Best Picture: Another Year Of Films Nobody Sees?
Posted by Dirty Harry on Thursday, November 6th, 2008
From early predictors, it looks as though the ever-widening disconnect between Hollywood and their audience will reach into 2008. The Visitor, The Wrestler, Slumdog Millionaire, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Rachel Getting Married… Any of these on your radar? Any of these captured your imagination?
Rachel Getting Married made $3.6 million. The Visitor made $11 million. I don’t even need to look up the rest.
This isn’t an argument on my part that Best Picture picks should in anyway be based on popularity. That would be stupid. But what a sad statement that the films the industry are most proud of are met with almost complete indifference at the box office. And this isn’t a political issue, if liberals were at all interested these would all be big hits.
Much of the problem is based on trust. After years of having their values pot-shotted, audiences have figured two things out: 1) “Prestigious” is code for “sucker punch.” 2) Too many film critics are so hyper-political they give an awful lot of lousy movies a pass because ‘liberal’ is good enough.
We’re about five years from Hollywood running out of comic book characters and unless the industry earns back the trust of their audience before then it should be interesting to see how they plan to both turn a profit and finance self-indulgence.
Filed in General |
Kiton 06 Nov 2008 at 9:40 am 1Knew DARK KNIGHT wouldn’t get anywhere near an Oscar.
And neither will Heath for the Joker. You can win an oscar for a film that makes money.
dudesaplentyon 06 Nov 2008 at 9:57 am 2Kit you are an excellent poster and i like you but you are showing why Hollywood is gonna live as long as it can actually it will destroy itself by it’s own weight but not by any Conservatives who lather at it and desperately worship it.
JimmyCon 06 Nov 2008 at 10:00 am 3To be fair, I’m really interested in seeing The Wrestler (Rourke and Aaronofsky, what a combo) and Slumdog Millionaire will be at least a rental. But on the whole, you’re right- the Oscar season offerings thus far have been pathetic.
And most of the December offerings don’t look much better, although there are some I’m looking forward to seeing: Gran Torino, The Brothers Bloom, The Spirit, Valkyrie, Benjamin Button.
Anyway, who cares. How long till Quantum of Solace comes out?
dudesaplentyon 06 Nov 2008 at 10:01 am 4Harry you are correct. Ok the way the studios are going to survive is what you covered before tax schemes.In england this year the studios got caught trying to gain the tax breaks so they could fund movies including that F*G Ron Howards Film that is about to come out well the Government put a stop to it.Fraud the way of Hollywood the way of the Democrat party.
Christian Totoon 06 Nov 2008 at 10:02 am 5This year is shaping up to be a remarkably weak one for Oscar wannabes. Which gives the Academy all the more reason to nominate “The Dark Knight” for Best Picture. If it doesn’t, the system is seriously broken.
dudesaplentyon 06 Nov 2008 at 10:03 am 6JimmyC next week (Quantum)
Full Metal Deer Platoonon 06 Nov 2008 at 10:06 am 7I’ve heard of one of those movies - “Scarlett Johanson & Penelope Cruz Make Out In Spain.” No Dark Knight? Heh. Hollywood made one nod to a popular Best Picture & that was “Return of The King.” It’ll never happen again.
The_Rickon 06 Nov 2008 at 10:08 am 8Sorry for the threadjack, but has anyone else noticed that after Obama was annointed, er, elected that the stock market went from a stabilized slow climb into and immediate free fall again?
Now that’s change I DO believe in.
John McClainon 06 Nov 2008 at 10:09 am 9Heath Ledger will win best actor or supporting actor. He is dead and all Hollywood worship the dead.
Die Hard Fan
Growltigeron 06 Nov 2008 at 10:17 am 101. Heath Ledger will win a nomination for two reasons: As #9 said, because he’s dead. But more importantly, because he starred in “Brokeback Mountain”.
2. Time was when I never missed an Oscar nominated film.
Now it’s the rare year when I’ve seen any of them.
3. It occurred to me the other evening while watching a rerun on TV that “they don’t make “stars” the way they used to; at least not in the looks department”. Capucine (”Pink Panther”), Suzy Parker (”Best of Everything”), Grace Kelly, Audrey Hepburn, Joanne Woodward, Elizabeth Taylor. Not a one looked like any of the others. Today, they all look like Jennifer Aniston. Same with actors: Rock Hudson, Robert Taylor, Gregory Peck, Gary Cooper, John Wayne. They didn’t look like each other either. Nowadays most actors look like their own brothers (Damon, Maguire, Gylllaanhall, Elijah Wood, Viggo the Veggo, Pitt). Not an interesting face in the crowd.
4. Read an article about the stock market tanking. The writer (forget who) said he read a headline: “Investors Cash in on Obama win” (which means the stock market tanked). He opined that had McCain won, the headline would have read “Stock Market Crashes on News of McCain win”. THAT, folks, is how the media manipulate the news.
blackhawk12151on 06 Nov 2008 at 10:20 am 11This has been a pretty crappy year for movies all around (The Dark Knight and Iron Man notwithstanding).
And I guarantee the Academy will be falling all over itself to award Sean Penn for Milk
The_Rickon 06 Nov 2008 at 10:32 am 12Growltiger,
I read a similar article on MSN yesterday trying to persuade that higher taxes for the successful was good for young people. Something about people wanting to work less to make less to be taxed less = opens up better jobs for the youth.
REALLY stretching to spin that one.
moviebobon 06 Nov 2008 at 10:38 am 13Just curious: Do you also complain when the World Series is played between the two teams with the best records but not necessarily the most popular players or basis in the largest media markets - like this year, for example?
Out of all the MAJOR hits so far this year, I can think of ONE that maybe deserves an Oscar nod, and it’s Dark Knight. It probably won’t get one - not because of you’re delusion that someone made a superhero movie about Still President Bush, but because of the very REAL bias against genre films. I loved “Iron Man,” but it’s not a Best Picture (Downey is MAYBE a Best Actor.)
But what a sad statement that the films the industry are most proud of are met with almost complete indifference at the box office.
You’re right. It is sad. It’s sad that we have a filmgoing public that will IGNORE, say, Darren Aronofsky even when he makes a (purportedly) straightforward and accessible movie like “The Wrestler” but will reward whatever worthless bucket of puke Michael Bay serves up next with an automatic $100 million.
98% percent of EVERYTHING is crap. When genuinely good films become major hits, it’s an anomally and at best a happy accident.
blackhawk12151on 06 Nov 2008 at 10:53 am 14movie bob
“Just curious: Do you also complain when the World Series is played between the two teams with the best records but not necessarily the most popular players or basis in the largest media markets - like this year, for example?”
DH said this was not about rewarding popular films just for being popular.
“This isn’t an argument on my part that Best Picture picks should in anyway be based on popularity.”
See…its right there. But don’t let what DH actually said get in the way of your little rant.
People go to see the crap that Bay puts out because it lands in every theater. How many theaters will The Wrestler make it to? Less than 100? Probably. It may be a great film, I am actually looking forward to seeing it, but most of the movie-going public won’t either because they don’t know about it or don’t care.
romanon 06 Nov 2008 at 11:05 am 15No, this year’s too weak. Far, far too weak. Anybody who’s seen Vicky Cristina Barcelona knows this.
They’ll have to honor both Ledger and The Dark Knight. Or face the guns. They know this. They may not like it, but they know it.
Ledger probably wins too.
whiskeyon 06 Nov 2008 at 11:10 am 16Movie Bob –
I think you are wrong and here’s why. First, Hollywood wants my money? They have to provide VALUE. Not social positioning, status, all that other yuppie scum status flaunting like Saturdays at the Apple Store. No, real value.
Which means, ENTERTAINMENT. Give me entertainment and I will give you my money. That’s how it works.
Hollywood FAILS at that mostly. Michael Bay — he’s far more entertaining and therefore more valuable to me than Aronfsky or those other arty posers. He may be a cliched hack, but offers value (at Blockbuster rentals) over someone ponderous and pretentious.
Why would I want to see “Penelope Cruz and Scarlett Johannson make out?” for a few risque scenes when if that is my thing, I can quickly find the vidcaps or whatever on the internet, and satisfy curiosity or prurience or what have you?
Why would I want to see essentially another version of “Margot at the Wedding,” this time with former Disney Queen Anne Hathaway, of fairly tawdry personal disclosures (thanks! Anne! I did not NEED to know icky details of your sex life!) — I mean why would I? I did not see the Nicole Kidman version, why this one?
If Hollywood offers, in these depressing, stressed times, some fun movies about two people finding romance, or love, or saving a marriage, or saving the day, or saving a struggling community, with the values of fidelity, sacrifice, family, religion, patriotism, compassion, honor, and decency, then yes I would certainly consider it.
Otherwise, I find Hollywood to be like … US News and World Report, which ceased publication and is now online only.
On a personal level, I don’t think Hollywood CAN make movies like what I described. The best it can do is make Michael Bay type movies, because at least Bay has some dim inkling of entertaining people with a spectacle and “big” stuff … he at least wants to be a showman, if a cliched and hackneyed version. Aronfsky and the rest all want to be “artistes” and are far too pampered and spoiled and elitist to actually ENTERTAIN.
Oscars? Who cares? Movies and Hollywood are not for entertainment — they are status parties to see who is the coolest among status-obsessed yuppies. With the looming Obama Depression, I think those good times are over.
The_Rickon 06 Nov 2008 at 11:20 am 17moviebob,
The World Series did suck this year. No drama at all. But that’s an orange to this apple argument.
It would be more appropriate to state that you and the academy are like those kids that hang around coffee shops all day decrying the state of modern music and spouting off to everyone within earshot about how great “indie” music is.
The academy picks these obscure films because they are obscure (and, I’ll grant, because there were very few good, let alone truly great, movies this year).
Once the academy starts picking movies that the unwashed masses have seen, they lose their elite status.
Thomas Talionison 06 Nov 2008 at 11:22 am 18I did a screening of Slumdog Millionaire last week. It’s a movie that will affect you. I find that rare in the comic book movie age.
Rachel Getting Married deserves a nod. Even non-movie buffs comment on the camera work. To quote a friend of mine, ‘it’s like you’re not even watching a movie. And it doesn’t look like they’re acting.’
However, I think it has already been decided that Milk is going to win.
Ohio Wolverine Momon 06 Nov 2008 at 11:24 am 19Growltiger—amen! I used to get to the theater every spare moment; now, can’t tell you the name of the last Oscar nominated film I’ve seen in the theaters.
Michael Hutchisonon 06 Nov 2008 at 11:24 am 20Five years away from running out of comic book characters? All right! As a comic book writer, they’ll get to mine eventually.
Michaelon 06 Nov 2008 at 11:25 am 21I agree with Thomas: “Slumdog Millionaire” is very good.
Bluejadeon 06 Nov 2008 at 11:26 am 22I think Moviebob misses DH’s point. Why are the popular films and the ones that get the most awards two completely different categories? We’ve talked before about the 1939 Oscars, with Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz and Ninotchka and God knows what else nominated as Best Picture. Every one of them a big success, and at least two of them giant blockbusters. Great art and successful commerce mix, just like Shakespeare in his day, with his audience of earls and groundlings. That’s what happens when great artists are in touch with the society at large and wish to communicate with their fellow man, and not just with other artists. Art (not just movies, but all art) is now so self-referential that it’s just a meaningless little ritual for the in-crowd. There’s no point in blaming the audience — they’re so sick of self-referential (which largely exists to remind them that they are “out” and the in-folks are “in”) and so tired of political sucker-punches that they have no choice but to resort to genre films which are less likely to be either of those two things. I’m a bilingual Ivy League educated lawyer in Manhattan, and a published novelist, and I only go to genre films any more because I’ve got better things to do with my life than go to precious navel-gazing films that insult my beliefs.
The_Rickon 06 Nov 2008 at 11:43 am 23Well put Bluejade.
Much more to the point than what I said.
And, as a former college professor, current businessman I agree that movies that are elitist just for the sake of being elitist are boring.
I’d much rather go see a mediocre performance by Marky Mark in “Invincible” than a drawn-out borefest like “The Lucky Ones” because at least Invincible is positive and inspiring in an “only in America” kind of way.
I just don’t get why Hollywood insists on making so many depressing self-flagellating movies. Even well-educated people like to leave a movie feeling good sometimes.
Robert Lindseyon 06 Nov 2008 at 11:50 am 24I thought they wanted people to watch the Oscars. People won’t watch if they don’t care.
Kiton 06 Nov 2008 at 11:59 am 25dudesaplenty,
“Kit you are an excellent poster and i like you but you are showing why Hollywood is gonna live as long as it can actually it will destroy itself by it’s own weight but not by any Conservatives who lather at it and desperately worship it.”
Thank you for your compliment but can you explain the rest of your comment. I couldn’t quite understand what you were trying to say.
ArchiCrashon 06 Nov 2008 at 12:00 pm 26I’ve only _heard_ of exactly one of those movies. And I have even a passing intersting in exactly one of them. Coincidently, not the one I’d previously heard of. Its just that the word ‘wrestling’ still piques my interest. At least momentarily.
…To whomever metioned The Return of the King earlier in the thread… Remember RotK got the nod only after Fellowship and Two Towers got pretty much nothing. That the pretty much accademy saying ‘whoops’ in the face of near universally praised franchise.
Kiton 06 Nov 2008 at 12:13 pm 27Now, I don’t mind a depressing movie now and again, but they work best if, at some point in the movie, there is some kind of a moral victory.
(SPOILER WARNING!)
HE WHO SAVES ONE LIFE, SAVES THE WORLD ENTIRE:
In movies that are about events such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or mass murder, the victory is that some people are saved.
SCHINDLER’S LIST: The most famous depressing movie. Not a kissing movie (ask Jerry). Yet there was a victory; Oskar Schindler saved 1,100 people from the Nazis despite all the death around him.
HOTEL RWANDA: Same as above. In the midst of despair, lives are saved.
NEVER GIVE IN:
In other films, often prison films, the hero wins by just never giving into his oppressor. He may be killed, but despite killing the hero, the villain has lost some of his strength.
COOL HAND LUKE: (Spoilers) Yes, they killed him, but they never had him. He never caved in. He beat them. His victory is shown in both his “Luke smile” and the sunglasses being broken.
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST: (Spoilers) Yes she cuts out Nicholson’s brain, but her neck is broken and can barely speak. Nicholson is euthanized by Chief and Chief escapes in one of the best endings of all time.
ANDERSONVILLE: Incredibly depressing. Here, the victories won in LUKE and CUCKOO’S NEST are not achieved, but another one is: humanity. The film constantly creates the impression that the Andersonville prison camp is a man-made hell. Yet there moral victory is in showing that despite the evil and cruelty they are surrounded by, they are still soldiers in the Federal Army -and humans. Two scenes, this is shown. First, the trial, where the prisoners who would murder and rob “fresh fish” are tried and hung in an ad hoc court martial. The second is, when given the offer of serving the Confederate Army and thereby committing treason, they form ranks and march back away from the Rebel Officer.
JimmyCon 06 Nov 2008 at 12:34 pm 28John McClain,
Of course Hollywood worships the dead. After all, dead people always vote for the Democrat.
StringerBon 06 Nov 2008 at 12:52 pm 29Re. The_Rick post: Mark Walhberg was NOT mediocre, but solid and well-cast in “Invincible”; you have him confused with the catatonic Marky Mark of “The Happening” and “Max Payne”…say hi to your mother for me!
johnmark7on 06 Nov 2008 at 1:18 pm 30I’m still wondering why it is that nobody points out that we also may have elected our first bastard.
I mean that literally. His mother was never legally married to the slime ball who got her pregnant. He was already married which makes BO a bastard.
Dark Edenon 06 Nov 2008 at 1:20 pm 31At least in the last few years I’d heard of the films that were up for nomination… I haven’t even heard of any of these! Talk about Box Office Poison.
OldSchoolMatton 06 Nov 2008 at 1:32 pm 32Ah, Harry. It’s nice to see I can go back to thinking your opinions on MOVIES are ridiculous and ill-founded…
The_Rickon 06 Nov 2008 at 1:35 pm 33Oh, Stringer, what’s with the “mom” comment?
BTW, my mother is 72 and has seen better times.
pandaxon 06 Nov 2008 at 1:40 pm 34Hollywood has a term for these films it calls them “prestige movies” i.e. movies it knows probably won’t make much money but will get nomiated for an Oscar. So it has two different types of movies, ones it thinks will make money and others that won’t but will get awards. The reason for this is that prestige movies deal with stuff that no one else cares about and often depise the wider audience that sees the comic superhero movies that make money. So Hollywood makes these movies for each other about crap they think is important.
Growltigeron 06 Nov 2008 at 1:42 pm 35Mark Wahlberg is an interesting actor, not the least because he doesn’t look like a carbon copy of Matt “the helmet” Damon or the other clones. I enjoyed “Invincible”. He underplays most roles which in the day of George C. Looney’s over the top exhibitionism is a relief.
“American Carol” was the last film I saw.
Thomas Talionison 06 Nov 2008 at 1:42 pm 36Jimmy C. -
Good one!
blackhawk12151on 06 Nov 2008 at 1:42 pm 37OldSchoolMatt
Care to offer a response to DH’s opinion and an argument of your own or are you more of a snarky one-liner kind of guy?
The_Rickon 06 Nov 2008 at 1:45 pm 38Don’t get me wrong, I loved Invincible, especially as a former high school athlete in his thirties. I just don’t find Marky Mark that believable as an actor.
Except in his rock videos.
Yep, that’s right, I felt the vibration!!
pandaxon 06 Nov 2008 at 1:48 pm 39blackhawk12151
I do believe matt does want Harry to talk about film more again because he doesn’t want us talking about Obama anymore since now he is president and everything is his fault now.
Traffic Cop Timmyon 06 Nov 2008 at 1:52 pm 40I don’t even go to the movies any more. Too expensive and too many annoyances. With all my a/v equipment, I am happy just to wait for the DVD.
dudesaplentyon 06 Nov 2008 at 1:56 pm 41To kit i was responding to what harry’s point was by using your worship of it’s product as to why Hollywood will be around for a while(More than five years).If it is to go it will be by it’s own actions.
alexdroogon 06 Nov 2008 at 1:56 pm 42“I’m a bilingual Ivy League educated lawyer in Manhattan, and a published novelist”
Bluejade is John Fitzgerald Page?
Morganon 06 Nov 2008 at 2:06 pm 43“I’m still wondering why it is that nobody points out that we also may have elected our first bastard.”
johnmark7, I thought that distinction was achieved already when Bill Clinton was sworn in as President.
OldSchoolMatton 06 Nov 2008 at 2:10 pm 44“Care to offer a response to DH’s opinion and an argument of your own or are you more of a snarky one-liner kind of guy?”
I am more of a snarky one-liner kind of guy, actually.
But, regardless, I posted the same basic argument every time Harry made this exact same post back at Libertas. Which, between November and February was about once a week. This wasn’t really an attempt to reengage that discussion, as much as it was a joking attempt to say that I’m glad that he’s getting back to posting about movies.
Plissken79on 06 Nov 2008 at 3:29 pm 45If the line-up on “Oscar” films looks as weak as this, then the Dark Knight could very well get nominated for Best Picture. It might even win, huge hits have won before, Ben-Hur, Forrest Gump, Titanic, Return of the King, etc.
Too bad The Road will not come out in time, Cormac McCarthy’s novel was brilliant.
At least this was the first World Series with a postponed game, I guess that is something. And moviebob, the Angels and the Cubs had the two best records at the end of the season, not the Rays and the Phillies
kishkeon 06 Nov 2008 at 3:30 pm 46Matt is being modest. He often posted well-reasoned, many-line comments on Libertas.
JohnFNWayneon 06 Nov 2008 at 4:06 pm 47Whoever wins Best Actor, I want them to ask one question.
Were they better than Robert Downey Jr. or Heath Ledger this year?
And the answer will unequivocally be no.
Now carry on with your insipid awards show.
Attmayon 06 Nov 2008 at 4:20 pm 48#43: I don’t think you can count Clinton as a bastard, at least not in the actual meaning of the word, because his father died before he was born. The use of the word as a slang term for his behavior is another matter altogether.
PerfectTommyon 06 Nov 2008 at 5:12 pm 49“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” looks interesting. I wouldn’t mind seeing a Fincher/Nolan race.
eeyoreon 06 Nov 2008 at 9:14 pm 50Looking at the Best Picture nominees and winners, certainly I have seen fewer per year since the year 2000 than before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture
Four in 2003 (the most) and one in 2005, which I really regret (”Crash”). Many of the recent nominations are ones I don’t think of as a best picture in any year. TMC, FMC and formerly AMC let me see many of the older pictures on the list. I taped them and can watch them again to have the enjoyment of good movies. I have also purchased DVD’s to keep the better ones.
I have some nephews and nieces who enjoy these movies now. Many movies that weren’t nominated are some of my favorites. Of course, many of these older films don’t age well, but how many times would you take out a DVD of “Crash” to watch in the future?
MovieBobon 06 Nov 2008 at 9:24 pm 51blackhawk
“People go to see the crap that Bay puts out because it lands in every theater.”
Yes, but WHY does it get to every theater in the first place? Because the producers KNOW the audience is going to show up. You don’t get that kind of rollout unless they think you’re “good for it.”
Bay has made SEVEN films since 1995, only TWO of which are passable* and even then only in the “enthusiastically-awful” fashion. Yet each one is given a massive rollout with the expectation of a massive audience which they all-but-innevitably FIND. It’s somewhat understandable that his first one, “Bad Boys,” made it’s money: early-90s, The Fresh Prince and Martin as buddy cops, I remember it looking fun enough in the trailers (though, granted, I was 14). But the REST of them? Even “The Island” wasn’t a total bomb? There are things that speak poorly of a society - this is one of them.
Marieon 06 Nov 2008 at 10:06 pm 52OldSchoolMatt, if you have such a low opinion of the guy, why bother coming here? To make yourself feel superior?
I can tell you this…no matter what you post here, you will always be pond scum.
Jack Marinoon 06 Nov 2008 at 10:58 pm 53Whiskey, if you want to support a film, you can purchase an independent film FORGOTTEN HEROES. It isn’t a great film with a mega-budget or stars, but like a local wine, it isn’t bad. You have some time to buy my film before Obama raises your taxes so high you will have to cancel your internet in order to ’share’ the cable with the moochers out there.
FORGOTTEN HEROES is the DVD that even President Bush saw….
Mighty Skipon 07 Nov 2008 at 8:24 am 54I find myself, when in the mood for a drama or more serious work, delving deeper into literature and much less Hollywood. In fact, I have no interest in seeing all these Oscar nominated/artsy/whatever films. I’m not entirely certain why but if it were one word, pretentious.
So all my money goes to the brain-dead films critics love to hate with lots of moving things, colors, explosions… gratuitous nudity and violence are always a plus. That I watch with absolutely glee with my popcorn and soda. Maybe that makes me the problem, but I’m okay with that.
Dramatic Hollywood just sucks lately.
chambodiaon 07 Nov 2008 at 1:23 pm 55The way hollywood treated me this election cycle confirmed for me that my waning interest in their industry is warranted. I have my collection of old movies, and I have my TCM. That will do unless or until they come up with something decent for the decent folks to watch. The only movie I watched in the past three months was Fireproof. Hollywood didn’t come near it.
wfon 07 Nov 2008 at 4:38 pm 56MovieBob sez: There are things that speak poorly of a society - this is one of them.
You told me you don´t care about society. Well, as Robert Conquest says: “Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.” And in your case that´s movies.
I´m not worried. Give me one modern nation that does not have lowbrow entertainment. (Of course, certain people find trash cool as long as it comes from Japan) The only difference is that other nations do not have a globalized movie industry - their trash is mostly for tv. And while they didn´t make Transformers, they certainly watched it. Even the French.