« Lunch With David - Cruisin' To Chaplin | Main | Box Office Hell - 11/03 - Borat Week »
November 03, 2006
The Departed Win Charade
I try to stay out of the Criticizing Pete Hammond business. He’s a good guy, as is Tom Tapp, who owns Hollywood Wiretap. But this last “The Season” article made me scratch my head.
The subject, which has been in play around here quite a bit lately, is how box office affects the awards season. And what makes me get that RCA dog look is that he seems to premise the entire article on a false notion that anyone – ANYONE! – suggests that awards other than Best Picture are directly related to box office.
There are endless examples of performance and craft nominations in small or failed movies. Annette Bening is no more box office challenged in Running With Scissors than she was in Being Julia. The challenge for her is that Scissors is considered a car wreck as a movie in some quarters where Julia was considered flat, but really just a showcase to watch her work brilliantly. But she is not out of the race just because Scissors won’t do much business.
The funny thing about Pete’s example choices - “Transamerica”, “Junebug”, “Mulholland Drive”, “The Contender”, “Shadow Of The Vampire”, “Requiem For A Dream”, “Before Night Falls”, “The Straight Story”, “Sweet And Lowdown”, “Afterglow”, “I Am Sam”. “Affliction”, “Gods And Monsters”, “Iris” and “Pollock” – is that not a single one of them got nominated for Best Picture. There are examples of films that were financially challenged that did make it. Capote, In The Bedroom, Life Is Beautiful, and Il Postino were all BP nominated with between $10 million and $20 million in the bank when nominations closed. The Pianist was at $9 million. Secrets & Lies was at $6 million.
Of course, Topsy-Turvy, which never got to $7 million domestic in spite of winning Best Picture at NYFCC and NSFC, couldn’t get past the bigger banking, friend-of-the-family Chocolat to get into Oscar’s BP race.
And the fact that the list is so small also indicates that a certain low-end of box office success is, in essence, required. As I keep writing, it’s perception of success or failure that matters, not reality. Cinderella Man grossed more than any of last years nominees as of the nominations closing… yet, the perception of failure from the summer was a virtual disqualification, even though the film contained a lot of what Academy members historically cotton to.
The challenge of Forrest Whitaker’s nomination is getting enough people to watch the DVD, not to pay to see the movie. And I don’t know anyone who sees it differently. But the evidence is very clear that The Academy loves a winner. And that is part of the vote.
Finally… I just want to be clear. Anyone who claims that The Departed will be a more serious contender to win Best Picture at $150 million than $100 million is just plain off their nut... or at least, relying too much on statistics instead of thought. The reason The Departed is in the race at all is that it is Scorsese, Nicholson, DiCaprio, Damon and others and that it has been the word of mouth hit of the fall. There was no campaigning. There was no cajoling. There have just been a lot of people who see the movie and come out saying it is their favorite thing they’ve seen all year. And once over that hump, money comes next.
$100 million is a helpful landmark. Being Scorsese’s biggest domestic hit is an important landmark. And $150 million domestic could sink the nomination hopes of a film that has almost zero chance of winning Best Picture. (I like Scorsese to win Best Director.)
If the Academy has a clear money bias, it is against big hits. There are more than a few movies that have missed completely because they became seen as “too commercial.”
Here are all the movies in the last decade that got in with $150 million or more at the box office or with an eventual tally of same after a nod or a win.
2002 – Chicago (post-win) - win
2001 – 2003 Lord of the Rings – 1 win
2001 – A Beautiful Mind (post-nom) - win
2000 – Gladiator - Win
1999 – The Sixth Sense
1998 – Saving Private Ryan
1997 – Titanic – win
As you’ll note, there hasn’t even been one nomination for a $150 million film since Rings III won. And also note… of the winners, all but Gladiator were launched in December, allowing the fever to be at its peak when nominations or final voting was happening. (And of course, that year split any Soderbergh vote between two films, had a rare foreign language entry, and the aforementioned cute-enough-to-nod-but-not-to-win Chocolat, making the split more vulnerable to "The Holylwood Movie")
Of course, this stupid $150 million comment got some media attention because it was audacious… and is easy to run because there is no chance that The Departed will come close to $150 million unless it actually did win the Oscar.
On this, there is no correlation. Please put down the Kool-Aid.
Posted by poland at November 3, 2006 02:19 PM
Comments
But don't forget: a lot of presumed front-runners, notably DREAMGIRLS, are yet to be seen. If they all turn up lame, DEPARTED might sneak through simply by being the Last Man Standing as everybody's Second Choice becomes First Choice. It is indeed a long-shot, but at this point four years ago, did anyone seriously think CHICAGO was going to win?
Posted by: Cadavra ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 3, 2006 03:26 PM
All of this just gave me a giant headache...
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley at November 3, 2006 04:03 PM
Yes, Cad... Chicago was the frontrunner all that season...
Posted by: David Poland at November 3, 2006 04:42 PM
^^^Which gives further strength to Dreamgirls' chances to win, since it showed that Chicago didn't need to be particularly smart or interesting to win, it just needed to bethe right amount of flashy and big and live up to expectations.
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 3, 2006 04:54 PM
So you have some special insight into Dreamgirls being not "particularly smart or interesting... just the right amount of flashy and big," J Mc? Or are you just naysaying?
Posted by: David Poland at November 3, 2006 06:07 PM
You're getting defensive, DP, and not reading what I wrote. What I said was that Dreamgirls only needs to be as good as Chicago to continue with its front-runner status. If it's better than that, then clearer sailing.
My 'naysaying' would only come from being very turned-off of this movie for various reasons for close to a year now.
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 3, 2006 06:15 PM
I remember the Chicago screening where, the moment it ended, I said, This is going to win Best Picture...felt damn near inevitable to me at the time.
Posted by: palmtree at November 3, 2006 09:43 PM
Yeah, I remember reading in post-oscar write ups that Miramax must've been feeling nervous after Polanski won Director because it felt like Chicago was gonna fall of the tracks at the very last second. But it didn't. Thankfully.
But I'm just a really big fan of Chicago, so...
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at November 3, 2006 10:56 PM
No matter what i now say that disagres with you, J Mc, you always jump on "you're being defensive." It's weak. Work harder.
You acknowledged exactly what I was getting at... you are working with a bias of negativity every bit as strong or stronger than anyone who is expecting the film to be worthwhile.
Sorry, but it is not an act of defensiveness to point out your passive aggression. You were clearly not just saying that Dreamgirls just had to be as good as Chicago to maintian front-runner status. For one thing, "as good" doesn't exist. For another you were saying that Chicago wasn't very good, but that was enough. That's what I read.
I don't understand why you back off your clear negative comments everytime you are challenged in any way.
What is proven is that 1500 or so people liked Chicago. We will see if 1500 or so people like Dreamgirls. Expectations are irrelevant since 80% of the Academy and 95% of the press has no idea what to expect beyond what they have already seen. Chicago, on the other hand, was in the middle of a long revival run on Broadway.
Posted by: David Poland at November 3, 2006 10:58 PM
Ho-kay, I guess my Alzheimer's is kicking up again...
Posted by: Cadavra at November 3, 2006 11:12 PM
Jeez, DP, what I said is realy clear. I said that Dreamgirls only has to live up to a certain mediocre standard. You are the one insisting that it will be better than that.
And you were being defensive, regardess of what I said. It's one of your more common traits.
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 4, 2006 05:11 AM
Apologies for the typing in the above posting. I'm drunk.
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 4, 2006 05:17 AM
Slightly less drunk: I don't see how DP is not being overly defensive, with this movie he has been hawking for months. I am sick of hearing why DG is the frontrunner; it's nauseating. The burden of proof is on him, as to why it is the one we should all deign to.
Posted by: jeffmcm at November 4, 2006 05:26 AM
I honestly think THE DEPARTED is the front-runner so far. DREAMGIRLS has not been seen and is coasting off a trailer and several minutes of footage. In my opinion, it also has a sense of a little too similar to CHICAGO, at least in lineage.
My only concern is that THE DEPARTED may be too violent for Academy members. If DREAMGIRLS is as good as everyone hopes, it's gonna be a very close race. But I think it's a big mistake to say DEPARTED "has almost zero chance of winning Best Picture." So far it's the word of mouth hit of the fall (excepting BORAT, obviously).
Posted by: fnt at November 4, 2006 12:11 PM
fnt, of the films already released, sure The Departed is the front runner, but we're not talking about that.
I am seeing a Picture/Director split. I don't see The Departed winning BP but I see Scorsese winning Best Director. Whether it's Dreamgirls that wins BP or not, I dunno.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at November 4, 2006 08:28 PM
I agree 100%, Kami
Posted by: David Poland at November 4, 2006 09:08 PM
"I am seeing a Picture/Director split. I don't see The Departed winning BP but I see Scorsese winning Best Director. Whether it's Dreamgirls that wins BP or not, I dunno."
I agree. I think he should have won for Aviator, but if they give it to him for this, I'll be just as happy. I just worry that he'll be nominated for a third time and they'll give it to someone else, but at this point, I can't imagine who, regardless of what gets into BP.
Posted by: EDouglas at November 5, 2006 04:23 AM
A third time, Douglas?
I seem to be in the minority who actually prefered The Aviator (and his direction), but it will be nice to see him up there collecting a statue.
Of course it'll just seem to strengthen to belief that musicals direct themselves.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at November 5, 2006 10:59 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)