DEEP VOTE: Saw one more film, selected my nominees, and they were ...

As you may recall, an Oscar-winning screenwriter who is also a member of the Academy has agreed to share with us -- for the duration of the awards season -- his thoughts about the year's contenders as he sees them and his ballot selections as he arrives at them, so that we might better understand how an Oscar voter operates and thinks.

"Deep Vote," as we're affectionately calling him, had seen virtually none of the major contenders before agreeing to do this and asked for my recommendations about which he should see first. I told him that rather than offering my personal preferences, I was sending him an alphabetically ordered list of the 15 films that had generated the most awards buzz up to that point. (Needless to say, he is welcome to see and write about others as well.)

For full disclosure purposes, the films I listed were: 1. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" 2. "The Dark Knight" 3. "Doubt" 4. "Frost/Nixon" 5. "Frozen River" 6. "Happy-Go-Lucky" 7. "Milk" 8. "Rachel Getting Married" 9. "The Reader" 10. "Revolutionary Road" 11. "Slumdog Millionaire" 12. "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" 13. "The Visitor" 14. "WALL-E" 15. "The Wrestler."

Thus far, "Deep Vote" has had an opportunity to see only six of those 15: he shared his thoughts with us in memo one about "Happy-Go-Lucky" (positive), "The Reader" (negative), and "The Wrestler" (mixed); in memo two about "Slumdog Millionaire" (positive) and "WALL-E" (positive); and now, in memo three (below), he writes about "Gran Torino," and also identifies the films that won his support on the preliminary ballot that he turned in on Saturday.

(Note: Several passages in his reactions are underlined. These were marked by me, not him, because I believe they may offer a particularly important clue about what this voter and perhaps others are -- or are not -- focusing on.)

* * *

MEMO #3

TO: THE FEINBERG FILES

FROM: DEEP VOTE

DATES: 1/8-1/10 (1 FILM)

Scott:

On the preliminary ballot, I voted for "Happy-Go-Lucky," "Gran Torino" and "Slumdog Millionaire." I have not yet seen most of the others you listed, but hope to see them before the final vote.

As for "Gran Torino," I have, up till now, felt the movies directed by Clint Eastwood are pushing premises that are too easy, and the movies lose my "suspension of non-belief." For example, "Million Dollar Baby" seems like two movies. The first is a rehash of old boxing-movie cliches: the hard-boiled old trainer (Eastwood) who is bitter about the sport and has to be convinced to take on a new kid; the boxer (in this case, a girl, Hilary Swank) who works hard and eventually wins him over, though he doesn't much show it; and the trainer's longtime assistant (Morgan Freeman), who keeps explaining that the trainer is really a nice guy. Then begins a movie about the humaneness of unplugging human vegetables, an idea with which I agreed in the first place. The acting is fine, the script and story predictable.

I know other viewers could pick apart "Gran Torino" in much the same way, and I hope some do -- once stars (not to mention directors) attain a certain status, their stuff is not questioned enough, and reviewers have to see so much junk in a year that any film which makes a pass at seriousness must be a
relief. But I'm not going to criticize "Gran Torino," because I bought (almost) all the simplistic improbabilities, and watched the film in a state of belief and tension. I had a rooting interest in the showdown scenes and the ending left me satisfied -- and liking Clint Eastwood, whose heart is in the right place, despite some "Dirty Harry" hangovers. (And I think Ahney Her, the young actress who plays Sue Vang Lor, deserves a supporting Oscar, though she won't get one.)

One might note that Clint, after making a general confession to the young priest, finally gets specific just when we least expect him to, telling the young kid, as he locks him up, that he shot a young "gook" right in the face for no good reason and that's why he wants to do this thing solo. Shocking -- and perfectly timed! If a movie can surprise me and transcend what a director has done before, at just the right point so that it really delivers emotionally, that's one of the things that might get my vote.

I do wish the movie had ended a few minutes sooner, but I was touched and moved by it.

Cheers,

[Deep Vote]

* * *

After reading this e-mail, I called "Deep Vote" and received the following details about his ballot: He had the opportunity to nominate five films for best adapted screenplay, five films for best original screenplay, and five films for best picture. However, having only seen only a few of the films thus far and been impressed with even fewer, he told me that he elected to vote for only one, tow and three,  respectively. They were:

Best Adapted Screenplay

• 1. Simon Beaufoy ("Slumdog Millionaire")

Best Original Screenplay

• 1. Mike Leigh ("Happy-Go-Lucky")
• 2. Nick Schenck ("Gran Torino")

Best Picture

• 1. "Happy-Go-Lucky"
• 2. "Gran Torino"
• 3. "Slumdog Millionaire"
     

"Deep Vote" regrets that he wasn't able to see more films prior to this first deadline, but says he intends to see the remaining nine films on the aforementioned list (plus any others that earn major nominations) before the Feb. 17 deadline to turn in final ballots. We look forward to hearing his thoughts about them, and thank him again for these.

---

Photo: Clint Eastwood in "Gran Torino." Credit: Warner Brothers

Comments

[NovicMode]

it's great for Happy-Go-Lucky, but I'm a bit sadden that the bias for animated features is so great that people are not even considering voting for a highly acclaimed movie of Wall-E's caliber. It maybe be animated, but it can be as profound and moving as any live action movie. I expected WALL-E to be dismissed for what it was on the surface rather than what it shows, but it's still rather sad.

[actionman]

Yet another reason why the Oscars can't be taken seriously. This voting member of the academy hasn't even seen a majority of the films!

[Violet]

He hasn't seen the majority of the films! That's unfair. Gran Torino for best picture and original sreenplay! Even people who like that film said the screenplay was bad. It didn't even get a WGA nom.

[David]

How can he vote without seeing the major contenders? He can't see the top dozen films being considered. Why should I care what he says from now on?

[Scott Feinberg]

Folks, you have to understand that a big part of why we're doing this series is to show that the process is flawed--it is virtually impossible for "Deep Vote" (or any other voter who has a life) to see all of the contenders within such a short period of time, and most DON'T. Don't get mad at "Deep Vote," get mad at the flawed process. (As for "Deep Vote," he says he will see the remaining films on the list before turning in his final ballot, which is good enough for me, and better than what many voters will do.)

[Brandon]

As an Oscar nut, it really disturbs me that members of the Academy are not fulfilling their responsibilities. While I appreciate "Deep Vote" sharing his/her thought process with us, I would feel better knowing that the members of the Academy actually see a slew of films prior to voting. How can you truly have any idea what should be consider the "Best" of any category when you haven't even seen a handful of potential nominees? There is no excuse not to be able to nominate 5 films for "Best Picture". Sorry to be harsh, but I would do anything to have a chance at nominating films for the Academy Awards. It is a privilege and should be viewed as such.

[Mohit]

I have to agree it makes me lose a little respect for the Academy if I've seen more Oscar-buzz movies than a member when he's supposed to vote for the nominations. There are several movies and people that deserve to be nominated and it's a shame that just because he hasn't seen them, they won't get as fair of a chance when it comes to being nominated.

[BenG]

The comment that "it is virtually impossible for "Deep Vote" (or any other voter who has a life) to see all of the contenders within such a short period of time" is ridiculous. These members have an ENTIRE year to see major films, even if it means shelling out a couple bucks and seeing it in theaters. My best friend is a voting member of the WGA and has seen all 15 of the films in that list. If a voting body has given its members the right to vote for an awards that results in millions (possibly billions) of dollars in sales, then it is each member's duty to ensure that they make a fair and balanced decision. In this case, that means seeing every eligible film, especially the major contenders. The Academy should make it mandatory for voting members to submit proof that they have viewed screeners or gone to Academy screenings. This could mean having studios include a "stub" of some sort to be mailed into the Academy by a certain date or else voting members forfeit their votes. Just an idea to bounce around if anyone at the Academy is reading.

[patrick]

Absolutely ludicrous. I say Deep Vote's membership in the Academy should be revoked post-haste.Shame!

[Aura]

I don't understand why he could only nominate 3 movies. I mean unless he's only seen 3 movies, can't he nominate the best 5 movies he's seen this year, whether they have Oscar buzz or not? I live in the middle of nowhere where we don't even get all the "Oscar" movies, but I've seen 5 movies on that list out of my own pocket. I wouldn't have a problem nominating them, 'Gran Torino', 'Seven Pounds' or 'Changeling'. Who cares what anyone else thinks? It's his ballot.

[Gary in Ohio]

Deep Vote, eh? Shallow Ballot would be a more fitting name. Give us a break, Mr. Feinberg. It's a bit insulting to your readers to say that anyone "who has a life" could not be expected to see the major contenders in such a short period of time. I've seen most of the major contenders, and believe me, I DO have a life. THIS IS THEIR BUSINESS...THEIR PASSION....THEIR LIFE BLOOD!!!! As a wrter, Deep Vote should be ashamed of what he has done. And if he has lost his love or passion for cinema, the answer is a simple one.....abstain from voting.

[Troy]

I thank Deep Vote for taking the time to show us how he approaches the whole Oscar voting process. Reading his thoughts and reviews was rather insightful. Deep Vote has my respect for at the very least, he openly and honestly admitted that he is biased against animated films. It's now pretty obvious that the PRIME reason that Wall-E will miss out on a Best Picture nomination is because of that bias, which is a crying shame. Anyway, I've seen 12 out of the 15 films on that list despite not having the luxury of DVD screeners and private screenings. I guess I'm one of those who has no life. By the way, I'm in graduate school and works full time. I love films and go out and see as much as I can, I would love to be among the few that votes for such prestigious awards.

[Carlos Balbás-Espín]

One of the reasons most people always attack the Golden Globes is because it's voting body consists of less than 90 people. I like the Globes but I don't take them too seriously, and frankly, I think neither does the HFPA, but I bet that all of them watch all of the films in contention.

The fact that the Academy members are even allowed to participate in the voting process without having seen all, or at the very least most, of the contenders is completely outrageous.

And even more outrageous, not too mention pathetic, is that this person had seen ONLY SIX, I'll say that again, ONLY SIX, of the contenders before mailing their ballot.

I've lost a bit more of whatever little respect I had left for AMPAS. Moreover, it's a good thing this person's identity has been kept private because between loving "Gran Torino" while hating "Million Dollar Baby" and mailing a ballot in those conditions, they couldn't be taken seriously anymore.

[Pete]

Deep Vote is sadly underprepared. Why not just abstain from voting completely if you do not take the process seriously? It's a shame really. So many people feel passionately about these films and want to see them earn public attention via the Oscars. As a general fan of cinema, I have made it a point to see all the major contenders on the list you provided and more. And I paid $12 a pop on a struggling film student's income. Deep Vote, who ever he may be, gets free screeners and invites to free screenings and he still doesn't bother? Even excluding the awards obligations, that's a wasted opportunity to see some of the year's finest films. Does this guy even like movies?

[Tommy]

I am glad you use DEEP VOTE instead of his real name,otherwise,I think he should be cancled to vote,I mean,seriously,if u have ur life and had no time to watch enough films,thats ok,but just dont vote,show ur respect to the academy,the other good filmmakers and urself! SUCH A SHAME,AND THIS IS OSCAR!HOW RIDICULOUS!

[Daniel]

I love this! Reading « Deep Vote » about the Oscar voting process and the screening (& very often “non-screening”) of the movies in contention is very interesting. It makes me chuckle. I personally appreciate the bluntness and honesty. I’m convinced that a lot of voters function in the same way. Look, some people are busy, they have other things to do and simply cannot see all films that are vying for nominations and/or Oscars. It is not their full-time job, as opposed to film critics who actually see the movies they write about. Is it fair, of course not.

Though the Oscars are the most publicized and almost omnipresent in the general media, they’ve got to be perhaps the least reliable of all movie awards simply because many voters simply do not see the films or performances they are voting for. Insider politics and unscrupulous Oscar campaigns have become just as important and influential (and at times, almost as costly) as the films themselves. This all came to light for example three years ago when Crash, one of the most manipulative, cliché-laden and preachy movies ever to hit the silver screen, came out of nowhere and won Best Picture over the now legendary “Brokeback Mountain” which had virtually won every other “Best Picture” awards prior and after the Oscars. The Oscars have lost a lot of their credibility. The Oscars are “industry” awards, they are by definition self-serving and often do not reflect originality, historical importance, nor true artistic quality.

I’ll keep reading “Deep Vote”…

[coke]

if you only watch one film, and this one blow you away... why can't you support it?

yeah, deep vote should watch more films. but i really don't care if he does or doesn't because the race combine the personal taste and the media hype. a lot of voters guide their choices only for the hype, and as far as I could suppose, deep vote choice his taste over any other consideration. and thats a good thing, even the results are outrageous.

[TLO]

Dustin Hoffman recently did an interesting interview in which he said that MOST people don't see all of the movies and they'll just vote for their friends or people they respect. It's pretty sad, but true. He said that he personally doesn't vote at all if he didn't see the films nominated.

It's also funny how everyone wants as many people as possible to vote in a presidential election every four years, but when it comes to the Oscars, we should have to be "informed!"

[Michael Greenwaldt]

That's really sad that so few Academy members seem to be really passionate about movies. It seems most of the Academy members aren't real movie fans. They act like getting sent screeners and watching movies is a chore. Maybe they shouldn't have people who "have a life" as Academy members then if it's too hard for them to watch these movies. Real movie fans wouldn't have a problem. Many of us do it because we love it.

[A M]

From the beginning, the oscar voting process has been flawed. It hasn't changed much since then.
It probably won't ever change for the better.

Remember, just a few years ago, when several famous oscar voters declared they won't vote for "Brokeback Mountain, for Best Picture; nor would they even see it. However, they did not say they would disqualify themselves from voting.

I thought then, that it was strange; since one or all of those voters wouldn't have much of a career, if it wasn't for gays/homosexuals.

[rupert]

Scott--clearly a smart move to not disclose Deep Vote's real identity ;-)

That being said, DUDE, see some (expletive) movies. You don't have to cram them into the 2 week period when you get your ballot. You have 52 weeks a year to watch movies.

[Austin]

As a movie fan, I don't like having to pay 10-12 dollars to see a movie. But I still go anyway because I love movies. This guy "Deep Vote" however, gets invited into screenings for free and has only seen 5 of the 15 movies on that list. That's outrageous! He hasn't even seen "The Dark Knight", the second most domestic grossed movie of all time!?! Or even "Wall-E"? That's insane! The Academy needs to find people who actually like watching movies. I mean, has the guy (Deep Vote) been voting for the last several years? That explains some of the questionable award winners these last few years (Eddie Murphy not winning his supporting role for "Dreamgirls" [nothing against Alan Arkin]. "Into the Wild" not even being nominated for best picture). The List can go on and on and on. That also explains why the last several oscars have been boring. These members only vote based on what they read, and hear from websites and magazines. READ MY OPINION, DO YOUR JOB AND WATCH MOVIES!

[Sam]

I was on the nominating committee for the SAG awards a couple or so years ago. I have a toddler, a husband and a job. I watched every screener I was sent...including Miss Potter, and I don't like Renee Zellweger...I probably got 30 movies. It was great! I loved it. I want to do it again soon!
The Academy should have fewer members then, if they can't get the ones they have to watch the damn movies!
By the way....the Academy member I know watches everything. He said The Reader was the Best Movie of the year as per his vote.

[Ben K]

I find it hilarious that people are allowed to vote without having seen the majority of the films released this year. Pathetic!

[Ann]

I appreciate articles like this because they show that all awards shows are popularity contests fueled by marketing, money, buzz & gossip. The oft and over-lauded Oscars are no different than the much criticized Golden Globes.

And of course we can criticize Deep Vote, and the academy, too. The Academy is all about the prestige/hype/snobbery of the Oscar. So if you're an Academy member and if you're voting, you need to MAKE the time. It's called an educated vote. I've made the time to drive to theaters and shell out the bucks to see movies so I can keep up with the Oscar-buzzed pics - and the Academy members get screeners SENT TO THEIR DOOR and they don't have the time to see them? Hell, I've watched three and four DVDs in a night just to gauge the darn critics list. Just two evenings of that and I know more than Deep Vote.

So then they come up with the same nominees as everyone else and what they're really worried about is Nielsen ratings ($$), so they pad the show with terrible "entertainment" segments, and give us travesties like cutting away from the acceptance speech of the brilliant foreign film winner (Donnersmarck/Lives of Others) to bring us shadow puppets.

Clue to the Academy: let the winners give their speeches, let the song nominees sing their own songs, and if you fix your voting, maybe you won't have to pad the show, because the excitement will be where it should be - in the nominees and their work.