criterionforum.org

jojo wrote: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...

voter #5 on best foreign language film wrote: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]

jojo wrote: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.

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

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

Michael Kerpan wrote: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.

Ribs wrote: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)

EricJ wrote:

movielocke wrote: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.)

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.)

who is bobby dylan wrote:

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?

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

How rude! wrote:

domino harvey wrote: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.

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.

who is bobby dylan wrote: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.