Of course, no one is really robbed of an Academy Award nomination. It's a gift; not a right. The balloting procedure is conducted honestly and reflects a collective opinion, which was demonstrated this year when the Academy voters had the curiosity to seek out Demian Bichir for best actor for his deeply convincing performance as a Mexican gardener in Los Angeles in "A Better Life." He wasn't on my mental list of possible candidates, but when I heard the name, I thought, "Of course! Good thinking!"
Does it therefore follow that in the best actor category, Bichir "robbed" Michael Shannon of "Take Shelter," Ryan Gosling of "Drive" or Michael Fassbender of "Shame"? It does not, even though those performances were so good. There were no unworthy nominees for best actor. But let me also point out that none of the five nominees was as electrifying as the three who were "robbed." That's not a fault. Their roles weren't of that nature.
In the best actress category, those who were "robbed" included Tilda Swinton in "We Need to Talk About Kevin," Charlize Theron in "Young Adult" and Vera Farmiga in "Higher Ground." Here I will be bold and name two nominees I didn't feel were worthy: Meryl Streep and Glenn Close.Streep, of course, is a paragon. Her impersonation of Margaret Thatcher in "The Iron Lady" was so uncanny she could have given a speech on the BBC and fooled a lot of people. But it wasn't a very good film and didn't make adequate use of her as a resource. In my review, I used a happy turn of phrase: She was all dressed up with nowhere to go. Nominating Miss Streep seems to have become an annual ritual for the Academy, like bringing on the accountants with their briefcases.
Vera Farmiga not only starred in "Higher Ground," but also directed it. In both tasks she shows complete clarity about what she wants to accomplish. The film follows three stages in a woman's journey through religion: childhood belief, mainstream Protestant, 40ish evangelical. (She plays the third.) The film never says she is making the right or wrong decision, only that what she does seems necessary at the time she does it. In a world where believers and agnostics are polarized and hold simplified ideas about each other, it takes a step back and sees faith as a series of choices that should be freely made. She is intensely human at every stage.Glenn Close's performance in "Albert Nobbs" was too limited, I think. Her female-to-male transition evoked a character paralyzed with dread of discovery. Except for one lovely scene of brief liberation, there was no range, simply a woman who hopes that by keeping a frozen face and blending into the wallpaper she can pass. Her Albert Nobbs seems monumentally clueless if she believes it's plausible the cute little chambermaid yearns for a sexless marriage running a tobacco shop. Nobbs seems not merely frightened and shy, but lacking a basic working knowledge of the facts of life. That isn't inappropriate for the character, perhaps, but it does little to make the film involving.
In her place I would rather have seen Tilda Swinton's devastating performance as the unwilling mother of a demonic son in "We Need to Talk About Kevin," or Charlize Theron's self-destructive, vulnerable former prom queen in "Young Adult." Yes, her character was as clueless as Albert Nobbs in thinking her high school boyfriend would drop his wife and new baby to marry her. But it's the kind of thinking an alcoholic can drift into.
a
In the same film, Patton Oswalt's performance as the legendary nerd in Theron's high school class deserved a nomination. So certainly did the work of Albert Brooks in "Drive," as a gnarly old gangster a million miles distant from his previous characters. Both performers were acting. Who were they "robbed" by? I think perhaps by Nick Nolte's work as the father in "Warrior." I wrote in my review that "he embodies, as only Nick Nolte can, the shaggy, weathered heroism of a man who is trying one more time to pull himself together." Yes, but isn't that the role he's been playing routinely? To see him as the great actor he is, look again at his nominated leading performance in Paul Schrader's "Affliction" (1997). In "Warrior," he's typecast.Here's a question I hate to ask. Why was Max von Sydow nominated for "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close"? It was not a great movie, and the role of a young boy's wise old companion was not original nor did it stretch. Does it strike you as ironic that at the age of 82, with 145 IMDb credits since 1949, the iconic actor from so many of Ingmar Bergman's masterpieces should have been nominated for this film? Brooks and Oswalt were taking chances and bringing forth from within themslves characters who were original and new.
As best actor, I would have preferred seeing Ryan Gosling from "Drive" or Michael Fassbender from "Shame." I'll get back to "Drive." I think it goes without saying that Fassbender, playing a tortured, joyless, addicted masturbator, would not be nominated. To some degree, less perhaps in recent years, the Academy seems afraid the public will confuse the behavior of nominated characters with their own characters. They don't want to be seen as sympathizing with masturbators.
I have one complaint about the supporting actress category: It was not an actress but a film that was robbed. Jessica Chastain had an extraordinary year, but its highlight was the deeply believable mother in "The Tree of Life." Her performance in "The Help" not only had less weight and dimension, but it served a character, the trophy wife, who was marginal compared to the other nominated actresses.In the same category, the nomination of Melissa McCarthy for "Bridesmaids" was deserved. Her chubby, butch gal pal was an original, a woman whose authenticity stole every scene -- and incidentally, a character we'll remember better than the leads.
Of course, this is all pure personal opinion. Most criticisms of the annual nominees can be translated as, "Here's who I would have nominated." I thought "The Tree of Life" was a masterpiece and was pleased that the Academy agreed. I know it had its puzzled detractors, some of whom reportedly demanded their money back. You know my reservations about "The Help," but it won great popularity and admiration. The best film nominee that puzzles me the most is "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close." It attached a 9/11 connection to the implausible story of a young boy wandering all over New York on a wild goose chase, but never mind: Did you meet anyone who really loved it?
The film that should have been named in this category is Nicolas Winding Refn's "Drive." Transcending the crime genre, it stars Ryan Gosling as a man who lives primarily to drive. Sometimes he's a movie stunt driver, sometimes he drives getaway for crooks. He seems to have no family, no history and seemingly few emotions. Whatever happened to him drove any personality deep beneath the surface. He is an existential hero, defined entirely by his behavior. Not depending on violence, not buttressed by chase scenes, this film is a personality study. How often do we find the hero of an "action picture" to be this deeply interesting?I have saved the worst robbery for last, and of course it is the Academy's inexplicable decision to ignore Steve James' and Alex Kotlowitz's "The Interrupters," which I think by consensus was the best documentary of the year. Filmed on dangerous streets, it followed Chicago ex-cons and former gang members who formed CeaseFire, a group of "violence interrupters" who personally interposed to talk street gangs out of deadly shootings.
This is the most discussed non-nomination since 1994, when James' masterpiece "Hoop Dreams" was not nominated. It was later revealed that volunteers of the Academy's documentary branch turned off "Hoop Dreams" after watching it for only 15 minutes. What their reasons were for passing over "The Interrupters" I cannot imagine. Which of the other nominees "stole" the nomination? I have nothing to say against any of them. So, tactfully, I will suggest it was a collective theft by all five.
Oscar figure copyright AMPAS, Photoshop graphic by Marie Haws.
In discussing "Higher Ground" you say:
"...it takes a step back and sees faith as a series of choices that should be freely made."
That is how the movie sees it, of course, but in reality it is hardly ever so.
Roger,
I'm with you all the way on Fassbender and Swinton, but what about Leonardo DiCaprio? I thought his performance was the year's best for men and it certainly qualifies as "acting."
A lot of the Best Pictures nominees haven't opened down here so it would probably be presumptuous on my part to say I perfectly understand what you mean about "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" from just looking at the trailer, but I think I do.
I also have to think at the very least "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" (even if it's a remake) is a more worthy candidate
What “Extremely Loud and Incredible Close” makes abundantly clear is that having 9-10 candidates for Best Picture only serves to devaluate the category.
I would contest that Jessica Chastain's performance in THE HELP was at best her third best of the year. I predicted way back that it would be TAKE SHELTER to get her to Kodak Theater, along with costar Michael Shannon. That isn't to say that Malick did not handle her perfectly, because she was nearly flawless in THE TREE OF LIFE too.
I am also a tad surprised about your not mentioning Kirsten Dunst as an actress snub. I think was was magnificent as the proud newlywed, depressed dependant, troubled annoyance, and finally collected leader in MELANCHOLIA.
Jessica Chastain was nominated for "The Help" not because it was her best performance, I don't think, or even that the Academy thought so, but because "The Help" was the film most on their radar, and everyone who voted for her in that film knew how good she was -- or at least had heard so -- in half a dozen other films. At risk of splitting her own vote, her supporters picked one of her baskets and put all their eggs in it. I think she could even win for that reason, much the same way being in "Moulin Rouge!" certainly helped Jim Broadbent win the Oscar for "Iris."
I'm most disappointed by the Tilda Swinton snub. She was considered likely to get in (she had Golden Globe and SAG nominations, both very good predictors). This was such a good year for female roles to not at least have nominated her. Yun Jeong-hie was not eligible for "Poetry," but Kristen Wiig was eligible for "Bridesmaids," and Kirsten Dunst in "Melancholia," and Theron in "Young Adult," and so on. It's a shame voters didn't recognize all of that great work and opted instead for above average performances (Streep and Williams) in below-average films ("Iron Lady" and "My Week with Marilyn"). I haven't seen "Albert Nobbs" yet, but I've seen the other four, and Viola Davis is the best of that bunch by default. She's such a tremendous actress that she elevated "The Help" beyond what it was.
I agree with you about Meryl Streep. Most people argue she gives an amazing performance in a not-very-good movie, but I don't think she was given an opportunity to give a great performance. The technical aspects were there (the voice, the mannerisms, the makeup), but asking her to give a great performance with that script is like asking Picasso to paint a masterpiece with an Etch-a-Sketch.
I gave up long ago caring about the Oscars. Still, it nevertheless bothers me when downright masterpieces such as Drive get snubbed.
Roger,
I am thrilled that you mentioned "Drive" and Ryan Gosling's performance in it. It is easily the most riveting film of 2011. Is it the "best"? Who knows? I don't know what "best" really means as far as films, books, and other forms of entertainment go. But I will say that "Drive," and Golsing's performance in it, haunted me for weeks after watching it.
Although the film has stylistic flourishes (especially a soundtrack) that connect it to the 1980s, it really feels like a '70s action movie. "Deliverance," "Papillon," "The Getaway," "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia." These were all highly entertaining films, filled with unforgettable and terribly flawed heroes, who mixed it up with contemptible figures and found themselves in nightmarish scenarios. "Drive" belongs in this same category of masterpiece '70s action flicks. It's smart, unpredictable, and appropriately grotesque. Yet, no matter how ugly Gosling's character turns, he somehow maintains a sympathetic connection with viewers.
A film this good comes along very rarely.
All I know is that Dan Fogelman's screenplay for crazy, stupid, love. should have been nominated.
Patton Oswalt is a brilliant comic, and in all of his sitcom work he has always been better than he needed to be. Virtually every critic called Ratatouille one of the best films of its year, but few singled out Oswalt's voice work as one of the reasons why. His performance in Big Fan was a revelation.
His work in Young Adult was definitely Oscar worthy.
Imagine if Oswalt had been the voice of Paul instead of Seth Rogen. A misfire might have been a classic.
Roger, will you be doing another MUBI Oscar prediction contest this year? Last year I really enjoyed predicting the Oscars and comparing my results to yours, despite how trivial it might be, and I also enjoyed the three free months of streaming from MUBI?
I feel like something overall was slightly off about the Oscar nominations this year. Though we can never have every film we love win awards and nominations, something about many of the nominations just seems a little unusual to me, especially in the documentary categories. I also feel that Drive deserved a nomination for best score, despite the pointless rules prohibiting it from being nominated. But I was very glad to see The Tree of Life nominated for Best Picture, Terrence Malick nominated for Best Director, and A Separation nominated for Best Original Screenplay. It goes without saying this year came with quite a few surprises.
Ebert: We'll go back to the original Outguess Ebert format.
I thought Kirsten Dunst for her role in "Melancholia" would have been a great nomination. Same goes for the film itself.
No, I'd say the worst robbery was Martha Marcy May Marlene & Elizabeth Olsen. Also no love for Melancholia?
I'm a huge Patton Oswalt fan, in fact I was sent here by his Twitter feed. That said, "legendary nerd" is a huge stretch for him. Right? Heh
By no stretch of the imagination can the character that Jessica Chastain played in "the Help" be called a trophy wife. In fact, her husband was ostracized because he didn't marry the kind of woman he was supposed to, but instead married a non-society woman out of love. Not sure you're thinking of the right character.
I'm curious what you thought about the Best Animated Film category, Roger. I was surprised that "Kung Fu Panda 2" was nominated.
Also, I would say that Leonardo DiCaprio's performance in J. Edgar was powerful and beyond the scope of his usual performances.
I really enjoyed this article, as well as all your other writing. I felt the same way, that alot people were robbed but after reading this, I feel a little less upset about. You are right, the nomination, and if they win the award, is a gift. No one is entitled to that gift. Within the past for years, you have inspired me to dig deeper in film. Thank you and keep it up!
The snub I lament most is not a single nomination for "Martha Marcy May Marlene". A modest but superb film that deserves more recognition.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen The Interrupters yet, but whichever film in the Best Documentary category "stole" Steve James' nomination this time, it couldn't have been Marshall Curry's excellent If a Tree Falls, which -- I assure you -- is a remarkable film. You may remember that Steven Boone wrote a rave review of it for your site way back when.
What “Extremely Loud and Incredible Close” makes abundantly clear is that having 9-10 candidates for Best Picture only serves to devaluate the category.
And that having 9/11 candidates for Best Picture is a guaranteed nom. Anyway, it needn't devalue the category if the Academy actually nominated films worth a damn, such as Drive, Shame, Melancholia, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, etc.
What about Werner Herzog's "Into the Abyss" for Best Documentary?
Would've liked to see them give a special award for Andy Serkis in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It was something truly different and magical and it held the film together. Also wouldn't mind some respect for the Harry Potter series which ended on a high quality note. Alas, I keep forgetting how much the Academy hates anything that isn't the usual fare for their award shows.
I'm surprised NO ONE has mentioned how Armie Hammer was looked over for "J. Edgar." I thought his performance was better than DiCaprio's performance.
I saw Hoop Dreams in 1994 (midnight Sundance) and the night before last, and it was a masterpiece in each case.
It's pointless to bitch about who was overlooked. But that won't stop me. It's a freaking crime that BILL CUNNINGHAM NEW YORK was ignored. Best documentary since 2010's MARWENCOL and 2008's devastating DEAR ZACHARY.
Speaking of Meryll Streep as a man......Do you remember a story maybe 15 years ago....about a woman who had died.....and her own Family (.....had to have been a step-Family ) had NO idea she was a SHE until the coroner had examined her? Most of her life, she disguised herself as a man. The reason was she was a swing-era band leader. In those days, women did not hold that title. That would make for an interesting story. I wish I could recall her name.
Ebert: That wasn't a man Meryl Streep played, it was Margaret Thatcher.
I'll never forget the 81st Academy Awards. The Best Picture nominees were stereotypical award bait movies. In a year with fantastic, smart genre films the Academy instead nominated The Reader (mixed critical reaction but Oscar bait), Frost/Nixon (a simple sports movie in the guise of something more), Slumdog Millionaire (I believe Wall-E's romance had more chemistry), Milk (solid but hardly groundbreaking biopic), and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (very mixed reaction and I would say more negative than positive).
That same year The Dark Knight, Wall-E, In Bruges, The Wrestler, and Let the Right One In were released. All critically acclaimed and audience favorites, though apparently not classy enough for the Academy. I don't think there is any doubt in my mind which films will be remembered more fondly.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is NOT a remake, it is a second adaptation of a novel, like Huston's version of The Maltese Falcon. Also, Roger, I must admit, it seems as if you enjoyed the swedish version to such an extent that you're biased against the superior american version. You didn't even mention how worthy Mara's performance was.
What about Melancholia, Roger?
Here's what I thought got robbed Tuesday morning, although I have a much smaller pool of movies to pull from.
SPOILERS AHEAD:
Young Adult: I think the movie, Jason Reitman, Charlize Theron, Patton Oswalt and Diablo Cody were unjustly shut out for this brave and daring movie that gives us an unlikeable protagonist, lets us observe her and doesn't try to change her so that we go home with warm fuzzies over her realizing what a bad person she is and changing her life. Instead, the brilliant third act tells us that some people are incapable of change because they are so ingrained into who they are that they can't recognize how they are to others in their lives.
In my mind, Charlize's performance nearly rivals her Oscar winning turn in Monster, Patton Oswalt's character serves as the counterbalance to Charlize's character. Diablo Cody's script charts a path for the main character from the start and never deviates from it instead of providing an artificial happy ending a lesser movie would.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: Yes, Rooney Mara got a deserved Best Actress nomination and the film got four deserved technical nomination, but it's a shame that the Academy couldn't recognize that David Fincher took a good book and very good movie and made a remake that outdoes the original in every aspect. Steve Zaillian's screenplay makes better sense of the plot and adds/subtracts things that make the story better.
I agree with you about Jessica Chastain. I enjoyed her performance in The Help, but thought she was magnificent in The Tree of Life. If she deserved a nomination for her body of work in 2011, it was for Terrence Malick's visionary masterpiece.
You ask if I know anybody that loves Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. One of my friends saw it the other night and posted to Facebook a note calling it the best movie of the year.
that drive didn't receive a nomination for cinematography is baffling to me.
With the possible exception of Mara or Williams, the Best Actress category needs a complete overhaul.
I can perhaps see the Academy omitting Michael Fassbender due to the movie's subject matter, but why not Michael Shannon?
As for Albert Brooks; when I first saw "Drive", I thought "He's gonna get nominated, but what possible acting clips could they use for the ceremony, with Brooks swearing every 2 seconds?". I guess the Academy didn't want to bother with the editing.
Another year in which I will not follow the Oscars.
I believe the reason the Academy didn't nominate "Drive" was because of the fact that it was too creative, too unique, and not much of a story to go along with it (as I would imagine the Academy believed). But that was the beauty of "Drive", it was so different from any of today's action movies and stood out in such a wonderful fashion that it certainly deserved to snatch a Best Picture nomination. Refn's languorous style was one of the key reasons I believe the Academy didn't nominate "Drive" and instead chose a much more family oriented film like “Extremely Loud and Incredible Close” instead. It baffles me why the Academy fails to recognize this year's arthouse films like "Drive" and "Shame" which were without a doubt much more violent and explicit then films like "War Horse" and “Extremely Loud and Incredible Close"but had so much more meaning into human nature. People have to remember that the Oscars are not a film festival which recognizes low-budget arthouse films but more commercial than critical successes.
I had really hoped Elizabeth Olsen would have at least gotten a nomination for her performance in "Martha Marcy May Marlene." She was riveting. And I had hoped that she might win, but alas. One can hope.
Great piece and also loved your We Need to Talk about Kevin review. Just wanted to tell you that the tomato festival is called La Tomatina and it's Spanish, not Italian. Best Regards
Never mind all these actors and films: Why didn't "Life's A Happy Song" get nominated for Best Original Song? It was even better than "Man or Muppet", if you ask me.
I loved "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" so there goes your argument.
Roger,
As always, your insight is uncanny. I think this tribute from you, if not worth as much at the box office, is definitely an honor.
I was so glad to see "Hugo" get a little of its much-deserved attention. Likewise, it's a tribute to the Academy that they didn't follow the lesser awards and gush over "Bridesmaids."
Also, I always figured Meryl Streep was a person who actually read a script before agreeing to a part. I can't believe she was in such a moronic film.
The Tree of Life is without a doubt the best film of the year. No other 2012 even came close to moving me as much as Tree of Life did. Also, I agree with Chastain being nominated for the wrong movie, but I also accept that notion for Brad Pitt. He was excellent in Moneyball, but I think his role as The Father in "Tree" was his best performance ever.
On a side note, Extremely Loud should have been replaced by either Drive, Dragon Tattoo, or even Super 8.
For my money, those worst robbery was from Shailene Woodley as Best Supporting Actress for The Descendants. I think she's even better than Clooney is, in the best role he's ever had.
Loved Hoop Dreams. Didnt its snub lead directly to a change in the nominating rules?
Hi Roger,
A short film written by a lecturer of mine missed out on an Oscar nomination after apparently being a favourite to receive one. It was "Love at first sight", I'd love to know your opinion on the film and, perhaps, on its omission from the nominations.
It would really make my next lesson interesting!
I know I'll be laughed at, but I think Rachel Weisz for The Whistleblower and Saoirse Ronan for Hanna deserve some praises.
Without otherwise addressing the content or misplaced pronouns in Scott's post, the musician he's thinking of was Billy Tipton.
Nice column - these references serve as an effective magnet for worthy non-nominated performances and films.
Different topic: in your review of Man on a Ledge, you mention he is on the 52nd floor instead of the 25th. While you do an entertaining job of noting the plot absurdities, i wondered about the logic of which man on a ledge made more sense. Wouldn't the scheme work better if the brother was on the ledge while Worthington engineered the heist, rather than Worthington giving the brother safecracking instructions through an earpiece?
I guess the positive spin that could be put on all of this is that there were so many great performances and great movies this year that it would have been impossible to honor everyone.
But at the same time, seriously, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close? My best theory on why it got nominated is because many people in the Academy assumed that because it was about 9/11 it must be an important movie. It's nomination though has convinced me that Stephen Daldry is the most overrated director of our time.
I whole-heartedly agree with your assessments, Roger. I'd even go so far as to say that The Help was over-nominated. It's formulaic and archetypal and undeserving of the praise that's been heaped upon it. The Tree of Life is a film that requires full attention and commitment to its viewing; it was destined to be ignored. The Oscars have long since ceased to be a celebration of the year's best films and is instead a popularity contest. How else to explain the inclusion of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close?
I am one of those (which is not to say that you now "know someone," but anyway) who really loved "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close." James Berardinelli, who you've previously named as the "best of the online critics," also loved the film.
I recognize that it is contrived - nearly to a fault - but the emotional response, which could only be described as an extreme catharsis, that I experienced was unexpected and truly appreciated. The performances were universally wonderful. Sandra Bullock was the most surprising (though I, of course, was floored by young Thomas Horn - great little actor!).
I don't understand why the film has so many detractors. "United 93" was a less-effective (and, granted, very different) film concerning 9/11. I loved that film, but this one opened a larger emotional cavern in my heart and mind.
I don't know. Maybe I'm alone in this. We all see films differently. Some people (including your colleague Ignatiy) love "Freddy Got Fingered." Because most people hate it is, in turn, irrelevant.
I wanted to see "Melancholia" nominated. I figured it wouldn't be, but I definitely thought it would be up there before the idea of an "Extremely Loud" nomination had even entered my mind. In fact, it didn't enter my mind. I think the last time a film with such a negative critical reaction was nominated in a Best Picture category was when, inexplicably, "Patch Adams" was nominated in the Musical/Comedy category at the 1999 Golden Globes. At least some people liked it, I suppose. Good for them.
So, anyway...it is just an awards show. But what fun it is to gripe and predict and wonder and discuss.
:)
Oh - and as far as Meryl is concerned, I haven't seen "The Iron Lady," but I'm sure she's magnificent in it. Which is precisely my issue. Does Meryl - a woman who may be the best actor ever to have lived - really need an award to qualify her talent? I'm sure it's great to be recognized, but damn...the woman is immaculate.
Cheers.
-C
I was disappointed in the fact that Alan Rickman didn't get a Best Supporting Actor nod. Even though the latter had very little screen time in Deathly Hallows Part 2, the time that he got had a well-delivered, yet not over-the-top emotional performance.
I would like to applaud Shailene Woodley's smart, nuanced performance in "The Descendants." Oscar worthy indeed.
Thank you for this post, Roger. I realize that it's not something you usually do, and I appreciate it. When they announced the nominations this year, I felt extremely dissatisfied, but it's not something you feel entitled to just complain about. After all, who am I to say who deserved what? All I have is my own opinions, and besides, they obviously can't nominate everyone. But I would have burst if I didn't get to voice my dissatisfaction at least once. So thank you for being bold, and for asking the questions you hated to ask, and just generally for showing solidarity with the malcontents.
Melancholia, Shame and Take Shelter were my three favorites of the year. I admit I saw very few of the nominated films (Drive, A Separation, and that's about it), but does that give me any less of a right to say that I think all three films deserved nominations for either acting, writing, directing or Best Picture, if not all of the above? Kirsten Dunst, Michael Shannon and Michael Fassbender were all spellbinding. My favorite image of 2011, in film, is definitely of Kirsten, leading the rest of Melancholia’s cast in a serene dance of death, remaining resolutely stoic even as the dance escalates around her into a fiery, operatic climax; that image lingers in my dreams, even now. And in one of the sex scenes in Shame, I saw Fassbender do things so bold, so shockingly fearless… well, since they didn’t nominate him, I hope they at least bought him dinner beforehand.
I’d have preferred to see Jessica Chastain get nominated for Take Shelter, or The Tree of Life, but I’m still glad she was nominated for something. 2011 was a great year in general for her, and she deserves to be remembered for it. Then, of course, there’s Albert Brooks. I was so certain that he’d get nominated; in a way, that upsets me more than anything else.
Speaking of We Need To Talk About Kevin, I went to see that at the Angelika Film Center, and Ezra Miller was there in person for a Q & A. Among other things, he talked about how, during filming, Tilda (never the method actress) was adamant that they not let their characters'... less-than-amiable relationship affect how they treated each other off-camera. I know, of course, that this is no by means a unique route for an actor to take, but her performance was nonetheless so immersive in its despair and bewilderment that I couldn’t help but be all the more impressed. Ezra’s performance, by the way, was no less of a transformation; having seen him up close, I feel compelled to stress that.
I, too, have sometimes thought that the Academy just nominates Meryl every year on general principles. Maybe next year, she’ll be willing to test that theory by, say, appearing in just one, single solitary film—and making it a Rob Schneider vehicle. Can you imagine what the Academy’s reaction would be? I almost dread to think…
I have come, over the years, to accept the fact that the Academy Awards are not the be-all and end-all in the world of film. Hitchcock never won once, and that doesn’t change my feeling that he was one of the greatest directors who ever lived. When someone doesn’t get nominated, it’s not the end of the world (films that actually were about the end of the world and deserved to be nominated but weren’t, notwithstanding). But I really felt that this time—even more so than in recent years—a lot of people were robbed.
P.S. I know many people have made this same sort of observation before, in endless variations, but doesn't it strike you as seriously nonsensical that the Academy should withhold an acting nomination for fear of being seen, in your words, "as sympathizing with masturbators", when, in past years, they had no qualms about doling out not only nominations, but actual statuettes, to people playing Nazis, hitmen and psychopaths?
Alan Rickman was robbed as well.
I thought Armie Hammer was aweful in that movie. It was a dreadful performance that was totally presuptuous and without any necessary subtlety. Naomi Watts did very well in a supporting turn for the much superior performance by Leo, who it turs out reamins the best working actor without a statuette.
I adored the movie Win-Win. I know it was out early in the year, but it utterly charmed me, even when 'our hero' was being anything but heroic. It hasn't even made any critics lists that I know of, yet it has stayed with me all these months.
Thoughts?
Drive, Drive, and more Drive
Speaking of robbery... Why only 9 best picture nominations? Is it better to have nothing than to nominate Drive or Shame or Dragon Tattoo or the Interrupters? Not only did Extremely Loud rob them, but so did an inexplicably blank slot!
With Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close getting 46% on rotten tomatoes, it makes me wonder exactly how the Academy goes about selecting the nominees. Do they just youtube the trailers and pick which one looked like oscar-caliber material?
I agree with you on all of these points. I do think you should have included Melancholia in your list of robberies. Do you think it was the "nazi statements"? I think it's the best picture of the year.
Call it a sign of the times, but the Academy needs to open an annual category for Best Animated Performance.
The criteria would be something along the lines of, say, 80% or more of the actor's performance is overlayed with animation, such as Andy Serkis' heartbreaking turns as Gollum, Kong and Caesar. It would also be for wholly animated performances, such as Eddie Murphy's steal stealer in Shrek.
Two statues/one award presented to the actor and to the "lead animator and team".
The minimum amount of nominees would be three per year, and up to five.
Honestly, the total work of Serkis and the talented artists at Weta has been a marvel. They demonstrate that the future of film isn't in technology as an end, but in storytelling, as it's always been.
Yeah, the Best Doc category is a hot mess this year. Fifteen minutes into Tabloid reminded me that Morris is the Pixar of docmakers: make a picture, deserve an award--wait; Cars 2 didn't get a nom. Damn.
Still, is there any genuine movie-lover out there who WON'T watch? Like I always say, it's the better Super Bowl: a broadcast just long enough to make you queasy from snacks. (This year we're doing theater food: Dots n nachos n such. Guaranteed to soothe the soul and raise the gorge.)
Thank you for sharing this Roger.
I was disappointed to see Robert Forster overlooked, for his portrayal of a grieving father in The Descendants. I thought Forster gave one of the most genuine performances of the year and made the most of his limited time on screen.
I "loved" Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close!"
I liked the idea of focusing on an autistic kid.
I liked the idea of the wonderfully doting father who prepares his son for life.
I liked the idea of introducing so many unmenacing characters.
I liked the idea of the complexity of life.
Roger, what about The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu? I have to say I thought it was better than The Interrupters, if for no other reason than the editing alone. That film broke new ground for what a documentary can be.
What baffled me the most was the exclusion of The Adventures of Tintin. A smart, entertaining and exceptionally well made movie. Kung Fu Panda 2 and Puss in Boots couldn't hold a candle to it. I suppose it has something to do with the whole motion capture debate...
Amen, Roger. I'm hi-5ing you in the ether over your spot on insight.
And Growler, I couldn't agree more - "It's a freaking crime that BILL CUNNINGHAM NEW YORK was ignored". A BIG freaking crime...
I'm also deeply disappointed that Shame wasn't nominated for Best Picture just so I could hear Billy Crystal sing about it in his opening number.
There's also been the not as widespread, but still vocal, cries for Andy Serkis's nomination as well. He was the life thread in "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" that made that film successful. Though honestly, I hope that if he's gotten snubbed this year, the Academy might open up the doors for motion-capture after all the next year, where Serkis can get the award for the character they would have REALLY been awarding him for anyway if he had won this year: Gollum. Do you have an opinion on him?
I have yet to understand the Academy's neglect to nominate Steven Spielberg's "Tintin" for animated feature or Spielberg himself as Director for the film "War Horse" when the film was nominated for best picture. Any thoughts on that travesty?
It has always been hard to resist the temptation to get caught up in the glamour and excitement of Oscar season, but recent years have left me rather cold as regards some of the strange choices the Academy tends to make. This year, I think, is probably the last straw for me. There are so many missteps this time it just boggles the mind. I feel a bit sad about it, but I must admit that, finally, I really don't care who wins.
Robert - Noted that The Iron Lady wasnt as good as you had expected, and noted that the movie was poorly executed, but there can be no denying that Meryl was astonishing in the movie. In fact her performance was the only good thing in about the movie, wasnt merely an impersonation of Margaret Thatcher. Meryl is nominated as best actress, not best director or best motion picture. She is deserving indeed.
I completely agree Charlize Theron and Patton Oswalt should have been nominated. No question about it. Theron's performance was my very favorite of the year.
I also think Elizabeth Olsen deserved a nod for "Martha Marcy May Marlene." What a magnificent debut.
Also, I think many people would disagree with you on Jessica Chastain in "The Help." She takes a somewhat stereotypical, somewhat thin character and brings an extraordinary amount of depth to it, actually. Just watch that scene where she's turned away from the door by all the other women, or the one where she confronts Hilly, tears in her eyes. It's lovely work. Although I will concede her performance in "Take Shelter" was the better one.
I for one was disappointed with two best picture nominations: The Help and The Descendants. I didn't see Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close because it looked like a boiling pot of bad ideas and overused cliches, but I did see the other two and thought they were strictly good. Good stories with good performances. Nothing really grabbed me except the last thirty minutes or so of The Descendants. In this category I think both Drive and Take Shelter were robbed. These two films displayed a good sense of discipline and interest in their characters and had tight editing. They both went against the tide of conventional filmmaking and gave us something different and affective. Take Shelter was my favorite movie of last year, so that was the bigger disappointment of the two.
In regards to the lead actors, George Clooney is my only complaint. I think Michael Shannon should have had that spot, though, I didn't see Shame so maybe Michael Fassbender should have gotten it as well. No matter, there was nothing particularly interesting about Clooney's performance.
The only thing I'm disappointed with when it comes to the best actress category is Charlize Theron's snub.
And the biggest disappointment for me was in the best supporting actors category. It was VERY obvious to me that Albert Brooks should have won this award, but he was not even nominated. Because of this one bad snub, I am not even a little interested in any of this years winners. I can't take it seriously.
If they play this year as safe as I suspect they will the best picture and director award will go to The Artist, best actor will go to George Clooney, best supporting actor will go to Christopher Plummer, Best Actress will go to Meryl Streep, and best supporting actress will go to Jessica Chastain.
....though I would LOVE to see Melissa McCarthy win but even if she did, the rest of the show still looks so boring.
I'm in the middle of watching "Warrior," right now, and I was having the exact same thoughts about Nick Nolte. If this is an Oscar-worthy performance by him, then every performance by him should be getting Oscar nominations. Not that I'm against that per se, but what's he doing in "Warrior," that is making all these people remember this part? I saw his work in the film "Off the Black," recently, which isn't a particularly great movie, but that was a far better and more interesting role, way more worthy of a nomination. He's good, but he's always good, and this is a part he's played a million times before. So far, I'm baffled. I still have to finish the film, but this nomination is confusing me.
Charlize Theron and Patton Oswalt should have been nominated! Theron's performance was my very favorite of the year. Do not understand why they were not nominated. I'm so dissapointed and probably not going to watch Oscars ceremony.
"...no nominee is really robbed of an Academy Award nomination. It's a gift; not a right."
Wow, Mr. Ebert... finally, there's something you believe people aren't automatically ENTITLED to.
I'd rather give all the weak an Oscar... and save the rest of the cost to our tax dollars.
Although, even better than that, how about getting rid of all entitlements altogether?
I know I am in the minority but I didn't like Drive. But even though I really disliked the movie, I thought Albert Brooks was very, very good and was disappointed to see him passed over. As for documentaries, no Tabloid, neither Werner Herzog film, no Bill Cunningham; what the heck? And why, why, why was Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, or as I called it; Extremely Annoying and Incredibly Twee, nominated? While I disliked Drive, ELandIC, just irritated the heck out of me, so much so I had to do a hard workout after seeing it, and was still so annoyed that I drank two glasses of wine. I'm all for a film being thought provoking, I loved both The Tree of Life and Melancholia (also overlooked), but you can be thoughtful and not annoying.
I felt the movie was really moving and the actors did a great job at all of there roles. Normally I'm not a fan of Jessica Chastain but the movie was so good I'll have to rethink that.
Oh, come on. Really? Bold isn’t the word that comes to mind for calling Meryl Streep "unworthy" of a nomination. And why? (Because she was the only one who did her job, while the others involved in the film let her down?) Boooo!
Myself, I don't believe in artistic awards; but that said, if they're going to have them, I have to agree with the actor who won for—if I recall correctly—"The Piano" who said (while receiving his award), "They should have an award for Best Actor in a crappy movie."
What about Kirsten Dunst in Melancholia? Also, I think the trend is to nominate movies that are underperforming so they can rebrand them as "Oscar material" to make back their cash. This year's nominees are the worst I've seen in years. The only one I'm rooting for is Emmanuel Lubezki (even though I didn't like the whispering in Tree of Life.)
Carey Mulligan, "Shame."
Have you reduced the font size again? It is getting difficult to read your entry.
Warner Bros figured out a cool trick for Oscar season. If they release a film in December, just enough theaters to qualify, and then have a general release in January, they can use the same TV ads for the movie and the Oscar campaign.
That explains "Extremely Close." Warner Bros. employees were told to vote for the movie, which starred Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock, in the top spot on their nominating lists,.
Ebert: "Again?" All you have to do on any computer is hit the equivalent of Command-Plus to make a page larger.
There were a lot of good performances this year by very young actors that went completely unnoticed. Olsen, Liberato, Moretz, Woodley, and Fanning really did some of the year's best work, and I'm surprised more film critics didn't catch onto this theme for 2011 film.
Martha Marcy May Marlene: Elizabeth Olsen and Best Picture/Director
Trust: Clive Owen (supporting), Liana Liberato (lead)
50/50: best picture, screenplay, Joseph Gordon Levitt (lead)
Hugo: Chloe Moretz and Asa Butterfield
Super 8: Elle Fanning (supporting)
The Descendants: Shailene Woodley (supporting)
Project Nim: Documentary
Take Shelter, Drive, and more I'm sure. The nominations are predictably terrible--a marketing tool masquerading as an honor.
Nothing against Jonah Hill, but the Academy nominated the wrong chubby funny-man. I'll never understand how they overlooked Patton Oswalt's layered and delicate performance in favor of the inert role Hill plays in Moneyball. What? Just because it was a "serious" role from the young comedic actor, that's enough for a nomination? It's not as though Jonah Hill is a comic legend (though his character in Superbad is near-legendary) of years and years that has suddenly gone serious. If he'd earned is stripes to that extent in comedy, then I'd maybe understand the free pass. But wearing a tie and acting nervous around Brad Pitt shouldn't be enough for a nomination. (Especially since "acting" may have had nothing to do with the "nervous" bit)
And if not Oswalt, why not Kingsley? And if not Kingsley, why not Brooks? Bummer.
Shame was robbed. No question. Not surprising really, given the well established conservatism of the Academy. Drive fits here too.
The most glaring omission this year was once again in the animated feature category - I'm not sure it was wise for the academy to include this category in the first place, it became very clear the voters had no clue about animated features when Miyazaki's Ponyo did not even get a nomination. You would think that Spielberg's name alone would be enough to at least secure a freaking nomination for TINTIN, regardless of the fact the movie deserves the nomination based on it's own merit.
I can't ignore that the academy did recognize two foreign animated films - A Cat in Paris and Chico & Rita - that normally would not get any recognition, but that does not change that Puss in Boots was a mediocre product compared to TINTIN, Arthur Christmas and Rio. I thought with the new rules regarding the number of nominations available this would be a thing of the past. Oh well, at least the Annie awards recognized them all - and how ironic they are to be hosted by Patton Oswalt!
Nicol Williamson R.I.P. 1936 - 2012
I would hate to see Christopher Plummer win in a role and a movie I hated. There was nothing genuine about his character or that plodding, pretentious film.
Of course, he's had so many great performances over his long career (recently I discovered his riveting turn as a Nazi opposite priest Gregory Peck in 1983's "The Scarlet and the Black"). Perhaps this is the excuse to reward him after getting passed up all this time.
In response to the readers, Wesley and Matt C. C., concerning Tintin:
It is my guess that the Academy did not want to give Spielberg two major nominations, both for best picture and best animated feature. Since they wanted to nominate War Horse for the best film category, they decided to leave out Tintin for best animated feature.
Demian Nichir's performance for the obscure "A Better Life" is not as good as Souleymane Sy Savane's performance in the equally obscure "Goodbye, Solo". I think Jane Greer walks away with "The Descendants". I totally bought George Clooney as a part-Hawaiian. Did you know David Straitham has Hawaiian blood? I can't believe a world-famous director actually shot the street I used to go to baseball practice on. We're not talking about "Magnum P.I.". Was "Poetry" eligible for Best Foreign Film? How come South Korea has never been represented by the Oscars? Martin Scorsese does an intro for "Woman is the Future of Man". South Korean films must be pretty good. As usual, Best Original Song is a total joke. There is no way The National's "Think You Can Wait" from "Win-Win" is a better song than "Man or Muppet".
You're confusing 2 movies. Frost/Nixon is certainly not a sports movie. You're confusing with another movie with Michael Sheen, Damned United. Frost/Nixon was excellent.
I don't believe most of the Academy members watch any of the movies. They just see a name like Meryl Streep or Max Von Sydow and just vote for it. Oscars are turning into a popularity contest more and more every year.
Methinks some of these robberies will be redeemed at EbertFest.
Roger, I agree with almost all your points.
When I read your review of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, I was extraordinarily disappointed. Being a fan of the novel (which was expertly written), I was hoping for a just cinematic treatment. The Rottentomatoes score echoes your sentiments on the matter.
For that very reason, I developed low expectations for the film, and upon discovering that it had been nominated for multiple Oscars - I was confused. Clearly someone saw something good in that film. So I went to see it and I cried my heart out. It evokes precisely the same message the book did - an excellent adaptation. The story isn't just about 9/11 - it's about the Dresden bombing, love, loss, family, social impediments, and it gives me, a rather cynical person, hope that people might not all be inherently self-serving.
I don’t recall if you mentioned having read the book, and I suppose that shouldn’t matter anyway. I just found fascinating how so many critics could praise the novel, and how so many critics could lambast the film. It’s the the same story after all. Did you not find the story believable enough? How many films today are believable?
Perhaps it all hearkens back to that old adage – one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Everyone views films differently, and I’m not some novice Judd-Apatow-adoring, popcorn-munching, sporadic movie-goer. I watch an unhealthy amount of movies a week, having seen every film (except A Separation) on your Best of the Year list – I’ve had to travel up to four hours to see some of them. I respect your opinion tremendously, and I have never missed a review of yours since I started reading them when I was fourteen.
This marks the first time I’ve disagreed with you. Extremely Loud was not a perfect film, but it was a damn good one. Someone needs to fight for its merit, and I guess that’s me.
What's with all the Melissa McCarthy love? I've seen Bridemaids and I've even watched part of Mike and Molly after she won an Emmy for it. I do not see the appeal of the show and I found her character in Bridemaids obnoxious more than anything. I would have much rather seen Shailene Woodley nominated for The Descendants. I think she did a better job and she was in a much better film.
I just don't understand it.
I'm still waiting for "Nashville" to win.
I can accept Brad Pitt's performance in Moneyball being nominated. He was so organic in the role it felt natural and not forced. A lesser actor would have flailed their arms around and come across as unintentionally funny.
What I don't care much for was Jonah Hill's nomination. The role he played in Moneyball demanded so little of anyone's acting abilities that I almost think they gave Hill a nomination in a condescending manner. There were much better supporting acting roles in movies like Drive and Ides of March, and both films had actors worthy of being nominated for this category over Jonah Hill and Max Von Sydow.
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD FOR THE MOVIE DRIVE -- Albert Brooks deserved a nomination as few ever have. It's a shame you can't nominate casting directors as Brook was the perfect choice. You would never expect Albert Brooks to play a gangster capable of swift and merciless violence which is why it was such a shock when he beat his failed subordinate to death in the pizza place. It was also telling when Ron Perlman's Nino, the guy you WOULD expect to do that, had to turn away because what he was seeing was so horrific.
Roger,
Surprised at all that the Academy ignored MELANCHOLIA? I'm not, sadly, but I do feel that it should've received some recognition.
Thanks.
As noted from a commenter above: why wasn`t Tintin nominated in the Best Animated Film category? I thought it would be a guaranteed winner, but it didn't even make the list!
Albert Brooks robbed again? Yes, he was. At least last time he got a nomination (the excellent "Broadcast News"), and lost to Sean Connery, who really wasn't that good in "The Untouchables." This time he has reason to tweet, "You hate me...you really hate me!!"
That's the thing about you, Rodge. It is by now many a good film I'd have shut off after about 15 minutes had you not recommended it.
I can't sphemusate about who wins and who doesn't. Now that I've finally given it some thought, it seems to me you have to watch somebody for years and years, some of the same films over and over, too,
Having watched "The Right Stuff" (1983) again the other night, I think I'd'a a tossed 'em a few more Oscars than just the four.
You age, you mature. You mature, you see more. Unless you just age.
Ebert, you are a great f#cking critic and one of my biggest inspirations. This is a bold, convincing article. Bravo!
I loved Money ball, but I think Ryan Gosling, Micheal Shannon or fassbender should have been nominated over Brad. Although brad was excellent. However I don't get all the Jonah Hill love. he was fine but very quiet and pretty much delivered the same performance he's done before and better in films like superbad. he just wasn't showcased enough for my liking.
Hi Roger,
In your review and above you have criticized Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close for its implausable story. I suppose that, in itself, is a fault of the movie (which I have been reticent to see) rather than the story because the book handles those details so well. In fact, I never thought the book was going to be filmable. Its use of language and shifting styles were unique and outstanding -- one of the most interesting novels I have read in some time.
It's a shame too about Max Von Sydow. He has always been one of my favourite actors and to be nominated for this rather than so many other roles (the father in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly comes instantly to mind as a recent standout) is truly misguided.
Could you do an article sometime on what you feel are the biggest Oscar "robberies" of all-time - both those that didn't win or get nominated and those who won, but shouldn't have?
Wanna talk robbed? How in the world did Allen get nominated for Midnight in Paris over Refn's stylistic Drive which he one for at Cannes?
Allen is one of my favorite directors and Midnight was on my own ten list of the year, but the Academy failing to recognize Refn's talent is preposterous.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon has more nominations...
That's really, really sad.
It will be hard for anyone to top Albert Brooks's comment, after being told he hadn't been nominated.
"They don't like me! They really, really don't like me!"
It is probably a sign of the strength of the documentary category that you could throw out all 5 nominees in the Best Feature Documentary category and replace them with 5 equally strong (if not better) candidates.
Heck Werner Herzog had 2 this year! (Though admittedly I am not sure if either Into the Abyss or Cave of Forgotten Dreams were eligible this year given how early the first was released and how late the second one was.)
In addition to The Interrupters and Herzog's Into the Abyss and Cave of Forgotten Dreams, throw Senna on to the list of snubbed but great docs.
And ESPN has been doing fine work with their 30 for 30 documentaries many of which were released briefly theatrically to be eligible for this kind of recognition. (The Two Escobars was particularly good.)
*****
That said, to me The Adventures of Tintin was the greatest snub in the Best Animated Feature category, prompted by an odd opinion amongst some animators that it isn't an animated film. A case of valuing the tool used to make the picture over what the picture looks like. The artist is not the brush.
*****
And of course the Best Song category continues to be a farce only nominating two songs, though Man or a Muppet was my favourite film song of the year.
How about Rachel Harris for "Natural Selection"? Odd that not only do filmmakers have to raise funds to get a film made and distributed, they must raise funds again to campaign for recognition. I watch the Oscars every year, but only for the cleavage.
Hi Roger,
This is slightly off topic, but the fact that it ganered best supporting actor nominations i felt i should share an impression i had with regards to Warrior.
Last year "The fighter" seemed to impress everyone. I, personally liked the film, but as is my test of all movies; pretty much forgot about it until it was nominated. I didn't have a bad feeling for the movie, just that i thought it was very average.
On the other side, i came out of "Warrior" quite strongly affected. It felt far more emotional for me, and i have since bought it and watched it several times, getting no less of an emotional impression from it.
Now, i realize that it is not on par with many of the best picture's nominated this year, and that isn't my argument at all. I would, however, have loved for "Warrior" to have come out a year before hand to stand against "The Fighter". I think the performances in Warrior were far more authentic and unforgiving.
I will say that my favorite documentary this year was BILL CUNNINGHAM NEW YORK . That failure for nomination is almost a sin.
Be well.
Adam
Roger, do you think Lars Von Trier shot himself in the foot with his Nazi rant at the Cannes film festival as far as Oscar nods go? Of all the snubs that rubbed me the wrong way this year, this was the most criminal.
+1 on Rickman. Just no love for fantasy at the awards.
I never cease to be amazed at people who question why the Academy nominated this film or performance and not that one. Just imagine if your dithery Aunt Bertha, your sour Uncle Mort, your druggie nephew, Dustin, your disfunctional sister, Marsha, your uptight third grade teacher, Miss Bartlett, and your idiot boss, Mr. Olsen were nominating their favorites. Now do you understand?
I apologize for getting on a high-horse, but aren't you contributing to the establishment as it is? The (let's not go with actors/actresses) thespians that you call out...I respect your opinion, but also wonder if perhaps there's a bit more to unsung performances. Would it put you out to put out a list of ten people that gave really, really good performances in their craft? Nuts to the awards, how about a special thumbs-up in your tradition?
More importantly, will Oscar amalgam, Brangelina, formally wed?
While I guess they technically weren't robbed because no one really thought they had a shot, I think Anna Paquin and Kirsten Dunst deserved nominations. Paquin in "Margaret" was absolutely electrifying. Never have I seen a teenage character played so authentically. Paquin gave Lisa a weird complexity that made you hate her one minute, and sympathize with her the next. Then there of course there is Kirsten Dunst in "Melancholia" (which was my favorite film of the year and was sorely overlooked by the academy.) Her depiction of depression was simply jaw dropping. There was an authenticity in her performance that is rare to find. How Glenn Close could get a nomination over her boggles my mind.
This isn't the first time that Ryan Gosling has been 'robbed'; he was similarly overlooked for Lars And The Real Girl some years go.
I felt that Vanessa Redgrave's performance in CORIOLANUS was brilliant. She truly made Shakespeare's dialogue come alive with such power and force, it's a shame that this wasn't recognized by the Academy.
For my money, I'll never forgive the Academy for snubbing David Fincher's Zodiac, just to slobber all over Benjamin Button a couple of years later.
The fact the Extremely Loud was nominated for best picture and not Dragon Tattoo still pisses me off. How can the Academy ignore such a great film because it isn't the typical "Oscar movie"?
You're right-on here, Roger, as usual, for Oscar snubs. But in 2012 we need to get your show back on TV. How about Landmark Theater's Mark Cuban as a sponsor? He's all about VOD.
That's strange for me that nobody have mentioned 50/50. Joseph Gordon-Levitt performance was so touching as well as Anna Kendrick. The script is also worth-mentioning.
I have not seen Take Shelter and Shame yet but i suppose Shannon and Fassbender were great as usual.
I think Oscar academics just fear of art movies dealing with sex or/and violence. They are up to nominee some sweet indie stories as "Little Miss Sunshine" but sometimes real great movies are just overlooked. I'm speaking of Drive right now. Refn direction was astonishing. He should have had a nomination. Gosling who simply can't play bad... How can they nominee such a boring actors as Clooney?? From movie to a movie he's always the same kind of guy.
Glad for Malick's team: Pitt and Chastain. Terrence is a legend.
As a professional movie critic, I want to state that I am appalled at the almost universal dismissal of "Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close" BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN IT. Approach this superb and emotional movie for what it is, a film about a quest, a fairy tale if you will, and then get back to me with any negativity. The day before its well-deserved nomination, I predicted that it was the one to watch. And Roger, if acting is all in the eyes, then Max von Sydow's wordless performance is the work of a genius.
As for the rest of the Academy Award nominations, because AMPAS does not reveal vote totals, which it should because the awards are essentially a poll of its members, no one should put too much stock in who was snubbed. The non-finishers may have lost by a single vote.
Yes, there was good news for France, either directly or thematically, what with "The Artist," "Hugo," and "Midnight In Paris" earning nods, happily for me I might add. And yes, there were omissions, but we all have our favorites and everything can't be nominated. Meryl Streep may win because her acting is flashier, but Glenn Close deserves the Oscar for "Albert Nobbs." I like both performances. But the real acting revelation of the year is Janet McTeer's performance, also in "Albert Nobbs." She should win for best supporting actress. She may not because of the rush to judgement for "The Help," a revisionist work that distorts the true history, and softens the pain, of the fight for equality.
Adam, I couldn't agree with you more in your praise of Robert Forster's latest work. I've been a fan of his since the "Medium Cool" days. In fact, " The Descendants" is the finest example of quality ensemble acting I've seen since... well..."McCabe And Mrs. Miller." (Also watched that great oldie again not too long ago)
It's 2012. Do people seriously still care what "a bunch of rich white-people high-fiving each other" have to say about movies? Has there ever been an Academy Awards ceremony that wasn't ruled by petty politics, ignorance and cowardice? Is anyone still surprised that they'd be this bad at appreciating movies?
~A.H.
I've heard a few that think that The Skin I lived got robbed because it wasn't Spains send-in. A lot of people really liked that movie.
As for my Belgian POV some think that we should have sent in the Kid with a Bike. I'm however glad that we sent Bullhead and even more happy to see that it's got a nomination.
I disagree just a tad concerning Melissa McCarthy and the bridesmaids. I think she was nominated because she allowed a makeup person to powerwash the makeup from her face prior to her scenes. It was a wonderful way to make her just a bit more of who she was intended to be.
I remember ALL the performances in that film and am brought to tears by a few scenes with other actresses doing the work. You were correct in your review of the film by stating that this ensemble of females did something not quite done before: they were collectively and gloriously foot stompingly funny in ways most females could not pull off.
I credit the director, writer, and cast for all being so much better than they needed to be, and some of those jobs were done by the same person.
Sorry, but while the 1st 5 minutes of "Drive" had me pumped, Ryan Gosling's imitation of George Clooney in "The American" soon dampened my enthusiasm. He was much better in "Crazy Stupid Love" and "The Ides of March".
Ebert: We'll go back to the original Outguess Ebert format.
What, with Ebert wanting to give Tree Of Life every single award, including the Nobel?
Who WOULDN'T outguess that? Like takin' candy... ;)
I'm not comfortable with the suggestion that an actor needs to "stretch" to prove that he or she is Acting with a capital A, in order to be recognized as a worthy performance. The combination of the right actor in the right role can be a very powerful thing, regardless of whether that actor is allegedly typecast.
Also, to those of you bemoaning the lack of nominations for Drive, not all of us were so enamored with the film.
Roger: Yes they wuz indeed!
I love films and I love to read what you have to say about them I especially love it when we agree!
It's obvious to me that the voters don't see all the films or a real gem like "Drive" wouldn't be overlooked! Perhaps they remember "Valhalla Rising' An ambitious but flawed film made by
Nicholas Winding Refn that fell short of the mark. "Drive" on the other hand to me is about as close to perfection as a film can get.
Credit should also have been given to Ryan Gosling in an understated role, well not completely as the look he gave the character, Irene after stomping on that guy in the elevator damned near tore my heart out To me a good movie draws you into it and invites you back. I can't say that about most of the ones nominated.
"The Iron Lady" is a horrible movie and an insult to Margaret Thatcher. Even Merle Streep couldn't save it.
The #1 biggest shocker to me was no best animation nominee for Tintin. Puss in Boots got a nomination over Tintin? Really?!?!?!
The other big snub was Shailene Woodley for best supporting actress in The Descendants. How often has it been that foreign films or actors/actresses get nominated with American films? I think A Separation for example is better than any of the best picture nominees and belongs there in that category.
Rooney Mara got nominated for Dragon Tattoo, but I would have preferred a best actress nomination for Noomi Rapace in the original dragon tattoo.
I too am shocked by the lack of nomination for The Interruptors. I wonder who that director pissed off to keep getting snubbed.
it was a completely underwhelming year for film, IMO. Worse even, is the fact that the better (or memorable) films of 2011 were snubbed.
Roger, I always look forward to this annual 'call to account' of the nominations. Being who you are, your opinion has more influence than most, and it seems at least some of the Academy actually does listen to you, given their pleasantly surprising choices over the past decade or so, nominations that possibly would not have occurred without advice such as yours; so on that note I hope that you continue to call BS on some of their more bizarre choices, and also to give a thumbs-up on their worthy ones.
The Oscars arguably are the most significant annual cultural event in the world, and although there is a school of thought, which includes many in the film industry, that says they're meaningless, when it comes down to it that's just not true; their popularity alone speaks to the importance of the ritual, and when you add the concept that film is the most important art form, it's obvious. So why not take them more seriously and hold the nominations to higher standard?
Also agree with Gerardo above too, that it was a huge mistake to expand the category beyond five films, since all that does is dilute the quality of the nominees. Like everything else in life it's all economics, and a nomination ultimately does greatly enhance the receipts of a film; but the thing about having only five slots is that it forces the Academy to think about quality over quantity, as it should be. More than likely it's the producers who lobbied for more than five, as it directly relates to dollars in this category; less so for the acting categories e.g., which have not been expanded, nor likely will be.
Oh well, what can we do ... but please keep trying, because eventually it makes a difference. And I hope that you know how much we all love reading your opinions, because they do matter.
Still, is there any genuine movie-lover out there who WON'T watch? Like I always say, it's the better Super Bowl: a broadcast just long enough to make you queasy from snacks.
Think Johnny Carson once summed up why we watch with his one quip in the 80's:
"Tomorrow, you will all be answers on Trivial Pursuit". :)
And admit it, that's why we watch. (And to get our annual rundown of what to put on our Netflix queue tomorrow, just from the Best Acting excerpts.)
Even if we don't deeply CARE whether "No Country for Old Men" beats "There Will Be Blood", there is that feeling of watching the record books be added to: At one of my old theaters growing up, they decorated the walls with decade-collage pictures of the Best Picture posters--One for the 30's with It Happened One Night and Gone With the Wind, one for the 70's with The Godfather and Patton, one for the 80's with Amadeus and Rain Man, etc...
We all subconsciously have that wish to see what else is going to go up on that imaginary Great Film Pantheon wall for all time, and remind us of what we still haven't gone out to rent for our own good yet--That was why we felt good about Chicago or Return of the King, but not so much about, um....heck, what did win three years ago, after they changed the rules and just started cheating off the Globes? ;)
That said, however, regarding the Ceremony...please kill traditional Ceremony gagwriter Bruce Vilanch. (Yes, the one who wrote the Star Wars Holiday Special.) He only knows THREE jokes, all of them overbearingly West Coast gay-celeb.
(I kid you not: For the last two years, in addition to our Oscar betting pool, we have had a bonus bet for "What goofy costume will Ben Stiller come out onstage in?"
Last year, we had the majority of the bets narrowed down to Tron or Iron Man, but then James Franco came out in the goofy Marilyn dress and the betting was scratched. The odds are pretty good this year, though, 3:2 on Thor, and 5:1 on Captain America.)
off topic, but both the 'a separation' review and the ten best list has Termeh's picture wrong. The girl in the image is actually the domestic help's daughter in the film.
Ebert: Yes. Corrected on the review page. On the top 10 page, I don't think we ever say who she is. It's a lovely photograph.
"Everything is alive. Everything. Literally. So this scientist sez. A new theory of nature." - Roger
You posted a Facebook link to an article...
"The earth is alive, asserts a revolutionary scientific theory of life emerging from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. The trans-disciplinary theory demonstrates that purportedly inanimate, non-living objects—for example, planets, water, proteins, and DNA—are animate, that is, alive..."
And as is the case with actors or films failing to be recognized or given the due, I often think mother nature is robbed too - and by science failing to see her better.
I'm trying to segue into an off-topic comment - work with me. :-)
A man is out walking his dog. Suddenly, the dog stops to tilt his head, raise an ear, take a sniff. The man sees nothing, hears nothing, no one else is on the path; all is quiet. You could hear a pin drop.
So what made the dog react...?
Something you can't measure. And so you have to assume "small rodent, squirrel, faint smell..."
Does the inability to see or measure a thing, disqualify its existence?
No. But it wasn't until people explored and examined how DOGS see the world, that we gained the knowledge needed to form the above hypothesis: ie: it was probably a squirrel...
Squirrel scenes from UP!
And why this clip from Pixar's "UP!" is not only funny but true; smile.
And it's an argument in support of the following:
Just because you're oblivious to a thing, doesn't mean it's not there.
Too often Science discounts using other senses - and which I regard as a failing or short-coming of Science. Ie: its blind spot.
Beautiful Minds - the documentary with Temple Grandin, speaks directly to it. She's a person with high-functioning autism. She wasn't comfortable around people - but she totally got animals; she could put herself inside their heads. Cows, to be exact.
"Grandin is considered a philosophical leader of both the animal welfare and autism advocacy movements. Both movements commonly cite her work regarding animal welfare, neurology, and philosophy. She knows all too well the anxiety of feeling threatened by everything in her surroundings, and of being dismissed and feared, which motivates her in her quest to promote humane livestock handling processes. Her business web site has entire sections on how to improve standards in slaughter plants and livestock farms." - wikipedia
The ability to relate - a feeling ,not an intellectual thought - is what led to the more humane treatment of animals (cows) for slaughter.
It didn't occur to anyone doing the killing.
It didn't occur to anyone raising the cows.
It didn't occur to anyone eating hamburgers.
It occurred to someone for being able to look at the world through "their" eyes.
In the same way it never occurred to anyone until relatively recently, that "breaking a horse" actually amounts to animal cruelty. Trauma.
And so if someone proposes that everything is connected and on that level, feels something, I see no reason not to consider it.
At the very least, it amounts to embracing (imo) a more beneficial world view - like indigenous populations still do. They have enormous respect for the planet. They use myth, legend and stories, instead of test tubes and microscopes, but either way it amounts to understanding how an eco-system works, no?
I find science a maddening thing. It's curious enough to look, but its approach too often egocentric, and thus will dismiss what it can't literally measure, and for failing to wrap its head around another way of seeing a thing. Science is literal-minded, intellectual; clinical.
And imo, that should never steer the ship. Empathy should tell science where to apply itself. Then what it discovers will be of use, as opposed to rewarding ego with the bragging rights of having accomplished or achieved something for the sake of one's academic career.
I'm reacting of course, to you poo-pooing the study. :-)
"Is it only me, or does this new theory seem to be teetering on the brink of woo-woo?" - Roger
Answer: Native religions developed from anthropomorphism and animism philosophies. Animals, plants, trees, and inanimate objects are interpreted in human terms and their relation to the earth, sky, and water. A cosmological order exists, within which humans live, that values balance and harmony with all of these forces. - Canada's First Nations - Creation story: Haida
Are you trying to tell me that the Haida legend about the Raven creating the world isn't true? And that we should care less about the water and trees and fishies and stuff? Hmm? Is that what you're saying..?
Smile.
To paraphrase Ebert: I hated the absence of Drive.Hated hated hated hated hated the absence of a movie that was certainly among the best five movies of the year.
Thank you for that comment; no film is actually robbed, an Oscar is an honor, not a right. I find myself getting angry about the Academy awarding certain films and ignoring certain others, and I have to take a pause and remember that it's not such a big deal. History and time are far better judges of great films. And I'm just glad I got to see "Into the Abyss". I've only seen about half of the nominees, but from what I can tell, I think it's the best movie of the year.
I loved "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close." I doubt I am the only one Roger.
United 93, probably the best movie I've seen in the 28 years of my life, wasn't nominated for best picture simply because people think watching 9/11 movies is a downer. These awards are BS.
I think it's awesome that the animated feature category was extended to five nominations! As much as I enjoyed "Rango," "Chico and Rita" has my vote! See it if you haven't!
I also think it's hilarious that the song category dwindled down to two nominees.
Still, out of all the films I saw in 2011, my favorite is "13 Assassins."
The complete lack of nominations for Drive was my biggest bummer. I feel like every scene of that movie was forever burned in my brain after I saw it. Of course there really weren't very many scenes at all, when you think about it, and you could probably count the total lines of dialogue on two hands and a foot. But good gracious, those [i]performances[/i]. Ryan Gosling, most obviously, but certainly Albert Brookes as well, and even Carrie Mulligan. You just felt like everyone in this movie had a haunting backstory; there was always this silence, this spaciousness present that let you fill a lot in with your own imagination. It was a movie of all showing, and no telling.
But I will say this about the nominees this year: there definitely seems to be a theme. It looks like the Academy was looking for predominantly crowd-pleasers this year--family-friendly ones at that (the outlier being The Tree of Life, but it is [i]about[/i] family from what I understand). Frankly, I think that's a great thing, even if some of my year-end favorites got snubbed. Only one of the nominees this year was rated R, and it wasn't a hard R. I guess the Academy was struck by movies like Hugo, The Artist and War Horse because they were so feel-good, so old fashioned, and such love letters to...like, film and stuff. That's pretty noble, if you ask me.
Beautifully put. I could not agree more...except that all the "best actor" nominees were worthy. I don't feel Brad Pitt's acting in "Moneyball" was worth singling out. It felt like an average Pitt performance...nothing note worthy. I'll say it...Fassbender was robbed by Pitt. I'm surprised you didn't mention Jonah Hill, not to hate on "Moneyball", but again this was an average performance. I found nothing special about it and was shocked to see Hill's name. I would have loved to have seen Albert Brooks nominated, who gave one of the best supporting performances of the year. Really let down by some of the Academy's choices this year....
I assure you that I am not. While Frost/Nixon was not formally a sports movie, it followed all the conventions of typical sports movies complete with a "halftime" turnaround.
I do like the movie (I think it's very clever without losing it's human aspect) but I don't think that is why it got nominated.
Dear Mr. Ebert:
Do you think the Academy bestowing Nominations on "The Help" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" has to do with political correctness?
Both deal with touchy subjects, racism and 9/11 respectively, and since "The Help" was such an audience favorite, if it was not nominated people might've said that the Academy does not like films with an all-black cast, and with ELAIC, maybe the Academy thinks that films about 9/11 are no longer taboo and are now more accepted in Society.
Because if its on film making merits alone, I can't for the life of me understand why.
I know that the Academy award makes notable omissions every year, but they made quite glaring ones in this case. It is really a shame that they did not nominate Fassbender, Shannon, Gosling, Swinton, Brooks, and others - each of them did the best work in his/her career. At least, as people say, it is just an award.
Three nominations for "Transformers 3"? Ugh....
Roger,
Kirsten Dunst was also most definitely robbed. I find it hard to believe anyone gave a more nuanced, subtle, and intense performance in a film in 2011.
I haven't seen Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close yet, but regardless I find it ridiculous, and frankly kind of offensive to his legacy, that they nominated Max von Sydow for this film and not any of the great performances he's given over the years in truly great films. I feel like it's what I refer to as an "apology nomination" because he's getting quite old and they feel badly in hindsight for not recognizing his great work with Bergman (and others) in the past, though I am aware he was nominated once previously, but even so, never for a Bergman film.
Also, I don't understand why everyone has made such a big deal about Bridesmaids. The best part of the film was the airplane sequence which was excellent, but the rest of it was quite mediocre and often decidedly unfunny. In any case, I find the awards hysteria over it bizarre considering that The Hangover, a much better and funnier film, which was at least equally well received by audiences and critics, and its scene-stealing performance by Zach Galifianakis were overlooked by the Academy come nominations time. I think McCarthy is a great comedic actor and that she elevated the film, was the best aspect of it, and like Galifianakis in The Hangover, stole every scene she was in, but I still don't think she should have been nominated, nor should the screenplay for Bridesmaids have been. But of course it's all quite subjective.
Elle Fanning in "Super 8". She brought back great memories of Kerri Green in "The Goonies", and especially, "Lucas". Elle Fanning in "Somewhere". Her character was rich and privileged, and yet, she remained entirely sympathetic, in spite of the ice skating lessons. Some film critics are dead wrong about Sofia Coppola. She is good.
Why was Oldman nominated for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy? All he did was carry a briefcase around for two hours with no expression on his face. Now, he did that well, but should he have gotten the nomination at the expense of someone like Michael Shannon?
Trust me, you are not alone. See my comment above at January 27, 2012 1:14 p.m.
The Max von Sydow nomination reminds me of a point the great and under-read writer William H. Gass made in an essay a couple decades back. Writing of literary prizes, he pointed out that the books that win the big awards are rarely an author's best (the locus classicus here is Faulkner, whose unparalleled string of masterpieces from the 1930's went largely unheralded while his lesser novels of the 1950s won Pulitzers), the reason for this being that truly great, original work is rarely immediately recognized as such and that award juries tend to award later, lesser books in compensation for missing the earlier, better ones. If Max wins an Oscar this year, it won't be for the nominated movie but for "The Seventh Seal," "The Virgin Spring," and all the other great ones he has been a part of.
In case anyone's interest is piqued, the Gass essay I'm talking about is titled "Pulitzer: The People's Prize" and can be found in his book Finding a Form.
(And if this comment sends one person to the dictionary to check the meaning of locus classicus (which it turns out I used rather loosely) it will have done its duty.)
While I thought Young Adult was a very good, brave and worthy film, I don't think it quite worked BUT Charlize Theron was absolutely brilliant and I think gave THE performance of the year - it's just ridiculous she was not nominated. The only comfort is that she already has a (deserved) Oscar.
Up until I saw Young Adult, I thought Viola Davis gave the best performance of the year, so now I'm rooting for her, although the film itself is middling at best.
My other disappointment is not seeing "13 Assassins" on the foreign film list - I thought it was one of the best films I saw last year.
You aren't. Best film of the year!
Time determines the real winners. I'd love to see the Academy do "anniversary" Oscars, awarding what film from 10 years ago was really the best. At this time, we're not seeing these films as history will see them, and that's the real dilemma here.
The films our culture remembers, like Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, Fargo, Citizen Kane...these are the films that should have won. But at the same time, it's almost a blessing they weren't. Otherwise, it's doubtful anyone would remember them.
Then again, my favorite film of all time is Amadeus, 1984's Best Picture winner. Go figure.
I really enjoyed Ebert's perspective with this article. I can't see the academy overlooking anyone because of 'content material', but of course they do. It's time the academy grows up, as well as out of their entrenched predictablility [in most instances]. Of course we all have our opinions, and we like to think our personal opinion is particularly insightful. But why or why the amount of hupla over 'The Decendents', I mean I enjoyed the movie but it hardly rocked my boat, much of it too slow paced. George's performance is interesting, varied, sometimes provocative, but hardly oscar level [actually most of the performances in the leading male catagory that I've seen did not seem oscar worthy . . . competent and professional yes, but have we lowed the bar? How Brian Gossling got overlooked for 'Drive' as well as Albert Brooks, and the movie itself is beyond me. I concur with everything said in the article. And HOW did 'War Horse' get nominated? It was sooooo predictable, sooooooo manipulative, desperately needed to be edited [so what if there were some nice shots. The ending one [oh my oh my] was right out of 'Gone With The Wind', I kept expecting to see someone pull up a carrot. Thank God the actress in 'Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' got nominated, so the academy has not totally lost their marbles.
Rickman was beautiful in what was the most disappointing end to a series since Return Of The Jedi.
Best Actor- Strange that no one mentions Dominic Cooper in The Devil's Double.
Best Supporting Actor- There were just too many good performances this year. Five more worthy nominees include, yes, Brooks, Oswalt & Serkis, plus Clooney was great in The Ides Of March (as well as Gosling). Add internet fave Michael Parks for Kevin Smith's genre defying Red State, which seems to inspire the same kind of absolute hate or love as Drive. Regardless of what you thought of the film, Parks performance as a truly evil character who is sure he is truly righteous was the most disturbing of it's kind since Bruno Ganz played Hitler in Downfall. The same could be said of Brooks as well, though he character acts out of perceived need rather than righteousness. I'm sure the extreme violence in Drive cost it some votes (Dragon Tattoo as well)
Diablo Cody for Best Original Screenplay.
Did John Williams really need two nominations this year?
Hope the actors from The Help cancel each other out (overrated) and a truly left field winner gets it like McCarthy or McTeer.
"They don't want to be seen as sympathizing with masturbators."
Ha! Only in Hollywood, sympathizing with Nazis (Christolph Waltz who was glourious!) is okay. Masturbators, not so much. I'm with growler ... Bill Cunningham New York Wuz Robbed!
I thought the most glaring omissions were Ben Kingsley (for Hugo) and Shailene Woodley (for The Descendants) who I thought were shoo-ins for nominations. Though now that I think about it, Kingsley already has an Oscar (though he won for Gandhi years ago) and hopefully Shailene Woodley will be motivated to do more serious films rather than going back to the standard teen fare she's known for.
'Drive'?
I feel like I must have seen a different movie because I found the first half turgid, and the second half cliché'.
I didn't hate it, but I forgot about it pretty quickly.
I was genuinely moved and surprised by 'A Separation'. It probably should have been a best picture nominee. I liked Hugo and The Artist, but I'm not really in love with either one.
'Into Eternity', 'Cave of Forgotten Dreams' and 'Senna' were the best documentaries I've seen in 2011. Cave was probably the most interesting English language film I saw this year.
It was another lackluster year for new movies, if you ask me. The years best filmed entertainment, in my opinion, was Game of Thrones on HBO.
OK, here's my 2 cents:
For best actor, I would take out Demian Bichir in "A Better Life" and Gary Oldman in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" and replace them with Michael Shannon's unsettling portrayal of a delusional paranoiac in "Take Shelter" and Ryan Gosling's idealistic backroom political schemer in "The Ides of March". But ultimately, the best actor this year was George Clooney in "The Descendants", which will earn him a much-deserved Oscar.
For best actress, I would get rid of them all except Rooney Mara as the title character in "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo". True, Viola Davis did good turn in "The Help", but that's really all there is to recommend the movie. Instead I would nominate a bunch of teen actresses: Elle Fanning as the middle school femme fatale in "Super 8", Elizabeth Olsen as the titular cult escapee in "Martha Marcy May Marlene", Saorise Ronan as the juvenile assassin with
Aspergers in "Hanna", and Shailene Wooley as the drug-addicted older daughter in "The Descendants" (my favorite). As for my prediction, I think the partisans of British costume drama will be split between Glenn Close and Meryl Streep and Viola Davis will wind up winning.
For best supporting actor, I would take out Kenneth Branagh in "My Weekennd With Marilyn" and Max Von Sydow in "Extremely Lound and Incredibly Close". I would replace them with Adrien Brody who--in a just world--would win for his single scene in "Midnight in Paris" that stole the film away from the rest of the cast; and with George Clooney as the Machiavellian liberal politician in "The Ides of March". As for Christopher Plummer, he deserves a nomination, but for "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo", not the wretched "Beginners" (although Plummer so reliable, his performance is wonderful in that atrocious film). As for who will win, I think Plummer and Von Sydow will split the votes of Academy members who want to reward 50+ years of greatness, and the Anglophiles will propel Branagh to victory.
For supporting actress, I would get rid of the not-so-great Marilyn Monroe imitations by Jessica Chastain in "The Help" and Michelle Williams in "My Weekend With Marilyn" as well as the sitcom-ish performance by Octavia Spencer in "The Help". Instead I would nominate Chastain for her sympathetic portrayal of the wife trying to protect everyone from her husband's mental illness in "Take Shelter", Marion Cotillard as the artists' muse in "Midnight In Paris" and Evan Rachel Wood as the naive intern in "The Ides of March". But ultimately, Melissa McCarthy wins hands-down for giving the most memorable performance in any film this year.
For best director, I think this is one category that the Academy got mostly right, although if I had my druthers, George Clooney would have been nominated for "The Ides of March" instead of Terence Malick for "The Tree of Life". I would really like Woody Allen to win for "Midnight In Paris", but it will probably go to Michel Hazanivicius for "The Artist".
Finally for best picture, I would have gotten rid of "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" (cloying Hollywood crap), "The Help" (a sitcom version of race relations in the South), "The Tree of Life" (pretentious), and "War Horse" (tries to be a cross between an early Disney live-action pic and a John Ford film, but lacks the soul of either). Instead I would have nominated "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" (the best film noir of the year), "Hanna" (the year's most overlooked action flick), "The Ides of March" (political thrillers don't get much better), and Super 8 (the summer's best popcorn movie). I would like to see "The Descendants" win, but I think the Oscar will ultimately go to "The Artist".
I've heard a lot of people criticize the critics of this year's sketchy nominations by saying it's such a "first world problem" and I'd agree. What gets my goat though, is that there seems to be a huge drop off in integrity in film these days. Do you think something could spawn from this like the razzies but in the opposite direction? An integrity inspired awards?
I think there will always be snubs and surprises in the Oscar nominations. That occurs because we have so many films being released and there aren't enough nomination slots for all the deserving nominees. The Golden Globes have sort of made it a little easier by having categories in both Comedy and Drama, although some of their selections can be crazy as well, like Robin Williams for Patch Adams. However, the Oscar winners itself can be always thought of in the same way, where you are like, "WTF? That person doesn't deserve it." A recent example is when Helen Hunt won for "As Good as it Gets" over Judi Dench for "Mrs. Brown". I have the feeling that was why the next year Dench won for "Shakespeare In Love", playing a role that had her on screen for only EIGHT minutes! That was a make-up Oscar, in my opinion. And I also remember the Gladiator fiasco in 2000. That didn't deserve Best Picture, and in fact, my favorite film of that year "Wonder Boys" wasn't even nominated.
However, I am glad that some people over the years have finally gotten Oscar recognition, like Martin Scorcese for The Departed. When he won, he should've said this as well, it would've been a great Oscar moment:
"I would also like to thank two other people who have supported me so much over the years. Roger Ebert, who I hope is recovering nicely, and Gene Siskel, who I'm sure is smiling down on us right now."
Pretty good, huh, Roger? You would've loved that, right?
You the man, Roger. By the way, why no picture on the 2012 yearbook?
Re: The balloting procedure is conducted honestly and reflects a collective opinion, …
It is not, and does not, period. Votes are manipulated everywhere from second grade classrooms, to the general election electronic ballot box.
"Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" HAD to get an Oscar nod to prop up the warped sentiment attached to false flag terrorism.
Believing in any kind of voting system as inherently honest is misguided at best and closer to just plain dopey. Depending on dynamic election result presentations and enhanced election management software without any audit trail leads directly to stolen elections.
The Artist is a wonderful movie that deserves all the praise its been getting. Hugo is technically sound but very overrated (even for Scorsese). Somehow, I don't think the studio's got the movie they marketed and Scorsese turned it into his swan song, feel sorry for myself end of career film (though he doesn't actually feel that way--naturally). War Horse was a good movie but it probably would've had a chance of winning 10 years ago. In 2011, an earnest, technically polished epic clean as a whistle movie is a hard sell. The Descendants was a wonderful movie, but Clooney really should have won for Michael Clayton; they may give it to him this year to make up for Up in the Air (which he lost). Tree of Life I fear is also very overrated, though beautifully acted/shot/directed. Moneyball was a great film but its not in the same league as The Social Network (it was essentially the same film but with baseball instead of Facebook). Rooney Mara is good but just a shadow of Noomi Rapace. Streep would get nominated even if her movie was garbage (in this case it mostly is this time). Drive was seriously screwed this year (they're against it I suspect because of the pace and violence). NC-17 movies don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting much of anything, even if their lead actor is one of the best (and skinniest) of his generation. There is one great justice this year however, the Academy's acknowledgment of a little comedy called Bridesmaids. Just because its silly don't mean its not any good either.
Hi Roger
I am still surprised "The Interrupters" didn't get nominated. Why? and how? Is beyond me. The Academy still have guilt in their name.
I thought you'd be pleased to know that 'The Interrupters' is airing on Canadian TV right now, on the CBC's NewsNet channel. So good - thanks for getting the word out about it.
And the award goes to: Best song that for reply--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeMrttj8Ucg
Time determines the real winners. I'd love to see the Academy do "anniversary" Oscars, awarding what film from 10 years ago was really the best. At this time, we're not seeing these films as history will see them, and that's the real dilemma here.
I believe that's why the Ceremony does those classic-clip genre montages in between, to give it that film-history AFI 100 feel, and remind us what's at stake--
Every year, I go punch out some loudmouth who complains "Why don't they just cut out all those stupid clips, maybe the show will run shorter?" As a matter of fact, that's what they DID do, the second year Jon Stewart hosted; it became one of the five major Oscar-show disasters in recent memory, and don't think we haven't had a few.
(Stewart went in snarkily hoping to satirize how we were "bored" with classic-clip montages in the show, by showing us the "Salute to classic binoculars", featuring memorable binocular moments from "Rear Window" and "Mister Roberts". And immediately afterwards, you could hear this pin-drop pause, as the audience was clearly thinking "Wait...That was just a joke? Show some MORE of that!" ;)
You really summed it up quite nicely here. I love Drive, and I am happy to see it in some of the awards conversation. However, I am a bit disappointed that Ryan Gosling's performance in that film was largely overlooked. It was a tough role, and to have a movie star like that playing it so close to the vest, as a result giving us one of the most interesting and out of the box genre characters in years. A lot of the credit has to be given to Refn, but Gosling as well.
That they only picked nine movies and spurned Drive just boggles my mind. If they had picked 10 movies, even if I hated four of them, I would just view it as routine garden-variety stupidity and not be angry or outraged, but to leave a slot open instead of nominating it is willful, malicious stupidity.
I haven’t seen The Interrupters yet, or the five documentaries that they did pick, but I thought that Errol Morris got robbed as usual by the Academy screeners who don’t seem to get him or see him as a real documentarian. The Fog of War won him his only Oscar, and was the only one of his films to even get nominated for Best Documentary Feature. Sometimes I think that instead of watching all the documentaries, they just read what they are about and pick the five with the most important sounding subjects.
I kind of like actor George C. Scott's views about the Oscars. So in my view, nobody was robbed, as it is a popularity contest for which people like Sally Field, Halle Berry and Julia Roberts can make fools of themselves. Actually I find the Razzies to be much more interesting, for which The Tree of Life would be number one on my list. An absolutely horrible movie.
I've been criticized by some of my fellow movie-loving friends for saying this, but I just don't get THE DESCENDANTS. It's a solid film, but best of the year? Not compared to some of these other titles. (A SEPARATION trumps it in just about every way.) SIDEWAYS remains Alexander Payne's best work imo.
The subplot about the selling of the land seemed predictable to me. Clooney's daughter's transformation (from foul-mouthed rebel to supportive sidekick) happened too quickly. The humor seemed forced at times. Finally, I had a hard time ultimately believing Clooney's love for his wife.
Good film, but it's definitely not an instant classic or even the high point in Clooney's stellar career.
I don't like the method they are using to select Best Picture nominees this year. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close got in because it had strong support from a minority whereas the general consensus is against its inclusion. In theory it's a solid way of nominating films that have a chance at winning because they actually show up as #1 on some ballots but in practice it doesn't represent the organization's general opinion very accurately.
They should implement the "Next Two Rule" instead, which involves simply having the members list in no particular order any number of films they choose (between 5 and 10) and then in tallying the number of times a movie is listed on all the ballots, draw the line for the number of Best Picture nominees at the film that has more votes than the next two films that rank below it.
The foundation of the reason for a variable number of nominees is to establish where the line ends of the films that are truly the best of the best. Having 5 nominees possibly excludes some very worthy candidates (The Dark Knight) while having 10 leaves the potential for filler (The Blind Side). The "Next Two Rule" would also allow members to individually decide on the number of nominees they feel are worthy. Basing it all on #1 votes takes the nomination process out of the hands of the individual.
I am still shocked that neither "Sarah's Key" nor "The Debt" were nominated for anything, and that "Crime d'amour" was out of the running for Best Foreign Language Film.
The Swedish version is better, and Noomi Rapace played Lisbeth Salander better than Rooney Mara did.
So I wonder, if George Clooney hadn't been the lead in "The Descendants", would that film have garnered such praise? It's not by any measure a bad film, but I don't think it's particularly exceptional either. In my mind I find it very difficult to differentiate from a number of recent films, including for example, Jason Reitman's "Up in the Air".
Both films, but especially "The Descendants", also seem mildly anti-Capra; that is in the sense that they are somewhat cold, have a hint of cynicism, and center on characters disconnected from the plight of ordinary people. Perhaps a dysfunctional family isn't intangible but the framework for "The Descendants" is. It felt like social realism for an entitled minority. The sentiment of "It's a wonderful life" seems almost entirely lost here or at the least backwards. These are films that come from an entitled position, they almost seem vaguely elitist, but then they aspire to be populace. But I digress, I did like "Up in the Air". Just my 2 cents. Oh-The Interrupters was *GREAT*.
I didn't think The Help was all that great, though it was better than I was expecting. Because I expected it to be lousy. (I, too, kept thinking about The Long Walk Home, or as we call it around here, "the movie where Ving Rhames doesn't shoot anybody.") The fact that it got three acting nominations says bad things about the year's films. And Meryl Streep hasn't acted in years, so they need to stop giving her nominations.
I haven't seen any of the movies in Best Supporting Actor yet, but I hope at bare minimum Jonah Hill is humbled by the company he's in. If they'd thrown in Alan Rickman, for example, it would be the most impressive list of nominees any category has had in a long time, if not ever.
Mr Ebert,
There have been reports recently of un-posted posts. I wonder if the following may give a hint of what happened:
Enter "They wuz robbed" thru your home page, and be told there are 155 posts.
Enter thru Roger Ebert's Journal (shortened entry points to recent blogs), and you are told in the abbreviated entry point that there are 173. Take that entry, and we're back to 155. (155, BTW, is accurate -- by actual count.)
Now this does not show where the missing 18 went, but it does indicate that they existed at one time, and perhaps gives a hint to the solution.
My numbers are a snapshot. They will have changed by the time this is posted.
IC
Ebert: The mystery deepens, because once I post a comment I almost never go back and delete it.
I had been hoping, rather unrealistically, to see at least one of the two brilliant (Kenya based) movies that came out last year get some sort of recognition. "First Grader" and "A Small Act". Seems like hardly anyone got a chance to see them.
Ebert: We showed "A Small Act" at Ebertfest last year. The wonderful Hilda Back came from Sweden!
I have not seen Extremely Loud and Extremely Close but i cannot imagine that it is a worse film than The Tree of Life, a textbook example of how Not to direct a film. How Ebert could consider this lugubrous mess, a film most notable for the number of walkouts that occurred at every screening (does the average viewer know something Ebert does not?), a masterpiece? It is indulgent bilge from a vastly overrated director and anyone who cannot see this, which is OBVIOUS, should not be writing film criticism.
I like your article, it is always interesting to see some thoughtful analysis regarding awards. The thing that always surprises me is that you still care whether Oscar gets it right or not. Oh I care about the Oscars, but not to the degree that I get worked up about oversights and make-up nominations.
And the amount of angst among your commentors is not surprising but , in my opinion, misplaced. Most of your anger is that the Academy Awards isn't what you want it to be. It never has been and never will be. It just is what it is. So I watch and enjoy celebrating movies, even if the awards don't celebrate all the movies that deserve it. That is why I read people such as Roger, to help me catch the ones I would have other wise missed.
Maybe I've been watching these awards too long to waste energy on what should be. I haven't been a fan as long as you, Roger, but I am well above the median age for movie fans. I just let it go. If "Drive", to name one example, is better regarded in 10 years than "Extremely Close", well then isn't that the better reward anyway? And if von Sydow is nominated now even though he was more deserving 50 years ago, isn't that better than if he had never been nominated?
Roger, I read your review of "The Tree of Life" and have a difficult time disagreeing with anything you've stated. I thought the acting was pitch-perfect, and felt that your characterization of the voiceovers as "overheard words of people almost talking to themselves" accurately described what I myself had once tried to put into words. Still, I cannot call it a masterpiece.
A Malick release is nothing short of An Event, obviously. To watch him point toward the sky and then swing for the fences is always inspiring, whether he is ultimately successful or not. Yes, from a technical standpoint this film is a marvel. And its portrayal of the imperfect act that we call Fatherhood especially resonated for me. But Malick was focused on the grandiose at the expense of an engrossing story, in my opinion; so for me it didn't quite come together. I do admire the film in many ways, but I have a difficult time recommending it.
I did love the performance of the children in the movie, especially that of Hunter McCracken playing the role of young Jack. (His statement, "You'd like to kill me, wouldn't you" still haunts me.) He deserves far more praise than he has received thus far.
This post right here, and the response, made my day.....
Dear Ebert,
Don't you think Shanon's role in "Take Shelter" is the EXACT same role he took on "Bug"?
I think that's why "Shelter" was ignored: it is very similar to "Bug" - and very inferior, because it didn't make me feel anything.
I'm surprise nobody mentioned it before.
Roger, you'll be pleased to know that CBC in Canada is airing The Interrupters both on network TV and on the Internet.
http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/episode/the-interrupters.html
Mr. Ebert: You are right on the money! I was shocked that Drive was not nominated and even more shocked that Ryan Gosling was not nominated for either Drive or the Ides of March. Both, in my opinion, were exceptional performances.
Perhaps you can answer a question that has bothered me for years. Why is it that there isn't some category for the true blockbuster movies that keep Hollywood afloat. Films this year like the final chapter of Harry Potter, The next to last installment in the Twilight series or Tom Cruise' Mission Impossible IV. All 3 of these films while not "deep" but nevertheless thrilling, exciting and entertaining. It just bothers me that these "blockbusters" are never recognized. What's your opinion?
I know what got snubbed. The Artist for Sound Mixing and Sound Editing.
Seriously, though Transformers 3 got nominated in both categories and all Transformers did was just piece together an incomprehensible series of metal clanging and explosions, all played so loud that there should have been warning labels. At least The Artist had clean sound when it was there, and not very likely to make the audience go deaf.
I have to disagree with your assessment about Jessica Chastain's nomination for "The Help" instead of for "Tree of Life" or even for "Take Shelter." I hold with those that say ANY nomination an actor gets is a reflection of all their performances in a given year.
It is hard enough for an actor to be recognized for their excellent work during the awards season, having to compete for one of five spots in a category. Add to that, the Academy has always had trouble knowing which the better performance when presents with two. (Sometimes, they split the difference by nominating one performance in the leading category and one in the supporting category.) The easy choice, then, is the performance in the more popular film.
Thomas Mitchell is the prime example of this problem. 1939 was a great year for the move, perhaps even the best. At the Oscars for that year, he won for his performance as the town doctor/town drunk Doc Boone in "Stagecoach." He could have just as easy been nominated that year for his fine performances in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," "Only Angels Have Wings," "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" or --most especially-- "Gone with the Wind."
I congratulate Jessica Chastain for her Oscar nomination and wish her good luck, regardless of which film she was nominated for.
Roger,
This is why we created the 20/20 Awards. In our 3rd year, we annually revisit the Academy Awards from 20 years earlier, and re-evaluate the decisions made at the time. We believe that only through the advantage of time and distance does one truly have perspective. Some times our members agree with the Academy and other times they don't. I encourage anyone who loves movies or follows the Oscars to check us out at 2020awards.org.
I had seen Drive in a theater, on your recommendation. I enjoyed its ability to surprise and speak to me without speaking. The audience I was with went from shock to unintentional laughter. I knew I was watching a well made movie with solid acting, but something about the feel was familliar. Then it hit me. It feels very much like Michael Mann's Thief. Similar in many ways, except that the car is standing in for safe cracking tools. Many of the same conversations take place in both films. James Caan for Ryan Gosling, Tuesday Weld for Carey Mulligan, Robert Prosky for Albert Brooks.
I think this could make for an interesting, more detailed comparision.
Kristen Wiig should have been nominated for Best Actress for "Bridesmaids." Her comic gifts were evident throughout the film, and she played a character who changed and grew over the course of the story.
Roger,
I knew you'd be more than a little upset by the omission of The Interruptors. I too, was startled by the slight. I didn't see the other documentaries on the card so I am curious about which of them you feel could've been replaced by The Interruptors?
Why in the world is Viola Davis winning so many awards? She is a phenomenal actress, as her Tony Awards can attest. But I just watched "The Help" late last week and cannot remember her performance. Her turn in "Doubt" I recalled for many weeks, and I agreed with Roger that she should have won the Oscar for it. To give her an Oscar for "The Help" (which I still do not think they will do; I think they will give it to Michelle Williams) is more than a bit of a stretch. She was, I believe, quite good in this role, but can't a Best Supporting Actress win for Octavia Spencer be enough gold for a problematic film?
Turning to the Best Actor award, I do feel a bit vindicated by the SAG win for Jean Dujardin. He will win the Oscar as well, and not George Clooney. I would have bet money I do not have that Clooney would be rewarded by his peers and rejected by the Academy; he will be "rejected" by both. His was a very strong performance in "The Descendants," which was a very good movie about tracking down the man your wife has been sleeping with, but I'm afraid Clooney cannot stretch as much as Kevin Spacey, whose two Oscar wins in the 90s are much easier to explain than would a second win for Clooney be.
Thank you for your comments. I agreed with some of your points in my annual version of "They wuz robbed:"
http://on.fb.me/zwIn4w
One movie never mentioned anywhere is "Super 8" which I wouldn't necessarily consider the best of the year, but better than other nominees. And yet, not even a technical nomination?
A Slate article today made a great suggestion that it would be far preferable to have more than 5 nominations per acting category, than for best picture.
I'm glad to see you feel much the same way about these nominees as I do, Roger.
The only thing I'd change is any mention of Tree of Life for The Guard, which I felt at least deserved a script nomination, if not a best actor for Brenden Gleeson. I adored that movie as much, if not more, than his brother's film, In Bruges, which at least received a nomination for best original screenplay, if nothing else.
I read through all the comments and have only found a couple people mention 50/50. This was my 2nd favorite film of the year and should have easily been nominated for best picture. and Joseph Gordon Levitt easily gave one of the 5 best performances of the year, if not the best. Here is a list of other robberies
Shailene Woodley for The Descendants
Tom Hardy for Warrior
Ben Kingsley for Hugo
Matt Damon for We Bought A Zoo or Adjustment Bureau
And Roger, say what you will about Nick Nolte, but he was EXCELLENT in Warrior. He was the heart and soul of that movie. A performance should be based solely on the one at hand, not previous ones. Just because Nick Nolte plays similar characters does not mean he should be punished for it. EVery scene he was in brought emotion and sadness to the movie. It made me look back at how I treat my father. And Warrior was a FAR better film then the below average THE FIGHTER.
I was just astonished to see "Margaret" which thankfully has returned to the big screen in NYC after doing a remarkably quick disappearing act. I strongly feel it wuz robbed for Best Picture and Best Actress.
My vote for most undeservedly well received mediocre films of the past year goes to "Beginners" and "Midnight in Paris."
Ebert: The mystery deepens, because once I post a comment I almost never go back and delete it.
I've already posted two comments that never even showed up, in both this and the previous column each. (I think, "Wait, did I Preview and then not Submit?", but I was pretty sure about these two.)
For a while, began to wonder whether the software deleted them for maximum length, but that didn't explain Marie's post. (Can anything explain Marie's post, btw? 0_o?? )
Particularly as one of my comments offered a good explanation of WHY Tintin wasn't nominated and why the Academy started doing ten nominations, and now the world may never know unless I repost....Might want to see to whatever glitch is causing, before the world is denied more answers.
Worst of all was not nominating "A Separation" for Best Picture. It's a superior film to most, if not all, of the nominees for the big prize, and yet it's been relegated to the Foreign Language category.
I would agree with you except that the ending scene in Crazy Stupid Love (in the high school auditorium) was just the wrong way to go. It was too long, too preposterous and just felt tacked-on. I know there are some pretty implausible things that are in that zany script, but that speech to the entire school just did not work for me.
It technically could have been up to 20 Best Picture nominees based on the new rules. At least 5% of the nominators had to choose a movie as their #1 for it to be nominated for Best Picture. That's why it's not a fixed number anymore.
There's no mystery here at all.
When a post attracts a lot of comment traffic, it takes Roger (or somebody) longer to get around to reading them.
The total on the main page indicates what's come in. I'm guessing that Roger isn't the one who keeps this count.
The total that appears with the post are the ones that Roger has read and vetted, and so they do appear.
At the time that you sent your comment, Roger hadn't gotten around to those "lost thirteen". As you can see, he has since, and added 20 more besides.
Which brings me to the backlog on the Death Penalty post.
Total on the main page:341.
Total at the post:328.
I have a feeling that certain people (including a Mr. Masters) are waiting ...
Command is a lonely vigil ...
THE TREE OF LIFE is a masterpiece. It is - I guarantee - the 2011 movie that will be the most discussed 30 years from now. If for no other reason because the people that hate it or don't get it will have forgotten about it, and the people who love it will still be peering into it to find deeper understanding.
And as much as I liked DRIVE, it does seem like the fanboy crowd who only find masculine movies accessible are the ones making the most noise about its omission. To wit: "I think DRIVE wuz the best movie of any year and so rad and I like your list except TREE OF LIFE, which you can't really like because I didn't, so you're a pretenshus liar"...
*Armie Hammer was superb in J. Edgar and unlike any of his previous film characters.
*Leonardo DiCaprio turns in consistent great character transformations in ALL of his films, including this year's J. Edgar and again wuz robbed of a nomination.
*Jessica Chastain had a phenomenal year and while I loved her character in The Help, though it did lack serious weight, she was even better in The Tree of Life and Take Shelter.
*Michael Shannon was mesmermizing in Take Shelter. And his character had a vulnerable softness that was unforgettable.
*And the more I hear about Albert Brooks and remember his performance in Drive, the more I agree that he is missing from the nominations. That character was worlds away from any he's ever played and he owned it.
*Ryan Gosling is another Leonardo DiCaprio...he is consistently great in all of his performances and it was astonishing when he did not get nominated for his work in Blue Valentine and his role in Drive and The Ides of March continue to prove what a stellar actor he is. He wuz also robbed.
**And Roger, you are the reason I watch and appreciate movies the way that I do. You have such a way of conveying your thoughts that is just wonderfully engrossing, riveting and genuine. I also appreciated your honesty regarding Meryl Streep and Glenn Close's nominations. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close should not be on the Best Picture list either and the Max Von Sydow nomination had me scratching my head.
Oh well, just one year I'd like to be blown away by the Academy!
Well I actually think Meryl Streep gives out one of the best, if not THE best, performances of the year. I think she is exceptional and phenomenally amazing in "The Iron Lady" and I do agree with the others who note that she is the only good thing about the movie. I have no doubt whatsoever that she truly deserves her best actress nomination.
However, that's the thing I really hate the most about her performance. I feel like this movie is nothing more but an Oscar bait for Streep. Seems like the only reason she agreed to be a part of the movie in the first place is because she saw an Oscar possibility in her role. I read before that one of your readers asks if Streep read the script first before agreeing to accept the part. I'm sure she did and I guess that's why she accepted the role in the first place, because it's such an obvious Oscar bait. And that kinda kills it off for me. As much as I love Streep and want her to get her long overdue Oscar, the fact that she's "whoring" herself for an Oscar leaves a bitter taste in my mouth no matter how good her performance is.
Which brings to a good question another reader had asked before : does Streep REALLY need another Oscar??? Does it matter if she no longer gets another nomination??? Would it lessen her value and quality as an actress??? We all know that Streep is a marvelous actress and she has given us a lot of memorable performances in a wide range of roles and impersonation. So why does she still need to proof it over and over again to us? It really saddens me to see that even after all this time, she does still care for the little golden statue at this age/height of her career. She even unashamedly admits in her interviews that the Oscar still matters for her. I guess that could explain how and why her performances, esp in the last few years, seems to scream "I want an Oscar NOW!!!" - smh.
i created a facebook page
to celebrate the performances
that were snubbed by the oscars
i hope you all like it : )
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.234766929935922.58193.100002078500368&type=3
I never thought I'd tout an Olsen sister for an acting award (although I've read in at least some accounts that she's actually a half-sister), but I really think Elizabeth Olsen deserved a nomination for her portrayal of a tortured cult escapee in "Martha Marcy May Marlene." She really found the depths of a human soul and did more with subtle changes in facial expression than I've seen an actor do in ages. And she was 21! She took a meaty role and exercised such control that she almost underacted it, which says a lot for her ability and makes me hopeful for her future. A future that will include some acting awards, I feel certain.
I don't think Melissa McCarthy should have been nominated. She was funny, but she was basically playing a female [insert fat comedy actor here]. If she wasn't overweight, it wouldn't have been nearly as funny, which is unfortunate but true.
There were so many great performances that deserved Best Supporting Actress more than McCarthy: Carey Mulligan for Drive; Anna Kendrick for 50/50; Marion Cotillard for Midnight in Paris; Shailene Woodley for The Descendants; and Mélanie Laurent for Beginners.
And Jonah Hill for Best Supporting Actor? He was good, but not great, and certainly not award-worthy. Instead, nominate: Albert Brooks for Drive; Jeremy Irons for Margin Call; Brad Pitt for The Tree of Life; Andy Serkis for Rise of the Planet of the Apes; and Ben Kingsley for Hugo.
I didn't like The Help at all and none of the acting awards are deserved (Jessica Chastain deserves a nomination, but for The Tree of Life). Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer gave completely stereotypical performances in a borderline offensive film, and sadly, they'll both win. But where are Best Actress nods for Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg for Melancholia? As much as I didn't like Jane Eyre, Mia Wasikowska was great in it and deserves a nomination over Viola Davis.
The Help and War Horse sucked, and Drive should've been nominated for Best Picture over them (with Nicolas Winding Refn being nom'd for Best Director over Alexander Payne or Woody Allen). I'd also like to have seen Warrior, Bellflower (no way in hell it would), My Week With Marilyn, Everything Must Go, or Melancholia nom'd in its place.
They don't want to be seen as sympathizing with masturbators? So they don't want to sympathise with anyone in the world? I'm pretty sure just about anyone who is of age to and capable of masturbating is a masturbator.
Roger,
I thought you'd enjoy seeing this, so I'm passing it along...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo
I'm really surprised how Dominic Cooper has been completely overlooked for "The Devil's Double"?
Really disappointed Michael Fassbender did not get a nomination. Not only should he have been nominated a few years back as well for "Hunger", but that movie should have been too. Suppose if it were 10+ yrs ago, it may have. Movies like "Hunger" & "Shame" don't seem to stand a chance anymore, sadly.
Thanks Roger for all the years. I've been a follower for 35+ yrs now.
I can't think of anyone more robbed than Corey Stoll (Hemmingway in "Midnight in Paris.") He was young and brave and deeply deserving of a supporting nomination.
What bad use of English, and from a Pulitzer winner with a megabucks salary too!
Of course, no nominee is really robbed of an Academy Award nomination.
We know what you mean Rog but what you said is not what you mean -- no nominee is really robbed of an Academy Award nomination because he or she is in fact nominated! You mean the ones who are NOT nominated aren't robbed, right? Copy editor, please!
Ebert: Maybe that was what I meant.
Copy editor ... Copy Editor! Twice, for Sal.
You replied to me, by mistake I believe, rather than using "Leave a comment" at the end of the string.
Also, proof your last sentence.
Seems you got a bit excited there, typing your post to point out an error by host.
Roger, I love reading your reviews and articles, and this one got me thinking about the whole awards-campaigning process.
Do the films that are nominated really represent what the Academy members really think are the best films and performances of the year, or do they just represent who paid the most money to advertise in the trades and campaign for them in public and on TV?
If it's the latter, then that's kind of a sad statement. Even sadder for someone like Albert Brooks who did campaign hard for his performance in Drive and then was snubbed.
Personally I feel that the whole campaigning process is kind of cheating. They're not trying to get elected president for pete's sake, this is just a film honor ceremony.
If it's truly about merit, then the ideas for which films & performances & other categories to nominate should just come from the minds of the members themselves, and they should not have to be "reminded" by the competitors who to vote for.
As a sidenote, here are the films & performances I personally felt were snubbed due to lack of a campaign, public opinion or otherwise:
Best Picture
A Better Life - I'm so happy that Demian Bichir received a surprising best actor nod for this wonderful film, but I also feel that the film itself was overlooked. It's Chris Weitz's best directorial effort to date and it's a heartrending and realistic tale.
Best Actor
I'm going out on a limb here, but I felt that Mel Gibson's performance in "The Beaver" was something to be proud of. It's probably due to his public behavior in recent years, but the Academy and everyone else seems to have turned on him. It's a shame, because in this movie he gives in my opinion, his career best performance. This role could have been played over the top and even tongue in cheek, but instead I thought he was heartbreaking.
Best Actress
Unfortunately I didn't see too many of the performances for me to comment on this category intelligently.
Best Supporting Actor
Ben Kingsley in Hugo. I for one was surprised that he didn't get any attention at all this awards season when the film received a lot. He's the emotional core of the film and his flashback sequence towards the films end, brought me literally to tears.
Best Supporting Actress
Shailene Woodley in The Descendants. She got nods at a whole bunch of other ceremonies for this wonderful performances but not at the Oscars! Not sure why since she's fearless and honest and sad. It's a remarkable role for a young actress.
Alan Rickman got robbed. He deserved a supporting actor nomination for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II. The movie itself could have easily been considered for best picture as well.
I've read you since we were both young men, agree with 99.99 percent of your opinions, and let your taste guide my movie choices. But when you pontificate about Oscar noms, I keep flashing back to the unformed horror that was "The Hurt Locker" that I saw only because you raved about it. Oh well, 9999 out of 10,000 ain't bad, so I'm still reading. Still love your work. Hang in there.
Ebert: Huh. It did win the Oscar, whatever that means...
Roger,
Dunst's performance in Melancholia is my favorite of the year, and I've been waiting a long time for you to comment on it, even if in a small way. Your original review of the film, although glowing, didn't have much to say about the performances (but plenty about the characters and their believability) and here you haven't mentioned Dunst's Oscar omission either.
I just read your review of Albert Nobbs, and you were not saying the same things you said in this blog. You praised Glenn Close's performance ("Close never steps wrong... "my heart went out for Albert Nobbs..."),
but here you give all the reasons why she should not win best actress.
Why do you give her praise in the review, but not here?
Ebert: I'm saying the same thing in two ways, in the review in terms of the film, in the blog in terms of Oscar chances.
I think there should be a separate award for a biopic. These actors and actresses aren't acting they are, to use your word, imitating. So Streep, Close and Williams should battle for that little award and stay of the 'acting' award.
I disagree with you about the 'honesty' of the nominators. If a movie is PC (The Help, A Better Life), confused (The Tree of Life) or anti-war (none this year) the Academy goes gaga over them.
But your reviews come through as the true lover of movies and more than thoughtful critic. You are my favorite.
I'd say the biggest robbery was the overlooked but masterful performance of Gerard Butler in Machine Gun Preacher. I can't think of another performance in 2011 that left that much of an impact on me as a viewer - the transformation of the character and Butler's commitment to it led to the best work he's ever done.
I also think Andy Serkis was robbed for a Best Supporting Actor nod - for the hilarious and endearing role of Capt Haddock in Tintin.
Not so fast, Rog; that depends on your perception of Margaret Thatcher, doesn't it?
Look on the bright side, Adam: at least he wasn't nominated for Best Director this time, breaking his perfect streak (Billy Elliott, The Hours, The Reader).
Is that you, Ben Lyons? I only ask because that's the only reason he pays attention to the Oscars. Not knowing any(thing) of the movies, what other reason could he have?
I was surprised that 'The Tree of Life' has been nominated. I thought that it would lose a vote of confusing or boring to the viewer.
On a different note, I'm reading your memoir and enjoying it a lot. Makes we want to go back to London and take long walks :)
Coming in a little late, but I think among the movies for best picture that was 'robbed' was "Margin Call," which I believe only received a mention for best screen play, and I think Kevin Spacey should have gotten a nod for Best Actor. It was my favorite movie of the year, though I admit I have not yet seen 'Drive' and 'Tree of Life.' On the Best Actress side, Shailene Woodley from 'The Decendants' warranted a mention and so did Berenice Bejo from 'The Artist.' In the latter case, I think Ms. Bejo more than Jean Dujardin, who was nominated for Best Actor, was the one who carried the movie. She was at least as compelling, if not more so, in every scene she was in. Absolutely incandescent.
I think the problem with the acting nominations was that the Academy got won over by clicheed performances at the expense of unique ones.
I was heartened to hear that Ugggie wins this year's Golden Collar award. I am even more pleased to learn Robert the Tire has garnered the prestigious Firestone award for best 2012 performance by a rubber.
Michael Shannon in "Take Shelter." Perhaps not "robbed" but but dubiously bypassed. Especially as compared to the Oldman and Bichir performances recognized on the Best Actor nominee list.