Upcoming
Youth in Revolt
January 15
January 22
Drool
The Girl on the Train
How It Works
In a recently posted riff called "The Rules of Ten," MCN's David Poland says two things about Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker. (1) "Among the fifteen or fewer serious contenders for [Best Picture] nomination, it will certainly be amongst the best five, by most standards of quality." (2) "In years past...a movie like The Hurt Locker would have a very hard road, no matter how good it is, because of its lackluster box office run."
In other words, he seems to be saying that a standard Academy rule-of-thumb -- i.e., if a great or near-great film hasn't made a hefty pile of dough, it is automatically degraded as a potential awards contender -- doesn't apply as much this year. Is that what he's saying? I'm not quite sure.
Either way you have no sense of humor if you don't laugh at this equation. Near-great film opens, is praised to the heavens, makes very little money because the Eloi are too coarse or stupid to sufficiently support it. Awards time rolls around and the likelihood of this same near-great film being nominated for Best Picture is open to question because the Eloi were too coarse or stupid to sufficiently support it.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 31, 2009 at 5:38 AM
comment #1
VoiceOfReason
says ...
Any chance Summit will rerelease HL? Or is that unthinkable in this economy.
Posted by VoiceOfReason
at October 31, 2009 6:21 AM
comment #2
corey3rd
says ...
Summit will be better off putting out a Blu-ray packed with bonus features - go Gladiator. This way you can give those to Academy members and let them know what the folks who'd rather see the troops attacked by Transformers missed out on.
Posted by corey3rd
at October 31, 2009 8:02 AM
comment #3
btwnproductions
says ...
Summit would be better off putting out VHS tapes, given the age of the Academy members.
Posted by btwnproductions
at October 31, 2009 8:16 AM
comment #4
COCO
says ...
From this siide of the fence if HL gets a nom then the BO can start to cum...but a new expanded release will have to happen....start the campaign
now.....Eloi are doing the Walmart shuffle for
Christmas.
Posted by COCO
at October 31, 2009 8:46 AM
comment #5
scooterzz
says ...
academy screeners are already coming in the door (magnolia and sony classics being the biggest deliveries so far)...summet better jump in or hurt locker will just get lost in the shuffle......
Posted by scooterzz
at October 31, 2009 9:00 AM
comment #6
DeeZee
says ...
And let's be honest here. The fact that she's a female director is also coming into play, right?
Posted by DeeZee
at October 31, 2009 11:49 AM
comment #7
arturobandini2
says ...
Sorry if this has already been discussed, but are there going to be ten director nominees as well? If not, then there's no point at all in nominating ten movies, because five will be automatically disqualified the minute the nominations are announced. No best picture nominee is going to win if its director doesn't get a nod. Sadly, that means if Bigelow and Scherfig don't get nominated -- I suspect DeeZee would be correct as to why -- then two of year's best films won't stand a chance of winning the trophy, even if they become nominees. See how ill-conceived this new Oscar wrinkle is?
Back to the main topic: Jeffrey, though I'm not positive, I believe your question must be rhetorical. Of course box-office is a nominating factor. If you just consider the few foreign-language films that received best picture nominations, they were all breakout hits. Why else would Pan's Labyrinth receive a best picture nomination the same year that The Lives of Others didn't?
Posted by arturobandini2
at October 31, 2009 1:00 PM
comment #8
arturobandini2
says ...
OK, just re-read your preamble. It's not a rhetorical question. But my example still applies -- and Poland is wrong. The Academy will always be total whores for big box-office. There is no way in hell Slumdog Millionaire would've been given the prize last year had there not been oodles of cash earned to validate the decision.
Posted by arturobandini2
at October 31, 2009 1:05 PM
comment #9
erniesouchak
says ...
The White Ribbon should be a Best Pic nominee.
Posted by erniesouchak
at October 31, 2009 1:39 PM
comment #10
the400blows
says ...
To arturobandini2:
What's wrong with a movie making "oodles of cash to validate the Academy's decision"? It means that the General Public had a say in the decision. I don't see that being a bad thing. Sometimes the critics are wrong. I'd hate the Oscars to become even more esoteric.
Posted by the400blows
at October 31, 2009 1:52 PM
comment #11
the400blows
says ...
By the way, Pan's Labyrinth wasn't nominated for Best Picture but Best "Foreign Language" Picture.
Posted by the400blows
at October 31, 2009 1:58 PM
comment #12
EdHavens
says ...
"No best picture nominee is going to win if its director doesn't get a nod."
Not true. Granted, it's only happened three times, and not since 1989, when Driving Miss Daisy won BP without Bruce Beresford getting a nod, but it has happened on average once every twenty years, and it has been twenty years since it last happened...
As for Hurt Locker, the film is still playing at one theatre in Los Angeles, the Beverly Center Cinemas, and they are accepting Academy members and a guest to any screening.
Posted by EdHavens
at October 31, 2009 2:33 PM
comment #13
Gordon27
says ...
"but it has happened on average once every twenty years"
This is statistically true but misleading, since the first two times it happened were well before the "modern" era.
I do think Bigelow will get nominated, but if she doesn't, I'm going to have a hard time not agreeing with people that the snub is sexist.
Posted by Gordon27
at October 31, 2009 3:02 PM
comment #14
Gordon27
says ...
"Why else would Pan's Labyrinth receive a best picture nomination the same year that The Lives of Others didn't?"
It's funny that I agree with what you're saying, but you picked a horrible example, because what you're saying didn't happen. What did happen was that everybody was surprised when 'Lives of Others' won Best Foreign Film.
Posted by Gordon27
at October 31, 2009 3:04 PM
comment #15
arturobandini2
says ...
Really? Coulda sworn Pan's got a best picture nod *and* a foreign film nod. I'm probably confusing it with Crouching Tiger. This happens when you stop giving a shit about the Oscars.
400, check out Danny Peary's book Alternate Oscars if you can find a copy. It was published in the early '90s, but no one has ever written a better argument as to why popularity should never decide what's "Best," at least not when it comes to movies. (It would be different if the Academy called their awards Most Popular Movie, or Most Popular Actress, etc., which they really should IMO.) Popular tastes are fickle and easily swayed by groupthink. Work that stands the test of time is frequently UNpopular when first unveiled.
If you think today's nominees are too esoteric, you would've HATED the '70s.
Posted by arturobandini2
at October 31, 2009 3:20 PM
comment #16
arturobandini2
says ...
Oh, Jesus. Babel got a 2007 Best Picture nomination over Pan's Labyrinth AND The Lives of Others???? That says it all. The nomination went to the foreign film starring Brad Pitt.
Posted by arturobandini2
at October 31, 2009 3:29 PM
comment #17
LYT
says ...
"s for Hurt Locker, the film is still playing at one theatre in Los Angeles, the Beverly Center Cinemas, and they are accepting Academy members and a guest to any screening."
Yes, but it's the Beverly Center. That's like saying you can have a gift certificate to a brothel, but only choose a hooker who's over 50.
Posted by LYT
at October 31, 2009 4:25 PM
comment #18
K. Bowen
says ...
Yeah, because Frost/Nixon and The Reader were such crazy huge hits and beloved by the public.
Does anyone even remember those films a year later.
If The Hurt Locker is winning trophies at the end of the year from critics groups, it would have gotten in.
Posted by K. Bowen
at November 1, 2009 2:27 PM
comment #19
DeeZee
says ...
LYT: The Beverly Center's fine. The area's got better parking rates than the Fuck-light and Grove, and you don't overpay for movies which tend to get overrated by pesky geeks posing as critics.
Posted by DeeZee
at November 1, 2009 8:53 PM
comment #20
Fortunesfool
says ...
The lack of narrative might kill The Hurt Locker. Its a film-makers film not a storytellers film. Even I was getting bored with it on second viewing. Although most films this year didn't bother with a narrative (hello Zombieland and your two episodes of a TV series stuck together as a 'film')
To misquote Godard 'A film should have a beginning, a middle and an end, but not necessarily!'
Posted by Fortunesfool
at November 3, 2009 12:14 AM
Post a comment