More history than that

Posted by · 10:29 am · February 1st, 2009

Sasha Stone points out a bit of sweep trivia that an Awards Daily reader passed her way.  But I think it goes even deeper than a SAG/DGA/BAFTA/Globe/BFCA sweep.

To the best of my knowledge, the only film to ever FULLY dominate by winning the WGA, PGA, DGA, Golden Globe, USC Scripter and BAFTA  — six of the biggest precursor awards in the circuit — is Steven Spilberg’s “Schindler’s List” in 1993.  And the BFCA and SAG ensemble awards didn’t exists back then, So if “Slumdog” continues its streak by winning the WGA, BAFTA and Oscar, it will be the winningest awards film in 16 years, and really, of all time.  Unless I somehow missed a beat in there, but I don’t think I did.

Now THAT’s history.

→ 17 Comments Tags: , | Filed in: Daily

17 responses so far

  • 1 2-01-2009 at 10:41 am

    red_wine said...

    It is somehow so distressing to read that Schindler’s List & Slumdog Millionaire will share something.

    But yep it is absolutely true, Slumdog will be the winningest film in history if it already doesn’t qualify as such.

  • 2 2-01-2009 at 10:46 am

    Loyal Mehnert said...

    Maybe it’s just me but I’ve always connected Schindler’s List to MIA.

  • 3 2-01-2009 at 10:48 am

    D said...

    Just shows how weak this year really is. Slumdog is nowhere near one of the best movies ever made. I don’t even think it’s the best of this year and I think people will realize that in hindsight. But because the other contenders are so weak, it’s sweeping the awards as if it IS one of the best movies ever made.

    BTW, I think the Wrestler is better. Then again, I thought Zodiac was the best of 2007 and it wasn’t nominated either.

  • 4 2-01-2009 at 10:59 am

    Ash said...

    Number of awards won has never equated, in my mind, to “Best film ever made.” Awards are given out in a vacuum, on a year by year basis, as compared to competition. If Slumdog was up head to head against Schindler’s List of course it wouldn’t win much (if anything). But to disparage it for that is foolish.

  • 5 2-01-2009 at 11:44 am

    Gar said...

    Ash, I don’t know that it’s necessarily foolish to disparage it. If that were the case, making the comparison at all would be foolish.

    I completely agree with D. The success of “Slumdog” is pretty indicative of how weak last year was for movies. I didn’t dislike “Slumdog”, but while watching it, I couldn’t help but think that Danny Boyle had taken one too many pages from the playbook of Fernando Meirelles and his “City of God”. I would like to see “Slumdog” again, because there was seriously a mental and emotional block for me. From the film’s color palette to its rhythms to its compositions, Boyle seemed to be borrowing just a wee bit too heavily. I only wish “City of God” had been so loved when it was released.

  • 6 2-01-2009 at 11:59 am

    Tim said...

    Did Brokeback Mountain win all those except for SAG and the Oscar? And what about Lord of the Rings: Return of the King?

  • 7 2-01-2009 at 12:02 pm

    Jon said...

    Yeah, really really overrated. Good film, but come on.

  • 8 2-01-2009 at 12:13 pm

    Tim said...

    Okay, nevermind. Brokeback lost the Scripter to Capote and ROTK lost both the Scripter and WGA. But ROTK did win like everything else that year.

  • 9 2-01-2009 at 12:41 pm

    Mr. Harmonica said...

    I’m sorry, but last year was a good year for movies, the Academy just fucked up nominating barely any of them.

  • 10 2-01-2009 at 12:54 pm


    I’m sick of people calling Slumdog overrated. It’s a great film, the best of the year, and if it had somehow missed out on Oscar nominations, people would have cried fouled. But it didn’t, so now it’s the cool thing to rag on it. What is it with people not being able to enjoy crowdpleasers? It’s the same thing that happened to Juno from last year and Little Miss Sunshine the year before.

  • 11 2-01-2009 at 12:57 pm

    Chad said...

    Those are all bad movies that’s why Sick of Complaints.

  • 12 2-01-2009 at 1:06 pm

    Ryan said...

    This year was not a weak year for movies! The Academy just didn’t nominate the best movies of the year with the exception of Milk and Slumdog Millionaire.

    I mean imagine a Best Pic lineup of The Dark Knight, Milk, Wall-E, Slumdog Millionaire, and The Wrestler. Would people be whining about how it’s such a “weak year” for movie. As if.

  • 13 2-01-2009 at 1:26 pm

    Gar said...

    Ryan, the Academy did pick a poor crop of films this year, but do you really think that “The Dark Knight”, “Milk”, “WALL-E”, “Slumdog Millionaire” and “The Wrestler” favorably compare to…

    “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days”
    “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”
    “No Country for Old Men”*
    “There Will Be Blood”*

    “Children of Men”
    “The Departed”*
    “Little Children”
    “The Lives of Others”
    “Pan’s Labyrinth”
    “United 93”

    “Brokeback Mountain”*
    “The Constant Gardener”
    “Good Night and Good Luck”*
    “A History of Violence”

    And so on.

  • 14 2-01-2009 at 1:34 pm

    Loyal Mehnert said...

    Did someone just use Juno in a debate!?

  • 15 2-01-2009 at 2:49 pm

    Brian Kinsley said...

    Kids covered in shit = Award Love.

  • 16 2-01-2009 at 11:03 pm

    D said...


    If TDK and WALL-E were nominated, that would be even more proof of how weak of a year it was. Those two films had a ton of prejudice to overcome to get nominated. The fact that they were even in consideration is pretty good proof that it wasn’t a strong year.

  • 17 2-01-2009 at 11:19 pm

    Andrew said...

    Having written the original post, I see that I am now famous on two websites!!! Thanks for picking up the story, and adding the scripter into the mix.

    Youre right Schindlers List cleaned up but didnt have SAG and BFCA so wasnt included in my original post

    The interesting thing here is that Schindlers was your more typical epic Oscar film, whereas Slumdog is not.