The National Society of Film Critics applied the status quo to this year’s race honoring The Hurt Locker. The most interesting choice is the tie between Christoph Waltz and Paul Schneider. Schneider gave one of my favorite supporting performances this year, so I’m quite pleased he picked up something even though I’m sure Oscar is fairly far out of the question. The full list of winners follows:
Winner Tallies
(3) The Hurt Locker
The Winners
Picture: The Hurt Locker Director: Kathryn Bigelow – The Hurt Locker Actor: Jeremy Renner – The Hurt Locker Actress: Yolande Moreau – Seraphine Supporting Actor: TIE: Paul Schneider – Bright Star; Christoph Waltz – Inglourious Basterds Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique – Precious Screenplay: A Serious Man Foreign Film: Summer Hours Nonfiction Film: The Beaches of Agnes Cinematography: The White Ribbon Production Design: Fantastic Mr. Fox
Yeah, but in recent years The Academy hasn’t had a problem awarding movies that haven’t been as box-office popular as others. I’m sure you know about the “$100 million” rule? Before Crash, I think The Last Emperor was the last time a movie won without making $100 million at the box office (or having the potential to). If Brokeback Mountain had won in ’05, it most certainly would have had an extended theatrical run and went on to gross over $100 million. Then there was No Country For Old Men, which, again, didn’t gross $100 million.
The Academy isn’t very worried about awarding films that aren’t as popular at the box office as they used to be. And extending the nominees to 10 covers their asses because they can NOMINATE high-grossing films (Avatar being a great example). Remember, the controversy concerning The Dark Knight was more that it just didn’t get NOMINATED than it was about it winning. I think the vast majority of people, even those ardent lovers of TDK, would have lived had the film been nominated and lost. They simply wanted it to be recognized among the year’s best.
I think it’s worth considering that it’s box-office performance will harm The Hurt Locker. Part of the whole point of adding five more slots was to help bring in a bigger audience for the awards broadcasts. It has been noted that one of the all-time most watched shows was the year Titanic won, because people had an investment in that film. Not saying that Academy voters will necessarily pick the most popular movie based on ratings, though. Still, in a year when there are popular films that received generally good reviews out there to choose from, it seems counter-productive in some way to give it to a film no one saw and that, even with a win, few will see. An Oscar win may slightly boost interest in a film, but there are facts to show a nomination can do that just as well. If the Academy wants to bring attention to a film they love, which is partly what critics groups do with their awards, they don’t have to give the top prize to it. Then again, maybe they really will believe that The Hurt Locker is the best film they saw all year and that would be fine. All I’m saying is that the odds seem against that, since there are a number of good popular films to pick from. Not to mention the backlash against not nominating last year’s most popular film, The Dark Knight.
If we’re talking about precursors and history, isn’t it true that the last time the NYFCC, LAFCA and NSFC agreed on Best Picture, it was 1997 (they chose LA Confidential), and the eventual Oscar winner was Titanic? Interesting considering we have that same case this time, only we have The Hurt Locker winning those critics awards, and Avatar as the James Cameron juggernaut… Hmm.
Unfortunately, that’s not the reason for the discrepancy. National Board of Review, New York Film Critics and Los Angeles Film Critics all screen the movies well in advance of their awards. With the exception, maybe of the National Board of Review, there are few films these groups haven’t seen.
The reason they don’t align is because the Academy tends towards middle-brow tastes and the critics tend toward high-brow works. Sometimes the critics go for the middle-brow (like Slumdog last year), but most often it’s because critics have a different opinion of what makes the year’s best movie than the Academy does.
And, for what it’s worth, I’m not taking last years precursors as any type of prognosticator for the Oscars since everything seemed poised to lap Slumdog’s face (no pun intended). So the National Board of Review, Broadcast Film Critics, Golden Globes and National Society of Film Critics being harmonious along with every guild’s agreement with the Oscar winners last year was just a fluke.
This inbalance of the precussor awards against the Academy might definitely come out of the release dates of the movies. The earlier a movie is released, the more precussor awards it would get. This is a definite rule… The moviebiz who knows this trick mostly release their Oscarbusters at the final time which is available to be nominated. Thus they can not get any precussors from National Board, Los Angeles or New York which starts the season… Hope, this gives an idea Wesley.
Wow, thanks for that. Very, very informative. And yeah, that’s basically what I was getting at. Even though The Hurt Locker is picking up all these awards, I don’t know if the Academy is going to go for it. Frankly, I’d put Up in the Air or Avatar above The Hurt Locker. I don’t have any concrete or empirical data to back that up. It’s more of a gut feeling. Not that I would mind if The Hurt Locker did win. I don’t think it’s undeserving of the award so much as I just think it has less of a chance than many people seem to think it does right now.
Since the glut of precursors started (with the proliferation of the internet, it seems), these are the years where the top Best Picture precursor winner did not ultimately win (note, the totals below include awards presented by the PGA and SAG, plus Globes and so forth, not just critics):
2006: United 93 (10 awards to Departed’s 6)
2005: Brokeback Mountain (17 to Crash’s 1)
2004: Sideways (16 to Million Dollar Baby’s 5)
2002: Chicago barely won the precursor Best Picture derby with 7 to Far From Heaven’s 6
2001: Fellowship of the Ring, Memento and Mullholland Drive (5 each to A Beautiful Mind’s 3)
2000: Almost Famous & Traffic (6 each to Gladiator’s 4)
1998: Saving Private Ryan (9 to Shakespeare in Love’s 3)
1997: L.A. Confidential (9 to Titanic’s 6)
1996: Fargo (7 to English Patient’s 3)
So, since I’ve been tracking it, the answer to your question is: the critics prize top vote-getter has matched with Oscar only 4 times (out of 12): 1999 (American Beauty), 2003 (Return of the King), 2007 (No Country for Old Men) and 2008 (Slumdog Millionaire).
Maybe there’s a new trend, but I wouldn’t count on it. What a decision to expand to 10 does is make it easier for middle brow fair to crack the top. It might help a film like Hurt Locker, but it won’t necessarily help very much. It could turn out differently, but I really don’t think the Academy’s going to go for The Hurt Locker…
2005 was a messed up year. But how often is it that the precursor leader doesn’t win the Best Picture Oscar? I can imagine it happens from time to time.
I’m just wondering, with the Academy expanding the nominees to 10, does that give something like The Hurt Locker a better chance or a worse chance, because of a split in votes from members? Also, considering the fact that although The Hurt Locker has (obviously) been very highly praised by critics, not many people actually saw it (unfortunately). Do you think something like Avatar, for example, could potentially sneak up from behind to win, considering how not only critically popular it is, but also popular with audiences? I personally wouldn’t count it out.
2006 saw United 93 with the most precursors and it didn’t even get nominated. However, Scorsese was top Director nominee, so we can probably discount that year. But, 2005 would be the last time the precursor leader didn’t carry home a Best Picture Oscar.
The National Society of Film Critics applied the status quo to this year’s race honoring The Hurt Locker. The most interesting choice is the tie between Christoph Waltz and Paul Schneider. Schneider gave one of my favorite supporting performances this year, so I’m quite pleased he picked up something even though I’m sure Oscar is fairly far out of the question. The full list of winners follows:
Leave a Reply to Nathan DonarumCancel reply