either way, I’d still acknowledge that his work is varied and risk-taking in a way very few actors of his stature even attempt.

  80. Joe Straatmann says:

    I remember an old professor remembering how when he saw A River Runs Through It, he thought the main guy in the movie was going to be a star while this Brad Pitt guy was simply terrible and not going to amount to anything. I had the same thing happen when I saw Ghost World and I thought Thora Birch was going to strike it big while this Scarlett Johannson kind of lacked charisma and probably not going to have much of a career. Oh, the things that happen when one chooses Dungeons and Dragons for the paycheck tentpole and one chooses Pirates of the Caribbean.

    I do like Brad Pitt quite a bit, though far more for his more eccentric roles like Fight Club. If you put a gun to my head and told me to pick a favorite movie this year, it would be Moneyball, but it’s just so low key in everything, I didn’t think the academy would go for the performances.

    My early crackpot pick that will probably be dead wrong after all the consensus building is done is Midnight in Paris. Take out Extremely Loud & Close. Moneyball’s too small. War Horse probably won’t make any noise. The Tree of Life is what it is, and I can’t see it winning considering how Malick isn’t the most well-received person by writers and actors, two fairly large blocks in the voting pool. I think The Artist and Hugo may take votes away from each other because even though they’re two different movies, they still attract the same fans of old-time cinema and that could split the vote. The Help was popular, but seems too light.

    So what’s left? The Descendants and Midnight in Paris. Alexander Payne’s stuff has a lot of fans and rightfully so, but the movies from what I’ve seen of his post-Election work (haven’t gotten to The Descendants yet) seem to fall right in the middle between drama and comedy and some people don’t know how to react to it. Midnight in Paris was a big word-of-mouth success (“Big” a relative term, of course). I still need to see it for myself because it came out when I moved to a new city, so maybe I’ll completely turn around when I see the movie and suddenly, “Oh, I’m really stupid.” No actor nominations is a concern, but as for the people who note it also doesn’t have an editing nod, well, neither did Annie Hall.

  81. hcat says:

    Since Pitt is an even bigger draw overseas than he is here I don’t see how it can be ‘americanitis’ to be a fan. He is certainly no Daniel Day Lewis or even Viggo, but he is consistantly good and willing to be goofy for a laugh (I too was impressed with The Mexican, it just went on too long). There are just a handful of actors whose appearance in a film is a stamp of quality and Pitt is one of them. He’s currently in my top two favorite films of the year.

  82. Joshua says:

    krazyeyes: I have no idea why Ferguson and Marrs are being listed in various places as the nominees for “Paradise Lost 3.” They won Best Documentary Feature last year for “Inside Job,” but I checked the Academy’s list of nominees on their web site, and they’re not listed there. The “Paradise Lost 3” nominees are Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky.

  83. greg says:

    ugh. Fight Club the most overrated film… well, ever…

  84. Joshua says:

    sanj: I’d say even 25 under-18 members of the Academy is way too high an estimate. I looked at the Academy’s lists of people invited to membership in the last three years. The only actors branch invitee who was then under 18, as far as I can tell, was Saoirse Ronan (and she still is under 18). Yes, some people like Dakota Fanning and Abigail Breslin had been invited to membership in prior years, but if there are 10 members of the Academy who are currently under age 18 I’d be surprised.

    The Academy may be trying to make sure that younger actors get into the membership, but this is counterbalanced by the facts that (a) members can basically stay in the Academy forever once they get in, thus ensuring an older crowd among the membership, and (b) they’re also bringing in new members who are in their 50s or 60s at the same time.

  85. JS Partisan says:

    Hate fight club all you want, but it’s still a quality film. It’s also not overrated because it’s not like everyone has gone out of their way to watch it. I am just shocked though that some people find Brad Pitt a shitty actor. When did that idea ever hold any popularity?

  86. leahnz says:

    ah worse than i hoped but not as bad as i feared…

    well fuck all y’all

    (nah not even, but those who don’t agree with me at least to some degree about braaaaaaaad are nuts. [that was a sheep noise in case it didn’t come across] good to see at least a couple people who share my general view speak up. and i’ll say it for the gazillionth time: when he’s being a weirdo/in character actor mode, about 25% of the time i would guesstimate, i can roll with pitt just fine, otherwise thoroughly mediocre actor. average. not bad or horrible, jugs…middling. he’s fine in moneyball – right in his wheelhouse, very effective at the usual brad pitt mannerisms and proclivities, no stretching, perfectly comfortable – but one of the five best perfs of the year?…. derp)

    a couple quickies:

    since when does an actor’s popularly at home or overseas have anything to do with being a truly talented thespian? too many examples to name but one case in point: keanu reeves is (or at least was) an international drawcard/movie star for a long time. stardom doesn’t necessary have any correlation to above-and-beyond-average talent (which is what i tend to like in my oscar nominees). again, the difference between charisma and good looks vs genuinely provocative talent; pitt’s an example of the former)

    and chris, the fact that my criticism of pitt could make you like him more is like the funniest thing i’ve read in ages. i’ll strive to be even more strident next time, maybe you’ll develop a full-blown love

    also so you know – and hopefully i’ll never have to explain it again here (yeah right) – not seeing ‘fight club’ has NOTHING to do with pitt (i’ve seen the trailer; looks like pitt is in typical ‘i’m brad pitt!’ cocky mode), i somehow went so long without seeing it, always intended to and then weirdly fate kept intervening, that i just decided ‘fight club’ would be that one movie i never see. so before you get all persnickety and assume… don’t.

  87. berg says:

    the academy sent out their first release with two mistakes including the producers of PL3 and then sent out a second corrected release but by then the first list had been published everywhere

  88. Joe Leydon says:

    Leah: I don’t recall telling you that I wasn’t impressed by Phoenix in My Own Private Idaho. On the other hand: I must admit I never bothered to see Dogfight after River himself told me he thought the completed film relied too heavily on “needless, exploitive, macro-close-ups” of his handsome young face.

  89. Hallick says:

    “A Separation” getting nominated for Best Original Screenplay is kind of a big surprise, no?

    It seem like the movies and performances left out in the cold by the Oscars this year are a lot more exciting and interesting than what got included.

  90. palmtree says:

    Leah, I haven’t seen Moneyball, but I don’t see what’s the problem with Pitt being Pitt. I don’t know why that makes it a bad performance. The idea that a good actor must stretch him/herself beyond recognition and be a vehicle for the story only is such a simple way of looking at things. Yes, it’s good when an actor like Daniel Day Lewis or Philip Seymour Hoffman disappear in their roles. But it’s also enjoyable when Pitt or Clooney can inhabit a movie star leading role because they are movie stars…the same way Cary Grant did.

    Besides the assumption that Brad Pitt playing Brad Pitt on screen is somehow easy or a cop out is utterly ridiculous. Playing yourself on screen is probably the hardest thing to do as most actors will tell you.

  91. leahnz says:

    hello, did you just refer to my thinking as ‘simple’ palmtree because i don’t agree with you in thinking brad is not a true talent for playing it safe in his comfort zone 80% of the time? whatever, i’m over it. i obsess on something and then couldn’t give a shit two hours later. temperamental artist. go blow brad for all i care (just don’t expect it to register in his eyes)

    yes huh you did so say that about riv in ‘mopi’ joe! (channeling my inner 6yr old, but i can’t remember the thread tho so i have no proof)

    “On the other hand: I must admit I never bothered to see Dogfight after River himself told me he thought the completed film relied too heavily on “needless, exploitive, macro-close-ups” of his handsome young face.”

    that’s hilarious, river was always saying shit like that, he must have given the bean counters a heart attack.

    actually, in that programme about savoca i was blathering about to movieman recently, she mentioned that there was pressure by the moneymen to have riv appear ‘fuckable’ (her words) in dogfight…the camera does tend to linger on his face at times — but on the other hand, i remember reading something ages ago about how riv thought the character of birdlace didn’t think of himself as a looker so he purposely at times wouldn’t properly centre his slightly lazy eye (the reason blinking was a part of his sensibility) and you can see that in the film. but river’s full of shit, you should see ‘dogfight’ because it’s one of his best perfs – offbeat and funny – and lili taylor is also absolutely outstanding, a really lovely period romance, it’s ‘before sunrise’ before before sunrise, with a twist.

  92. anghus says:

    i finally watched Moneyball. Entertaining movie.

    Best of the year? Not by a country mile.

    I’m most baffled by Jonah Hill who was good in the role, but i was trying to identify a single scene that made me go “god damn that’s some good acting.”

    When the show airs and they have to pick a scene from Moneyball, name the 60 second clip that makes you stand up and say ‘that motherfucker can act’.

    The problem is it doesn’t exist.

    After watching the movie my first thought was “Jonah Hill has the best publicity people in the business” because that Oscar nomination is a gift.

    And i’m not even trying to unfairly knock Jonah Hill. I like the guy and think he’s fairly entertaining, but isnt calling his performance one of the five best supporting performances of the year feel like we’re giving far more credit than is due?

  93. berg says:

    Now it’s your turn to clean up after me

  94. JS Partisan says:

    What scene do you use to sell the movie for Best Picture? There’s a ton. The scene from trade deadline, the scene where Beane and Brand meet, and the scene where Hatteberg wins the game. Seriously, Hill received that nom for the scene where he and Pitt talked the first time. It’s an awesome scene and I am glad that I am not the only one who thought so.

  95. Steven Kaye says:

    So, ladies….

    $150.1 million worldwide AND 4 Academy Award nominations, including the top 5 Best Picture nod which has been LOCKED IN since May. Not to mention Woody’s record 15th nomination for Original Screenplay which is GUARANTEED to land him is 3rd Oscar in that category.

    But of course, this was all predicted months ago, wasn’t it?

  96. Hallick says:

    Wow…Woody should have married you instead of his daughter.

  97. Hallick says:


  98. yancyskancy says:

    I liked Hill in MONEYBALL (and in general), but yeah, it’s a bit surprising that he got in, especially over Brooks.

    For my money, the film’s best performance is by Ken Medlock. If his character was a tad more pivotal and had one more good scene, he might’ve gotten the awards buzz instead of Hill.

  99. Glamourboy says:

    wow leahnz, 13 posts from you here about your dislike of Brad Pitt. You think maybe we got the point?

  100. sanj says:

    does oscar need more catagories – best picture drama and best comedy picture and best actor under 18 ….
    maybe a few others .

    that would solve a lot of problems people have with oscars.

    which winners this year will be forgotten about in less than 1 month ? it happens every year. you win an oscar
    and people will forget about you even faster if you
    didn’t get nominated at all.

    also DP should quit mcn and be the president of the academy.

  101. Steve Lamacq says:

    I’m shocked Tilda Swinton and Michael Fassbender weren’t nominated. It suggests the performances were too edgy for the academy which, once again, show how out of touch they are. Same with Albert Brooks. Think about how safe the noms are this year – even more than usual. I’ll give them Rooney Mara but even that makes me think the voters thought they were being cool and edgy by voting for her – ‘I’ll be down with the kids by sticking a vote in for Mara – it’ll show i understand all kids are generally bisexual, sadistic, borderline autistic, pierced, tattooed tech wizards’.

  102. Steve Lamacq says:

    Oh and as for Jonah Hill – he deserves it. Great performance.

    In fact Moneyball in any category – one of the films of the year.

  103. Geoff says:

    Ok, no one’s mentioned it, yet: how the hell did Undefeated get a nomination??? Where the hell did that come from?? Even fans of Sarah Palin have admitted the film is sort of crap – were the members of the Academy down with it because they just thought it was funny? And if so, why not throw Morgan Spurlock a bone, then? Truly bizarre.

    And Jonah Hill was fantastic in Moneyball – heck, the scene where he “fires” Pena would be good for an Oscar clip.

    I guess it goes without saying, but 50/50 should have gotten something, damn! Ok, Rogen was a long-shot and JGL probably never had a legit shot against the big boys, but how come Angelica Huston never got any talk?

  104. sanj says:

    they spent like 6 months to a year editing this doc.
    so maybe it’s not all that bad

    funny cause DP asked the guys how old they were at the end …

    DP/30: Undefeated

    Spulock should have gotten more money for sponsors to
    promote his film for oscars a few million more.
    and if he won he would have that jacket full of sponsors .. .

  105. jesse says:

    Different Undefeated, Geoff. No worries.

    RE: Huston, I found some of the praise for her performance pretty strange. She was fine in the movie, but she only has a few scenes and none of them really blew me away. There was never really serious talk about her for, say, The Royal Tennenbaums, so I’m not sure why 50/50 would be expected to get her attention. Wells was calling it one of her best performances, which I remember finding absolutely ridiculous.

  106. Steven Kaye says:

    Also, Woody is now one of only two people to have been nominated in the same category in 5 consecutive decades, the other being John Williams. And he’s set a record for most simultaneous director/writer nominations.

  107. anghus says:

    jesus Steven. Just blow him already.

  108. Joe Leydon says:

    And this just in: Woody Allen has been told by God Almighty that when he dies, he will go straight to heaven. But any of us who doubted the box-office potential of Midnight in Paris — and, yes, I am afraid that includes you, David — will have to spend time in Purgatory.

  109. yancyskancy says:

    Geoff had a Roseanne Roseannadanna moment. 🙂

    Yeah, I liked Huston in 50/50, but it was a fairly skimpy part. One glorified cameo I would’ve been tickled to see nominated is Adrien Brody’s Salvador Dali in MIDNIGHT IN PARIS. Seems like Woody could’ve made that happen in between breaking records, healing the sick, clothing the poor, etc.

  110. Krillian says:

    I would’ve loved to see Corey Stoll get mentioned for Midnight in Paris. I liked Jonah Hill in Moneyball, but when 21 Jump Street opens, just remember it stars ACADEMY AWARD NOMINEE Jonah Hill.

  111. LexG says:

    Day two of the official Oscar season, and already goddamn sick of these CLOONEY AND BRAD ARE BESTIES! stories; Is there a bigger Oscar whoring hambone than fucking Clooney? I am saying this independent of his actual movies, acting, or likeable persona… Just saying, much like mid-00s Clint, this guy has an insatiable need for Oscar Validation; Clooney’s like the Unofficial Diplomat of Hollywood, always mugging at EVERY industry soiree and awards show. I’m not saying he’s not great, and I get that HOLLYWOOD is excited to have a dapper leading man as their AMBASSADOR… But sometimes he seems like he’s pushing too hard to be part of the conversation. Guy ain’t exactly Daniel Day Lewis.

  112. leahnz says:

    “Wow…Woody should have married you instead of his daughter.”

    holy shit hallick, shame on you man that made me laugh

    that reminds me, i forgot to ask this yesterday caught up in my snark re: brad pitt’s 3 whole facial expressions, but since hallick mentioned the (seemingly unusual and bold) screenwriting nom for ‘a separation’, i wondered what the oscar precident is for non-english language writing nominations, i can’t think of any but that doesn’t mean much, is this one out of the box or has it happened before?

    (glad to see you’re still obsessively counting my posts mr glamourpants, sesame street would be proud. since you’re so good at counting, tell me, how many fingers am i holding up on my right hand?)

  113. sanj says:

    3 movies that could have gotten some oscar buzz

    buried – devil’s double and the beaver.

    come on hollywood – you make something different with
    stories that don’t suck and here we are getting one
    of the worst movies an oscar nom with the tree of life.

    i blame tree of life nomination on your super important
    movie critics – its your big joke on everybody isn’t it ?

  114. Hallick says:

    “i wondered what the oscar precident is for non-english language writing nominations, i can’t think of any but that doesn’t mean much, is this one out of the box or has it happened before?”

    The Diving Bell and the Butterfly in 2008, Pan’s Labyrinth in 2007, The Motorcycle Diaries in 2005, The Barbarian Invasions and City of God in 2004, Y Tu Mama Tambien and Talk To Her in 2003, Amelie in 2002, etc. Talk To Her actually was the last foreign film to win the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. So it’s not impossible, but highly unlikely this year for A Separation.

  115. leahnz says:

    oh, so in other words like one almost every year then? lol (clearly i need to bone up on my oscar trivia, sadly lacking) thanks hallick. i haven’t even seen ‘a separation’ yet so that would be a nice start.

  116. LexG says:

    You need to bone up on a lot of things, lady.

  117. leahnz says:

    and speaking of ‘the devil’s double’ and the silly BS that is the AA’s (they should rename it The November-December Movies Academy Awards tm), in a just world dominic cooper should be jogging along in the best actor race for one of the – if not THE – most riveting, intense perfs of the year

  118. sanj says:

    also Marilyn Monroe movies should stop – enough for super old movie critics.

    the next superstar should be anna nicole smith – she had it all – she was in movies – married some super old dude and died of drugs.

    hollywood needs to make 10 movies for her in the next 25 years. 1 out of 10 will get an oscar nom.

  119. Glamourboy says:

    I don’t know leahnz, you are so far away from Hollywood (and mattering) that I can’t see anything at all…..maybe the better question would be, how many fingers would it take to write your 14th explanation on your views on Brad Pitt…..

  120. sanj says:

    how come nobody noticed Jim Rash writing for decendents .

    he’s a tv actor on community / nbc

    here’s a 1 minute clip .

  121. spassky says:

    I get both sides of the Pitt argument, but I DO LIKE HIM as an actor (not so much as a “persona” or celebrity). So come on, Leahnz is a little “strident” in her opinion, maybe, but let’s all get our heads out of the collective ass of the hot blog and realize that it is A CRIME that he was nominated for ‘Moneyball’ over ‘The Tree of Life.” Say what you will about either film, but I really thought his turn in “…Life” was powerful and intensely earnest in a way that his performance in ‘Moneyball’ could only be seen as solid and down to earth. I think his “…Tree” turn kind of took the two sides we have acknowledged with Pitt (goofy, character, Kalifornia; and slow, handsome, and –more convincingly, over time– enigmatic) and blended them in to a character that really sticks with its audience throughout the film. He is a monolithic presence in “Tree of Life,” but it almost seems that in ‘Moneyball’ he is simply by way of being in nearly every frame. Of course that is difficult to do, but really, a lot of those workaholic, into-the-business sort of actors could have held down ‘Moneyball.’ Damon, Clooney, Will SMITH, Freddie Highmore– whatever.

    … but seriously, wtf, how could they leave out fassy??

  122. yancyskancy says:

    Yeah, Oscar has a long history of nominating foreign language films in the writing categories. In fact, the first foreign language Oscar win was for the original script of MARIE-LOUISE (a German language Swiss film) in 1945.

    Ingmar Bergman got five writing nods, and Fellini got eight (still the record for foreign language scripts). I guess the writers branch has always been a bit more adventurous. Often, writing nominations would be the only Oscar love shown to such great films as CHILDREN OF PARADISE, OPEN CITY, I VITELLONI, WILD STRAWBERRIES, etc.

  123. Triple Option says:

    February 26th cannot get here fast enough for Tree of Death to be ushered into obscurity where it can quietly live out its days in eternity where it won’t bother anyone evermore.

  124. Steven Kaye says:

    Joe Leydon said: “But any of us who doubted the box-office potential of Midnight in Paris — and, yes, I am afraid that includes you, David — will have to spend time in Purgatory.”

    Gee, I don’t know, Joe – do people get consigned to Purgatory for idiocy?

  125. Joe Leydon says:

    Well, they should.

  126. Martin H. Leaf says:

    Albert Brooks screwed up his performance in Drive. He would have been a shoo-in if he had played the real Bernie Rose, from the book. In the book, Bernie Rose was a kind of criminal royalty. He was tough, but he had a heart. Waitresses, and everyone else loved him, including Driver, who performed a quasi religious ceremony for him!!!

    In the movie, they made Rose a whining, complaining, petty Brooklyn Jew. In the Chinese eating scene at Nino’s, he actually loses his tough guy accent.

    When Rose asks for the zillionth time if Driver brought the money, in Chinese eating scene number 2, he does a kind of tick with his face indicating he wants the money.

    Oh, and for you film geniuses out there, Rose gets baptized after his death. Subliminally, but it is there and it was carefully crafted.

    But maybe people in Detroit know more about film, then Californians know about cars.

    First encounter in court today.

  127. Mariamu says:

    Will actually agree with Sanj and Leahnz–Dominic Cooper should have been nominated for Devil”s Double. The film just seemed to have a hard time connecting with the audience.

  128. hcat says:

    Does anyone know the rules regarding one actor getting a nom when there are multiple films he was nominated for? Given that he probably received votes for both Tree of Life and Moneyball (which I believe are tallied together) a nom for one of them was all but a lock. But this reminds me of the previous years when Winslet was nominated for the Reader where it seemed most perferred her in Revolutionary Road and DiCaprio getting nommed for Blood Diamond instead of Departed. Would love to know how the math actually works.

    And I mentioned above that Pitt was in my two favorite films of the year, but in the interim I saw 50/50 which knocks Moneyball down to third.

  129. Hallick says:

    5. In the event that two achievements by an actor or actress receive sufficient votes to be nominated in the same category, only one shall be nominated using the preferential tabulation process and such other allied procedures as may be necessary to achieve that result.

    (not sure what the preferential tabulation process means though)

  130. cadavra says:

    Wild guess: the higher number of votes.

  131. Eric says:

    Does that apply only to actors? Or have they changed the rules for all categories since Soderbergh was nominated twice in the same year?

  132. chris says:

    The rule is different for actors/performances, Eric.

  133. samguy says:

    I still have very little desire to see “Warhorse” or “Extremely Loud…”

  134. Eric says:

    Thanks Chris. That’s a peculiar inconsistency.

  135. JAB says:

    Y’all knew that ” The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” was way too extreme for the “Academy”. (C’mon last year’s best pic statute went to “The King’s Speech” rather than “Inception” or “The Social Network”.) I was shocked & pleased that Rooney Mara got a nom (as well as Jonah Hill).
    The biggest snub went to Reznor/Ross for their score to TGWTDT. It is one of the most memorable scores EVER!
    Kubrick never got an Oscar. Hitchcock never received one either. If Fincher … well that’s pretty damn good company.

The Hot Blog

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