January 10, 2004

In an awards season that continues to swing between the absolute boredom of not-very-big movies with not-very-big stars and the excitement of a competitive field that could go any which way because of the limitations that every title has, the story of Fahrenheit 9/11 - and to a lesser extent, The Passion of the Christ - may be the most fun we can have in the next few pre-nomination weeks.

My issue with both of these films remains very much the same as when they were chugging towards release. The Passion of the Christ has taken the absolute high road and deserves credit for that. If there was a movement driven by Mr. Gibson & Co. among evangelicals to call into the People's Choice Awards, I have no evidence of it. Others have suggested that this did happen and there is a chance that it has. It would be unsurprising if there was a movement to vote amongst the 50 million-plus Christians who saw this film. American Family Association and National Review are among the many websites that pushed readers to the People's Choice voting site. And I would guess that a few million votes for any film would be enough to win. The show does not publish any indication of how many votes are actually cast for the awards.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was far more overt about the People's Choice. And, as usual, it was unclear whether Michael Moore was ceaselessly enthusiastic or an outright liar. The campaign started with the argument that the nomination was a great cause for celebration, since it represented the "people's choice." But Entertainment Weekly's new relationship with the show - who knows how long it will be before it becomes EW's People's Choice Awards? - was why Fahrenheit was among the finalists for Favorite Film. Likewise, it was why The Passion of The Christ was among the finalists in a different category. It was just good business. If anyone thinks that the selection team at EW didn't want exactly the outcome they had last night, they are out of their cotton pickin' minds.

If Fahrenheit 9/11 gets nominated by the Academy in a few weeks - and if it is going to happen, rest assured that those votes are already in - the People's Choice suddenly becomes an event that, in perception, can be campaigned for and can be a significant part of the Oscar strategy. Now, not everyone will buy into it. And if I had to offer my personal opinion, I would not either. In many ways, it is like the old days of Miramax… when only one player is campaigning in a certain aggressive way, they have a HUGE advantage. But there is a HUGE difference between the old days of the Golden Globes and the People's Choice Awards, which occur less than a week before the close of Oscar nominations and are not taken very seriously because the ballot boxes can so easily be stuffed.

Why should the BFCA's Critics' Choice Awards, a night later, be taken seriously? Well… the transition from being a pretty good reflection of Academy voters to being an influencer is very much at its beginning. The Academy has effectively put every other show in check. The room to run in the Oscar season takes place in the nomination period. Once the finalists are set, they are set… and while small things can have a bigger effect than pre-nomination, Academy members are quite responsible about seeing the five Best Picture nominees and most of the actors and actresses before making a final vote.

What would have gotten the media all abuzz would have been if the BFCA had nominated F9/11 for Best Picture and not just Best Documentary and if it had won The People's Choice and The Critics' Choice over a two night span. Then there might have been talk about a F9/11 Oscar win.

Still, at this point, I would make the film a 50/50 chance to grab one of the five Best Picture Oscar slots when nominations are announced on January 25.

The big question is… "Is this a good thing?"

Keep in mind… the fact that I am offering this as a discussion means pretty much nothing in regards to the nomination or non-nomination of this film. But I don't think it is a waste of time, because whether or not Fahrenheit gets in, the frenzy around award campaigning is always ready to go as overboard as it did a couple of years ago.

Door-to-door campaigning for an Oscar… spinning a manipulated People's Choice Award win into an argument that there is a mandate… industry acceptance of fringe groups like National Board of Review… critics' groups jockeying for position weeks before the year they are honoring is over… do any of these things represent the joy and pride that we have so long associated with the awards season, culminating with the Oscars?

If Fahrenheit 9/11 gets a nomination, without fighting over the quality of the film for a second, everyone who knows how things work will agree that the nomination was a success of intensive campaigning and not a "natural" occurrence. Of course, there are no natural occurrences in these campaigns anymore. But there is an enormous difference between Universal buying more Variety covers than anyone had ever witnessed to remind voters that their summer horse was in the race, and going door-to-door kissing every baby, trying not to win over the whole group, but to grab the 969 first place votes they need and not one more.

(Note: Both Tom O'Neil and Dave Karger's conversations with Price Waterhouse indicate that the formula is one-sixth of votes + 1 gets a nomination in the first round. That one-sixth figure this year is 968… plus one is 969. The legend of the "700 vote opportunity" is now dead.)

Can the Academy do anything about this? Not really. Too many rules ruin the basic fun of this season. And it can be very fun, even as we wallow in the obscenity of it all.

I expect that there will be some grousing if it happens. But a Fahrenheit nomination will break up some of the boredom and, since public morality in Hollywood leans left, complaining aloud about the Fahrenheit in any way is downright dangerous.

And the main argument will be, "It's an anomaly… it will never happen again." And maybe that would be the case. With all the success of Harvey Weinstein in awards season, no one had ever had the chutzpah to be as aggressive as he is.

There are other successful styles. Clint Eastwood is showing us how to backdoor a power campaign. We are witnessing Focus' late season strategy that worked so well for The Pianist and may come up short for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Motorcycle Diaries. Miramax went for the early-n-often push for Finding Neverland. And Searchlight has taken the dangerous, but successful this year, awards road for Sideways.

But the big muscle? It's still Harvey. He goes where no man has gone before. And Fahrenheit 9/11 is a new planet discovered yet again.

How will you react? How should you react?

E ME and let me know...

January 3, 2005 - Reflections On A New Year
December 31, 2004 - The Ten Best
December 30, 2004 - The Ten Worst
December 29, 2004 - Movies You Should Have Seen, But Didn't