Movies - The Oscars posts

“Once you realize Green Book is really just Nick Vallelonga's attempt to make a film out of the nifty road-trip stories his dad shared with him as a kid, the movie's myopia is somehow harder to be mad at. It's boneheaded, perhaps, but it's not malicious.

”Rather, that's how I feel until I remember the sickening ways that the film fabricates Dr. Shirley's feelings towards other blacks, his lack of black cultural knowledge, his utter racial isolation—falsehoods, according to his brother. Then I'm taken aback. It's one thing to get historical facts wrong, or to massage them for the sake of dramatic coherence. It's another thing entirely to take something so essential as racial identity—as the inner life of a person of color—and revise it. And to bypass due diligence. And to think, as a white filmmaker, that questions of this sort are things you can blithely make up or change outright.“

— from ”The Truth About Green Book" by K. Austin Collins, Vanity Fair, December 2018—or nearly three months before this movie won best picture at the 91st Annual Academy Awards. Obviously, not enough members of the Academy read this piece. 

The Academy, which only a few years ago was making bold strides to diversify its membership, now seems exhaustingly tone-deaf and indecisive, unsure how to grow its viewership without alienating its members or its core audience, who definitely want to see the Best Cinematography category in full. Putting aside how any of the proposed changes would have meaningfully attracted viewers (was anyone really avoiding the Oscars because she couldn't stand to watch Best Editing?), the string of panicked about-faces has had a numbing effect. At times, it has felt like watching the Oscars undergo an existential crisis, which the Times summed up in the headline “Are the Oscars Ashamed to Be the Oscars?” Typically, awards season is when Hollywood gets slammed for excessive self-congratulation. Self-loathing—that's a new one.

— Michael Schulman, “A Fraught Oscars Season Limps to the Finish Line,” The New Yorker

I‘ve been making my Top 10 movies list for 10 years now, and this is the first year without a best picture nominee on it. None, zero, zilch.

I was vaguely aware of this as I was writing it. Or I was aware there was only one, “Roma,” but it didn’t make my final cut, for which my wife still hasn't forgiven me. I was pretty sure I'd never had zero before. Had I had only one before? Not even close. Turns out, before this year, I averaged about four: 

• 2018: 0
• 2017: 5: Get Out, Phantom Thread, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, Lady Bird, Call Me By Your Name
• 2016: 3: La La Land, Moonlight, Manchester By the Sea
• 2015: 4: Brooklyn, Spotlight, The Big Short, The Revenant
• 2014: 3: The Grand Budapest Hotel, Birdman, Boyhood
• 2013: 3: Philomena, American Hustle, The Wolf of Wall Street
• 2012: 3: Argo, Amour, Lincoln
• 2011: 4: The Artist, The Descendants, Moneyball, The Tree of Life
• 2010: 5: Black Swan, Toy Story 3, Inception, The Social Network, True Grit
• 2009: 5: Inglourious Basterds, The Hurt Locker, A Serious Man, Avatar, Up

That's a lot of agreement with an institution I constantly bitch about.

At the same time, I admit I‘ve gotten too swept up in the discussions around end-of-the-year/Oscar nomination time and allowed that to sway me more than I should. I think. It feels like that anyway. This distant voice in my head: “Well, of course you have to have ’The Hurt Locker' in there.” No. No, you don‘t. 

That said, what might I remove from the above? Not many. Probably “La La Land” and “Black Swan” and “The Hurt Locker.” Maybe “The Artist” or “Argo” or “Inglourious Basterds.” I’d have to see these movies again, of course. The main point is the Oscars do tend to nominate a lot of good movies. This year I just didn't think many good American movies were made. Studio or indie.

It also means tonight I don't any real rooting interests. Maybe Spike for director even though I didn't like “BlacKkKlansman” much. And even though it should really go to either Cuaron or Pawlikowski. 

I do find myself amused by the passionate intensity with which #FilmTwitter is battling it out over very flawed movies. How their flawed movie should win out over this other very flawed movie. To me it's like hearing an angry, passionate debate over which brand-name peanut butter is the best. “Jif better win! I‘ve been hearing reports that Peter Pan is gaining ground, which I can’t believe. God, what's the matter with people!?!”

5 PM, PST. Hostless. 

The officers of the Board of Governors for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences issued the following statement yesterday:

The Academy has heard the feedback from its membership regarding the Oscar presentation of four awards - Cinematography, Film Editing, Live Action Short, and Makeup and Hairstyling. All Academy Awards will be presented without edits, in our traditional format. We look forward to Oscar Sunday, February 24.

So once again the Academy has announced a bad idea (“most popular film,” not bringing back last year's acting winners, etc.), causing a huge outcry among its fans, and then recanted. At leat it had the sense to recant. But the fact that it had the non-sense to float these bad ideas in the first place makes me worried for Oscar's future. I think maybe they need a new Board of Governors. Or a better consigliere.

My vote, by the way, for Academy non-legal counsel would be author Mark Harris:

This stems from a conviction that the Oscars are forever “broken” and that the way to “fix” them is to make them appeal to those who hate them—to say, yeah, we think they're kind of awful too. But the show can produce joy and idiosyncracy in the most unexpected moments... >

— Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC) February 16, 2019

Kudos to everyone who objected.  

In the history of CINEMA, masterpieces have existed without sound, without color, without a story, without actors and without music. No one single film has ever existed without CINEMAtography and without editing.

— Alfonso Cuaron (@alfonsocuaron) February 12, 2019

What's consistent about this Oscar decision is utter oblivion about how it'd be received in the press, by fans, & by the industry. As was the case with Best Popular Film and with not inviting last yr's acting winners back (both reversed). The current regime has no ear for this. >

— Mark Harris (@MarkHarrisNYC) February 12, 2019

The Academy is removing cinematography, editing and make up from the televised show?
This is just such a fundamentally stupid decision, I’m not even going to be bothered trying to be a smart arse about it.
It’s just too fucking dumb for words.

— Russell Crowe (@russellcrowe) February 12, 2019

Oh, right. The Oscars. Sorry. 

I actually watched the announcements being made at 5:30 AM Tuesday. I'm sick with a cold, and woke up early, so I watched. Reminded me of the days when I'd set the alarm and get in front of the TV and write down the nominees as they were being announced as fast as I could. Until I realized IMDb or Twitter or whomever could do it faster and easier; and before, as with Tuesday, I watched via livestream on YouTube.

But I felt shitty, went back to bed, got caught up in the Baseball Hall of Fame announcements, with favorite son Edgar Martinez finally getting in, and that was my focus. I was passionate on Edgar but lukewarm on the Oscars, so the post on Edgar went first. BTW: They should never do Oscar noms and Baseball Hall of Fame announcements on the same day. Spread it around, people. Save something for the other 364. 

I don't know if the passionless thing is just me, either. The Oscars this year feel like in 1989. No standouts, no cohesion. I think it's going to be a bit of a mess. Maybe it already is.

Here are the nominees. “Roma” and “The Favourite” garnered the most, 10 each, and they are the two best movies up for best pic, so it works. Second-most noms are “A Star is Born” (which I can see) and “Vice” (which I can‘t). Then ... “Black Panther” with seven? Including best picture? Yes. “BP” became the first superhero film so nominated. It’s not even my favorite superhero movie of 2018. But I know I'm in the minority here. Or maybe just more outspoken.

Spike Lee's “BlacKkKlansman” came next with six noms, including one for him as director. I should‘ve known this, but, yeah, he’s never been nominated director before. It's a good make-up call for passing him over for “Do the Right Thing” and “Malcolm X,” but I'm not much of a fan of “Klansman,” either.

BTW: These were the first two films announced:

#OscarsSoWhite worked. 

Best picture winners are usually nominated in two other categories: directing and editing. The last time a movie won best pic w/o an editing nom was “Birdman” in 2014, and the last time without a directing nod was “Argo” in 2012. Before that, for directing, it was “Driving Miss Daisy” in 1989. It's a rarity.

Given that, which movie has the best shot? 

It looks like “Klansman,” “Favourite” or “Vice,” but who knows? As I said, I think it's going to be one of those smorgasbord years, like ‘89, where the Academy takes a little of this, a little of that, doesn’t fill up too much on one thing, and calls it a night.

I'm curious: Has a movie ever NOT been nominated for both edit or director and still won pic? 

Let's go the easy route. Since all this began in the late ‘20s, there have only been four movies that have won best pic without a director nom:

• “Wings” (1929)
• “Grand Hotel” (1932)
• “Driving Miss Daisy” (1989)
• “Argo” (2012)

Best Film Editing began in 1934, so you can discount the first two. “Daisy” was nominated for edit but lost to “Born on the Fourth of July”; “Argo” won edit. So no. No film has won best picture without at least a director or edit nom. “Panther” and “Star is Born” are out. 

The split I would like? Spike Lee for best director (the way Scorsese got it for “The Departed”: as a kind of thanks for the memories) and “Roma” for best pic (because it is). Edit, I wouldn’t be surprised to see go to “Vice.” Odd movies win that one: “Hacksaw Ridge” and “Mad Max: Fury Road” and “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (the American one). Do they usually go to violent movies? Last year, it was “Dunkirk,” which played with chronology, which is why I think “Vice” might get it. I didn‘t like the way “Vice” played with chronology but everything else is just ... not much.

What would be fascinating? 1989 was the year the Academy didn’t nominate Spike Lee or “Do the Right Thing” and then unprecedentedly gave the Oscar to “Driving Miss Daisy” without a director nom. Can you imagine if something like that happened again? This year's “Driving” is “Green Book.” The racial positions are reversed but it‘s, you know, your grandpa’s feel-good race movie. It's set more than 50 years ago, and based on a true story, in which the big-hearted white guy overcomes racism and helps teach the black guy all about black culture in a supposedly awful but actually cleaned-up version of the American South. And guess what? It was written by the white guy's son!  

So can you imagine that winning best picture? Also without a director nom? And with Spike in the audience? 

My ideal is a make-up call for ‘89. But I could also see a re-do of ’89. 

Feb. 24.

When news broke last week that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences was adding a new award, Achievement in Popular Film, this was my first reaction:

Does this mean Best Picture is now Best Unpopular Picture? #Oscars

— Erik Lundegaard (@ErikLundegaard) August 8, 2018

OK, so my first reaction was probably to roll my eyes and think something along the lines of: “I guess expanding the best picture category to 10 pictures back in 2009, and then up to 10 a few years later, didn't work out so well.” Which I already knew. After nominating five top 10 box office hits in the first two years after the change, we‘ve had just three since: “Gravity,” “American Sniper” and “The Martian.” More people have been tuning out the broadcast. Last year had record low ratings. I wrote about all that last March and in the end threw up my hands. I didn’t know how to fix the problem. 

This new category, by the way, is not a way to fix the problem.

To the Academy, and ABC-TV, which demanded the change, the problem is ratings and relevancy. To me it's deeper. The problem is that art and commerce used to mesh in our most popular storytelling form. Popular but hardly profound films like “Love Story” and “Airport” used to get nominated for best picture, while tough, profound films like “Five Easy Pieces” and “M*A*S*H” used to rake in the bucks at the box office. Now, rarely the twain meet. It comes closest with smart adventure films like “Lord or the Rings” and “Avatar,” or smart animated movies like “Toy Story 3” and “Up,” or rightwing movies that get Hollywood-hating conservatives off the couch like “American Sniper.” But otherwise, not much. 

Recent box office hits that maybe should have gotten more consideration include “Beauty and the Beast” and some of the better superhero movies that now rule Hollywood. If the Academy could nominate “Airport,” why not “The Avengers”?

But of course it's more than the genre. Sequels rarely get nominated, too. In the entire history of the Academy, it's just been these:

• The Bells of St. Mary's
• The Godfather Part II *
• The Godfather Part III
• The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
• The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King *
• Toy Story 3

* Won best picture

But sequels, prequels and continuing-universe movies are what we go see now. Last year, the only original film in the top 10 was “It.” In 2016, it was “Deadpool” and three animated movies. In 2015, just “The Martian,” “Cinderella” and “Inside Out.” 

In fact, rather than create a new category for “popular” film, which can lead to a host of problems—the least of which is the definition of “popular”—maybe the Academy should go with what I‘ve outlined above: Best sequel, prequel or continuing-universe movie.

Hey, is that the answer? 

Look: The real problem with “Popular Film” is its mushiness. All 24 of Oscar’s current categories are definite; you don't have to wait and see if your movie will fit into one of them. Is it a feature-length film released in an American movie theater in 2018? OK, it can be considered. As can that actor, that actress, and that adapted screenplay. Your editor, production designer, sound editing and sound mixing, we know where they fit once the movie is done and released. “Popular Film” would be the only Oscar category where we'd have to wait and see which movies could even be considered. And that's after the parameters are figured out. Should it be the $100 million domestic threshold? Should it be top 10 or 20 or 30 for the year? And is the 30th-biggest hit of the year truly “popular”?

“Popular” is a constantly moving target. When Clint Eastwood's “American Sniper” was nominated for best picture in January 2015, it was sitting on about $3 million after a limited release. That's not popular by any parameters we can imagine. Then the movie went wide and raked in the bucks. It did so well it wound up as the No. 1 box office hit of 2014. Get that? If the No. 1 movie of 2014 wouldn't have qualified—by any sane measure—as “popular” in time for the Oscars, what good is the category? 

But sequel, prequel or continuing-universe movie? It‘s specific. 

I’m trying to figure out the downside of going this route and I can‘t. I’m also trying to figure out why the Academy didn't go this way in the first place. If you go sequel, you‘re going to get popular, since unpopular films rarely get sequels. Indeed, part of me is beginning to wonder if the Academy floated “Popular Film” to set the stage for “Best Sequel.” Float the horrendous idea to allow easier passage of the vaguely unpalatable one.

What might an “Achievement in Sequel, Prequel or Continuing Universe” look like? Here are films from 2018 that would fit that bill, along with their current box-office ranking: 

Is the Academy, and ABC/Disney, worried that more prestigious sequels like “Sicario” could upset or upend the Marvel/Disney blockbusters like “Avengers” and “Incredibles 2”? Well, that's a risk. You can't have a rigged game, ABC/Disney. People get a vote. 

The bigger roll of the dice is the idea that “Best Sequel” or “Popular Film” will get people to watch. I assume either one will be seen as a secondary award, like animated film, and dismissed as such, and might not draw much of a crowd on Oscar night. It's sad. The Academy keeps doing what Major League Baseball does: It's trying to appeal to people who don't much like their product while ignoring the people who do. Time to stop that shit. 

That said, if something needs to be done, “Sequel” is better than “Popular Film,” for all the reasons listed above. 

Last night we had the usual Oscar party with the usual folks and the usual results for the Oscar pool: my nephew Jordy, who is 16 going on 17, won. OK, he actually tied for first with his mom and dad and our friend Natalie. A four-way tie. Each got 19 of 24 correct.

That's a lot, and it leads to this question. 

Are the Oscars too predictable now? Do we have too many experts telling us who will win so no one's surprised anymore? I'm not wishing “Crash”-worthy upsets on anyone, and this year best picture seemed a bit of a toss-up. Three of the nine, everyone said, had a shot on the preferential ballot: “Shape of Water,” “Three Billboards” and maybe “Get Out.” Wound up being, yeah, the most-nominated movie, which also won the PGA and DGA. So the least surprising. 

Everything else played out as normal, too. DGA winner (del Toro) got the directing Oscar. The four SAG winners (McDormand, Oldman, Rockwell, Janney) got the four acting Oscars. The two WGA winners (Ivory, Peele) got the two writing Oscars. For the first time in Oscar history, an African-American won for screenplay and ... it wasn't much of a surprise. Maybe just to him. 

You know what else isn't much of a surprise? The TV ratings dropped: from the 32s to 26.5 million. According to Hollywood Reporter, it's “easily the least-watched Oscars in history.”

Why? Everyone has theories. FOX News says it's because “liberal Hollywood,” and other says because the telecast is too long, but c‘mon. It’s the box office, stupid. In the last 40 years, Oscar's highest TV ratings have occurred for the ‘82 Oscars, when the hugely popular “E.T.” was nominated (53.2 million), and the ’97 Oscars, when the hugely popular “Titanic” was nominated and won best picture (55.2 million). The lows are reserved for years when little-seen films are nominated or battle it out. 2007, for example, was seen as a fight between “No Country for Old Men” ($74 mil, 36th for the year) and “There Will Be Blood” ($40 mil, 66th), while the highest-grossing best picture nominee that year, “Juno,” still only 15th, wasn't really seen as a contender for BP. Shocker: the broadcast wound up with its lowest ratings to that point: 32 mil.

Two years later, the Academy instituted its new BP nomination system: first 10 nominees, then up to 10. And along with nominating popular films for best picture, such as “Avatar” and “Toy Story 3,” the ratings went up. Then they dropped again as popular and Oscar tastes continue to diverge. Last year, the highest-grossing nominated BP was “Hidden Figures” at 14th, while “Moonllght” (92nd) won. This year, the highest-grossing nominated BP was “Dunkirk,” also at 14th, while “Shape” (48th) won.

But you can't really blame Academy voters. Which of 2017's top 10 in box office would you choose for best picture?

Gun to my head? I go “Spider-Man: Homecoming.”

Still, for those who watched and enjoy serious movies, it was a fun night. Lot of laughs, starting with Allison Janney's “I did it all by myself” to Sam Rockwell's “It's grandma” story to Jodie Foster blaming busted leg/crutches on Meryl Streep.

Meryl is the new Jack, isn't she? The front-and-center, life-of-the-party rep of Hollywood whom everyone tosses jokes at. She just does it without the shades.

One of my favorite moments was James Ivory's acceptance speech—90-year-old James Ivory, the oldest Oscar recipient ever, for his screenplay from my favorite movie of the year, “Call Me By Your Name.” He called it a story of first love, and everyone goes through first love, whether you‘re gay or straight, and it’s universal in that way. And that recalled Kumail Nanjiani, earlier in the evening, talking about how he identified with white guys on screen for so long, and if there's more diversity now, well, then there's other people to identify with. Find the universal in the specific or the personal; that's what artists do.

Nanjiani, star of my second-favorite film of 2017, is also one of three or four potential future hosts I saw at last night's ceremony: 

• Nanjiani
• Lin-Manuel Miranda
• Tiffany Haddish/Maya Rudolph

Any of them would raise the roof; none of them, most likely, would raise the ratings. 

Last week, when my friend Mike asked me about the box office of the 2017 best picture nominees, my first thought was, “Actually some of them did OK. Right? ‘Dunkirk’ and ‘Get Out.’ So it won't be like in the bad old days when, you know, no best picture nominee was among the top 15 movies of the year.”

No, but close.

* Currently in release
** Currently in re-release

Indeed, this is comparable to the last three years before the big switch, 2006-08, when the biggest box office hit among the best picture nominees ranked 15th or 16th for its respective year.

The Academy's decision to expand to 10 nominees in 2009 was initially a boon for best picture/box office hits: three of the nominees that year were top 10 hits: “Avatar” (1), “Up” (5) and “The Blind Side” (8). The next year, two were top 10 hits: “Toy Story 3” (1) and “Inception” (6).

It's been iffier since. 

ANNUAL BOX OFFICE RANKS OF BEST PICTURE NOMINEES

Then I noticed something interesting.

These are the annual box office rankings of the best picture nominees from the last 19 years before the switch, with the eventual winner highlighted in yellow:

The winner was almost always the first or second high-grossing movie among the nominees. And since the switch? Which, by the way, included a switch to instant-runoff voting, requiring a majority rather than a plurality? 

The winner is never among the top 3. It's as if the top 3 are for show. Or for TV ratings. It's as if merely nominating the likes of “Avatar” and “Inception” and “The Martian” releases members of the Academy from having to vote for them. 

Those TV ratings, by the way, haven't exactly gone through the roof since the Academy mucked with the system to curry its favor. In the eight years before the switch, the average rating (in millions) was 38.45. Since? 38.41. Last year's “La La Land” vs. “Moonlight” showdown garnered a 32.9 rating—similar to the 32.0 rating from 2007 when “No Country for Old Men” battled “There Will Be Blood.” 

It's the same old divide that didn't used to be such a divide. The Academy used to nominate box-office smashes that weren't exactly “One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest” (ex: “Love Story” and “Star Wars”), while moviegoers would turn critical darlings, such as “One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,” into box-office smashes (it was the No. 2 grosser of 1975, making the equivalent of $493 million). 

I don't see any of that in the near future. The opposite.

I'm working on a post about Oscar and box office, but in the meantime here's a chart on the last time a best picture was released in each month. Yeah, January's not the way to go. That took some reasearch to get there. OK, not so much research but clicking. (I miss the days of research.)

The big surprise is less that no one releases a prestige pic in January, but how long it's been since we've had a best picture winner released in December. That used to be the norm. Between 1997 and 2004, six of the eight BP winners were December releases: “Titanic,” “Shakespeare in Love,” “A Beautiful Mind,” “Chicago,” “Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” and Eastwood's “Million Dollar Baby.”  

Since then we've had one May winner (“Crash”), one June winner (“The Hurt Locker”), five October winners (“Departed,” “Argo,” “12 Years a Slave,” “Birdman” and “Moonlight”) and five November winners (“No Country for Old Men,” “Slumdog Millionaire,” “The King's Speech,” “The Artist,” “Spotlight”). No Decembers. 

I hope the trend continues. Maybe it will discourage studios from releasing their prestige movies in the last two weeks of the year on the obscure hope they'll be better remembered—rather than simply trampled. 

Well, I guess have to see “Darkest Hour” now. Sigh. 

Yes, the 2017 Oscar nominations are out! And yes, it's the 2017 Oscars. To quote the all-knowing Nathaniel Rogers, it's “not the 2018 Oscars, bitches. Oscars are for the film year, not the calendar year in which they take place.”

Amen, brother. 

So one of my faves of the year, “The Big Sick,” got an original screenplay nod in a stacked category, but no best picture (I had fingers and toes crossed but wasn't expecting it) and, shockingly, horribly, no Holly Hunter in supporting! And yes, that's another stacked category, but I'd tap Hunter over, say, Octavia Spencer, whose work in “The Shape of Water” was fine but hardly memorable. 

Speaking of: “Shape of Water” led the way with 13 nominations. 13! Guillermo del Toro, with his love of the dark, should like that unlucky total. It's just one off the record, which is shared by “All About Eve,” “Titanic” and “La La Land.” First two won best pic, the last, famously, didn't.

Meanwhile, these are the pics with 13 noms that “Shape” is now joining. Best picture winners highlighted:

• “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (2008)
• “Chicago” (2002)
• “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” (2001)
• “Shakespeare in Love” (1998)
• “Forrest Gump” (1994)
• “Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” (1966)
• “Mary Poppins” (1964)
• “From Here to Eternity” (1953)
• “Gone With The Wind” (1939)

So by no means a done deal. I mean, all that love for “Benjamin Button”? Talk about curious cases. 

Should we just do a little category by category breakdown? Not Foggy Mountain but worth something:

PICTURE (# of total nominations in parentheses)

• “Call Me by Your Name” (4)
• “Darkest Hour” (6)
• “Dunkirk” (8)
• “Get Out” (4)
• “Lady Bird” (5)
• “Phantom Thread” (6)
• “The Post” (2)
• “The Shape of Water” (13)
• “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri” (7)

My tops in this category: 1) “Call Me By Your Name” 2) “Lady Bird” 3) “Three Billboards.” Don't get the “Dunkirk” love. I guess it's an old-fashioned spectacle war drama by a boffo box-office director, but the characters are nothing. “Get Out” is wholly original but its metaphor falters with its big reveal. “Phantom Thread” is a suffocating, beautiful story with the stench of murder in it, and as perplexing an ending as you'll find. “The Post” was straightforward but without much of an engine. What's missing? “The Big Sick.” 

ACTOR:

• Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me by Your Name”
• Daniel Day-Lewis, “Phantom Thread”
• Daniel Kaluuya, “Get Out”
• Gary Oldman, “Darkest Hour”
• Denzel Washington, “Roman J. Israel, Esq.”

I'd rather see Roman J. Israel get nominated for “Denzel Washington” but maybe that's me. Has anyone seen that movie? The only guys who now have more acting noms than Denzel (who now has 8) are: Jack Nicholson (12), Laurence Olivier (10), Paul Newman (10), and Spencer Tracy (9). We got some kids in the mix, too. Chalamet, at 22, is the third-youngest best actor nominee (after Mickey Rooney and Jackie Cooper), while Kaluuya, at 28,is the 20th-youngest. (See here.) I just saw “Phantom Thread” and in a perfect world, where no one had won anything, the Academy would be giving it to DDL. But this is apparently Oldman's to lose. Who's missing? Some say James Franco in “The Disaster Artist,” but I wouldn't have gone there. Same with Hanks in “The Post.” Both playing real people, btw. As is Oldman. 

ACTRESS

• Sally Hawkins, “The Shape of Water”
• Frances McDormand, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
• Margot Robbie, “I, Tonya”
• Saoirse Ronan, “Lady Bird”
• Meryl Streep, “The Post”

Interesting stat from Nathaniel: “This is Meryl's first time in a Best Picture nominee since Out of Africa (1985).” Sad, not shocking. Since WWII, the Academy has relegated women's pictures to “less than best.” Two real people in the mix (Graham and Harding), and a tough vote. Don't know who would get mine. Either Hawkins, McDormand or Ronan.

SUPPORTING ACTOR

• Willem Dafoe, “The Florida Project”
• Woody Harrelson, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”
• Richard Jenkins, “The Shape of Water”
• Christopher Plummer, “All the Money in the World”
• Sam Rockwell, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”

Missing: Michael Stuhlbarg in either “Call Me” or “Shape of Water.” Rockwell is getting the love, which I love. I'd go him or Harrelson, whose work in “3B” was underrated. 

SUPPORTING ACTRESS

• Mary J. Blige, “Mudbound”
• Allison Janney, “I, Tonya”
• Lesley Manville, “Phantom Thread”
• Laurie Metcalf, “Lady Bird”
• Octavia Spencer, “The Shape of Water”

One of my favorite cinematic moments this year was Holly Hunter's by-the-way smelling her daughter's jacket as they entered her apartment for the first time. We'll always have that, Holly. Also missing: Betty Gabriel from “Get Out.” 

DIRECTOR

• “Dunkirk,” Christopher Nolan
• “Get Out,” Jordan Peele
• “Lady Bird,” Greta Gerwig
• “Phantom Thread,” Paul Thomas Anderson
• “The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro

Missing: Martin McDonagh for “Three Billboards.” Making it no longer a best picture threat? Once upon a time, yes, but “Argo” went there a few years ago. That said, I think del Toro will probably join his “Three Amigos” companions, Inarritu (2014, 2015) and Cuaron (2013), with a best director statuette. If so, it would mean best director has gone to someone from Mexico four of the last five years. And Taiwan the year before that. (Don't tell Donald.) Not bad for a category that always used to bet on white.  

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

• “Call Me by Your Name,” James Ivory
• “The Disaster Artist,” Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber
• “Logan,” Scott Frank & James Mangold and Michael Green
• “Molly's Game,” Aaron Sorkin
• “Mudbound,” Virgil Williams and Dee Rees

Future trivia buffs: Name the only superhero movie that won a best screenplay nomination. The answer is there, “Logan.” The lesson is apparently to go dark and dystopic. My vote is on Ivory all the way. 

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

• “The Big Sick,” Emily V. Gordon & Kumail Nanjiani
• “Get Out,” Jordan Peele
• “Lady Bird,” Greta Gerwig
• “The Shape of Water,” Guillermo del Toro, Vanessa Taylor
• “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,” Martin McDonagh

Another stacked category. I get the feeling Peele will get it as a sop for not getting director, but I'd go either Gerwig or Gordon/Nanjiani. Hey Academy! You can honor both women AND men of color if you vote “The Big Sick”! Just saying. 

CINEMATOGRAPHY

• “Blade Runner 2049,” Roger Deakins
• “Darkest Hour,” Bruno Delbonnel
• “Dunkirk,” Hoyte van Hoytema
• “Mudbound,” Rachel Morrison
• “The Shape of Water,” Dan Laustsen

No “Phantom Thread,” huh? Historic note: Rachel Morrison is the first woman nom'ed for DP. This will also be poor Roger Deakins 14th nom. Without a win.

The Oscars are Sunday, March 4. Hosted by Jimmy Kimmel. Party at my place. 

FURTHER READING

• Nathaniel Rogers/Film Experience on the history of it all 
• New York Times on surprises, snubs
• Mark Harris on why THERE ARE NO SNUBS
• Good MH trivia RE: Spielberg

“Moonlight” is the fourth best picture in five years to win without its director winning.

Lost in the controversy and just plain WTF shock of Oscar's best-picture envelope screw-up (Waterhoouuuse!) is the fact that this is the second best picture in a row with light at the end of its title: First “Spotlight,” now “Moonlight.” #OscarsSoLight.

I thought I was vaguely original with that hashtag, but when I began to tweet it this morning, #OscarsSoLight was already a thing. Thousands, tens of thousands, were ahead of me. That's what I get for hosting a party, then cleaning up after the party, then going to bed and not tweeting anything until like 12 hours later. Lazy.

No, what's really lost amid the envelope controversy is the fact that the connect between best picture and director may be broken forever.

A little history. I was born in 1963, and into my mid-30s best director and picture matched every year but four: 

• 1967, when Mike Nichols won for “The Graduate” but best picture went to “In the Heat of the Night”
• 1972, when Bob Fosse won for “Cabaret” but best picture went to “The Godfather”
• 1981, when Warren Beatty won for “Reds” but best picture went to “Chariots of Fire”
• 1989, when Oliver Stone won for “Born on the Fourth of July” but best picture went to “Driving Miss Daisy”

In the 18 years since? We've had a director/picture split eight times:

• 1998, when Steven Spielberg won for “Saving Private Ryan” but best pic went to “Shakespeare in Love”
• 2000, when Steven Soderbergh won for “Traffic” but pic went to “Gladiator”
• 2002, when Roman Polanski won for “The Pianist” but “Chicago” won best pic
• 2005, when Ang Lee won for “Brokeback Mountain” but “Crash” won best pic
• 2012, when Ang Lee won for “Life of Pi” but “Argo” won best pic
• 2013, when Alfonso Cuaron won for “Gravity” but “12 Years a Slave” won best pic
• 2015, when Alejandro Innaritu won for “The Revenant” but “Spotlight” won best pic
• 2016, when Damien Chazalle won for “La La Land” but “Moonlight” won best pic

What's going on? Well, the recent splits may be the result of the preferential voting system for best picture, which the Academy adopted in 2009. Now you need 50 percent + 1 vote to win, and if no film has that after ballots are counted, then the film with the least top votes leaves the race and its votes are redistributed to the voter's second-place choice. And on and on until you get your 50+1.

The Academy used this system from 1934 to 1945 until it went with the more straightforward “Whoever has the most votes, wins” method from 1946 to 2008. During that period, which is most of the Academy's history, you had 13 director/picture splits over 62 years, or approximately 21% of the time. Since 2009, we've had four splits in eight years: 50/50.

The oddity is that in its first three years, the preferential system went with the same old director/picture combo, even with such middling fare as “The King's Speech.” Then something changed. Not sure what. 

But I'm in favor of it. Makes the Oscar pools that much more interesting. It's also a small stick in the eye of the auteur theory, which I've never bought into.

“There's a mistake. 'Moonlight,' you guys won best picture.”

I admit it: I thought he was milking it. 

I like presenters who get right down to it. “And the Oscar goes to Vinny for that piece of shit, 'Mad Max.'” Boom. Over, done. Don't hold the stage when the stage isn't yours; when we're all there for someone and something else. 

But Warren Beatty seemed to be doing just that. The best picture winners were all announced, he opened the envelope, looked at the card, then looked back in the envelope. The fuck? He got some laughs for that. “Just announce it already,” I thought. He looked over at Faye Dunaway, his costar for “Bonnie and Clyde,” which was released 50 years ago and heralded a new (and shortlived) era in Hollywood, which was what the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences was honoring last night, Feb. 26, 2017, by having these two former big, big stars present the Oscar for best picture. But even as Beatty looked at her, Dunaway seemed impatient. He tried to right the ship. “And the Academy Award ... for best picture ...” Then he stopped again. She moved forward, as if to say, “Say it already!” and he shot her a look. No, not her. If you watch it again, he shot a look to the sides, to the wings of the stage, as if to say, “Is anyone going to help me here?”

Think about that. It's an unprecedented moment for anyone presenting at the Academy Awards. You're about to announce the most presitigious film award of the year and you know they've given you the wrong card. The card in your hand says, “Emma Stone, La La Land.” It's the card for best actress, which has already been announced. Apparently they have two envelopes for each award, one for either wing of the stage, and somehow Beatty wound up with the best actress envelope/card.

That's the real story. How did he wind up with the wrong card? Who gave it to him? Who wasn't paying attention? (UPDATE: The answer appears to be Brian Cullinan of PriceWaterhouseCooper.)

Nevertheless, it wound up in his hand. And he knew. And that's what that cutting look backstage meant. But he saw no help there. And everyone in front of him and around the world was impatient. Everyone, like me, thought the old man was milking it; that he was in his dotage and wanted the attention. 

I think in his younger days Beatty would've said something. He would've announced, “We got the wrong card. Can someone give us the card for best picture, please?” Straightforward. He might’ve made a joke about it. “Emma Stone is great but she's hardly best picture.” But he's older now, a month from turning 80 years old, and he didn't quite know what to do. Backstage wasn’t helping. So he showed Faye Dunaway the card—probably to show her that it was effed up—and she simply read the bottom part. She announced “La La Land.” The orchestra played, and the producers, etc., got up in their finery and made their way to the stage. Like normal.

Meanwhile, Beatty had a slightly sick look on his face. Like he was trapped in a nightmare from which he couldn't wake.

The straightforwardness had to come from producer Jordan Horowitz, who was the first to thank everyone for the Oscar for best picture, and who, amid other speeches, realized the error. He came forward and said the following:

“I'm sorry, no. There's a mistake. 'Moonlight,' you guys won best picture.”

I love the “you guys.” Makes it sound like it’s a little league game or something.

The calm straightforwardness with which he said all of this made it seem even more surreal, but I love Horowitz's thoughts about it this morning to CNN:

“Hey, I won the Oscar for best picture. I got to thank my wife and kids. And then I got to present the Oscar for best picture. Not many people can say that.”

I would say zero other people can say that. He’s the first person in history to both present and accept the Oscar for best picture in the same evening. Good future Oscar trivia question.

Normally I would’ve liked this twist ending if but for the following reasons:

1. It was a good show. Jimmy Kimmel was a great host. And all of that is forgotten now. No one’s mentioning it. Shame. He should be asked back.
2. There’s already conspiracy theorists out there thinking the old Hollywood guard was trying to deny this black LGBTQ movie its rightful place in Oscar history. #envelopegate is currently trending on Twitter. Good god, people, go back to the moon landing or something.
3. Beatty’s getting blamed for it. The one guy who knew it was wrong; the one who didn’t announce. It’s being called “The Warren Beatty Oscar screw-up.” Variety tweeted “Warren Beatty makes mistake.” Etc. etc.

Here's one of those tweets:

When Steve Harvey read the wrong name,he was called all types of “stupid dumb ni**ers”. But not so much with #WarrenBeatty #envelopegate

— Tariq Nasheed (@tariqnasheed) February 27, 2017

That’ll never go away, by the way. That will always be there. People will always get it wrong about who got it wrong. They'll crow about it. 

The moment: Beatty looks angrily backstage for help, receives none.