Awards Season 2014

[lacritfan]

If you want to laugh (or cry?) at how voters choose the best animated film, you could take a stroll down to cartoonbrew and read another round of those "brutally honest Oscar voter" interviews...

If you want to be even more disheartened check out these brutally honest ballots for every category -
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5

I didn't get around to seeing any of them. You want the truth? I shouldn't have voted, but I did. This is bad, but here's the power of advertising: everywhere I looked, I saw pictures of this stupid carcass — whatever the fuck that was — and I thought, "That's a cool-looking thing." And I fucking voted for a movie based on the dead whatever it was in the ad thinking that it looked cool. [laughs]

[Ribs]

I think it's meaningful for smaller, less-seen films to win an Oscar simply because of free publicity, which they can always use more of.

Similarly, it puts filmmakers on a platform to expand their horizons hugely. Wes Anderson was only given a (comparatively) big budget to play with after being nominated for writing Tenenbaums. Paolo Sorrentino's next film has Jane Fonda, Paul Dano, and Harvey Keitel. Jean-Marc Vallee now has a third film in a row coming out this coming year, which yet again seems to be a big contender for the acting nominations (especially as Gylenhaal's coming off a narrative of being snubbed) and possibly for the big prize too.

So I guess that no, the Oscar itself isn't that important; indeed, having won one hurts your narrative as it can't be the "he's overdue!" reasoning. But the Oscars are still a very important step for filmmakers to finally gain wider (financial and public) attention they might not get otherwise.

I think Wes Anderson will win an Oscar. It might be a while, though, given his next project doesn't seem like it'd be too popular (again, unless they create a narrative of "make it the first animated Best Picture winner!" which seems incredibly unlikely). Worst case scenario he's pretty well set to get the lifetime achievement Oscar in fifteen or twenty years if things haven't panned out, as his films have become increasingly popular critically and commercially (of late, anyway).

[lacritfan]

They're already trying to predict next year's nominees.

They only got 2 out of 8 last year. (But they did correctly predict eight noms).

[Ribs]

They're already trying to predict next year's nominees.

FWIW, the problem with any prediction list this far out is they're always gunning for "ten for ten" of the nominees, whereas it'd be far more insightful to give a list of pretty much everything that has a good chance at this point (which, by my count, is around 25 films). There's still plenty of chance of an Eastwood-style shoot-film-release-immediately scenario of something we haven't even heard of, either.

And right now I'm leaning on Tarantino, because he's got the hugely overdue narrative and he's really making it a love letter to the classic film (which might be required after digital cinema - gasp, horror - took the big prize this year). One of the sites I looked at said the film is to feature an overture and intermission, which - I hope - means it'll be upwards of 200 minutes long. It's been a while since we've had a good, epic-length film win the top prize. (I knwo the script wasn't that long, but I feel like the scope has expanded based on what Tarantino's been saying)

[Michael Kerpan]

For all practical purposes, I gave up on the Oscars 30-35 years ago. They are approximately as meaningful (artistically) as the Miss America contest. If, by a fluke, something good wins, I'm happy for the winner. Otherwise, no depth of idiocy surprises me.

[flyonthewall2983]

Top Ten Things Overheard Backstage at the Academy Awards

[FrauBlucher]

For all practical purposes, I gave up on the Oscars 30-35 years ago. They are approximately as meaningful (artistically) as the Miss America contest. If, by a fluke, something good wins, I'm happy for the winner. Otherwise, no depth of idiocy surprises me.

Agreed and to add I think the stars are just not as interesting like the stars of previous eras, if you're into that stuff.

[GaryC]

And right now I'm leaning on Tarantino, because he's got the hugely overdue narrative and he's really making it a love letter to the classic film (which might be required after digital cinema - gasp, horror - took the big prize this year). One of the sites I looked at said the film is to feature an overture and intermission, which - I hope - means it'll be upwards of 200 minutes long. It's been a while since we've had a good, epic-length film win the top prize. (I knwo the script wasn't that long, but I feel like the scope has expanded based on what Tarantino's been saying)

It's also being shot in 65mm (with anamorphic lenses, giving a projected ratio of 2.75:1) which may give Robert Richardson an unfair advantage regarding the Best Cinematography Oscar.

[ordinaryperson]

Jon Stewart mocks people (Fox News) who think "American Sniper" was purposely snubed by the Academy

[swo17]

How are we supposed to shoot fish in a barrel if they take away our guns?

[copen]

Late to post, but the person who got robbed as far as the oscars are concerned is Ralph Fiennes for The Grand Budapest Hotel. A virtuoso performance. I don't have anything against Michael Keaton, but a lot of people could have played his role in Birdman, and it wouldn't have been a very different result.
Btw, Keaton is great in Larry David's HBO film Clear History (2013). Because I hadn't seen him in years, and because of the makeup, I didn't recognize him the first time that I watched this.

[mfunk9786]

To be fair, birdman is just the dresser with a bigger budget. I think he's right about the annual awards bait movies. So many are good or excellent but not lasting, I think.

Birdman wasn't "awards bait"--Selma, The Theory of Everything, yes, but Birdman was more in the same category as the reason Argo won:
Industry people will always vote for movies about the problems of the industry. (Producers voting for Picture thought Alan Arkin and John Goodman were the "stars" of Argo.)

Which absolutely made it awards bait.

[who is bobby dylan]

Birdman wasn't "awards bait"--Selma, The Theory of Everything, yes, but Birdman was more in the same category as the reason Argo won:
Industry people will always vote for movies about the problems of the industry. (Producers voting for Picture thought Alan Arkin and John Goodman were the "stars" of Argo.)

Off topic on Tarantino, but on what basis is Selma "awards bait"? Is it your contention that Ava Duvernay took on this project, re-wrote the script without credit, removed much of the emphasis on Johnson and focused instead on King and on the factionalism and differences in strategy within the civil rights movement because she thought this would make the film more likely to win awards?

[jindianajonz]

Birdman wasn't "awards bait"--Selma, The Theory of Everything, yes, but Birdman was more in the same category as the reason Argo won:
Industry people will always vote for movies about the problems of the industry. (Producers voting for Picture thought Alan Arkin and John Goodman were the "stars" of Argo.)

Off topic on Tarantino, but on what basis is Selma "awards bait"? Is it your contention that Ava Duvernay took on this project, re-wrote the script without credit, removed much of the emphasis on Johnson and focused instead on King and on the factionalism and differences in strategy within the civil rights movement because she thought this would make the film more likely to win awards?

I haven't seen Selma and thus don't mean to pass judgement on the quality of the film, but it checks a number of boxes listed in this study: Historical, Biographical, Drama, released at the end of the year, and while not technically released by an independent branch of a major studio as far as I know, it was produced by a small company (Plan B) and released by a large one (Paramount). Additionally, although Civil Rights films aren't called out as specifically being Oscar bait, I could see them tugging at the same heartstrings in Oscar voters as films about disability, in that we are watching the protagonists righteously overcome unjust adversity, albeit societal rather than physical.

[domino harvey]

I don't even know where to split this off to, so... just stop talking about it, please

[mfunk9786]

I just want to see a thread with the title "Oscar Bae-t." It doesn't even fit the context of the conversation but I like it.

[How rude!]

I don't even know where to split this off to, so... just stop talking about it, please

Christ! It's a forum. Let people slug it out. No wonder so many have stopped posting here.

[domino harvey]

I don't even know where to split this off to, so... just stop talking about it, please

Christ! It's a forum. Let people slug it out. No wonder so many have stopped posting here.

Feel free to join them

[who is bobby dylan]

I haven't seen Selma and thus don't mean to pass judgement on the quality of the film, but it checks a number of boxes listed in this study: Historical, Biographical, Drama, released at the end of the year, and while not technically released by an independent branch of a major studio as far as I know, it was produced by a small company (Plan B) and released by a large one (Paramount). Additionally, although Civil Rights films aren't called out as specifically being Oscar bait, I could see them tugging at the same heartstrings in Oscar voters as films about disability, in that we are watching the protagonists righteously overcome unjust adversity, albeit societal rather than physical.

I would say just watch the film. It's historical and focuses on a specific event, but it's not a biography and does not look at the life of any of the characters beyond one campaign within the civil rights movement taking place over a few months. If being a drama about a historical event and released at the one time of the year now set aside for almost all serious, well made drama is enough to make a film awards bait then the term seems pretty meaningless to me.

In what universe are films written and directed by women of color, focusing primarily on people of color and their political agency in US history being given lots of awards every year? I haven't seen a Theory of Everything, but the initial comment by EricJ of characterizing a film like Selma as awards bait strikes me as uninformed at best.

[Altair]

I would say just watch the film. It's historical and focuses on a specific event, but it's not a biography and does not look at the life of any of the characters beyond one campaign within the civil rights movement taking place over a few months. If being a drama about a historical event and released at the one time of the year now set aside for almost all serious, well made drama is enough to make a film awards bait then the term seems pretty meaningless to me.

Sadly, with Hollywood, as it is, most mid-level adult dramas are now only understood in terms of their Oscar-potential, and thus receive premiers at Telluride/TIFF/in the Autumn and are given something of an awards campaign, irrespective if that's appropriate for the film. Apparently the studios need more than the promise of modest profits to make these movies; winning a golden statute strikes them as being a more concrete reason to fund films like Selma or Birdman. I doubt the Oscars were in Duvernay's mind when she made the film, but in Plan B's mind? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

By the way, wouldn't it make more sense to make this a generic awards season thread rather than one specific to 2014?

[domino harvey]

No, there's one for every year. Y'all are talking about last year's slate, that's why this is bumped

[who is bobby dylan]

Sadly, with Hollywood, as it is, most mid-level adult dramas are now only understood in terms of their Oscar-potential, and thus receive premiers at Telluride/TIFF/in the Autumn and are given something of an awards campaign, irrespective if that's appropriate for the film. Apparently the studios need more than the promise of modest profits to make these movies; winning a golden statute strikes them as being a more concrete reason to fund films like Selma or Birdman. I doubt the Oscars were in Duvernay's mind when she made the film, but in Plan B's mind? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

I agree that Plan B, Pathe and Paramount probably had box office and award hopes for the film, but from that vantage point we should be assigning the disparaging label of "awards bait" to many adult dramas based on the hopes of their producers.

I don't think most people on this forum would say that Kubrick's or Scorsese's films in general are "awards bait" even though we all know that studios and producers only funded and distributed them because they reasonably expected them to make money and win awards. Instead, we separate the studio's rationale of green lighting a film, from the director's personal reasons for choosing a project and look at what the film in the end says to us regardless of why it was financed. Unless of course the subject or genre of the film doesn't interest us (rom-com, superheroes, action franchise, historical biopic, etc.) then the film is artless and made just for money or awards.

Unless someone can prove that the filmmakers altered some unusual amount of creative decision(s) in the making of the film that went against their artistic sensibility for the reason of making the film more palatable to some group of awards presenters, I don't understand the use of the term awards bait, other than awards bait = films that got the recognition or won the awards I wanted other films to win, that somehow are not awards bait, even though I think they should have won all the awards.