January
16
Atonement Leads BAFTA Noms
OK, so it doesn't look good for Atonement for a best picture Oscar slot. What about McAvoy, Knightley and Wright, pictured here? It's such a competitive year. I'm still scratching my head about why so many folks haven't responded to this wonderful movie the way the British Academy of Film & Television Arts did. Of course, the Brits are rewarding their own. Atonement led the BAFTA pack with 14 noms.
Was the structure too strange? The central figures not likable enough? The Academy usually loves the Brits, the period, the scale and scope of a movie like this. I come back to the same thing. Despite Focus Features' best efforts not to let this happen, the early fest raves in the fall, combined with the withholding of screenings, led to the film finally not meeting expectations. It's doing some business. But this film did not perform with the Guilds the way I expected it to. One other culprit: the high end reviews that knocked it, led by A.O. Scott in the NYT.
The awards ceremony will take place on Sunday, February 10 at the Royal Opera House in London; stateside it's on BBC America on Feb 10 at 6 PM Eastern.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
As an early Atonement dissenter, I am not surprised at the lack of LA industry interest.
The film is totally schizophrenic about what it is trying to do - it seems like three separate movies flailing around trying consciously to impress people. Briony's story is one; the love story (which never resonates, partly because of the lack of MacAvoy/Knightley chemistry) is a second; the WW2/Dunkirk scenes then seem to come from yet another entirely different movie.
This lack of focus (no punned intended) confuses people - and comes directly from flaws in the directing and writing. It's just too obvious to ignore.
Then throw in the hype - expectations were skyhigh when Academy and other guild members started seeing it. Maybe if it had not shown at Toronto or been released in the UK as early as it was it might have been received better, but even then I think its structural issues would have been tough to overcome.
And remember - this is a year when the Academy seems willing to embrace narratively challenging films (No Country, Blood, Diving Bell).
The British and Anglophile contingent of the Academy still gives it a chance at a best picture nomination. But overall, the downward fall from the perch where it never should have been at in the first place is fascinating.
Posted by: sean flynn | January 16, 2008 at 10:48 AM
As a Briton, who had the advantage of seeing it on its opening night in September 2007, I came to the film with few expectations and was able to discover it on its own terms, following a little buzz from Venice.
I have been thoroughly baffled by some of the reaction in the US, and today's 14 BAFTA nominations are thoroughly in keeping with the critical response in the UK. Similarly its $ haull is pretty good in the Uk for a challenging art film, with an ending which seems to have troubled a fair few people.
I don't really agree the film has structual problems, it could perhaps have been a little longer. The very purpose in my mind of the romance between Celia and Robbie was to show a romance cut short. Briony is haunted by the prospect of what could have been. Similarly there was plenty of chemistry on screen between McAvoy and Knightley.
I hope very much that the American Academy will nominate the Film, McAvoy, Screenplay and Ronan in the majors, but I have given up most hope of that now. The lack of love is somewhat baffling.
Posted by: Rob | January 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
I am puzzled that the Best Picture Oscar chances of movies such as Atonement and Sweeney Todd are being written down due to a poor showing in nominations from the various trade Guilds, in particular the DGA, whilst those of others, notably There Will be Blood (TWBB) are being written up.
According to the DGA website that organisation has 13,400 members. These, it seems, are spread across the USA and work in TV, Radio and Film. It is reasonable to assume that there are significant concentrations of members in Los Angeles and New York.
DGA nomination voting began on 3rd December and closed January 7th. I am happy to be corrected, but I believe that at the time voting closed, There Will be Blood was showing in just two cinemas. Atonement and Sweeney Todd were also on very restricted release throughout that period
Again, I may be misinformed, but I have read that DGA members do not receive screeners. This seems plausible. Why would studios go to the expense of sending these out to members who are unlikely to have a major say in higher profile awards, particularly when there are concerns over piracy and spoilers being placed on the net. I have no doubt, however, that they are all over the less than 100 voters for the Globes and all AMPAS members.
Taking the case of TWBB this largely means that any DGA member wishing to see the movie would have to attend a studio screening. Looking at some of the schedules seems to indicate about 60 screenings over the DGA voting period, many during the working day. Most of these appear to take place in small viewing theatres seating, let’s say, 50, mostly in New York or LA. This suggests about 3000 seats for all eligible journalists, Academy and various Guild members, publicists and the legions of bloggers and other hangers on. Except, many people take guests, lets say half do. So that means 2000 meaningful viewers. Of this total how many would be DGA members. Let’s be generous and say 15% or 300. Again, let’s be generous and say all of them decided to nominate TWWB.
So, of the total DGA membership, might just 2.24% have voted for TWBB? Moreover, what percentage of that 300 are voting members of AMPAS? Bearing in mind the composition of the Guild, would 10% sound right – 30 members?
But AMPAS membership is around 6,000 – so 0.5% of AMPAS members have expressed a preference for TWBB via the Guild vote.
Am I right or am I wrong? And what does it all mean? I dunno!
Either way, I think we should be told. How many DGA members saw all the films nominated and how many voted?
Posted by: Michael | January 17, 2008 at 09:43 AM
There Will Be Blood was extensively screened for about 6 weeks before the voting deadlines for DGA in both NY and LA apart from its two theatres.
WGA members received screeners of sll the films nominated, and Atonement as well.
SAG nominating members did not receive Sweeney Todd, Charlie Wilson's War or Enchanted, but did get all other potential nominees, most (including Atonement) in plenty of time.
Atonement was also in multiple LA and NY theatres my mid-December, Sweeney Todd opened wide from the beginning. Also both had many separate screenings for guild members.
Posted by: sean flynn | January 17, 2008 at 01:25 PM
It's not the negative rewiews that baffle me, its the hostility thats clearly evident in some of these reviews. Its fine to be underwhelmed by it all, but if you're a professional and going to write review about it, at least try to understand its abstract style and then discuss it!
Seriously, do these people never watch David Lynch films?
Posted by: Liz | January 17, 2008 at 01:36 PM
Sean
You are clearly better informed than me. Tell me, did DGA members receive screeners? That, basically is my point. Kindly look again at the numbers.
Posted by: Michael | January 17, 2008 at 02:35 PM
The DGA does not allow screeners.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley | January 17, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Concerning my earlier post about DGA Best Picture nominations.
Thank you Kristopher for confirming that members of the DGA do not receive screeners and Sean for confirming that There Will be Blood was privately screened for 6 weeks.
I am persuaded that either many DGA members nominated films without seeing them or that the numbers voting were too small to have any meaningful correlation with how the Academy will vote.
So, I have been looking at the SAG nominations. Writing in Variety on January 3rd, Robert Hofler says of the HFPA and SAG:
……………….. a fact that is not true of the 2,100 nominating SAG voters, who overlap heavily with the Academy membership of thesps. In other words, look to SAG, not the HFPA, to forecast the upcoming Oscar picks.
Er! Not true, actually. At least, not statistically!
The SAG claims to have 100,000 members. The actors branch of AMPAS numbers 1,250. Assuming that all AMPAS actors are SAG members, it’s easy to calculate that the chance of a SAG member also being an AMPAS actor is around one in 80.
The SAG Nominating Committee comprises 2,100 actors chosen, significantly, at random. Consequently, the statistically probable number of AMPAS members on the committee will be 26. Call it 30, if you like, but this is just 2.4% of the AMPAS actors branch and 0.5% of the overall AMPAS electorate.
So, there is negligible statistical relevance between the SAG nominations and the way AMPAS will actually vote!
I’m not saying that the Academy won’t follow both the DGA and SAG. They might. I am saying that they are very different electorates and there is nothing in the numbers that suggests these precursors will correlate with the Best Picture Oscars.
Personally, I’m placing a bet on Atonement.
Posted by: Michael | January 18, 2008 at 05:09 AM
I'm coming from a little different point of view here, and if you care to read my review of the this film, "No Real Atonement", you can find it at hopeofglory.typepad.com/into_the_fire.
I, too, thought Knightley and McAvoy had ample chemistry, and that the film worked in basically two parts, a young couple torn apart by both the consequences of a lie and the separation of war.
Posted by: Nicole | January 18, 2008 at 01:06 PM
Atonement was a great flick; it looked and felt a lot like Pride and Prejudice… come to think of it, both movies have the same director, leading lady, both are based on books and both take place in England
Posted by: patrick | April 01, 2008 at 03:06 PM