Academy Award talk

[Duvall]

There are snubs, obviously, as not everyone can be nominated. But this year has a certain lack of, um, egregiousness.

I dunno. I think Roderick Jaynes has a pretty serious beef.

[brevity]

Came and went. The little film produced by Harvey Weinstein beat the little film produced by Scott Rudin.

I saw some of the ceremony. I only laughed aloud once, seeing Alec Baldwin drink the Ambien juice packet. (Twice, if you include the Modern Family movie charades commercial.) The Autotune treatment of Twilight was also amusing.

Melissa Leo is a good actress, pretending to be surprised when she swore on stage. I don't think anyone who knows her was surprised that word slipped out.

I will never understand why Oscar producers are so obsessed with the films of the past. Time is at a premium and you're spotlighting Gone With the Wind? There are ways to celebrate tradition, but what they did this time made no sense.

[Jarhead]

Came and went. The little film produced by Harvey Weinstein beat the little film produced by Scott Rudin.
...I will never understand why Oscar producers are so obsessed with the films of the past. Time is at a premium and you're spotlighting Gone With the Wind? There are ways to celebrate tradition, but what they did this time made no sense.

They do it for the same reason that we hang banners in Cameron. Have you watched Gone With the Wind? If you have then you should understand why such movies are so revered by Hollywood. By the way, the last time I checked, Gone With the Wind still beats out every other movie ever made in total attendance. Not dollars, people.

[bjornolf]

They do it for the same reason that we hang banners in Cameron. Have you watched Gone With the Wind? If you have then you should understand why such movies are so revered by Hollywood. By the way, the last time I checked, Gone With the Wind still beats out every other movie ever made in total attendance. Not dollars, people.

Yea, I've never liked the whole box office numbers as a basis for comparison. Number of tickets sold should matter more. Between inflation and things like iMax and 3D, it's just not apples to apples. Heck, there are more people in the US now than before. Isn't that advantage enough?

[cato]

Yea, I've never liked the whole box office numbers as a basis for comparison. Number of tickets sold should matter more. Between inflation and things like iMax and 3D, it's just not apples to apples. Heck, there are more people in the US now than before. Isn't that advantage enough?

Gone With the Wind does have a slight edge in time in the theaters, though.

[Mal]

Gone With the Wind does have a slight edge in time in the theaters, though.

More important to my mind is that it came to theaters originally when (a) it didn't face the almost unlimited entertainment options we now have to compete with movies, and (b) there weren't nearly as many theatrical releases of movies, either. Certainly there are more available rears to put in seats these days than when GwTW hit the screens, but that's countered by the above. I mean, who goes to the movie theater on a regular basis nowadays, anyway? I've been once or twice in the last year and a half, and yet I'd seen 6 of the 10 Best Picture nominees for last night.

Anyway, can't argue with the movie's cultural imprint or importance to the industry, generally. I did think it unusual the way it was highlighted at the Oscars, shoehorned in as a lead-in to the awards for technical achievements/special effects or whatever, as some kind of teaser to "if some movie wins this technical awards double, it might win Best Picture like this old classic did." That's really straining for an excuse. Also, when you're trying to be young and appeal to a different demographic, I don't think Gone with The Wind's the best avenue.

[JBDuke]

More important to my mind is that it came to theaters originally when (a) it didn't face the almost unlimited entertainment options we now have to compete with movies, and (b) there weren't nearly as many theatrical releases of movies, either. Certainly there are more available rears to put in seats these days than when GwTW hit the screens, but that's countered by the above. I mean, who goes to the movie theater on a regular basis nowadays, anyway? I've been once or twice in the last year and a half, and yet I'd seen 6 of the 10 Best Picture nominees for last night.

Anyway, can't argue with the movie's cultural imprint or importance to the industry, generally. I did think it unusual the way it was highlighted at the Oscars, shoehorned in as a lead-in to the awards for technical achievements/special effects or whatever, as some kind of teaser to "if some movie wins this technical awards double, it might win Best Picture like this old classic did." That's really straining for an excuse. Also, when you're trying to be young and appeal to a different demographic, I don't think Gone with The Wind's the best avenue.

It wasn't the lead-in to the technical award or special effects - it was the lead-in to the awards for Cinematography and Art/Set Direction - a couple of big hitters. Tom Hanks was pointing out that it is a rare feat for a film to sweep Cinematography, Art/Set Direction, and Picture. GWTW was the first, and "Titanic" was the last. I would think that the first would appeal to the classic film buffs, while the latter was a sop to the younger audience. He was also trying to build some anticipation for these two awards, since there were 3 films nominated in all 3 categories: "Inception", "True Grit", and "The King's Speech". "Inception" won the Cinematography award, "Alice in Wonderland" took the Art/Set Direction award, and, of course, "The King's Speech" took Best Picture.

My favorite bit of Oscar trivia involves another suite of awards - Picture, Director, Screenplay (either adapted or original), Actor, and Actress. Only 3 films have swept all 5 awards - one in the 30's, one in the 70's, and one in the 90's. Can you name them?

[Mal]

It wasn't the lead-in to the technical award or special effects - it was the lead-in to the awards for Cinematography and Art/Set Direction...

Ahhh, yes. Nice memory, Mal. Still seems a strained lead-in, to me. There are probably more films that have won both of those and not won Best Picture.

My favorite bit of Oscar trivia involves another suite of awards - Picture, Director, Screenplay (either adapted or original), Actor, and Actress. Only 3 films have swept all 5 awards - one in the 30's, one in the 70's, and one in the 90's. Can you name them?

I'll go with The Silence of The Lambs for the last one. Had no idea on the one from the '30's. For the '70's, I know this one, but thought people might enjoy a related bit of trivia as a hint. You can narrow down JB's question pretty quickly by just thinking of films that won both lead acting Oscars, as there are only seven of them (I looked that stat up - I just knew it wasn't many). Anyway, the answer to the '70's film that won all 5 big Oscars had a Best Actor winner who's also won Best Actor in another one of those seven films that produced Best Actor and Best Actress.

Another fun trivia question I learned in my research: one parent/child combination have both won best lead acting Oscars in movies that garnered both Best Actor and Best Actress (though not for the same movie). Who are they? Interesting tidbit hint: the films were only separated by three years.

[pfrduke]

The 70s picture, I believe, is One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

[Olympic Fan]

Several people have mentioned the snubs in the nominations, but what about the In Memorium segment?

Usually one of my favorite moments on Oscar Night, a hommage to the members of the film community we lost in the previous year. I sort of disliked what they started last year, cutting back and forth between the montage and a live singer. I mean, Celine Dion is great, but wrong place and wrong focus (sort of like how CBS screwed up the "One Shining Moment" after the national title game).

Still, I can't understand the selection vs. omission of faces in the montage. There was a lot of outrage over the omission of Corey Haim, who died of a drug overdone at age 39. He made at least two decent films (Lost Boys and Lucas) and was certainly as significant as some of the behind the scenes honorees (an agent?).

But despite the uproar (much of it generated by his buddy Corey Feldman), I find Haim's absence far less perplexing that Peter Graves. Okay, he was first and foremost a TV star, but he he made a number of significant movies in his 68-year career ... from Stalag 17 (he was the Nazi infiltrator) to The Long Gray Line to Night of the Hunter to Airplane ("Joey, do you like gladiator movies?").

Yet, even Graves' absence was not as perplexing as the omission of Betty Garrett. C'mon, people does anybody have sense of history? Garrett not only starred in some of Hollywood's greatest musicals (including the groundbreaking On The Town, as Frank Sinatra's love interest), but she was the a genuine heroine in the fight against the Hollywood Blacklist. She as married to Larry Parks, nominated for an Oscar in The Jolson Story, who was blacklisted after admissing membership in the Communist Party. Both their careers were blighted in 1951 by a refusal to name names.

Garrett later re-emerged on TV in a number of sitcoms, but she was a Hollywood star before most of today's nominees were born. Her passing should have been noted.

[rasputin]

More important to my mind is that it came to theaters originally when (a) it didn't face the almost unlimited entertainment options we now have to compete with movies, and (b) there weren't nearly as many theatrical releases of movies, either. Certainly there are more available rears to put in seats these days than when GwTW hit the screens, but that's countered by the above. I mean, who goes to the movie theater on a regular basis nowadays, anyway? I've been once or twice in the last year and a half, and yet I'd seen 6 of the 10 Best Picture nominees for last night.

Anyway, can't argue with the movie's cultural imprint or importance to the industry, generally. I did think it unusual the way it was highlighted at the Oscars, shoehorned in as a lead-in to the awards for technical achievements/special effects or whatever, as some kind of teaser to "if some movie wins this technical awards double, it might win Best Picture like this old classic did." That's really straining for an excuse. Also, when you're trying to be young and appeal to a different demographic, I don't think Gone with The Wind's the best avenue.

Not nearly as many theatrical releases? I don't know what the sheer numbers were, and changes in population would have an effect here, but in the day when the studios controlled everything, they were quite busy. Major stars would do four or five movies in a single year. You're right about the relative lack of other entertainment options, but in the era we're talking about, motion pictures were THE entertainment option.

[Mal]

Not nearly as many theatrical releases? I don't know what the sheer numbers were, and changes in population would have an effect here, but in the day when the studios controlled everything, they were quite busy. Major stars would do four or five movies in a single year. You're right about the relative lack of other entertainment options, but in the era we're talking about, motion pictures were THE entertainment option.

Good point, certainly. However, there was also no thriving independent film world at the time (or the resulting production of dozens of films annually that didn't even end up on the big screen), and no distribution of foreign-made films. I think. I'd like to see some numbers on how many distributed movie openings there were per annum back in the '40's vs. today (but not enough to take the time to look it up myself). It seems like in the last 15-20 years we've gone from a landscape where one movie could dominate the box office for a couple months, to a landscape where there are so many flicks premiering every weekend that a lot of them simply get no notice at all, and the first weekend is more critical than ever for blockbusters. Maybe I'm just imagining it. But just look at the tiny window the big hype summer popcorn movies have to make their splash nowadays, and how the summer release season is now May through September as the big titles jockey around trying to avoid going head-to-head.

[JBDuke]

Good point, certainly. However, there was also no thriving independent film world at the time (or the resulting production of dozens of films annually that didn't even end up on the big screen), and no distribution of foreign-made films. I think. I'd like to see some numbers on how many distributed movie openings there were per annum back in the '40's vs. today (but not enough to take the time to look it up myself). It seems like in the last 15-20 years we've gone from a landscape where one movie could dominate the box office for a couple months, to a landscape where there are so many flicks premiering every weekend that a lot of them simply get no notice at all, and the first weekend is more critical than ever for blockbusters. Maybe I'm just imagining it. But just look at the tiny window the big hype summer popcorn movies have to make their splash nowadays, and how the summer release season is now May through September as the big titles jockey around trying to avoid going head-to-head.

This piqued my curiosity. According to this Encyclopedia Brittanica article, American movie studios released about 7500 movies between 1930 and 1945, which comes to about 500 per year. And according to this release from the MPAA, there were 560 films released into US/Canadian theaters in 2010, 555 in 2009, and anywhere from 454 to 634 in the last decade.

Pretty consistent! Much moreso than I would have thought.

[NashvilleDevil]

My favorite bit of Oscar trivia involves another suite of awards - Picture, Director, Screenplay (either adapted or original), Actor, and Actress. Only 3 films have swept all 5 awards - one in the 30's, one in the 70's, and one in the 90's. Can you name them?

TCM played them all on Saturday night, 1934-It Happened One Night, 1975-One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and 1991-Silence of the Lambs. And yes I watched all the movies after the Duke game and that was a late night.

[juise]

TCM played them all on Saturday night, 1934-It Happened One Night, 1975-One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and 1991-Silence of the Lambs. And yes I watched all the movies after the Duke game and that was a late night.

Which was more disturbing? One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Silence of Lambs, or Duke-Va Tech? I'd take Hannibal over Seth Greenburg most days.

[rasputin]

Which was more disturbing? One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Silence of Lambs, or Duke-Va Tech? I'd take Hannibal over Seth Greenburg most days.

Boston College ate Seth's liver with some fava beans (and a nice Chianti) tonight.

[NashvilleDevil]

Which was more disturbing? One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Silence of Lambs, or Duke-Va Tech? I'd take Hannibal over Seth Greenburg most days.

Honestly Cuckoo's Nest and Silence of the Lambs helped me forget about the Duke/Va Tech game.

[cato]

This piqued my curiosity. According to this Encyclopedia Brittanica article, American movie studios released about 7500 movies between 1930 and 1945, which comes to about 500 per year. And according to this release from the MPAA, there were 560 films released into US/Canadian theaters in 2010, 555 in 2009, and anywhere from 454 to 634 in the last decade.

Pretty consistent! Much moreso than I would have thought.

That is very interesting. To get a complete picture, though, we'd also have to look at how many tickets were sold each year. I wonder if that has changed significantly, or also remained fairly constant. And, of course, I'd be curious about how long hits stayed in the theater (and how often they were brought back) in the days before on demand home viewed (i.e., the video cassette).

[darthur]

That is very interesting. To get a complete picture, though, we'd also have to look at how many tickets were sold each year. I wonder if that has changed significantly, or also remained fairly constant. And, of course, I'd be curious about how long hits stayed in the theater (and how often they were brought back) in the days before on demand home viewed (i.e., the video cassette).

Attendance has gone way, way, way down according to the New York Times:

"In 1948, when weekly movie attendance reached its peak with an estimated 90 million souls, The New York Times published four articles on the awards. Over the decades, as attendance plunged, the paper published more on the Oscars. In all of 1988 it ran 14 pieces on the event, fewer than the number of articles that it ran last week. Weekly movie attendance meanwhile now hovers at under 26 million."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/mo.../06DARGIS.html

[Mal]

This piqued my curiosity. According to this Encyclopedia Brittanica article, American movie studios released about 7500 movies between 1930 and 1945, which comes to about 500 per year. And according to this release from the MPAA, there were 560 films released into US/Canadian theaters in 2010, 555 in 2009, and anywhere from 454 to 634 in the last decade.

Pretty consistent! Much moreso than I would have thought.

Nicely done, JB, and thanks. I've now been wrong twice in one thread, so I'll just hang 'em up and slink away.

All I have left is the more entertainment options thesis, which at least darthur's link seems to support. That's more than 1 paid theater ticket for every person in the country every two weeks in 1948. Amazing.