2012 Oscar Nominations

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Den of Geek speculates on why Cloud Atlas got shafted.

[CaptainCanada]

Is there really anything to speculate about there? It was poorly received overall, and didn't make that much money, so there was no reason to think it would get any attention from AMPAS. None of the critics organizations, SAG, HFPA, etc. did.

[od0_ital]

^

Box office doesn't matter when it comes to the Oscars.

Just look at how many major categories The Dark Knight was nominated for...

[Emh]

Not only that but the fact that Cloud Atlas didn't get nominated for any of technical awards is ridiculous no matter the so-called poor performance. If nothing else, make-up, special effects, and film editing all deserved recognition. I honestly can't think of any film this year more deserving of the Best Make-Up Oscar than Cloud Atlas and yet it doesn't even get nominated.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Emh wrote:

---

Not only that but the fact that Cloud Atlas didn't get nominated for any of technical awards is ridiculous no matter the so-called poor performance. If nothing else, make-up, special effects, and film editing all deserved recognition. I honestly can't think of any film this year more deserving of the Best Make-Up Oscar than Cloud Atlas and yet it doesn't even get nominated.

I agree. And while makeup was second to none, the editing was even better!

[CaptainCanada]

od0_ital wrote:

---

^
Box office doesn't matter when it comes to the Oscars.

Yes it does.

I didn't say it was the only thing that mattered. There are three paths to Oscar nominations:

1. Be a big financial success (preferably in a genre Oscar likes, but if you're sufficiently big, even if you aren't, i.e., Avatar).
2. Be a big critical success.
3. Be both of those things at once (ideal!).

Or, just have Harvey Weinstein running your campaign.

But Cloud Atlas was none of those things. Oscar voters go for their favourite movies, for the most part.

[Gil T.Azell]

Tarantino disappointed by Leonardo Dicaprio Snub,
I didn't think he had enough screen time for a supporting nomination.

As for Christoph Waltz, he clearly stole the show. I hope he wins.

[od0_ital]

^

Judi Dench got an supportin' Oscar nomination and win for a role that took up about three minutes of screentime, or something. Basically, she was in one scene at the end of a long movie, and walked away with an Oscar.

[stj]

^^^Anne Hathaway got an Oscar nomination for "acting" a character who is hated by everyone at her factory although only the foreman had any sort of reason; got fired; didn't try to get another job apparently; cut her hair; turned a trick; promptly died of sin; came back from heaven to sing in a chorus. She's already won a Golden Globe, and is apparently the front runner for best supporting actress. The song was pretty good for a non-professional singer. But I don't think anyone can plausibly say she did great acting, bringing a character to life.

[CaptainCanada]

stj wrote:

---

didn't try to get another job apparently

We're shown the city is full of desperately poor people. That she couldn't get another job in that climate is a rather obvious inference, given how she's reduced to selling off precious items.

But I don't think anyone can plausibly say she did great acting, bringing a character to life.

Numerous people are plausibly saying that, including critics who were otherwise lukewarm on the film in question.

[stj]

^^^Then numerous people are wrong. A song, however much the singer emotes, is not a genuine character. Nor do their numbers make them plausible. If you and they are trying to say her song was the high point of the film, well, that's not the same thing at all.

[CaptainCanada]

stj wrote:

---

A song, however much the singer emotes, is not a genuine character.

In a musical in recitative it is. That's the whole point. Her performance isn't just "I Dreamed A Dream", anyway (I thought "Lovely Ladies" and "Come to Me" are almost on the same level, anyway), and she does a superb job in mine and many others' opinion of conveying her character.

[stj]

CaptainCanada wrote:

---

In a musical in recitative it is. That's the whole point.

If the songs were the whole point, there wouldn't be any need for the recitative. It's true that the song can do heavy lifting in revealing character and evoking our emotion, but the dramatic interactions, in recitative or ordinary speech, are also character presenting.

We don't know what her problem with the other women at the factory is; we don't understand her secrecy; we don't see any effort to find another job so what we see is an immediate descent into prostitution; really, we don't even know how such a woman the dialogue says she is could abandon her child to the grotesque Thenardiers! Nobody is stupid enough to trust those gargoyles.

All these things are her character, but they don't add up. I read Les Miserables over forty years ago, so all I can go by is what's on screen. Maybe other people are using something else to fill in the gaps there.

Her performance isn't just "I Dreamed A Dream", anyway...

Absolutely true, and the failure of the rest is what diminishes the character to essentially one song...which isn't enough. (Incidentally, the problems with Fantine are in the script and the direction, not Hathaway. I can't see anything that Hathaway didn't at least try to turn into a genuinine human being.)

(I thought "Lovely Ladies" and "Come to Me" are almost on the same level, anyway)...

The vampire hooker chorus does a smashing job of asking the question of why this woman doesn't go steal Cosette and either steal or beg. The ghoulish delight in degradation that powers "Lovely Ladies" gave me another take on the sincerity of the refrain "Hear the people sing!" I thought the song and its staging were awful. I suppose if you liked it then it might have added to your appreciation of Fantine, but I'm sure not seeing it.

...and she does a superb job in mine and many others' opinion of conveying her character.

I still don't think she sang as well as a professional singer could have, and the performance would have been better. Nor do I think she successfully surmounted the script and staging problems. But it's quite true she managed to do a decent job of evoking pity, especially in the hair cutting scene I thought. But lots of actresses can evoke pity in such lurid scenes of degradation. It's a bad actress or writer who wrecks a death scene too. But...a prize winning performance better than every other supporting actress? Really? That's a stretch, even if it lese majeste to say so.

[DevilEyes]

Gil T.Azell wrote:

---

Tarantino disappointed by Leonardo Dicaprio Snub,
I didn't think he had enough screen time for a supporting nomination.

As for Christoph Waltz, he clearly stole the show. I hope he wins.

od0_ital wrote:

---

^

Judi Dench got an supportin' Oscar nomination and win for a role that took up about three minutes of screentime, or something. Basically, she was in one scene at the end of a long movie, and walked away with an Oscar.

There's no required time one needs to be on screen to be deemed a supporting role. I could see why you would argue something like that about a leading role, though I'm sure such a requirement doesn't officially exist, but not about the supporting rorle.

Speaking of which, the Academy has often made very arbitrary decisions who to nominate for Leading Role and who for Supporting Role, often based on whether someone is a big star at the time or not. Some of the silliest examples: Kevin Spacey playing a "supporting role" (?!) in Usual Suspects; Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet, both leads in Sense and Sensibility, but one gets nominated for leading role and the other for supporting role (guess which one was which); Travolta being nominated for a "leading role" and Samuel L. Jackson for a "supporting role" in Pulp Fiction. Either they were both "leads" or they were both "supporting", since it was an ensamble movie and neither of the roles was bigger than the other.

[od0_ital]

^

I remember readin' that the Academy deemed Travolta the lead of the two because he had more screentime than Jackson. For all of Jackson's screentime, he was with Travolta, but Jackson isn't there for all of Travolta's.