January 2005 Archives

A few months ago, I visited the UK set of Batman Begins for Moviefone.com. My write-up of the set visit is now up at the site. The piece was an exercise in entertainment journalism haiku; as both a film- and comic-geek, it was rather difficult to restrict myself to the short space alotted.

Continuing (and concluding) my responses to the numerous interesting comments on my previous piece on the screener DVDs that the studios sent out to BAFTA (and, presumably, Oscar) voters...

Steven Smith wrote:

Thanks for the great article. I, personally, have never understood the approach of stamping "For Your Consideration" at the bottom of viewing copies. It doesn't seem like a significant deterrant for someone likely to copy it and for the sort of person that buys their favorite movies off the floor of a subway platform. Digital tracking numbers though? That degree of panoptic, Orwellian paranoia sends a chill through my spine that makes me want to unplug my modem and paint my windows black.

In an attempt to update Movable Type last week, I ended up breaking it, and thus was not able to continue posting my responses to the feedback I got on my BAFTA screeners post. I'll do that later today.

In the meantime, check out this jaw-dropping remix of one of my favorite movies of all time: Singin' In The Rain (via Ben Hammersley's Dangerous Precedent). It's a little disappointing to discover that it's an ad, rather than the work of some lone genius with a computer, and the guy whose body they've dubbed in is not as good at breakdancing as Gene Kelly was at his kind of dancing--but it's still a breathtaking display of technology.

...so don't go the Oscars. Screeners for Million Dollar Baby and Sideways weren't sent out to BAFTA voters, and, as a result, the former ended up receiving zero BAFTA nods and the latter received only one. Nonetheless, Sideways got five Oscar nominations, and Million Dollar Baby got seven. As I mentioned in a previous post, running up a string of awards can help plant a film in the minds of the voters of other shows; but as these two films show, if your ultimate goal is that Oscar nomination, you don't have to run the table of all previous awards shows.

But note that The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou didn't get a single Oscar nomination. Is it because Wes Anderson just isn't to the Academy's taste? Maybe--but the fact that he got an Oscar nomination for The Royal Tanenbaums makes that unlikely. I'm willing to bet that BVI sent out those same utterly unwatchable screeners to Oscar voters.

Historians, take note: Wes Anderson may just have become the first filmmaker to lose a shot at an Oscar through an anti-piracy scheme.

My previous entry has gotten a huge number of hits, thanks to links from Kottke.org and Waxy.org. Along with that torrent of readership has come a number of interesting and thoughtful comments. I'm going to respond to a few of them over the next couple of days. Needless to say, my responses reflect my own views, and not those of any organization to which I might belong...

I'll start off with the most important question from a reader named "Chess":

Why do _you_ care about screeners? How do they affect your life in a practical way?

As a followup to my previous post on BAFTA voting, I wanted to write a bit about the techniques that the studios have been using to make sure the screener DVDs they're sending out to awards-show voters don't fall into the hands of pirates. Along the way, you'll learn why House of Flying Daggers got 9 BAFTA nominations while neither Million Dollar Baby nor Hero got any, and why Wes Anderson should be absolutely furious at Buena Vista pictures. But first, I'm going to tell you a joke.

I have just returned from a trip to the US, and am not yet enough over my jetlag to string together a coherent spaghetti flower. See? I told you.

I'll try to have a longer (and more coherent) post tomorrow.

All travel disasters are not inevitable. You may visit Mexico City without gastric distress. You may safari through Tanzania without being mauled by a lion. But if you visit Paris, no matter how careful you are, you will ultimately end up visiting the Louvre. This last disaster happened to me on my most recent trip to France, and, having made it out alive, I hereby report on my discoveries from within that most terrifying of places.

It's that time of year when all mankind puts aside its differences and unites in a common pursuit: the making of "10 Best" lists. Cruelly, simple mathematics dictates that most of us will never be on one of these lists.

That's why I've created the handy Automated "Yankee Fog Website of the Year" award.

Nominations for the 2005 Bloggies are now open. Just in case, you know, you wanted to nominate Yankee Fog for "Best British Weblog" or "Best-kept-secret Weblog". (The latter is for the weblog whose secret is best kept, not for the weblog that would best be kept secret.) You could also, if so inclined, nominate "The Truth About John Kerry" for "Best Non Weblog Content of A Weblog." You know, if you wanted.

For years, I have complained about the inability of any awards show to properly choose the best films of the year. I have attributed this failure to an inexplicable unwillingness on the part of awards-granting bodies to ask me what I think, and then do exactly what I say. I am pleased to announce that, this year, one such body actually is asking me what I think, although they still persist in asking their other members as well. In other words, I am now a voting member of BAFTA--the British Academy of Film and Television Arts and Sciences. And now that I'm doing it myself, I have stopped thinking of awards show voters as "those fools", and started thinking of them as "those poor bastards." This voting thing is hard--much harder than any awards voting I've done.