2nd Annual American Film Institute 2001 Nominees (1 Viewer)

[Terrell]

By the way, if you guys get to thinking I'm just babbling on and sounding stupid, just ignore me. Just trying to understand.

 

[Jim_C]

Completely OT: Terrell, I know I've seen that picture in your sig. What is it?

 

[Terrell]

That's Jedi master Plo Koon. He's in AOTC. Actually, he was in TPM as well, but only in the Jedi Temple scenes sitting quietly. He has more of a role in AOTC though.

 

[Jim_C]

Thanks. I knew that it was SW but I couldn't place the face. Besides, it's your sig. It HAD to be SW.

 

[Craig S]

One of the AFI jurors was Roger Ebert, and he wrote this article about the AFI nomination process.
As far as Denzel winning... I thought his performance was electrifying. Was he better than Crowe or Thornton??? I think that's a matter of personal taste.
Consider this. Let's say that in the AFI voting pool 40% were in Denzel's camp, and the other 60% were not impressed. Those 60% could have split on Thornton & Crowe and Washington gets the nod with a plurality. So even though the majority of voters didn't think his was the best, he still gets the award. I imagine this happens more often than not in these award votes. I really wish we could see the voting breakdown for the Oscars sometime - I'm sure it would be very interesting.

 

[teapot2001]

I thought either LOTR or In the Bedroom would win for best movie.

Did Naomi Watts look great or what?

I didn't have any problems nor was I surprised with any of the winners.

The televised show needs a lot of improvement if they want people to watch it.

For next year's awards, I think they should just scrap the television awards, since the focus is obviously on the movies, and turn it into a 2 hour show.

~T

 

[Ryan Peter]

Denzel is excellent in Training Day. Definitely deserved.

 

[MichaelPe]

For next year's awards, I think they should just scrap the television awards, since the focus is obviously on the movies, and turn it into a 2 hour show.

Exactly - I found the TV awards completely pointless. Besides, how can you put Ray Romano and James Gandolfini in the same category? Sure, they're both great actors, but we're comparing apples with oranges.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Terrell,

I think part of the point of this ceremony was to draw attention to ten worthwhile films rather than limiting it. (And you know, I'm beginning to come down on that side of things. Five is too little, especially if there are quality smaller films. I think they tend to get squeezed out in the AA noms, except for one or maybe two, because of the limited space.)

As for Denzel Washington winning, I wouldn't consider this a surprise. His performance was roundly praised upon Training Day's release, and I'd say he's easily the most electrifying and interesting part of that film. Crowe and Thornton (and Tom Wilkinson) may be in better movies, but Washington does excellent work that merits a win. (He wouldn't be my first pick, but I don't have a problem with him winning.)

Is it the type of movie he was in that is causing you the problem with his performance? Training Day isn't serious enough or Denzel's character isn't serious enough? The film gets too cartoonish toward the end, but he is always very charismatic in the part.

As for Naomi Watts (yes, she did look good), her appearance at the show, in part, demonstrated the force of her performance. I knew she was Australian but had forgotten since she was so convincing in Mulholland Drive.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Guy, exactly. I mean, how can it be Best Pic if neither the directors, actors, screenplay, and editing weren't even nominated. And in many cases, that's the way it was. And before anyone goes bonkers, I'm not trying to cut down FOTR. But there were a number of instances like that. Again, although I understand this year is wide open.

If the direction was the best of the year, and the acting, screenplay, music or otherwise weren't up to par, then it doesn't deserve best picture.
If the acting was good, but everything else sucked, then it doesn't deserve best picture.
And so on.
I find it refreshing to have an awards show where I know who's making the decisions and what they're credentials are.
I still prefer the idea of the People's Choice Awards, but people are just too damned uneducated anymore.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This might be the payback year for Denzel. Just like Jimmy Stewert and Al Pacino among others in which they won AA's but not for their best performances which were in other films but for political reasons didn't win AA for those films.

Crawdaddy

 

[Kami]

You had 10 films nominated total, and even Shrek was in there

What's wrong with Shrek there? A wonderful film in it's genre...and why shouldn't that genre be represented in an awards show if it has a good movie? I have a hard time thinking of a critic that didn't have Shrek in their top 10 list of 2001. Certainly a very high majority did.
Big congrats to Peter Jackson and crew. They did the seemingly impossible and pulled it off!

 

[Terrell]

You may be correct Robert.
As for Shrek Kami, Monsters Inc. was better in my opinion. But I'm just stating that they shouldn't have 10 films to begin with. Pick 6 of the best films of the year. 10 is way too many. And as for being a great picture, Shrek sure doesn't belong up there with the likes of A Beautiful Mind, Gosford Park, Blackhawk Down, etc., etc.
And if they meant to have comedies and dramas, why didn't they just split it up into to categories, aka the Golden Globes? Oh well, not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Terrell, as much as I agree with you on Shrek--I liked it, even in *** 1/2 territory, but find it wildly overrated--it has been showing up on many year-end lists. I've insisted it won't be up for Best Picture, but it very well may be since it is so well loved. Again, is it the content that doesn't strike you as being worthy?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Hey, the AFI's ended before midnight! That's good enough for me. While there are too many awards shows, AFI has more right to one than many other groups. While Denzel might not have been in an award-deserving movie, his performance certainly merited recognition. He was incredible in Training Day, and that's why he won. He was why I went, and why I enjoyed it.
LOTR won because, well, because the majority of voters thought it deserved to. I was surprised to NOT see Jackson nominated, but I couldn't argue with the choices (except the winner - Altman is not high on my list of people I respect or like). It was nice to see Mul. Drive get a lot of recognition...maybe more people (including me) will see it. I enjoyed what I saw, and wasn't angered by any of the results. It also seemed less of a "dog-and-pony" show like the Oscars.
,
Chuck

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

I missed the first hour of the show and have not read the recent comments here. But from what I watched, I think the AFI wants to be the first awards show out of the gate but not without consequences.
There were some spoilers as it showed clips upon clips of films nominated but had not yet been widely released (i.e. Black Hawk Down, Monsters Ball, etc.). I don't like this method and had to turn off the TV when this happened.
Also, I have problems when only one side of the argument is presented. There were filmmakers praising their own films (and others praising their favorites) without the benefit of an opposing view.
At one point Ron Howard even said "A Beautiful Mind is the true story of John F. Nash, Jr." (or something to that effect). Huh? Please, do not carry your own chairs here, alright?
Now, I will read the latest comments posted.
~Edwin

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

AFI is not the only group to give (Denzel) Washington the Best Actor nod this season, so that isn't out of left field either.

The National Society of Film Critics awarded Washington second best behind Gene Hackman and he beat Tom Wilkinson by one vote.

~Edwin

 

[Terrell]

I haven't seen Hackman in The Royal Tannenbaums yet. I assume Edwin, that is the role they awarded him for. But i guess opinions differ. I'd put Crowe first, Thornton second, and Washington third out of those three. I was just amazed by Crowes performance. The layers and emotions he conveys so geniunely in his character.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Craig S makes a great point about the odd effects of "positive" multiple candidate voting. More people can dislike the winner yet still split among the other options. This is the sort of debate that arose in the most recent Prez election for an example (not taking a side, just saying it's a common debate).

In an effort to fix these sorts of problems there are other voting methods that mathmeticians work with (Discover mag had a great article on this about a year ago).

One method is the "negative" vote. In this case you would give votes to all candidates you DIDN'T want or would not approve of winning. Then the candidate with the fewest votes would win. The system does seem to give more accurate results in mathmatical models, but it has potential problems as well.

And of course there is the weighted system.

Anyway, I can live with it the way it is. The winners often don't get a majority, but they do get the biggest group of #1 choice support.

And btw, it's not just politics or film awards with these voting problems. This approval process causes problems all over the place in life. You could even find it in statistical probability in which maybe the routing of a signal connection might be chosen in an approval method, yet for a majority of the time it would not be the best route. In other words, the problem is a function of the voting/selection method, not the voters themselves.