Best Picture and Director 2005

1998 through 2007

What are your picks for Best Picture and Director of 2005?

Brokeback Mountain
24
32%
Capote
1
1%
Crash
3
4%
Good Night, and Good Luck.
4
5%
Munich
5
7%
George Clooney - Good Night, and Good Luck.
3
4%
Paul Haggis - Crash
1
1%
Ang Lee - Brokeback Mountain
27
36%
Bennett Miller - Capote
0
No votes
Steven Spielberg - Munich
6
8%
 
Total votes: 74

Moviesandpizza
Graduate
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue May 09, 2023 2:06 pm

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by Moviesandpizza »

Back then at the time I liked capote and good night and good luck way more than Crash Brokeback! I didn’t care to see Munich at the time. I just didn’t get around to it. And it was such an also ran. I mean Walk the line would have been an also ran too but I would have loved to see walk the line nominated more than Munich now that I have seen everything. In the race between crash and brokeback I had as I always do a great desire to see a big upset so I was excited when Crash won! I liked Crash. Thought it was a fine movie with tremendous acting! And the hot buttons pushed! The forbidden language! It wasn’t nice and lovely. So but I did really want capote and gngl anyway. And then you had all that stuff with King Kong “bombing” compared to chronicles of marina. The amazing reviews of King Kong were all for naught
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by Greg »

dws1982 wrote:I think that most editors see themselves as primarily storytellers, and are naturally resistant to awarding editing jobs that seem so purely technical.


This gave me a vision of an editor filling out a nomination ballot and saying, "I'm like a director or a writer, not a lowly cinematographer or composer, dammit!"
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by Sabin »

dws1982 wrote
I think one shot feats like Birdman and 1917 get caught up in the debate of whether film editing is primarily storytelling or primarily a technical thing. Even if you like 1917 (and I did), the editing there is almost exclusively technical--stitching different shots together so they don't look like they're different shots, and while it does serve the story (or at least the concept that Mendes is going for), it doesn't really use editing to enhance the story or the suspense the way something like Parasite does, because by design it doesn't utilize crosscutting and contrasting shots and things like that. I think that most editors see themselves as primarily storytellers, and are naturally resistant to awarding editing jobs that seem so purely technical. (I also think that 1917 probably would've won the editing award if it had been nominated, and that a lot of editors may have suspected that as well and been less inclined to nominate it on that basis.)
Both 1917 and Birdman won Best Editing from the Broadcast Film Critics. I doubt Birdman would have won the Oscar. I think it was just seen more as a feat of cinematography because it required complicated maneuvering around corners and hallways. 1917 probably had a better chance at winning because there was just more conversation had about how it covered such a massive swath of land. I don't know if it would've beaten Ford v. Ferrari or Parasite (the front-runners) but it certainly could've.
"How's the despair?"
mlrg
Associate
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by mlrg »

Big Magilla wrote:
dws1982 wrote:I seem to to remember Eastwood at some point (not sure when) saying some positive things about Brokeback Mountain. I used to lurk (and occasionally post) at a Clint Eastwood message board and I'm pretty sure I read something about it there. I know there was some speculation in 2006 that he didn't present Best Director that year because he didn't want to give it to the gay cowboy movie, but it later came out that he had been planning to present and had to cancel to go to New York to attend the memorial service for his longtime casting director, Phyllis Huffman, who had died just a few days before.
Eastwood was a presenter at the Golden Globes that year - no info. on what he presented but it was most likely Best Director, having won there the year before as well. He was quoted as saying he hadn't seen Brokeback Mountain in the days before the Oscars but that could have been his way of staying out of the controversy. I never heard that he didn't present Best Director because he didn't want to give the award to the gay cowboy movie. Whoever said that was making it up.
Eastwood presented best director that year at the golden globes. Video can be found on YouTube
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by Big Magilla »

dws1982 wrote:I seem to to remember Eastwood at some point (not sure when) saying some positive things about Brokeback Mountain. I used to lurk (and occasionally post) at a Clint Eastwood message board and I'm pretty sure I read something about it there. I know there was some speculation in 2006 that he didn't present Best Director that year because he didn't want to give it to the gay cowboy movie, but it later came out that he had been planning to present and had to cancel to go to New York to attend the memorial service for his longtime casting director, Phyllis Huffman, who had died just a few days before.
Eastwood was a presenter at the Golden Globes that year - no info. on what he presented but it was most likely Best Director, having won there the year before as well. He was quoted as saying he hadn't seen Brokeback Mountain in the days before the Oscars but that could have been his way of staying out of the controversy. I never heard that he didn't present Best Director because he didn't want to give the award to the gay cowboy movie. Whoever said that was making it up.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by dws1982 »

I think one shot feats like Birdman and 1917 get caught up in the debate of whether film editing is primarily storytelling or primarily a technical thing. Even if you like 1917 (and I did), the editing there is almost exclusively technical--stitching different shots together so they don't look like they're different shots, and while it does serve the story (or at least the concept that Mendes is going for), it doesn't really use editing to enhance the story or the suspense the way something like Parasite does, because by design it doesn't utilize crosscutting and contrasting shots and things like that. I think that most editors see themselves as primarily storytellers, and are naturally resistant to awarding editing jobs that seem so purely technical. (I also think that 1917 probably would've won the editing award if it had been nominated, and that a lot of editors may have suspected that as well and been less inclined to nominate it on that basis.)

Also, re, old people and Brokeback Mountain: I seem to remember Eastwood at some point (not sure when) saying some positive things about Brokeback Mountain. I used to lurk (and occasionally post) at a Clint Eastwood message board and I'm pretty sure I read something about it there. I know there was some speculation in 2006 that he didn't present Best Director that year because he didn't want to give it to the gay cowboy movie, but it later came out that he had been planning to present and had to cancel to go to New York to attend the memorial service for his longtime casting director, Phyllis Huffman, who had died just a few days before.

And re, 2005 in general: Munich is still my favorite movie of that lineup. Watched it again a month or two ago, and it really holds up, in my opinion. Maybe my favorite of 2005 overall, although I'd need to do some rewatches before I could give a definitive verdict.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by Sabin »

Greg wrote
Sabin wrote
If a movie isn't up for Best Editing, it means one of two things: either there's a very good reason (one shot = Birdman, 1917) or they think it's slow.
Obviously, feature-length films such as Birdman and 1917 cannot be shot all in one take; so, they actually have multiple shots that are edited together to look like one shot. I would think this would make the editing all the more impressive and actually increase the justification for a nomination.
I agree but there's something kind of joyless about that kind of editing. I'm sure there's some kind of creativity involved in executing those predetermined invisible cuts but it mostly seems like they they should be the recipient of the award for "Most Difficult Editing." I certainly could be wrong but I'm guessing that nobody gets the bright idea to cut five minutes out of a oner.

It's kind of impressive that Children of Men got nominated in retrospect.
"How's the despair?"
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by Greg »

Sabin wrote:If a movie isn't up for Best Editing, it means one of two things: either there's a very good reason (one shot = Birdman, 1917) or they think it's slow.
Obviously, feature-length films such as Birdman and 1917 cannot be shot all in one take; so, they actually have multiple shots that are edited together to look like one shot. I would think this would make the editing all the more impressive and actually increase the justification for a nomination.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by Big Magilla »

Big Magilla wrote
Anyway, this wasn't about Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash. It was about where Million Dollar Baby would or wouldn't have fit in the 2005 race and yes, I was an early predicter of Million Dollar Baby's 2004 win. I don't know if I was the first on the internet, but I do remember predicting it sight unseen. I don't think I've gotten many right since - The Hurt Locker, Spotlight, that's about it.
You're right. It isn't about Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash. It's about whether Million Dollar Baby could beat Brokeback Mountain. I don't see how Crash could and Million Dollar Baby couldn't.[/quote]

Perhaps it could. I don't see it for the reasons previously stated. Million Dollar Baby was a good film. It was better than the competition in 2004, but not the competition in 2005. Crash was not better than the competition in either year but was heavily supported by Academy members because it was a local product giving jobs to more in the L.A. area than any other recent film. If the release dates for Million Dollar Baby and Crash were reversed, then perhaps both could win, but if both were released in 2005, then maybe Million Dollar Baby takes votes away from Crash, but I doubt it would take any away from Brokeback Mountain.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by Sabin »

Big Magilla wrote
Some older voters didn't like Brokeback Mountain - Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis being the most vocal. Clint Eastwood claimed not to have seen it, but you're ignoring the fact that it won three Oscars to Crash's two aside from Best Picture. That didn't happen without a lot of other, less vocal, less judgmental oldsters' support. The fact that it wasn't nominated for Best Editing is neither here nor there. All five films that were nominated contained more obvious editing - the concerts in Walk the Line, the attacks in Munich, the fight scenes in Cinderella Man, the vistas in The Constant Gardener and the many scenes in Crash all had eye-catching editing.
A few things:
- Clint Eastwood didn't see it. How many older voters didn't as well? The movie clearly had an issue with older voters not wanting to see it. It's not just older voters either. At my college, I was the only student I knew who had seen it. That's why I predicted Crash would win on this board.
- I'm not ignoring the fact that it won three Oscars at all. Roma and 1917 won three Oscars too. They didn't win four.
- The fact that it wasn't nominated for Best Editing is a massive issue. That means voters thought it was slow. It has nothing to do with showy editing vs. non-showy editing. If a movie isn't up for Best Editing, it means one of two things: either there's a very good reason (one shot = Birdman, 1917) or they think it's slow. That was literally the excuse I made for Roma. "It's just not a flashy edited film." And then it lost. If it's not up for Best Editing and it's more than one shot, it's going to lose. Tons of movies with non-flashy editing get nominated every year over flashier competition. The King's Speech over Inception, The Artist over Moneyball (and The Help, Drive, and War Horse), Spotlight over The Martian (and Bridge of Spies and Sicario), Green Book over First Man (and Black Panther and A Star is Born). Slow movies don't win Oscars.
Big Magilla wrote
Anyway, this wasn't about Brokeback Mountain vs.Crash. It was about where Million Dollar Baby would or wouldn't have fit in the 2005 race and yes, I was an early predicter of Million Dollar Baby's 2004 win. I don't know if I was the first on the internet, but I do remember predicting it sight unseen. I don't think I've gotten many right since - The Hurt Locker, Spotlight, that's about it.
You're right. It isn't about Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash. It's about whether Million Dollar Baby could beat Brokeback Mountain. I don't see how Crash could and Million Dollar Baby couldn't.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by Big Magilla »

Sabin wrote:I also think you're overestimating Brokeback Mountain's strength, I think. It wasn't up for Best Film Editing. It lost to Crash. The older voters didn't like it and probably didn't even watch it. I don't know how you can look at Crash and Million Dollar Baby and think that somehow Crash is the stronger bet to win under almost identical circumstances (both released in spring). I can't think of a better movie for these older voters to rally around in fear of watching the gay cowboy movie. They can just run to Clint Eastwood -- also, it's very good.
Some older voters didn't like Brokeback Mountain - Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis being the most vocal. Clint Eastwood claimed not to have seen it, but you're ignoring the fact that it won three Oscars to Crash's two aside from Best Picture. That didn't happen without a lot of other, less vocal, less judgmental oldsters' support. The fact that it wasn't nominated for Best Editing is neither here nor there. All five films that were nominated contained more obvious editing - the concerts in Walk the Line, the attacks in Munich, the fight scenes in Cinderella Man, the vistas in The Constant Gardener and the many scenes in Crash all had eye-catching editing.

Anyway, this wasn't about Brokeback Mountain vs.Crash. It was about where Million Dollar Baby would or wouldn't have fit in the 2005 race and yes, I was an early predicter of Million Dollar Baby's 2004 win. I don't know if I was the first on the internet, but I do remember predicting it sight unseen. I don't think I've gotten many right since - The Hurt Locker, Spotlight, that's about it.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by Sabin »

mlrg wrote
As I recall The Aviator was highly anticipated and seen as the movie that finally would give Scorsese the Oscar. Sideways was the critics darling but The Aviator had the large scope and anticipation of a surefire winner.
Absolutely, but the impression that I got from both of them was that they were more admired than loved by Academy voters.
"How's the despair?"
danfrank
Assistant
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Fair Play, CA

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by danfrank »

Funny to see that Crash received 3 votes here given that it is perhaps the most reviled film in the history of this board. The revulsion, of course, only manifested because of its Oscar success; otherwise it would be a largely forgotten film, and deservedly so.
mlrg
Associate
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by mlrg »

Sabin wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "will it or won't it succeed?" I just remember that 2004 was being talked about as a rather dire year, the first post-LOTR year, and it felt like Million Dollar Baby arrived when people were wondering "What IS going to win Best Picture?" Instantly it felt like a movie to be loved in a field of movies to be admired.
As I recall The Aviator was highly anticipated and seen as the movie that finally would give Scorsese the Oscar. Sideways was the critics darling but The Aviator had the large scope and anticipation of a surefire winner.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 2005

Post by Sabin »

Big Magilla wrote
Million Dollar Baby benefitted greatly from the "will it or won't it succeed" hubbub of its sudden late-year release when it was suddenly moved forward from its intended 2005 release. That it succeeded, gave it great momentum in a year when there were no strong favorites and, yes, it was a better film than the competition. That would not have been the case in 2005 in which there were at least five better films, only two of which were nominated - Brokeback Mountain and Good Night, and Good Luck. Left out of the mix were A History of Violence, The Constant Gardener and The Squid and the Whale, all of which were better than Capote, Munich and Crash.

Although both Capote and Munich made my ten best list, they did so further down. Munich benefitted strongly from its year-end release as Million Dollar Baby had the year before.

Brokeback Mountain was the overwhelming favorite, having won the preponderance of pre-Oscar awards and the Best Director Oscar. Crash was a hometown favorite filmed on location in Los Angeles when few films were anymore. There was no middle ground. If there were, Good Night, and Good Luck would have been that. Box-office was not a factor in 2005. If it were, Walk the Line would likely have been the popular choice.
I disagree with a few things in your assessment. That being said, you might be the first person on the internet to predict Million Dollar Baby, so kudos.

I'm not sure what you mean by "will it or won't it succeed?" I just remember that 2004 was being talked about as a rather dire year, the first post-LOTR year, and it felt like Million Dollar Baby arrived when people were wondering "What IS going to win Best Picture?" Instantly it felt like a movie to be loved in a field of movies to be admired. But just because that's how Million Dollar Baby's narrative could have played out in 2004 doesn't mean it could only win under those circumstances. Just because it won as a surprise doesn't mean it can't win as a sleeper. I think you're underestimating the film's appeal and quality.

I also think you're overestimating Brokeback Mountain's strength, I think. It wasn't up for Best Film Editing. It lost to Crash. The older voters didn't like it and probably didn't even watch it. I don't know how you can look at Crash and Million Dollar Baby and think that somehow Crash is the stronger bet to win under almost identical circumstances (both released in spring). I can't think of a better movie for these older voters to rally around in fear of watching the gay cowboy movie. They can just run to Clint Eastwood -- also, it's very good.
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “The 8th Decade”