Your best picture ballot

For the films of 2018
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 16214
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby Big Magilla » Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:10 am

Precious Doll wrote:Well things may be looking up post Sundance. To quote the linked article 'At this year’s festival, women directed 46 percent of the competition films, representing 56 films across four categories. In the U.S. Dramatic Feature category, female filmmakers are the majority: They comprised 56 percent of all directors, helming 16 films.

About which Jeffrey Wells had this to say:

A veteran film critic and I were discussing Sundance ’19 and the general wokester atmosphere. At one point I offered my usual-usual, which boils down to (a) “I really and truly believe we are in the midst of a kind of woke McCarthyism,” (b) “The current political-cultural revolution is good and necessary and overdue, but there has also been spillage and over-reach, just as their was during the Robespierre ‘terror’ following the French revolution,” and (c) “My press pass withdrawal was blacklisting, plain and simple, and for what? For having passionate opinions?”

In response to which he wrote, “Oh, absolutely. During the festival I overheard someone talking about your situation, saying that some female honcho at Sundance gave a speech recently in which she forcefully endorsed dropping journos who weren’t on board with the program. It would be easy to find out who that was.”

My guess would be Sundance exec director Keri Putnam, who announced at the festival’s opening press conference that she had noticed “a disturbing blind spot” in the press credential process, which resulted in admitting “mostly white male critics.” Which she and her colleagues then “decided to do something about.”

Veteran critic: “I’ve been reading all your stuff about your predicament and feel that the Robespierre comparison is dead-on. I have no doubt at all that the denial of your pass is a direct result of all this. I also have a suspicion that this is why Redford has basically kicked himself upstairs, so as not to have to address or deal with this stuff. He’s above and beyond at this point.”

User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 3933
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby Precious Doll » Tue Feb 05, 2019 2:53 am

Well things may be looking up post Sundance. To quote the linked article 'At this year’s festival, women directed 46 percent of the competition films, representing 56 films across four categories. In the U.S. Dramatic Feature category, female filmmakers are the majority: They comprised 56 percent of all directors, helming 16 films.'

'Sundance 2019 boasted 47 features directed by women (39 percent) and 39 shorts directed by women (53 percent). All told, 45 percent of all short and feature films at this year’s festival were directed by women.'

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/02/2019- ... 202040734/

Getting a film made anywhere is hard enough for a man and without a doubt more so for a woman. The changing dynamics of film viewing from cinema to streaming and the glut of films makes it even harder for films to stand out from the crowd. Women are more than capable of directing any type of genre or generic blockbuster: the evidence is on the screen.

Personally, I'm thrilled Clemency received the top prize because its the only film in the Sundance dramatic competition that appeals to me. The gender and race of the director simply doesn't come into play in my decision to want to see a film by a filmmaker I am unfamiliar with or who has not previously directed a feature film. And for directors whose work I am familiar with its all about their work.

However, the film industry is first and foremost a business so it is about the $$$.
“Those Koreans. They’re so suspicious, you know, ever since Hiroshima.” Constance Langdon (Jessica Lange) from American Horror Story: Season One

danfrank
Temp
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby danfrank » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:57 pm

Tee, I agree with you up to a point, most especially that there should be no quotas and that nominations should be based on quality. But is it possible that what gets perceived as "quality" is biased toward the types of films that men make, or more specifically, the way that men direct them? I personally prefer Leave No Trace and Can You Ever Forgive Me to most of what is nominated this year. I think it's a problem that they were only "faintly" in the conversation. Maybe their films are not directed with a capital D the way Cuaron's films are, but I think they gracefully, artfully, and subtly say more about the human condition than Roma (a film I admire but which didn't stir anything in me, except some awe at the way that Mexico City in the 1970s was recreated). I think that Kelly Reichardt is a great director, but her films never come close to entering the Oscar conversation. I know the obvious reason is that her films have a tiny audience. I feel like the field of literature is miles ahead of the film world in terms of respecting and honoring women's voices, but also in how these voices find a substantial audience in a way that women's films don't. I'm not sure what it takes to close the gap, but honoring those films by women that ARE of high quality is a good start.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby The Original BJ » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:26 pm

Here's an article with the much-buzzed-about ad in Variety that I'm referring to.

And to be fair, many of the women interviewed -- one of which I know personally -- make eloquent points that get at the real issue behind lack of opportunity for women in the director's chair. (I just feel like "How come Blockers wasn't nominated for Best Director?" sort of undercuts the argument about there being an abundance of women that could have been in the conversation.)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerylbrunn ... f3f1370eac

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6793
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:04 pm

The Original BJ wrote: I'm not sure how much it's permeated the larger discussion to the degree that #OscarsSoWhite did, but within the industry, there's a not insignificant group of people outraged by the exclusion of films by women directors from the conversation this year. I think arguments like this often get simplified to their most reductive -- I personally think Can You Ever Forgive Me? and Private Life are better than a good chunk of the Best Picture slate, but totally groan when I see movies like Mary Queen of Scots and On the Basis of Sex offered up as evidence that female-directed films aren't being given a fair shake. But, let's imagine an alternate universe where some of the most widely-praised films by women HAD made an awards dent beyond critics' circles, where Oscar's Best Picture roster had included The Rider, You Were Never Really Here, and Leave No Trace. Couldn't we all but guarantee that such a scenario would lead plenty of other people to gripe about how voters just nominated a bunch of tiny indies that no one saw? It seems that more and more people are deeply invested in what individual nominations MEAN -- and for the record, I'm not dismissing anyone's frustration that female filmmakers historically haven't been given the kinds of opportunities that lead enough of them to be able to make a Roma -- but that attitude in turn almost makes looking at the nominations kind of a Rorschach test. Responses to the Director list can vary from "how awesome, two foreign language nominees!" to "nice, a Latino and an African-American!" to "ugh, no women!" to "what do the directors have against money-makers?" without even discussing any of the actual work, nominated or otherwise.


This is where I was afraid we'd end up after the panicked reaction to #OscarsSoWhite. I never questioned the critique that there are way too many fewer opportunities for black artists in the industry. But the idea that, based on the mere fact that no black artists were nominated in 2015 (a year without any obvious such candidates who were excluded), meant we had to take steps to ensure there be a certain number of black nominees, in any year, was a decision that was going to take us down a dangerous path. (As it happened, the following year, Moonlight got a ton of nominations it would have got with or without pressure -- given its critical/audience reception -- and Fences got two basically no-brainer acting nominations and one win. The only film that possibly benefited from the campaign was Hidden Figures -- and if your contention is the Oscars benefit from elevating cheesy entries like Hidden Figures, I must beg to differ.)

It seems, from this report, that a similar thing is now happening regarding women. There were no obvious female candidates in the directing arena this year, and only one or two (Granik or Heller) even faintly in the ballpark. Yet, the premise behind what BJ writes is, people think someone should have been selected for nomination anyway, as a statement. Advocating for things like this, I think, allows people with less than noble motives -- people perfectly happy with white male dominance into eternity -- to claim liberal activists don't simply desire to promote greater diversity; they want to enforce quotas over artistic criteria.

I know I'm suspect even making this argument because I fall into the dread demographic "aging white guy". But all I can do is point to my opinions. Last year I was wild about Greta Gerwig's film, and was delighted to see her nominated. At the same time, I thought Jordan Peele's film was too trivial for the honors it received. This year, I was happy about Spike Lee's mention, disappointed Barry Jenkins didn't join him. But there was no female I'd have wanted in their company -- in fact, I rather disliked You Were Never Really Here, and was bored cuckoo by The Rider. I base all these feelings on the criteria Howard Clurman articulated years ago: asked by someone what kind of plays he liked, he answered, Good plays. That seems to be getting lost in all the (however nobly intended) political mishegas.

And don't even get me started on Chris Connelly leading an Oscar morning cheer over "Black Panther is the first super-hero movie nominated!". As if that's thrilling news. What's next? First slasher movie? First gross-out comedy?

User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 3933
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby Precious Doll » Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:05 pm

Big Magilla wrote:
This will not be one of those fallback Oscars like they gave to Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady because they thought she deserved a third one because she was Meryl Streep. This will be one that was earned by what was up there on the screen.


The view of some. Others like myself see it as nothing more than a 'your a great actress, you've been nominated so many times and given numerous good/great performances for nearly 40 years, but will give you any Oscar because we (the Academy) owe you one'.
“Those Koreans. They’re so suspicious, you know, ever since Hiroshima.” Constance Langdon (Jessica Lange) from American Horror Story: Season One

nightwingnova
Temp
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:48 pm

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby nightwingnova » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:55 pm

For now, Roma is considered the favorite.

I just can't see the Oscar voters choosing it as most of it's so prosaic.

Worse, the public would be wary of future best picture choices. Aside from film buffs, who's going to sit through it?

It's so perfect technically. It captures the wonderful nuances of family life. But, there is little or thin story - and the few major dramatic events come and go quickly.

So if not Roma, which could it be? The Favourite, BlacKkKlansman, or Green Book? I'd say Green Book, and then The Favourite.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 16214
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Feb 04, 2019 8:44 am

Mister Tee wrote:I most emphatically do not consider Close's performance in The Wife a very good performance. I see it as a competent performance by an accomplished actress, but nothing that would make her personal top twenty. It's not an embarrassment, like Pacino/Scent of a Woman or Oldman/Darkest Hour (or, going back, Colman/A Double Life), but it's almost worse -- there, I could see where people thought of the work as somehow Special (however wrong-headed they were). Here, it just feels like they latched upon a perfectly undistinguished performance and decided, Hey, the lady's getting old, if we don't give it to her now she'll ever win, so let's make it the time.


The Wife may be a small film, but I think you're badly underrating Close's performance in it. Like her previously acclaimed performances in Fatal Attraction, Dangerous Liaisons, Albert Nobbs and Damages, she is playing a very complex character who is much more than she appears to be. On the one hand, she's playing the power behind the throne who has spent forty years propping up her husband without due acknowledgement, but on the other hand, she is playing the architect of their duplicity. The key to her character is in a line in the film's first flashback scene when Annie Starke as the young version of her character says to Elizabeth McGovern as a failed writer that "a writer writes" and McGovern responds with "a writer needs to be read." Everything she does from that point on is not only to be able to write, but to be read. That's why she stays with her husband, no matter how many times he cheats on her. She lies not only to the world, but to him, her kids and herself. Close has said that the most difficult line she had to deliver was the one where says to a dying Jonathan Pryce, "I love you" making it appear like she meant it, but knowing that he knew she was lying and that she knew that he knew.

This will not be one of those fallback Oscars like they gave to Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady because they thought she deserved a third one because she was Meryl Streep. This will be one that was earned by what was up there on the screen.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:01 am

Mister Tee wrote: I certainly was never "vocally rooting for Jennifer Hudson", as I didn't even see Dreamgirls until about four days before the Oscars that year;


Well, one can be "vocal" even for four days, right? I'm glad to know that you have changed your mind about her perfomance :) Anyway I was talking about this board in general - wasn't it collectively rooting for Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls? There are worse crimes, don't get me wrong - but wasn't it?

I hate to insist, but you called Lady Gaga in A Star is Born "up to the acting demands" and "very likable". Ok, it's not like you were totally enthusiastic, but obviously you liked her better than Glenn Close. And, I mean, come on... :)

See The Wife again. She's very good. Much better than Al Pacuno, Gary Oldman or Leonardo DiCaprio in the movies they won for.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby The Original BJ » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:32 am

Mister Tee wrote:I feel like we've been struggling most of this millenium trying to define what we want a best picture to be.


And to expand upon this idea a little bit further, it seems that different factions have emerged with wildly different ideas about what that should look like. Now, some will say, that's always been the case, and of course, you could easily go back to slates like 1967 and 1969 to see Best Picture nominees that were all over the map. But that did change for a while -- mostly beginning in the '80s -- because I look at a lot of slates from my formative Oscar-watching years, and I see a remarkable similarity among nominees -- think of the WWII/Elizabethan showdown in 1998, or years like 2005 or 2008, where every Best Picture nominee is of a very similar stripe (mostly period pieces and/or literary adaptations, dealing with significant social issues). This is not to say there wasn't a difference aesthetically between any of these nominees -- there's a pretty big gap in my mind between The Thin Red Line and Elizabeth, as there is between Milk and The Reader -- but superficially, they all feel like they belong together. They're the kind of films that a certain type of moviegoer isn't going to miss (despite varying degrees of success).

Cut to now. A Marvel superhero movie is a Best Picture nominee. So is a virtually plotless black-and-white Mexican art film. So is a crowd-pleasing remake of a nearly ninety year old story. So are a group of inventive, singular takes on the true-life historical piece. So is a historical piece that's about as traditional as they come. So is a badly reviewed blockbuster nominated simply because of how much money it made. These aren't just movies that appeal to differing sensibilities on a spectrum -- they're films made for different audiences entirely, and every one is eager for Oscar to put its stamp of approval on the film whose victory they deem most important for film culture, and well, culture period.

These attitudes are also extending to other conversations about the awards. I'm not sure how much it's permeated the larger discussion to the degree that #OscarsSoWhite did, but within the industry, there's a not insignificant group of people outraged by the exclusion of films by women directors from the conversation this year. I think arguments like this often get simplified to their most reductive -- I personally think Can You Ever Forgive Me? and Private Life are better than a good chunk of the Best Picture slate, but totally groan when I see movies like Mary Queen of Scots and On the Basis of Sex offered up as evidence that female-directed films aren't being given a fair shake. But, let's imagine an alternate universe where some of the most widely-praised films by women HAD made an awards dent beyond critics' circles, where Oscar's Best Picture roster had included The Rider, You Were Never Really Here, and Leave No Trace. Couldn't we all but guarantee that such a scenario would lead plenty of other people to gripe about how voters just nominated a bunch of tiny indies that no one saw? It seems that more and more people are deeply invested in what individual nominations MEAN -- and for the record, I'm not dismissing anyone's frustration that female filmmakers historically haven't been given the kinds of opportunities that lead enough of them to be able to make a Roma -- but that attitude in turn almost makes looking at the nominations kind of a Rorschach test. Responses to the Director list can vary from "how awesome, two foreign language nominees!" to "nice, a Latino and an African-American!" to "ugh, no women!" to "what do the directors have against money-makers?" without even discussing any of the actual work, nominated or otherwise.

As Mister Tee says, I'm not sure there is going to be a return to an era of more consensus, partly because movies themselves are being increasingly sorted into such disparate piles -- there's huge blockbusters and there's tiny indies and there's (increasingly few) middle-of-the-road mainstream entertainments for adults. (And as we've seen this year, it doesn't really much matter how GOOD the entries in that last group are -- just existing is enough to get them into the awards discussion.) And so, organizations that are seeking to honor the best in cinema are more likely to draw from across this wide chasm, particularly as the movies that used to be Oscar's sweet spot just become tv series now. But, as you suggest as well, I'm not sure how the Oscars don't suffer in the minds of many as a result -- for instance, if Green Book is named Best Picture, there's going to be an entire swath of viewers outraged that such a retro, offensive-to-many picture was named the year's best, but in a similar manner, if Roma is the winner, there's likely an equally large group of people who are going to feel alienated by a ceremony celebrating a Mexican art film. (And in both cases, a decent chunk of viewers who feel like Black Panther was clearly the cultural filmgoing event of the year -- in much the same way Titanic and The Return of the King were in years past -- are going to feel slighted by that film not going home with the top prize). It's true that people have always griped about Oscar's choices, but I'm not sure the races between, say, The King's Speech vs. The Social Network or The Aviator vs. Million Dollar Baby ever felt like the outcome would determine the relevance of an entire cultural institution, and TO WHOM that institution would remain relevant.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12689
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby OscarGuy » Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:16 pm

I don't know where I'd break the eight apart and If Beale Street Could Talk very much deserved to be on this list, but to rank the Best Pictures (which I binged the last 3 of today), here's what I would rank them.

1. BlacKkKlansman - The second best film about racism this year and, were it nominated, If Beale Street Could Talk would top this. Lee already understands what its like to not be taken seriously by those who should be his equals. His entire career has been defined by that. That its getting the same treatment alongside Green Book is shameful. This is a taut, fascinating drama that Denzel Washington might have starred in 20 years ago, though he might as well have since John David is almost vocally identical.
2. The Favourite - An amusing farce that takes liberties with history as most modern historical comedies and dramas do anchored by three terrific performances.
3. Black Panther - I know people here hate this film, but I don't. I am enraptured by it. A bountiful array of design elements supported by a strong cast, a gender-balanced narrative that doesn't feel like sexpot ass-kicker was a foundational design element. It might bare some semblance of formula, but it diverts from a lot of comic books in graceful and astonishing way.
4. Vice - I didn't want to see this at first, because I thought it would glorify a Dick of a man. Yet, ultimately, it works surprisingly well. Solidly acted, but fascinating in its slight twists on biopic formula. That mid-film credit roll was a brilliant choice. Perhaps the most brilliant of choices in the film. It overstays its welcome by the end, though, and I take offense to its Climate Change focus group segment (unnecessary) and final focus group to be ludicrous. Symbolic, but ludicrous.
5. Roma - A gorgeous film about a simple life. It's like Jean-Luc Goddard and Federico Fellini had a beautiful baby, but forgot to give it a personality. The events in the film seem almost unconnected, drifting through a dreamlike historical pastiche that doesn't seem to care to go anywhere.
6. A Star Is Born - I haven't found a Lady Gaga performance yet that I think was revolutionary. Madonna did more with Evita than Gaga did with this film, which had the emotional peaks and valleys of series of gentle rolling hills. I haven't had a chance to see the three prior films, but even without that, it feels overly familiar and predictable.
7. Bohemian Rhapsody - The music is what you see this movie for. To me, this is like a Hallmark Hall of Fame Biopic of the Week that takes a superficial look into the rise of Queen to its breakup and reunification. Malek was decent, though I wouldn't give him an Oscar for this.
8. Green Book - I have to agree with (almost) everyone about Green Book. It's as if Nick Villalonga was tasked with writing a High School essay on his dad. It's a simplistic approach to racism in a way that makes it inferior to better works released just this year. If Beale Street Could Talk and BlacKkKlansman deal with racism in different ways, but are more potent simply because they are written from a perspective of experience rather than a perspective of privilege.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6793
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby Mister Tee » Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:13 pm

FilmFan720 wrote:And really, is the Black Panther nomination any different than The Towering Inferno or How the West Was Won, or heck, even Ben Hur?


1) The Towering Inferno's nomination was likely due to its being co-produced by Warner Brothers and 20th Century Fox, a then-unheard of double-teaming.

2) It was the last really silly, retro best picture nominee of an era where we'd been accustomed to such films being listed (Airport, Dr. Dolittle, etc.). The difference is, we saw it as the dying ethos of a studio system resistant to the New Hollywood. Black Panther and Mad Max, by contrast, are being promoted by the young hipsters as edgy stuff. I recognize this brings me perilously close to "Old man tries to stop the future", but I'll fight forever for the superiority of our aspirations over theirs.

That's not to dismiss your overall thesis, which I find interesting/agree with. I feel like we've been struggling most of this millenium trying to define what we want a best picture to be. The studios don't seem to make the most obvious types of epic contenders (Bridge on the River Kwai, Schindler's List) anymore -- and when someone does, they tend to get hit with Internet opposition (Zero Dark Thirty, even 12 Years a Slave). And there really isn't much agreement about middlebrow movies these days -- things like Cuckoo's Nest or Kramer vs. Kramer would probably be dismissed by many as Oscar bait. This has led to some Wow, I never thought that could win choices, like No Country for Old Men, The Hurt Locker or Moonlight -- but also opened the door to mere audience-pleasers like Argo or The Artist. (The two groups are well represented this year, by Roma and Green Book.)

We also, in this myriad-of-channels world, don't have consensus-setters like the NY Critics of the 40s-to-70s, who largely determined the field of combat (and who, in retrospect, missed plenty). I don't see exactly how we get back to anything like that, but I also don't know how we continue in as splintered a fashion as we currently do. Which may be part of why the Oscars are losing that cachet ABC is so worried about.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6793
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby Mister Tee » Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:23 pm

ITALIANO wrote:: the same people here who only a few years ago were vocally rooting for Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls to win, now would do anything to prevent one of the greatest living actresses from finally winning an Oscar for a very good (yes, very good) performance in a, ok, not great movie (as if this hasn't happened before). I mean - they were silent when Hilary Swank won two Oscars. Silent when that woman in Room won her Oscar. Now they are suddenly upset for an outcome which honestly - if it happens - I wouldn't find one of the worst ever in Oscar history.


See, here's where we seriously disagree.

First, to your subsidiary points: 1) Don't know who you're talking about, but I certainly was never "vocally rooting for Jennifer Hudson", as I didn't even see Dreamgirls until about four days before the Oscars that year; 2) In Hilary Swank's case, she emphatically deserved her first Oscar; would have been my third choice in 2004 (behind Imelda Staunton and Kate Winslet, in that order), but I thought it was a good performance in a good, relatively-deserving best picture winner, so I surrendeerd to the inevitable. The fact that Swank's career beyond those two performances is utterly undistinguished doesn't change my opinion of her Oscar fortune. 3) I thought Brie Larson was terrific in Room. Lots of people agreed. If your opinion's different, fine, but it doesn't make our holding to ours a scandal.

But to the (bolded) issue at hand: I most emphatically do not consider Close's performance in The Wife a very good performance. I see it as a competent performance by an accomplished actress, but nothing that would make her personal top twenty. It's not an embarrassment, like Pacino/Scent of a Woman or Oldman/Darkest Hour (or, going back, Colman/A Double Life), but it's almost worse -- there, I could see where people thought of the work as somehow Special (however wrong-headed they were). Here, it just feels like they latched upon a perfectly undistinguished performance and decided, Hey, the lady's getting old, if we don't give it to her now she'll ever win, so let's make it the time. (If they'd taken that stance toward Julianne Moore, there were half a dozen times they could have awarded her, rather than waiting for the decently-deserving Still Alice.)

I've been trying to think of an analogy for how unmerited I find this potential win. I guess DiCaprio/The Revenant is the closest (and I loudly protested that one, as well). But even there, it was (for no reason I can fathom) a big-deal movie and a dominant if uninteresting performance. This is more like if, during the period Dustin Hoffman was being denied, voters had decided to honor his work in Marathon Man or Agatha. Or if Paul Newman, during his long years of waiting, had been touted for Slap Shot. (And even though 1977 was considered the worst year for lead actors that decade, I never heard anyone advocate such a scenario.)

Let me emphasize: I have huge career affection for Glenn Close. I wish she were an Oscar winner (preferably in 1982 or 1988). But it pains me to see people I admire win for no other reason than they've built up career points and it seems a good time. It's the kind of thing we try to correct in our revisionist polls, and I can't support adding to the log of injustice in the present.

FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3508
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby FilmFan720 » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:19 pm

So, looking at this year's Best Picture slate, and the reaction from all sides to it, I wonder if this year is going to look something like a 1967 type year where we have a rethinking of what a Best Picture nominee/winner looks like, and different sides are struggling to define that. For everyone on this board who seems to find a Black Panther win ridiculous, there is a contingent (the Little Gold Men podcast seeming the most representative) who embrace that as a wonderful choice. For everyone who hates what Green Book stands for, there is a person (and several on this board) who gladly think of it as a great film. Then, we have the strong possibility of a foreign film winning the top prize for the first time ever.

1967, we famously had two "old guard films" in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and Doctor Dolittle; two "new guard films" in Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate; and then the hybrid of In the Heat of the Night. Here, our new guard isn't necessarily an artistic revolution but a broadening of the definition of Best Picture, in particular, a superhero movie (I find it funny that the Spike Lee joint is feeling like the consensus choice instead of the controversial film the old guard is fighting against). But this is also the culmination of a few years of subtle changes -- for every Darkest Hour or Lion that seems to hold on to a nomination, we get Mad Max and Get Out and even The Shape of Water moving genre films front and center. And really, is the Black Panther nomination any different than The Towering Inferno or How the West Was Won, or heck, even Ben Hur?

I've rambled here, but it's because this is a scattershot series of thoughts. But seeing people on this thread so hell bent on different sets of films made me start to think. 1967 brought on a pretty fast rethinking of Best Picture -- Midnight Cowboy winner 2 years later, Z and MASH getting high nomination hauls in the next few years -- but like this year, it also had little hints in the years before with Darling or Alfie.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8441
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Your best picture ballot

Postby Reza » Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:12 pm

Yes it's a terrible list of nominees.

1. Roma
2. BlackKklansman

Followed by at a great distance by:

3. Green Book
4. The Favourite

The following have no right to be on any best picture lists (although I enjoyed Black Panther immensely).

Bohemian Rhapsody
A Star Is Born
Black Panther
Vice


Return to “91st Academy Awards”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest