174 responses so far

• 1 1-31-2011 at 10:19 am
  
  Collin said...

  Very well put. I’m tired of people acting like The King’s Speech is such an embarrassment and the worst thing to ever be nominated for an Oscar. And I agree things have been “unnecessarily nasty” this year–is it me or does it feel worse than in recent years?

• 2 1-31-2011 at 10:20 am
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  I think it’s been worse.

• 3 1-31-2011 at 10:22 am
  
  Maxim said...

  Do you think Scott Rudin is likely to either step up the FYC game or, quite the opposite, just slowly fade away?

• 4 1-31-2011 at 10:24 am
  
  Raymond said...

  Excellent take on the whole thing, Kristopher. It has been a bit nuts reading Sasha Stone’s meltdown and constant bashing of The King’s Speech in the past couple of days. I feel this is a much more mature, reasonable and yes, valid, approach to the race.
  I’m disheartened that my personal favorite, Black Swan, has no chance to win anything but lead actress. And yet I have to keep in mind that my two favorite films of the 2000s, Eternal Sunshine and Mulholland Dr, got completely screwed in terms of Oscars and yet those films have stood the test of time and for me, Oscar or not, Naomi Watts and Kate Winslet gave the best performances of those years. At the end of the day, as you said, it is someone’s opinion, it’s not the end of the world.

• 5 1-31-2011 at 10:26 am
  
  Drew said...

  Like I and a few other people have said on here, love the films you film and be thnakful for whatever recognition or appreciation they recieve.

  Off-topic. I heard a rumor you were privileged enough to read the most recent Batman script. Any chance we could…get a spoiler freeish review or response at some point? Pleeeeeeeeeease!

• 6 1-31-2011 at 10:29 am
  
  red_wine said...

  I find it so objectionable that people consider its a FACT that The Social Network is the best film of the year and somehow Best Picture/Director/Screenplay Oscars are its birthright. Like its not even open to debate anymore or perspective anymore, any film that would win would be winning SOCIAL NETWORK’s award. How perfectly ridiculous all this is.

  Where were all these people when something similar happened to Sideways. Beloved critical darling but finally an underdog at the Oscars. But guess what, it wasn’t a cool hip little film, it was very somber and indie. The propensity of people to get attracted like honeybees to a mainstream popular success is one of the hallmarks of our culture.

  The King’s Speech is a good film, a very good film even, just like Million Dollar Baby was which the Academy chose, just like The Reader which the Academy nominated.

• 7 1-31-2011 at 10:33 am
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Drew: That was a total joke. Was having fun with Tweeps.

  Raymond: Thanks for the kind words but I do want to be clear this is not aimed at any one person, but a general environment I’ve seen manifest over the last few months.

• 8 1-31-2011 at 10:35 am
  
  JasperJ said...

  red_wine LOL–so well put about “birthright”. There’s this weird sense of entitlement that some of the films, not just TSN, have been carrying about this season. I was at the SAG Awards last night and I saw some really bad sports complaining loudly about the results.

• 9 1-31-2011 at 10:46 am
  
  sam said...

  i think the academy doesn’t like complicated movies and it’s not that the kings speech is not good, it is good, but i wouldn’t place it as THE best picture of the year. my only wish is that annette bening or nicole kidman win best actress because they were better than portman (who i love but it’s not the best)

• 10 1-31-2011 at 10:46 am
  
  Will said...

  I’m firmly on the TSN train and a bit disappointed that this is how it’s going to go, but this whole season is wearing me out more than usual. It seems so angry. I’m ready for the ceremony so we can put all this behind us.

  Well said, Kris.

• 11 1-31-2011 at 10:56 am
  
  cineJAB said...

  At this point I don’t care what wins Best Picture, because the most affecting movie of the year, Blue Valentine, isn’t even nominated. But I will be really upset if Tom Hooper beats out David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky and the Coen brothers for Best Director.

• 12 1-31-2011 at 10:57 am
  
  Joe7827 said...

  Well, of course “King’s Speech” isn’t taking Social Network’s Oscar, it’s taking Inception’s Oscar! That being said, though, Bravo to Kris on this even-handed and completely sane write-up. I’m not sure about Hooper’s chances, though; Ang Lee and Ron Howard had to wait a few years to get their due, and Madden and Marshall are still waiting. I still see Fincher winning Director.

• 13 1-31-2011 at 11:00 am
  
  James said...

  Its a good flick. Very good one. Didn’t love it. Didn’t hate it. The Social Network is a better flick, but I suppose its subjective. If the Academy votes with the heart its hard to begrudge them. It might not speak to the film buffs, but that isn’t what the Academy is about and it wouldn’t be the first time. Plus this flick is less polarizing. I think few, if any hate The King’s Speech. Some people are baffled by The Social Network’s love. Its a solid unoffensive crowd pleaser.

  I guess I just rather go with the flick of the frality of the human ego as I believe Kris puts it, but that’s me. Flick that defines social networking or a generation? Eh, not so sure about that. Zuckerberg’s one of kind, and I don’t think no matter how much social networking you do means u could easily become him. Just traditional values both good and bad(or at least bittersweet). That’s a story I prefer, but the Academy prefers success. It is what it is.

• 14 1-31-2011 at 11:03 am
  
  Maxim said...

  “and Ron Howard had to wait a few years to get their due”

  What due?

  WHAT due?

• 15 1-31-2011 at 11:06 am
  
  Matthew Starr said...

  The night I saw Shakespeare In Love beat SPR and Thin Red Line I stopped putting any stock into the Oscars and the Academy.

  I think I have said this but again we should all be thankful TKS did not come out in 2007. If people think this year will be a blight imagine if it beat NCFOM, TWBB, Clayton, Atonement and Juno.

  Really, I think Tom Hooper winning best director over will be a MUCH bigger blight than TKS winning simply because of the names of the other four nominees.

• 16 1-31-2011 at 11:09 am
  
  DRM said...

  Great article, Kris. I just saw King’s Speech yesterday for the first time. I have seen Social Network several times, so it’s difficult to definitely say at this point which one is better for me. I think they are pretty similar in quality. Both are great movies and there is absolutely nothing wrong with King’s Speech winning Best Picture.

  The only thing that was noticeably different for me was Fincher vs. Hooper. I found Hooper’s camera choices to be pretty distracting at times, and not in a good way. The acting in both films was great, but look at the actors in King’s Speech and compare them with the actors in Social Network. Hooper got great performances from proven actors with long track records of greatness. Fincher managed to get some great performances out of young actors you would have never expected to do so well in any movie (Eisenberg and Hammer come to mind). Add in the number of snubs in Fincher’s career and it’s really not close for me on the matter of who should get Best Director. But at the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter. Zodiac got zero nominations and I still feel it’s Fincher’s best work.

• 17 1-31-2011 at 11:10 am
  
  Anita said...

  As disappointing as your title is to me, I will try to take your closing words to heart. I think the critics awards gave us Social Network fans unrealistic expectations as to how well the film would do with the Academy. Anyone who’s seen The King’s Speech with a full house, as I did at TIFF, knows the effect it has on audiences. And that was never the case with The Social Network.

  I am holding out hope for Fincher. It would be a real shame to see him lose. I appreciate that Tom Hooper is a fine filmmaker, but watching the making-of doc on The Social Network DVD really made me want to see Fincher awarded for his efforts. Directors are passionate, tirelessly hardworking people. They have to be, if they believe in what they’re making. But Fincher seems to be a special breed. This is by no means his last hurrah or, arguably, his best work, but it definitely would be nice.

• 18 1-31-2011 at 11:12 am
  
  Joe7827 said...

  Maxim: I don’t disagree with you, but I’m not willing to play the “bash Ron Howard” game.

• 19 1-31-2011 at 11:17 am
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  “The night I saw Shakespeare In Love beat SPR and Thin Red Line I stopped putting any stock into the Oscars and the Academy. ”

  I think that’s probably the most absolute thing you and I share, Matthew (though I was miffed about TTRL more than SPR, which was a film I never fully embraced). Didn’t know that.

• 20 1-31-2011 at 11:23 am
  
  A.J said...

  The King’s Speech is a wonderful film. It is my fourth favorite of the Best Picture nominees but a great film nonetheless. My favorites are The Fighter, Toy Story 3, The Social Network, and The King’s Speech- in that order. However The Social Network is the best directed of the bunch and Hooper winning Best Director over Fincher would be a tragedy.

• 21 1-31-2011 at 11:23 am
  
  Robert Fowler said...

  While I appreciate your sticking up for The King’s Speech (it is indeed a damn good film), I’m kinda sorta baffled by you, Tapley. Your answer as to why so many people are upset about these turn of events is that… they were wrong about the quality of TSN in the first place? There is a lot wrong with that assertion. You’re right, The Social Network doesn’t need the Academy’s validation because posterity is all that matters in the end. However, I do think those who are frustrated (myself included) by the turning of the tables this season have every right to be. I think TKS is too good of a film to be considered “an undeserving winner”. However, I will most certainly count it as “a deserving winner that won over more deserving contenders”.
  So there it is.

• 22 1-31-2011 at 11:24 am
  
  Andrew F said...

  Well said, Kris. We can always count on you for a cool, level-headed analysis without hyperbole or vitriol.

  I also agree that this season has been a nasty one, continuing an unsavoury trend. It’s a game, people. Don’t put your hearts so into it and start calling each other names or acting like a film *deserves* a particular award. red_wine, your comment about entitlement and ‘birthright’ seems apt.

• 23 1-31-2011 at 11:28 am
  
  Maxim said...

  “I think that’s probably the most absolute thing you and I share, Matthew (though I was miffed about TTRL more than SPR, which was a film I never fully embraced).”

  It’s ok, as it was overhwelmingly embraced by the actual veterans. I think SPR will deal.

  There are war films, of which there are many. some may be poetic, which Spielberg could do in his sleep.

  And then there are combat films, of which Ryan is one of a kind.

• 24 1-31-2011 at 11:30 am
  
  Robert Fowler said...

  And may I add that I won’t be upset about The King’s Speech winning. However, I will most certainly throw a fit if Hooper beats out Fincher. That would just be a tragedy.

• 25 1-31-2011 at 11:30 am
  
  Jacob S. said...

  What is your justification for having Steinfeld over Leo in your predictions?

  If it’s about the unlikeliness of “True Grit” netting one win from ten nominations, then I’ll contend that “True Grit” could win Sound Editing instead of “Inception.”

• 26 1-31-2011 at 11:31 am
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  “Your answer as to why so many people are upset about these turn of events is that… they were wrong about the quality of TSN in the first place?”

  That’s not exactly what I mean. I wouldn’t challenge how great you or the next person think TSN is. It is, after all, my #6 film of the year. But I nevertheless think undo awards season expectation was set upon its shoulders by a rather hyperbolic showing of appreciation from the critics’ awards circuit, and I think that expectation assisted in falsely elevating the perceived quality of the film. But that is, admittedly, just my opinion.

• 27 1-31-2011 at 11:32 am
  
  Loyal said...

  Perfect summarization of the state of things Kris. Certain bloggers can’t see the forest for the trees. I’d say the past week or so, everything post PGA, has to be the worst in memory for Oscar prognostication and blogging.

  I watched 125 movies in 2010 and The King’s Speech had THE best response from the audience I saw it with. No amount of critic awards for The Social Network can change the fact that people respond viscerally to The King’s Speech. And that The King’s Speech is a critically acclaimed film, a financial success, overall a very well-made film. And the guilds appear to agree.

  The need to take away from one film in order to prop up another never made sense to me. The hysteria, the manic behavior, the hyperbole, it doesn’t really do anyone, including The Social Network, any favors.

• 28 1-31-2011 at 11:33 am
  
  AJ said...

  I think even if TSN wasn’t released this year, TKS winning Best Picture over other worthy films is incomprehensible. Tom Hooper possibly winning Best Director is just gross.

• 29 1-31-2011 at 11:43 am
  
  SC said...

  I’m in the rearguard that much prefers SiL to SPR; the latter is a technical marvel, but the story I find fairly uninteresting. Admittedly, I’m squarely in SiL’s primary target demographic (lit nerd with an English BA).

• 30 1-31-2011 at 11:47 am
  
  Matthew Starr said...

  Thin Red Line is my #2 favorite film of all time. A different league than SPR but I did love SPR none the less.

  The King’s Speech is a good film but I do like each and every one of the other nine nominees more.

• 31 1-31-2011 at 11:50 am
  
  Paul Outlaw said...

  A couple of things. First, if any of the nominees except TSN wins the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay, then even its most adamant supporters will have to concede that TKS was not the “villain” in this year’s Oscar race.

  And second, given the fact that there is general agreement that it’s game over for most of the “big” categories, doesn’t it make sense (for sites like this one) to spend the next four weeks intensely scrutinizing the short subjects, their creators and the stories behind them? If you’re betting, that’s where the money is to be made this year, even more so than usual.

• 32 1-31-2011 at 11:52 am
  
  Sertan said...

  I have a simple but important question:
  Who is a better judge of a movie and its quality? Critics or Guilds?
  Apparently, this year we see that divide very clearly. TSN won almost all critics awards out there and then when it comes to Guilds, it lost the major ones so far to TKS.
  While Critics believe that TSN is the best movie of the year, The Guilds think it is TKS!
  So, whose judgment should we trust?
  Just a bunch of critics from Ohio, Detroit, New Mexico along with major ones from NY, LA? Or 100s of Guild members who know their craft better than anyone else?
  Which group can make an objective decision on which movie is the best? Or are there equally critical external factors play roles in their decisions?

• 33 1-31-2011 at 11:55 am
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Paul: I think you’re aware of our on-going Oscar Guide, which does, indeed, cover each race thoroughly. Though maybe that’s your point. (Best Animated Short tomorrow.)

• 34 1-31-2011 at 12:00 pm
  
  Paul Outlaw said...

  Yeah, Kris, that was my point. ;-) I usually win my Oscar pools, despite going no better than 1/3 in short subjects, and 1/2 in Music, and that’s not going to cut it this year. I gotta do some serious studying (and be luckier than usual).

• 35 1-31-2011 at 12:12 pm
  
  Loyal said...

  Sertan I really do believe both serve a purpose. As I said before, critics are meant to guide the discussion, not dictate it. They are meant to remind audiences and those who vote of films that were forgotten or misplaced thanks to ill-timed marketing and release schedules.

  To say The Social Network is Citizen Kane, that it’s the film that defines a generation, that it’s the most heralded film of all-time, even more so than Schindler’s List, and that accordingly it HAS to win Best Picture, doesn’t take into account what Best Picture really means or how the AMPAS even work.

• 36 1-31-2011 at 12:13 pm
  
  DylanS said...

  I totally agree with the point you’re trying to make, Kris, but i keep getting the feeling that there is this critical undertone aimed at TSN now, like it’s the film’s fault that it’s the “film of the moment” and that it’s the the film’s fault that people are reacting the way they are. Please tell m i’m reading that wrong, because that’s just as bad as the point you’re trying to make, in my book.

• 37 1-31-2011 at 12:15 pm
  
  Robert Hamer said...

  Well, I saw – and disliked – The King’s Speech *before* it swept the guilds, so I don’t get the whole “it’s a great film, get over it and stop being part of the backlash” message of this piece, but I guess I see your main point .

  If there’s a BP/BD split with TKS and TSN, I’ll be happy. Or even if there isn’t, it’s not the end of the world.

• 38 1-31-2011 at 12:16 pm
  
  Matthew Starr said...

  Speaking of SPR v SIL there is a great Q and A on Deadline Daily with Harvey Weinstein. I don’t think Kris put it in his round up today but it is quite interesting.

• 39 1-31-2011 at 12:23 pm
  
  Guy Lodge said...

  I was pleased Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan. But watching those two films duke it out while The Thin Red Line sat on the “happy to be nominated bench” was a little like going to watch a Little League match when the World Series is going on next door.

  There, my first (and no doubt last) baseball analogy on IC.

• 40 1-31-2011 at 12:29 pm
  
  DylanS said...

  Guy: That was last year for me with “Inglourious Basterds”. If only Harvey could have pulled through for that one :( I can’t imagine how sour the reaction would have been if it had pulled off the upset. It would be like King’s Speech now x1,000

• 41 1-31-2011 at 12:35 pm
  
  andrew M said...

  What I think it is, is that TSN was almost set to win. All the critics awards it got made it seem like a sure thing. And because it was a lot of peoples (including myself) favorite movie of the year, the almost sudden change of TKS being the sure thing got a lot of people mad.

  I personally don’t mind that TKS will win. Like Kris said, its a pretty good movie, and no one should be offended by it. I know what movie or movies I’ll be watching and showing to my kids in 10-20 years from now, and that’s really all that matters.

• 42 1-31-2011 at 12:39 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  “i keep getting the feeling that there is this critical undertone aimed at TSN now”

  That’s not intended. If anything it’s a tone that’s preemptive, given the indignation leveled toward pieces like this this year, but I in no way think it’s the film’s fault that reaction to it and rallied around it has been so blatant and strong. And I tried to make that clear by noting that the film “never deserved to have that kind of hyperbole thrust upon it in the first place” and that “we live in a world where a film can’t just be what it is.”

• 43 1-31-2011 at 12:45 pm
  
  Sertan said...

  Loyal,

  I agree that both groups serves purposes. I think the problem (especially this year) is that some people just took cricitics’ choices as the ultimate choice and now they dont want to accept the Guilds’ choices!
  Also, in recent years some critics got a bit carried away and try to impose their opinions/choices as facts rather than the functions you very well put.

  And now we are a third group, called Bloggers! Sometimes they try to agree more with the critics, but then they try to distance themselves to build/keep their own identity. Very interesting dynamics.

• 44 1-31-2011 at 12:52 pm
  
  Fei said...

  Hey Kris, great job on what I find to be the best piece of awards-related writing that I’ve ever read, ever since I started Oscar-watching nine years ago. Somebody really needed speak-out on the matter, and I’m glad that it was you and that you did it so well. Of course part of my adulation comes from seeing my own thoughts validated by you in a public forum, but that doesn’t diminish the importance of the points that were made. Bravo.

• 45 1-31-2011 at 1:06 pm
  
  DarkLayers said...

  Setain, I think an old article from MSNBC is useful here.

  “The Oscars aren’t the oldest movie awards. The National Board of Review began in 1920, nearly a decade before the Oscars. The Oscars also police themselves, a messy business. Actors nominate actors, directors directors, etc., and then everybody votes in the grand finale. This isn’t necessarily true in other industries. The most prestigious awards in Major League Baseball, for example — the MVP, the Hall of Fame — are chosen by the Baseball Writers Association of America. Essentially the critics.

  In fact, the first film critics group, the New York Film Critics Circle, was created in 1935 in reaction to the Academy, and it’s fun to see where the two groups have differed over the years. I smiled that New Yorkers gave James Cagney (one of my favorite actors) the best actor award in 1938 for “Angels with Dirty Faces” (one of my favorite gangster movies), and that both “Citizen Kane” (instead of “How Green Was My Valley”) and “The Treasure of Sierra Madre” (instead of “Hamlet”) won best picture awards. At the same time, here’s some pictures the Academy anointed that the New York critics did not: “Gone with the Wind,” “Casablanca,” “The Godfather,” “The Godfather – Part II” and “Amadeus.” There’s fault in everything if you look closely enough.”

  In any case, I do think those iconic differences say something about the groups’ differing tastes. For example, LAFCA chose “Star Wars” and “ET.” National Society of Film Critics chose “Blue Velvet.” Just food for thought.

• 46 1-31-2011 at 1:18 pm
  
  Sertan said...

  I think last night Amy Poehler said the best thing before announcing Alec Baldwin’s win:
  “Best actor according to some people in the room tonight!”

  I believe that really summarizes the awards. They are awards as decided by some groups. I wish they would stop imposing their choices as the “absolute best”. Especially for movies, a very experiential consumption, it is very hard to agree on one movie only as the best!

  Also, it is a result of what was created by AMPAS over the years! They position OSCAR as the ultimate, highest award for achievement in movies! Then, many people forget that it is still only AMPAS members vote for those awards and that membership is not 100 percent inclusive! So it is the best movie for those whoc actually vote.

  By the way, I’d liek to know the response rate among AMPAS members. How many of tehm actually vote for Oscars? and what is the response rate distribution across the groups? Do actors tend to vote more than other categories? Oh well…all those questions:)

• 47 1-31-2011 at 1:18 pm
  
  Rex Okpodu said...

  Bravo Kris… an article like that is one of the reasons why your site is certainly in my opinion one of the best oscar- predicting sites on the web.
  I have followed you from the early days(on Oscarcantral) and the Oscar Talk podcasts are the must listen to – every friday.
  I know how you felt about TKS (it was not among your top 10) but to write such a reasonable article when others are having a bloody meltdown like the world of film was coming to an end is simply a credit to you and your site.

• 48 1-31-2011 at 1:31 pm
  
  Alex Spear said...

  I agree completely. Personally, King’s Speech is my least favorite of the 8 nominees I’ve seen, but it’s still a great movie. My roommate keeps getting pissed because of The King’s Speech’s success over The Social Network, but it’s all about opinions. I don’t like The King’s Speech as much as The Social Network, Inception or 127 Hours, but it’s not my opinion, it’s the Academy’s. And it’s just that, a collective opinion, not a definite truth.

• 49 1-31-2011 at 1:36 pm
  
  Anna said...

  You could make the same argument for Shakespeare in Love.. it also got amazing reviews from critics. But does that mean it doesn’t deserve its reputation just because its RT score is in the 90s? No, it got its reputation because it defeated other films that were better.

• 50 1-31-2011 at 1:39 pm
  
  mike r. said...

  I agree with your post for the most part, especially about the civility of debate.

  My one quibble is when you say TSN doesn’t deserve the hyperbole thrust on it in the first place. I don’t claim to know as much about film as others do, but there are extremely reputable film people and critics (not just bloggers) who have said that TSN is one of the best American films of the past several years and would never be influenced by a quote by Peter Travers. It may be your opinion that TSN wasn’t that great but it shouldn’t be stated as fact. These critics all independently reviewed the film, and most would not have known what others would say about it before they submitted their reviews, and all thought that the movie was excellent.

  There hasn’t been a movie that has done close to 100 million in the box office with these kinds of reviews since Schindler’s List. I think that’s why people are shocked and very upset, it just seems wrong that such an acclaimed studio film will not be recognized.

• 51 1-31-2011 at 1:45 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  No review was written in a vacuum other than Foundas’s and Travers’s, which hit weeks before most even saw the film. I get what you’re saying, but I think an atmosphere was smartly being cultivated around the film beginning in early September.

• 52 1-31-2011 at 1:48 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Anna: Indeed. Which is why I noted that the film is unfortunately being taken to task because of the awards failure of another film. In my world, that’s just not fair.

• 53 1-31-2011 at 1:49 pm
  
  Fei said...

  Mike, I think that Kris was saying that no movie, no matter how “good,” how well-liked, deserves to be so quickly characterized with such hyperboles as Travers’s. It makes a movie out to be more than whatever it is on its own. History will decide its place, which we won’t see for many years.

  It’s like declaring a movie an “instant classic” just because you love it. The phrase is an oxymoron and suggests a hint of entitlement.

• 54 1-31-2011 at 1:53 pm
  
  qwiggles said...

  I can agree that The King’s Speech is no dog, but Masterpiece Theatre? Absolutely. Lest we forget, before Hooper graduated to HBO, all 3 of his significant TV works were Masterpiece Theatre productions. It’s an actual reference point, not just a snide comparison.

• 55 1-31-2011 at 1:57 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  So, what, The Social Network is an Aerosmith music video?

• 56 1-31-2011 at 1:59 pm
  
  Matthew Starr said...

  If movies, or people, for that matter win awards over more deserving films and people they will be taken to task every time.

  Every time I go on Youtube and view the clip of Ellen Burstyn’s monologue in Requiem the majority of the comments are bashing Julia Roberts.

  All Julia did was get out of her seat and accept an award. I guess she could have gone the Ving Rhames route!

• 57 1-31-2011 at 1:59 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Point being, it’s needlessly reductive and certainly used as a pejorative.

• 58 1-31-2011 at 2:02 pm
  
  DylanS said...

  Don’t be so literal, Kris. That’s actually a valid point. And yes, Fincher’s days at ILM and as a music video director certainly have had an influence on how TSN was crafted. And yes, there is a masterpiece theater element to TKS, not a criticism, just Hooper’s previous work influencing his current work. Likewise for Fincher.

• 59 1-31-2011 at 2:09 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  I don’t think many are using it as anything other than a way to diminish the work, but good on the two of you for behaving otherwise.

• 60 1-31-2011 at 2:11 pm
  
  Cordy said...

  I think part of the reason that people are getting so up in arms about this race, and this season in general is because all the ‘right’ movies are nominated (at least the ones that were realistically possible) or at least were in the conversation. It’s very rare that I have followed a race and seen a lot of my favorite films of the year still in it this late. Now, since those movies are the ones the King’s Speech is knocking out, then people are much more likely to attack it than when most of the people who watch this race and have the critical taste in film that we do are used to not seeing their favorites nominated. When all of a sudden it seemed like everythign was lining up to award what most seem to consider the best film of the year it was unexpected, and everyone appreciated that the academy was finally going to get it right. Then it got knocked down by a movie that can easily be clasified as a classic ‘oscar movie’ and now everyone thinks AMPAS is regressing, and they are attackign a perfectly good movie because of it.

  That was longer than I wanted and I’m sure I rambled, but I hope it made some sense

• 61 1-31-2011 at 2:12 pm
  
  qwiggles said...

  It’s used as a pejorative by people who don’t like the style, yes, and who see it carried over from those films to The King’s Speech. The off-kilter compositions that some have harped on as distracting (and that others like) are hallmarks of both TV directors switching to film and plays being “opened up” for the cinema — both relevant here, given Hooper’s background and given the original form of the script.

  And yes, I’d argue that the Winklevi regatta sequence is an unfortunate aesthetic rehashing of Fincher’s commercial career, a Gatorade commercial that has no place in The Social Network’s otherwise fairly cohesive aesthetic; the sexy-party/coding montage similarly takes away from the character work he is doing and flirts dangerously with music video conventions.

  Drawing on a director’s signature style and history is only “needlessly reductive” if you’re just doing it to be glib — e.g. “Aerosmith music video” — rather than to make a point about something that’s not working for you.

• 62 1-31-2011 at 2:19 pm
  
  Sawyer said...

  Oh whatever.

  I get it. It’s an opinion. It’s just the Academy. It’s just the movie they like.

  That they chose traditional Oscar bait over a movie that was a critical darling and will indeed be considered a modern classic as time goes by will just be another example we use in the future to describe another one of the Academy’s safe choices. And I agree it’s not fair to The King’s Speech. A very good movie. Deserves most of its Oscar nominations.

  I eluded to 1990 earlier, and how this scenario reminds me of Dances with Wolves vs. Goodfellas. I think DWW is an exceptional film, a moving, technically-brilliant epic movie, and absolutely deserving of its nominations. But Goodfellas is Goodfellas. Its hard to look back on this moment and not think, “What were they thinking?” The same thing will happen in years to come with the 2010 race, and TKS vs. TSN. Spin it all you want today, but it will happen, by some of the same people defending TKS and the Academy today.

• 63 1-31-2011 at 2:24 pm
  
  DarkLayers said...

  Kris, I know your focus is very much on the big screen, but would you same issues with TV? Mad Men has done really well on the Awards Circuit, but the equally good “Wire” wasn’t much of a contender.

• 64 1-31-2011 at 2:28 pm
  
  Andy Kahn said...

  Shouldn’t a film be more than “generally agreeable?” Should we not aspire to more?
  Indeed, The King’s Speech is “generally agreeable.” I’d rather have a picture WIN that is not just agreeable, but a true cinematic experience, not a glorified TV movie from a television director who simply got lucky to hook up with Harvey Weinstein and a writer with a good story and a great personal story. There were many films that were true cinematic experiences – big studio films like The Social Network which is perfectly polished, The Fighter which feels a bit more like a scrappy indie film but is moving and relatable for everyone, True Grit that got 10 nominations and is the most impeccably crafted film in the race from icon American filmmakers… Sorry, but “generally agreeable” does not cut it.

• 65 1-31-2011 at 2:35 pm
  
  S.D. said...

  In a year that gave us The Social Network, Inception, True Grit, Black Swan, Toy Story 3, Blue Valentine, The Ghost Writer, Winter’s Bone and Shutter Island, the AMPAS is giving Best Picture to a glorified HBO movie with good performances. Ugh.

  What was the last movie with a World War II backdrop that got multiple Oscar nominations that went home emptyhanded? Life is Beautiful, The Reader, The Pianist and Inglourious Basterds all won at least one Oscar. Of course AMPAS loves The King’s Speech. It’s the only nominee with Nazis in it.

• 66 1-31-2011 at 2:36 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  qwiggles: It’s a stretch to correlate things to the original version of the script. Hooper never had an intention of developing it as a play so just because Seidler once wrote it as such to figure some things out doesn’t mean Hooper’s stylistic choices are representative of some desperate attempt to “open” the film up.

  But I do appreciate the thoughtful consideration of the rest. I actually quite loved what was going on with the coding sequence because of how it does a nice job of conveying the character’s own juvenile vision of women (the farm animal bit cutting nicely to the sex caboose pulling into the frat) and how that is perhaps merited given college culture. The regatta sequence, I’ve always thought, is out of place and does little to nothing thematically.

  DarkLayers: I actually don’t follow TV closely enough to have an informed opinion on it.

  Andy: Well, I don’t think a film “should” be more than that. I don’t think a film “should” be anything, really. But you’re considering “generally agreeable” in lower terms than I am. There are plenty who feel that TKS aims for a particular place of character study and does a fine job of it, even artfully.

  But you lay into the “glorified TV movie” stuff that I just can’t engage with any further, so I have no real desire to try and sway you off of that opinion.

  But I will note, your description of The Fighter is easily placed on TKS, too, so it’s nothing more than you disliking the latter and looking for validation to that effect. Hence the point of this column.

• 67 1-31-2011 at 2:37 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  S.D.: You stole that line from Nat Rogers. ;)

• 68 1-31-2011 at 2:38 pm
  
  DylanS said...

  qwiggles: Are you really going to write off the one scene where Fincher gets to show off a little? I LOVED the regatta sequence and found it relevant to the film. That scene, as well as the building face-mash sequence, are why I believe Angus Wall & Kirk Baxter are owed an oscar.

• 69 1-31-2011 at 2:39 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Dylan: Why was it relevant to the film?

• 70 1-31-2011 at 2:40 pm
  
  Afrika said...

  I absolutely love this article. I also take offense to the notion that TSN is the indisputable best picture of 2010. It might be your opinion but it is certainly not fact.

  TSN, in my opinion, is nothing but an intellectual writing exercise. Yes! the diaglogue is witty, snarky, intelligent and fast-talking but that’s about it. When the credits rolled, I could care less about any of the characters. In fact, the portrayal of Zuckerberg left a sour taste in my mouth. It was annoyingly melodramatic and had not even an ounce of humanity. Sorkin went overboard with his anti-facebook agenda and wrote an insanely one-note character void of any realism or soul. His Zuckerberg was nothing short of the antichrist, ful of nothing but malice.

  Are we suppose to believe that Zuckerberg would betray his best friend without even a drop of emotion? no second guessng, no inhibition, no nothing? and what was up with that opening scene? how can you be so absolutely clueless with someone who have been in a long term relationship with? it was like he wasn’t even listening to the girl’s voice.

  This what people call a masterpiece? the “citizen kane” of our generation? gimme a break. The critics and their sheep mentality immediately crowned TSN their prom king the second they heard Sorkin and Fincher were the cool kids of 2011. I’m elated to se the guilds thinking for themselves and awarding a movie with substance and soul. Better luck next time Fincher.

• 71 1-31-2011 at 2:44 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Afrika: I actually think your interpretation of Eisenberg’s portrayal misses some interesting things going on in the drama. I’ll defer to my interview with Trent Reznor. Regarding his sessions trying to develop the sonic environment of the film:

  “Let’s write something that feels like that sense of dread and loss when you fucked over your best friend, but it was for a good cause, you think. That sense of isolation, and that sense of empowerment that comes from having a great idea and the hairs stand up on the back of your neck, and you know it’s a great idea and you’re chasing that idea to its fruition.”

• 72 1-31-2011 at 2:44 pm
  
  Samuel said...

  Happy to see a quote of mine get in there! Thanks!

  I’ve found the backlash to King’s Speech incredibly frustrating since it’s really not a bad film at all. I don’t think it’s the best film of the year, but it’s still a worthy winner (assuming it does win). In fact, until this weekend I would’ve considered myself firmly in the Social Network camp, now I am stumping for Speech in a big way because I’m so turned off by the rabid reaction.

  Interestingly, given the frequent Shakespeare/Private Ryan comparison, I watched Shakespeare in Love for the first time last night. I think it stands up pretty well. Very well, actually. I wouldn’t say I like it as much as Private Ryan, but I don’t think it’s some kind of blight on the Academy.

• 73 1-31-2011 at 2:47 pm
  
  DylanS said...

  Kris: Is the bearded man in the bear suit relevant to “True Grit”. No, not really, not every scene in a movie has to be perfectly in place with the story at hand or has to add a new piece to the puzzle that wasn’t already there. The regatta sequence is beautifully shot and edited and acompanied by a beautiful techno rendition of “In the Hall of the Mountain King”. And it’s not distracting or irrelevant to the plot, it’s two of the main characters in the film racing, and perhaps it’s symbolic of Zuckerberg inching ahead in their Harvard connection/facebook idea. but that’s only my interpretation.

• 74 1-31-2011 at 2:48 pm
  
  Samuel said...

  On Hooper’s direction, I think he’s done a very good job. He’s got form too; The Damned United is an excellent sports film (and you get a better performance from Timothy Spall in that one as a bonus) and John Adams is simply outstanding. I’d take a guy with John Adams on his resume over a whole heap of directors who have made a decade’s worth of films.

• 75 1-31-2011 at 2:51 pm
  
  Robert Hamer said...

  @ Samuel: Your support for a film’s awards prospects is dependent on other people’s reactions? Not, oh I don’t know, the film you think is better?

• 76 1-31-2011 at 2:57 pm
  
  S.D. said...

  Kris, Pete Hammond quoted an unnamed Academy member who said The King’s Speech felt like an HBO movie. It’s not just know nothing anonymous douches like me and Andy making the “glorified tv movie” comment.

• 77 1-31-2011 at 2:57 pm
  
  Afrika said...

  Mr. Tapley
  I just read the interview and I can honestly say that I didn’t see or feel that sense of dread and loss. I re-watched The Social Network last week and I still didn’t see it. In my opinion, Zuckerberg and his evil nerd glare of malice never breaks character in the entire movie, not even once. Even with the more “tender” moments with Eduardo, it is still devoid of any emotion. The movie isn’t believable, as far as I’m concerned.

• 78 1-31-2011 at 2:58 pm
  
  Afrika said...

  *he is still devoid*

• 79 1-31-2011 at 3:00 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Dylan: You said “I LOVED the regatta sequence and found it relevant to the film,” so either it’s relevant or it isn’t. If it is, and I can only imagine you think it is by that quote, I’m asking why you think so. “True Grit” really doesn’t have anything to do with the price of tea in China.

  But anyway, sure, it’s an obvious race correlation, but stylistically it’s distracting, however “cool” the sequence may be.

  S.D.: I was talking about the “It’s the only nominee with Nazis in it” comment, actually.

• 80 1-31-2011 at 3:00 pm
  
  Samuel said...

  @Robert Hamer it’s not dependent on it, but I’m more than happy to step in and support and defend a great film from a particularly nasty and unfounded strand of criticism that has surfaced in the wake of the guild awards.

  Besides, my pick for best of 2010, Animal Kingdom, is not in the mix. And in the Oscar ten, I’d pick True Grit and Black Swan over any of the others as well.

  All that is a way of saying that no, my support for a film’s awards prospects are not dependent on other people’s reactions. But in this instance, regarding these two particular films, it’s lpayed a part in influencing what I’ve been commenting on in the threads like these.

• 81 1-31-2011 at 3:02 pm
  
  Samuel said...

  That should read “it’s played a part”.

• 82 1-31-2011 at 3:07 pm
  
  S.D. said...

  Yeah, I stole that line. You know the old saying. Funny because it’s true.

  The King’s Speech is a fine movie. It’s just such a safe and boring choice. But that’s just my opinion.

• 83 1-31-2011 at 3:11 pm
  
  DylanS said...

  If you read my last line, Kris, you’ll see why I find it relevant. I didn’t mean to flip-flop on my statement’s of relevancy, so I appologize for that, but I don’t view a scene as relevant/not relevant. There’s a spectrum to it, it’s not black and white. The regatta sequence is partially relevant, but not entirely irrelevent. And I percieved you were arguing that all the scenes in a movie have to be relevant, hence the “true grit” reference.

• 84 1-31-2011 at 3:13 pm
  
  Sawyer said...

  I thought Eisenberg did a great job of breaking the “evil nerd glare” persona with the final Eduardo confrontation. His house of cards had fallen, and he had to see the consequence of his ambition face-to-face. It was a small crack in the egotism that surrounds the character, but it was a very noticeable crack. Eisenberg is so good in this movie.

• 85 1-31-2011 at 3:16 pm
  
  Samuel said...

  Also, in regards to support King’s Speech, it’s not like I’m an Academy or guild member and have any actual impact on what happens. Nor does my support of a film in the comments section of a website have any impact on what films I like and recommend to people.

• 86 1-31-2011 at 3:22 pm
  
  Jacob S. said...

  Hey Kris, sorry if this is considered off-topic, but do you mind addressing my question in comment #25?

• 87 1-31-2011 at 3:29 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  “I thought Eisenberg did a great job of breaking the “evil nerd glare” persona with the final Eduardo confrontation. His house of cards had fallen, and he had to see the consequence of his ambition face-to-face. It was a small crack in the egotism that surrounds the character, but it was a very noticeable crack.”

  I agree with this.

  Jacob: Sorry, it was lost in the mix. Actually, I’m barely hanging on with Steinfeld now. I want to hold off and see, but The Fighter is very much the #2 film for the Academy right now (if you ask around), so it would make perfect sense for the film to net two supporting wins in the grand scheme of the year.

• 88 1-31-2011 at 3:33 pm
  
  Jacob S. said...

  Thanks, I’m gonna stick with Leo in my personal prediction list, then.

• 89 1-31-2011 at 3:45 pm
  
  Tom said...

  I was fine with The Social Network winning best picture. It wasn’t my favorite, but I respected it just like I did for The Hurt Locker, The Departed and No Country for Old Men when they won.

  The King’s Speech is another story. I thought it was an ok movie at best. The Academy is allowed to do whatever they want, but people are allowed to disagree with them. I hope 10 years from now, people will say TKS is a great movie. My fear is that they won’t.

• 90 1-31-2011 at 4:01 pm
  
  San FranCinema said...

  “Why do we care so much about the Oscars? Why do we keep coming back?”

  Here’s my answer: Because we like the conversation that the giving-out of awards engenders.

  What I mean is that the Oscars, and the awards season, puts movie-going at the center of pop culture for a few months. After nominations are announced, my friends (not as obsessed with film as I am) are suddenly all talking about the movies that they *should* see. For those of us who see movies year round, all the time, it’s like we’re suddenly at the main table instead of off to the side with the sullen teens.

  The fact that the conversation gets very insular and mean-spirited here on the interwebs doesn’t take away from the fact that more people seem to celebrate the movies around this time of year, in general.

  So in the end I don’t really care if The Social Network or The King’s Speech wins best picture. (I haven’t taken Best Picture seriously since Braveheart… or maybe since Rain Man.) What I do enjoy is that there’s a lot more movie talk going on.

• 91 1-31-2011 at 4:13 pm
  
  Guy Lodge said...

  Masterpiece Theatre not only gave America such landmark period works as “The Jewel in the Crown,” “Fortunes of War,” “Elizabeth R” and “I, Claudius,” but plenty of hard-edged contemporary work too, including “Prime Suspect,” “House of Cards” and “Traffik” — the source of the Steven Soderbergh film.

  So it’s not only inappropriate to use it as a pejorative, but also not strictly accurate to use it — as so many do — as a byword for cosy British corset-porn.

• 92 1-31-2011 at 4:23 pm
  
  Catherine said...

  What an excellent take on the current state of the awards season. You’ve taken everything I’ve been thinking for the past few weeks and worded it in a way that is more succinct and relevant then I ever could. Wonderful post!

• 93 1-31-2011 at 4:25 pm
  
  Alex L. said...

  Blah, blah, blah. TKS and TSN will split and The Fighter will win everything! No, but in all seriousness, I think it’s the different roads to oscar that gets our blood boiling in these last few weeks.

  Kris and Guy get to see these movies with little to no prior judgements heaped onto them, whereas us outsider filmgoers, yes, may get to go to some festivals and see these movies but it’s not like them.

  They get to watch these movies in the presence of it’s makers. They get to talk to people who are in the business about what is good. They are in the know much more than we are. So when we come to the end of the year and The Kings Speech just hits theaters and we are underwhelmed, (I was.) I’m not surprised because we read ahead of time what is SUPPOSEDLY good and expectations kick in. I think that is it’s downfall.

  A lot of us saw The Social Network before The Kings Speech and loved it even though there was this huge critical favoring, it didn’t get the expectations sky high. Plus it all happened in the course of maybe a few weeks with the heaps of amazing reviews. Whereas with The Kings Speech it was a long and tedious road for us. For me at least, it was like your mom saying “I’ll get you a new bike for christmas” in the summer. But The Social Network was like finding the gifts in the closet unwrapped a week before christmas.

  But in the end, it all doesn’t matter, because if The Academy really were the end all be all, even though they supposedly are, Blue Valentine should be nominated for best actor, picture, director, and screenplay. But it’s the moviegoers that decide what is right. We watch movies to learn, to feel, to be entertained. It’s what we take from them and not what is given to them in the end.

• 94 1-31-2011 at 4:25 pm
  
  Alex L. said...

  sorry, a bit long.

• 95 1-31-2011 at 4:34 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  I strongly suggest everyone give this THR interview with Tom Hooper a read, no matter your opinion of his work on the film.

• 96 1-31-2011 at 4:38 pm
  
  Earl said...

  I think it interesting that you choose MetaCritics with its small number of voters when you said that a small number of voters is what is wrong with the Critics Awards. By the way, it is a critics web site.
  If you want a large audience to pick the winners, maybe we should just go with the the box office champion. Toy Story 3 should win.
  It is a great argument for KS that it is inoffensive and simple. That is an Oscar winner for sure.
  The lowest common denominator should not be the Oscar winner.
  Can’t you guys see that this a movie about speech therapy lessons? If it was not for the acting of Firth and Rush this movie would be dead on arrival.

• 97 1-31-2011 at 4:46 pm
  
  publicdreaming said...

  I have enjoyed watching ALL the movies this season and I have enjoyed ALL the comments made at IN CONTENTION. I salute you and thank you for the effort.

  My criteria for movie enjoyment is to forget that I am in a cinema, to feel at one with my fellow viewers ( public dreaming) to forget where I parked the car and the lingering romance that subsequent days bring.

  Bravo to anyone who gets anything to the big screen.

• 98 1-31-2011 at 4:59 pm
  
  ninja said...

  Considering the year`s best and brightest – Inception and Black Swan – have never been frontrunners, I don`t care which forgettable movie upsets which. Nobody in real life thinks TSN is a great movie. It`s a total blogger/critics darling like HL. At least regular folk dig TKS like they did Slumdog before it lost rewatchability. Uplifting stuff does that at first. So no matter which one of these two wins, it`s another wasted year.

  But I`m enjoying the turnaround in what seemed already won race .

• 99 1-31-2011 at 5:15 pm
  
  Samuel said...

  @Earl I think the use of the metacritic scores was to point out amongst all the backlash against TKS from Social Network fans that TKS is actually a hugely critically acclaimed film.
  A big part of this debate is that the guilds/academy have departed siginificantly from each other. That’s true, at least if the awards circuit is your guide, but a look at the numbers show that it is not really the case.
  The King’s Speech is more critically acclaimed than anything in the 2008 BP five, and everything except The Hurt Locker in the 2009 ten.

• 100 1-31-2011 at 5:19 pm
  
  Samuel said...

  @Earl Or, to put it another way, it is disingenuous for fans of The Social Network to say that the critics got it right with that film and then turn around and denigrate King’s Speech by calling it a TV movie (or whatever other insult) when it is only marginally less critically acclaimed.

• 101 1-31-2011 at 5:23 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  “I think it interesting that you choose MetaCritics with its small number of voters when you said that a small number of voters is what is wrong with the Critics Awards. By the way, it is a critics web site.”

  It’s rather clear, I think, that the point of supplying that was to note that the film isn’t some piece of disposable junk that couldn’t pass critical muster.

• 102 1-31-2011 at 5:25 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  “Bravo to anyone who gets anything to the big screen.”

  No truer words. No truer words.

• 103 1-31-2011 at 5:39 pm
  
  Andrew F said...

  How awesome would it be if “Toy Story 3″ shocked us all and took the grand prize, benefiting from the ranked ballot? It’s not gonna happen, but I can dream. C’mon, dark horse victory!

• 104 1-31-2011 at 5:47 pm
  
  Andrew M said...

  @Andrew F
  If that happened, it would be the best Oscars ever. I mean, the surprise and the history it would make; nothing could top it. It won’t happen, but still

• 105 1-31-2011 at 5:57 pm
  
  DarkLayers said...

  99, “Up” had 88. FWIW, “The English Patient” had 87…

• 106 1-31-2011 at 6:01 pm
  
  MJS said...

  What I don’t get is why so many people seem to think that King’s Speech is some kind of rousing crowd pleaser.

  I mean, I didn’t love Slumdog Millionaire but I could understand why so many people loved it; it was a wildly energetic success story that ended with a great catharsis, you could help but shout “Jai Ho” when you saw it.

  The King’s Speech on the other hand seemed like a very slow and stately affair which ended on a rather somber note. These stories of audiences giving it standing ovations seem pretty disconnected from the experience I had with it.

• 107 1-31-2011 at 6:23 pm
  
  qwiggles said...

  91 — Fair point, Guy, though I have had the misfortune of slogging through Hooper’s Daniel Deronda, which does a fine job of beating the human interest out of Eliot. Corset-porn at its err, porniest.

• 108 1-31-2011 at 6:24 pm
  
  Fei said...

  Robert Hamer, what a worthless statement in comment #75. We’re not the ones giving the awards, are we? So why should our own opinions about the movies enter into analyses of the awards season? It’s totally irrelevant. The idea that any movie is in fact “better” than some other is absurd outside of one’s individual, subjective opinion.

  Earl, who’s making the argument that The King’s Speech’s appeal is limited to the lowest common denominator? Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, and box office have demonstrated that it is in fact one of the most acclaimed and beloved movies of the year. It’ll win Best Picture not because it’s simply the least offensive but because it’s the one that the most people like the most. And then when they vote, simple math means that it will win. Isn’t that how voting works? Isn’t that how bodies of voters decide what and whom to award?

  The Godfather will always be #1 or #2 on the IMDb Top 250 also because it’s the “most agreeable” movie. Does that mean that it simply appeals to the lowest common denominator? Is that the argument that you want to make? I don’t think so, unless you’re biased against The Godfather. Just like with The King’s Speech, it also happens to be the movie that most people like the most. Not everyone who gives it a perfect “10″ believes that it deserves to be called the best movie ever.

• 109 1-31-2011 at 6:37 pm
  
  Samuel said...

  @darklayers Speech is level with Up, then, and below Hurt Locker amongst the 2009 ten. Also, for what it’s worth, I quite like The English Patient.

• 110 1-31-2011 at 7:16 pm
  
  Craig said...

  I myself have been guilty about hyperbolizing my displeasure at The King’s Speech sudden surge in the race, as it means that my favorite film of the year will very likely not win the big prize, but I guess the truth is that I did enjoy The King’s Speech quite a lot. Sure, I’d call The Social Network and The Fighter better films, and I’d say that Toy Story 3 and Inception are more memorable from the year, but Speech would still sit somewhere comfortably in my top ten of the year. Better, in my opinion, than True Grit, which was great but left me feeling strangely empty and unsatisfied for reasons I still can’t quite decipher. Better than Black Swan (on first viewing at least, though I think that one will require one or two more for me to truly appreciate it). Certainly better than The Kid’s Are Alright, which sported three solid performances but also the most flawed screenplay of the year.
  I guess, over the past few years, I’ve gotten used to some of my favorite films walking away with the gold. Last year, Basterds was my firm favorite, but The Hurt Locker was truly unforgettable, and I was happy to watch it clean up. Slumdog, No Country, The Departed: all films that would have landed at or very near the top of my favorite films lists for those years. But The King’s Speech fits with the choices the Academy made throughout the first half of this decade and throughout the 90s and long before that: it’s a crowd pleaser. It’s inspiring, it’s moving, it’s well written and well acted (and it has Harvey Weinstein fighting for it, which never hurts). Is it the best film of the year? No, but it’s one that almost anyone could enjoy and love, and that’s why it got a standing ovation at SAG last night and that’s why it will win best picture. As for The Social Network and it’s bevy of critics awards, it obviously doesn’t need that Oscar, as so many brilliant films didn’t need it over the years. Sure, I’ll probably always go back to this year and say “man, that should have won”, but that’s part of the fun anyway.

• 111 1-31-2011 at 7:25 pm
  
  Fei said...

  Since 2000, only The Return of the King, No Country for Old Men, and The Hurt Locker have gotten better reviews (we’re talking only about BP winners here) than The King’s Speech.

• 112 1-31-2011 at 7:35 pm
  
  Fei said...

  Also, if The Social Network somehow pulls off what we would now call an “upset,” then it would be the most highly acclaimed BP winner since Schindler’s List. Then you’d have to go back to Amadeus to find a similar level of acclaim. That The Social Network probably won’t win is a shame in the grand scheme of things, I suppose, but the point is that if it had not been released last year to face the King’s Speech juggernaut of the moment, then people probably wouldn’t be up in arms and diminishing what is arguably a well-deserved honor for a movie that so many people like so much.

• 113 1-31-2011 at 7:36 pm
  
  Speaking English said...

  MJS, I’m completely with you. I don’t see how “The King’s Speech” is a crowd-pleaser at all. I didn’t leave smiling, or cheering, or thinking, really. It was a nice formula done nicely, but that’s it. My audience was completely quiet at the end, as well.

• 114 1-31-2011 at 8:05 pm
  
  Afrika said...

  The Social Network fanboys are truly out for Hooper’s blood; it’s hilarious to watch.

• 115 1-31-2011 at 8:31 pm
  
  Melissa said...

  Okay here’s the thing ten years from now, which film will be remembered more TKS or TSN? My guess is TSN, hell BSwan will be remembered more than TKS.

  No ill will towards TKS ( I haven’t seen it), but it really doesn’t matter if it wins or not, it won’t be the film people will be talking about ten years from now.

  Just like Avatar and THL, Avatar will be the film people will remember not THL ( and I loved THL).

• 116 1-31-2011 at 8:34 pm
  
  Knative said...

  Agreed Afrika. The only problem is that most people think the King’s Speech is actually a great film. It would be so much funnier if most people did not.

• 117 1-31-2011 at 8:46 pm
  
  Craig said...

  Melissa

  I disagree. People will remember these films BECAUSE they won the Oscar, so yes, it does matter. The Hurt Locker is a brilliant film and deserved that Oscar, but if it hadn’t won, it would have been forgotten. Avatar will be remembered because of the phenomenon that it was, but I don’t know if I’ve heard from a single person who’s seen both films and honestly thinks Avatar should have won.
  Similarly, The King’s Speech will be remembered because it won, but The Social Network will more likely be regarded by many as the film that should have won, unlike Avatar.

• 118 1-31-2011 at 8:47 pm
  
  Afrika said...

  Melissa
  Why would TSN be remembered ten years from now? why? you can’t make a blanket statement like that without detailed analytic reasons.

  Everyone keeps saying ten years from this and ten years from now this. Give me proof that the general public considers Saving Private Ryan a better film than Shakespeare in Love in 2011? where are the statistics? no one knows what will happen ten years from now. People can only vote for the movie which moved them to the core and hope that future audiences see why.

  I personally think TSN has no staying power. This whole “citizen kane” of our generation was a cheap marketing ploy and looking at box office numbers, it didn’t really work out as planned. When the next social network will be invented, TSN will die a naturally death. Who in 2020 or 2030 will relate to a one-dimensional and soul-less character like Sorkin’s Zuckerberg? who? I guess is no one.

• 119 1-31-2011 at 10:49 pm
  
  Raymond said...

  Kristopher, never meant to implicate you in my critic of other pundits, I was just expressing my frustration with the way The King’s Speech has been mistreated simply because it has emerged as the late favorite.
  Is there a sense of disdain toward comedy Best Picture winners? In a number of posts on this thread I’ve seen bashing of Shakespeare in Love and Chicago, two films I find incredibly worthy, exciting and fully realized in their own way (perhaps Chicago, which is responsible for bringing the musical back and creating a new language for the movie musical for a new generation, a little more than Shakespeare in Love). I’ve never gotten the backlash directed toward those two films, I take ten Chicagos and Shakespeare… over after school special travesty Crash any day of the week

• 120 1-31-2011 at 11:45 pm
  
  Robert Hamer said...

  I’ve never understood this criticism of The Social Network’s protagonist. So many people here seem to be asserting that film can’t be great if its main character is unlikable or “unrelatable.”

  Have you all forgotten There Will Be Blood? Raging Bull? The Treasure of the Sierra Madre? All of those films and many more are considered outstanding despite having a deplorable protagonist. Will The Social Network measure up to those works over time? I have no idea, but let’s not throw around blanket statements like “TSN sucks because Zuckerberg is a jerk.” Never mind the other issue of many (including me) disagreeing that Zuckerberg is an evil character so much as classic tragic hero à la Macbeth.

  Speaking of blanket statements, I can actually provide statistics to Afrika about Saving Private Ryan being more “treasured” than Shakespeare in Love, or at least as close to “proof” as we’re going to get. Go to ‘They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?’ and check out their 1,000 Most Acclaimed Films list, arguably the most comprehensive collection of Best Of lists from literally hundreds of film writers and critics. Saving Private Ryan is #803. The Thin Red Line is #646. Shakespeare in Love doesn’t show up at all. Not good enough for you? The American Film Institute’s ’100 Years…100 Movies’ revision has Saving Private Ryan listed, no Shakespeare in Love. While I don’t really value this list very much, the IMDb Top 250 has Spielberg’s film ranked at #43 and the ’98 Best Picture winner not even cracking it. Is any of this “proof” of one film’s quality over another? Not really, but the idea that there’s NO WAY to gauge public or cinephile sentiment on a film is simply not true.

  There are other assertions from you, actually, that I find odd, like citing the box office numbers of TSN as some sort of failure. Ignoring for a moment plenty of beloved films that first released as outright flops, TSN made $96 million in the U.S. alone. Combined with the $117 million worldwide gross, and that’s hardly a financial outcome to sneer at.

  Then of course there’s also the idea that The Social Network will “die a natural death” as soon as Facebook becomes obsolete (an unsupported prediction in itself), as if the film’s artistic merit was ever tied to Facebook as a technology. Dr. Strangelove didn’t suddenly become irrelevant when the Cold War was over, so why would The Social Network suddenly become worthless if our culture does away with social networking?

  I’m not saying that The Social Network is the “next Citizen Kane,” or an instant classic. I honestly don’t know how history will treat it over time, even though I did really like it, and still do. But I do know that it had a far more interesting, thought-provoking, and relevant impact on our culture than The King’s Speech.

• 121 2-01-2011 at 5:11 am
  
  Loyal said...

  Craig, I definitely think Avatar should have won over The Hurt Locker. No question. And I know many people in the real world who feel the same way. It’s all opinion anyway, whether it’s the opinion of you and I, or AMPAS members.

  As for MJS and Speaking English, the response to The King’s Speech speaks for itself. I watched the film on Christmas Day and the audience loved it. There was clapping and crying and lots of positive feedback in the theatre lobby afterwards. And I’ve heard similar stories about other audiences.

• 122 2-01-2011 at 5:57 am
  
  JJ1 said...

  I think The Social Netowrk is a better film (slightly) than The King’s Speech. And the fact that it won nearly every critics award made me think it’s Oscar win was/is insurmountable. But the guilds have changed that, for sure. I’m still not 100% sold (though, probably 90%) that TKS will win. But I will say this …

  The Social Network loses steam as it goes; after starting out BRILLIANTLY for over an hour.

  The King’s Speech gains momentum as it goes (however slowly, and not nearly as rapturously as many have stated from audience reactions. Mine had no reaction, nor did I).

  But the 2 movies are pretty equalizing, I think. Strong writing, strong acting, nice visual fluorishes, nice music. One movie is only slighlty better than the other in the varying components which make up the film. If I were to break it down:

  Story – equally interesting
  Directing – Fincher
  Acting – The King’s Speech
  Writing – The Social Network
  Editing – The Social Network
  Cin – The King’s Speech
  Art D – The King’s Speech
  Costumes – The King’s Speech
  Sound – The Social Network
  Music – The Social Network

  But all of these categories could have gone one way or the other with me.

  I truly believe that either of these 2 movies winning would be absolutely fine in my book (to encapsulate a year in cinema); or The Fighter, Black Swan, or Inception.

• 123 2-01-2011 at 6:19 am
  
  Adam said...

  Kris, this is one of the most calm, down to earth posts about the current race that I’ve seen anywhere in the last few days. This is why I read incontention. Thank you.

• 124 2-01-2011 at 6:27 am
  
  JJ1 said...

  Agreed (from Adam ^). Incontention is my favorite site to visit because of that level-headedness. Thank you.

• 125 2-01-2011 at 7:27 am
  
  Jahaneb said...

  Completely agree with 106 and 113. I didn’t find it a crowd pleasure either and all this standing ovation thing seems totally nonsense to me. Yes I find it a very good uplifting movie (with outstanding performance by Firth) but there was not a single moment where I felt overwhelmed or was forced to clap or got tears etc. In comparison, Slumdog was a completely different story. That climax (and that placement of song) had me totally overwhelmed, it filled me with joy and put a big smile on my face.

• 126 2-01-2011 at 7:42 am
  
  JJ1 said...

  I remember smiling a lot during the end of TKS. And I remember laughter (from the audience) at all the appropriate spots. But I don’t remember swelling uplift or clapping or heated discussion afterwards. It did not provide the type of response I remember from something like a Slumdog, either. But I still think it’s a very good film across the board.

• 127 2-01-2011 at 7:43 am
  
  Craig said...

  121

  Avatar is popcorn fodder. A technical marvel that’s for sure, but there’s nothing thematically interesting in that film at all. For me, it was overlong, took itself far too seriously, and was, worst of all, forgettable. It will be remembered for it’s massive success and that’s enough, as it neither needed, nor deserved, a best picture win. There were at least five better films nominated last year.
  The Hurt Locker is incredible, I don’t care what anyone says. It’s characters, themes and story reached me in ways that Avatar, with it’s paper thin characters and thematically lacking script, could never have hoped to do. The whole film, the last hour or so especially, is, for me, perfect, and will forever earn that film a spot on my personal favorites. Avatar is a film I’ll probably never watch again. That may be just me, but I’m proud that the Academy chose the best film rather than one that would have appeased the masses. I only wish they had done the same in 1997.

• 128 2-01-2011 at 8:32 am
  
  Melissa said...

  Craig, I’m not saying AVATAR ( I didn’t care for it) should have won, but lets face it people barely remember who won last year. Some people still haven’t heard of THL. Likewise with TKS, people are still talking about the Facebook movie and BSwan not the King’s Speech. I’m not talking about Cinephiles I’m talking about the Average movie-going public. I’m still drawing a blank about who won the year before last, was it Slumdog Millionaire? So the Oscars may raise a films profile, but at the end of the day its really the public who decides which film will be remembered for years to come. I’m sorry I just don’t think its The Kings Speech.

• 129 2-01-2011 at 8:38 am
  
  JJ1 said...

  I hear lots of talk (on the streets) of The King’s Speech, Black Swan, The Fighter, True Grit, etc.. What I hear nothing of (except for a few lightning-in-a-bottle weeks back in October) is The Social Network.

• 130 2-01-2011 at 8:42 am
  
  Melissa said...

  Afrika,

  A film holding up vs. Being remembered are two different things.

  The Titanic may not hold up today as it did back then, but it is still remembered.

  Which film won for the 2008 awards season, to be honest I can’t remember. The big critically acclaimed films, I along with many others remember from 2008 is Wall-E and The Dark Knight. Whether they still hold up today is a different story.

• 131 2-01-2011 at 8:47 am
  
  Melissa said...

  JJ1, Well anytime I mention The King’s Speech people are like what’s that?

  Almost everyone who has a Facebook account or not has heard about TSN, whether they liked it or not.

  This older guy at my job, doesn’t own a cell phone, or watch movies or use the internet asked me about The Social Network.

• 132 2-01-2011 at 8:48 am
  
  JJ1 said...

  Different folks, different places, I guess. :)

• 133 2-01-2011 at 8:58 am
  
  Melissa said...

  My initial point, I was trying to make was that The Oscars doesn’t make a long-lasting impression on films as it did in the past. Maybe for that moment and that’s it. I’m not trying like so many others to put down one film to praise the other or make cracks about either film or their filmmakers. I’m not trying to argue that one film is better than the other. I haven’t even seen TKS yet. The Oscars are fun, but people take them waaay too seriously. I loved The Hurt Locker and was excited when it won, but I’m just being honest a lot of people still haven’t heard of it.

• 134 2-01-2011 at 9:54 am
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Just want to thank everyone a) for the kind words on this piece and b) for the thoughtful discussion it yielded.

• 135 2-01-2011 at 10:08 am
  
  DylanS said...

  Kris: I do want to point out that while I have certain disagreeances over this race with you, this piece was wonderfully written and unbiased, as it should be. Thank you for once again offering a level-headed, opinions-aside conversation starter alternative to the “who can yell louder than everybody else” crap being spewed by a certain blogger who will go unnamed, along with others to a much lesser extent.

• 136 2-01-2011 at 10:10 am
  
  Kicksotic said...

  Speaking from the Front Lines here. I’m from a film family (second generation), have close relatives in the Academy (on the acting and writing side), everyone I know is in the business, and no one — no one — understood the excessive, gushing reviews TSN received. No one.

  At Academy screenings, at private screenings, in movie theaters, there was a sense of What’s the Big Deal? TSN was a good film with flaws — the regatta sequence? WTF? –, but not a great film. No one I talked to understood, or understands, why it was crowned a classic or the film of a generation (or whatever they said).

  The honest reaction among those who make films, who live and breathe films, was one giant shoulder shrug. A “yeah, good film” reaction and not the “Oh my God, that was AMAZING!” response the critics and TSN supporters had.

  Now, the reason why TSN has lost steam over the past two months or so and isn’t getting the support from the Guilds is quite easy: there was a feeling — and this may be why Fincher loses the Oscar (his huffing his way out of the DGAs before Hooper could even get to the stage certainly won’t help) — that those behind TSN assumed they had an Oscar sweep in the bag. From early-October there was an undeniable arrogance associated with the TSN group. Many in the Guilds, especially after seeing the film, found that attitude, that strut and premature congratulatory smugness, more than a little … I don’t know. Curious? Off-putting? Amusing? In any case, critics’ awards be damned, it didn’t make TSN any friends.

  As for TKS, the screenings had a much more positive response and those behind TKS, seeing an opening larger than the Grand Canyon (especially after TSN’s opening weekend fell below expectations and it still has yet to crack $100M domestically) seized on the community’s discomfort with the TSN group’s arrogance and parlayed that into huge, durable momentum with a well-made, likable film which was happy to be what it was: a film. Not a classic or a piece of art or the film of a generation. Just a really good film people enjoy.

  It also helps that people really, really liked it! Perhaps that has to do with the film itself or that TKS wasn’t compared to Citizen Kane (the hoo-haas of laughter that met that review are still ringing in my ears), or that King George wasn’t an unlikeable, unapologetic, arrogant douche bag who tried to screw his friends. Who knows?

  I guess the point I’m trying to make is that the community had a better response to TKS than TSN regardless of what the Critics said and, at the end of the day, are more likely to reward movies they like made by people they like.

  In the end, that’s why they’re voting for TKS.

• 137 2-01-2011 at 10:49 am
  
  tunktunk said...

  Kris, thanks for the great article. I really love visiting this site.

  I join the ranks of people who are disturbed by the amount of nastiness and name calling and censorship that taints this award season. I cannot believe it has come to that. What happened to civility, respect, tolerance?

  It is particularly sad when you consider that out of the 10 nominees, there is not one weak link. They are all great movies to celebrate. I remember feeling overly excited for all the good movies to see this year. When you include the ones which could not get in the 10 nominees like Blue Valentine, The Way Back, Tangled, etc, this was a wonderful, wonderful year for movie lovers.

  Of the 10 nominees, I am rooting for TKS, because like many other people, I came out of it feeling great, with a big grin on my face. That is what TKS has over TSN. If I had to rank them, I put rank them exactly the same. But at the end of the day one of them was uplifting, and the other was not.

  TSN’s problem, IMO was that its subject matter and poor trailer (I hated the trailer) put people off. Otherwise its box office should have been higher. A pity really because many people who were turned off by these factors would have enjoyed it immensely. I had no intention to watch it despite being a Fincher fan, especially since because Timberlake was in it. Only after the great reviews started flowing in did it become a must see movie for me. I am planning to rewatch it on DVD. I still recommend it to everyone.

  I would love people to get a perspective. TSN is a great movie, but not groundbreaking, earth-shattering, revolutionary. Nor does it require a higher level of movie appreciation to love and enjoy. It is a crowd pleaser. Good directing, clever script, great acting. All are attributable to TKS. TKS is 8.5 on IMDB, TSN 8.2. Both very solid, but none is cracking the top 10 or 20 or 100 for that matter. I just checked the top 250 on IMDB and Inception takes the highest ranking: #8 with 8.9, fantastic!!!

  I still do not know which movie will take the big prize at Academy Awards. I believe TKS fans have all the right to cry “shame” if TSN wins after TKS sweeping all the guild awards.
  A question for Oscar watchers with better memories. I feel like in the last few years, there is a trend to award the same people and movies over and over again. I don’t remember this was the case in the past. Especially in a year like this where there are so many good movies and performances, I would have enjoyed the spread of the wealth and was quite disappointed when all the critics awarded TSN as the best movie of the year. I would have expected the critics to make more daring choices and put the spotlight on other movies.

• 138 2-01-2011 at 11:21 am
  
  Paula said...

  Hmmm. The surprise is that TSN is as much a piece of classical Hollywood film-making as TKS. Sorry, but the fact that the Academy can’t see that is a clear sign that these people for some reason (age?) can’t see beyond the hoodies and the programming lingo. I think that’s what’s rubbing a lot of people the wrong way.

  Still, for me, the real generation-defining and truly innovative “big” movie this year was Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Everything about that movie — the editing, the soundtrack, the acting, the writing, the effects — defined the headspace of a large segment of 25-39 YO’s.

  But it has to be said that neither of these movies need Oscar for validation. They’re going to have a lot of cachet as the millennium’s first attempts at grasping what video game and internet culture are doing to our relationship to the world. Scott Pilgrim is a lot more successful, but The Social Network wasn’t a fruitless stab considering it was made by a couple of boomers.

• 139 2-01-2011 at 11:28 am
  
  KNSat said...

  Thanks, Kris for sharing your very intelligent perspective with us. I’m so grateful that, unlike a couple other critics, you don’t flog us with your own preferences (your Top Ten sure is a unique and personal list!). You instead take a professional approach to evaluating the Oscar season, giving us an insider and informed look at how the race is playing out. I don’t align with all your film evalutions, but I highly respect them, because no one should demand everyone have the same taste. And shouldn’t respect – not affirmation – be the goal of every critic?

  Personally I was entertained by TNS but was annoyed by its heavy-handed irony, glibness and cynicism. I loved TKS – Colin is my favorite actor – but I can’t say I was absolutely blown away by it.

  It’s unfortunate that the rare movie that had the near-impossible trifecta of Golden Tomato ratings, ecstatic audience response (from ALL Generations) and billion-dollar box office has virtually no chance of winning Best Picture. I have no doubt that it will be watched over and over again long after the other BP nominees are figuratively and literally sitting on the shelf collecting dust. Too bad it was animated.

• 140 2-01-2011 at 11:29 am
  
  Paula said...

  Also, the reason why TSN has been sweeping the critics awards is because, for all intents and purposes, it seemed to be the best of a weak year in American cinema.

• 141 2-01-2011 at 11:48 am
  
  DylanS said...

  Kicksotic: while I certainly found him sympathetic, I think bertie is far from an easy to like main character.

• 142 2-01-2011 at 11:59 am
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  I also want to clarify a portion of this piece, as I now see that it hasn’t been read as I intended. This statement:

  “And “The Social Network,” a pristine film that succeeds quite wonderfully at nailing the goals for which it aims, never deserved to have that kind of hyperbole thrust upon it in the first place.”

  Would more accurately be read as:

  “And “The Social Network,” a pristine film that succeeds quite wonderfully at nailing the goals for which it aims, never deserved THE BURDEN OF HAVING that kind of hyperbole thrust upon it in the first place.”

  I’ve adjusted accordingly.

• 143 2-01-2011 at 12:02 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  I also want to note that Kicksotic’s perspective is one I hear over and over and over again.

• 144 2-01-2011 at 12:03 pm
  
  Kicksotic said...

  But you feel his struggle and frustration, DylanS, and you cheer his success. You don’t feel for or cheer for Zuckerberg or Saverin and certainly not Parker.

  I suspect that’s why TKS is TKOing TSN at the most recent awards.

• 145 2-01-2011 at 12:04 pm
  
  Speaking English said...

  You don’t feel for Saverin? Totally untrue.

• 146 2-01-2011 at 12:19 pm
  
  Kicksotic said...

  You’re right. You do feel for Saverin. He, according to this version of events, got totally screwed. But the support for Bertie in TKS is different. There’s a much clearer win for the character than there is for Saverin.

  What the viewer is left with with TSN is what a total, untrustworthy, little douche bag this version of Zuckerberg is.

  What the viewer is left with with TKS is that one can accomplish anything, no matter how personally debilitating, with hard work and the support of those who love you.

  But, yes, you do feel for Saverin. Just not as much as you do for King George.

• 147 2-01-2011 at 12:53 pm
  
  Andrew M said...

  I personally didn’t feel for Bertie in TKS, and didn’t leave the theater with a smile. The movie I did leave with a smile however was The Fighter. As cliche as the end was, the characters and actors just win you over.

• 148 2-01-2011 at 12:53 pm
  
  Robert Hamer said...

  @ Kicksotic: I don’t doubt you’ve heard a lot of this from Academy members, but what I can’t wrap my head around is: why now? I mean, The Social Network is not any less audience-friendly than critical darlings like No Country for Old Men. Why is there a sudden resentment over *this* particular critically beloved work? Is it because of its subject matter or…?

• 149 2-01-2011 at 1:03 pm
  
  Sawyer said...

  Ahhh, how sweet Kicksotic. The Academy really, really likes it!

  Thanks for authenticating every notion we’ve had as to why TKS is going to win.

  Feel-good story? Check.
  Good guys? Check.
  (and most important) TSN+Critic Backlash? Check.

  Funny thing is, I almost feel sorry for the people behind The King’s Speech, Tom Hooper et al. The media, critical and blogosphere backlash from this decision is going to be deafening in the very near future. Those who are asking us to give the Academy a break will join in the chorus. Bank on it.

• 150 2-01-2011 at 1:04 pm
  
  Sawyer said...

  Backlash against the critics Robert. It’s the elephant in the room.

• 151 2-01-2011 at 1:12 pm
  
  Kristopher Tapley said...

  Robert: It doesn’t have the gravitas of a film like The Hurt Locker or No Country for Old Men. I think most would agree with that. So when it’s set up to be something it’s really not, it’s bound to misfire for them.

  Just a suspicion.

• 152 2-01-2011 at 1:14 pm
  
  Kicksotic said...

  Robert,

  I touched on this in my original post. The people behind, to take your example, No Country for Old Men handled their critical darling status much differently than the TSN people. You saw a much more humble, grateful attitude with that one than what you’re seeing with this one, an attitude which amounts to an earlier arrogance now bordering on a four-week long Hail Mary mea culpa.

  At the end of the day, this is a very small town and the film making community is fairly tight knit. I truly believe the early arrogance we saw from the TSN folks coupled with the overtly ecstatic reviews and over-eager blog support worked against it. Add to that the surprising lack of grace shown in the face of Award Season losses and it all kind of adds up.

  And to briefly address an earlier comment that preceded yours, Robert, I don’t believe “age” has anything to do with the lack of support you’re seeing. Many of my friends — most from families in the Academy or, at the very least, filmmaking — are in their 20s and 30s (I’m 40, if you must know) and those Academy Members I know in their 60s, 70s and 80s are WAY more on-the-ball than you can possibly imagine. Navigating these treacherous waters decade after decade keeps you sharp, believe me.

  They just don’t feel the need to support a movie they found “just okay” even if they’ve been told by critics and bloggers to love it. Has nothing to do with those strange, exotic animals called — wait, what’s that again? oh yes — hoodies and code.

• 153 2-01-2011 at 1:22 pm
  
  Kicksotic said...

  Yes, good point, Kristopher. It was set up to be a Great Film and ended up being just a good film. Nothing wrong with that. But if it’s supposed to be a Great Film — notice the caps — and it’s just good, you leave the screening decidedly underwhelmed and confused. ‘Wasn’t it supposed to be Great?’ you ask yourself. ‘Huh, I thought it was good. You know, just good. Oh, you too? Interesting.’

  I had this conversation over and over again with people in their early 20s to their early 80s.

  And then add to that the strut and smugness of those who made this alleged Great Film and it just rubbed people the wrong way. What’s so bad about making a good film? you wanted to ask. Or even a Really Good Film? Why does it have to be Great?

  But no. It was a Masterpiece, a Work of Art, the Movie of a Generation, and how very sad for you if you couldn’t see that.

  Again, rubbed the wrong way.

  So, in the end, it ended up in the minds of those at the screenings who’ll be facing a ballot very soon — and have mailed off ballots in the last several weeks for awards already decided — a good film.

  Just a good film, no caps needed.

• 154 2-01-2011 at 1:40 pm
  
  DarkLayers said...

  Paula, some would disagree. But even if it was a weak year here, I’m not sure these critics organizations chose the same movie because it was a weak year. They did that in 1993, which is widely considered a pretty strong year.

  Kicksotic, just a quick logistical question before content: Are your relatives in AMPAS also members of WGA and SAG?

  Interesting points, for sure. Steve Pond and Guy Lodge had some exchanges on Twitter concerning critical reception and its impact on the industry (e.g. Guilds, AMPAS). Scott Rudin told “Entertainment Weekly” and bloggers who were thinking TSN earlier brought up the social importance/salience as a consideration that could give “Social Network” the edge. But some (Fincher himself, James Franco, Joseph Gordon-Levitt) havc questioned the extent to which TSN is a zeitgeist movie. Some say that it’s more about friendship, ambition, and betrayal. How did this issue play out among the people you know? Were people you encountered mixed or negative towards the idea that it says a lot about our time or had social importance? Or did they see it, but feel like the weaknesses of the movie, arrogance from people associated with it, and the affection for “King’s Speech” outweigh that?

• 155 2-01-2011 at 1:50 pm
  
  KNSat said...

  Relating to Afrika’s #70 comment, I have 5 questions for TSN fans:

  1. Could you explain to me why you thought Erica was a plausible character? In other words, in what universe would this fictional Zuckerberg have snagged a girl like her?

  2. Did you believe that a guy like Zuckerberg cared that much about joining a final club? Was it believable when Saverin immediately blamed his own final club invitation for his betrayal by the company?

  3. If girls and status were so central to this fictional Zuckerberg (and the story), why did he never go after more girls and status symbols after he became famous and rich?

  4. Was the Sean Parker character a worthy fictionalization of the real Sean Parker? In other words, is the real Sean Parker an asshole and deserve to be portrayed as one?

  5. On a lesser note, were the wearing of bras by the girls in the coke-snorting scene merely a concession to the PG-13 rating? Couldn’t the director have worked around this in a more artful, less obvious way?

  Anyway, these are questions that bugged me about the movie and maybe the people who didn’t vote for it, too.

• 156 2-01-2011 at 2:16 pm
  
  Kicksotic said...

  My father is (or maybe was? not sure anymore) PGA and is certainly AMPAS. My mother, my sister and I are all SAG and my older brother has been WGA for years. (My younger brother is happily out of the biz and a Senior Google-geek in Zurich) I also have an aunt, on my mother’s side, who’s AMPAS and has been for quite some time. I might be missing some uncles, aunts and cousins who are probably PGA, SAG, AFTRA or WGA and others who are behind the scenes, but this is off the top of my head.

  I think, in response to your more lengthy question, whatever message TSN was trying to convey about friendship, ambition, betrayal, what-have-you was lost in the Great Movie din. What it was was buried in the expectation of what it was supposed to be. And it’s unfortunate because it’s a good movie. Without the burden (as Kristopher so wisely put it) of its accolades it might have avoided the Is This All There Is? backlash and subsequent last minute TKS juggernaut.

  As for whether or not we were negative about what it says about our time, etc and so on, in all honesty we really didn’t discuss the film in that way. Not a good sign. The discussion we did have was centered more around what we had anticipated (based on what we had heard) and what the reality was … and TSN fell far short.

  Again, had it just been allowed to be a really good film, the response might have been different and we might have had that discussion. But we didn’t and we haven’t. TSN is kind of yesterday’s news with little to no momentum (‘cept for Sorkin).

• 157 2-01-2011 at 2:33 pm
  
  The Wandering Chicken said...

  I appreciated The Social Network and enjoyed it, but failed to see how it was in any way era-defining. I agree with the author that this was an unfair burden for the film – that a backlash was almost inevitable. Time will decide, and the film should be judged on its merits.

  My only problem with TSN – and one of the reasons I preferred True Grit and The King’s Speech – is that I found the motivations Fincher and Sorkin chose to give the Zuckerberg character were profoundly boring and, to me, undermined an otherwise excellently crafted film. Spurned by a lover and by elite social cliques? I’ll show them! I just found this to be dramatically uninteresting, obvious even. It would have been fine and easily overlooked had the film not made a point to re-emphasize the point so blatantly at the end.

• 158 2-01-2011 at 2:39 pm
  
  DeNiro Face said...

  Hey Kris just want to say thanks for writing the article. I’ll be honest I was defintely a little riled up about The King’s Speech sudden jump to frontrunner status. (Good call on that by the way.) While The Social Network may not have been my absolute favorite of this year, I still feel like it would be a more interesting and deserving winner.

  Either way this article helped calm me down and realize, in the end, that Oscars help celebrate movies and the art of cinema, and that even if the “best movie” in my mind doesn’t win, that shouldn’t bother me. The very fact that we can all have a lively debate and argue about one gold trophy either going to one producer or another shows that the power of film is undeniable.

• 159 2-01-2011 at 2:44 pm
  
  The Wandering Chicken said...

  I’m also among the camp that thinks Shakespeare in Love is unfairly maligned for doing us all the disservice of being picked for Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan (and The Thin Red Line). I found the film wildly entertaining, endlessly clever, romantic and fun. And certainly worthy of acclaim.

  If Saving Private Ryan had ended after the Normandy beach scene, it would have earned my vote, but it went on to tell a pretty pedestrian – and unbelievable – story. And its bookending was a pretty lame device and didn’t make much sense given that the entire movie is told through Hanks’ character. As judged as complete movies, in my opinion, Shakespeare in Love is a story better told.

  I appreciated The Thin Red Line best of all, but movies like that rarely – maybe never – win. It was never in the running, so again, you can’t hold that against Shakespeare in Love.

• 160 2-01-2011 at 3:04 pm
  
  Robert Hamer said...

  Thanks for the insights, Kicksotic. I have virtually no pulse on the “inside chatter” of the Academy, so what you’re telling me is very illuminating.

  @ Kris: Fair enough, though I have to add that I find it hilarious that you tell me about the burdens of hyperbole of which it couldn’t possibly meet….and at the same time there’s an ad for TSN on your site with the blurb, “Sorkin and Fincher have created a work of art that says volumes about our culture.” Speak of the devil, right?

• 161 2-01-2011 at 3:44 pm
  
  JJ1 said...

  TSN has shown me that it simply does not matter what critics awards a frontrunner wins, or what their RT score is (99% in this case) …… the film with heart wins with the Academy. And that’s fine with me; given that most films I enjoy and WANT to see again have heart.

  This is why the likes of A Beautiful Mind, MDB, Crash, and Slumdog won. And I believe that if Benjamin Button had more heart, that would have been Fincher’s win(s).

• 162 2-01-2011 at 4:04 pm
  
  DarkLayers said...

  I second Robert Hamer –thanks very much for your insights. It’s valuable to know what is going on in these folks heads!

  And wow, a lot of your family are in show business.

  (I was wondering about something regarding SAG and asked another member who posts here: How do you all conceptualize the ensemble prize? Many discuss it as a ‘Best Picture’ prize, but some commenters say they’re voting for the best cast. The member here doesn’t see it as Best Pic or regard it in terms of the chemistry of the cast. He considers the individuals performances, and if there are really good performances across the board. How do you and your family members look at it?

  I’m just a lay person–I have to say that I agree with the point that Rush and Firth did quite well, but the rest of the cast was notably weaker. In any case, people could tell how thespians on Screen felt about the movie, including some likely AMPAS members from the cheering in the audience. They really, really liked it!

• 163 2-01-2011 at 4:17 pm
  
  Speaking English said...

  ***…… the film with heart wins with the Academy.***

  Huh? Then how do you reason with winners “The Departed,” “No Country for Old Men,” “The Hurt Locker?”

  And stop it with the ‘defining a generation’ thing. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But it has as much to say about the current generation as era-defining classics “The Graduate” or “Rebel without a Cause,” that I’m sure of.

• 164 2-01-2011 at 4:59 pm
  
  JJ1 said...

  ^ I meant with respect to other films that were deemed “better” or expected to win – and then ABM, MDB, Crash, etc. swooped in.

  I feel that The Departed won because of the Scorsese factor & Dreamgirls failed to connect. No Country was simply dominating and there was no big “heart” film (what, Juno?). And Hurt Locker – it’s main competitor was Avatar, a spectacle.

• 165 2-01-2011 at 6:18 pm
  
  Tone said...

  I like both TKS and TSN but I would just like to point out the irony that the tagline which went something like “You can’t make 500 million friends without making a few enemies” kind of fits with the way the race seems to be going. Replace “friends” with “critic organizations” and there you go. Anyway I did get that sense that the amount of pre-mature “classic masterpiece” thrown in TSN’s direction didn’t really do it any favors. I mean even Citizen Kane didn’t get the “greatest film of its time” statements until, what over twenty years after its release?

• 166 2-01-2011 at 8:13 pm
  
  DylanS said...

  Kris @151: How do you define “gravitas”? because I consider winning every critics award on the face of the earth pretty indictive of gravitas.

• 167 2-02-2011 at 7:02 am
  
  Sawyer said...

  Could someone please give some insight as to the historical accuracy of The King’s Speech? I need to know that everything went down exactly as it’s shown in the movie before I decide whether or not it’s a good film.

• 168 2-02-2011 at 7:45 am
  
  The Wandering Chicken said...

  @Sawyer (167) Ha. Well put. I don’t understand the issue many seem to have with the inaccuracies in The Social Network. Like any narrative film based on a true story, it takes poetic license to tell a dramatic story. It’s an unfair criticism, and worse, does nothing to address the merits of the film itself. The thing about it that frustrates me is that, in my opinion, there are plenty of criticisms to be made that stem directly from these supposed inaccuracies – not because they’re “untrue” but because of the dramatic choices the filmmakers made.

  As I mentioned above, I found the motivations that were given to Zuckerberg to be uninteresting dramatically speaking. I don’t care if they’re not based in fact; I care that they feel “untrue.” No one is likely to know Zuckerberg’s actual motivations but my guess is that his lack of success with the ladies and in breaking into elite social circles are the least interesting among them.

  On the flip side, it’s very possible that the Winklevoss twins are every bit as stereotypical “Hahvahd Men” as portrayed in the film, but I found them so stock as to take me out of the film whenever they were on screen.

  I know Sorkin earns wide praise for his clever, rapid fire dialogue (and deservedly so), but I also think, in the case of TSN, he uses some pretty easy shorthand that doesn’t necessarily serve his greater intentions.

• 169 2-02-2011 at 10:34 am
  
  Ripley said...

  Kris you give the best balanced coverage of the Oscars, great analysis. JW and SS are outshined on a daily basis.

• 170 2-03-2011 at 6:13 am
  
  marshjjnyc said...

  the king’s speech is ok. not boring, not great.
  multiple nods are not a big surprise. Academy members think that The Greatest Show on Earth, Around the World in 80 Days, Shakespeare in love, Rocky, Chariots of fire or Driving Miss Daisy are masterpieces. And Hitchock never won. Academy sucks.

Name

Email

Web site

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail