January 12, 2004

The controversy over Big Fish claiming a win over The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King this weekend was not in evidence at Movie City News, where Len Klady estimated a $200,000 win for Rings, though the studio estimates put Big Fish ahead by $400,000. The funny thing is that a $13.9 million weekend for Big Fish is a win for Sony with or without #1 status and any controversy about this #1 vs #2 thing is an unnecessary distraction from a very successful expansion of the title.

Numbers crunching took a bit of a beating in this column on Friday, as I took 2 and 2 and came up with 17. As it turns out, my analysis of what might happen in the Oscar voting was based on a false assumption. Let me try to explain how the counting really works without giving us all a headache.

Every voter’s pick for #1 film (voters get to vote for five films in the nomination round) gets counted and any film that has as much as 20% of the vote, they are set as a nominee.

#1 votes role into the group of #2 votes and again, each film whose total count rises to 20% is, generally, in. The exception would be if there were, at that point, more than 5 total nominees, in which case, the actual count would separate the nominees from the near misses.

Apparently, most years’ votes go to the #3 votes to pick up the fifth and sometimes fourth nominee. Again, you’re chasing 20%.

Rarely do #4 votes ever come into play.

So, you are basically looking for 1000 votes (assuming 5000 ballots coming in) for your film in the #1, #2 and #3 slots.

It seems that people “in the know” expect at least one film to get in on the #1 votes alone. Think about that for a second. You’re going into the finals with more than 20% of voters making your film their #1. That probably explains why frontrunners at this time of year tend to win.

You have to figure that Rings and Mystic are going to get in on #1 votes this year. After that, things get more interesting.

The essence of Friday’s column remains the same, though the math changes. One has to wonder, is there anyone in the Academy who would vote for Rings or Mystic first and then Lost in Translation second or third?

Well, there were a significant number who did just that among the 148 critics we counted on the MCN chart. 11 list makers voted both Lost and Mystic in their top three and another 14 voted for both Lost and Rings. Of course, critics are not great representations of Academy members and the 25 votes still doesn’t reach the 20% level… but then again, no one else comes close. Only 5 critics voted Mystic, Lost and Rings as 1-2-3.

Of the contenders, In America matched up in the top three picks 4 times with Rings and 5 times with Mystic. Cold Mountain matches up 5 times with Rings and 3 times with Mystic. Master & Commander matches up 2 times with Rings and 3 times with Mystic. And Seabiscuit matches up 2 times with Rings and 1 time with Mystic.

The eternal search is, of course, for a statistic that actually means something. And as soon as we find one, the rule it creates will surely be broken a few hours later.

S-A-T-U-R, D-A-Y, NIGHT!: My view from the BFCA ballroom went up late Saturday night. My biggest disappointment of the night, in retrospect, was that I didn’t meet Shohreh Aghdashloo. Of course, when I met Bill Nighy, I kept telling him how great he was in 23 different ways and I think he was happy to see me go. I really takes me a while to get past “duhhhhhh” with actors. I’m much better with writers and directors and such… unless I have some real time and I get to actually meet the human being behind the performances. I also think that I need to start talking about things other than “the business.”

RE-VIEW: I saw an interesting animated Austrian short called Fast Film again last night and I still, after five viewings, can’t quite figure it out. But it is a remarkable piece of filmmaking, even if it makes my brain rattle. The filmmakers have taken clips from 400 or so films and reduced them to elements, from hands making gestures to faces to lighters being lit and thrown then all on an animated train. Like I wrote, it’s beyond explanation. But you will probably get a chance to see it if it gets Oscar nominated, as expected by some.

SUNDANCE IS COMING: And lots of coverage with it. I’m just beginning to grapple with the festival and the horrifying thought that if it is another down year, it is going to start feeling like a very significant trend. The indie film business really needs to be wondering just what it is supposed to be now that it’s grown up. I guess we’ll get a glimpse of that future next week.

EXIT, STAGE RIGHT: Bingham Ray is out at United Artists and the town is afloat in rumor and speculation, much of it quite nasty. Word from a variety of sources is that UA will either find someone with a few hundred million and let them, essentially, lease the UA name, and if they can’t find such a person, they will just slow down production and acquisition, as MGM has, and stick to low-rent breasts and blow-ups.

Some people have taken to crediting Peter Biskind’s new book as the key to Bingham’s exit. Sounds like more of a sales pitch than reality. But the question remains, why now?

The great coincidence of the week is not the release of Biskind’s book, but rather the failure of the Time-Warner/MGM buyout talks. The style of management at MGM has, under this regime, been to manage stock market expectations above and beyond any other considerations. Look there, young man.

READER OF THE DAY: BOY OH BOY writes: “Because of a combination of missed trains and miscommunication I found myself with an entire afternoon to kill. So I headed to a multiplex here in Manhattan to see Monster. It was a sublime experience. One of those rare moments when the right pieces fall together. When I left the theater I realized I still had a couple of hours to wait. There was nothing playing that I really wanted to see, but I headed into Cheaper By The Dozen anyway, maybe as an antidote to the intensity of Monster.

While I was watching Steve and Bonnie and the gang, I found myself having an unexpected emotional response to the movie. I actually teared-up a couple of times. I didn't like the film. I found it trite, overly-simplistic and not subtle or sophisticated enough to be funny in the way that appeals to my sense of humor (e.g. the Coen brothers). But even though I would never admit it to my friends, let alone admit that I even saw it, somehow I couldn't help myself and I cried.

Even though I'm still pretty young, as I get older, like Roger Ebert wrote recently, I find that more than sadness I'm moved by goodness and seeing Steve Martin's character's concern for his missing son, and the relief and understanding in his face when he found him on the train, sent my macho manhood into fits of blubbering.

Likewise I found Christina Ricci's under-appreciated performance as Selby equally affecting because she gave Aileen the love she desperately needed. You could psychoanalyze me and say that because I was an abused kid who grew up in an unloving household that I'm simply reacting emotionally because of some inner void, but we all bring our own experiences to every film.

And, yes, both of these movies spoke to a truth about my own life, but they reminded me of something you once wrote. To paraphrase: "sometimes a film affects us in a place that's outside of our ability to rationalize it." I don't really know if it was just my shitty childhood, but I responded to these vastly different films because they said something about a greater truth about being human (one brilliantly and one clumsily). Sometimes that truth is universal, and sometimes it's very specific.

Thankfully, I didn't end up bitter and angry, and I'm definitely not a serial killer, because I made different choices. But I won't ever apologize for admitting that I still desperately need to know that someone would come looking for me if I ran away. I think despite her tough exterior Aileen Wuornos would have related to that part of Cheaper too.”

E ME: What’s making you cry today?

Monday - December 29 - The Movies You Didn't See, But Should Have
Tuesday, December 30 - The Ten Worst Films Of 2003
Wednesday, December 31 - The Best Runnes Up Of 2003
Wednesday, December 31 - The Best Films Of 2003
Friday, January 2– Reflections on a New Year