February 9, 2013 at 2:41 pm #90170
Think about it for a second.
No Country for Old Men received eight Oscar nominations, a 95% score on Rotten Tomatoes (91% by top critics), a 91 on Metacritic and it made about $172 million worldwide (adjusting for 2013 rates, about $180 million). It received one acting nomination.
Atonement received seven Oscar nominations, an 83% score on Rotten Tomatoes (89% by top critics), an 85 on Metacritic and it made about $129 million (adjusting for 2013 rates, about $134 million). It received one acting nomination.
Although No Country has a slight lead in pure stats, Atonement was a very close competitor for it in most fields.
The mentality behind No Country winning was that the Coen brothers were overdue, despite the fact that they weren’t. They had only made one previous film nominated for Best Picture, they were only slightly above the median age for Best Director winners at the time, and most importantly, they were already Academy Award winners at the time for writing Fargo. I DO think No Country for Old Men is a deserving Best Picture winner (probably one of the better Brst Picture winners of the last decade) simply on merit, it’s a great film — though I would’ve picked There Will Be Blood by a hair. What I dislike is that the film garnered buzz because many thought that the Coen brothers were overdue, because they weren’t.
Now for Atonement (which was, at best, my fifth favorite film of that year). It was a big, visually stunning, brilliantly acted and crafted epic. But what made it different from all of the other alternatives to No Country (particularly There Will Be Blood) was that it had precursor support. It was acclaimed for its cinematography, production design and most of all, its score, for which it won numerous accolades. Most importantly, it won the Golden Globe for Best Drama Picture (against an extended field) and the BAFTA for Best Film. Although it did miss some precursors, it was looking pretty strong.
But then it was snubbed for director and editing on nomination day, and its strength died. But what if it DID receive those nomination? It would’ve been pushed to NINE nominations — the most for any film that year. And what if Keira Knightley had received a nod for Best Actress? The film could’ve quickly gained momentum at the eleventh hour, and even though I personally feel it deserved it less than some of the other nominees, it could’ve very well won. And maybe, if the “overude Coens” mentality remained/strengthened after Atonement won Best Picture, True Grit could’ve prevented the blashphemous Best Picture/Director victory of The King’s Speech, and could’ve helped Hailee Steinfeld win Best Supporting Actress and Roger Deakins finally get his due in cinematography. Maybe, just maybe, if Atonement won Best Picture.
What do you think? Is there a method to my madness, or am I just insane?February 9, 2013 at 2:45 pm #90172
You aren’t insane, but Atonement was never in the running.
Its lack of directing and film editing nominations were indications of wide-spread concerns over the movie as a whole.February 9, 2013 at 2:52 pm #90173
Its lack of directing and film editing nominations were indications of wide-spread concerns over the movie as a whole.
I remember that Oscar season very well, and you’re absolutely right that it was never in the running for Best Picture. And the widespread concerns were mostly aimed at Joe Wright’s direction, which have been and will probably always be polarizing for it’s artisitically inspired but sometimes “style-over-substance” nature.
But the majority of may argument rests with the scenario in which it received those 10 nominations. It would be the only film with picture-director-screenplay-editing as well as MULTIPLE acting nominations (in reality, Michael Clayton was the only film to receive multiple acting nods that year). Based on pure stats (not on the mindset of voters), that would give it great reason to be the winner.February 9, 2013 at 2:56 pm #90174
Atonement? Win Best Picture? No offense to anyone who liked this ‘film’, but aw gawd. I liked two of the perfs,specifically from Regrave and Ronan.
I gave this film a C+ after I saw it in the theatres. I really disliked this film and, although my personal reaction is neither here nor there, I dont believe that Atonement was ever in the running, despite it’s Oscar noms. It was lucky, to get that score Oscar with that annoying (to me) typing sounds. Get serious. And, those moles. Guess it’s a good thing or we dummies might have missed that those three women were the same person. Duh duh duh.
Lol. Ok, ‘nough said. But no. and No Country didnt win because the Coen’s were “overdue”. No Country, is a near masterwork, although nobody has to like it. They deserved the win. Or, put another way, the Coen’s and everyone involved with that film were worthy winners.February 9, 2013 at 3:19 pm #90175
What an odd thread. If ANY film received a Best Picture nomination and directing and editing nominations, then it could win Best Picture. So yes, Atonement would have been a contender for Best Picture just like any other film that received the same nominations.
But Atonement didn’t receive those nominations because it was underwhelming.February 9, 2013 at 3:51 pm #90176
NoFebruary 9, 2013 at 7:46 pm #90177
THERE WILL BE BLOOD had all the right nominations and it lost.
Atonement was never in the running…sorryFebruary 9, 2013 at 10:07 pm #90178
I honestly don’t know why No Country for Old Men won for Best Adapted Screenplay or Best Picture. IMO Michael Clayton deserved Best Pic and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly deserved Best Adapted Screenplay. Going back to the subject of this thread, Atonement would not have won whether it received an Editing and Directing nomination or not.February 9, 2013 at 10:20 pm #90179
The only reason I suggested ATONEMENT as the winner in this thread instead of much greater films like There Will Be Blood and is because it won two relatively large Best Picture precursor awards. I am NOT, I repeat, I am NOT trying to suggest that I feel the film deserved to win Best Picture.February 9, 2013 at 11:38 pm #90180
Nah, I remember people being surprised that it got a BP nomination in the first place. The support wasn’t there. Many of the nominations were due to the production values (it was pretty, had period costumes, etc.)
I actually think Atonement gets a bad rap. Sure, the whole war sequence in the middle is completely unneccisary, but I really enjoyed the first third and the last third. And I think that ending with Redgrave is stunning. I liked Atonement a lot more than No Country, which you couldn’t pay me to sit through again.
2007 was a frustrating year for me. A lot of people regard it as one of the strongest years, but I just can’t. Atonement was super flawed. There Will Be Blood has great moments, but is long and drawn out, and, honestly, not about anything I really find interesting. Juno was so incredibly forced and tried way too hard. I really didn’t have any opinion on Michael Clayton other than the fact that i liked the performances. And I still couldn’t tell you what No Country for Old Men is about, and I’ve seen it probably 4 times.
Oh, screw it all. Hairspray was the best picture of that year.February 10, 2013 at 1:56 am #90181
Awww…I loved Atonement!
Anyway, no.February 10, 2013 at 5:36 am #90182
I have to agree with Mrs. Channing. I remember a lot of people were surprised it got in for Best Picture in the first place and “There Will Be Blood” was clear alternative. Score was a given as was Ronan’s nod (although no SAG nod did harm her) but that was it. I still like the movie even if the war part (with Romola Garai) somehow drags. Maybe that’s why Garai was the most forgotten Briony during awards season.February 10, 2013 at 12:09 pm #90183
Atonement was lucky to be nominated and was very clearly in fifth place. Yes it won the Globe and the BAFTA but it drastically underperformed with the guilds, didn’t get nominated at PGA, DGA or SAG.February 11, 2013 at 5:33 pm #90184
That’s such a weird question. If it had a big chance at winning BP, it would’ve been nominated in those categories. In fact, I think “Atonement” was very close to being snubbed in favor of “The Diving Bell And The Butterfly”. You’re not just picturing a scenario where it has two more nominations, but one where the reaction for it was different.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.