Movies: The 2024 Oscars Thread

SmytheKing

Registered User
Apr 7, 2007
969
1,405
FWIW, I think that the nominations in the Production Design and Adapted Screenplay categories cover a lot of what you listed, so Gerwig and her team are being recognized by the Academy for those things, even if the voters didn't think that they added up to enough to warrant a Best Director nod, as well.
I don't think any of us outside of the industry really know what "Directing" is. I've worked in theatre for over two decades and I get it to some degree, but that's still different than movies. I think she should have gotten a nod, but I couldn't elucidate WHY she should have. I just think it was a really well put together movie that felt fresh.

I think it's mostly that they (the public) saw a wholly unique looking film among the by the numbers stuff we get and you add in the hold it had over the movie-going public (got SO MANY people back into the theatres and with Oppenheimer teamed up for a fun meme thing) and people see that as an accomplishment too. I'm not sure that matters, but to them it should.

I see it similarly as I did with Fury Road. Several people I talked to said they didn't understand the best picture nomination. Even after explaining that the Best Picture isn't just the most enjoyable movie you watched, that it also includes how it was filmed, the music, the colors, the costumes, and everything else...they still were like, "I don't think it deserves to be nominated". It's all subjective really. Best Director doesn't have any criteria like awards in sports so anyone and everyone is an actual snub if you think they are.
 

DaaaaB's

Registered User
Apr 24, 2004
8,631
2,209
I don't think any of us outside of the industry really know what "Directing" is. I've worked in theatre for over two decades and I get it to some degree, but that's still different than movies. I think she should have gotten a nod, but I couldn't elucidate WHY she should have. I just think it was a really well put together movie that felt fresh.

I think it's mostly that they (the public) saw a wholly unique looking film among the by the numbers stuff we get and you add in the hold it had over the movie-going public (got SO MANY people back into the theatres and with Oppenheimer teamed up for a fun meme thing) and people see that as an accomplishment too. I'm not sure that matters, but to them it should.

I see it similarly as I did with Fury Road. Several people I talked to said they didn't understand the best picture nomination. Even after explaining that the Best Picture isn't just the most enjoyable movie you watched, that it also includes how it was filmed, the music, the colors, the costumes, and everything else...they still were like, "I don't think it deserves to be nominated". It's all subjective really. Best Director doesn't have any criteria like awards in sports so anyone and everyone is an actual snub if you think they are.
I have no opinion on whether Gerwig should've got nominated or not as I haven't seen the movie but I agree that "directing" isn't as simply defined as some think it is. From what I understand, a Directors role can change from one film to the next in terms of how involved they are with the overall production. Like some oversee all those things you mentioned in regards to Best Picture but some have a much more limited role. Idk though, I might be wrong in saying that.
 

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,871
10,697
I don't think any of us outside of the industry really know what "Directing" is. I've worked in theatre for over two decades and I get it to some degree, but that's still different than movies. I think she should have gotten a nod, but I couldn't elucidate WHY she should have. I just think it was a really well put together movie that felt fresh.

I think it's mostly that they (the public) saw a wholly unique looking film among the by the numbers stuff we get and you add in the hold it had over the movie-going public (got SO MANY people back into the theatres and with Oppenheimer teamed up for a fun meme thing) and people see that as an accomplishment too. I'm not sure that matters, but to them it should.

I see it similarly as I did with Fury Road. Several people I talked to said they didn't understand the best picture nomination. Even after explaining that the Best Picture isn't just the most enjoyable movie you watched, that it also includes how it was filmed, the music, the colors, the costumes, and everything else...they still were like, "I don't think it deserves to be nominated". It's all subjective really. Best Director doesn't have any criteria like awards in sports so anyone and everyone is an actual snub if you think they are.
It seems to me that audiences and critics are usually on different pages because audiences tend to appraise films subjectively and critics tend to appraise them objectively. The difference is often seen when comparing RT scores, but also during awards season. The Oscars are supposed to be highly objective. Awards for excellence would be rather meaningless if excellence were subjective. Most people may not have a good grasp of what "directing" is, but those who actually vote on Best Director do, since only directors are allowed to vote for it, so the voting is as knowledgeable and objective as possible. It's the same for most categories (actors vote on acting awards, costume designers vote on costume design, etc.), but I'm not sure that the general public understands that any better than what each award is for. It feels like many mistake the Oscars for a popularity contest, like the People's Choice Awards. In fairness, though, you almost can't blame them because the Academy has been sort of giving that impression since it expanded the Best Picture category in 2010 in order to include more popular films.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Puck and SmytheKing

SmytheKing

Registered User
Apr 7, 2007
969
1,405
It seems to me that audiences and critics are usually on different pages because audiences tend to appraise films subjectively and critics tend to appraise them objectively. We usually talk about it when it comes to RT scores, but it's also relevant during awards season. Obviously, the Oscars are highly objective. Awards for excellence would be rather meaningless if excellence were subjective. Most people may not have a good grasp of what "directing" is, but only directors are allowed to vote for Best Director, so the voting is as knowledgeable and objective as possible. It's the same for most categories (nominees are voted on by their industry peers), but I'm not sure that the general public understands that any more than what each award is for. It feels like many mistake the Oscars for a popularity contest. In fairness, though, you almost can't blame them because the Academy has been giving that impression since 2010, when it expanded the Best Picture category in order to include more popular films.
Agree completely. I think the general public sees each award through their own lens and director is the most nebulous. We can all recognize a great acting performance. We can all see when a movie has great cinematography, or writing, or editing, or sound design, or a great score. While it's subjective, we can recognize good versus crap in that. Directing? What the **** is it that they do? Most of us have zero idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osprey

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe

Hey! We won!
May 30, 2003
15,754
3,778
Agree completely. I think the general public sees each award through their own lens and director is the most nebulous. We can all recognize a great acting performance. We can all see when a movie has great cinematography, or writing, or editing, or sound design, or a great score. While it's subjective, we can recognize good versus crap in that. Directing? What the **** is it that they do? Most of us have zero idea.
I think the understanding has actually gotten better in the last 20 years or so. Oscar had a loooooonnng history with best picture and best director almost always being equated. Still happens pretty regularly, but at least a little less so. The generic statement was usually something along the lines of "Well if it's the best movie, it HAS to be the best directed, right?"

That always struck me as not just being ignorant of what a director does, but also a pretty myopic way of thinking.

Now it can overlap. It just shouldn't be a given and I think that for much of Oscars history it has been.

FYI: Six non-overlaps in the last 13 years between director and picture. Before that you have to go all the way back to Bob Fosse in 1972 to reach six non-overlapping director/picture wins (38 years).
 
  • Like
Reactions: kihei

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,871
10,697
I think the understanding has actually gotten better in the last 20 years or so. Oscar had a loooooonnng history with best picture and best director almost always being equated. Still happens pretty regularly, but at least a little less so. The generic statement was usually something along the lines of "Well if it's the best movie, it HAS to be the best directed, right?"

That always struck me as not just being ignorant of what a director does, but also a pretty myopic way of thinking.

Now it can overlap. It just shouldn't be a given and I think that for much of Oscars history it has been.

FYI: Six non-overlaps in the last 13 years between director and picture. Before that you have to go all the way back to Bob Fosse in 1972 to reach six non-overlapping director/picture wins (38 years).
I'm not sure that going from expecting Best Picture and Best Director to go together to not knowing what to expect reflects an actual improvement in understanding. It seems like just going from having an idea that's wrong to having no idea at all. :laugh:
 

SmytheKing

Registered User
Apr 7, 2007
969
1,405
I'm not sure that going from expecting Best Picture and Best Director to go together to not knowing what to expect reflects an actual improvement in understanding. It seems like just going from having an idea that's wrong to having no idea at all. :laugh:
It's especially confusing when you introduce animated pictures and CGI heavy movies. Is directing Avatar any more or less difficult than The Lion King or Fury Road? How do you even compare those jobs? It's like figuring out who was the better hockey player between Orr and Hasek and Gretzky. Not that Avatar is even in the realm of those three players (nor the awful sequel).

I think the understanding has actually gotten better in the last 20 years or so. Oscar had a loooooonnng history with best picture and best director almost always being equated. Still happens pretty regularly, but at least a little less so. The generic statement was usually something along the lines of "Well if it's the best movie, it HAS to be the best directed, right?"
I think we only hear that sort of stuff when it seems like the ONLY person not nominated in the film is the director. That seems weird. If you've got a Best Picture nom, a Best Actor nom, a Best Actress nom, a Supporting Actor/Actress nom, a screenplay nom, a cinematography nom, and an editing nom...did the movie just make itself? That's when it stands out.
 

x Tame Impala

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2011
28,625
13,617
Really, what's a more likely explanation for why Barbie and Gerwig didn't get nominated...

1) Because Hollywood and the Oscar committee are sexist, not wanting to support such a female-centric product

or

2) "Barbie" is/was a pop-culture major success, being more of a "movie" than a "film", and didn't meet the standards of the committee

I ended up seeing Barbie and was pleasantly surprised with much of it. I thought there were a lot of intelligent and deep critiques on men, women, and relationships but it was not a great movie. It was mostly good and fun, kind of clever, and I'm glad it was so successful.
 

SmytheKing

Registered User
Apr 7, 2007
969
1,405
Really, what's a more likely explanation for why Barbie and Gerwig didn't get nominated...

1) Because Hollywood and the Oscar committee are sexist, not wanting to support such a female-centric product

or

2) "Barbie" is/was a pop-culture major success, being more of a "movie" than a "film", and didn't meet the standards of the committee

I ended up seeing Barbie and was pleasantly surprised with much of it. I thought there were a lot of intelligent and deep critiques on men, women, and relationships but it was not a great movie. It was mostly good and fun, kind of clever, and I'm glad it was so successful.
I think it's more than just a simplistic either/or at play. There ARE inherent biases within all of us just like the voters. It's why Nolan/Scorsese/Lanthimos were virtual locks for a long time now. It's not that their movies weren't good quality films, but those guys are a part of the "club" so, like Randy Newman, they almost just need to show up. Gerwig, who created an entire make-believe world with its own rules that intentionally were trying to flip the script on what we see in our world while also telling a fun story that entertained audiences, gets left out because it's just a movie about a toy.

You can go read the posts in here about the movie itself to see some of the very real issues a movie like Barbie had before it was even seen. There's no doubt that many Academy members had similar feelings and resistances to even giving it a shot whereas a film by Christopher Nolan about the guy who was creating the nuclear bomb never had to face those same obstacles.

It's not "the Academy is sexist!" so much as, and I hate to use the joke that's been making the rounds, the whole movie was about how women often have to do something that blows people away before they almost get recognized among their male peers. With the critical and audience and box office success that Barbie had, it just kinda stands out.
 

Tasty Biscuits

with fancy sauce
Aug 8, 2011
12,543
3,869
Pittsburgh
We can all see when a movie has great cinematography, or writing, or editing, or sound design, or a great score. While it's subjective, we can recognize good versus crap in that. Directing? What the **** is it that they do? Most of us have zero idea.

Directors role can change from one film to the next in terms of how involved they are with the overall production. Like some oversee all those things you mentioned in regards to Best Picture but some have a much more limited role.

Right -- it depends on whether it's a "hired gun" scenario, with a big studio production of an IP, where directors don't have a ton of say, which is why you have instances of directors leaving Marvel/Star Wars/etc. movies over "creative differences" i.e. "you won't let me do my job." Or, something like a Wes Anderson film, where the director has complete control.

But generally, yeah, aside from directing the actors how to act, what else does a director do? Works with the DP before shooting to map out shot composition, works with the production design on the look of the film and where to shoot, works with costume design, works with the composer on what kind of score they want for which scenes and when, (or if it's commercial music, picks out the tracks), works with the editor on their vision, etc...

They have plenty of control over the script as well. Denis Villeneuve with Sicario and Denis Duggan with I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry are two examples that come to mind where the director made major alterations to the script. They've got their hands in almost every cookie jar. Sometimes you'll get producers who like to get very involved (not just talking big IP here -- Weinstein for example was infamous for this), but the buck usually stops with them when it comes to any creative decision to be made about the movie. So it's less "What does a director do?" and more "What don't they do?"

So, to your point...

If you've got a Best Picture nom, a Best Actor nom, a Best Actress nom, a Supporting Actor/Actress nom, a screenplay nom, a cinematography nom, and an editing nom...did the movie just make itself? That's when it stands out
Yes indeed.
 

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
43,744
11,027
Toronto
People interested in what directors do might want to check out Francois Truffaut's Day for Night, a fictional film about Truffaut making a movie. It is not a definitive record by any means, but you will get a better idea of what the job of direction entails.

Hitchcock/Truffaut, a documentary made in 2015 about a series of interviews between the two legendary directors, is another great source to track down concerning direction as Truffaut gets Hitchcock to discuss his technique. Sounds dry but isn't.
 
Last edited:

Bruins4Lifer

Registered User
Jun 28, 2006
8,941
1,024
Regina, SK
Oscars are this Sunday so giving this a bump.

I watched Poor Things and Society of the Snow over the weekend so as far as Oscars films go, I've seen everything I want to this year.

Just me, or was this a very strong year for the Best Picture category? I feel like there's 5-6 very good/great films this year when I usually only find half as many this strong.
 

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
43,744
11,027
Toronto
It doesn't seem like there is much suspense in any of the six major categories, especially with the chances of Stone and Giamatti growing more remote. Currently at 1/20 and 1/33 respectively, Oppenheimer appears an absolute lock of the century to win both best picture and best director.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Price

John Price

Gang Gang
Sep 19, 2008
383,744
29,998
Oppenheimer is best picture and director by a long shot

Also I believe this is the first year I watched a movie that has a serious betting favorite to win best picture before the actual ceremony. usually end up watching the nominated and recommended films after 😂
 

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe

Hey! We won!
May 30, 2003
15,754
3,778
Finally got to my last best picture nominee and I would agree that this is a pretty good year. Of the 10 movies, there's only one I didn't like but even in that case it's a movie that has some clear positives. It's a movie that didn't work, but it definitely tries.

Excellent
Killers of the Flower Moon
Barbie
The Zone of Interest
Poor Things

Excellent but ...
Oppenheimer

Huggable
The Holdovers
Past Lives

Fantastic acting showcases but I had story issues
American Fiction
Anatomy of a Fall

Fatally flawed, but still has its moments
Maestro
 
  • Like
Reactions: Puck

John Price

Gang Gang
Sep 19, 2008
383,744
29,998
Past Lives is the korean film, right? I keep seeing it advertised but it's not online for streaming.

Will have to check out those in Excellent before Sunday.
 

Puck

Ninja
Jun 10, 2003
10,772
421
Ottawa
I liked Killers of a Flower Moon just a hair better than Oppenheimer but I picked Oppenheimer to win in my pool.

I just saw Poor Things last week. I think Emma Stone gave a better artistic performance than Lily Gladstone. Emma Stone carries her film whereas Gladstone doesn't. But I think Gladstone is the favorite to win anyway. I usually like weird films but I found Poor THings somewhat disturbing. It's not going in my top ten for 2023.

I also tend to agree with Kallio about Anatomy of a Fall and American Fiction. Good films but had some story issues.

Overall I found 2023 a weak year for films. THere were good films in the bunch but also a lot of crap. I suppose the actors' strike and writers' strike did not help matters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kihei

archangel2

Registered User
May 19, 2019
2,716
1,700
some history for you that I found interesting



the awards may have to change the rules again. Several people have not "bought" into a couple nominated movies and one documentary after the movies and docs were nominated. What they have done is given a cheque the original EPs to add their names as Executive producers. The people doing this have already sent out press releases stating the are nominated for academy awards. Could be interesting if the movies or docs wins if the academy does anything
 

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
43,744
11,027
Toronto
Predictions

Best Picture--Will Win: Oppenheimer; Should Win: Anatomy of a Fall
Best Director--Will Win: Nolan: Should Win: Triet
Best Actor--Will Win: Murphy; Should Win: Murphy
Best Actress--Will Win: Stone; Should Win: Huller
Best S Actor--Will Win: Downey, Jr; Should Win: Gosling
Best S Actress--Will Win: Randolph: Should Win: Randolph
Best International Film--Will Win: Zone of Interest: Should Win: Perfect Days
 

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe

Hey! We won!
May 30, 2003
15,754
3,778
Just curious. What were your story issues with Anatomy of a Fall?
I thought the thing at the end with the kid was just a tad too .. I don't want to say unbelievable but it did feel a bit convenient/magical. Enough at least that I found myself bumping on it. I look forward to watching again though and seeing if it still bothers me.

I think it's emotionally very effective -- which is likely the point. But I wrestled with the logic of the realizations and reactions.
 
Last edited:

kihei

McEnroe: The older I get, the better I used to be.
Jun 14, 2006
43,744
11,027
Toronto
I thought the thing at the end with the kid was just a tad too .. I don't want to say unbelievable but it did feel a bit convenient/magical. Enough at least that I found myself bumping on it. I look forward to watching again though and seeing if it still bothers me.

I think it's emotionally very effective -- which is likely the point. But I wrestled with the logic of the realizations and reactions.
I see your point.

What I took from that ending was more ambiguity. The kid's conclusion is actually quite a stretch on what the dad actually said. It didn't sound at all like a suicide warning to me, just a reasonable opinion, that the kid reached for which was enough to tip the very delicate balance in his mother's favour.

If I remember right, aren't there a couple of occasions where the kid subtly avoids his mother immediately after the verdict? More ambiguity. I think she did it.

If there were any justice in the world, Messi the dog would be picking up a supporting actor Oscar tonight.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad