Categories One-by-One: Best Picture

[Mister Tee]

We live in a time where AMPAS’ taste has actually broadened a bit after some contraction (for film anyway. Biopics still reign in performance). We also live in a time where the public’s taste (as represented by the box office) has contracted a staggering amount. I often go back and look at old box office charts and to see some of the results is just startling. On Golden Pond was the second biggest hit of 1981!!!! It outgrossed Superman II!!!! The Color Purple and Out of Africa were fourth and fifth in 1985! It’s so weird watching people just pretend that AMPAS is the problem here and that they should chase an audience that has stated they like basically one type of thing.

Excellent analysis overall, Okri, but I am a bit bemused by all the shocked exclamation points in the above paragraph.

On Golden Pond was a must-see event for audiences across the board for this highly publicized film when it was released at the end of 1981. It was the one film that was allowed to be made during a long writer's strike because of the advanced ages of its stars. There was speculation as to whether Henry Fonda would make it through. There was also a lot of talk about the tense relationship between then best-selling fitness guru Jane Fonda and her father which people wanted to see. It wasn't a film that just appealed to old people any more than Superman II was a film that just appealed to teenagers.

The Color Purple and Out of Africa were both highly anticipated and heavily promoted. Everyone went to see them, although not everyone seemed to like them in the end. AMPAS nominated The Color Purple for 11 Oscars but gave it none, while Out of Africa was one of the quickest Oscar-winning films to fall out of favor, an anomaly then, but pretty much the norm now.

I think it's pretty clear, okri is speaking from the vantage point of today, where 1) such movies barely get made (as one WB exec said to Clilnt Eastwood, "We're not really interested in drama") and 2) if they slip through, and even manage unexpected success, their grosses will be hundreds of millions of dollars behind the latest belches from Marvel or DC. The days of public and critical success meeting are long gone, and it's the public that's changed most drastically in the equation.

[Big Magilla]

We live in a time where AMPAS’ taste has actually broadened a bit after some contraction (for film anyway. Biopics still reign in performance). We also live in a time where the public’s taste (as represented by the box office) has contracted a staggering amount. I often go back and look at old box office charts and to see some of the results is just startling. On Golden Pond was the second biggest hit of 1981!!!! It outgrossed Superman II!!!! The Color Purple and Out of Africa were fourth and fifth in 1985! It’s so weird watching people just pretend that AMPAS is the problem here and that they should chase an audience that has stated they like basically one type of thing.

Excellent analysis overall, Okri, but I am a bit bemused by all the shocked exclamation points in the above paragraph.

On Golden Pond was a must-see event for audiences across the board for this highly publicized film when it was released at the end of 1981. It was the one film that was allowed to be made during a long writer's strike because of the advanced ages of its stars. There was speculation as to whether Henry Fonda would make it through. There was also a lot of talk about the tense relationship between then best-selling fitness guru Jane Fonda and her father which people wanted to see. It wasn't a film that just appealed to old people any more than Superman II was a film that just appealed to teenagers.

The Color Purple and Out of Africa were both highly anticipated and heavily promoted. Everyone went to see them, although not everyone seemed to like them in the end. AMPAS nominated The Color Purple for 11 Oscars but gave it none, while Out of Africa was one of the quickest Oscar-winning films to fall out of favor, an anomaly then, but pretty much the norm now.

[Okri]

Musings in lieu of predictions

As we discuss the best picture race, I want to cast my eyes back over the expansion period and point out just how unusual we’ve had it with our best picture races. If you were to use the old pejorative “Oscar Bait,” you can only really use that to describe four of 12 films: The King’s Speech, Argo, Spotlight and Green Book. I know some would argue with me about Spotlight and I know others would proffer 12 Years a Slave or The Artist or Birdman, but I would assert that if we broaden Oscar bait to a definition that encompasses those movies, the word loses all meaning. Of course, if it’s something we don’t like we’ll throw Oscar bait at it like nobody’s business.

This year it’s particularly frustrating, of course, with the board’s decision to relegate 1/3 of the categories. We live in a time where AMPAS’ taste has actually broadened a bit after some contraction (for film anyway. Biopics still reign in performance). We also live in a time where the public’s taste (as represented by the box office) has contracted a staggering amount. I often go back and look at old box office charts and to see some of the results is just startling. On Golden Pond was the second biggest hit of 1981!!!! It outgrossed Superman II!!!! The Color Purple and Out of Africa were fourth and fifth in 1985! It’s so weird watching people just pretend that AMPAS is the problem here and that they should chase an audience that has stated they like basically one type of thing.

- First Best Picture winner since Ordinary People to win without a single below the line nomination (40+years).

One of the more common concerns raised about the Oscars in this new expansion era is that fewer films are getting nominated across the board. And it’s technically true by about two films (comparing 1997-2008 vs 2009-2020), but what’s more interesting is that there are fewer movies being nominated in the acting/writing categories, but more films being nominated in below the line categories. This isn’t that startling when you think about it. The disappearance of the mid budget movie from Hollywood and the rise of Marvel means that you’ll see more stratification. Meanwhile, there always seems to be a block that foreign films and smaller films just can’t breach even if they have a successful day above the title. I’m thinking something like Beasts of the Southern Wild just not being a possibility in score in 2012 despite being wall-to-wall music (and terrific music at that. One of the decade’s best scores).

Anyway, that hasn’t reflected itself in what films can win best picture, but we have seen a drop in the “most oscared” film. In the dozen years up to the expansion, we saw two films win 11 Oscars (Titanic, Return of the King), one win 8 and one win seven. Since then, the peak has been seven and that’s only occurred once. Now, 11 wins is the record, so you wouldn’t expect it to be that frequent, but if you were to look at the 1985-1996 span, you have five films scoring 7 wins or more.

Anyway, I do think that’s why that record anonymous posted could have less bearing this year (and going forward).

The Power of the Dog felt like the clear frontrunner, but I doubted it would win early on in the race. It was so muted; the catharsis lacking. It was only the underperformance of West Side Story, Belfast and Nightmare Alley (critical/box office) that really pushed me to that movie. In a “there’s nothing else” mode. I feel bad for the Spielberg and del Toro, truth be told. I really enjoyed both – I think WSS is as good as the original and if I don’t feel quite like that about Nightmare Alley, I still had a great time. That both underwhelmed at the box office (or flat out cratered) was disheartening. Neither had the critical enthusiasm to make the final push even if they hadn’t done as poorly, I suppose. But it would’ve made the race much more interesting.

I never thought Dune was in the best picture race to actually win. It missing director for such a director’s film really just was the proof. It feels so clearly ½ a movie that it would be hard for it to get enthusiasm. Now, if Villeneuve sticks the landing, we could be talking. But not this year.

King Richard and Belfast underperforming as they did… it didn’t really make an impact in my perception. How is it fair to criticize crowdpleasers for failing to draw a crowd when we’re told crowds are dangerous? Honestly, my initial response to Belfast feels generous for how irritated I feel about the film now (the dangers of Oscar season). King Richard I at least saw further into the race. I suspect that both their publicity campaigns are wondering exactly how they’ve been usurped by CODA and I worry future campaigners will take the more disheartening lessons, by c’est la vie.

I was a longer holdout about Drive My Car than most. I really thought that the split between the critics and the Oscar Industrial Complex had gotten too wide. I thought a three-hour Murakami adaptation would be too esoteric. I suspect if I’d seen the film earlier I would’ve been less down on it’s chances, but whatever. I’m happy to have been wrong. That said, I think we’d all agree that a win would be shocking. It’s an extraordinary film and maybe the one I’m most looking forward to revisiting.

Or maybe that would be Don’t Look Up (which I’ve already seen twice). Another film that I saw a little late and had already understood The Discourse surrounding the film. It’s hard to predict the future and even harder to see past my own biases, but there are few works of art that have captured just how sheerly exhausting and enraging this past has been to me. That final dinner sequence guts me in a way I can’t articulate. I suspect it will age very well.

I want to revisit Licorice Pizza, but I have to admit I’m rather nonplussed by it. I wonder if it might have had more of a presence this race if critics didn’t go hogwild over Drive My Car, but I genuinely think not. I actually preferred Inherent Vice, if I’m being honest. Side note, if Anderson loses best screenplay (and director), he’ll be 0 for 8 in writing/directing categories. Does any writer/director have a bigger shutout record for those categories?

So back to Power of the Dog. It hit 12 nominations when Plemons and sound were longshots (though I recall mentioning that Netflix screwed up whereas Focus Features did a terrific job and would get double nominations for Belfast, so….). Acting + writing + directing usually means best picture and the film was competitive in all three (4 of thirty films have won those three awards and failed to win best picture – The Pianist and Traffic most recently). But it’s faltered. Kotsur and Smith emerged against Cumberbatch and Smit-McPhee to take stronger leads. Screenplay all of a sudden became a contest. Only Campion remains comfortably in front. And now that lack of catharsis and muted feeling has come back. I’ve only seen it the once, but I don’t see universal acclaim anymore. I hear “that’s it?” about it more frequently.

That stated, “that’s it” could describe CODA perfectly. If I slightly prefer it to Belfast and King Richard, they are still clearly my bottom three nominees. One interesting idea gets shunted aside for a paint-by-numbers experience. But there is a sense of discovery surrounding it, despite that huge buy from Sundance and the powers behind it. It spent the majority of the fall season feeling underseen, but that seems to have helped people have strong feelings towards the movie when it does get seen. Now, I think it, like the other two crowdpleasers, are missed opportunities. Each contains seeds of a good/great film, but that’s not what I saw. CODA won’t be the worst winner – Green Book and Crash are really deplorable movies – but it’s not far from that.

[Big Magilla]

That would make sense.

[anonymous1980]

The only way to screw a film out of a chance is to not list it on their ballot at all. That problem could be eliminated if they threw out incomplete ballots, but I don't think they have a rule that does that.

.

I do think they throw out incomplete ballots if the film/s you bothered to list and rank have all been eliminated.

[mlrg]

I couldn't care less which film wins just as long as Jessie Buckley does a shockeroo over DeBose.

Not gonna happen unfortunately

[Reza]

I couldn't care less which film wins just as long as Jessie Buckley does a shockeroo over DeBose.

[Big Magilla]

We're all overthinking this thing.

Maybe we should have a post-Oscar poll on what we hated most, the show or the results.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
Sabin, did you not read my post on how preferential balloting works?

You mean the post you submitted while I was writing my post? Yes. After.

Big Magilla wrote
It doesn't matter if half the damn voters don't like a film as long as they put in on their ballots. It can be their next to last choice as long as it ranks higher than the other film it is in contention with on the 9th round if it goes that far. The only way to screw a film out of a chance is to not list it on their ballot at all. That problem could be eliminated if they threw out incomplete ballots, but I don't think they have a rule that does that.

In the example provided, the film that led on the first ballot, maintaining its edge to the end but it was still a white-knuckle fight to the finish. In this scenario, the Don't Look Up voters, which were the last to have their ballots redistributed, liked The Power of the Dog better than CODA so it won. It could go that way or not in the real balloting. We'll just have to wait another two days to find out.

Yes, with the exception of writing out a scenario where voters just don't rank the films, that was the point of the second half of my post.

[Reza]

And so what if CODA has no nod for editing. There is always time for a precedent to be set.....although, correct me if I'm wrong, there has been a Best Picture in the past without an editing nod.

It's NOT just the editing nod, Reza. It's missing editing AND directing AND a DGA nomination. Such a film has never won.

Nothing is no longer cast in stone. The old "rules" you cite above. And the diversity amongst the members everyone pleaded for could come up with a topsy turvy result. A result never seen before. CODA could become the first film to win without a nod for editing, a director nod or a DGA nod.

[Big Magilla]

Sabin, did you not read my post on how preferential balloting works?

It doesn't matter if half the damn voters don't like a film as long as they put in on their ballots. It can be their next to last choice as long as it ranks higher than the other film it is in contention with on the 9th round if it goes that far. The only way to screw a film out of a chance is to not list it on their ballot at all. That problem could be eliminated if they threw out incomplete ballots, but I don't think they have a rule that does that.

In the example provided, the film that led on the first ballot, maintaining its edge to the end but it was still a white-knuckle fight to the finish. In this scenario, the Don't Look Up voters, which were the last to have their ballots redistributed, liked The Power of the Dog better than CODA so it won. It could go that way or not in the real balloting. We'll just have to wait another two days to find out.

[Sabin]

I have no idea what's going to win. I just don't have a sense for this year's race.

The Power of the Dog has won the DGA and BAFTA. It has a PGA nomination. And even though it didn't pick up a SAG nomination, its three acting nominations there are four with the Academy suggests it's liked enough by the acting branch. It has twelve nominations. So, what's the problem? The problem isn't the fact that I just don't think voters like it enough. The problem is the damn ballot. 50% + 1 vote. If we were talking a plurality, I think The Power of the Dog might take it. I also think Roma, La La Land, and The Revenant might take it. Heck, I'm not convinced that my first Oscar ceremony wouldn't have gone in a different direction and Apollo 13 wouldn't have won. But now we have the ranked ballot and I'm not convinced that half of the voters really like it while the others really don't.

But here's the other wrinkle: let's say half of the voters love the film and the other half just admire it. That STILL might be enough to get it past 50% +1 because The Power of the Dog is in direct competition with the other films. We have to assume that some voters loved The Revenant while the other voters did not. So, we ask ourselves does a voter who loves Spotlight prefer The Revenant or The Big Short? The Revenant or Brooklyn or Bridge of Spies? We obviously don't know for sure, but the 2015 Best Picture lineup was pretty strong on films that favored classic storytelling to spectacle. The Revenant and Mad Max: Fury Road were the only two films not nominated for screenwriting. The Power of the Dog certainly has a screenplay nomination and might still win, but also it's possible that voters dislike other nominated films even more. The films I've mentioned from 2015 may not be beloved but they're not terribly divisive. Don't Look Up, Dune, Licorice Pizza, and West Side Story are a bit more so. I'm biased because I just spent the last few weeks on movie zooms with my parents. They hated The Power of the Dog, but forced to rank the movies 1-10 and The Power of the Dog came in around 5 or 6. That could be the exact same scenario that The Revenant faced but it could also be a bit better. I'm not convinced that Nomadland wasn't divisive but it benefited from a lack of sterling competition. If Nomadland or The Power of the Dog was going up against something like Spotlight, who honestly thinks they would win?

So is CODA a Spotlight? I'm not going to nerdily rattle off the similarities or differences. It's clear that there is an online narrative designed to diminish the strength of a front-runner with twelve nominations and lift the potential of an underdog with historic disadvantages. My cards are on the table. I never thought Nomadland would win until it did. That probably favors The Power of the Dog, but I don't have a sense of this race.

[Big Magilla]

Check this out.

https://www.awardsdaily.com/2022/03/21/ ... t-is-here/

This guy, using preferential ballots from 100 SAG members, did the breakdown. Granted, SAG is not the best barometer, but he's done this for five years, narrowly missed the first two and got it right the last two.

It took nine rounds to get to the winner.

1st round - The Power of the Dog - 23%, West Side Story and CODA, 14%, Don't Look Up 12%, Drive My Car 10%, Dune 8%, King Richard 7%, Licorice Pizza 6%, Belfast 5%, Nightmare Alley 1%.

2nd round - Nightmare Alley vote goes their second place choice West Side Story

3rd round - Belfast's 5% is split 2% each to Licorice Pizza and The Power of the Dog and 1% to CODA

4th round - King Ricard's 7% is split 3% to CODA and 2% each to West Side Story and Licorice Pizza
Note: Although King Richard started out with more points than Licorice Pizza, Licorice Pizza had picked up additional votes whereas King Richard hadn't so it goes before Licorice Pizza
Also Note: If the second and third choices on a King Richard ballot went to either Nightmare Alley or Belfast their vote would go to their fourth choice

5th round - Dune, which also got no additional votes, also goes before Licorice Pizza with 6% going to Don't Look Up and 2% going to The Power of the Dog

6th round - Licorice Pizza, which came in initially in 8th place becomes the 5th to be eliminated. Votes are split between The Power of the Dog, Don't Look Up, West Side Story and CODA. The Power of the Dog still leads with 31%.

7th round - Drive My Car, which got no additional votes is eliminated - The Power of the Dog still leads with 35%, followed by Don't Look Up and CODA at 22%, and West Side Story at 21%.

8th round - West Side Story is eliminated leaving The Power of the Dog at 44%, CODA at 30%, and Don't Look Up at 26%.

9th round - Don't Look Up is eliminated - The Power of the Dog wins with 62% to CODA's 38%.
Note: One of the Don't Look Up ballots had not included CODA so its vote went to its 9th, last place pick of The Power of the Dog. Wonder how many ballots left off choices.

[OscarGuy]

And it's not every one of those films, either. Remember, it's the first to hit 50% plus 1, so that could be breached after only one or two eliminations and not eight.

[anonymous1980]

Things are eliminated bottom up then top down. What's most likely to get eliminated first, second, third, etc. and what film are they more likely to have in their second position.

I think that’s the key here: Let’s say the final two is indeed CODA and The Power of the Dog. What do fans of the other films would more likely rank higher? I think fans of Nightmare Alley, Drive My Car and Licorice Pizza are probably more likely to go The Power of the Dog than CODA while the reverse is likely true for most fans of Belfast and King Richard. I think it could go either way for fans of the rest.