Features
Headlines
Search
Loading ...
Archives
So the Academy, in one of the dumbest moves since awarding Roberto Begnini an Oscar for his incessant mugging in “Life is Beautiful,” is reaching back into its history to allow for 10 films in the Best Picture category. I just cannot understand why they would make such a blatantly stupid decision after so many years of five nominees! My God, if they wanted to shake things up, divide the nominees into drama and comedy/musical like the Globes, which is equally stupid, but makes more sense (somehow). Are they concerned they are that out of touch and need more nominees to cover their ass?
Would it not make sense to bring in a new group of Academy members, perhaps the critics (some of them) or directors and producers? Maybe the active artists, actors, directors, writers, and on and on should vote. In much the same way they nominate, directors for directors, editors for editors, maybe that is also the way they should vote for the winner? Anything but this.
So the Best Picture race becomes moot. All eyes on Best Director now. That category will become the indicator of the “real” five nominees for Best Pic. But do they actually think this will open things up for brilliant work like “Into the Wild” and “The Dark Knight” when the sensible thing to do is get rid of the “old” way of thinking and allow for new blood in the Academy itself?
Ten? They can’t even get five right!
Over the last 20 years, here are films that had no business among the five nominees for Best Picture. Films like this will have a much easier road to “Best Picture nominee” with an expanded category, however.
“The Reader” in 2008 was weak, empty of emotion and just not a very good film. How did it get nominated? Mr. Weinstein really is a miracle worker. How does Christopher Nolan get a DGA nod for “The Dark Knight” only to be snubbed by the Academy so this one gets in? Other worthy nominees might have been “Revolutionary Road” or “Che” (which never had a chance, I know).
“Atonement” was a beautiful film to look at but was it really a stronger film than “Into the Wild” or “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford?” And Mr. Penn’s DGA nomination speaks volumes.
“Crash” shouldn’t have been in the 2005 mix. It was really just some wonderful scenes stitched together and called a film. Some of the stories interconnect, some do not and some are left without a resolution. Remember the look of shock on Jack Nicholson’s face when he opened the envelope? A better, more exciting nominee might have been “King Kong.”
“Finding Neverland” was a well made, nicely acted film but not superior to either “Kinsey,” “The Incredibles,” “A Very Long Engagement,” or “The Passion of the Christ.” The Academy would have scored points for sheer guts if they had nominated the latter for Best Pic or Best Director.
“Seabiscuit” was an uplifting historical film based on a great book, which the Academy has shown a deep love for over the years. But best film? Over “City of God,” “Finding Nemo” or “Cold Mountain?” Sorry. With 10 nominees, maybe Ron Howard’s criminally under-appreciated “The Missing” might have gotten nominated.
“Chicago” won the Academy Award for Best Picture but had no business among the nominees. Left out were “Far from Heaven” (perhaps the movie of the year) and “Road to Perdition,” which I think is the best film of Sam Mendes’s career.
“A Beautiful Mind” won the Oscar. Hmmmm. How? As payback to Ron Howard for shafting “Apollo 13?” Someone tell me how “A Beautiful Mind” was judged best film of the year when it should not have even been nominated. Left out? “The Royal Tenenbaums,” “Amelie,” “Shrek” and “Monsters, Inc.”
“Gladiator” best of the year? Nope, and again a film that might not have deserved to be among the top five. At least it was not alone. “Chocolat?” Jeez Louise! How does “Almost Famous,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?,” “Requiem for a Dream” and “Cast Away” get passed over for those films?
“The Green Mile” did not belong in the 199 race. In its place should have been “Magnolia” or “Fight Club,” seminal works of cinematic art.
“Life is Beautiful” is nominated over “The Truman Show?” The world had gone crazy, crazier when the lead actor award was handed out.
“The Full Monty” was a delightful film but stronger than “Boogie Nights” or “The Sweet Hereafter?” I think not. My God, “The Sweet Hereafter” finished second in voting for both film and director with the New York Film Critics Circle and was Kenneth Turan’s best film of the year.
“The English Patient” is one of those films I hate…just hate…therefore I do not understand why it was nominated. Where was “Trainspotting?” “The Crucible?” “The People vs. Larry Flynt?”
“Braveheart” was a good movie, not a great movie and certainly not an Oscar caliber film, though it won. I remain stunned “The Bridges of Madison County,” “Nixon,” “Dead Man Walking,” “Leaving Las Vegas,” and “Seven” were ignored.
“The Fugitive” was a high octane thriller, well crafted and well acted, but certainly not Best Picture-worthy. Over Robert Altman’s Short Cuts,” Martin Scorsese’s exquisite “The Age of Innocence” or Jonathan Demme’s “Philadelphia?” Come on, get serious. It might have been nice to see “Fearless” nominated as well.
“Scent of a Woman?” A best picture nominee? Who-ahh voted for this? While Spike Lee’s masterpiece “Malcolm X” is denied a nomination, this crappy piece of overblown claptrap is up for Best Picture, Best Director and wins Best Actor. There is no God.
“Ghost” and “The Godfather Part III” somehow got nominated in 1990 over such excellent works as “Postcards from the Edge,” “Dick Tracy,” “The Sheltering Sky,” “The Grifters,” or “Avalon.” Was there an obligation towards the legacy of “The Godfather” films to see the third nominated? Maybe, but “Ghost” I have never understood.
And that takes us back to 1990. To go back further would include wrongly nominated films such as “The Greatest Show on Earth,” “Around the World in 80 Days,” “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?,” “Dr. Doolittle,” “The Alamo,” “The Towering Inferno,” “Cleopatra” and so many others. These films were nominated when the Academy had just five choices. Now they have 10, and while some might stay positive thinking the group will now allow more room for these looked-over examples, I do not. How long before a film like “Jackass” makes the cut? Man, jump off this boat ’cause it is sinking fast.
What have they done? Do they even know?
“The horror. The horror.”
51 responses so far
1 6-26-2009 at 11:03 am
Neel Mehta said...
Well, at least you warned us it was a rant.
I would completely agree with your complaints if the Oscars were awarded by a committee of you. Alas, they are not. I fail to understand why people try to classify an awards body’s subjective criteria against their own.
Prediction is one thing — it’s all fine if you know you’re usually wrong and yet always aspire to be right. But this postmortem analysis, with the advantage of elapsed time and perspective, just seems cruel.
I hope the anger is out of your system, because your long list of specific examples serves no other purpose.
Oh, and fix “The Drak Knight” before the Batfans arise and assemble.
2 6-26-2009 at 11:11 am
Mark Kratina said...
Gotta agree here. You want to shake things up, AMPAS? Shake up the voting process, not the number of candidates.
As a TDK fan, though, I am loving this. All the snobs that turned up their noses at TDK are now complaining about the expansion of BP candidates. Well, next time maybe they shouldn’t bastardize the process by sliding “The Reader” into a BP slot that should have gone to a film that was critically superior, among many other things.
TDK’s legacy just grew well beyond box office records, $1 billion, and all the award wins when Ganis more or less admitted TDK was mentioned internally before they made the change. Was the change made solely based on TDK? Of course not. But the very public outcry from film fans after the numerous TDK snubs (Nolan included) surely helped lead to this decision. Honestly, its arguably better than getting the stupid BP nomination. To see all the voters who ripped TDK as “not artistic” or complained about the third act of the film, they got their comeuppance this week. Can’t wait for Batman 3………………..
3 6-26-2009 at 11:15 am
Lev Lewis said...
I understand people taking issue with the decision, (although I’m personally happy that at the very least they’re doing SOMETHING to shake things up, and something that doesn’t involve turning it into the MTV Awards) but you don’t really seem to have any real argument here. You go through past years to show better films that could have nominated, but I don’t really know what you’re proving. Everybody knows that there are always better films out there than those nominated (and to be honest, your rundown of films that should have been nominated are pretty standard and with the exception of a few are basically just Oscar-baity films that for whatever reason were not nominated.
Everyone knows that the Academy often fucks things up; some years not so much (2007, 2005), some years more so (2008, 2006) but I don’t see how having ten nominees is going to change that. Sure, it gives them more chances to nominate mediocre films, it also gives them more chances to nominate some more artistically daring stuff.
What’s the point in complaining now? We’ll see what happens next January and then get to bitch.
4 6-26-2009 at 11:39 am
Speaking English said...
“Life is Beautiful” was the best film of 1998, and “The English Patient,” the best film of 1996, is also one of the best films of that decade. And “Chicago” still remains in the top three of Best Picture winners this decade.
Either way, this decision is stupid, unnecessary, and all-too sudden. Some further speculation would do good.
5 6-26-2009 at 11:53 am
John H. Foote said...
Speaking English — my issue with “Life is Beautiful” is that the film trivialized the Holocaust, making it a silly game, while “The English Patient”…my God, where to start — I did not believe the love story between Fiennes and Scott-Thomas because there was no heat, none at all when he left her in the cave; I hoped he would leave the bitch to die and we could all go home — hated it, hated it, hated it — now I am not saying it was not well crafted, it was, but when a love story lacks heat, when we do not believe the passion between the lovers, the film is in trouble — let me say I adored Juliette Binoche — as for ‘Chicago” it was NOT the best film of the year, not even close, and in ten years let’s have this discussion again when other films of 2002 are better remembered — ‘Chicago” will always have the Oscar, but so fe w people actually believe it was the best of the year — I remember interviewing a well known actor who was horrified it won best film, and that was an opinion well shared in the business — it seems the Academy gets caught up in the groundswell of support of a film or performance and after they honor the damned thing they come to their senses — and my friend your comment that ‘Life is Beautiful” was the best film of ‘98…please, re-think, please see other films released in ‘98.
6 6-26-2009 at 12:00 pm
Mark Kratina said...
Once again, gotta agree with John. Life is Beautiful was a good film, but Saving Private Ryan was better and, I would submit, so was The Truman Show.
Chicago as one of the top 3 BP winners of the decade? Mercy. I would say it was the third worst BP winner of the decade behind Slumdog & Million Dollar Baby. The Pianist, Road to Perdition, and Max were much, much better films than Chicago in 2002- and I’m just thinking off the top of my head. I’m sure there is more.
7 6-26-2009 at 12:04 pm
Jesse said...
Seabiscuit not deserving? I thought it was brilliant. But you’re right about O brother Where Art Thou especially, which I think still remains the Coen brother’s cleverest (if not best) film to date.
8 6-26-2009 at 12:06 pm
Graham said...
I really, truly, don’t see the problem. This gives films that should have been in the top five a chance to be included. Why is that bad????
9 6-26-2009 at 12:11 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
I thought Chicago was one of the top two films of 2002. Great film with a wonderful understanding of blending cinema with stage that gets railed far too often.
10 6-26-2009 at 12:12 pm
Chad Hartigan said...
I don’t get it. Mentioning all the films that missed out in the bulk of your article seems to be crafting an argument for 10 nominees, not against it.
11 6-26-2009 at 12:19 pm
Speaking English said...
I kind of agree with Chad.
Also, as far as seeing more movies from 1998, I have. And I did. Thanks, though. But “Life is Beautiful” still remains the film from that year that moved me, impacted me, and made me cherish life and the movies the most.
12 6-26-2009 at 12:24 pm
Tyler j. Pratt said...
Graham: It’s not bad, at all. I dont understand why people seem to be so upset by this. Many have argued that this move will devalue the Best Picture award. How? By including 5 more good films to compete for it? How is a ten horse race in any way shape or form less competitive than a five nominee race?
The Answer: It’s not. While I personally prefer 5 nominees, adding an extra 5 to the mix will not do irreparable harm to the award of Best Picture. I mean, there are so many good films on the horizon that will be fighting for this award. Just check out my two part article on the state of the race over at The Oscar Hut blog. There are over 30 films that will be released before the end of the year to contend for the ten spots as nominees. And each ine that I listed on my blog are films that many users of this and other film sites are looking foward to.
Here is a reprint of my official argument:
I believe that this will make the category even more competitive because more films that would never before have stood a chance at a nomination will be throwing their names into the fold and fighting for a nod. Theres never been any complaining when critics groups put out a top ten and then announce a winner, just think of it the same way.
These ten films are the ten best of the year according to this group the Oscars, and then the members of this group will vote for what they believe to be the best. I guarantee you that with this rule in place, votes will be split and there will be suprising winners as a result. With more possobilities to chose from, the likelyhood that Academy members will vote on their own personal favorite will skyrocket which is a good thing, rather than have members vote on the more popular movie when their favorite is not a choice on the ballot. I guarrantee that had this been in place last year with say The Dark Knight, Wall-e, The Wrestler, Doubt and Gran Torino as the other five, Slumdog Millionaire would not have been as much of a sure thing to win, especially since the older members could have gotten behind Gran Torino, while the Actors may have put their weight behind The Wrestler and all other groups could have came behind Wall-e or The Dark Knight.
With 10 nominees in place, voters would probably be more inclined to vote based on their own oppinion rather than succumb to a Slumdog like sheep mentality. And by doing this, the odds of a better movie or a more unique film winning would be exponentially greater.
Over at my blog The Oscar Hut, the first part of my State of The Race: Best Picture 2009 article is up detailing in alphabetical order the ten movies I think will be nominated, from Avatar to Up. Along with this article there are polls, reviews, predictions, site links and much more. So come check it out and let me know what you think wheter it be a sentence or a three page e-mail positive or negative, whatever it may be, only at The Oscar Hut
http://www.theoscarhut.blogspot.com
tjpratt@bellsouth.net
So John, while I respect your work immensly, I must say that I personally feel that you are wrong. But hey, everyones entitled to their own opinion, and the words posted above constitutes mine.
13 6-26-2009 at 12:28 pm
JoesBO said...
Wow, a rant indeed. Your rant is the exact reason why I think this is a great idea. It shakes things up a bit, plus, there are always one or two films that most people say shouldn’t be nominated while 3-4 that are nominated causes everyone to cry foul. This way, films like The Dark Knight, Wall-E, The Wrestler, are all likely to get in. So, what’s wrong with that?
More proof comes from the fact that I thought THE READER, GHOST, THE FUGITIVE, and ATONEMENT were all deserving, as well as many that you mentioned that were left out. At the same time, I would scoff at a Best Picture nom for THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (seriously??), KING KONG, etc…
The point being, with ten nominees, we can all have our cake and eat it too. And if you don’t like THE READER, you wouldn’t be as upset because REVOLUTIONARY ROAD got in too, or whatever the scenario.
I think it’s a great idea, and despite some overly angry rants from bloggers, I think it will go over well, especially as a blockbuster or two as well as a small indie or two might finally get into the category. This will probably not only help ratings but it will also help the box office as now audiences will have ten nominees instead of five to see. That will go a long way for films like “Far From Heaven,” “Revolutionary Road,” etc…
14 6-26-2009 at 12:30 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
What’s a Best Picture nomination worth if it’s one of 10 anyway? Nothing, as far as I’m concerned, which is what this “dilution” — which some, elsewhere, have taken umbrage with calling it — does to the process.
15 6-26-2009 at 12:33 pm
red_wine said...
Sid Ganis: We started talking about this before there was such a thing as Dark Knight.
I find that so reassuring.
Moveline(in full fanboy mode): The Dark Knight was nominated at the PGA, WGA and DGA. Why do you think it wasn’t in the Academy’s top five?
SG: Not enough Academy nominators saw fit to put it down.
That’s even more reassuring. But a truly horrible idea it remains in every possible way.
16 6-26-2009 at 12:51 pm
Guy Lodge said...
“My issue with “Life is Beautiful” is that the film trivialized the Holocaust, making it a silly game.”
Whatever your aesthetic problems with “Life is Beautiful,” John, that’s an overly prosaic reading of the film’s intentions, and you know it.
Anyway, I must agree with Chad that the way you’ve framed your argument looks more like an advocation for 10 nominees. I get that you’re objecting to their largely unadventurous taste — and I couldn’t agree more in that regard — but given that most of the films you’re mentioning are ones that fell just short of a nod (and probably would have landed on a list of 10), I’m a little confused.
Even if the new rule benefits worthy work, my problem is that it’s essentially a defeatist admission that edgy/arty/genre/foreign film can’t get in by any other means.
17 6-26-2009 at 12:52 pm
The Dude said...
I’m in agreement with you, John, that in order to truly fix the system, the Academy needs to change its voting patterns. But let’s get real…that’s not gonna happen. Every now and again the Academy takes a risk or goes out on a limb or actually LISTENS to the critics and the general audience. Every now and again. But not all the time. And, unfortunately, that’s not gonna change. So while expanding the field to 10 may not fix the problem, it at least gives some other films a fighting chance at getting a nom.
Any while I appreciate your argument, your support seems to actually favor the expansion of the field. Listing the names that SHOULD have made the top 5 actually helps the argument that the field should be expanded. I realize that wasn’t your intent (you wanted to show how out-of-touch the Academy can be), but that’s how I read it.
And FTR: while I sympathize and agree with you on many of the “they shoulda been nomed!” examples, I probably would have thrown up if Shrek managed to get a BP nom. Especially since I’m still bitter it won the animated Oscar.
18 6-26-2009 at 12:54 pm
Guy Lodge said...
PS. I’m with Kris on “Chicago” — one of the most cleverly conceived and written screen musicals of all time, and one of my three favourite Best Picture winners of the decade.
19 6-26-2009 at 12:55 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
“Even if the new rule benefits worthy work, my problem is that it’s essentially a defeatist admission that edgy/arty/genre/foreign film can’t get it by any other means.”
This is my entire point, in a nutshell.
20 6-26-2009 at 12:59 pm
Isaac Richter said...
I actually thought Life is Beautiful was a very moving film. I take it as a fairy tale about a father trying to protect his son from something as horrible as the Holocaust, and he does it by turning it into a game. The film makes it clear that the Holocaust was not a silly game, but we see it from the point of view of a little boy who didn’t understand any of it, so as a fairy tale, I think it works (I would not have given it Lead Actor, but it has some merit). I would’ve gone with The Truman Show that year, definitely.
As for Chicago, watch the play, and you’ll appreciate the film even more. You’ll appreciate how much stronger the screenplay is and how the film takes advantage of its medium to tell the story and enhance the musical numbers, which is why I love it (even though the play is also amazing, which I got to perform at my High School). I don’t know if it was the best of 2002, but I thought it was a very worthy winner, and as a film, it kept me dazzled and entertained, and now I have the soundtrack memorized.
As for this 10 nominees idea, well, we already have the Critics Choice doing that, so why does the Academy have to do it? I’m curious what will happen with it, but why now? I think those nominees lists would have alooked exactly like the Critics Choice nominees in each of these years, and there are some bad choices there (like The Phantom of the Opera and The Kite Runner and Memoirs of a Geisha) but also some amazing choices that should’ve been nominated (like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (my favorite that year), Adaptation, Wall-E, In America, About Schmidt, Into the Wild, among others).
21 6-26-2009 at 1:12 pm
John H. Foote said...
OK — let’s boil it down to the basic argument — ten is stupid, will allow for some pretty bad films to edge their way in but without a director nod I bet — stick with five but work harder to select the RIGHT FIVE for god’s sake — there are always going to be films left out that someone feels is deserving, even with ten believe it or not — the best picture category just became moot, it’s all about best director now. Give me one or two really good reasons why this had to happen, and stay away from it will allow other deserving films in…that’s bullshit, it just opens the field for the Weinsteins and their like to buy their way with inferior films.
22 6-26-2009 at 1:30 pm
Gustavo H.R. said...
““The Green Mile” did not belong in the 199 race. In its place should have been “Magnolia” or “Fight Club,” seminal works of cinematic art.”
Can’t agree. The one that didn’t belong was CIDER HOUSE RULES.
23 6-26-2009 at 1:33 pm
Me said...
“in one of the dumbest moves since awarding Roberto Begnini an Oscar for his incessant mugging in “Life is Beautiful”"
WTF?! Ok… this is too much!!! Roberto Benigni was AMAZING in Life is Beautiful!!! He sooo deserved his Oscar!!! My God, I didn’t even bother to read the rest of your post after reading that!!
24 6-26-2009 at 2:10 pm
Walter said...
Why does ten lessen the significance of the award, exactly? It’s not like only eleven films come out in a year.
25 6-26-2009 at 2:28 pm
John H. Foote said...
Me…do you truly believe in your heart of hearts, with a love of cinema (I assume) that Begnini gave a stronger performance than Edward Norton in “American History X”, or Ian McKellan in “Gods and Monsters” or Tom Hanks in “Saving Private Ryan”?? Seriously, you think that? His performance has almost been forgotten while the three I have mentioned continue to grow in stature year by year. Begnini’s win was a joke, and I bet if they could take it back they could.
26 6-26-2009 at 2:40 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Begnini was quite good in Life is Beautiful, I felt. And it’s a touching movie. Lots of whiplash from his win (and irritating acceptance process) turned into slight rebellious revisionism on the work, but I don’t think that’s fair, personally.
27 6-26-2009 at 2:48 pm
red_wine said...
I would champion Life Is Beautiful(though not the best of films) solely on the basis that a foreign language film managed to break the rigid American stronghold and managed to be nominated in so many categories. Also it was so thoroughly refreshing to see a foreign language performance win in 1 of the categories that is decidedly considered to be 1 of ‘ours’ by the American academy.
There have been far bigger disasters in academy history, I wouldn’t dwell on this 1. And watch Begnini accepting the foreign language Oscar on youtube, 1 of those supremely magical moments that I think can hardly happen now.
28 6-26-2009 at 2:59 pm
bbats said...
I’ll say it, Kinsey suckssssssss.
29 6-26-2009 at 3:09 pm
Simone said...
“Remember the look of shock on Jack Nicholson’s face when he opened the envelope?”
I know, that was priceless, he was also disgusted, like moi. Jack’s a good actor, but not good enough that night. ;)
30 6-26-2009 at 3:18 pm
Hans said...
I enjoyed Chicago. I thought it was a well-made production all around, and I’m glad the Academy was brave enough to pay homage to the 60’s every-other-year-a-musical-wins-BP decade by awarding it with a win instead of resorting to their tried-and-true favorite genre, the Holocaust.
I, too, was rooting for a PotC BP and BD nom, but unfortunately it had more going against it (critical reviews, a *gasp* true account of Jesus Christ and not one sensationalized by adultery or other scandals) than for it.
31 6-26-2009 at 3:33 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Funny, when I saw the abbreviation “PotC,” my first thought was “Pirates of the Caribbean.” What does that say about me? ;)
32 6-26-2009 at 3:37 pm
red_wine said...
Jesus, how people can have the same impulses, I thought the exact same thing. It did not even seem a stretch to me now that we are talking 10 nominees, it seemed perfectly valid that someone would propose that, though no offense meant to Han.
33 6-26-2009 at 3:48 pm
Guy Lodge said...
Well, “Pirates of the Caribbean” IS a better film than “The Passion of the Christ,” so…
34 6-26-2009 at 4:10 pm
Hans said...
Ahahah, I noticed right after I posted it. If 10 nominees were the rule in 2003, then Pirates would seem to be one of those “Well, why not?” films.
35 6-26-2009 at 4:44 pm
Chris said...
““Atonement” was a beautiful film to look at but was it really a stronger film than “Into the Wild” or “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford?””
Uhm, yes?
“Funny, when I saw the abbreviation “PotC,” my first thought was “Pirates of the Caribbean.” What does that say about me? ;)”
That you can tell which film really deserves that abbreviation.
I agree with Chad on the article and my opinion on the new rule is that it’s bollocks. And here’s why: okay, maybe films like “Eternal Sunshine” (which John shockingly didn’t even mention), “The Wrestler”, “Into the Wild” or “Children of Men would have been Oscar nominees. But that wouldn’t have prevented utterly mediocre to actually shitty films like “Frost/Nixon”, “Seabiscuit” or “crash” from being nominated – no it would mean that even more non-worthy films would be nominated and “Memoirs of a Geisha”, “Dreamgirls”, “Doubt” or “Cold Mountain” would call themselves Best Picture nominees now. Seriously I’d rather keep praising the amazing films that got snubbed than have to moan about the added trash that got in.
36 6-26-2009 at 4:48 pm
Chris said...
Oh and by the way, since my great-grandfather was a victim of the holocaust, I’d like to tell you that it’s fucking insulting to read over and over again that “Life is Beautiful” was trivialising the holocaust. It was not, it’s a film about hope during the darkest hours of existence, and about a father’s attempt to keep his child’s innocence alive, and thus absolutely wonderful.
37 6-26-2009 at 5:07 pm
Anthony said...
““Atonement” was a beautiful film to look at but was it really a stronger film than “Into the Wild” or “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford?””
Uhm, yes?”
Uhm, no?
I thought it was a foregone conclusion that the reason AoJJ didn’t get in was because not enough people saw it, not because it wasn’t up to snuff.
WB really tried to bury that sucker. And succeeded.
38 6-26-2009 at 5:11 pm
Tim said...
The Academy lost all credibility to me when Crash won best picture. The relevance of winning best picture just isn’t there anymore. And I almost always disagree on the nominees and practically always with the winner. Shoulda won best picture…
2008 – Wall-E
2007 – There Will Be Blood
2006 – Pan’s Labyrinth
2005 – Brokeback Mountain
2004 – Sideways
2003 – Finding Nemo
2002 – The Pianist
2001 – Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring
2000 – Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
1999 – American Beauty
So I’ve agreed with one winner in the past ten years, and none in the past nine. But what the hell do I know.
39 6-26-2009 at 5:15 pm
JC said...
Funny…I could live with most of Tim’s picks for Best Picture (well, not that keen on Nemo, but it’s OK), aside from the one that actually won. Heh.
40 6-26-2009 at 5:42 pm
John H. Foote said...
Begnini did not bring an ounce of truth to his character in ‘Life is Beautiful” — too busy mugging for the camera and being a clown — with an actor in the role, a real actor, it might have worked, with Chaplin, you have a work to behold — hated it –
41 6-26-2009 at 5:49 pm
AdamL said...
I stopped reading at King Kong. Were you being serious?
42 6-26-2009 at 6:07 pm
Rogers said...
I think one of the main reasons for the enlarged list is to prevent the snubbing of worthy films, yet even if 20 were nominated there would still be a couple that should have been there but are not… the snubs are just going to hurt even more nowadays.
But my major problem is with the dilution of the category that others have mentioned.
43 6-26-2009 at 6:09 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Jesse James didn’t make it in because WB didn’t seem to care about it.
44 6-26-2009 at 6:14 pm
marco70go said...
Sorry, but I completely disagree with your analysis. For sure, in a field of ten, there will be much more room for undeserving nominees (let’s face it: with this new rule, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” now would be without any doubt a Best Picture Nominee); but you gotta keep in mind the method of voting, that, aside from the very obvious first three.. or four, “shoo-ins”, usually makes room for an unexpected fifth spot; it’s in the very nature of how ballots are tallied: and if give a clear look at how votes are counted, you will see how easier it is for smaller, beloved movies, to make the cut.
And by the way, you hated the movie, you hated the actor, but Life Is Beautiful is much better than you think – not from a strictly cinematic point of view, on that level the movie has serious flaws, but as a whole: it has heart, and it dared to speak the unspeakable in a comedic kind of way, fully succeding in it-, and Roberto Benigni’s performance a truly standout (though that year I would have picked Ian McKellen’s work in Gods and Monsters); should I pick an undeserved nomination for Life Is Beautiful, it would be the one it received for direction, not for acting.
45 6-26-2009 at 7:23 pm
Silencio said...
I think it’s a money thing. More BP nominees may mean more butts in seats. Plus higher ratings. I don’t see any other reason being more compelling for them than money.
46 6-26-2009 at 7:38 pm
Anthony said...
Right, they buried it.
I remember when it finally went wide and it was literally at my local theater for one week before fading into oblivion. I had seen it a few weeks earlier at the local indie, but it was still infuriating to see it mishandled like it was. Luckily, it seemed to pick up a much greater following on DVD and Blu-Ray.
I’m still not quite sure why it was buried (besides the AD/WB rift, maybe). But, it was. And we were worse for it.
I could sing its praises all day, but I’ll spare everyone. It’s just unfortunate such beautiful filmmaking went largely ignored.
47 6-26-2009 at 8:06 pm
Speaking English said...
***I stopped reading at King Kong. Were you being serious?***
Are YOU serious? Jackson’s “King Kong” was a spectacle that deserved to be called a true epic in the best of senses, a brilliant, rich, exciting, moving adventure film that dripped with the love of pure filmmaking few other movies have carried this decade. Absolutely extraordinary film.
48 6-27-2009 at 4:02 am
Edward L. said...
On John Foote’s original post: it sounds like there could be a hundred nominees each year and we could all still find a film that we thought was more deserving. The subjective nature of it is what keeps it exciting. When Crash won Best Picture, I was horrified. But the next year I was back for more! For me, it’s the race that’s the fun, not necessarily the choices.
To respond to Kristopher Tapley (in point 14), having 10 nominations might dilute the category in that it is easier to get nominated, but won’t it make the award itself harder to win, and therefore if anything a bit more valued? I think I agree more or less with Tyler j. Pratt (point 12).
And to respond to comments about Life Is Beautiful: I always liked this film, and watching it again a couple of weeks ago I think it really holds up. Benigni’s performance is terrific – both on a technical level (his physical agility, his comic timing) and on an emotional level. To give just one example, the moment where Guido realises that the officer who was his old friend has no intention of helping him escape is a great piece of acting – a heartbreaking moment, and all the better for being understated after so much slapstick and comedy. Of 1998’s rich crop of Best Picture nominees, I think it’s my favourite.
49 6-27-2009 at 11:13 am
John H. Foote said...
Speaking English — we may disagree on other matters but I thank you for the comments on ‘King Kong” — a stunning film that left me in absolute awe — loved, it thought it was the best of the year — thanks for defending me on it.
50 6-28-2009 at 4:26 am
limeymcfrog said...
You really hurt your argument by bashing Life Is Beautiful over and over again. I didn’t like Slumdog Millionaire, but I wouldn’t include it in a column such as this because it isn’t an example of the Academy choosing the tried and true. The Reader, The English Patient, and Seabiscuit fit that bill quite nicely, but both Slumdog and LIB are examples of the Academy falling in love with a film for reasons that have nothing to do with cynical Oscar-baiting. While some of us might be left out in the cold in this case (as you were with LIB and as I was with Slumdog) It’s annoying, but I don’t think you can make an objective case that it hurts the Best Picture race.
As to your argument, I think we can all agree that we are in favor of it if the academy does it smartly, not ok if it effs up the race even more. If the extra five looked like this:
The Dark Knight
Wall-E
In Bruges
The Wrestler
Let the Right One In
then very few of us would argue against including 10 nominees. If, instead, the slate looked like this:
Changeling
Doubt
Defiance
Iron Man
Gran Torino
We’ll just have to see if this improves the slate, or makes it more of a joke.
51 6-28-2009 at 12:26 pm
jess said...
But LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL was about the Holocaust ! Its theme was oscar-worthy by essence !