The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Just to be upfront...this is all in the hindsight.I think there are multiple reasons as to why 1917 came in short at the Oscars. Here are few.

1) Academy has become reactive up to a point in the recent years.Reactive to media perception and inclusivity.

2) You need to understand what it would mean if sam mendes won the oscar and 1917 won best picture. It would put him in the same ranks as spielberg/innaritu/ang lee/curon. All those directors have never been sell outs. Yes, ang lee made hulk/gemini man but those are experimental failures. Whereas mendes was a sell out when he made the bond movies. So in that respect academy voters are acutely aware of whom they are giving their vote to and what that means for that person.

3) Its a bloody competitive year. Period.

4) The cruel but inevitable fate of auteur culture. The reason why mendes didn't win director is exactly the same reason why Scorsese and Tarantino has loads of fans and it is the exactly the same reason why Tarantino probably will never win director Oscar. Mendes doesn't exactly have a directorial style. He is a competent director but you don't see any correlation between jar-head and american beauty or even with sky-fall. Skyfall feels very much inspired by the dark knight and 1917 by dukirk. I am not saying they are the same but there is some strong correlation. So when academy voters sees 1917, the world war aspect of it feels like inspired by dunkirk. And the "immersive" experience in 1917 is very much inspired by birdman/revenant. You could say they are inspired by work of terrence malick but that is not true. Malick's work is much more small in scale in terms of production. Where as these movies are huge in scale especially revenant and 1917. They will notice that. Tarantino is sort of locked into his style that he can't, wont and shouldnt get out of. If his magnum opus didnt win him a single Oscar then I am not sure if he will ever win. But the moment he breaks from it he will fail with critics and industry. When your entire style is pro-populist and not artistic enough for the majority of the academy then you will have a very tough time breaking through.

5) But the big baddy of all is competition, it is the greatest enemy when it comes to Oscars. No matter anything else if there is someone with a better narrative than you then there is a very strong possibility they will win. Narrative should be natural not forced unlike Greta gerwig or people of color representation.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

It would be nice to know how close or how far 1917 was from Parasite in votes. If in fact it was second in line. Without that it would all be mostly heresay. And let's face it, Parasite was story wise a unique thing. 1917 had a good story. A cinematic achievement in terms of technique. They both would have been great winners. But have no complaints. If we cry out for collective awards like Scorsese got for the infinite rejection before, Bon can fall into that category. Just his bad luck his parents got frisky in some other part of the world!!!

An interesting question is whether Parasite won for being artistically risky or if any other reason is likelier.

I think the Academy can have social and/or political motivations in their voting to some extent. I don't think it's coincidence that Dances with Wolves won Best Picture the year after the 100th anniversary of Wounded Knee. (Edit: I personally enjoyed the film, but in terms of personal favorites, I'd prob watch Goodfellas, The Hunt for Red October, and The Rescuers Down Under more when it comes to 1990 films)

Also Spotlight's victory I think was motivated by the church controversy it explored (though I personally haven't seen it).

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

I haven't seen 1917 and got too busy by the time it was in theaters and left. Wish I had! However, the movie is stereotypical Oscar bait. Not to say that that's bad, but the Oscars usually pick historical dramas and historical war movies. That's their taste usually. Not that it's a bad movie at all, it's just that it's nice to see the Oscars, pick a fictional story set in modern times, rather than historical dramas they are use to picking.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

This is the part that confuses me... About 800 odd people vote for best picture. If a year is going to be politically motivated, I would think 40-50 of the voters can think that way and vote that way. But all of the voters? Or at least most of the voters to swing it in a movie's favour?

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Is there a way to find out what the ratio of the votes were?

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

1917 is still showing in theatres as far as I know. I just watched it a few days ago.
I don’t think it had anything to do with being a “sellout”. That’s just assumption.
Is it entirely possible that perhaps the academy actually voted for the right film for once? I ask, having not seen Parasite yet, so I’m unable to compare the two.
but this isn’t unheard of, where a film gains steam and stars the thunder from another that was previously favored.
See Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan, Crash over Brokeback Mountain, Moonlight over La La Land, Million Dollar Baby over The Aviator. Some were a bit more dubious, such as Shakespeare winning was the result of an aggressive ad campaign by Miramax.
But many of those films that won weren’t considered the favorites originally.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Well when it comes to people expecting a certain movie to win only to have something else picked, what is it about these particular movies that make people think they are going to win more? For example, a lot of people were expecting 1917 to win but why? I never saw it as the one that was going to win the most? I only found out after the show, and people were talking about how they thought it would win but did not. But why were most people expecting that particular one to win over the others?

I actually thought Jojo Rabbit was mostly likely going to win because of it's subject matter it deals with, which I thought the Oscars would like, since a lot of times, they pick movies dealing with racism.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Usually a favorite emerges based on the amount of awards it has won leadings up toe the Oscars.
1917 had won several leading up including DGA, BAFTA, The Golden Globes.
Parasite had its fair share as well, but foreign films never won these previously. That’s what made it especially shocking.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Oh okay, I thought the academy didn't care so much about previous awards and picked movies based on subject matter they usually like, hence why I thought they would pick Jojo Rabbit.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

They can, and sometimes willpick based on subject matter, but quite often those films line up with previous awards.
Like Schindlers List for example.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Oh okay. Has Jojo Rabbit, also dealing with similar subject matter, won any similar awards, previous?

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Mostly just awards for it’s screenplay, which it did win at the Oscars.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Oh okay. I didn't know the Oscars cared about previous awards, I just if your movie is in a historical setting, and it's about racism, than that is what you need to more likely win, but didn't think of past awards :).

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

The voters have become increasingly more varied, with the inclusion with many women and foreigners. This will eventually change the pattern, even if it's still a too PC ceremony.
The good thing is, maybe the right films will start to get the Oscars, for a change.
None of the American films these year were beyond average, I'm glad Parasites won.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

I have only seen four of the nominees so far, but Paraste is the best of those four for me, so glad it won so far too. Do they Oscars often pick the wrong ones do you think though?

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Pulp Fiction won best Original Script.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

The Oscars have often gotten it wrong before. Take a look at their history, courtesy of filmsite.org that goes very in depth.
The Oscars aren’t perfect and never will be.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Can you give any examples of how they got it wrong? I mean for example there are sometimes movies that I think should win best picture that aren't even nominated. For example in 1998, the whole weather or not Shakespeare in Love, or Saving Private Ryan should have picked, I vote neither, and say The Truman Show should probably, but it wasn't even nominated, cause they do not tend to pick sci-fi movies.

Or in 1995, instead of Braveheart winning, I thought Kids, was the best movie of the year probably, but I guess the Academy is not going to nominate an NC-17 rated independent film.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Crash over Brokeback Mountain.
The greatest show on earth winning BP over High Noon or The Quiet Man.
Around the world in 80 days over Giant.
Just a few examples.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Oh okay. I haven't seen The Greatest Show on Earth, or Giant, but want to now...I don't agree with the Oscars that often myself, but I almost never think they pick a bad movie by any means. The two biggest miss-steps they made for me where picking Gladiator and The Deer Hunter for best picture, and maybe The Graduate as I felt that out of all the ones I have seen, those three were the most overrated.

But aside from those, everything else they picked that I can think of, has been reasonably good.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

I usually agree, with a few notable exceptions. Not all BP winners are bad movies, but quite often there are better films I would have preferred to have won. Such as L.A. Confidential in 1997, but there was no stopping Titanic.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

I've heard that to, that people say L.A. Confidental was better. I went and watched it, and it was very good but a near miss from winning for me, as I cannot help but get on the Titanic boat, no pun intended. It was just a little better for me.

However, Gattaca, was very good that year too, and it was't even nominated.

This thread is a headache....




1917 shouldn't have been in the mix, it was in the mix because it was the UK nom and nationalism is becoming a problem with the Academy. South Korea, France, Mexico, and UK have all had winners since the Academy expanded the field to 10.



The Academy often gets it wrong, multiple factors go into this

1. Parity, Someone wins an Oscar to early so the followup loses. William Friedkin won for The French Connection, then in 1973 he came out with The Exorcist that lost to The Sting.
2. Politics, The Greatest Show on Earth is often considered one of the worst BP winners ever...the winner should have been High Noon but the writer of High Noon was called before congress and blacklisted.
3. Money, Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan because Harvey Weinstein ran a campaign and flooded the electorate with screeners.

This. Not sure what all the fuss is about. People who think main award is only for Hollywood, just go and watch Plan 9 from Outer Space on repeat 92 times!!


This might start a trend though, probably for the better. But I am not betting on it.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

There are a few reasons I think Parasite won, which I've stated before. None of them I think involve Mendes being a sellout.

Isn't Spielberg the prime example of a sell-out director? Think about his career prior to his first Best Director win - his breakthrough film invented the modern blockbuster and most of his subsequent films were similarly successful (we're talking three Indiana Jones movies, E.T., and Jurassic Park - the latter even came out the same year as Schindler's List!) and even then he had to prove himself again and again with serious fare like The Color Purple or Empire of the Sun. Even after that win, he still turned out a Jurassic Park sequel, so it's not like he suddenly became too good for blockbusters after one win (and that didn't stop the Academy awarding him for Saving Private Ryan anyway). Likewise, Cuaron did smaller Mexican productions and only broke through to an international audience when he directed the third Harry Potter so he had to sell out a little to get to make his subsequent work (and he won his directing Oscars for films that also relied quite heavily on long takes). Hell, it was only two years ago that they gave it to the guy who made Blade II and a couple of Hellboy movies, so what I'm getting that is that maybe selling out isn't the issue here.

Isn't this the same as #5?

Wait, so Mendes isn't liable to win another Oscar because he's not enough of an auteur but Tarantino won't win one at all because he's too much of an auteur? I'm not sure how much difference the idea of a director's auteur status really makes to the Academy based on some of their recent choices, especially since a lot of the so-called auteurs moved between genres about as much as Mendes did in the past 20 years.

Anyway, I would actually argue that the closer point of comparison for 1917 would be Gravity and its primary focus on two people's journey through empty yet hostile territory being rendered through elaborate technical means. Like 1917, it also got criticised because of the slightness of its underlying plot and characterisation. That might be the reason why I think the Academy has gotten a bit wary in recent years over giving Best Picture and/or Director to the most technically impressive movie - sure, it takes a good director to pull it all together, but maybe that just makes the Academy look like they're easily impressed by a glossy surface with little underneath.

I mean, Birdman kind of undermined the "movie done in one take" narrative when a) it won, b) got backlash over it, and c) stopped anyone else from being able to use it. Still, arguing over which narratives count as "natural" or "forced" sounds like it's besides the point, especially when I could just as easily argue that films like Ford v Ferrari or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or The Irishman or 1917 are forced into the conversation by the old out-of-touch white guys who still make up a significant chunk of the awards voting bodies. That's not a judgment of the films themselves, more a judgment of the whole conversation about what's "forced" or not.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

OP is obviously a troll, no?

Most recent is Shape of Water instead any single one of the other nominees

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

I can understand not liking it, but you know what else was nominated that year? Darkest Hour was so dry and British it made The King's Speech look like Spring Breakers.

in his own words, THIS was his magnum opus not pulp

I am not saying that's the sole real...it is a contributing factor...he hasn't made a significant artistic movie between american beauty and 1917...most his movies are either snoozefests or sellout with the exception of maybe road to perdition but even that is an okay to decent movie.

no...if you have anything constructive to say..say it..otherwise go away

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

For what it’s worth, I felt 1917 was a fine film. Is it better then Parasite? I don’t know, and won’t until I’ve watched it. But the better film has rarely ever won, and even then not everyone will agree with it if it does.
Take The Silence of the Lambs. I didn’t feel that was the best film that year. By far. Boys in the Hood would have been my pick and it wasn’t even nominated. But there are many who would defend it. And that’s alright, as no one will ever agree with every winner across the board.
That’s the way the Oscars goes.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

I would have picked either Terminator 2 or JFK over The Silence of the Lambs, but the Oscars are not going to nominate a sci-fi action movie like T2 normally.

As for Parasite, out of every movie I have seen this year it was the best, but I haven't seen 1917 yet, wish I had made time for that one. So having not seen it, I do agree that Parasite is the best movie I've seen all year, and the last movie before it that won best picture that I agree with his Slumdog Millionaire Before that, Schindler's List. Maybe Titanic I agree with too, but haven't seen all those films that year. So it seems I would probably agree with the best picture choice, about every decade or so on average therefore.

Spielberg wasn't exactly selling out when he made those movies. Indiana jones is his creation.ET is an original movie and jurassic park is a risky movie. Making broad appealing blockbuster is not the same as selling out. Interstellar is a not a sell out. He had to prove with color purple and empire of the sun just like nolan has to prove with dunkirk after the dark knight trilogy. James bond is the most sell out you can get after superhero movies especially one's that don't have a distinct vision and style. You can tell the same guy directed the prestige and the dark knight. So nolan is not a sell out even though he made batman movies. Because his vision is in every frame of those movies.


Narrative is different from competition. Innaritu didn't have competition for revenant. None of the other nominees were remotely a competition except maybe mad max fury road but even that was shot like a very well made action movie and not exactly an artistic piece.



No, that not what I said. When you become an auteur you develop a style. Sometimes that style is extremely original like Malick or chris Nolan or michael mann. Sometimes it is extremely derivative. Like Tarantino. That doesn't mean his style is bad. His style is an amalgamation of lot of things that are cool and commercially appealing. So if he thinks he want a bloodshed at the end of his movie he will do it and it falls into his style. BUT industry voters know that is played for commercial satisfaction of the audience and will be popular at box office.

One the contrary, sam mendes doesn't need to be an auteur to win an oscar BUT his style can't so closely resemble dunkirk and revenant and birdman. Birdman gimmick is not even just single take...even in birdman days and nights passby. So its single take is not even real time but its the experience of single take that makes that movie stand apart.



hate to break it to you but the "backlash" you are referring to is from people that ultimately dont matter. That's not the point. 1917 was just not able to justify its existence with one-shot. Revenant achievement even more of a surreal experience without being one-shot. When I mean forced, i mean forced from bloggers and journalist and awards websites. The ONLY movie that was forced into nomination among the bunch this year is little women. All other movies were nominated because enough people loved them.Period. You call them out-of-touch but I value their opinion more than a blogger whose entire livelihood depends on clicks to his awards website. Little women is forced. It is different from other movies. Ultimately it could get only so-far.

1917 is Raging Bull with trenches.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Here is a thought. Not saying it's right or wrong, but just a 'what if'.

Last year the Academy chose to bestow the Best Picture award on Green Book, and by so doing overlooking the superior Roma. Hindsight being what it is, could part of Parasite's success this year be in part due to some members seeking to course correct; to actively demonstrate that no matter where a film is from it has not simply the potential to win as a hypothetical, but can actually win?

If Roma had've walked away with the Best Picture Oscar last year, would we be sitting here now having witnessed back to back non-English language movies taking home the top prize? Or is it more likely that a more traditional Oscar friendly movie like 1917 would have got this year's Best Picture Oscar?

Indeed, will Parasite's success this year mean that the Academy voters are more or less likely to vote in this manner again or will next year see a shift back to the traditional Oscar fare? Is this year a one off, that they can pat each other on the back for showing how inclusive they are but then it is back to what they've been doing, or a genuine shift in the Academy honouring the best film irrespective of where it was produced or what language it is in?

Just food for thought.

I'm surprised you say Jurassic Park is a risky movie cause since it's about people fighting dinosaurs, isn't that one of the safest bets you can make, when making a crowdpleaser? I always thought of Jurassic Park as Spielberg's safest movie.

As for Parasite, after the Oscars, there are people saying that the Oscars picking Parasite for best picture is a game changer, in the sense that now American moviegoers are going to be more open to wanting to foreign films with subtitles. But do you think that's true though? Even though I love Parasite winning best picture, I don't think it'll make one bit of difference and it will not be a game changer to foreign films being more accepted by the US. Unless I am being pessimistic and I am wrong?

what do you mean by "this"?

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

I never pay much attention to the awards shows, all I have seen from this years awards was a short segment on TV of a singer saying she was proud to be a black queer female .. or something?.. and Natalie Portman's dress.. I don't know or care. Its depressing and more importantly, boring.

Perhaps if Natalie Portman had the names of movies directed by woman she thought deserved to be nominated, I might not think she was a total idiot.

Oh and Laura Dern saying is she could giver her Oscar to a female director.. (of Little Woman) she would..

I knew a British historical film would not do well, it was just a feeling, even having not seen the movie and when it was in the production stages.

^I think that was the exact reason she had those names on the dress in the first place, dude.

.

Raiders and Jurassic Park were attempts to recover from the prominent failures of 1941 and Hook respectively (plus Jurassic Park came after he made multiple attempts to do prestige films anyway). Besides, I think if you take Mendes' other films into account then you can spot enough aspects to distinguish his entries into the Bond franchise, whether it's tangible ones like bringing in Roger Deakins to lend Skyfall an extremely distinctive look or by having both films touch upon themes of family and one's definition of oneself in relation to that that are present throughout every other film he's ever done. In any case, I would argue that Nolan's Batman trilogy is separate from the rest of his filmography because he doesn't do nearly as much dicking around with flashbacks or intersecting timelines or anything of a particularly temporal nature so I might actually question whether or not he did both The Prestige and The Dark Knight if I didn't already know he did both.

Guess it depends on what you consider impressive directing and I could argue that the narrative surrounding The Revenant was more to do with it being the movie that would finally win Leo the Oscar (but I guess spending a year in the snow is also supposed to be that kind of impressively Hard directing that the Academy apparently loves to reward), but it really does just read like they were still high off Birdman.

Which is why I thought Gravity was the better point of reference for 1917 than Birdman because it also involves technically impressive long takes but doesn't feel quite so committed to the (ultimately immersion-breaking) one-take illusion (and like I said, Gravity sticks to its protagonist the whole way through while Birdman veers between characters quite a bit). That and 1917 also transitions from daytime to nighttime via a single conventional cut to black so it's also not overly committed to the one-take approach either. In any case, I'd still contend that there's more to being an auteur than just having a tangible sense of style - you've got to have the substance to back it up (which even an overly stylish director like Tarantino manages to provide more often than not).

It's a Best Picture winner. Backlash usually comes with the territory (when was the last unanimously beloved Best Picture winner anyway?)

As for Little Women, that's an awful lot of conjecture. Blaming some nebulous scapegoat of "bloggers and journalist [sic] and awards websites" for forcing a narrative by doing....what exactly? Saying they liked the movie and thought it was awards-worthy? Then following that up by saying that every other nominee deserved it because "enough people loved them", even when it comes to something as notoriously divisive as Joker or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but without specifying how much is "enough" in this scenario - never mind the possibility that people might actually like some of the other nominees as much as they liked Little Women anyway. It's one thing to personally dislike the movie, but to act like other people liking it is some kind of conspiracy that couldn't possibly apply to a movie you like doesn't help your case. In fact, I actually like most of those movies I mentioned earlier (at least ...Hollywood and Irishman, anyway) and was only speaking hypothetically in order to prove a larger point about the problem with being overly concerned about what did or didn't count as "forced".

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

I didn't see her speech or the Oscars, so I don't know if there was more to it than that. But if that's all she said then it's disrespectful to the people who supported & voted for her in the first place. I mean it sounds like she's saying, thanks for the Oscar but I don't care, I like to give it away. She could've sung the praises of the Little Women director without belittling the honor that was bestowed on her.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Now I'm trying to remember which one of Bong Joon-ho's Oscar speeches involved him saying that he should "Texas Chain Saw" the Oscar and share the pieces with the other nominees. That I would've liked to see.

I would say Schindler's List is one of the very few, universally agreed upon Best Picture winners in Oscar history. Both at the time and in retrospect it's difficult to imagine many legit arguments against its winning. Not just given its direct competition on the ballot of The Piano, In the Name of the Father, Remains of the Day, and The Fugitive but of anything else released that year. I can't even imagine any of the nominated movies or winners in the year before or after it (the winners being Unforgiven and Forrest Gump) getting more Best Picture votes. It's pretty much the perfect Best Picture, being critically acclaimed, a serious subject, and a blockbuster.

The Godfather might be the only other film I would deem perfect in Best Picture terms with Gone with the Wind and Lawrence of Arabia maybe a fraction of a tier down. Pretty much everything else either hasn't aged well, did not receive universal acclaim, didn't make obscene amounts of money, in retrospect did not face some great movies that should have been on its ballot that year, or if it were released in a different year would not be as bullet proof.

The overwhelming majority of the time the winner is only a benchmark for eternal debate. The choice between Parasite and 1917 is no different.

And this is inevitable. Movies the caliber and circumstance of Schindler's List, The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, and Gone with the Wind are extremely rare.

I like that, it's both creative & thoughtful and shows him to be a good sport.

In the hindsight it will appear like that. They bought the movie rights to the book even before the book came out.
I made the same mistake of thinking pirates of carribean/titanic being safe bets because one is based on a popular theme rides and the other is about the most popular ship ever. But thats not always the case. Sam Neil/jeff goldblum or anyone in jurassic park for that matter is not a movie star. 1990s was a time in film industry where everyone thought only movie stars can make movies hits. Even when making titanic they wanted tom cruise. And that is two years after jurassic park. So at the time of jurassic park when the visual effects were not exactly sure they could pull it off. It was risk. Moreover, for the most part you dont even see dinosaurs and most of jurassic park is pretty scientific unlike independence day. All those were pretty risky. Even terminator was less about time travel and metals and more about just an action chase.

"people" you are referring to is a very small insignificant percentage. They dont matter. In general, foreign movie demand has a ceiling. Even now, if you make a straight up american movie with asian leads, it will struggle at box office(not based on popular books or disney properties). So thats not gonna change. Foreign movie aesthetics are different and that will not change. As for the 10-100k people on twitter that obsessively follow film news and awards season, everything has changed but in real world its not gonna change drastically.

Maybe so - I know I'm struggling to come up with a good alternative for 1993. Still feel like I need to revisit Schindler's List to verify certain criticisms about how it soft-pedals the Holocaust by framing it as the story of a Gentile war profiteer having a change of heart (to paraphrase Kubrick, making a success story about humanity's greatest failure). The same goes for Gone with the Wind to see just how much it does or does not venerate the antebellum South.

Wouldn't contest Godfather or Lawrence of Arabia, though.

Schindler's List is not my favorite film of 1993, I have issues with it. But as a Best Picture winner I can't fault the Academy for their inevitable and really invincible choice. There are very, very, very few Best Pictures one can say that about.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

I would say Schindler's List is a perfect movie and in my top movies of all time for sure. I guess if I had one nitpick, I feel that maybe Amon Goeth, may not have been a necessary character, and just have the antagonist be the Nazi army in general rather than one lead villain. But the rest is perfect.

Also before on here, when I posted my top ten movies of all time, two of them on there were best picture winners. If I decide to add Schindler's List to it, that would be three. So I guess that means I agree with some of the best picture winners over the decades for sure.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Little Women is a fine film. Gerwig does a great job with the story, chopping what's not important and keeping what's good. Chamalet's character is bit flat and one note compared to the book, that's okay I guess. It's miles ahead of Once upon a time for me. If I wanted a 60s Hollywood experience, I can always have a costume party. If you read the book, it's becomes a little bit better experience. This is one of the few book adaptations I can say this about. Even Godfather falls a few notches after reading the book.


Not sure what was forced about it. It definitely deserved the Oscar nod. And if you don't like it, don't watch it. There is nothing forceful here.


Do I sense a little misogyny in criticizing the movie?

Could it be that the poster meant that maybe Little Women was forced cause it's been adapted a few times before, with the last one being in the 90s, not too long ago so maybe it feels kind of old to remake it again, kind of like say remaking Pride or Prejudice or A Christmas Carol again?

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

As a British film at a very American ceremony, it was never going to do as well as it should have.


(I'm aware of the poor timing of this given which film beat it for Best Picture, but that's a story for another time.)

No, I sense a little political correctness female empowerment quota going on.

Like I said before...

Anyway...

I read The Godfather first and the movie only made the book's flaws stand out more (most obviously the multiple ways in how it would end one chapter with the sudden reveal of one character's death to another and then spend the whole of the next chapter recounting the events leading up to said death, whereas the movie just played everything in chronological order and let the shocks happen to the audience first). That's without mentioning the various extraneous sub-plots.

I doubt it.

Naaa... If you are looking at PC stuff, this is not it. It perfectly deserves the nomination.

Those sub-plots are the things that made the book better for me. I can understand putting all of them in would have made the movie 6 hours long maybe, so in a movie if they get dropped it's understandable. But for me, it painted a more vivid picture. If I recall correctly, one of the brothers life was just brushed aside in the movie, isn't it?

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Depends which brother. If it's Fredo, I'm pretty sure that was true in both versions of the story. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure the movie also have the requisite amount of time to both Michael and Sonny. I think the problem is more that the sub-plots don't really reconnect to the main plot in any meaningful way (most obviously in the case of Lucy Mancini, but the same is arguably true of Johnny Fontane). I won't argue that the book is able to flesh out various characters in ways that are hard to accomplish even in a 3-hour movie (like going into detail about Al Neri's ex-cop background) but I didn't necessarily consider the film to be inferior for not being able to include that.

Yeah probably Fredo. I just remembered the F, not the full name. The film isn't inferior. It's still one of the best book adaptations out there. But I guess that is the life of a mob boss. There so many things going on around them, nothing much to add to the boss's life other than just to display his power. For me it made the book more bustling with events and characters which makes it a fine read. Puzo worked on the story with Coppola if I remember it right, so every chop they made was with his approval I would believe.

The only movie I can say that the subplots are main driving force is Shawshank Redemption. It's endless meandering into different character's background is what makes the movie so strong.

She said it when speaking to journalists after the show, there was no more to it, she said it like it was something amusing, all I could thing was dear lord be grateful you have an Oscar Laura Dern.

Little women is PC female empowerment crap. Greta gerwig should win because she is a woman. What a load of horse**** is that argument.

how did a conversation about 1917 end up with godfather..all roads lead to godfather i guess.

I don't, I think she pulled a bunch of female directors names out of a hat and felt they were entitled to be nominated on account of being female.

I just looked at the films actually nominated for best director and they seem right to me, the big films of 2019 for the biggest awards show of them all...

and then I looked at the films Natalie Portman felt should have been nominated for best director..

Hustlers (**** me this film has a lot of poor reviews across the board)

should have swapped it out for Once Upon A Time

Little Woman.. we haven't had a screen adaption of this since way back in..

2017 :facepalm:

should have swapped it out for 1917

Atlantics??? anybody??? Atlantics???

Its a conspiracy..

Perhaps.

Doesn't seem like a bad tendency to have though.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Guys, the only way to correct the Academy is to simply no longer watch the academy awards. It's always been a preposterous concept, broken at its basal structure, and nothing but an advertising and money grab. I don't care what other award ceremonies do the same thing, there's no excuse for it.

I always had a glimmer of hope for a sliver of reason with the Academy Awards until........

2002 showed up. Yes ladies and gentlemen: Best Actor.

You have got to be kidding me.

I think this is edging into strawman territory at this point - it's less that she should win simply for being a woman and more that it's unfortunate that she seemingly gets shut out of the conversation for little good reason (especially when Todd Phillips somehow merits a nomination).

It started when somebody decided that Little Women didn't deserve any consideration on account of being another adaptation so of course the conversation then turns to the merits of individual adaptations.

Out of the films referenced on the dress, I've seen The Farewell, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood, and Little Women - and I would definitely put any of those ones I've seen over Joker any day of the week (haven't seen Atlantics, Queen & Slim, or Honey Boy). How many of them have you seen? I feel like that's an important factor if you want to argue based on a film's merits as opposed to the director's gender.

It's got a higher RT critic average than Joker, so however many poor reviews it's got, I'm pretty sure Joker has more.

Besides, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was already nominated so that kind of defeats the purpose of a dress that highlights people that should have been nominated.

We haven't had a movie with the Joker in it since way back in 2016, so I don't know why the last time a piece of media was adapted is relevant when judging the quality of its most recent adaptation.

And again, why swap it out for a film that was already nominated? You're really not getting the whole point of listing people who didn't make it.

Is this like an appeal to unpopularity, like not enough people saw this movie to begin with so therefore it can't be good despite the fact that it has like a 96% critic score on RT?

I did mention I felt the right films were nominated for the Oscars, the big films that had everybody excited and talking, this is what I thought the Oscars are, mainstream appeal.. this is always keeping in line with the Oscars, films everybody knows and has actually seen..

sorry think you misunderstood my sarcasm, I mean should of swapped Once Upon A Time for Little Woman, I know the films which were nominated

The conspiricy thing was not in regards to.. Atlantics??.. but in regard to... somewhere there is a bunch of white guys sat around a table laughing gleefully at their all male choices for best director awards.

Doesn't make any of it exempt from criticism, though.

Sounds like you're trying to pass off bad structuring as sarcasm since you went on to specify Little Women being swapped out for 1917 anyway - you shouldn't have to point out that you know which films are nominated.

Hard to know where to break these quotes up, I'll say that much.

Well to you maybe! But hey, not trying to change your opinion. Just saying it deserved it.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Consider the possibility that maybe some people are thoughtlessly saying she was snubbed just because she was a woman...but that it's also true she deserved a nomination, even if they would've said so either way. It's not either-or.

Sounds reasonable.

However, I think the problem I have with any of these arguments is that it first requires me to answer this question with a yes:

Are the Oscars run in a way that makes fundamental sense?

Since I can't quite answer that with a yes, to me it seems like we're arguing about the best way to tune an engine missing all its cylinders.

{shrug}

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

I am not sure about this whole "sell out" nonsense...

In terms of 1917 itself, I think it was a better film than Parasite but no problem in the latter winning the gong cos it was just so damn good!

The best direction Oscar has to go to Mendes...remember, this is an Oscar about the person or persons who have been the top in their field in that particular time frame...Mendes' ability to construct several scenes into a single take, to combine exceptional cinematography with a good script and terrific acting, all while handling near perfect special effects is the job of a director...and it is the best example this year.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

I haven't seen 1917 but I've seen other Mendes movies, and he's good but I feel his movies are shot in a more generic way, like how all these other directors are doing it as well. But still need to see 1917.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Nothing generic about 1917 nor American Beauty.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

On a fundamental level, they are pretty generic - one's a men-on-a-mission war movie, the other's a dysfunctional family drama. It is interesting to see the argument that they are shot generically since it seems like Mendes tends to employ renowned cinematographers like Conrad L. Hall or Roger Deakins, but there's always the question as to whether or not their particular skill adds anything to the film under his direction - the former winning an Oscar for his work on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid makes sense to me, but winning for American Beauty...less so. Even Deakins has his recognisable visual trademarks that he's arguably overused (e.g. nighttime scenes where characters are silhouetted against very orange fire and smoke) that impress because of their sharp contrast but are also few and far between when you consider how low in contrast most of 1917's lighting tends to be.

One other thing about films that consist largely of elaborate long takes (if not actually attempting to pull off a single take, whether faked or not) is that the technology has evolved to the point that they're no longer quite as much of a novelty and so more judgment is being put on whether the film in question truly merits long takes for the sake of its story (to say nothing of how it affects other elements like pacing for the sake of maintaining its technique).so as to not to come across as, well, a gimmick. I know that most of the recent Best Director winners (just Cuaron and Inarritu, really) have notably won for films that involved long takes, but I don't think that means that it's the key to winning or making the best film, especially if the underlying film doesn't quite manage to hold up in terms of substance (e.g. writing/acting). Parasite may lack the scale, but it's a much more balanced example.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Well I haven't seen 1917 yet, so cannot judge it but I feel that Mendes other movies are shot more generically. If you watch Skyfall or Spectre, both movies are very yellow looking and it feels like he is just following trends since that yellow look was started in the mid 2000s, in other films. Fincher might have been the one to start it, but not sure. So I feel that Mendes's cinematography looks generic in that sense. He also edits in a very generic way too, and uses generic shots in his movies that so many other director's would have chosen I find. He is not a bad director at all, he just doesn't stand out cinematography wise.

Even with Roger Deakins, Deakins is restricted, if the director says I want you to make my movie look like so many mother movies that are coming out lately. Even on Sicario, Deakins had to restrict himself to that same yellow look.

However, Parasite is guilty of the yellow look as well, and even though I love the movie, I do think it's cinematography, is heavily influenced by a current American and British trend.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

I just watched 1917 lat night and I'd be shocked if it had won Best Picture. It mostly looked good but didn't have any of the hallmarks of a truly great film. I predict it will mostly be forgotten in a few years. Now I'm going to watch the rest of the Best Pic noms and Little Women too.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

A bit late to the party eh!! :D


It was mostly the execution of it all in such a grand scale that made it so good.


I am trying to finish Corpus Christi for three weeks now but just too drunk or tired to read subtitles!

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Well I watched the movie. It was good and pretty impressive, but I guess I could see what people mean when there is not much for character development? Perhaps it should be viewed the same way as a movie like The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, where it's not a character study, but more about the spectacle of it's world itself?

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Character development in a war movie is not that important to be honest for me. Unless you are making a movie on an individual in who took part in a war. Like Hacksaw Ridge.

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

That's true, my favorite war movie is probably The Battle Of Algiers, which hardly has any character development, and is very situation based. Schindler's List is also a favorite which has a lot more character development.

For me anway, I see GBU as entirely about character development. It's a story about tense accomplices learning how to respect and become somewhat reluctant friends but keeping their distance because they realize that "a scorpion is still a scorpion".


I'm not sure what a war movie is without character development. A documentary of events only?

Sort of, yeah.

Oh well, it's just I found that they were not really being reluctant friends but just pretending to be so they can each reach the gold. So I didn't think it was character development much, when they were just pretending, and were still the same characters in the end, it seemed, without going through any drastic changes. It felt like more of a plot driven story to me than character driven, not that that's bad though.

But when it comes to 1917, I have seen six of the best picture nominees now, and of those six, I think I would put 1917 third, after Parasite and Jojo Rabbit. So of those six, I agree that the Oscars picked the best movie.

Interesting take, and I see what you mean. I'd like to flesh this one some since GBU was the earliest grown-up movie I can remember having significant impact on me growing up.

1. I might be wrong, but I think the strongest point where the character development enters into play is evident when Good sees Ugly being rebuked by his brother. He even offers him his cigar in kindness immediately after.
2. Also, he says to him "Planning on dying alone?" in the classic showdown-walk down the street. BTW, such things in westerns were obviously in the category of Horrible Ideas, especially without your gun already drawn. But the way it was "done" in this genre.
3. Keep in mind that Good could well have killed Ugly in the end and ended up with twice the money.

The only two dimensional character of the three that I can see is Bad, who consistently has no depth whatsoever, no growth, doesn't change a bit, and was there as literally, just "the bad guy".

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Oh okay, yes there little things here and there throughout the movie, but I just felt the characters never really changed in the end. It's not something like Oldboy for random example, where the main character is a completely different person compared to at the beginning of the movie, as far as character development goes.

Well to be clearer with my prior posts, AIUI character development doesn't directly require that the characters themselves personally evolve. It's just that they need to be complex and life-like enough for us to become invested in their story (hate them or like them). And then an important clue of whether or not they meet that criteria is if they themselves can change over time.

But yeah, I see what you're saying. Of all the classic(?)-era westerns (maybe 20's to the 70's), which movie would you say had the most thought out and complex character growth?

Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
 

Oh I see what you mean, perhaps I got character development confused with character evolution. So maybe what I meant was that 1917, didn't have a lot of character evolution in it. But as for westerns a lot of them suffer from characters being the same throughout, which isn't bad cause they are still fun, but it still feels like a limitation.

If I had to pick ones where the characters change into a different person at the end, off the top of my head, I would say The Searchers, and maybe Little Big Man, but maybe that's not a huge change that the Little Big Man character goes through?