criterionforum.org

It would be strange (and good?) if four different films won Picture, Director, Actor and Actress, but this year would seem to have the greatest chance of that happening, at least in a while. Has it ever happened before, especially in recent decades?

McCrutchy wrote:It would be strange (and good?) if four different films won Picture, Director, Actor and Actress, but this year would seem to have the greatest chance of that happening, at least in a while. Has it ever happened before, especially in recent decades?

12 Years a Slave / Cuaron / McConaughey / Blanchett in 2013. Before that, Argo / Lee / Day-Lewis / Lawrence in 2012. BP/BD seems to almost always split since the expansion, so it's probably much more common than it once was.

Wow. I watched phantom thread last Week, and while it isn’t one of my top films from the year, my overwhelming reaction to phantom thread was “why is this underperforming, this is the sort of self consciously artsy awards product that the directors branch especially values.” My internal prediction was that phantom thread would unexpectedly get director, but not picture, like the fox trot wrestling product did a few years ago. I’m surprised it got a best picture nomination, well done.

A shame the film’s best aspect, krieps, wasn’t nominated.

For all of those who enjoy the data - FiveThirtyEight Predictions

Ribs wrote:

McCrutchy wrote:It would be strange (and good?) if four different films won Picture, Director, Actor and Actress, but this year would seem to have the greatest chance of that happening, at least in a while. Has it ever happened before, especially in recent decades?

12 Years a Slave / Cuaron / McConaughey / Blanchett in 2013. Before that, Argo / Lee / Day-Lewis / Lawrence in 2012. BP/BD seems to almost always split since the expansion, so it's probably much more common than it once was.

Yeah, I had a feeling that I was gonna be wrong about decades passed, but I'm surprised it was so recent and I don't remember. Although I was surprised looking back even a couple of years how many of the award winners I mis-remembered. I still think of films like La La Land or The Revenant as the big winners in their respective years, and I wonder if the majority of people do, too.

McCrutchy wrote:

Ribs wrote:

McCrutchy wrote:It would be strange (and good?) if four different films won Picture, Director, Actor and Actress, but this year would seem to have the greatest chance of that happening, at least in a while. Has it ever happened before, especially in recent decades?

12 Years a Slave / Cuaron / McConaughey / Blanchett in 2013. Before that, Argo / Lee / Day-Lewis / Lawrence in 2012. BP/BD seems to almost always split since the expansion, so it's probably much more common than it once was.

Yeah, I had a feeling that I was gonna be wrong about decades passed, but I'm surprised it was so recent and I don't remember. Although I was surprised looking back even a couple of years how many of the award winners I mis-remembered. I still think of films like La La Land or The Revenant as the big winners in their respective years, and I wonder if the majority of people do, too.

La La Land wasn't that big a winner, it didn't actually win best picture. Some diversity thing did. As it was about someone black AND gay, that probably escaped your mind.

With more Best Picture nominations and a shift of emphasis from Hollywood juggernauts to indie movies, it's now far more likely for awards to be spread over several films than it used to be.

Self wrote:For all of those who enjoy the data - FiveThirtyEight Predictions

FWIW, when he was still with the NY Times, Nate Silver was asked to predict the winners (he only did this once), and he explained in great detail that the usual methods he'd use were far less effective with things like the Oscars. (And again FWIW, for all the crowing about how wrong they were about the 2016 election, if you'd actually paid attention to the data displayed on his site, you would have noticed that many of the swing states forecast for Clinton gave her a low margin through much of the campaign season, often less than 1%.)

criterionoop wrote:

DarkImbecile wrote:

davoarid wrote:They have no other details and I’ve never heard of either. Does this mean the Academy just said “sorry your movie looks too crappy for us to even consider it, bye”? Because damn that’s harsh.

I think it's the submitting nation that makes those decision, which is ... even more harsh?

Here is the translated version of the link on the Wikipedia Page:
None of the submitted films fulfills the aesthetic and narrative criteria to be Macedonian Oscar nominee, from the non-English speaking region, decided the Commission for the election of Macedonian Oscar nominee.

According to the Association of Film Workers, the Commission has decided not to nominate one of the candidates, "When the Day Was Not a Name" by Teona Strugar Mitevska and Goran Trencovski, "The Golden Five" not to represent Macedonia in the Oscar race from a non-English speaking region.

From what I've been able to tell from further research through Google translate, the Macedonian commission never elaborated on their decision, and Trenchovski, the director of The Golden Five, called them a "film mafia" and claimed the decision was both ideological and possibly motivated by some personal vendetta against him. He and his producer said they'd be taking legal action in early October, but I can't find any more info on the subject since then.

I would like to apologize, as it seems that I've greatly offended some people here with my comments in this thread. It was not my intent to provoke hostilities from anyone, and as someone who struggles with cerebral palsy every day, I'm genuinely upset that comments I have made about films and awards have apparently been construed as racism and/or homophobia. I do understand that films like A Wrinkle in Time, Moonlight and Get Out are very important films, especially for blacks and African-Americans, and I certainly appreciate the academy's efforts to diversify, even though I think they could go still further, and nominate (and thus bring more attention to) an even wider variety of films, from various countries and in various languages. This gets to the heart of my comments, particularly in regards to films like Get Out, a film which, yes, I thought was overrated, but which I understand has struck a chord with many other people, and thus deserves all its accolades.

I'm sorry if my apology sounds hollow, it isn't, but I am very surprised (and honestly, taken aback and upset) at some of the posts here about my comments, and I don't want to be thought of by anyone as a racist, homophobe, or anything of the sort. That is not who I am, and I will try to do better in my communication from now on.

Again, I am very sorry for any offense I have caused anyone reading my posts.

movielocke wrote:Wow. I watched phantom thread last Week, and while it isn’t one of my top films from the year, my overwhelming reaction to phantom thread was “why is this underperforming, this is the sort of self consciously artsy awards product that the directors branch especially values.” My internal prediction was that phantom thread would unexpectedly get director, but not picture, like the fox trot wrestling product did a few years ago. I’m surprised it got a best picture nomination, well done.

A shame the film’s best aspect, krieps, wasn’t nominated.

Of the many things that can be said about what PTA tries to create, "self consciously artsy awards product" will never make the list.

The Narrator Returns wrote:I feel like we're all burying the lede here, which is Academy Award-nominee Sufjan Stevens.

Happy for Sufjan, but irritated they chose the wrong song. "Visions of Gideon" was the better song and is more vital to the film, playing over the very moving final shot (I didn't care very much for the film, and thought the final sequence was the strongest part).

matrixschmatrix wrote:Is Oldman really the favorite? I have yet to meet anyone who actually liked that movie

I actually did like Darkest Hour, but I thought the Cinematography & Score were the strongest aspects. It's a very strong set of Cinematography nominations; I'd be happy with a win for Dunkirk or Blade Runner or Darkest Hour.

PfR73 wrote:

The Narrator Returns wrote:I feel like we're all burying the lede here, which is Academy Award-nominee Sufjan Stevens.

Happy for Sufjan, but irritated they chose the wrong song. "Visions of Gideon" was the better song and is more vital to the film, playing over the very moving final shot (I didn't care very much for the film, and thought the final sequence was the strongest part).

I literally just got back from seeing Call Me By Your Name (which I loved, far more than I anticipated) and I couldn't agree more about the nominating mistake. Both songs are very good and well used by Guadagnino, but there's no question to me that "Gideon" is the better of the two both as part of the film and on its own merits.

wattsup32 wrote:

movielocke wrote:Of the many things that can be said about what PTA tries to create, "self consciously artsy awards product" will never make the list.

I... disagree. Love the guy's work, but it's absolutely self consciously artsy - that confidence is often what makes it so great. That usually translates into awards, too.

mfunk9786 wrote:

wattsup32 wrote:

movielocke wrote:Of the many things that can be said about what PTA tries to create, "self consciously artsy awards product" will never make the list.

I... disagree. Love the guy's work, but it's absolutely self consciously artsy - that confidence is often what makes it so great. That usually translates into awards, too.

I haven't seen Phantom Thread, yet, but I have to agree. Most people as talented as Anderson probably know how to make an Oscar-bait film, and there isn't anything wrong with making them, as they're usually very good. Of his post-Boogie Nights filmography, I would think maybe only Inherent Vice was made out of the usual "arthouse" mold, although you could argue that Anderson was trying to expand the definition by returning to something more evocative of Boogie Nights, which was, of course, his first major awards success.

All of his films have been enjoyable, but they also all come out during awards season. I'm sure he could direct a superhero or franchise film whenever he wanted to, though.

What a waste that'd be. Still a shame to see Denis Villeneuve and Rian Johnson taken away - they can pry PTA from my cold dead hands

mfunk9786 wrote:What a waste that'd be. Still a shame to see Denis Villeneuve and Rian Johnson taken away - they can pry PTA from my cold dead hands

I agree that I'd rather be seeing original works from those two, but their recent/future blockbusters doesn't seem out of line with what they want to be doing (both seem to love science fiction and some of the source material they've worked with), where I've never seen Anderson express that what he really wants is to do an Ant-Man sequel.

Of course, I'm excited for the Tarantino Star Trek project, so I'm mostly just a hypocrite. (I sing songs about the deficit)

"Oscar-bait" assumes that the sole purpose of the film is to win awards. I have never gotten the sense for a second that any of PTA's films are so pandering or calculating as that. I'm sure he'd love to win an Oscar, but I'd say he's as uncompromising and idiosyncratic as a filmmaker is allowed to be in Hollywood. None of his films are designed to please crowds. The extraordinary level of craft and period detail on Phantom Thread and There Will Be Blood--and the presence of DDL in both--no doubt helped give awards cred to those films but they're the exact opposite of the kinds of safe middlebrow prestige cinema we see from Joe Wright, Stephen Frears, Tom Hooper, et al.

It's kind of an outdated term the farther and farther away we get from those sorts of films winning the big prizes. Now that Harvey Weinstein is wearing a Hannibal Lecter mask in some kind of multi-billion dollar sex rehab hotel, it doesn't seem like we're ever going back in that direction again either, thankfully

That Churchill biopic feels like classic Oscar bait, in the sense of being a vehicle built around a showy central role that is designed to get the actor playing it a nomination, and we still seem to get a fair number of those- though hopefully Weinstein being dragged shrieking back to hell will mean we get fewer and better of them. PTA makes movies that are fairly challenging and too expensive to justify their existence monetarily except as prestige projects, so I think the existence of the awards industry keeps him afloat (alongside the idiosyncrasies of Annapurna, I suppose.) But that's like, the best possible case for awards themselves existing that I can think of.

mfunk9786 wrote:

wattsup32 wrote:

movielocke wrote:Of the many things that can be said about what PTA tries to create, "self consciously artsy awards product" will never make the list.

I... disagree. Love the guy's work, but it's absolutely self consciously artsy - that confidence is often what makes it so great. That usually translates into awards, too.

Maybe we should ask for clarification from the original poster. I took "self consciously artsy awards product" to mean something seemingly made with the sole intention of being Oscar bait like "The Artist", "The Danish Girl", or "Shakespeare in Love."

I didn't mean that the guy isn't completely self-actualized and self-realized as an artist. I just meant he is making exactly what he wants to make, exactly the way he wants to make it, for exactly the reason he wants to make it at all times. He's not setting out to create Oscar fodder. Yet, he can't help that he's essentially the closest to the Platonic form of filmmaker that America has produced since David Lynch.

The Artist is the sort of thing that is thankfully in the Oscar rear-view forever *knocks on all available materials*

mfunk9786 wrote:The Artist is the sort of thing that is thankfully in the Oscar rear-view forever *knocks on all available materials*

You know, I didn't hate it. It was fun enough for what it was. Though I'm not saying it was made with the sole intent of being nominated for Oscars, it would be impossible to argue it didn't seem like it was. And, that is certainly nothing that could ever be said about any PTA film. That was really my original point.

The only things I remember appreciating about The Artist were that it was shot on 35mm film, and shown in black and white and 1.33:1 like a silent film. Also, as a dog lover, I have to include Uggie as one of the positives. Dujardin and Bejo were decent, but the story was pretty bland as I recall, and I still don't know how I feel about Hazanavicius knowingly pilfering music from Vertigo like that.

There's just as much "Oscar bait" out there as there ever was, probably more. And as long as there are Oscars, there will be actors and filmmakers and producers and studios that will make decisions based on their hopes of winning Oscars. It can't possibly be an outdated term, it's just that the kinds of movies that win Oscars these days is somewhat different than in the past.

A24 seems to me like the new Oscar bait vanguard.