20 Weeks To Oscar: Is The Door Wide Open Again?
Just last Sunday, I wrote about my sense that the door was closed on all but 4 of the nominees for Best Picture.
But this week has got me wondering about it again…
Could the Academy’s bizarre preferential balloting system be the defining issue in coming to a Best Picture winner this year?
It is possible, of course, that it has mattered in a real way in the past. We don’t know. The Academy leadership is not supposed to know either. The ballots are meant to remain secret after the awards as before the awards. So is it possible that Gravity, for instance, had more #1 votes than 12 Years A Slave last year, but that 12 Years won by having more votes in the #1 and #2 slot in the second round of counting? Yes. No one knows.
And let me note again, before going any further, that the existence of the preferential ballot system at The Academy is IDIOTIC and I will forever believe that this was a bad joke foisted on The Academy by an exiting Bruce Davis. The Academy has always been pretty middlebrow and the preferential ballot makes it more so, as it actually mutes passion rather than encouraging it. And of course, the idiocy is made even more obvious by the fact that they use this rule only for Best Picture. 20% +1 vote can win any other category. Not Picture. Because… we all know that democracy is better served by a system no one understands definitively or can anticipate.
Worse, The Academy system actually does create a situation in which you can, perhaps effectively, vote against a movie. If you think 4 movies of 8 are serious contenders and you love 1 and wish to handicap the others, put the other 3 in your 6, 7 & 8 slots. If enough people don’t vote for any movie to qualify to stay in the game, they are eliminated at the end of any voting round. So… if only 300 members voted for, say, Whiplash, as their #1 movie, but every single voter voted for it as #2, it would have been disqualified at the end of Round 1 and though it would, no doubt, have the most overall votes in the Round 2 count, it could not win.
Craziness.
In any case…
The theory currently floating out there about this season is that the vote is so spread out that it will surely take a second round and no one would be that surprise if it went to a third round of voting before any any film gets to the 2900 or so votes needed to win Best Picture.
And really, if you get past 2 rounds of vote counting, looking at this year’s group of films, it really could be anyone’s game. I don’t know how many people will go for The Imitation Game or The Theory of Everything as their #1 films… but everything I have heard for months suggests that they will be in the #2, #3, and #4 slots on a ton of ballots. Birdman may be divisive, but will more than half The Academy have it in the top 3 slots on their ballots? I would think so. Boyhood has failed to get to a full lather in the last few weeks… but it still may be the clear frontrunner for a second round of voting that combines #1s and #2s from ballots with eliminated #1s. The Grand Budapest Hotel is another film that is unlikely to win on #1s, but could surge mightily on #2s and #3s.
And what of the two controversial titles, Selma and American Sniper?
I think both films still face a significant protest vote against them. Selma‘s wound is self-inflicted. As discussed earlier this week, calling people whose votes you would like “racist old men” or supporting that claim in any way is not a great campaign choice, especially when 85%+ of the group is made up of old white men and surely at least 80% of that group sees themselves as card-carrying liberals.
As for American Sniper, the surge, starting with the massive box office, is undeniable. And many people who are not right-wing fringe players do like the movie… certainly more than the media attacks against the film would suggest. But I also think that at least 30% of Academy members are going to be influenced in a real way (very low ranking) by the portrait that has been laid out about the real Chris Kyle. If I am right, the bar for the film becomes about 2/3rds of Top 3 votes from those willing to vote for the film. That’s a major handicap, even more so in a flat year.
In both cases, I should point out again, the issue is not just votes “against” (aka intentionally low ranking), but also the competition of other films that people like a lot or love. You will most often lose just because people prefer another film in greater numbers. As simple as that, even with the crazy voting system. But if you have a significant block that starts by voting against you, the preferential ballot can kill you.
Without the preferential ballot, I actually think there would be an excellent chance for either Selma or American Sniper to win Best Picture. They are movies stir a great deal of passion, much of it positive. As the system is, they remain longshots.
And it is also worth noting, Crash beat Brokeback Mountain before this system was put in place. If the preferential balloting system was in place then, you could make a good case that Brokeback would have won the day, as Crash‘s support was rabid, positive or negative. (Personally, I would have voted for Munich or Capote over either film.) So perceived injustices are not unique to preferential voting.
And that is what the thinking is this hour…
When you say the media is attacking American Sniper, what do you mean? I have tried to follow the controversy, and I don’t get the sense that the media is attacking it. Sure it’s been denounced here and there (a piece in The Guardian; the infamous TNR writer who hasn’t even seen it), but your comment suggests that it’s more than just some negative notices. Frankly I’ve come across far more stories in the media that either defend it or give voice to a key player (Jason Hall, Kyle’s wife Taya). Michelle Obama is out there championing it.
The “card-carrying liberal” thing is pretty interesting. I suppose all the LBJ supporters denouncing SELMA are liberals, but really being liberal does not magically protect you from racism. I know shaming is not a good tactic, but seriously, they wouldn’t need to be shamed if the attacks and snubs hadn’t happened first. And in any case, history will judge movies quite differently…
http://everyframeapainting.tumblr.com/post/104870878886/this-is-not-an-end-of-year-list-2004-2014
I think this would be a really good question to pose to the gurus, because it’s very hard to answer:
Given the rules of preferential ballot, which 2014 Best Picture nomination do you think will be eliminated first?
It’s actually a really hard question to answer. Sniper, Selma, Whiplash, Imitation Game, Birdman, Budapest and Boyhood all have passionate constituencies, probably enough to prevent them from being eliminated first.
that leaves only Theory of Everything. The problem is that Redmeyne is winning, the film is also loved, and overall the campaign has enough momentum that it is at least in the top four. It certainly has more momentum than Birdman or Boyhood, prohibitive frontrunners and critical favorites.
Trying to figure out which film is the weak link in this group is very difficult. It could well be that Selma and Sniper, by virtue of being very polarizing are probably not accumulating as many votes as they might otherwise earn, so perhaps one or the other is likely to be eliminated first? It’s hard to say.
But it’s clear that Boyhood, Birdman and Imitation Game are safe in the first round.
Whiplash and Budapest have the most unreserved love of the eight movies and are safe in the first round.
And the controversy probably has garnered enough votes that Sniper and Selma are safe.
That means Theory of Everything eliminated first (and in the second and third round, American Sniper and Selma are probably eliminated).
So those three votes have pretty different constituencies, but if they’re going to put any one of the top five films over the top, the film that will garner the most votes from those three combined voting pools is clearly the Imitation Game, Boyhood probably second and the esoteric films sharing a voting pool would split the remainder of the votes.
In the event that imitation game doesn’t win it after 3 films are eliminated, then it gets crazy as one of the esoteric films gets eliminated, which probably pushes the other two esoteric films above Boyhood. Then you could have a crazy scenario where Budapest, Whiplash and Birdman’s votes feed into each other rather than going to Imitation Game, and possibly push one of those three films into winning Best Picture.
That all remains unlikely though, because Imitation Game will probably win in a second round if theory of everything is eliminated first.
Munich! Wtf?!
What was the problem with just voting for the single best picture?
^^^Maybe it was because Crash won.
palmtree: I assume if “Selma” HAD been nominated, it wouldn’t fare too well on that list. Wouldn’t it fall into the “Oscar Bait Do[es] Not Last” category?
I agree that being liberal doesn’t preclude racism. But leaving Ava DuVernay and David Oyelewo off your ballot doesn’t prove you’re a racist either, especially if you did throw the film a Best Picture nod. I don’t know why the Academy should be ashamed. I haven’t seen all the nominated films, and I thought “Selma” had many admirable qualities, but I wasn’t overly enamored with it and can easily imagine it not making the cut for my eventual top 10 of the year. Hard to see how that would make me a racist, but apparently some would disagree.
Selma will last. There has been no major film on the life and achievements of MLK…EVER. It’s weird typing that, but it’s true.
And frankly, for the first major film about MLK, I think Ava hit it out of the park. It’s not a biopic in the traditional sense (we don’t see him growing up and/or dying), and that’s a virtue. This movie is about power and how a great leader used his immense power for the greater good. We see all sides of a conflict and the very fine line that must be walked in order to succeed. For that reason, it will last just as Lawrence of Arabia has lasted.
Now I know what you’re thinking. Imitation Game and Theory of Everything are also about great men, and yeah, I agree, Turing and Hawking are amazing men. Those films are okay, perfectly admirable and competent.
BUT Selma is an emotional powerhouse. Every scene was charged and engaged. It brings history to life in a way that’s bold and thought-provoking and relevant. Yes, it’s Oscar bait, but it’s far far from the cynical kind that have made that term derogatory.
And yeah, I can see some people not liking Selma. That’s fine with me, and doesn’t make you racist. But I just don’t get how some people can like Theory of Everything over Selma…and don’t get how David Oyelowo was somehow not as good as some of the current nominees.
Or Kim Dickens of Gone Girl over Meryl Streep. Wait, it`s Meryl Streep. She`s in a movie this year. She must be nominated.
“The Academy system actually does create a situation in which you can, perhaps effectively, vote against a movie. If you think 4 movies of 8 are serious contenders and you love 1 and wish to handicap the others, put the other 3 in your 6, 7 & 8 slots.”
Except that if you’re correct that those four are the only real contenders and your #1 is eliminated, your vote will end up with film #6 or #7 when all is said and done.
If everyone feels as strongly about films #6-8 as you do about film #1, then there’s no reason to think that they’d be eliminated early.
I actually don’t mind the preferential voting system. While your example of Whiplash being #2 on everybody’s ballot is a fair critique of the system, you could also say that under a plurality system, a slim percentage (say 20%) of people loving one film and the remaining percentage (in this example, 80%) loathing it would still give it the win so long as no other film gets a higher first (and only) round total. That’s just as egregious an error.
Bulldog- Dickens was terrific in “GG,” but my vote would have been for Carrie Coons from the same film.
Coons is a remarkable talent. She reminds me of the young Catherine Keener. (And Coons was fantastic on HBO’s “Leftovers” last summer, too.)
“…and don’t get how David Oyelowo was somehow not as good as some of the current nominees.”
He was great. But there’s no accounting for taste. Since the film centered more on the processes leading up to the march rather than King’s life, Oyelewo didn’t get a lot of “Oscar bait” scenes. Awards voters typically like to see the effort, which means much brilliant, subtle, realistic work is overlooked every year.
Don’t know if I agree with the two being as bad, however, I would be fine with a system that took more than #1 votes into account. Say, a balanced count of everyone’s #1, #2, and #3. But any voting system that the voters do not understand is a bad one. And the boundaries set by it are, to some degree, arbitrary. You can’t have a run-off here, as you do in a political election. But 50% agreement by the happenstance of #3 and possibly #4 votes when voters don’t really know how the system operates is just plain bad, in my view.
“Bulldog- Dickens was terrific in “GG,” but my vote would have been for Carrie Coons from the same film.”
Maybe unfortunately, they cancelled each other out. Coons was terrific too.