Eligible for Oscar
Wednesday, December 26, 2018 at 10:33PM 347 titles are eligible for Best Picture this year. More films than that are released each year theatrically but not every title bothers with paperwork or with playing one week in Los Angeles (to become eligibile) The annual list always contains a few curiousities...
There's always something we've never heard of for example -- have you heard of Aickarakkonathe Bhishaguranmaar or Return to Seattle?
Did you know that Killer Bees was a sports documentary and not a B horror movie? Or that Netflix apparently four-walled a theater for Alex Strangelove but not for To All the Boys I've Loved Before? Did you know that the upcoming Keanu Reeves flick Replicas had a qualifying release for some reason even though its a B sci-fi picture heading for a January release? Somehow The Children Act is eligible despite a DirectTV release (that we understood to be before its theatrical release). Zama is also eligible which is interesting. It was Argentina's Oscar submission last year for foreign film but since it wasn't nominated it's eligible for everything this year since it was theatrically released during this calendar year. Them's the rules with Foreign Film (that's how City of God was eligible for its surprise nominations in its year) but a lot of foreign titles that miss the year they're "submitted" don't bother with eligibility the next year even if they're released theatrically and technically could.
Aren't you relieved to know that Tag and Hell Fest are both eligible for Best Picture?
Some titles we noticed were missing from the list that supposedly or did open in theaters this year: 1985, Saturday Church, How to Talk to Girls at Parties, Western, Blame, The Endless, Kings, Mary Shelley, Good Manners. You can see the whole list here.
Reader Comments (14)
I've asked this under the last podcast but in case you don't see it.
How many films do you think an Academy member should watch? (Obviously they won't see all 347) but would 40, 50, 70 be a minimum expectation? And how should a member prioritise their screeners? Should they base it on the same 40 odd films winning critics nominations, or randomly select a sample so some of the less seen films can at least have a chance (I'm wondering about Return to Seattle)?
I didn't realize that Everybody Knows got a release this year. Wonder where it screened.
I also see on IMDB that All is True got a release on Dec 21st, but I can find no evidence of it playing in New York. Must just be in LA?
(Re: The Children Act, I caught up with it last night. If there were an Oscar for Best Actress in a Bad Film, Emma Thompson should be nominated if not win for this.)
Some of these films I completely forgot they were released this year, like ADRIFT feels so 2017 for some reason.
I’m sad the distributors for BASMATI BLUES and IDEAL HOME didn’t submit paperwork as I know they for sure had theatrical releases. Would’ve loved the “possibility” that they’d get noms in Best Original Song (for the former) and Best Lead/Supporting Actor (for the latter).
I’m pleasantly surprised to see Rosamund Pike’s name pop up a couple times as she’s getting more projects.
However, all I care about is WHERE IS KYRA? being on this list cause I’ll be forever rooting for Michelle Pfeiffer to get that surprise Best Actress nomination until the morning Oscar nominations are announced.
I would hope Academy members watched AT LEAST 10% of eligible films ie. 35. But we know they don't. They rely on reviews and percursors. And of course they vote according to WHO they like regardless if the person or picture warranted it.
What is the difference between a Netflix REAL movie and a Netflix TV movie??? Like, seriously. Can Roma be nominated for an Emmy too?!
If Zama had been one of the 5 nominated films (or won) for Best Foreign Language film, it would not have been eligible in any other year. If a BFLF nominated film is released commercially the same year of eligibility in LA for a week, it is eligible in all categories. That's what happened with Amour or Life Is Beautiful, etc. Non-nominated submissions are eligible if they are released in the US, even -let's suppose- two years later.
So Anna and the Apocalypse was eligible. I can’t imagine they didn’t submit for Original Song with “Hollywood Ending,” which was just delightful to see onscreen. Shame.
Sad to hear that 1985 was noton the list because Michael Chiklis deserve to be nominated for at least something for his supporting work there.
I liked the The Children Act,it has it's problems but Thompson is the best she has been in over 25 yrs,check it out.
Bette -- i could live with that but I'm guessing the more accurate number is something like 10 and then they just nominate the 5 they like best from that in virtually every category.
I know getting folks to watch How to Talk to Girls At Parties is somewhat my pet project in 2018, but I bet A24 dumping it on iTunes three days after opening probably caused that ineligibility. Still my favorite Kidman performance and Sandy Powell designs this year.
Nathaniel / Bette
I think it's even more dire than that. After they've seen about 6 - 10 films - maybe even a dozen!, they ask their friends or assistants what they "should" be voting for, and they fill out the empty spaces on their ballots accordingly. So many times the final nominees give off the stench of lazy, rote choices.
Oscar voters are definitely lazy sometimes, but I bet there is a decent amount that try and catch as many movies as they can. I also think there are some oscar voters that would like to vote for an underdog but don’t because they think they’d being throwing their vote away.
Nice to see some optimism there, Michael.
It would be interesting to speak to voters about how they fill in their ballot in an abstract way. Given they essentially have a Single Transferable Vote are there members who vote for their second choice in first where second choice is on the cusp but fist may be a sure-thing or a complete outsider. (Sorry, I'm an election geek as well as an Oscar geek).