One Academy voter's brutally honest voting explanations

[tazber]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 6:26am

Of course we don't know who this is, but we do know it's a director. And an older one since he says "voting online makes me feel young again".

But it's an interesting look into one Academy member's process of voting.

Here's a sample (his Best Picture rationale)

“This is a preferential system. I’m putting Amour at No. 9 because I’m just pissed off at that film. Beasts of the Southern Wild is a movie that I just didn’t understand, so that’s my No. 8. Les Miserables goes in seventh place — it’s not just the most disappointing film of the year but the most disappointing film in many years. Above that I’m putting Silver Linings Playbook, which is just a “blah” film. Django Unchained will go into my fifth slot — it’s a fun movie, but it’s basically just Quentin Tarantino masturbating for almost three hours. Next up is Life of Pi because of how unique it is and for holding my attention up until its irritating ending. Argo is gonna go in third place, but I don’t want it to win because I don’t think it deserves to win and am annoyed that it is on track to win for the wrong reasons. Actually, come to think of it, do we have to put a film in every slot? Because what I want is for my best picture choice to have the best possible shot, so why even give any support to the others? [He has his assistant call the Oscar voting helpline, finds out that voters can leave slots blank and promptly removes all of the aforementioned selections.] I’m basically OK with one of two films winning. Lincoln is going in my second slot; it’s a bore, but it’s Spielberg, it’s well-meaning, and it’s important. Zero Dark Thirty is my No 1.”





The whole list

Updated On: 2/21/13 at 06:26 AM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 6:48am

I would love to know who this is.

Here are 4 random quotes that made an impression on me from that article:

Argo is gonna go in third place, but I don’t want it to win because I don’t think it deserves to win and am annoyed that it is on track to win for the wrong reasons.

I’m basically OK with one of two films winning. Lincoln is going in my second slot; it’s a bore, but it’s Spielberg, it’s well-meaning, and it’s important.

Django Unchained will go into my fifth slot — it’s a fun movie, but it’s basically just Quentin Tarantino masturbating for almost three hours.

Actually, come to think of it, do we have to put a film in every slot? Because what I want is for my best picture choice to have the best possible shot, so why even give any support to the others?

Updated On: 2/21/13 at 06:48 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 6:57am

Jesus, what an asshole. If he's an older director, his rationale is that of a five-year-old. He sounds more like a teenaged blogger posing as a director.

EDIT: I spent a lot of time with a close friend of mine who voted for the Oscars. 16 years of going to screenings, events, going through the whole process with her. I met hundreds of voting members and talked with them at length over those 16 years.

I never met anybody in all that time who talked about voting like that. I call bullsh*t on this. I don't think it's real.

EDIT AGAIN: I think the "because I want to feel young again" comment actually means he IS young, and he's tired of feeling "old" from having to vote on old-fashioned paper. An older member wouldn't feel "young" by voting online. They never did that when they were younger, so the comment doesn't make sense for someone older.

That would also explain why I never met anybody like him at Academy functions and why he sounds like a juvenile idiot. Because he is one. A newbie member.

Updated On: 2/21/13 at 06:57 AM

[Addison D.]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 7:06am

"If Tarantino had never made a film and this was his first screenplay, I might consider voting for him, but he’s made the same movie eight times."

I find that totally unfair. A director with a strong, personal style will certainly have some recognizable tics or formulae, but to say that Tarantino has made the 'same' film eight times strikes me as either deliberately provocative or the opinion of someone who doesn't watch films carefully.

EDIT: Just read Besty's comment, above. I hope you're suspicions are well-founded. I would like to think that a little more heart and soul goes into the process, generally speaking.

Updated On: 2/21/13 at 07:06 AM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 7:26am

Just read Besty's comments. I think you may be right and the article was set up to "stir the pot" shall we say...

One would hope, like Addison D. said that a little more heart and soul goes into the process.

I would like to add intelligence to that list.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 7:28am

Addison, if it is real, this is a huge shift in the attitude of Academy members today. New members. It's not someone who's been voting for 10, 20, 40 years.

I started going to Academy screenings before the screener era in 1987. I sat with people like Dorothy Jeakins, Robert Wise, Terry Moore, Dennis Christopher, Alexis Smith (yes, an odd, random assortment of film folk), but ALL of them took the "job" of being an Academy member seriously. They were having enormous fun, but they also took great pride at being members.

I felt like the luckiest fly on the wall in Hollywood. I went to screenings, short film voting festivals (where you sit through all of them in a single day and they hand you a ballot at the end). I spoke with members in lobbies, before and after screenings, outside in the parking garage on the way home.

There was great respect for the films, too. Nobody talked or said a word after the films started. They would laugh (if it was a comedy), and in a few rare instances, they would applaud a performance or a song. I remember when they clapped after the opening number (Belle) in Beauty and the Beast. It was a shock to me. I knew that movie was going to get up for Best Picture.

Another great thing, nobody and I mean nobody, left their seats before the end credits had completely finished. You know how some people get up and leave as soon as the end credits start? Nobody moved at Academy screenings until they were completely done and the lights started coming up.

After the screener era started, I went to screening parties at "friends" houses. Academy members' houses. It helped that a lot of them lived nearby. That was incredible to hear their thoughts. Most of them would discuss aspects of the film being shown, but they were also fairly secretive about discussing their voting choices, even in a small room among other members. They kept their decisions to themselves, but they were sometimes free with opinions about the movies.

In short, there was great pride and great respect for being a member of that group. Not snobbery at all, just genuine joy and happiness at being part of a very special process.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 7:57am

Wow he comes acroos as a real wanker.

I do agree with him on Django Unchained,Tarantino is over rated, and basically it is all the same movie over and over again.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 8:02am

Besty's hung out with the costume designer of THE SOUND OF MUSIC, it's director as well as Betty from PEYTON PLACE, Phyllis Rogers Stone and Leonide Moguy...cool friends!

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 8:09am

Hi ho the glamorous life.



P.S. --- it wasn't all at the same screening, and the list is ever so much longer than that. There were plenty of "just pinch me" moments, over the years, though.

[strummergirl]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 8:09am

This is actually what I think a lot of voters think of Haneke.

I actually agree with a lot of his picks but his explanation for 'why not' with the others feels like he embraced some of the worst PR, eg Jones at Globes and Lawrence on SNL. The Wallis comment, the name BS not the view of her acting, is pretty awful. I also wonder if he knew Kushner's wrote the Lincoln script because none of his issues had him point to Kushner.

The director sounds older with the complaints of online voting, so essentially, it could be anybody in the branch.

And re: Tarantino, I think he was exaggerating but how is the theme of revenge not been covered territory in the last four (five if you split Kill Bill) of his films? Dogs, Jackie Brown, and Pulp are their own films despite involving robberies and criminals but the rest of his oeuvre feels like it is showing us the same character struggle albeit in various periods, contemporary, anachronistic, and historical.

Updated On: 2/21/13 at 08:09 AM

[Addison D.]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 8:10am

Thanks for letting me believe in Santa for one more year, Besty.

Hollywood is so far removed from being my industry, I have no adequate frame of reference for whether the Hollywood Reporter's 'The Race Blog' is of any signifcance and thus I can't guess whether this article will cause enough of a kerfuffle for the subject's identity eventually to be made known.

A childhood spent reading Agatha Christie mysteries leads me to wonder whether Besty isn't spot-on with his interpretation of the line about "feeling young again". In a blog-post which proclaims the anonymity of the subject, one has to wonder whether the more obvious interpretation--that he's an old-timer excited by new technology--isn't a deliberate red herring.

'Pulp Fiction' is the same movie as 'Inglorious Basterds'? Beyond a superficial reaction to Tarantino's approach to violence, I just can't see the equation. But that's the beauty of Art--there's always the possibility of differing interpretation.

EDIT--just read Strummergirl's post. I guess I am willing to allow Tarantino to spend his entire career exploring "Revenge" as a theme. The Greek tragedians had 'Hubris', Tarantino has "revenge'. I just don't see them as being the 'same' movie. Tarantino fills each film with such incredible, iconic performances from his actors--maybe we'll ultimately see his films as chapters in a long film cycle about revenge. I'm OK with that.

EDIT--I meant to use 'Inglorious Basterds' in my example. I have changed it for the sake of Posterity.

Updated On: 2/21/13 at 08:10 AM

[tazber]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 8:53am

I don't think The Hollywood Reporter would fabricate something like this.

I'm sure there are Academy members who view the Oscars as just another part of the business. For people who work in it everyday and actually deal with all the unglamorous aspects I can see how the luster of the awards is diminished.

The relentless campaigning and hysteria that goes on in Hollywood during Oscar season has to be grating. I get how at a certain point you would just be over it and want it to be done with already.

Plus, he sounds like someone who has never been "invited to the ball" and is a little bitter.

Updated On: 2/21/13 at 08:53 AM

Posted: 2/21/13 at 10:19am

Tarantino's popularity totally mystifies me. He writes like a stoned high school boy and directs like....well, a stoned high school boy.

I think Kill Bill is probably the worst major studio film ever made- and I say probably only because I could only stomach about 20 minutes of one before throwing up my hands and walking out in disgust.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 10:37am

I think I saw them all through Kill Bill 1. As soon as that ended I realized I had no need to see 2. He needs to grow up and stop doing pastiches of bad movies that were fun enough when he was closer to 20.

[trentsketch]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 10:56am

This voter comes closer than most people to explaining the difference between sound mixing and sound editing. Mixing also includes how the sounds are actually layered in the film, where editing is all about the creation of the sound. A foley artist is a sound editor; the control room at a radio station is sound mixer territory.

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 3:40pm

Those explanations were pitiful. Jennifer Lawrence "lost" his vote with her SNL bit? Seriously? I'd like to think the voter was being factitious with his reasons, but I doubt it.

Updated On: 2/21/13 at 03:40 PM

[AC126748]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 4:13pm

Actually I get the impression that this is how a lot of people vote. "I don't like so-and-so personally" or "I don't think X carries herself well in public" can come into the decision-making process (Eddie Murphy anyone?). It doesn't surprise me.

Posted: 2/21/13 at 4:31pm

Yes- and not just for the Oscars. I know a woman who took Bush over Kerry because "Kerry lives in a mansion in Massachusetts and Bush lives on a ranch in Texas."

[Plum]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 5:43pm

Reminds me of the Baseball Hall of Fame voting rationalization articles that come out every year. There are some thoughtful voters in BBWAA, but a good chunk of them are basically childish idiots like this.

[Patronus]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 5:44pm

My guess is that it's David Fincher.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 6:36pm

Kris Tapley (who always does great work on InContention) uses this piece as a way to explain why Oscar voters should not vote in all the branches:

he voter is a member of the Academy's directors branch and, quite frankly, is a perfect case study for why the Academy should not be allowed to vote for the winners in every category. This is my opinion, of course, but maybe this will be a bit of illumination as to why I have that opinion. Because there are guys like this throughout the organization. There are plenty who are astute and get the nuance in this or that category. But many simply don't.

Take Best Sound Mixing, for instance. It's a shame to me that a member of an esteemed branch such as the directors apparently has no clue whatsoever as to what a re-recording mixer does. "This is the award for sound that is mixed on the set on the day," he says, clueless, getting it dead wrong.

Yes, production mixers -- sound mixers who, you guessed it, mix the sound during physical production -- are recognized in the Best Sound Mixing category. But equally if not more important are the re-recording mixers, who are responsible for bringing in all the sound elements -- score, sound effects, foley, etc. -- into a final mix for the film. Of course, In Contention readers are well aware of this. I think we've done a decent job of educating along the way.
InContention

[After Eight]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 7:08pm

"Those explanations were pitiful. Jennifer Lawrence "lost" his vote with her SNL bit?"

She didn't deserve it even without the SNL bit. In fact, she never deserved even to be nominated, nor anyone else in or associated with this dog of a movie. I'm glad he didn't vote for her, for whatever reason.

I found much of his writing quite amusing, actually. We could use some of his humor in the theatre.

[canmark]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 7:20pm

I think they may have embellished this person's comments to make them sound more edgy (and funny). I can't imagine that these are his verbatim words. (If they are: somebody put this director in front of the camera!)

I think it's funny that he disses Alan Arkin ("Alan Arkin in Argo? I'm shocked he's even nominated."), when his "voice" reads like an Alan Arkin character. ("I also don’t vote for anyone whose name I can't pronounce. Quvez---? Quzen---? Quyzenay? Her parents really put her in a hole by giving her that name -- Alphabet Wallis." Sounds like Grampa in Little Miss Sunshine, or the producer character in Argo.)

I must confess, I chuckled at his comments on Amour and the ages of Academy members:

"Amour is immediately disqualified—it's just a woman dying, and there's no real story, and it made me feel like sh*t. There's only so much diaper-changing that I can tolerate. "

"I've seen all of the nominees at official Academy screenings held over the past few weeks. You go into that theater, you sit there, you look around, and you just hope that there's an ambulance outside because a lot of the members in attendance must have aged out of AARP at this point."

Updated On: 2/21/13 at 07:20 PM

[Addison D.]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 7:22pm

Everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinions, and I encourage him not to vote for Jennifer Lawrence if he found her nominated performance lacking.

But I think it makes him look foolish to say that he is basing that decision on her SNL appearance.

I've never been asked to host SNL, but I can only imagine that she was given a script to read. Does anyone really think that she was expressing her own, authentic opinions?

Even more ludicrous is the way he scolds Lawrence for her opening monologue (in which she poked fun at Quvenzhané Wallis' name) and then proceeds to NOT VOTE FOR WALLIS BECAUSE OF HER FIRST NAME. Clearly that's an inexcusable reason not to vote for her, but when you add in the hypocrisy of condemning Lawrence for the same crime--that's just pure BS.

[After Eight]

Posted: 2/21/13 at 7:48pm

Addison,

You're a very intelligent person.

So you surely understand the term, "tongue in cheek."

It's humor.

And I'm surprised by the self-righteous indignation voiced here by people who should know better. Do people actually believe that everyone votes for awards based on "merit?"

I guess you all still believe in Santa Claus as well.

Whodathunkit?