Dark Oscar cloud over 'Brokeback' after DGA win?
Now that Ang Lee has won the Directors Guild of America award, it looks like he'll nab his elusive Oscar at long last since more than 80% of guild winners go on to claim academy gold next. The one wild card is the unusual awards calendar this year. In the past there were usually just two weeks or so between DGA and Oscars, so it was easy to see how both industry honors tracked the same trend in industry views about the best film work of the year. Now, however, there's a vast gap of nearly a month and a half, which is plenty of time for bored Oscar voters to change their minds, which they often do. But not in the directors' race. Back in the 1950s and 1960s there used to be a similar huge time gap between the two kudos and the DGA winners usually won the Oscar for best director too.
However, "Brokeback" producers beware: in those years there were frequent splits at the DGA and Oscars between the films winning best director and picture. Statistically speaking, "Brokeback's" odds are still good that it will win best pic, but the ominous splits are worth noting — for example, George Stevens winning both DGA and the director's Oscar for "A Place in the Sun" while the best picture Academy Award went to "An American in Paris"; John Ford winning director kudos for "The Quiet Man" while the best picture Oscar was awarded to "The Greatest Show on Earth"; George Stevens earning both director awards for "Giant" while the top Oscar went to "Around the World in 80 Days"; Mike Nichols nabbing both director trophies for "The Graduate" while "In the Heat of the Night" won best picture at the Academy Awards.
I'll give you an example of what you can be writing about: BBM not getting a film editing nod after Ang Lee wins the DGA. Don't editing and directing catgeories usually mirror each other pretty well? More than a few Oscar watchers might be interested in down-ballot categories.
Posted by: dude | January 31, 2006 at 06:19 AM
For God´s sake! It is time to award Ang Lee and his marvelous film, a really great FILM.Brokeback Mountain is not another film to be awarded and forgotten. It will remain in our memory for a long, long time. It is not a 2005 film, it it THE MOVIE!
Posted by: Calirai Hayek | January 31, 2006 at 05:14 AM
To answer the tie question...never a tie for Best Picture...but...
Only one real tie (where the accountants said an exact number of top votes for both winners) best actress of 1968...Katharine Hepburn in THE LION IN WINTER and Barbra Streisand in FUNNY GIRL. Another tie happened in 1932 for best actor between Wallace Beery in THE CHAMP and Fredric March in DR. JEKYL AND MR. HYDE (March actually had one vote more and was awarded, then somebody noticed Beery was only one vote behind and way back in the early days when it was very informal, they were both given awards according to the rules at the time if votes came with in a couple of each other a tie would happen.
Posted by: JayDF | January 31, 2006 at 12:36 AM
I have a question..... Has there ever been a tie in Oscar's history? For example, Crash and Brokeback deal with the smae issues (prejudice, etc.). Is there a chance the Academy could award both Brokeback and Crash as the Best Picture. It sure would send out a political statement! Have 2 movies ever tied in the voting or 2 actors ever tied???? Just curious....
Posted by: Kathen | January 30, 2006 at 11:11 PM
This is getting really tiring.
So, if Brokeback Mountain wins Golden Globes, and the PGA and the DGA is not really good, cause too many wins mean that the Oscar voters will get bored and they will decide to chose another movie.
If Borkeback does not win awards, like the SGA, is again bad, cause in this case it means that BBM has started to lose and this forecasts the big lose at the Oscars.
Can you please make up your mind?
I don''t know, but for all you say that you don't have anyhting against BBM, it seems that you does, and you really want to find arguments against the idea of BBM winning the oscar.
If all the critics and the specialists start forecasting the doom of BBM, then, yes, maybe the members of the Academy will pay attention to you, and will ignore BBM.
So, please, stop with this campaign against BBM's win. Be optimistic man!
Posted by: cristix | January 30, 2006 at 11:03 PM
Tom, I take exception to the tone of your posts in this thread. You don't own this site. You're working for LA Times, which I subscribe to. When you invite people to comment, you should expect disagreement. It is highly unprofessional of you to get pertulent and tell people who disagree with you to go else where. I expect much better out of LA Times. Don't forget why LA Times would sponsor a site like this. They want traffic to the site and hopefully, increasing circulation. You're defeating its purpose. As the old saying goes: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Yes, it's your job to analyze trend, but you haven't done a very good job of analyzing it. So far, you've been proven wrong in many of the possibilities you strongly suggested would happen at both GG and DGA. Now you come with a sensational headline after BBM's DGA WIN with the only possibility hanging by a thread: the gap between the nominations and the Oscar night due to the Olympics. Yet, so far, you haven't come up with ONE example in previous years when the Olympics made a frontrunner before the Game stumble at the Oscar night. Actually, the evidence suggests the opposite. Most frontrunners before the Olympics in previous years went on to win at Oscar night.
BBM is the only one among likely nominees that is likely to generate any news coverage during the Olympics due to its continous boxoffice success (all other contenders are fading or out of theaters already), its cultral phenomenon status and possible more controversy. What makes you think that the Academy members would change their opinion during the Olympics? How do you know they wouldn't send in their ballots early so they could enjoy the Olympics like everyone else? BTW, most common comment about BBM is that how it haunts people long after they saw it. If the Academy members don't send in their ballots early, after the Olympics, when they turn their mind back to it, which film do you think will they remember the most? I'll bet it's BBM because it is one film that really stays with people.
Posted by: JCK | January 30, 2006 at 10:22 PM
I like the fact that Tom can't handle the heat. He proposes something off the wall, but when he is called on it, he has to lump his detractors into one group and dismiss them all by implying they are not intellectual or serious enough to keep up with his "serious" awards journalism. Ho-hum.
Posted by: peteinportland | January 30, 2006 at 10:22 PM
Winning the DGA is no dark cloud over "Brokeback." A "serious awards guru" should look for suspense in races where there is suspense. Dig a little deeper into other categories now that everybody votes on all the awards. Rehashing the same ol' same ol' must be getting as tired for you as it is for others. Your stock would rise if you would use your contacts to find out stuff folks outside Tinseltown don't already know.
Posted by: dude | January 30, 2006 at 08:19 PM
Sorry I posted this earlier in the wrong place, so here we go.
For those of you people out there who worried sick whether BBM can still win Oscar best movie since SAG gave best ensemble cast to Crash, I say don't worry, be happy. SAG happens to have this weird tradition or should I say track record of disagreeing with Oscar on best picture every other two years. Whoa, how odd but it's true, see it for your self:
1996: English Patient (SAG: Birdcage) X
1997: Titanic (SAG: The full Monty) X
1998: Shakespeare in love (SAG: Shakespeare in love) V
1999: American beauty (SAG: American Beauty) V
2000: Gladiator (SAG: Traffic) X
2001: A beautiful mind (SAG: Gosford park) X
2002: Chicago (SAG: Chicago) V
2003: LOTR return of the king (SAG: LOTR) V
2004: Million $ baby (SAG: Sideway) X
2005: Brokeback Mountain (SAG: Crash) .......X ?? your call
But be realistic, BBM tops the MCN top critics vote chart and won GG/PG/DG, and many film critics awards. Especially DG is a real good indicator. I know some of you would like to remind everyone of what happened back in 2000 when Ang Lee won DG but lost in Oscar for both best pictuer & director. But there is fundamental difference between Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and BBM. The Oscar voters are more likely to be able to connect and relate to BBM this time than a great but foreign language film back then (I don't recall a foreign language film ever win Oscar best picture). Ang Lee lost best director in 2000 because sentiment was with Soderburg who happened to have double director nominations that year.
Crash never attracted any attention when it was in the theatre and now suddenly it supposed to be the best picture on this beautiful planet. I think voters in SAG voted on sentiment in their own awards but go for the real front runner in Oscar race because people tend to want to vote for the likely winner, and hopefully also the best.
May the best film win!
Posted by: peopleaginstmimic | January 30, 2006 at 02:12 PM
Soooo, if "Brokeback Mountain" had lost the DGA I think you'd be saying the same thing, excpt your case would be much, much stronger. So, we have to go back to the 1960s to find a comparable example??? Come on! Sorry, I'm not a rabid fan of "Brokeback"...but this will be a typical, boring Oscar year.
Posted by: Kevin | January 30, 2006 at 11:56 AM
Here's another statistic to chew on specific to Tom's '50s and '60s anomalies.
All four of those "anomaly best pictures" had won the Golden Globe for best picture. In fact, 'The Graduate' and 'A Place in the Sun' also won the Golden Globe for best picture (in the other category). So, there was no concensus.
So if you count Golden Globes as a decent precursor, then the 50s and 60s anomalies are not the same thing. And if you also factor in the PGA (my earlier comment), 'Brokeback Mountain' seems to be a statistical lock. If it loses the Best Picture award, it would be quite an upset indeed.
Posted by: Walkerp | January 30, 2006 at 11:31 AM
Another thing that may be hurting BM's chances for Best Pic. is Universial Picture's lack of or divided marketing and campaigning for both BM and Munich. Unlike other major studios who have one film to campaign to for (Lion's Gate - Crash, Sony Pictures - Capote, Warner Brothers - GN& GL) Universial has two films that they are campaigning for the Oscars.
I just read that Lion's Gate sent each a Crash DVD to all SAG members for their consideration. Because Lion's Gate only has one feature film to promote, they have the ability to only focus on Crash. That is what may be Universial's problem, it's the lack of Focus to promote BM for the Oscars.
Posted by: Catesa | January 30, 2006 at 11:10 AM
Here's a statistic to chew on:
When the Golden Globe, DGA, and PGA have all agreed (since the PGA started in 1989), there was a 100% prediction rate for Oscar Best Picture (8 out of 8).
Posted by: Walkerp | January 30, 2006 at 10:40 AM
Tom, I going to have to agree with you...to a point.
Admittedly, I am a huge BM fan. But I do feel that there is a sudden burst of (I don't know why) backlash towards BM. After watching the SAGs last night, I've come to the conclusion that perhaps the acting community has some resentments towards BM which I don't get or understand. I have watched Crash and BM and I could easily see them facing off for Best Pic.
The fact that there is a long time between the nominations and the actual award show, actually hurts BM chances. But with the PGA and DGA wins for BM...and hopefully with WGA as well, don't you think that merits an undeniable win for Best Pic for BM? And Tom, what is the actual percentage that the acting (SAG) community represents in the Academy?
Posted by: Catesa | January 30, 2006 at 09:40 AM
Tom is probably right in his analysis.
Ang Lee will win the Best Director Oscar. It deserves Best Picture, but how often does the most deserving picture win? 50% at best, and that's generous. I think it will lose Best Picture. I don't even know to whom--Crash, I suppose, or GN&GL, both good films, but not deserving of a BP win. But it will probably happen. Call me Cassandra. Or Tom.
Posted by: Logan69 | January 30, 2006 at 09:12 AM
Maybe it only appears that voters change their minds over time. Consider two points:
1) the progression towards the Oscar awards always moves forwards. In other words, if a guild member votes for a movie/actor, they will continue to do so. So any change from guild to Oscar would happen because the AMPAS members finally get in the game and vote for the first time. If in the rare event that an individual does change their mind, it's for legitimate purposes (e.g. watching the movie again), not -- for goodness sake -- because they're bored!
2) the races are always a lot tighter than anyone thinks. It that's true, it might be easy to see how the end results might differ and thus give the appearance of evolving. Shakespeare in Love/Saving Private Ryan might be a good example here. So maybe the race this year is close. Just because Brokeback Mountain has won most of the guilds doesn't mean that it wasn't close each time.
Does anyone get the tally of the votes at the end for the Oscars and the guilds? Or, perhaps someone could do a survey of the people that are members of a guild and the Academy and see if they change their vote.
Posted by: scottp | January 30, 2006 at 08:12 AM
It doesn't matter what film is out front, it's my job to consider all possibilities ahead, then draw a conclusion. My conclusion is that Brokeback's odds are good to go all the way at the Oscars, but simply because I point out the obstacles it poses at every turn in the derby track, BM fans can't take it and start wigging out.
This is an awards website. We analyse awards, their voting patterns, their histories, their possible futures. There is a question mark in the title of this article. It's not a statement. It's a question important to ask, that's all -- especially if you're a BM fan. If you can't handle it, you don't belong here.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | January 30, 2006 at 07:32 AM
Lets face it, the race is over before its even begun. Brokeback Mountain is the best picture of the year and nothing else even comes close. They should announce the nominations in the AM and give em out the same day. Whats unfortunate is that by March 5 the general public will make it the lowest rated Oscar show ever. Anyone in their right mind can tell that "GN&GL" has no chance at anything. To compare the 2 movies is like comparing "Doctor Zhivago" with an episode of The Twilight Zone. "Crash" was excellent but over BM?
BM has EVERYTHING going for it: great story, superb acting, beautiful photography, and haunting music. It can't lose.
Posted by: Ricky0101 | January 30, 2006 at 06:59 AM
Tom, It seems are you always trying to convince us no end that in one way or the other the buzz up that Brokeback Mountain will fizzle by March 5th.
Pre - DGA, you were so convinced Ang Lee will not get another DGA over former TV people, Haggis and Clooney. When that did not happen, you are now saying, nothstanding the win by Lee, his film could still lose by the beginnig of March.
First of all, this Oscar race is actually not that much longer than last year's, the only change has been the usual flurry of Pre Oscar awards are alsmost complete- - before the Noms come out. Yes, the Winter Olympics is huge but it is only the Winter Olympics for God's sake. In the Month of Feb (28days) there are the WGAs on the 4th and then Bafta sometime mid month and then its down the homestretch for all
Finally, the big win from this weekend is Ang's DGA. Yes BBM did not win ensemble at SAG but that was never really anticpated. As far as I see it, Crash will get a deservedly best pic nomination, etc and win perhaps for Original Screenplay.
Posted by: Rex | January 30, 2006 at 02:59 AM
Neither Crash nor Walk the Line is Shakespeare in Love. Even if Crash won the WGA (which it well could, but Brokeback should as well, if it holds off Capote), it still missed the Globe win that SIL had. Heck, it wasn't even nominated for picture. But, more importantly, it only made 53 million at the box office. It will be lucky to remain in the top fifty for 2005 (it's about to be passed by Brokeback Mountain). It just didn't make enough money to be a serious picture contender. Walk the Line, which did make the money, has weak Guilds support (so weak a lot of people still don't believe it even will be nominated for picture).
Posted by: CJ | January 30, 2006 at 02:19 AM
It has nothing to do with liking Brokeback or not, it's objective fact. It's won the BFCA, it's won the Globe, it's won the PGA, it's won the DGA, it's going to be the second most successful nominated film at the box office after Walk the Line. Crash has won ensemble at SAG and nothing else. It's made only 53 million, too small for an Oscar winner, BBM will have made about 80 million by the Oscars. GNAGL is totally out by now, having lost again and again and again. It probably can't beat Crash for screenplay (though Crash will be weaker among AMPAS members than SAG members, probably). Walk the Line (excepting Reese) won only at the Globes, where it had no real competition.
So now Tom is talking about George Stevens? This is laughable. The truth is, we have another super dull Oscars on our hands, with BBM locked for picture, director and a. screenplay Hoffman locked for actor, Reese for actress and Weisz for supporting actress. The only suspense left now in the major categories is supporting actor and o. screenplay. Tom could shut down this site for a month and it wouldn't make any difference. It's not just the Jake and Heath fangurls and boys who see this as a done deal. However, I guess we keep coming to the site to see what outrageous scenario Tom will come up with next, so he gets the last laugh, I suppose.
Posted by: CJ | January 30, 2006 at 02:09 AM
Well the huge gap in the awards season timeline theory is interesting and we all know sometimes the Academy doesn't always go with what won all the previous awards of the season (see SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE) ...but I still say BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN will go on to win both picture and director at the oscars...the odds are still way in it's favor I say.
Posted by: JayDF | January 30, 2006 at 01:18 AM
And to avoid confusion, I mean that in the sense of film quality. It obviously wouldn't have a chance to win back in the 80s or before due to the topic. Now I really am outta here!
Posted by: stevie b | January 30, 2006 at 01:09 AM
I'll chime back in to say again that if anyone's thinking I'm some kind of Brokeback Mountain fanboy then you are off your rocker. I just think it was the overall best made movie this year, in a year that sucks for movies compared to other years. Last year sucked for movies too. But going back before then, I don't think it'd have a chance to win at least all the way back to 1980, except for 1996.
And a lot of you people seem to have some major issues you need to work through! I'm outta here.
Posted by: stevie b | January 30, 2006 at 12:29 AM
Like you, Mr. O'Neil, I find this kind of award analysis really really interesting. Keep up the good work. "Brokeback" fans are just freaking out and wailing on you tonight because their baby got shut out at SAG, the gayest and largest guild in showbiz. Obviously their movie is in trouble now and the Oscars are still a long ways off. If these people were genuinely interested in trying to predict how awards might go, they would be open to discussion of everything that might happen next. But they are not at all. They are fans of one movie. They have an agenda.Let them keep crying like babies, but they should go cry somewhere else. They do not belong at this interesting website. BUZZ OFF BROKEBACK FANS. STAY PUT AWARDS FANS
Posted by: Brandon | January 29, 2006 at 11:46 PM