1. Is The Voting for Best Picture Fatally Flawed?
Allow me to answer my own question with a resounding “Yes!” However, before I break down faulty logic The Academy applies, allow me a quick caveat. First off, I don’t want Avatar to win for Best Picture, and the current system is set up so that it doesn’t. So why am I not happy? Because I’m a firm believer in fairness. If Avatar deserves to win Best Picture then it should win. In an ideal world, the system should reflect the voter’s will.
Let’s get into preferential voting the “lobbyist” effect. If you receive a ballot for Best Picture you’re asked to list all ten films, first through tenth, according to your preference. Those votes are then calculated, if no film gets 50 percent of the first place votes then the first place votes from the #10 slot are redistributed, with the #2 choice on that ballot getting a new “first place” vote. But the only way to win the Best Picture Academy Award is to have a majority of the first place votes. So let’s say 40 percent of The Academy members rank Avatar first. 30 percent favor Hurt Locker, and 20 percent, thanks to The Weinstein Borthers, like Inglourious Basterds. Ten percent is split among the field. Under that scenario you’d logically think “Well, Avatar has this thing wrapped up.” But no, you’re not even close with that estimation. Because to win, Avatar needs 50 percent of the vote. And if enough of the voters ranked Avatar below both Hurt Locker and Inglourious Basterds, just to make a point about CGI, then one of the movies will catch Avatar, possibly both. First place votes don’t factor in as much as not being ranked low on any ballot matters. And who is better at getting The Academy to do what they want? You guessed it, The Weinstein Company. All they have to say is “Just rank Inglourious Basterds second or third, as a favor to us, and the film will easily win. Seriously. It won’t be close. It’s a math nightmare for the front-runner.
Bonus Random Thought: Here’s a better plan: get rid of the 50 percent threshold. You get one Best Picture vote. The film with the most votes wins. How is this a bad idea?
Most of Quentin Tarantino’s films have had a western theme, heroes in desperate situations, brutal violence and quick tempers. So why hasn’t QT done an actual western movie yet? It makes complete sense. If anything, it’s amazing that it hasn’t happened so far. What have we been waiting for? Tarantino wants his western to take place during the era of slavery, so he’ll clearly be adding in his requisite “vengeance be mine” scene into the mix. You can mark me down for “excited” on this project. Tarantino keeps getting better and better.
Oren Moverman, director of The Messenger, is in negotiations to direct the project for Universal. The Messenger, to me, seems an awful lot like Taking Chance, but it’s hard to refute the 90 percent fresh rating on RottenTomatoes. Plus, it’s been 16 years since Kurt died, there’s been enough time for some emotional distance, and Gus Van Sant’s Last Days shouldn’t be the only attempt to humanize a cultural phenomenon. The film’s major issue would be casting the anti-hero. Notorious did a superb job of capturing the essence of Notorious B.I.G. with a lesser known actor. The Cobain biopic would need to head the same route. If I see Robert Pattinson up there I’m going to lose it.
4. Shutter Island Remains a Mystery
The film is getting nice reviews. But why was it delayed so long? And when’s the last time there was this much uncertainty around a Scorsese / Di Caprio project? Oddly enough, it seems that this is just a pretty traditional thriller, far outside of the realm and pedigree of the gents who created it. No Oscar buzz, no real hope at box-office fortunes, just a February release and then shuffled off to pasture. Not sure how the Scorsese biopic will handle this particular chapter.
Bonus Random Thought: Still, you’ve got to see it. It’s Scorsese. I’ll meet you there.
The producing duo behind this project said “These books have enough twists and turns to keep the public coming back to the theatres for many years to come.” I should note they are talking about the Dean Koontz version of the historical monster, not the original Mary Shelley version. I’m skeptical. We’re entering the age of high tech monsters, and our culture seems far more obsessed with psychopaths (The Joker) or ideologues (General “Thunderbolt” Ross). How do you get inside the mind of a character who has a nail in his head? Wolfman didn’t dominate, and the last Godzilla, a dozen years ago, was a dismal failure. The third book of Koontz’s series has already lost the readership. I’d say the time of the simple-minded villain has passed, long live the complex baddies!
On that note, I hope you all have a pleasant weekend, filled with no bad guys at all.
Checkout last week’s Movie Musings here
Laremy is the lead critic and senior producer for a website named Film.com. He’s also available on Twitter, where he’s hoping they remake something with Mothra.
