Boyhood wins Best Film at 68th BAFTA Awards along with Linklater, Moore, Redmayne, Arquette and Simmons

Hi ‘WW’………I agree, ‘The Imitation Game’ has been shut out by other award shows. I also get why people like Eddie’s performance more………it is great in a very obvious way. But comparing the amount of resources Eddie had the amount that Benedict had, I would say Benedict’s performance is far superior because Stephen Hawking is well written about, there were visual aids for Eddie to watch and more and not even a tenth of that for Turing. At the other end of the spectrum, people playing fictional characters like Keaton had the freedom to forge the character to their liking. Benedict neither had the resources nor the freedom. Also……..physical transformations………’Paa’ and ‘Margarita, with a straw’. If physical transformations are great, why did these films not even get nominated for any award? Let alone win. I mean…..Amitabh Bachchan is obviously great, and Margarita was well acclaimed and both more nuanced performance than Eddie’s in ‘Theory’. Why this hypocrisy?

Thanks, Majora, for that Ebert link.

It’s a refreshing read for his rationale for his predictions. He never even once mentioned about the stats, but mostly from analyzing the contents of each contender.

I am really surprised Eddie Redmayne is winning everything. Yes, it is a good performance……just not an outstanding. I wold pick Keaton or Cumberbatch any day. Yes, the performance has a physical transformation….but if the physicality of a performance is so important then the Bollywood film ‘Paa’ should have swept any acting award there ever existed. Amitabh Bachchan’s performance there was far superior to Redmayne’s in ‘Theory’. Also this year, Kalki Koechlin played a girl afflicted with cerebral palsy in ‘Margarita, With a Straw’. Her performance was as physically transformative and more nuanced than Redmayne’s, and yet, she did not even receive a Best Actress nomination. This happens despite the fact that critics across the globe are calling her performance, “The most honest depiction of a disability in any film this year.” These award juries more inconsistent than political parties across the globe put together.

The last time in a BP/BD split year the Best Director Award went to a movie without an Editing nomination was 2005 when Ang Lee won. The one before that happened in 1967 when the late Mike Nichols won for The Graduate. Both men won DGA. So what I’m saying is that a split where Boyhood wins Picture and Inarritu wins Director is very unlikely, because of the Editing nod Birdman lacks. So in the event of a split year, the Directing Oscar is more likely to go to a movie with an editing nod, but preferably a win. The DGA win helps of course 🙂 , but is not crutial. Soderbergh, Fosse and Polański didn’t win DGA, but their movies either won Editing (Traffic, Cabaret) or were just nominated (Pianist).

I really hope for Desplat to finally win his Oscar for The Grand Budapest Hotel, that score is AMAZING and probably the only really great score in the category along with Zimmer’s work for Interstellar (not a fan of Mr. Turner’s score). I wish they had nominated Greenwood’s music for Inherent Vice and Reznor and Attic for Gone Girl…

”I’m curious on what basis you felt Crash was even competitive with Brokeback Mountain”

Thanks, Ben, for the reminder that the Oscars are sometimes about more than statistics. And ”Brokeback Mountain’s” loss to ”Crash” is one of the Academy’s most shameful episodes. It was embarrassing to have older Oscar voters, like Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine, spouting homophobic hogwash. Sadly, they probably were right: They knew fellow Oscar voters who wouldn’t even watch a movie about gay cowboys, let alone vote for it.

”John Williams, who get’s nominated for nearly everything, but when it comes to the actual awards people tend to think that five Oscars is enough.”

Wow, I gotta say I was surprised. Williams has about 50 Oscar nominations, but only 5 wins.
And his last win was 20 years ago: ”Schindler’s List” (1994).

No, you’re not alone 😉

So, if we’re going to begin considering 2015 already…

FYC
“What we do in the shadows”
Best Picture
Best Original Screenplay

“An Honest Liar”
Best Picture
Best Film Editing
Best Documentary Feature

It’s not a chore… it tends to lead to way too long conversations where nobody changes their minds (except me, sometimes), so I kind of think it’s a bit fruitless, that’s all – that’s why I’ve decided to not get into this kind of debate in the future. But I can make a quick exception for my friend Ryan. 🙂

SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT

Anyway, I think I’ve given you my explanation (about the final shot, specifically) before, and it’s not that complicated, really. It’s just that, to me, that particular shot undoubtedly PROVES that the final scene can’t be real (and I’ve come to the final conclusion that this DOES apply only from the moment he looks out the window, just as I had thought the first time I saw the movie, and not earlier, after he shoots himself – based on various clues, that I had misinterpreted before), because of the daughter’s reaction when looking down, which is just NOT in any way that of a daughter (disturbed or otherwise) who’s just seen her father lying dead down there (and how could she miss him if he had, indeed, fallen?), and also when looking up and smiling, which is also a reaction she would never have, to anything, after having just seen her father dead (or even if she had NOT seen him – she would still be too worried to ever smile, as she clearly cared for him).

I honestly see no way around this, and think the evidence is unassailable here, since there’s simply no logical explanation (that’s also consistent with the rest of the movie) for the daughter’s reactions in the final scene. I know you’ve said there are musical cues and sirens at one point, and I’ve listened very carefully for those every time I’ve watched the movie since you said that. The musical cues are consistent with my current interpretation, in fact. The sirens I’m just not hearing, at least not clearly. Besides, even if they’re there and I’m somehow still missing them, that doesn’t really prove much, anyway, since that part’s 100% all in his imagination.

Of course, one can argue (unsuccessfully, I believe) that this means he actually IS flying, but I think this is false and THIS is very much inconsistent with the rest of the movie. The key scene that has me drawing this conclusion is the scene where, after supposedly flying around the city, he is shown descending and getting into the theater, but, immediately, we also see a cab pulling up, the driver getting out and going in after him, shouting that he hadn’t paid the fare, then coming back out with the money he was, presumably, owed. Now, if anybody can tell me how this scene fits in with his actually having the ability to fly, I’ll be very happy to change my mind. It can’t be his imagination – why on Earth would he imagine something like that after he’s just flown there? So, then, what is it? It can ONLY be a way for the writer/director to tell us that he’s clearly imagining the flying sequence, in fact (and, very likely, by extension, all of the other stuff with his telekinesis and all that), and he’s just a regular human being with a very active imagination, who got to the theater via the cab. 🙂 Otherwise, it makes absolutely no sense.

As for my interpretation of what this actually MEANS for Riggan – which is probably all you were interested in anyway 🙂 -, this is, I suppose, more debatable, and I’m open to any suggestions for improving on my current interpretation. Anyway, to me, the ending (all of it) is him having finally accepted that that he’s just Birdman (evidence: “I got this voice in my head, talks to me, tells me THE TRUTH”, which he tells his wife AFTER his flying/cab ride epiphany, and which proves he’s accepted Birdman), just a washed-up actor who used to be a superhero-playing celebrity, and who’s messed up his life trying to be more, but he still wants the play to succeed, he still wants to fight for the general love and admiration that he craves for, only now he’s ready to do it on his own terms, and he finds the only way he, with his limited ideas/abilities, can think of to achieve that: doing what Birdman does best – going for the flashy move, dazzling the audience -, because he’s not good/smart enough to do it the regular way, by putting on an actually good play, which he now sees; hence, he shoots his nose off, and gets the result depicted in the epilogue.

The final scene (beginning after he sees the birds out the window) is either just him imagining that he’s flying, as a symbol of his liberation from his internal struggle to get away from Birdman, which he’s now accepted was pointless and, in fact, harmful, as he IS Birdman, and not (capable of) much more (which works fine, and is very effective, for me, at suggesting this), and also of gaining the acceptance/understanding of his daughter (after their nice moment in the hospital room, earlier), or simply a symbolic scene, neither real, nor in his imagination, but having the same meaning. This kind of thing has been done before in movies (I’d rather not give my example, but will, should the argument ever require it), and not as well, I might add, so I don’t see why this would be a bad ending either. It’s up to the viewer to make up his mind whether this liberation/acceptance the character undergoes is a good thing, or a bad thing.

Also, I find none of the rest of the movie in any way inconsistent with anything about this ending. I get that, even if that’s true, you won’t like the movie any more for it. You have other reasons why you dislike it, and I respect them. They’re solid, though probably subjective. As are my reasons for liking it, of course. But the ending is fine, if interpreted correctly. Maybe it’s not ideal, maybe one can think of an even stronger ending, but it’s definitely NOT inconsistent with what’s come before. At least that’s my opinion.

“I never said the whole movie is not coherent. The final shot is in my opinion.”

The way I interpret it, the final shot is not only coherent with the rest of the movie, but actually crucial to making my interpretation work from a logical standpoint (and other interpretations NOT work – again, in my opinion, but I’ve not yet come across anything that has made me even question my logic on this point, and, again, I LOOKED REALLY HARD, both within the movie itself, in reviews, podcasts, people’s opinions here at AD, direct conversation etc.).

“One thing we all can agree: the ending of Birdman is polarizing. Some hate. Some love.”

I won’t disagree with this. 🙂 Even if you accept that it’s coherent, you still don’t have to love it, of course – or even think it works, just because it makes sense logically. I do, but I see how others might not, and I have no problem with that (anymore).

“I gave it a 2nd, a 3rd… And I still HATE it.”

Doesn’t make you right. 🙂 Far from it, my friend. The ending isn’t automatically bad, just because you choose to interpret it a certain way. Others interpret it differently, in ways that, maybe, make a little more sense than your interpretation does (and maybe not – I don’t want to be arrogant, here), and actually think it’s pretty brilliant as it is. I’m sure you can agree to respect intelligent opinions that are different from your own, and to not try to impose yours like they’re facts.

Birdman is NOT incoherent – your interpretation of it renders it incoherent. Mine does not. Others agree (as, I’m sure, others agree with you). Personally, I think my interpretation is the closest to the truth (this, after analyzing things very, very carefully, with multiple viewings, and taking into consideration many other people’s opinions, as well), but you don’t see me trying to impose my point of view on everybody else, right? Calling it the masterpiece of the millennium or whatever… Maybe you should be more reserved too, and not call it incoherent like it’s some kind of indisputable fact. Especially since, I’m pretty sure, you haven’t given it anywhere near as much thought as I have, nor read/listened to as many different opinions before reaching your conclusions.

“I would suggest you pay attention and do a little bit of research on Redmayne’s preparation and degree of difficulty for this role. There’s a hell of a lot going on there and perhaps you should start by reading the film’s production notes, which will enlighten you.
I know this may be hard for you to believe, but sometimes your favorite just isn’t the best.”

And why your favorite is? The best for whom? You can have a favorite and defend your point of view… but this is just nonsense. My favorite is the best for me. Your favorite is the best for you. And the Academy’s favorite is the best for them.

Regarding Redmanyne… I don’t really care if he wins. I don’t really care about whoever wins Best Actor. I personally would slightly prefer Michael Keaton but my favorite male lead performance this year was BY FAR Jake Gyllenhall’s, totally original. His snub set my lack of interest about this category. What would really piss me off more than anything this year would be The Theory of Everything winning screenplay. That screenplay is MEDIOCRE. BAD. BAD. BAD. 200 Facts in 2 hours. A 2-hour canonization tape. Bad structure. Poor dialogues. Sometimes I think this screenplay is even worse than The Blind Side’s, that was never meant to be a BP contender and happened by accident thanks to box office and to the flops that year. The Theory of Everything was always meant to be an awards contender. Acting is good, score is good but the script is horrible. And the irony is that Cumberbach played the same role, the same way… a decade ago. I know that Redmayne had a really hard preparation. I think he should have been nominated for Les Mis. Just don’t see how playing Stephen Hawking is harder than playing Alan Turing or Rigan Thomson or Louis Bloom, that was among the biggest robberies of the year.

”I think it’s kind of cute, if not sad how some of you are trying to force the universe to give Keaton the Oscar over Eddie Redmayne. If that’s the case, you all can also argue in defense for Rosamund Pike over Julianne Moore. Redmayne has won all the major awards that a true front runner, like Moore, Arquette and Simmons has won thus far. Why are some of you still in this sad state of denial?”

Redmayne definitely has momentum on his side, having just won BAFTA and SAG, and I won’t be surprised if he takes the Oscar, too. But … Redmayne didn’t win his first Best Actor prize in competition with Keaton until just a couple weeks ago at SAG. (They had both won at the Globes, so I don’t count that.) But until SAG, Keaton had been winning many of the Best Actor precursors: Broadcast Film Critics, Gotham Awards, National Board of Review (co-winner), plus a number of the regional film critics’ prizes. Redmayne hadn’t. So you can’t put him in the same category as Moore, Simmons or Arquette who’ve been ”winning over and over.” Give Keaton credit for his many wins before SAG. Talk about ”a sad state of denial”!

“Patrick – there is a difference between voicing your support for a film and saying that anyone who doesn’t vote for that film is wrong and stubborn. A big difference. You are correct in that groups and group think are what determine these awards, but suggesting that because most other groups awarded Boyhood means it should win is what upset me. The Academy is their own group that will decide for themselves who they want to win, and that film will win. Discrediting their opinions using other people’s consensus is neither productive nor valid.”

This.

“I would suggest you pay attention and do a little bit of research on Redmayne’s preparation and degree of difficulty for this role. There’s a hell of a lot going on there and perhaps you should start by reading the film’s production notes, which will enlighten you.
I know this may be hard for you to believe, but sometimes your favorite just isn’t the best.”

Thank you, Film Fatale! I personally will never defend a favorite movie or performance again, because I get way too involved emotionally, but I will always applaud when others do it in my stead…

“Why does everyone hate the ending of Birdman? I love it. I think it’s kind of perfect.”

So I’m NOT alone in this around here. 🙂 Cool!… (Well, I guess Antoinette also loves it, but we see it very differently, so it’d be cheating a bit if I counted her – I’m still pleased that she likes it, though.)

“Not incoherent to the whole film.”

Neither is Birdman’s – and we, who’ve thought about it properly, instead of just deciding we don’t like it and not giving it a second thought, know it!

@JP: Great response. I think we are fairly in agreement about what an “Awards movie” is. Your definition (“the kind of contender you can see coming a long time before just based on pedigree”) I would say is the most accurate. I agree “The Artist” is not one. I might debate the point with “Argo” as it is about an important historical event (and, like “The Imitation Game,” a recently declassified one.)

I didn’t think about how industry narcissism plays into these things. In fact, not so long ago, the conventional wisdom seems to have been that films about the movie/entertainment industry are not generally beloved. However, you make a great point that “The Artist,” “Argo” and “Birdman” are all doing that.

Another great point in that most of the industry longs to make films like “Birdman” more than films like “Boyhood.”

Just out of curiosity, what were your year in advance predictions for Best Picture besides “Birdman”?

Based on past results, the fact that you only got one right this year suggest that something is shifting in terms of our definition of “Awards movies,” no?

I think it’s kind of cute, if not sad how some of you are trying to force the universe to give Keaton the Oscar over Eddie Redmayne. If that’s the case, you all can also argue in defense for Rosamund Pike over Julianne Moore. Redmayne has won all the major awards that a true front runner, like Moore, Arquette and Simmons has won thus far. Why are some of you still in this sad state of denial? It’s like, you’re mental or something. Sheesh! The writing’s on the wall people, the same four people who have been winning over, and over, and over again, will win on Oscar night.

@MYEWER. Julliane Moore is a great actress.I am just saying she doesnt deserve an oscar for Still Alice and yes i have watched it.I missed the days of when fearless performances were awarded not the typical oscar bait performances.

@mweyer…..I saw Still Alice and had the very same thought…that is not even in the top 5 of her performances. Very sub par for her. She was much better in The Kids are Alright!!! Still happy for her win…but it is a career Oscar for her in my opinion. Pike/s performance to me was the best…followed by Witherspoon. Cottillard being in there is a joke. The movie was pathetic.

Ok, so Julianne Moore, J.K Simmons (please stop the same gag ‘above average kids’ spiel each speech). Patricia Arquette – firm locks for wins.
Actor I would lean towards Eddie Redmayne, (stats are on his side), but Keaton for the spoiler. Screenplay awards I still think are up in the air as are the two big prizes. The stats seem to point to Birdman for BD/BP but I get a gut feeling that it won’t pan out that way.

Mostly we knew the BAFTAs wouldn’t really go for Birdman, but many thought that due to Boyhood’s assumed “weakening”, some beloved british film would emerge victorious, like Globe-winner The Grand Budapest Hotel or even The Imitation Game. But it’s Boyhood for ya!

I was so very happy to see Boyhood win and hope it can turn the momentum around and win BP/BD. It was the best movie of the year and moved me more than any movie I can remember. I have seen 7 of the 8 BP nominees and they all were entertaining. I just hope the Academy can appreciate what a remarkable movie that Boyhood is. Thanks to Sasha and all who keep banging the drums for Boyhood!

Bet everyone here wish this was the Oscar day, right?? LOL

@ANDREW: Quote: “this race will be close, and there is no third contender.”
I wonder if GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL isn’t more of a contender than we’re aware. Given that it’s nearly sweeping the technical categories and taking writing trophies as well, I suspect the amount of support it’s drawing is playing a major role in whether BIRDMAN or BOYHOOD comes out on top.

Also, what a quirky year! Aren’t BIRDMAN, BOYHOOD and GRAND BUDAPEST very odd films for the Academy to embrace? I love them all (BOYHOOD more than BIRDMAN, I have to admit — but nevertheless I found BIRDMAN extremely pleasurable). Not one of them seems to be the typical “Awards movie.” In a usual year, all of these “frontrunners” seem like they would be in the “glad to be nominated” category. I find it wonderful that all three are likely to go home with at least one statue on Oscar night.

Could this year’s takeaway be “What happened to the ‘Awards movie'”?

and there is no third contender

On Oscar night, I wouldn’t be shocked if they read “American Sniper”.

Come Oscar night, the envelope is opened, “And the winner [for Best Picture] is… a tie! Between Birdman and Boyhood!”

One can dream.

Strong showing for Boyhood.

As a birdfan, I’d rather have SAG/PGA/DGA than GG/BAFTA, but this race will be close, and there is no third contender

Well, BAFTAs made me happy, showering all that love on my two favorite films Boyhood and Grand Budapest Hotel. (Birdman is a fave too, but these results please me the most.) Happy to see Julianne Moore and Pride get awarded too.

meant winning*…woops 🙂

Patrick – If someone liked Birdman over Boyhood, then that is their opinion. It is a terrible argument to say everyone else thinks something is best, thus it is. First of all, it is not true that everyone thought Boyhood was better (the Guilds?) and even if they did, that doesn’t render an entire group of people opinionless. If the Academy awards Birdman, it is because the majority of members want it to win, not because they’re stubborn and they refuse to go along with what other people have deemed best. If Boyhood wins, they liked it best, and if Birdman wins, they liked that best. There is no objectivity when it comes to film, and quite frankly your consensus group think mindset is alarming and anti-art and anti-awards. Let someone have an opinion that is different from yours, and live happily knowing that there is a film like Boyhood that you love that much, and celebrate it. But give others a chance to celebrate a film that they loved as well.

Michael Keaton being in a Best Picture frontrunner gives him a bit of ground still. He has BFCA and GG, and his film is out front.

Phantom: Michael Keaton and Bradley Cooper are out.
With the GG/SAG/BAFTA wins, Eddie Redmayne is pretty much unbeatable.

Gotta agree with you, Phantom. It would appear that Redmayne is home free, as he probably should be, but I have a feeling in the pit of my stomach. Final voting began on Feb 6th – when does it end? No time for complacency.

Someone here has mentioned this before, but I think there’s a weird binary being presented: All the guilds show are that enough of one group liked a film better than others. It doesn’t mean all voters will go for Birdman over Boyhood. It means that Birdman got the biggest number over Boyhood, which means there’s probably quite a bit of support that we haven’t seen. Moreover, those guilds are made up largely of non-Academy voters. Similarly, there’s clearly a sizable following from the British voters, and a lack of support for Birdman over nearly every other Best Picture nominee. We just don’t have a clear enough picture. I’m gonna go with Boyhood, but just barely. We’ll see where WGA comes down on this. If they go with Boyhood over any of the nominees, I think the race really belongs to Boyhood. If they go with anyone else, it’s anyone’s guess, but it’s probably Birdman’s to lose.

@ Mr. E

I did it. Not incoherent to the whole film. Not a fan of it but not incoherent like Birdman. Anyway, I prefered There Will Be Blood but the Coens deserved their win and No Country For Old Men is a great film.

Birdman, the current Oscar frontrunner, leaves with only a cinematography award. This makes the race a bit different from 2011’s race, when The King’s Speech won both Best Film and Best Actor at the BAFTAs. Could Boyhood still win, even after losing all three major American guild awards? I’m not holding my breath. I have a feeling the American industry voters will be stubborn and still give it to Birdman, even though everyone else seems to think Boyhood is the year’s best film.

Jash-

I would suggest you pay attention and do a little bit of research on Redmayne’s preparation and degree of difficulty for this role. There’s a hell of a lot going on there and perhaps you should start by reading the film’s production notes, which will enlighten you.

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but sometimes your favorite just isn’t the best.

JP…watch No Country for Old Men’s final scene

Very surprising results. I wouldn’t be surprised if the grand Budapest hotel wins the most Oscars and theory of everything, whiplash and birdman win 3 a piece and american sniper and imitation game gets shut out and Richard link later wins director for boyhood I have a feeling director and picture are going to split again.

It started off so promising then ended with a thud.

Boyhood back with a bang !

Some good news for a change. Very happy for Linklater, Redmayne and Arquette.

Hopefully the Oscars are smarter than that. You could maybe make an argument for why his computer should win.

Weirdly, so far, these are almost exactly my ideal winners. Probably would have gone Girl for script.

Linklater just won Best Directing!!

Rising Star went to Jack O’Connell. With three critically acclaimed lead performances (Starred Up, ’71, Unbroken), it was well-deserved, no doubt about it, I just hoped it would go to Gugu Mbatha-Raw. Her work in 2014 should have garnered her an Oscar nomination. This could have been a nice consolation prize.

So now it feels like The Theory of Everything or The Grand Budapest Hotel could actually surprise here in Best Picture ?

The Theory of Everything won screenplay. hahahaha

A MEDIOCRE screenplay. Everything is poor. Poor dialogues. Poor structure. 200 facts in 2 hours.

The worst Best Picture nominee of the century. I think even worse than The Blind Side.

*Adapted (correction)

The fork may now be stuck in The Imitation Game.

Wes Anderson has just won Original Screenplay, the fourth Bafta for The Grand Budapest Hotel.

Do all the acting awards have to be the same?Its just too boring and repetitive..I wish the baftas would spice things up..

Yep, J.K. Simmons and Patricia Arquette are most certainly winning the Oscar now. To me recollection, only Russel Crowe won the Golden Globe, SAG and Bafta and then lost the Oscar…so unless Simmons or Arquette decide to make their nights a bit more interesting and rough up a Bafta producer like Crowe did, they are surefire Oscar winners.

There goes the last doubts in Arquette. If BAFTAS award her over Knightley, no way she loses the Oscar now.

Sammy, we are posting the same things always a few seconds away, it is pretty funny 🙂 Keep it up !

As expected, J.K. Simmons took Best Supporting Actor…Whiplash has already won 3 (!) Baftas.

I’m reading the thread and live In the UK!! Hate this is not aired live and now will have no need to watch the show in an hours time!!!!

God, I’ll be so annoyed if Redmayne doesn’t win and suddenly people fuel the stupid “Jupiter Ascending is his Norbit” line.

Whiplash got sound, too !!!

BAFTA is probably GBH’s last chance to win a major award as it has 11 noms here including acting. I would like to see the film triumph here.
Gone Girl has a shot here as well.

That’s right, Sammy, the scheduling is bad. I don’t see how Linklater, Inarritu and Anderson can turn around and attend the awards in 12 hours.