ok... so I just came from a late showing of Babel...

... and I must say I've rethought alot of things.

OVerall, I was a bit disappointed with the film when comparing it to Amores Perros and 21 Grams. I think having 4 storylines was one too many and maybe spread them all too thin. And I thought to myself that so many people are going to be turned off by one particular storyline and sure enough as I left the theatre people were saying "if only the ___ wasn't in it, it would have been great."

I'm still not ruling it out of the picture, but I don't see a Best Pic nom for Babel unless the race gets VERY weak. I think this opens up a good slot for Little Children, Little Miss Sunshine, or (dare I say it) United 93.

I highly doubt Pitt can win win this. With a strong push, he may get a nod but the role was barely enough to be a true contender.

Other than that... screenplay at best. But again, if we get a very strong year, that could be pushed aside too. Best case scenario: this year's Constant Gardener in terms of nominations (which got around 3 right?)

Hmmm... I've read an article saying the exact opposite...

Here it is:



The Battle Over ‘Babel’

Critics snubbed it but audiences are weeping—this is a movie that makes you go with your gut.

By Sean Smith
Newsweek


Oct. 27, 2006 - I make the same mistake every year. I’ve been covering Hollywood for almost a decade now, and every year I have a moment, sitting in a screening, when I realize that I’m watching the movie that’s going to win the Oscar for best picture. I then spend the ensuing months second-guessing myself as critics enumerate the film’s flaws, and pundits elaborate on why it can’t possibly win. Even if the film becomes the front runner, I talk myself out of my initial reaction. (In the case of “Crash” last year, I even became embarrassed to admit that I’d loved it.) And then, almost always, it wins.

At the moment, “Babel,” a new drama starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett and directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, is getting what can politely be called “mixed” reviews. The film is a tragedy told in four narratives: A Moroccan goat farmer buys a rifle, his young sons goof around with it, fire at a passing tour bus and accidentally shoot an American woman (Blanchett). Her husband (Pitt) must frantically find medical help for her in a rural village, while the shooting, assumed to be a terrorist attack, becomes an international incident. The couple’s two children, meanwhile, are home in San Diego with their Mexican nanny (Adriana Barraza), who makes the ill-fated decision to take them across the border to her son’s wedding. And in Tokyo, a deaf teenage girl (Rinko Kikuchi), mourning the loss of her mother, desperately seeks out sexual attention from men, while she pulls away from her father, who is struggling to connect with her. The title of the film refers to the Biblical story in which humans tried to build a tower high enough to reach God. God punished their arrogance by creating different languages, making it difficult, if not impossible, for people to communicate with each other.

Several of the nation’s top critics—including NEWSWEEK’s esteemed David Ansen—have lauded the look of the film but have blasted “Babel” for failing to establish a meaningful connection between the separate narratives and for punishing its characters so severely and so inevitably. “If ‘Babel’ were a football game,” Ansen wrote, “I’d flag it 15 yards for piling on.” The New Yorker’s David Denby went further, writing that Iñárritu, who directed “21 Grams” and the Oscar-nominated “Amores Perros,” “abuses his audience with a humorless fatalism and a piling up of calamities that borders on the ludicrous.” So, before I read any more reviews and start questioning my judgment, I'm going to predict that “Babel” will be nominated for best picture this year. What’s more, I think it just might win.

Why? Because the Oscar is almost always awarded from the heart rather than from the head. Pulitzers Prizes and Nobel Prizes and National Book Awards are doled out, in general, for intellectual achievement—they reward how a piece of work makes us think about the world. But the deepest value of movies is how intensely they make us feel. Every year entertainment journalists spill oceans of ink guessing and rationalizing how Academy members will vote, but when it comes down to it, Oscar voters aren’t any more mysterious than the rest of us. Whether it’s for a low-rent comedy or a highbrow drama, a slasher flick or a tearjerker, we all enter a theater seeking an emotional experience, and we reward filmmakers who deliver. It’s why “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” became a massive hit and a best original screenplay nominee, while Michael Mann’s technically flawless “Ali” was a financial flop and a virtual Oscar shut out. It’s why “Rocky” beat “Taxi Driver,” “All the President’s Men” and “Network” for best picture. It’s why “Kramer vs. Kramer” won instead of “Apocalypse Now.” It’s why “Terms of Endearment” scored over “The Right Stuff.”

Entire books have been written analyzing why certain movies and performances win over others, and it’s dangerous to make generalities about any group, especially the 6,000 members of the Academy. That said, I suspect that while they vote with an eye toward history—what does the best picture say about our world now—they most consistently check their ballots for the film with the most intense and resonant emotional impact, whether that emotion is terror (“Silence of the Lambs”), grief (“Schindler’s List”), love (“Titanic”) or delight (“Chicago”). There are exceptions, of course. (I still can’t explain the win for “Chariots of Fire.” Can anyone?) But it’s that historical pattern that makes me believe “Babel” will go the distance despite the negative critical response or how valid it may be.

“Babel” could only have been made in a post-9/11 world, and it is a powerful comment on our cross-cultural anxieties and our assumptions and fears about each other. It also features mesmerizing performances, including the most natural, raw and memorable scene of Pitt’s entire career. Yes, maybe the film is melodramatic. Maybe too many bad things happen to too many good people. But there is also a sense at the end of the film that most of these characters will survive their tragedies and will manage to find some measure of happiness—that there is hope for them and, by extension, us. “Babel” may be painful, but it is not bleak. Ultimately, though, the reason I think “Babel” could win best picture has nothing to do with what I think about it at all. It’s because watching “Babel” in a packed theater last month, I felt the same rush I had watching “American Beauty,” “Shakespeare in Love” and “Million Dollar Baby.” I can’t rationalize it. I can’t quantify it. I can barely explain it. All I can tell you is that, as sappy as it sounds, those films—and this film—made me feel as if my heart had expanded. Judging from all the people crying around me, and in the elevator afterward, and in the parking garage after that, I suspect that I am not alone. All of that may mean nothing. It’s just a feeling. But this year, at least, I’m not going to ignore it.

Pretty sure Flags of Our Fathers can most likely be labeled "dead" after a somewhat disastrous 45% weekly decline with 300 added theaters.

And if SBD's number for Little Children is correct, I'd really, really worried about its chances of passing even $3M.

If both Flags and Little Children are out of the running then that open the race up quite alot.

I wouldn't count out either of them.

I still count Little Children as in the race, just for the sake of In the Bedroom's gross being probably worse than what it'll get... If it gets enough push I don't see why Field can't do it twice.

FOOF is in deeper trouble than Little Children. $40m domestic gross for a $90m movie that doesn't have oversea appeal is a financial bomb.

At this moment in time, I'd probably have Little Children in my top 5 predictions.

Oh and I may have been a bit rash with my statements concerning Babel right after having seen it. If FOOF really does lose most of what it had in a month then the race becomes more interesting.

You might want to add "Shut Up and Sing" as a documentary contender. It currently has a 74 at Metacritic and a 93% at RottenTomatoes with a 100% cream of the crop.

Ok, let's see if I understand the reasoning here.

You're saying that the almost 6000 academy members were hanging out online waiting for the numbers to come in, and as soon as they did, they started making phone calls.

academy member #1 "Hey, did you hear the word?"

academy member #2 "No, I just got back from fishing, what's up?"

academy member #1 "Flags of Our Fathers" dropped 45% on it's second weekend. We're not allowed to vote for it anymore."

academy member #2 "Says who?"

academy member #1 "Uh...well...I read it on a messageboard where everybody is obsessed with box office. "

academy member #2 "So let me see if I've got this straight. I'm not "allowed" to vote for Flags of Our Fathers, even though I really liked it, and even though Steven Spielberg is one of my friends and I'm dying to work with Clint, all because it didn't do great box office?"

academy member #1 "Yeah, well, it had a 90 million dollar budget, and we must punish it for not making it's money back with it's domestic box office returns. It's all about domestic box office returns!"

academy member #2 "So second weekend drops AND it's domestic gross in relation to it's budget, which nobody even knows due to the many MANY ways that costs are offset, are how we determine what we vote for? Not what we liked? Not who we are friends with? Not even DVD sales and rentals are allowed to be considered? We vote based on internet messageboards that put their focus on box office?"

academy member #1 "Well, when you say it like that, it does sound rather silly."

academy member #2 "Quite. Does this mean you'll be voting for Flags?"

academy member #1 "Yes, I will be. I should have my head examined for letting box office enthusiasts on the internet project their mindsets on me. I don't know what I was thinking."

academy member #2 "Glad to see you've got a better perspective. I'll see you at the SAG awards."

THE END

*takes a bow*

The moral of this little theatrical performance should be pretty clear. Just because WE are obsessed with box office to the point that we hang on every number and percentage and per screen average that comes done the line, doesn't mean that the academy members are even considering such nonsense. Do you REALLY believe they are taking budget/domestic gross ratios into consideration when filling out their ballots? Do you seriously believe that they were all sitting at home waiting for Friday's numbers, and the fate of Flags was hanging in the balance?

Guys and girls, please.

haha funnyily I was thinking the exact same thing before reading your post - which is a classic btw.

Sure a box office dissapointment has more of an uphill battle during awards season - but c'mon its not that black and whiteand nor should it be. Really BO should have absolutely nothing to do with what awards a film receives. I think its taken to the extreme here.

Munich still received noms. It was a BO dissapointment. Countless other films have to. Sure Flags may make $40m in its iitial run but who's to say it wont gross an additional $40m during the awards season?

If anything is worrying for this film - its the weaker critical response than expected and not the BO

Way too early to count this one out.

Now I dont claim to be an oscar predictor but I think people here are leaving out FOOF is because its reviews while are good, the reviews arent as strong as say other strong contenders like The Queen, Little Miss Sunshine or United 93. Now that its box office isnt as strong as it has hoped for and if there are slots left for Best Pictures contenders, I think what the posters here are saying why the academy would award the spot to a movie that doesnt have as good as reviews as the others and its BO take isnt going to be that strong either. I mean Little Miss Sunshine has both better universal reviews and very likely a higher BO take than FOOF so why pick FOOF over LMS or take FOOF over United 93 which also has much better reviews. Thats what I think they are getting at

I hear Deliver us from evil is the documentry to beat.

Yep. It's not all about domestic grosses. Munich was not only a BO lightweight, but it was less critically received than Flags has been. It got in on the strength of Spielberg, and Flags not only has him, but Eastwood, too. Another example that can be looked at is Gangs of New York. It got in mostly because of Marty's involvement.

[table][row color=#000000][col]Film[col color=#000000][col color=#000000][col color=#A52A2A]Tomatometer[col color=#A52A2A]COTC Score[col color=#A52A2A]Average Rating[col color=#A52A2A]COTC Rating[col color=#FF0000]BFCA[col color=#7B68EE]Metacritic[col color=#7B68EE]Reviews[col color=#7B68EE]100's[col color=#000080]NSFC
[row][col]Flags of Our Fathers[col color=#D0D0D0]108[col color=#D0D0D0]40[col color=#D0D0D0]73%[col color=#D0D0D0]77%[col color=#D0D0D0]7.0[col color=#D0D0D0]7.5[col color=#FAEBD7]93[col]78[col]36[col]8[col color=#E6E6FA]79
[row][col]Munich[col color=#D0D0D0]141[col color=#D0D0D0]42[col color=#D0D0D0]77%[col color=#D0D0D0]58%[col color=#D0D0D0]7.5[col color=#D0D0D0]6.7[col color=#FAEBD7]89[col] 74[col][col] 8[col]
[row][col]Gangs of New York[col color=#D0D0D0]141[col color=#D0D0D0]42[col color=#D0D0D0]77%[col color=#D0D0D0]68%[col color=#D0D0D0]7.3[col color=#D0D0D0]6.7[col color=#FAEBD7]86[col] 72[col][col] 2[col][/table]

Gangs of New York made about 78 million domestically, most of which was due to awards nominations, and it had a budget (which is again, a number that isn't accurate) of 100 million. Notice how it's lack of box office and it's lack of great reviews didn't mean anything?

Munich only made 47 million with a 70 million budget. Didn't get strong reviews. Still got in. Walk the Line got better reviews, a MUCH better box office, best Actor and Actress nominations, a Golden Globe win, and still didn't get in. It's politics of who you know, and Spielberg>Mangold.

As far as Little Children goes, I have a comment. I know this site is known for getting caught up in 3500+ openers, and first weekend grosses and all, and nothing else seduces them in quite the same way, but I am surprised by all of the comments being thrown around, as if Little Children only had one shot to open, and that if they didn't release and expand early, it wasn't allowed. Has anybody considered that they plan on expanding LATER, not sooner, when they can take better advantage of awards season? When they can put their marketing dollars to much better use, since they don't have unlimited funds to market with? The way you guys are talking, this is under the same scrutiny as the latest mindless blockbuster that bombards with trailers and TV spots in an attempt to make as much as possible in those first weeks.

I know the MO is to run around like chickens with their heads cut off, flip flopping opinions from one extreme to the next from day to day, but Little Children is a critically acclaimed film that hasn't been released yet, pretty much. Give it a chance to play out with that one before you close the lid on it's coffin.

The problem is Flags is released in October, not December. The weaker-than-expected critical response is absorbed and processed more fully, and compounding it with disappointing box office leg (it's not about the total, but the drops; Munich never had a 40% drop until its 6th weekend, while FOOF would've dropped over 50% without expansion), there will be fewer reasons to nominate it when people start to look back in December.

FOOF would've been in much stronger position and less to worry about if it had been released in December. I didn't really understand the October strategy as it has too much to lose. For The Departed, October is perfect because it wasn't intended to be an Oscar movie, and it has everything to gain.

As for Little Children, the problem is how poorly it has performed in limited release. It really has no window to expand to even more than a few hundred theaters now since its PTA already drops to so low.

Yeah, Flags is in a lot of trouble. It's going to have the distinct stench of failure around it the next two months. Think ALMOST FAMOUS.

Some REALLY effective campaigning needs to happen to carry it to the finish line.

The problem with Crash, or so I was told last year, is that it was released in April. It definitely didn't have reviews going for it.



Do you seriously think that the academy is collecting that information that Munich never had a 40% drop until it's 6th weekend and Flags did? Box office people are the only one who even consider such things in life.

As far as the critical response being less than expected, it got exactly what was expected, if you take out all of the internet critics who are basically jokes and consider the important LA and NY publications, which are what academy members read. RT is just a fun guide, but it's not a science. If it were, Munich and GONY would have been passed up for better received stuff, too.



I definitely don't agree about the Departed not being intended to be an Oscar film, and I've stuck to my guns on that all season, which is why I'm not at all surprised to see it in the position it's in. It's always been a big gun in this race.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest, as I'm definitely not considering box office to be of such monumental importance.



Yes, but it performed like that with no marketing at all. Do you think it's unreasonable that critic awards, Golden Globes, etc... could make a difference in people wanting to see it? You're judging that solely based on now, not based on it's potential awards season push. What reason is there for anybody to see it now? Kate Winslet is the biggest, and she's not exactly a box office draw. If you fast forward down the road and let's say she's getting critic awards, a Golden Globe, etc..., then it's window opens up much more.

Little Children is now at 88%. It continues to climb.

The way I see it, Flags has 73% at RT AND crappy box-office AND it's released in October. It could maybe get away with some of those things if they came individually, but together it's kind of a knockout blow. What does Flags have going for it at this point? It's been a disappointment everywhere. Looking at the RT score alone, only one nom in rottentomatoes history has gotten a worse response than it, and that was a Miramax freak of nature with strong acting credentials... Flags on the other hand is going into the show with techs and screenplay, pretty much.

They appreciate Clint, but that doesn't give him a nom every time he makes a movie... They've already gone to him 2 of the last 3 years, I think they know they don't owe him anything.

Except Almost Famous was basically universally praised by everyone who saw it, I'm pretty sure Flags isn't as lucky in that regard.

Exactly. By December it's not going to be a film people are talking about. It didn't blow people out of the water. It didn't set the world on fire with its box office. It doesn't have an amazing performance that people can't stop praising. As it's been said, Munich (And Gangs of New York for that matter) dissapointed far enough into the race that it was still on people's minds when the ballots were filled. By December, FOOF isn't exactly going to be going to have a lot of people rooting for it. The Academy is as popularity influenced as anyone, hence why Crash won when it became God's Gift to Cinema at voting time.

Crash had a very solid and leggy box office run. That doesn't mean academy looked at box office and then decided to vote for it, but rather box office is a reflection of excellent WOM from the viewing audience, which includes Oscar voters.

Also I'd argue Crash won under a very specific set of circumstance and had a lot to do with voting against Brokeback, but that's only my opinion.



No, I never said the drops dictate what academy members think, but rather they are a reflection of general WOM, of what academy may think of the film. I definitely don't agree that just because a lot of members read Variety and Hollywood Reporter, they will think like them. A lot of times they agree with the general public, like Crash last year (I remember a poll before the Oscar where showed the majority of the public would vote for Crash). There are a lot of films which were raved by top critics but were not embraced by the academy. The audience is currently abandoning FOOF, just as they did with Cinderella Man, so I think it's reasonable to assume a good percentage of voters may feel the same way (underwhelmed and unimpressed, or tired of boxing movies in the case of CM).



The studio said themselves that they never regarded The Departed as one of their top guns for Oscar, and admit last week that they have to shuffle and re-adjust due to the overwhelming public and critic responses.



In the Bedroom had better performance at the same stage of the release, and there was little reason for Little Children to perform worse, considering Todd Field is better known now and Kate is an indie darling. It can still be revived, but the box office number so far has certainly been disappointing. It had buzz out of Toronto, at least no less than Last King of Scotland, and it should have been enough for at least $30K PTA in NY/LA the first couple of weekends with the film buffs there.

BTW, if you have an OscarWatch account (And if you don't yet read this thread, you should get one), they put up polls for your predictions of the eight main catagories, plus Foreign Language. The only real big missing contender in any catagory is Nicholson in Supporting (He's in lead), but other than that they pretty much have every contender under the sun:

http://www.oscarwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=85

Several sources i.e. IMDB, Numbers, variety etc (except BOM) list Flags budget at $55M. Even BOM listed the $55M number and changed it last weekend.