Newish Home Viewing: The Lady in the Van, The Oscar in the Franchises.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 8:30AM 
Here's what's new recently for your eyeballs.
Newish to DVD/BluRay
• Fifty Shades of Black. Marlon Wayans sends up the Grey S&M movie.
• The Force Awakens. Not available for rental yet but when it is we shall rewatch
• The Forest. In which Natalie Dormer enters Japan's Suicide Forest to confront true terror: the reviews of Gus Van Sant's 'Sea of Trees' which is also set there.
• Ip Man 3. For your completists. I haven't seen any of these since I figured The Grandmaster covered it for me. You?
• The Lady in the Van. In which Maggie Smith gets grittier and descends the economic ladder for once. Maintain high society snobbier via her delusions of
• Norm of the North. Animated. Though probably nothing we need worry about over here.
• The Revenant. That which did rob George Miller of his rightful Best Director Oscar in February.
new to streaming
• AJIN (S1) on Netflix. An anime sci-fi series about a teenager who realizes he is not human. Cue: suspenseful music, giant expressive eyes.
• Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt (S2) on Netflix. I haven't started yet due to travels. Can't wait to see my Jane Krakowski again. Tell me NOTHING.
• Mad Max on Amazon Prime. The original. Roughly 20 years before everyone realized Mel Gibson was also Mad.
• Kong, King of the Apes (S1) on Netflix. This is a kids sci-fi series about Kong battling robot dinosaurs or some such. Has Netflix been doing kids series for awhile and we're just now noticing?
• Tangerines on Amazon Prime. Not the awesome LA trans hooker comedy but the Estonian Oscar nominated drama.
A BURNING QUESTION: WHAT'S WITH OSCAR'S FRANCHISE FICKLENESS?
All the Bourne films (2002-2012 - 4 films thus far) and all the X-Men films (2000-2014 - five films thus far) have been reissued on DVD & BluRay for the obvious reason: new theatrical outing about to happen. This prompted head spinning when randomly thinking about their Oscar histories. Weirdly both series have been popular from the start with audiences but have just one film within them that Oscar responded to: The Bourne Ultimatum (2007, 3 Oscar noms/wins) and X-Men Days of Future Past (2012, 1 Oscar nomination).
Rehearsing a fight scene for Bourne Ultimatum. Photograph by Greg Williams
Isn't it fascinating how non-patterned Oscar is with franchises as a general rule? Sometimes they're not into them at all and then all of a sudden they are (those franchises and James Bond of course). Other times it's steady if halfhearted interest (superhero films in particular categories). Often it seems vaguely disconnected to the particulars of individual films. Consider this: Batman Forever is easily the Academy's second most all time favorite Batman film? WTF. They've also been weirdly sporadic in Harry Potter love ignoring one of the best entries (Order of the Phoenix) that actually worked hard for an Art Direction nomination while rewarding the film that took place mostly in a tent (Deathly Hallows Part 1).
On the broad surface of things you'd think that Oscar voters, many of whom are ordinary working people who just happen to be in showbiz (like Emmy voters) would treat franchises the way that Emmy treats TV... which is all franchises. Not that we recommend this! With Emmy if they don't notice you at beginning they almost never do -- and they're loyal to the point of stupidity if they like you at all! Oscar doesn't really equate with that at all in ongoing narratives. What do you make of that? I ask because I'm not sure. I don't have all the answers!!! Is it just happenstance involving the every shifting competition in each calendar year at the movies?
Reader Comments (14)
This is sort of what I wrote about with the HUNGER GAMES franchise last year, and how odd it was that it never got a single nominations despite being by far one of the most (if not the most) acclaimed franchises of the era. It and the Fast and the Furious movies are the only major franchises I can think of that haven't got a single nomination anywhere. I'm sure even DC will get something for Affleck's standalone BATMAN or maybe even SUICIDE SQUAD.
I think Oscar is hesitant to be populist. Last year, they went for only one big box office hit with the Martian, while (almost) completely ignoring Creed. I feel like the Academy has some pride issues and they have turned to a point where independent films and smaller, overlooked pictures deserve the limelight instead of the movies that earned big bucks.
If you look at the box office for their 8 nominees for Best Picture last year (at the time of nominations), you have one behemoth (The Martian), three solid showings (Mad Max, Bridge of Spies, Spotlight), two mini-grosses (Brooklyn, Room) and two that had barely come out (The Big Short, The Revenant). All the precursors had pointed to The Martian as the crowd-pleaser that made all the money, so that put Creed and The Force Awakens out in the cold.
Personal aside: I would have been perfectly happy with The Force Awakens or Creed (especially the latter) getting a BP nod over The Revenant
This may sound a bit nitpicking, but can you stop saying that Deathly Hallows Part 1 is set mostly in a tent?
Ever since that film got its Best Art Direction Oscar nomination you’ve been saying that, as if the only new set was that tent, when that is clearly untrue. For that film Stuart Craig created the Malfoy Manor, the Weasley’s wedding tent (yes another tent!), several new parts of the Ministry of Magic (including Umbridge’s geniusly designed office), the infamous tent, Godric’s Hollow, which includes the Potter’s ruined house and Bathilda Bagshot’s creepy abode, the Lovegood’s weird rook like house, and the Shell Cottage exterior. And those are just the ones I can remember, and there may have been other small sets.
I’m sorry if I’m being obnoxious but that joke or accusation has been vexing me since 2010. And it’s not that I like the film and don’t want to see it mocked (I almost hate the thing to be honest, and the spawn of part 1s and 2s that followed this franchise), but Stuart Craig’s nomination was certainly not undeserved on the grounds of too few new sets.
Ben -- well, I think the Creed thing was clearly Warner Bros fault rather than Oscar resisting it due to populism. There was almost no push to win nominations at all until the very end. I don't think they knew what they had (beyond a potential hit) at all and in this day and age if you don't campaign you just don't get nominated. There's too much competition to accidentally end up nominated these days.
magnificent -- noted. I just REALLY hate that movie is all. It's one of the crassest robbings of audience money i've ever seen. There was just not enough material for two films.
Franchise filmmaking is rarely good enough to deserve Academy recognition. You should be appreciative they're willing to outright ignore so much of what Hollywood produces to entertain us.
Nathaniel -- Agreed, although I think the second film benefitted from the split (this is more a criticism of the filmmaker's probable inability at adapting an entire book in a moderately efficient manner than a compliment.) And, for some unfathomable reason, this horrid trend even reached the world of TV. Can someone explain to me why Mad Men's last season needed to be divided in two halves? Apart, of course, from the thirst for more nominations from the loyal Emmys.
Speaking of the Emmys, regarding franchises, I think the Oscars are a bit like them. If you are instantly recognized in your first year, you get a sort of lifetime pass, or at least you're films will instantly be in consideration (Lord of the Rings, Batman, sort of).
If, on the contrary, you don't get any recognition for your first instalment and are seen as just a populist success without any sort of critical support or presumed artistic prestige, then, only when one of your films suddenly becomes too big, with audiences and critics, is that the Academy will deem to recognize your existence (Bond, Mad Max, Bourne).
Also, if you fall from these institutions good graces with a year of terrible critical slamming, like the Rocky franchise with its many terrible sequels (Creed excluded), it's very difficult to get back to the former glory of your early days, even if you more than deserve it.
I second what magnificent said, especially because, whether you like the film or not, it's probably the one that features the most new locations in the entire series (given that it's the only film in the franchise that never sets foot at Hogwarts), so the Art Direction nomination was very deserving. I must also say that even for being one of the "crassest robbings of audience money" as you say, I appreciated that the film actually slowed down and let us spend time with the characters for a change as opposed to rushing through plot points just to hit as much as you can from the book (which is what Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince felt like).
"If you look at the box office for their 8 nominees for Best Picture last year (at the time of nominations), you have one behemoth (The Martian), three solid showings (Mad Max, Bridge of Spies, Spotlight), two mini-grosses (Brooklyn, Room) and two that had barely come out (The Big Short, The Revenant)."
Why is Spotlight characterized as a "solid showing" and Brooklyn a "mini-gross"? They had both earned around $25 million when nominations came out - but Brooklyn did it on practically half Spotlight's budget. Meanwhile, it's pretty odd to group Brooklyn with Room, a film that made $4 million at the time nominations came out, and ultimately only made $14 million.
"WHAT'S WITH OSCAR'S FRANCHISE FICKLENESS?" Legit got confused by that paragraph for a moment there because I interpreted it as Oscar Isaac, seeing that he has now officially appeared in both the Bourne and the X-Men movies.
Thanks to Magnificent Obsession for sticking up for Stuart Craig's well earned nomination for art direction. Craig should have won in my opinion, especially when you consider they based theme parks on his work and got him to design them. There was some outstanding acting in HP as well, I'm thinking of Imelda Staunton in particular.
I'm not sure where @Suzanne's is quoting from but her point about "Brooklyn" is certainly true. It did $38 million domestically and $22 million internationally for a $60 million total return on a period film costing less than 8 million to make and a lot less to promote it. Spotlight took in $44 million domestically and another $44 million internationally.
So I would count Brooklyn which didn't win the Oscar as Best Picture as a very solid hit indeed.
And a good investment return. It was a hit before any nominations came out.
Btw. If anyone still hasn't seen "Lady in the Van" it is a good watch and fine performance by Maggie Smith.
Glenn-Twilight outearned Hunger Games and never got a nomination as well. Those along with F&F are the only $2 billion+ live-action series not to get an Oscar nomination.
Anyone seen Tangerines?
I think HP7 had enough material for two movies, but the first movie was too thin and too long. Restructuring could have helped it. The art direction was solid, and I loved the animated Tale of Three Brothers. I think splitting the final book into two films is a trend like 3D: Often it's over-employed simply to make more money, but it isn't bad in and of itself.
I am also a fan of Deathly Hallows Part I - the best HP film in my opinion. And I agree with Richter Scale that splitting the novel into two films gave them more time to tell the story.
As for genre fickleness, I wonder if it might simply be that, with so many films in so many franchises, it's sometimes hard for the Academy voters to distinguish one top-drawer achievement from another enough for a film to assemble enough votes to get the nomination. That would explain the odd spread of nominations across the first three Batman films, for example - I mean, six nominations in six different categories! So I agree with Nathaniel that there's a lack of pattern in franchise cinema nominations on the whole.
cash- I've seen it. It's Oscar-bait for sure, but I really liked it (since it depicts a conflict I'm not all that familiar with and that's what I really like about foreign films, getting a window into cultures I'm not failiar with). I wouldn't have picked it over eventual winner Ida, or nominees Wild Tales and Timbuktu, or finalist Force Majeure, or even non-finalists Two Days One Night and White God (man, 2014 was a really strong year for Foreign Language Film submissions), but it's definitely worth your time.