Burning Questions: What Explains the Extremely Loud Nomination?
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 10:10AM Michael C. here to take a shot at one of the curious questions that came out of the Oscar nominations.
A little over a year ago I published a post in which I tried to determine just how bad could a film be and still make the big category. In an attempt to squeeze popular opinion into chart form I subjected the last decade of nominees to an extremely unscientific examination wherein I averaged their Metacritic rating with their Rotten Tomatoes rating to come up with a rough measurement of a film’s critical reception. You can read the full post here but one of the main conclusions I reached was that the Best Picture minimum was set right about the 60% mark. This was the average Blind Side and The Reader, the two worst reviewed nominees, had received. It was a result that jibed pretty well with intuition. It’s tough to think of a nominee that received a resoundingly negative reception.
But this then begs the question: How exactly did Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close manage a Best Picture nomination? I know critics don't get a vote but rarely, if ever, has the gap between the two been this glaring.
Extremely Loud’s reception was unambiguously negative. It scored a 46% on both Metacritic and the Tomatometer. (For perspective Mr. Popper’s Penguin scored a 48%) And this wasn’t a case of malcontent critics raging against a popular success. Its first weekend of wide release saw it finish 4th behind Mark Wahlberg’s Contraband and it actually declined the weekend following its surprise nomination slipping to 6th place. This was not a path to success paved with box office dollars.
The case could be made that this kind of nomination was inevitable with an expanded Best Picture line up. There is no doubt a lot of truth to that, but even so, this remains a pretty remarkable occurrence. Maybe you can help me out in the comments but I can’t think of a single example from the past few decades where a negatively reviewed film was nominated. Even those like Godfather III, whose reputations have since collapsed, received some acclaim at the time (it still sits at a fresh 68% on RT)
So what then? Oscar hasn’t had any trouble saying no to Hanks before. Is it the Important Subject Matter? That didn’t help Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center any. Is Stephen Daldry’s charmed Oscar history the result of some pact with the devil and/or Harvey Weinstein? I’m not dismissing the idea out of hand.
Here’s my theory: Extremely Loud’s reviews were so negative that it actually helped the movie. With so much else to write about in the year-end glut, and with the consensus apparently so definitive, there was no debate necessary. The critics just filed their negative reviews (“25th Hour as directed by Care Bears” Good one, Kurt) and then clapped their hands together, “That’s that”, and moved on to the pressing business of the day such as writing about the backlash against the backlash against The Artist.
Then in late December/ early January when a lot of voters finally got around to watching those screeners, and reached, weeping, for their ballots, there was no deafening bad buzz to dissuade them. Voting doesn’t take place in a cocoon. I’m betting a more intense debate about the film shortcomings would have driven down its vote tally, either because voters reevaluated their opinions, or because they assumed their vote would be wasted on a film that wasn’t going anywhere. Without that debate hundreds of critics Tuesday morning were left holding their negative reviews like Ratatouille’s Anton Ego wondering, “How could it be popular?”
Anyway, that’s my hunch. Maybe I’m overthinking this one and it’s as simple as more slots equals a lowered bar. Let me know what you think in the comments.
You can follow Michael C. on Twitter at @SeriousFilm or read his blog Serious Film.
Previous Burning Questions...
Reader Comments (51)
I don't know if it would be considered the worst reviewed film ever to receive an Oscar nomination, though. Even in a 5-wide field, films like Cleopatra, Dr. Doolittle, and The Alamo still snuck in. That being said, I think it was a combination of less attention on the film (you're right-a harsher lens on the movie would have kept the Best Pic count down to eight), and also it has all of the factors that usually equal an Academy movie (important subject, marquee stars, glowing turn from an old man, precocious child, redemption, you'll cry at some point)-all of that adds up. Tom Hanks himself has headlined something like 5 Best Picture nominees now-that's a lot of built-in love to respond to already.
I think your theory is part of it. Critics dismissed the film, so the negative buzz didn't spread as far as any positive buzz.
The other part is that some people really love this film. Like, "1000+ word love letters to the film" love the film. If you only need 5% of the number 1 votes to be nominated for Best Picture, all it would take is one in twenty Academy voters falling head over heels for the importance of the subject matter--not just 9/11 but the exploration of mental illness in a child (at the very least anxiety, if not on the autism spectrum)--and the style of the film.
Honestly, I'm surprised it didn't receive a handful of technical nominations to put the Best Picture nomination in focus. The sound mixing, sound editing, and score defined the entire film yet it broke through in none of those categories. So maybe enough actors appeared in the film that knew other actors to get the film nominated for Picture and Supporting Actor? The cast was gigantic.
You know, I really don't care. I haven't seen it, but if Max von Sydow that best picture nomination to get in the race, I'm in, and I don't even have to see the performance. Max von Sydow is such a great actor (way greater than Plummer, sorry) and since Best Supporting Actor is about Lifetime achievements, anyway, I want him to win.
I don't know: I just want to live in a world where Ingmar Bergman actors have a shot at winning Oscars. Can you believe that people like Liv Ullmann, for example, will never have an Oscar? She gave us at least ten devastating performances in her whole career, was nominated twice, but will never win. I know they are foreign and it's hard for them to win, so, that's why you have to vote for tehm when they are nominated.
Go, MvS!
I think the reason for the nomination is fairly simple. When I saw the movie, literally EVERYONE (except for me, as it so happens) seemed to be crying. If all it took was for 5 of the Academy to be just as moved, then the nomination shouldn't be surprising.
You know, let's say Isabelle Huppert, arguably the best working actress today, gets a nomination for an Ok performance in a Stephen Daldry movie against a fine but inferior actress in a very good performance - let's say, somebody like Bridget Fonda (Plummer has been a Fonda in his whole life, with some really awesome Jackie Browns on his way). Would you vote for Huppert of Fonda?
I am sorry, I know you have to vote for the best performance, but the moment I see Huppert in my ballot I'll remember of The Piano Teacher, all her Chabrol movies, etc, and I'll vote for her, no matter how great Fonda is in her role.
The Max von Sydow nomination has made me wonder what great foreign actors of today will get their first nomination for a grandparent role in an American film in 30 or 40 years time. I'm hoping for Maggie Cheung Best Supporting Actress 2040.
Oh god 2046 would be far more appropriate!
I think that what ELAIC was helped a lot by that critic from People magazine. Every commercial that I saw had "The Best Film of the Year" - People magazine splashed across the screen. I think that this gave the voters some cover. If People thought that it was the best movie of the year, then my opinion is justified.
To me, the reasoning that Cal Roth is expressing here is the problem with awards in general. We are supposed to put bias aside and vote for the BEST. I mean, in that regard Hunter McCracken should be winning Supporting Actor this year, but alas...
Is everyone aware that this is not Max Von Sydow's first Oscar nomination? He was nominated for Best Actor (in a foreign film, no less) in 1988 for Pelle the Conqueror. Everybody keeps talking about him like he was overdue for his first nomination. He is a solid character actor who has been doing great work for a long time, but this nomination was the epitome of Oscar whoring.
Old man + doesn't talk + emotional + helps little boy + 9/11 = Oscar nomination
The only reason he got the nomination is because James Coburn died in 2002. Otherwise, he'd have his second nomination. Was Albert Finney too busy to take the role? If you substitute any aging actor with any gravitas in this role, is it any different?
Like your post; just wanna point out a few things:
1. The Metascore is not a percentage measurement, but a weighted average of scores (akin to RT's Average Rating of the Top Critics, currently 5.9/10 for ELIC).
2. The average (or mean) doesn't tell the whole story of any statistic. It's very possible that ELIC is a highly divisive (maybe even polarizing) film. The average of a polarized distribution usually occurs in the middle of the possible spectrum (around 50%).
3. We all know that a film doesn't necessarily need majority love to get an nomination (though it definitely helps).
Ben -- i had trouble following your reasoning there (what does James Coburn have to do with it?) but now i think i get it. you're saying whoever is in the role gets nominated. mute performances can do that. I'm disappointed myself. If we're going to nominate Max Von Sydow again why on earth wasn't it for DIVING BELL AND BUTTERFLY in which he was eextroardinary and not this one in which he was OK.
Cal -- i can't back this! This is why people always win for the wrong performances. You're supposed to vote on THAT year.
SVG -- 2046. Hee.
Michael C -- I think you've hit on the exact reason. Negative consensus buried in the glut and the sense of immediate dismissal. Immediate dismissals are easy to dismiss in a way which is probably what voters did subconsciously. If you ask me the film was not fairly reviewed AT ALL. Hated before it arrived. I don't think it's a great film by any means but my god you'd think it was a snuff film for how despicable people make it out to be.
@Nathaniel: Tom Hanks and Max von Sydow in a snuff film? I might actually go see that.
As much as I think we should be voting for the best, I have to admit, in cal's situation, I'd vote for Huppert.
I definitely don't think that "more slots equals lower bar." The bar wasn't higher with five slots, but some films are just "oscar films" while other, higher quality films just don't make the cut. Also, it just might depend on the year. I don't think any of the films that were probably 6-10 last year were much worse than what might have been 1-5.
Ric: Yes, but I don't necessarily think time is going to be kind to this film unlike, for example, It's a Wonderful Life, even reading the reviews. Also: WHY did Daldry choose to adapt this book? Time hasn't exactly been kind to the book either. Daldry is at his heart a PRESTIGE director so, if he can't produce great films consistently, can he at least choose to work from a great 9/11 book, like Falling Man, as his baseline?
Scott Rudin is the reason 'Extremely Loud' got nominated. I don't see any other explanation.
Volvagia: quite likely. I think time is only kind to those films that will be referenced, borrowed, remade, adapted... Having not seen ELIC (I'll wait for DVD), I can't say whether that would happen.
A co-worker saw this the wknd and has been raving about it.
If you love it, you LOVE it. You ball your eyes out. And enough of that passion - released as ballots are in hand - got it the nomination. A questionable release strategy turned out to be a brilliant one.
"If you ask me the film was not fairly reviewed AT ALL. Hated before it arrived. I don't think it's a great film by any means but my god you'd think it was a snuff film for how despicable people make it out to be."
ABSOLUTELY, Nathaniel! I think you hit it right on the head here. I think this film's metascore and tomatometer ratings are incredibly skewed since the negative reviews were almost ridiculously harsh. Those who disliked the film HATED it, and there were precious few who genuinely loved it. Everyone I know who has seen it (while admittedly a small number) has been raving about it. Obviously, enough Academy members loved it at #1 levels (and the late release date probably helped in this way, as the heart-tuggers cause more immediate love) to put it in the race.
NATHANIEL R: Agree with your point. I think critics are not necessarily more objective than academy members. To me, the biggest difference b/w the two groups is the number of films they see. I guess when a person sees a lot of films, his/her preference would lean towards originality and away from efforts that provide serviceable entertainment but offer nothing new.
I agree with Nathaniel.
This film is the most inappropriately and spitefully reviewed film in a while.
What annoys me is some of the same critics that gave this a below 40 score on Metacritic gave f'ing War Horse over 90 when that film is much more manipulative, objectively so, the main criticism against ELAIC.
If it was a snuff film, it would have more Internet support. Horror bloggers are loud by nature and their fans pick fights on non-horror sites to win converts.
There are reviews for this film that make me question if I saw the right film last week or not. I had problems with the non-9/11 content and thought the flashbacks to the actual attack were beautifully handled, heartfelt, and honest. If you read the most scathing reviews, the film is automatically exploitation because it deals with 9/11.
I'd have to agree with several previous posters. A lot of hate is out there for Extremely Loud, but those who love it really do so fervently. Personally, I'd rather have a film nominated for best picture that people are passionate about and is divisive, rather than your Frost/Nixon's any day of the week.
Nathaniel, come on, we're not talking about our personal awards (I love yours, I'm not dissing them). We're talking about something that may change an actor's life. If you have an Oscar ballot, voting is also a political act.
Now imagine the same situation I wrote before, but change the names. Imagine Julianne Moore gives a The Hours-level performance and is nominated against Hilary Swank knocking out the park in a Lars von Trier movie, reaching that Boys Don't Cry level of excellence.
You may give Swank a gold medal, but you can't say to me me with a straight face that you'd give her a third Oscar and wouldn't vote for Moore. Say it. Say it. You can't.
I know you're right and you can't back this, but I am human and understand the Academy members are human too. And sometimes you just can't be THAT objective.
Agreed, Robert. I didn't mind the 9/11 references like some critics seemed to. Ultimately, I think you either open yourself up to the film (at which point you may or may not like it) or you close yourself off to it, calling it exploitative and hate it no matter what. I think a lot of the latter case happened with EL&IC.
Looking at the 9/11 films that come to mind, World Trade Center came across as exploitative so people hated it. United 93 didn't, so people loved it. It seems like folks were split on this one and thus, you get the split in love/hate for it.
What'll be interesting is to watch the transition from an America that is incredibly sensitive to the topic to one that treats 9/11 like any other emotional event like the Holocaust that is seen regularly in films because it's lost its ability to be personally affecting to film-goers. I don't think that day is too far away.
Cal -- why you wanna hurt me by making me picture the Swankster getting a plum role in a Von Trier movie?
Brian Z - Agree 100% about prefering polarizing nominations over vanilla safe choices. Absolutely.
Dean and Robert G: You don't quite get it. It's not that it's dealing with 9/11, it's that it's dealing with it in a really nasty and untasteful way when you think about it. Reign Over Me, released FOUR YEARS AGO, for nearest possible comparison, gave the event a measure of RESPECT, giving a pretty good portraiture of a shattered man. Probably one of Sandler's top 5 performances. ELAIC, on the other hand, turn's it into, based on the reviews I've read, an excuse for a standard "Kid's Quest" story with New York as backdrop. Oh, and Dean: War Horse is getting it's high reviews for two reasons: 1. It's a Spielberg, not a Daldry (Daldry's previous films are Billy Elliot, The Hours and The Reader for comparison), so undue audience manipulation is expected and in some cases probably even relished going in to War Horse but not expected or relished before going into ELAIC and 2. Are there ANY WWI veterans even ALIVE at this point? There were certainly a few (Veterans are a very hardy breed) at the time of the novel's original release (1982), but now (93 years after the war ended) they're most likely all gone. Also, Robert: That ending point only back's up my point that, unless this was some sick two birds with one stone deal and he wanted to do both a film with a child lead and a film about 9/11, Daldry should have tackled Don DeLillo's Falling Man instead.
Is it possible that there is a more business angle behind this? Scott Rudin employs a lot of people in Hollywood. It's Paramount. It's Warner Bros. If you work with Rudin (or even worked on this film) or at Paramount or WB or want to work with Rudin or at Paramount or WB, and you kinda liked the movie, maybe you would be more inclined to put it at number 1 on your ballot? Just wondering as, like all of you, I am totally baffled as to how this slipped in.
I agree with Robert-I saw the film this past weekend, and did not see what the critics were talking about in regards to the 9/11 scenes-they were easily the most powerful, and I saw nothing but respect for the subject. The "reconaissance" scenes in the remainder of the film were far too in love with themselves, and I didn't particularly care for the remainder of the movie, but I think the objections regarding the film's depiction of 9/11 were decided prior to actually seeing the movie, and not based at all on Daldry's film. And Volvagia, most historical tragedies tend to have a very short period between when they are depicted onscreen and the actual events (obviously not the case with War Horse, but films like The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now were a far shorter span after Vietnam ended than even ELAIC).
And I will also point out that I didn't consider this in the realm of being a "Best" Picture of the year-easily the least of Daldry's filmography.
Volvagia- Don't say I don't get it when I've seen the film and you haven't. Thanks. It isn't "nasty" or "untasteful"
War Horse isn't either by the way, it just dictates to the audience every beat and emotion they should feel where as ELAIC gives the audience a specific (granted, fictional) story and characters to care about and let the audience develop an emotional response. That's why it can be very powerful if you allow for it to be.
Also just making the point that less than 10% of the film time actually deals with events of 9/11. The plot could really be about the father's death by any other means and still be the same functional story, just without some of the 9/11 implications.
A lot of the voters mush have cried while watching this film. They don’t just vote for the best made film, but they think the nominees should represent something, like important subject matter.
What baffles is a lot of critics call it “manipulative.” Gee The Help and War Horse are manipulative for me.
I agree with Robert G’s comment. This film is actually technically well made. The sound especially and Desplat’s score.
Well I really liked this film and there are many who just jump on the hating bandwagon before they even see it.
I wonder if say another director like Martin Scorsese made this film, would this film get the same hated responses? And if Daldry made Hugo in 3D, would they applaud him for the 3D use or would they call it unnecessary gimmick?
Its also very much in the kool-kidz wheelhouse to hate on Daldry, which has been growing since they couldn't get past the high brow literary bent of The Hours (and possibly the fact that the story was infused with female and gay sensibilities and views). I think it killed a certain section of the critical community hated that they didn't do enough to destroy The Reader (a film which was well below the brilliance of Billy Elliot and The Hours but still thoughtful and interesting) and the knives have thus been out for Incredibly Loud for months. Not to mention that Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock are also stars with targets on their back and its easy to see where the backlash would have come from
I haven't seen the movie, but I also feel this will to hate Daldry in some critics. Like The Reader was really trashed, but it was a fine movie with a stellar and very difficult leading performance. But I don't think they want to hate Daldry because of the female and gay sensibility of the hours; I think they really can't get over the fact that The Dark Knight was not nominated for best picture and director, and now Daldry must pay.
Ian -- yes, i remember one review of The Hours at one of the "hipper" (gag) film sites that actually apologized for placing it in the top ten of the year. 'I realize it's not cool to love The Hours' and then i suddenly realized that some people thought the movie was uncool. HAHA. It hadn't occurred to me but then I respond well to female driven films and many many critics don't, needing more masculine energies to give the film any degree of the credit it deserves.
Mikhael --the short answer is yes. I think it's fairly obvious (and i don't mean this about Hugo exactly) that Scorsese and Spielberg and directors of that stature are given a LOT of rope every time they make a movie. People go in ready to love it. Sometimes they don't, sure, but the inclination is one of respect.
With Daldry I mean, I feel weird defending it because honestly I don't really care about Extremely Loud very much. I thought it was a decent movie but noting i'm curious to see again or that i loved or hated but the reviews have been... alarming... like Daldry killed people's dogs or something. And Volvagia's comments -- no offense -- illustrated the problem perfectly. He hasn't seen the movie but is sure its nasty and tasteless.
i worry that a lot of critics felt that before they saw it... though i was recently chastised in an email thread for doubting other people's motivations so perhaps i should shut up.
After all, I do hate it when people assume i never give Eastwood movies a chance. I try to watch them with an open mind. I REALLY REALLY do. But i just don't think he's a very good director. I see sloppiness and a lack of creative imagination and unearned drama almost every time.
One thing I've never been comfortable with regarding movies adapted from other works of literature--
How much is Daldry to blame for the "It turns 9/11 into a kid's quest" complaint and how much of the blame should go to Jonathan Safran Foer? People act like Daldry crafted this storyline to win Oscars by emotions. I know he chose to make this particular book into a film, but does that make him guilty?
Haven't seen Extremely Loud yet and won't go in with high hopes, but I'd be surprised if I dislike it nearly as much as War Horse. The most irritating thing about the BP nomination for Extremely Loud is that it attracts most of the vitriol which should really be aimed towards War Horse. And it's not like either of them ruined and otherwise perfect BP lineup - except for The Artist (good consensus choice), The Tree of Life (intermittently great) and Moneyball (as good as it probably could have been, given the frankly boring subject matter), this year's nominees, critically acclaimed or not, are a much sorrier bunch than last year's.
Max von Sydow & Christopher Plummer are both fantastic and overlooked actors to date. Those trying to put von Sydow on a pedestal by degrading Plummer are really annoying.
Hello Bruno, can't have an opinion different than yours? Can't I think von Sydow is a better actor and had a better resume? Thinking this way makes me annoying because... you don't agree with me? Come on.
oh oscar season. Everything becomes so polarized!
I'll settle the difference: they both have great resumes and earned reputations. Truly. Two very important actors in cinema.
Volvagia - have you at least read the book? The book is not exploitative at all, I thought, although it was manipulative. However, that manipulation was extremely well-done; I cried numerous times while reading the book. The book was really about a young boy dealing with his father's death, NOT about 9/11 - that's just the inciting incident, and it's used very well as such. I thought the film was pretty faithful to that.
Volvagia, I think it's quite short sighted to criticize people who have seen the film when you haven't. There is nothing distasteful about Daldry's handling of the 9/11 material. Whether or not the novel upset you is not the point. The film is not the novel. You can't judge the film without seeing it. I'm sorry your personal choice of 9/11 narrative was not adapted to film by Daldry, but I doubt you'd have anything kind to say about anything Daldry has done.
I'm with Nathaniel, by the way. I don't feel particularly strong overall about the film either way. I'm waiting for a site I write for to publish my review, but on my own scale the film is firmly a 5/10: not bad, not good, just there. On that site, it's getting a 2/4, which means wait for the DVD if you think you'd be interested. And if it didn't have the three or four 9/11 scenes that are quite powerful, emotional, and honest feeling, I'd probably rate it lower. I'm not offended by its inclusion on the Best Picture list though I'd rather have seen Martha Marcy May Marlene, Pina, or even Rango snag a surprise Best Picture nominee over it.
Nathaniel - I didn't need to read past your response re: Sydow and Diving Bell to ask if you'd be mine forever. Dammit you have a boyfriend and live an ocean away dammit
I know the conversation has evolved into something different, but I wanted to add my 2 cents on the original topic.
I agree with those that have basically said you're reading too much into the nomination. A tomato-rating near 50 can still easily be nominated if the supporters are passionate enough, especially when you can have up to 10 nominees. The amount of hate for a film isn't taken into account in the nomination process.
Amir UK -- i'm willing to travel.
buttface -- very true. You can't vote AGAINST a movie. you can only vote for it. This isn't the best Original Song race ;)
@cal roth: Comparing Plummer to Bridget Fonda. Really? Surely I'm not the only one that finds that rather superfluous and annoying.
It's cause people love this movie. I've actually heard people in class talk about it, loving it, and crying along with EVERYBODY in the theater. People need to get over their snobbish behavior and wake-up. There are people out there that consider this a GREAT movie!
ps.I dont now one normal person that even pays any attention whatsoever.I dont even think most people I know know what the concensus is on movies, every commercial throw that 4star shit out like it was the most overpraised thing.
I saw the film at the DGA in LA - there was a thunderous applause as the credits rolled & there was a sense that it was loved in the room. Just by that experience alone I was not shocked it was nominated. While the critics have their opinion of the film, it feels adored by everyone I talk to in Los Angeles.
Poppy - Don't misunderstand. I am not surprised that the critics and the voters disagreed. That happens every year. I'm surprised the gap between the two is this wide. That almost never happens. Critics and Academy members aren't separate species. They are both movie savvy individuals who see more than most. By and large, they tend to get on the same page. This time it was like they saw two different movies.