Say Whaaaa? Special Edition: Analyzing the Crazy Basterds' Oscar Finale
Say whaaaa? Again with the extra Stars of David -- one slapped on the side of the Nazi helmet, another added to the top of the Bear Jew's bat, as if to say, "The last step in the Jews' revenge on the Third Reich is to award Basterds Best Picture." This coming from a distributor who last year maneuvered Kate Winslet's sympathetic Nazi to a Best Actress win. "But it was her time!" Harvey might yell. Right! And now it's time for Hollywood's Jews to forget all that because there's a blood-streaked Star of David busting through the equivalent of a Nazi's head. I am so lost.
But it's OK, because the Weinsteins make it simple:
Say whaaaa? Is a campaign e-mail like this really any different from Nicholas Chartier's note just because it was sent via a prominent Hollywood Web site's mailing list? No, really, Academy, I'm asking you: Is it really any different? Or does it slide because it's sent on the "last day you can vote"?
Either way, congrats to Basterds for putting up a valiant fight. If there's any doubt after all this who wanted Best Picture more in 2010, then let's hear it below. (And click through to the next page to see the full ad.)
PREVIOUSLY: Movieline's Say Whaaaa? Archives
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
I agree that "Inglourious Bastards" is the thing that happened in cinema this year, but the bigger question is: when we're all in time at that one place, what film represents the thing that happened the previous time with the other thing at the other place? Riddle me that, Academy.
"Inglourious Basterds" is certainly the thing that happened *most often* at the cinema this year (and most years lately): I went in hoping to see a movie and came out having seen a two-hour trailer.
First the obnoxious massive "Bingo" billboard I always have to drive past on Sunset, and now this. If the Weinsteins aren't careful, Avatar is going to un-backlash.
This perfectly represents the phoney hype that so many publicists and critics have been guilty of regarding "Basterds". People just can't seem to take the fact that the movie didn't flesh out most of its characters (did any basterd except Brad Pitt have more than 3 lines of dialogue?) or that Quentin didn't deliver the war epic he'd promised for so many years, so they embellished the significance of every frame, every line and every cinema reference instead of realising this was an okay film with a few great scenes that was ultimately a misfire.
You're right: What the hell DOES that mean? Why is this THE THING THAT HAPPENED IN CINEMA THIS YEAR? If I'd read that line on its own, I'd think, jeez, I guess a great new form of 3-D was what happened this year, so this must be an ad for "Avatar".
I thought "Basterds" stood a good chance of winning BP, due to the fact that the "Avatar"/"Locker" vote is gonna be split, there's a preferential ballot, and IB is well-liked. I've even put a bet on it with William Hill - not that I'm sure it will take the gold, but 16/1 odds were too sweet to resist. (I like longshots... perhaps a little too much... before the noms, I tried to get the bookies to take my novelty bet that "Hangover" would get a BP nom... thankfully they didn't take my money, and I learned once again that in the pre-nom phase my imagination gives the Academy way too much credit.)
This aggressive campaigning actually makes me think a win is LESS likely; Harvey's insistence turns people off at this point, I would imagine, and if Jews on the rampage wasn't enough to push "Munich" over the edge, I don't think a transparent playing up of this angle in a few Oscar posters is going to cause a groundswell of support.
We'll see. It's nice to have some mystery in the Best Picture race, though, that's fer sure.
Nice try, but the real breach in rules was the Hurt Locker producer's jab at Avatar in his letter. That was the only cited reason for his backlash. Seriously though, nice try. haha, go Basterds.
Inglorious Basterds is the best picture of the year and I think in any other year it would and should be the oscar front runner -- its so multi-layered, so enjoyable and truthfully, it reminds you why you love going to the movies in the first place. Awardsdaily.com readers voted it number 1, in mock oscar voting. I hope it sweeps but I am resolved to be hurt, which is not bad, but Inglorious Basterds is a classic.
This time Harvey's got the goods. And if anyone has seen all of the films, i really can't see them picking any other movie as best picture.
Seriously? this is probably the most painful example of pandering to a particular audience that has happened in a long, long time.
Not to mention that if Nine hadn't gotten execrable reviews, the Weinsteins would be finding an equally obvious angle to reach voters... maybe appeal to gay Italian-Americans?
I fricking hate the Weinsteins.
It's not a "breach in rules," it's just shameless and tacky. I don't think there's been such a blatant campaign since John Wayne's for The Alamo.
The Weinsteins just irk the hell out of me.
I think Tarantino was in over his head with "Inglorious Bastards". I think the film, based on its subject matter, could have been bigger, or more grand. It just fell short of being epic because it needed a director with a bigger vision. Also, I found Brad Pitt totally unnesessary. Pitt and his terrible accent was a distraction. Excuse my spelling mistakes to.
The campaign probably helped DVD sales.
YOU MORON, this is the 21st century......duh!
[...] little desperate, sure, but at least it beats “WHAT MOVIE REPRESENTS THE THING THAT HAPPENED IN CINEMA THIS YEAR?” You’ve come a long-ish way, [...]