Sign in to follow this  
VP19

'31 Days Of Oscar': A necessary evil?

154 posts in this topic

> three of those "nominations" were write-ins and thus they are not officially regarded as nominations.

 

Beginning in 1934, the Academy allowed write in candidates in all categories for Oscars. Why? Because of the backlash that occurred when Bette Davis didn't get an Oscar nomination for *Of Human Bondage*

 

Because of that write-in campaign, Davis garnered an official Oscar nomination as Best Actress that year,

 

In 1935, Michael Curtiz garnered enough write-in votes for *Captain Blood* to garner a Best Director nomination.

 

Leo Forbestein was also a write-in candidate for Best Score for *Captain Blood* and received a nomination.

 

Casey Robinson received a nomination for his work on *Captain Blood*.

 

That year, Hal Mohr won an Oscar on a write-in basis for his work on *A Midsummer's Night Dream" .

 

The following year, write-in candidates were disallowed in all categories. (Sorry, Ben Affleck, Tom Hopper and Katherine Bigelow).

 

The Academy's official microsite, Oscar Legacy, has been up for the last few years and lists all of the above write-in candidates (and the winner) as official nominees.

 

So, it would seem that the Academy views them as nominees enough to list them as official nominees on their microsite.

 

Sources:

 

The official Oscar Legacy site from the Academy:

 

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/8th.html

 

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/8th-winners.html

 

And one of the best researched sites for films and awards by decades:

http://www.filmsite.org/aa35.html

 

Edited by: lzcutter for clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brava!

 

And isn't the 1935 Oscar Ceremony radio broadcast in the "31 Days..." microsite? Will have to give it a listen to see what it says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}

>

> And isn't the 1935 Oscar Ceremony radio broadcast in the "31 Days..." microsite? Will have to give it a listen to see what it says.

>

According to Inside Oscar "after the awards were given" Frank Capra (the president of? host? both?) spilled the results in detail- which they used to do, and which is just tacky as hell.

 

Also according to Inside Oscar, there is no listing of the three Captain Blood nominations that were write-ins in the nominations section. Nor is there on wikipedia, but I get that that carries all the weight of a goose feather.

 

I guess we could go back and worth on the "official" nature of those three write-in nominations (I do note here that Bette Davis is referred to as a 10 time nominee and not an 11 time nominee as per the oddity over her Human Bondage experience, and I don't know whether or not Paul Muni's Black Fury write-in nod as often tacked on to his tab.)

 

 

*Point is, the month is (ostensibly) about the Oscar,* and it would have been MUCH MORE interesting had youknowwho mentioned *"those nominations were for..."* and "three of them, including the "nod" for Curtiz were *write-in nominations, not on the official ballot* which was allowed in those days. In fact Curtiz almost beat John Ford based on the write-ins alone."

 

 

*Because, really, the write-in aspect of the "nominations" makes them all that much more of an honor and also because exploring the Oscar angle of the film's history was the whole reason it was on.*

 

 

But no, it was the standard "this is Captain Blood. It has Errol Flynn and is the film that made him a star. Errol Flynn was born in Tasmania. Olivia DeHavilland is in this. So is Basil Rathbone. Michael Curtiz directed it. It is from Warner Bros. in 1935. It was nominated for five Oscars. I am Ben Mankiewicz and I like Clipper Ships. Clipper ships are cool. Here is Captain Blood. "

 

 

Anyhoo, like I sez, mon sogetto never have much weight other than relieving one or two bricks from the load that sits atop me chest...

 

 

I do have to say- and really, LZ, before you sic Herr Moderator on me- it truly is without an ounce of bitterness, mean-spirit or rancor- that I *really wish* the network was as dedicated to having accurate and interesting material in the outros and intros and on their online database and put as much interest in being innovative with their programs and interstitials as you guys are in hopping to defending them every time one of us basement-dwelling cranks says "hey, wait a second that's not right" or "they could do this better."

 

 

(ps- it is absolutely your right to defend them, and heavens knows, you put your all in to it to a degree that would make Daniel Webster feel lacking.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very informative, Add, and I thank you for the education. I never even knew there were "write-ins!" I agree completely that this is the kind of "inside information" that would make tuning in to the intros and outros MUCH more appealing. (Heaven forbid if our "Essentials" co-host offered ANYthing resembling real information.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AddisonDeWitless wrote:

 

 

Really though, I perused the schedule for tomorrow and it's an awesome day of 30's and 40's Warner's features that at least seems kindasorta like someone put some thought into shining the spotlight on some of the titles that haven't been shown *quite as much* as some of the others throughout the years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AddisonDWL:

 

 

These are all great WB films, and I always enjoy watching them, but hile they may not have been shown quite as much on the 31 Days throughout the years, most of them are shown regularly throughout the year, every year. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Arturo wrote:}{quote}

>

> These are all great WB films, and I always enjoy watching them, but while they may not have been shown quite as much on the 31 Days throughout the years, most of them are shown regularly throughout the year, every year. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

>

Ha! Someone gets on me for one of my (rare) nice posts!

 

(ps- it's cool and I agree)

(pss- I will be watching the block of movies tonight that includes Sierra Madre and Maltese Falcon for like the n-thousandth time meself.)

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Feb 2, 2013 2:26 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Any crappy film can garner some sort of Oscar nomination, and is therefore eligible to be shown on TCM in February.

Well, at least they're not showing Marooned (winner: Best Visual Effects, 1969.)

Or are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they are showing Guess Who's Coming To Dinner on Feb. 23.

How they ever nominated Cecil Kellaway for Best Supporting Actor is beyond me. Was he on screen for 5 minutes even? But what about that kiss in the back of the taxi? A real show stopper. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just ran the profile of the veteran stunt man and director (and screenwriter?) *Hal Needham,* who is apparently a recipient of an Honorary Oscar this year.

 

(And he seems like a great guy.)

 

Is TCM by any chance showing Smokey and the Bandit this month? Because: A) They can: it was nominated for the Best Editing Oscar in 1977 and B) it would be awwwwwwwwwwwwwwesome!

 

Seriously, I love that movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}They just ran the profile of the veteran stunt man and director (and screenwriter?) *Hal Needham,* who is apparently a recipient of an Honorary Oscar this year.

>

> (And he seems like a great guy.)

>

>

> Is TCM by any chance showing Smokey and the Bandit this month? Because: A) They can: it was nominated for the Best Editing Oscar in 1977 and B) it would be awwwwwwwwwwwwwwesome!

>

>

> Seriously, I love that movie.

>

Well, they are. Set your DVR.

February 07, 2013 @ 4:15 AM (EST)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=heuriger wrote:}{quote}Hey all, don't forget to set your DVR's for Guess Who's Coming To Dinner on Feb. 23

S'allright.

By now *we all* know who is coming to dinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}

> Nor is there on wikipedia, but I get that that carries all the weight of a goose feather.

 

"Wikipedia is a conspiracy of the Chinese government to gradually and slowly insinuate so many lies and untruths into western civilisation that it will eventually collapse, bringing down capitalism with it." -- Dr. I. Besser-Wisser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Capuchin wrote:}{quote}

> "Wikipedia is a conspiracy of the Chinese government to gradually and slowly insinuate so many lies and untruths into western civilisation that it will eventually collapse, bringing down capitalism with it." -- Dr. I. Besser-Wisser

Well, it's working so far, can't fault 'em on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}

> Besserwisser = know-it-all. Yes?

 

An appropriate translation of the name is best wisdom.

 

His bio, from WZB Mitteilungen, March 2007.

"Professor Dr. Dr. I. Q. Besser-Wisser was born on the island of Spiekeroog in 1899 and has been Director of the Central Institute for Questions and Answers, The University of the Arctic Circle, since 1914. Recent work includes his definitive 5 volume History of Rice Pudding (Broadwoodwidger, Last Resort Press, 1952) and he is currently editor of The Journal of Dogmatic Ontology"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}

> Are you making all this up yourself

 

The Social Science Research Center Berlin is commonly called WZB (its initials in German). It's an internationally renowned research institute.

 

They publish a journal 4 times a year. The one for March, 2007 is online.

http://www.kurt-bodewig.de/sites/kurt-bodewig.de/files/20070301_wzb.pdf

On page 74 is The RoWoCo and Flea Theory; Truth Behind the Conspiracy By Professor Dr. Dr. I. Q. Besser-Wisser, Central Institute for Questions and Answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Capuchin:

>"Wikipedia is a conspiracy of the Chinese government to gradually and slowly insinuate so many lies and untruths into western civilisation that it will eventually collapse, bringing down capitalism with it."

 

Thus accomplishing their own downfall at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a laugh from the brief written intro to The Life of Emile Zola. To

edit and paraphrase quite freely, This film is based on historical records,

but a lot of the stuff in it is pure fiction. They're usually not that candid.

 

I don't really mind 31 Days. Yes, it's the usual suspects, but there are a

few films I haven't seen before and others I haven't seen in a long time and

enjoy seeing again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

{quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}They just ran the profile of the veteran stunt man and director (and screenwriter?) *Hal Needham,* who is apparently a recipient of an Honorary Oscar this year

 

 

 

 

 

Hal Needham but no Doris Day............

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us