ADG Winners

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Mister Tee wrote:As for the "double standard" usage: that was in specific response to rolo's comment -- which he's since told me was facetious -- that the critics essentially had to be punished for lining up so unanimously behind Social Network. My feeling was 1) Social Network was, whether you or I agree or not, the most highly-praised studio film in many years (it won the Sight & Sound poll, for Christ's sake, which Hollywood films NEVER do) and it would have been dishonest for critics not to support it; and 2) it seemed disingenuous to call critics to task for that when just a year ago the critics had done the same for another film -- one that, I'd wager, wouldn't have had a chance in hell at the Academy best picture without its critics' sweep -- and these same folk hadn't raised a peep of protest . As I say, though, rolo has since said he was being facetious, so it's a moot point.

Hmmmm. There may have been another misunderstanding. I absolutely think the critics are stupid for all supporting one film when there were many great films this year (and their reviews reflect that). I just did not want anyone to think I actually support the conspiracy theory that THE SOCIAL NETWORK is being punished by the Academy because it won so many awards. It is a stupid idea, and anyone who agrees with it is as dumb as those who think Marisa Tomei won an Oscar by accident.

I also have to point out once again that I am not a hypocrite because I did not complain when THE HURT LOCKER supposedly won every critics award. I have said before I was under the impression UP IN THE AIR won the majority of critics awards. It has recently been pointed out to me this is incorrect, but up until a couple weeks ago I just did not know THE HURT LOCKER had done so well.

I offer up this post from a thread on the San Francisco Crtics Circle award winners as proof I was under the impression UP IN THE AIR was dominating the critics awards.
rolotomasi99 wrote:
Damien wrote:This Hurt Locker nonsense has got to stop!!!!!

UP IN THE AIR has to stop being nominated and winning everything first, then we can talk about THE HURT LOCKER.

http://uaadb.oscarguy.com/ikonboa....y167789

As you can see this post has not been edited, so there is no trickery involved here. I really was that stupid, though it is interesting no one corrected me. Whenever I say something incorrect, people always rush to tell me. Here, it seems, other people at that point seemed to think UP IN THE AIR was winning enough awards to make my post somewhat accurate (even if you disagree with the opinion I am expressing).

Anyways, I just hope we can stop this whole accusation that I am somehow suddenly changing my position on the critics awards or am being hypocritical because I am not a huge fan of the film that dominated the awards this year. I genuinely did not think THE HURT LOCKER was sweeping all the awards, so I never thought there was a reason to complain about the hive mind of the critics.

I do not think the Academy is or should be punishing THE SOCIAL NETWORK for what the critics did, but I do sincerely hope they learn their lesson from this experience. I do not care how good a film is, there is just no excuse for giving out the same awards as every other group. THE TREE OF LIFE could be the best movie of the year or even the past decade, but I will once again be pissed if it wins Best Picture from almost every single critics group.

The critics awards are already redundant as a whole, but at least do not make them repetitive and unimaginative. When the Online Film Critics Society gave Melanie Laurent from INGLORIOUS BASTERDS their Best Actress award, that certainly was more interesting than it going to Streep or Bullock. I like a little imagination from critics awards. Basically, I am saying to them “Tell me something I don’t know” rather than just giving me the same names over and over again.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1297444762
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

It may sound paradoxical. but I think the best way to eliminate awards ennui is to move the Oscars back to late March. What happened wasn't what the Academy was hoping for, that the Oscars would be given out before some of the other prizes; recognizing that the Academy Awards are the climax of awards-giving, the other groups just moved there's up a few weeks to a month as well. (Hell, even the Grammys moved up a month.) So now, there are so many awards presentations shoe-horned into a brief period and it's overkill. In the past, you'd have one awards show/presentation and then a couple weeks til the next one, and the leiisure pace was a thing of beauty, much like a baseball game.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

The demands of my life are just too great now for me to produce the elaborate response I'd initially contemplated. Let me try to address the main points as succinctly as I can (not my strongest suit).

The fact that there are individual intelligent voices within these many critics' groups I'd analogize to there being some worthy voices in cable news discussion. It doesn't change my overall impression of both: that they've created a wall of noise that wasn't there before, was never needed, and has had a vastly negative effect on the entire process. Similarly, that the KC critics have been around for so long is fine but irrelevant. My take remains that, until a few years ago, I'd never heard of them, and they certainly weren't touted as Part of the Oscars.

Nothing, I assume you know by now, irks me more than yet another entity announcing itself Part of the Oscars. I've hated it, over these last decades, watching one group after another -- prodded by hustlers like Tom O'Neil, and the exploding entertainment media -- trying to grab itself a piece of the Oscars. The critics' groups, BAFTA, ever-more Guilds -- all of them have stepped up and tried to become The One to Predict the Oscars. Because.. you know...what could be more fun than draining any sense of suspense out of a harmless once-a-year event? Unfortunately, these groups and entities have been all too successful in grabbing their piece -- with the result that the Oscar itself is a much-diminished prize. The capper is when all the people who've created and thrive on this bloated system complain that, by the time the Oscars roll around, they're boring. And their solution -- move the show up yet another month -- does nothing to address the problem.

Yet, paradoxically, the Oscars remain the biggest prize. When Kathryn Bigelow said last year she was experiencing the thrill of a lifetime, I don't think she had her Broadcast Critics' honor in mind. And take the view from the other side: do you think Jason Reitman looks back with satisfaction over the slew of awards he won in '09? All he'll remember about the year is not winning the Oscar. It's the award that, however adulterated, truly stands as iconic achievement to recipients. I'll bet if you gave most people involved a secret ballot, they'd vote to junk every lead-up prize and stick to the Oscars.

With all that as context, let me finally answer one of your questions, Okri: yes, one of the pleasures of Oscar season is seeing a favorite achieve the win. But if it comes at the end of such a long trail of precursors that the conclusion is foregone, for me it takes much of the thrill out of it. Putting it in hormonal terms: it's the difference between a new passionate love affair and 15th anniversary sex -- neither feel exactly bad, but the latter, despite best efforts, has a touch of the rote to it.

In such an environment, the only possible way to prevent the Oscars going similarly stale is for all these precursors to go different directions. Which is why, as I've said here before, I openly root for disagreement, to the point of rooting against my favorites in various venues. This year, I very much hoped something else (I was assuming The King's Speech) would win the Globe; I was also perfectly happy the film took the Producers' Guild prize. In spite of the fact that I liked Social Network, I welcomed the uncertainty/suspense.

Unfortunately, just as quickly, we lost that uncertainty. The King's Speech's PGA/DGA/SAG trifecta, based on all Guild history, tells us the film has now become what Social Network had seemed: a drearily certain Oscar winner. Which certainly constitutes a reversal, but not one at a level that interests me: trading one foregone conclusion for another doesn't strike me as any great bargain, especially given that it took place in the part of the season about which I care least while seeing to it that the part about which I care most is once again anti-climactic. When people proclaimed the race suddenly more interesting I said, what, are you crazy? It's just dull in a new way. And, yes, I analogized that had a similar thing happened last year, with Hurt Locker/Precious in the Social Network/King's Speech roles, those on The Hurt Locker side would not have been cheering that the race had suddenly become more exciting. And I'd hope that, despite my own less-than-wild-enthusiasm for Hurt Locker, I'd not have tried to sell that notion, but would instead have seen it for what it was: a reversal setting up a dull Oscars, with a more retro choice replacing the critics' candidate.

As for the "double standard" usage: that was in specific response to rolo's comment -- which he's since told me was facetious -- that the critics essentially had to be punished for lining up so unanimously behind Social Network. My feeling was 1) Social Network was, whether you or I agree or not, the most highly-praised studio film in many years (it won the Sight & Sound poll, for Christ's sake, which Hollywood films NEVER do) and it would have been dishonest for critics not to support it; and 2) it seemed disingenuous to call critics to task for that when just a year ago the critics had done the same for another film -- one that, I'd wager, wouldn't have had a chance in hell at the Academy best picture without its critics' sweep -- and these same folk hadn't raised a peep of protest . As I say, though, rolo has since said he was being facetious, so it's a moot point.

I don't know if this answers everything as coherently as I'd hoped, but it's the best my enfeebled brain can manage at this time. I hope it doesn't add to any misunderstandings.

Oh...and if all my reasoning is proved wrong, and King's Speech/Social Network battle neck-and-neck throughout Oscar night..just summon up a quick Gilda Radner "Never mind".
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

Mister Tee wrote:That the Oklahoma City or Des Moines Film Critics joined in...I can't speak to whether that was sincere or not, since my knowledge about those groups in nil.

Yet, you generally speak of them all as one big, no-nothing miasma. It seems a little uninformed at times. rain bard at least had a firsthand anecdote to offer.

I don't doubt that there are barely-legitimate film critics jumping on these bandwagons, trying to wade into the game of influencing Oscar. But I also leave room for trusted, respected local critics in the bunch. The Washington D.C. Film Critics Association, for example, has one or two local critics that I think are extremely knowledgable about film, past and present and their reviews reflect that. Wholesale discount of groups you admittedly no nothing about seems deliberately obtuse and somewhat grandiose to me.




Edited By flipp525 on 1297274354
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Okri, I'm not ignoring your post. You've thrown alot in, and I'd like to respond the best I can. But a number of notions seem to have become conflated, and my brain is aching in the effort to separate/clarify. Plus, my usual long-windedness will of course kick in when I try to formulate a full response. I don't have as much time as I'd like right now, but give me a little leeway and I'll try to put it together.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Big Magilla wrote:The Kansas City Film Critics, and most of the other local film groups, base their awards on films that have opened within the calender year in their areas. It didn't do Alan Arkin any good for them to have named him Best Actor of 1970 for Popi which had been Oscar eligible the year before. But you gotta love an organization that has given its Best Actress award to Joanne Woodward four times since 1968.
True. But you can't claim they try to influence the oscars, and their choices tend to be pretty good.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

And I care more about what you guys think than I do the Academy.

The three groups I mentioned and the L.A. Film Critics, though their relevance as cultural arbiters is certainly in the past, are still the groups whose awards that many AMPAS members look to for guidance in deciding which of the myriad of screeners they're gong to watch to help them make the best choice.

I'm sure if the ads in Daily Variety or the Hollywood Reporter tell them a certain film has won a boatload of awards from groups they've never heard of, will have some influence on their screener picks, but we're talking here about AMPAS members who are either so busy working they don't have time to watch films on a regular basis or have been out of the industry for some time and do not follow every review on the internet and hop down to the local theatre to see films as they come out.

Jesse Eisenberg, to name one, in a recent interview, claimed he doesn't watch movies, that the last movie he saw was The Hangover and friends had to explain to him what the film was about. Maureen O'Hara, at the other end of the spectrum "doesn't think much about the Oscars".

The Kansas City Film Critics, and most of the other local film groups, base their awards on films that have opened within the calender year in their areas. It didn't do Alan Arkin any good for them to have named him Best Actor of 1970 for Popi which had been Oscar eligible the year before. But you gotta love an organization that has given its Best Actress award to Joanne Woodward four times since 1968.




Edited By Big Magilla on 1297264939
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Well, frankly, I think I care more about what Damien/Original BJ/Mister Tee/you/dws etc think than what any specific person in Hollywood thinks (or in Kansas, for what it's worth). I do think it's a New York as cultural mecca thing, but that's of the past (don't believe me, compare Broadway in 2010 to 1960). And as someone who's internet use predates my oscar interest, where I can check out Cannes bloggers and Venice film reviews before they reach the NY Times, I think assuming that the big three/four exist as the critical cultural arbiters is slightly out-dated.

But more than that, I think the smaller groups do provide an idea of critical consensus - if only to plaster "winner of over three billion critics awards, and on more than 350 trillion top ten lists" on ads.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Okri wrote:as mentioned last season, the Kansas City Film Critics Awards are actually older than the LA Film Critics Awards and the same age as the National Society of Film Critics Awards, so it's not like all these minor awards popped up yesterday (hell, I think Damien's IRA awards predates LA; and many of us keep oscar-style lists of our favourite performances and other oscarable achievements)
My lists go back to 1960, but who in Hollywood cares what I think, or Damien thinks, or the Kansas Film Critics think? No one.

The National Board of Review, New York Film Critics Awards and National Society of Film Critics Awards, are all based in New York where the most influential critics have, rightly or wrongly, always been. That's no accident. New York has long been the cultural center of the country and until the 1940s almost always opened in New York before being shown anywhere else, including Los Angeles. Slowly that changed to the point where now most films open simultaneously around the country.

Nowadays with the Internet, newspapers and magazines no longer have the influence they once did, but old habits die hard. The majority of AMPAS voters, if they look to critics for guidance still look to the groups that have been influential in the past. And by influential, I mean pointing them in the direction of which films they should see before marking their ballots. In the end, though, critical consensus is just one part of what influences them. Personal taste, politicking and sentiment all play a part.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

Mister Tee wrote: rolo began this phase of the discussion by saying the "lesson" of the season was the critics had to stop being unanimous or people would rise up in reaction. I didn't think it was anything untoward to point out that he had no issue with this when the same treatment was accorded to a film just a year ago, with the major difference being, that was a film he (and you) liked.

Of course, I'm old-fashioned; when I say "critics", I mean actual critics with reputations and history, not these groups that have popped up over the past few years seemingly for no other reason than being Oscar pimps (as evidenced especially this year, with many of them suddenly issuing "nominations"). If some of these folk picked Up in the Air or Inglourious Basterds last year, but picked Social Network this year, that's of no consequence to me, because I don't pay any attention to their results. My take is: among the only critics' groups that matter, Hurt Locker and Social Network achieved identical (rare) victory sweeps. Yet somehow the former led to an unlikely Oscar victory (unlikely because the previous financial flop to win best picture was....never), while the latter has somehow filled people with righteous indignation and a determination to rebuke it by voting for classic Oscar bait instead. It just strikes me as a double standard, and I thought it worth calling out.

Repectfully, Tee, and without making this a big deal.

1. I was more responding to general idea that those of us who endorsed The Hurt Locker over the field are somehow engaging in a malicious double standard by finding the prospect that The King's Speech could overtake what seemed like such a strong frontunner in The Social Network exciting (something you've mentioned in three or four posts).

2. Keeping in mind that I loved both Slumdog Millionaire AND The Hurt Locker, so the last two best picture winners were also sweepers (the former of the guilds and smaller critics, the latter with the bigger critics).... so what makes the oscar race exciting? A film you love doing well in the derby (don't you cheer when your team plays a great game, regardless of how good the opponents are)? Well, yeah, that is gratifying.

Or, if you have no horse in the race, a close one. This one felt like I had no realistic horse in the race (my nodded loves were Winter's Bone, Black Swan, Toy Story 3) and with The Social Network stomping everything in sight, a pretty underwhelming one. So yeah, the sudden turn did make everything more entertaining.

But even barring that, I still don't see the double standard here. That's like arguing a boxer has a double standard because he wants to punch the other boxer but not be punched himself.

3. Moreover, yeah - I do pay attention to the minor groups. I don't see why I shouldn't. I know, you mention the venerable tradition of the trio but

a) as mentioned last season, the Kansas City Film Critics Awards are actually older than the LA Film Critics Awards and the same age as the National Society of Film Critics Awards, so it's not like all these minor awards popped up yesterday (hell, I think Damien's IRA awards predates LA; and many of us keep oscar-style lists of our favourite performances and other oscarable achievements); and

b) it's not as if the troika you do respect are immune to the oscar-season game at all. I remember the season that the studios elected not to send FYC screeners out and the critics groups were kvetching (particularly New York). They were the ones that kickstarted the Firth landslide. And I wouldn't be me if I didn't mention just how mainstream the National Society's been lately (see Foxx, Theron).

c) But more than that - if a minor critics group singles out something interesting, that's worthy of small applause. Doesn't matter where it comes from.




Edited By Okri on 1297217132
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Mister Tee wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:I was talking about a ridiculous conspiracy theory. I never said I agreed with it. I guess I should have put lesson in quotes so you knew I was being facetious.

Well, I see that BJ responded to this sentence with the same complete seriousness I did. So, yeah: facetiousness doesn't always travel over the Internet.

I would never argue with the idea that Academy members are voting for King's Speech because they looove it. I think the same was true of Crash for many people. But in each case, the fact that the purported early front-runner stuck in some craws was a factor.

In fairness to you, it probably did not help that I then went on the attack against the critics groups. While I do not think the Academy is punishing THE SOCIAL NETWORK because it won all those awards, I do think the critics screwed up by doing that (as I explained in this thread).
If critics change the way they hand out awards next year because of this whole brouaha, then it will be worth having such a milquetoast Best Picture winner.

Yes, they loved both THE KING'S SPEECH and CRASH for making them cry and inspiring them, rather than having dreary stories about unpleasant people.
While I still think homophobia hurt BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, I acknowledge CRASH won because of scenes like the Thandie Newton's car crash rescue and the little girl being "shot" made people sob. Plus, everyone was redeemed in the end, even racist Sandra Bullock. On the other hand, a story about two men having a long term affair, destroying their marriages and families, and then not even having a happy ending together was a little too much to expect the Academy to fall in love with.
The same with a story about a bunch of rich and/or superior kids betraying each other to make a stupid website. Not exactly the kind of film you fall in "love" with.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1297197932
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

rolotomasi99 wrote:I was talking about a ridiculous conspiracy theory. I never said I agreed with it. I guess I should have put lesson in quotes so you knew I was being facetious.
Well, I see that BJ responded to this sentence with the same complete seriousness I did. So, yeah: facetiousness doesn't always travel over the Internet.

I would never argue with the idea that Academy members are voting for King's Speech because they looove it. I think the same was true of Crash for many people. But in each case, the fact that the purported early front-runner stuck in some craws was a factor.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Mister Tee wrote:rolo began this phase of the discussion by saying the "lesson" of the season was the critics had to stop being unanimous or people would rise up in reaction. I didn't think it was anything untoward to point out that he had no issue with this when the same treatment was accorded to a film just a year ago, with the major difference being, that was a film he (and you) liked.

I was talking about a ridiculous conspiracy theory. I never said I agreed with it. I guess I should have put lesson in quotes so you knew I was being facetious. In fact, I have said repeatedly that I do not think THE KING’S SPEECH popularity with the Guilds and the Academy is some fuck you to THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I most recently said this just a couple days ago in the DGA winners thread:
rolotomasi99 wrote:I saw THE KING'S SPEECH in the first few weeks of its release, before the hype got out of control. While I always thought it had a shot at Best Picture, I knew for sure it could go all the way when the audience was sobbing during the final speech………I really do not think it is a conspiracy against THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I doubt that many different artists could be pulling off some grand plan to deny one film Best Picture by rallying around another. THE KING’S SPEECH will win Best Picture because the Academy just likes it better.

I do not expect you Mister Tee to remember everything I say (although you have no trouble remembering how much I loved THE HURT LOCKER), but remember it this time: If THE KING’S SPEECH wins Best Picture, it will be because people really, really loved it. They did not just admire it, like they might with INCEPTION or THE SOCIAL NETWORK. They connected with it emotionally and were entertained by it and admired its cinematic quality. For all these reasons, it will win Best Picture.

I think THE SOCIAL NETWORK and THE KING’S SPEECH are equally well made movies. Neither has a very revolutionary a story to tell, but they both tell their respective stories very well. I do think Fincher overall did a better job as a director than Hooper, though I still feel he brought a coldness to the film that did not match the screenplay. Hooper may not be a very good director, but he was the perfect director for this material. Both films had screenplays with very witty dialogue. Neither script did anything interesting with structure (compared to INCEPTION) and none of the characters were all that complex or ambiguous (as opposed to say the folks in WINTER’S BONE). I would say THE KING’S SPEECH had better acting overall, but the cast had the advantage of many years more experience than the young folk in THE SOCIAL NETWORK. When looked at as a whole, both films are on equal footing as far as I am concerned.

I feel this bears repeating: Thinking the 6,000 members of the Academy could somehow all come together to plot out a way to deny a certain movie Best Picture, particularly a movie they like enough to nominate for 8 awards, is really ridiculous. I am not sure who started this idea (I suspect it was Sasha over at AwardsDaily), but just like the conspiracy theories around Marisa Tomei’s win and Eddie Murphy’s loss, I think we should all agree there is absolutely no truth to it.

By the way Mister Tee, the movie I want to win Best Picture is TRUE GRIT. I will be perfectly fine with either THE SOCIAL NETWORK or THE KING’S SPEECH winning. Neither is an embarrassment like GLADIATOR, CHICAGO, or CRASH. I just hope somehow TRUE GRIT is able to slip in between the other films by securing the most second place votes and enough first place votes to win the big prize. Now that would make for a surprising Oscar night.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1297195828
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

It's just guessing, of course... but yes, The King's Speech would have won over The Hurt Locker. Not easily, but it would have won (Best Director would have been more problematic). And I also think that Colin Firth (for this movie) would have beaten Jeff Bridges - a sentimental favorite, true, but honestly not at his best in the now forgotten Crazy Heart.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Mister Tee »

Okri wrote:
rolotomasi99 wrote:
Mister Tee wrote:Frankly, I found last year's NY/LA/NS/Bos unanimity for Hurt Locker far more surprising. I hadn't struck me that the opening week praise for the film had been so strong or widespread that it would become the first film in over a decade to sweep those groups. If any film seemed to be a critics' booster project, that was it...yet somehow it paid no price, and Social Network may be being punished for its sins.

Oh sweet Jesus! So not only was THE HURT LOCKER unworthy of winning Best Picture last year, but it is also responsible for ruining THE SOCIAL NETWORK's chance of winning Best Picture this year? That is taking the hatred to a whole new level.

Yeah, I've gotta say, I'm a little startled at the finger-wagging tone of Tee's posts. I almost hope I hate The King's Speech to understand the vehemence he's speaking with.

rolo began this phase of the discussion by saying the "lesson" of the season was the critics had to stop being unanimous or people would rise up in reaction. I didn't think it was anything untoward to point out that he had no issue with this when the same treatment was accorded to a film just a year ago, with the major difference being, that was a film he (and you) liked.

Of course, I'm old-fashioned; when I say "critics", I mean actual critics with reputations and history, not these groups that have popped up over the past few years seemingly for no other reason than being Oscar pimps (as evidenced especially this year, with many of them suddenly issuing "nominations"). If some of these folk picked Up in the Air or Inglourious Basterds last year, but picked Social Network this year, that's of no consequence to me, because I don't pay any attention to their results. My take is: among the only critics' groups that matter, Hurt Locker and Social Network achieved identical (rare) victory sweeps. Yet somehow the former led to an unlikely Oscar victory (unlikely because the previous financial flop to win best picture was....never), while the latter has somehow filled people with righteous indignation and a determination to rebuke it by voting for classic Oscar bait instead. It just strikes me as a double standard, and I thought it worth calling out.

I'll take Damien's position here: I think if King's Speech is able to knock aside a critical hit that's grossed near 100 million, it would have had little trouble topping The Hurt Locker. I don't know that the details of who'd have won best actor/art direction/whatever are relevant, because the whole gestalt of the race is changed by the arrival or departure of a particular film. Just on a base-line level, I think Hurt Locker was able to transcend its deepest handicap -- financial failure -- largely because there was no alternative around whom voters could coalesce; King's Speech would likely have provided just that alternative.

Is it just me, or is Harvey Weinstein even more annoying than usual this year? I read his "Oh, poor us, we're such lonely little underdogs against the big machine; it's just like John Travolta was saying to me..." and I want to puke. I don't hate that Weinstein flogs his films hard; I admire that. What annoys me is he started out as the guy who got marginally-cutting-edge movies into the Oscars for the first time in a while (The Crying Game, The Piano, Pulp Fiction, Sling Blade), but once he got inside the tent, it turned out he had a heart of Chocolat -- now most of his energy goes into promoting films that could have won Oscars any time. He's the charismatic revolutionary who's sold himself lock stock and barrel to the establishment.




Edited By Mister Tee on 1297195433
Post Reply

Return to “83rd Predictions and Precursors”