criterionforum.org

DarkImbecile wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:44 pm

hearthesilence wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:40 pm

DarkImbecile wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:25 pm I’d say it’s in the top four contenders, along with 1917, Irishman, and Hollywood, but I have to think the foreign language hurdle is still a real obstacle

I think so too, but I don't recall (or know of) any foreign-language nominee that came off this strong as a Best Picture contender. It wouldn't surprise me if it broke the barrier and became the first foreign-language film to win the top prize.

I think Roma would have won if not for anti-Netflix sentiment

Roma didn't win because it was just polarizing enough to be vulnerable in an instant run off situation (whether that's because of netflix, or a stylistic dislike of slow cinema, or a dislike of foreign language or a dislike of black and white, for example).

Another way of looking at this, Roma is not the type of movie to maximize the strategic possibilities to win an instant run off ballot.

A film like Roma (somewhat polarizing) wins when it runs up an early insurmountable lead, so a later downballot disadvantage in the runoff stage won't materially hurt it. But in a reasonably competitive field, it won't build up a sufficient early lead, and in the downballot stage, films that are less polarizing will get an advantage in vote share in the instant run off.

it's interesting that Driving Mr Daisy, while very polarizing after it's win, was banal enough that it never became a polarizing film like Roma or Vice or The Favourite. But it's also worth pointing out that Bohemian Rhapsody and A Star is Born didn't win, so just being a 'likable' film doesn't confer especial downballot advantages if you don't have sufficient passion votes (to take advantage of being likeable) from the early rounds.

Note, only BP is instant runoff, the other categories are all wins by plurality, and Roma clearly got some very deserved wins in those categories, just as it probably would have won if BP were also by plurality.

Green Book is a far more divisive and controversial film. Many people think it is a racist film. I think Roma across the board is far more agreeable than Green Book.

I think Roma only and only lost because of the Netflix/theatrical v streaming discussion. But for that we would have had our first foreign langugae best picture winner. Scorsese's prestige will make that a mootpoint and Irishman will have a far better shot.

Parasite has a shot but is a steep hill to climb. I think Bong might be the favorite for Director though. I would be cheering it on for sure. Of all the films with a realistic shot, it is definitely the best film for me.

Green Book makes me so glad I decided to stop following Awards season (as it plays out in online cinema places) back in 2015. face to face from people I'd heard mostly positive things about it, (akin to Jojo Rabbit this year, mostly sparks the banal description, "oh, Jojo Rabbit is soooooo good"), after it won the oscar, I started seeing nonstop Crash levels of vitriol leveled at Green Book, and then when I saw it, I saw why, but I feel like Crash most of its reputation as horrible has matriculated after winning best picture (and because of winning).

As expected, the Oscars will go without a host again this year.

So glad they stumbled into this solution to keeping the show shorter rather than cutting major (to us, anyway) awards like cinematography and editing from the live broadcast

I'll be the dissenting voice that thought last year was just awful. I enjoy a (good) comedian and emcee to keep the show a show and grounded. Now, they could do without dumb gags like Jimmy Kimmel bringing random people into the ceremony to eat up a half hour, but otherwise I wish they'd return to the format and just, you know, show a little restraint and implement some organizational skills.

I can't remember the last time I thought a host's monologue/opening number was worth it, and I feel like you can still retain the "show"-iness of the broadcast with high-quality presenters getting all the best bits a host might otherwise use... though I also think it's obvious that they could stand to separate the shorts into a separate ceremony, add Stunt Coordination and Debut Feature categories, and unilaterally add Portrait of a Lady on Fire to the International Film category, and that's why I'm not in charge.

DarkImbecile wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:15 pm I can't remember the last time I thought a host's monologue/opening number was worth it

I want to say Steve Martin, which is a long time ago. I think it was in 2001 because Russell Crowe scowled at him on-camera when Martin told a joke at his expense.

DarkImbecile wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:15 pm=though I also think it's obvious that they could stand to separate the shorts into a separate ceremony

Boo. Also Chris Rock was not that long ago.

With the shorts in their own separate ceremony (which I think could be broadcast for free online) they would get their own news cycle and much more mind-share and attention than they currently get being sandwiched in the middle of the ceremony.

Exactly, especially a ceremony where they could maybe show more than 3.5-second excerpts of each film.

I also think it should be legally required that a short play in front of every feature (theatrical or streaming), if that helps.

I'm sure everyone would appreciate The Irishman being longer. Also if you think the news would report for more than a second on a seperate shorts ceremony you're mad.

The shorts have been meaningless for decades, they are a carryover of a time when people watched shorts en masse before and after their films. The only way most people ever see these nominees is when they're bundled together for a theatrical run before the ceremony

That was true, but with streaming they're more accessible then ever. I've already seen half the short listed films as a result of streaming.

They certainly have value as a vehicle for filmmakers to gain attention in the larger industry, but they're out of place in a ceremony otherwise solely devoted to the production and artistry of features, and as long as ABC refuses to make the ceremony a day-long event and try to limit it to three hours, I'd rather the time currently devoted to shorts go to other categories.

DarkImbecile wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:15 pm I can't remember the last time I thought a host's monologue/opening number was worth it

I liked Jimmy Kimmel's Matt Damon roasts 8-[

OK, those were funny; Kimmel has described how he was going to mock Damon (a producer on Manchester By the Sea) for losing Best Picture at the end of the 2017 telecast — which of course had to be scrapped in the La La Land/Moonlight pandemonium — and one of the great alternate universe versions of that night would have been if Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway had accidentally been given Casey Affleck's duplicate envelope instead of Emma Stone's and blurted out Manchester, only to have the trophy taken away by a Kimmel trying in vain to protest that this wasn't an especially cruel prank.

DarkImbecile wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:15 pm I can't remember the last time I thought a host's monologue/opening number was worth it, and I feel like you can still retain the "show"-iness of the broadcast with high-quality presenters getting all the best bits a host might otherwise use... though I also think it's obvious that they could stand to separate the shorts into a separate ceremony, add Stunt Coordination and Debut Feature categories, and unilaterally add Portrait of a Lady on Fire to the International Film category, and that's why I'm not in charge.

To be honest I'm with you on stunts. They're simultaneously appreciated while people watch movies but the people actually behind them are all too often forgotten. We could debate for instance the merits of the recent Mission Impossible films or Fury Road but I doubt many people would criticize how they at least look with those performers.

Apperson wrote:With the shorts in their own separate ceremony (which I think could be broadcast for free online) they would get their own news cycle and much more mind-share and attention than they currently get being sandwiched in the middle of the ceremony.

That’s nuts, once the shorts are moved inevitably to the honorary Oscar ceremony, they will get exactly as much press coverage as the official student academy awards: that is to say, none.

Also, since the mid 2000s the shorts have been bundled theatrically, as soon as they are not part of the telecast, that theatrical distribution will stop instantly.

I actually there should be less categories not more. So I would instantly eliminate -

1. Best Song (a relic of a time gone by when a lot of original songs were written to be in movies. This is a bogus category to me these days.)
2. Fuse the two Sound categories (which looks like it is going to happen)

Shaving of Best Song will itself save 30 minutes since we won't need the time-consuming performances. I don't consider song writing a core discipline of film-making.

I would keep the 3 shorts. I would frankly sooner cut In Memorium. It always triggers debates about who is included and who is left out.

I would cut out the Best Picture introductions. That's another 10 mins saved.

I would replace the entertainment with smaller 2 minute sets by genuine good comedians (less pressure to pull off an entire monologue). I'd replace the entertainment with some kind of performance of the scores. I won't mind stupid trash comedic skits in the middle to break up the monotony.

And my final pet peeve. I would have the last 4 awards be - screenplays, director and picture in that order. I would only switch the order for those categories which have some intrigue about the winner.

And I would put an absolute 3 hour limit on the show, maybe even shorter.

PS: I might also consider eliminating the animated film category. Another totally pointless category to me. Animation is a technique not a separate discipline of film.

Nasir007 wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:29 am I would frankly sooner cut In Memorium. It always triggers debates about who is included and who is left out.

I don't see why we should cut a ceremony that exists to honor those who died that contributed to the arts and inspired the people in the room and watching at home just because some people are left out. It's my favorite part of the awards, always has been, and the idea of cutting it because not everybody is going to feel 100% great about it feels like exactly the kind of problematic rigid politically-correct stance that opts for censorship out of a lack of fairness, a solipsistic sensitivity that begets peripheral insensitivity, and winds up being the least empathetic path. I'm not saying this is your position, but this is the undercurrent of what that proposal signifies to me.

I'm actually going to agree that all elements of the show that have ever generated controversy should be excised

Honestly, isn't part of the fun of the Oscars its length, the fact that you hear speeches from people in below the line categories, interspersed with 'trashy' comedy and glamour? What's the rush? If you just want to know the winners, wake up in the morning and look at IMDB. I would bring back the honourary awards, make the show four hours long, almost like a charity special.

I understand the three hour barrier for the east coast sake, 8pm to 11pm is a lot, going to midnight is bad. Four hours wouldn’t matter as much on the west coast, 5 pm to 9 pm, most people would just skip the first hour, but the three hour time constraint is more a function of geography than anything else.

Have it start at four then.

movielocke wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:55 am I understand the three hour barrier for the east coast sake, 8pm to 11pm is a lot, going to midnight is bad. Four hours wouldn’t matter as much on the west coast, 5 pm to 9 pm, most people would just skip the first hour, but the three hour time constraint is more a function of geography than anything else.

I think more than geography, it simply isn't an interesting show at all. You have garbage Oscar-bait movies winning awards and gushing fluffy thanks or limp political proclamations. There's also the fact that even as a 'contest' there is little intrigue as to who will be the winners.

The kind of ceremony it is, it is simply not interesting beyond 3 hours. I would even ambitiously make attempts to cut it down even further. Maybe to 2:45 or even 2:30 if possible.

The academy clearly cares about ratings. They fret every year about them and relevancy. I think the shortest route to salvation might be to cut out everything extraneous and have a lean, mean and tight show that's over in a heartbeat.