The Most Corrupt Oscar Campaign in History 

* Fernanda Montenegro

I was sooooo upset that GP won and not KB.

Fernanda Montenegro, actually

Well care surely wasn’t robbed of the admiration everyone has for her and her talent

Montenegro was stunning in Central Station. Unbelievable.​@@alinesodre334

I have seen both movies (SIL and SPR) over 10 times each. I think Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg are the best . . .GOATS. My #1 movie of all time is Schindler's List. However, I honestly feel Shakespeare In Love was totally deserving of best picture as a cinematic, sprawling "movie of old" on the genera of Gone With the Wind. at 17:22 my comment is separate from any dirty tricks and campaigning by Weinstein, and as you say in 19:08, SIL is a great movie. Finally, you are correct; since the 1950's we have been watching hundreds of WWII movies. SPR was just another (great) movie, but there have been many. And I hated American Beauty and believe it didn't deserve any of the wins.

Well, much as I respect your right to have an opinion, I wholeheartedly disagree with it. Shakespeare absolutely deserved that Oscar. After the first 20 minutes, I found saving private Ryan to be boring. I think war movies are unfairly attributed a sense of prestige and weight that they don’t automatically deserve. Saving private Ryan, in my opinion falls apart after its impressive opening, and never finds another moment of storytelling as realistic or powerful as the opening sequence. I do agree that Cate Blanchett should’ve won and I would sooner agree to Elizabeth winning best picture than SPR.

@@esciteach7997no one care about Shakespeare in love and it is telling. It is average movie, pretty weak for the best picture

Dude this Indian guy is yapping. Shakespeare in Love literally won more precursors than SPR prior to the Oscars winning best film at the BAFTA, Golden Globes and best cast ensemble at SAG meanwhile SPR had only won best film at the critics choice and golden globes, It was clear that Shakespeare in Love was the favorite to win even before the ceremony.

@@zzz7103 When you say, no one cares about Shakespeare in love, you’re wrong. Because I’m here defending it because I love it. So I care about Shakespeare in Love. And when they voted, so did the Academy, as proven when, at the end of the day, the Oscar went to Shakespeare in Love. Doesn’t matter if you don’t like it or find it average or weak. It won.

Lol, it's one of my favorite tidbits. The Weinstein brothers almost ruined LOTR on a number of occasions. One was, as you mentioned, making a single film. The other was that Bob Weinstein wanted them to kill off some of the Hobbits (and I think he admitted to not even reading the book). They also threatened to replace Jackson with Tarantino. Thank goodness Jackson found New Line Cinema.

It was new info for me! I actually paused the video to marvel at the resemblance.

i thought Grishnakh looked familiar but never made the connection until i read your comment

AND his bullying tactics!!

Yup. It was a mix of the money, aggressiveness, and the frank bullying (and out and out corruption where applicable).

@@Syntopikon He forced women to wear his wife's dress brand, Marchesa, he was basically a mob boss.

Dude this Indian guy is yapping. Shakespeare in Love literally won more precursors than SPR prior to the Oscars winning best film at the BAFTA, Golden Globes and best cast ensemble at SAG meanwhile SPR had only won best film at the critics choice and golden globes, It was clear that Shakespeare in Love was the favorite to win even before the ceremony.

@@ZackBryan357 omg, cant you understand that is also part of campaign? all of these awards you mentioned works just like oscars.

Dude this Indian guy is yapping. Shakespeare in Love literally won more precursors than SPR prior to the Oscars winning best film at the BAFTA, Golden Globes and best cast ensemble at SAG meanwhile SPR had only won best film at the critics choice and golden globes, It was clear that Shakespeare in Love was the favorite to win even before the ceremony.

Yea, finally paying for this awful decision. Just a horrible man

I highly doubt that guy is actually in jail.

He is!@@SalveRegina8

I don't think Weinstein is as bad as the people who never said a word about his behaviour. They kept quiet out of fear of loosing jobs, I.e money and fame. All out there saying the same story....we never saw shit ...and they did liars .

Fantasy, sci-fi, and animation often get the short end of the stick when it comes to the awards. I don't think Best Animated Feature was even a thing at that point. Sentiment has changed more recently, but I think it's safe to say that animated movies are as good as, if not better than, most live actions films at this point. Across the Spider-Verse and the TMNT Mutant Mayhem were 2 of the best last year.

​@@Syntopikon Best Animated Feature didn't become a thing until 2002. Infact one of the studios that encouraged the Academy to make the category was DreamWorks who at the time was one of Disney's huge competitors in Animation.

@@Syntopikon Agreed. That is because whatever limitation Action/Hero films has in Live Action, can easily be done in animation. No restrictions AND killer story for the audience.

Personally, I thought Pleasantville should've gotten a Best Picture and Director nod

In an ideal world. Prince Of Egypt should have been. As big as Lion King.

Make no mistake Shakespeare In Love and The English Patient are absolutely classics and great movies. Weinstein's bullshit doesn't take anything away from those movies.

I’ve only heard about The English Patient from Seinfeld, but I’ve never heard of that Shakespeare in Love thing

Which is a pity. The English Patient is a beautiful movie. I think. Maybe it's just "too beautiful" and "too romantic" for today's taste. LA Confidential was also a great movie and lost to Titanic. Though it's not talked about (has no technical extravaganza in it like Titanic) still a massively great movie which deserves much more love. Maybe it has something to do with Titanic had Leo.and Kate, LA conf had Kevin Spacey in it (and he was brilliant, but his press hasn't been good lately).

Classics by who? Maybe Saving Private Ryan, the pther two only by Blanchett’s fans who are still mad for that Oscar loss.

I watched Saving Private Ryan in a theater showing double features (the other movie was the Wesley Snipes starrer Blade). I remember Saving was such a depressing film but Blade was fucking fantastic.

But who's table did he sit at during the Oscars, Shakespeare in Love or Elizabeth ?

You really did not miss anything. Callow tedious film.

Makes sense considering how try hard and pretentious it is

@@shawklan27yeah I couldn’t even get 30 minutes in but I have a feeling it doesn’t get better from that

And funnily enough, it got absolutely nothing at this year’s ceremony

It didn't deserve Best Picture but it is still a decent film.

Spielberg loves making films. Genuinely. I bet the only reason he does any of the schmoozing at all is bc he knows he gets the freedom to make more of the films he wants to make if he gets more money & fame. Weinstein loves being the bigshot. He loves power. His money + fame serviced his power. I think films were incidental; a vehicle to power. He would've been a monster in real estate or advertising or any field he went into. But Spielberg is a filmmaker.

Well, he is called Steven Stealberg by colleagues (e.g. by Gilliam). Do you wonder why?

Ford was never afraid of showing his displeasure lol.

And will remain one. One to note about the award is that the writer, Marc Norman, who was also a producer, didn't get to speak. When he tries to approach the mic, Weinstein gets on it and hogs it until the time is up.

@@Syntopikon What a weasel. I did not know that.

Was she skipping bc historical inaccuracies? It couldn't be anything else. I don't remember anything in SiL that would need skipping if you were reading + teaching Shakespeare. Those plays have every kind of violence, vice, & biological act in them. Inescapable if you're being taught Shakespeare properly, thoroughly, & honestly.

Era dela ou da Cate.

Yeah, they should have based the Oscar winner on the actor’s nationality. You sound really smart…

@@djquinn11 I'm Canadian. OC is right. Montenegro deserved that award that year. Her performance was stunning & it was an incredible role. You're the ignorant one here.

@@djquinn11 you sound like the american school aystem failed you

That much is true. Some of these campaigns are more expensive than political campaigns. It's an industry unto itself.

True in some but not all cases.Jessica Chastain & Jamie Lee Curtis were in no magazine covers or fashion shows but they got their Oscars.

Cate Blanchett was robbed Saving Private Ryan robbed. Fast forward, Stallone was robbed. These campaigns are ridiculous.

Yup. This was a solid slate compared to other years. They're rerunning several Nolan films like The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar, and Dunkirk at my local Regal, so I'm looking forward to rewatching his filmography (as much as possible).

Compared to other films Oppenheimer was quite Oscar baity as well…

I can see why some would think that, but I'm not so sure. Oscar bait movies (at least in recent times) usually get a release later in the year (and sometimes get a limited run to meet the bare minimum qualification). Oppenheimer, meanwhile, was released in the middle of summer (around the same time Saving Private Ryan came out in 1998) and was marketed more like a blockbuster than anything else (which it ended up being). It's a serious biopic, but it strikes me as something Nolan would do anyways instead of an affectation that he's putting on to just win Oscars. @@cadenadelreino1442

@@Syntopikon Don‘t get my wrong - I liked it but you know it’s still kind of a WWII/historical movie and as you said a bit of a biopic. Might be my personal preference but I wished movies like Perfect Days would be more popular at the Oscars. Original stuff about normal human beings. Oppenheimer did not raise my spirit, did not make me THINK, did not make me question sth etc. It could have been way more controversial as well but Nolan wasn’t bold enough IMO. It felt like he went the safe route with this one after Tenet kind of „flopped“.

@@cadenadelreino1442I think it’s just a matter of preference. From a filmmaking perspective, Oppenheimer was pretty bold. It’s cinematography, sound, score, and editing make a screenplay of mostly just people talking larger than life. Couple that with great performances from RDJ and Murphy, it was just made really well. He managed to take a complex moment in US history and make it digestible and entertaining for general audiences. That’s pretty talented in my opinion. I don’t think every movie needs to be thought provoking which is something Nolan typically goes for, but I think he took back a step because Oppenheimer was technically still an adaption. Does this mean adaptations still can’t be thought provoking? Of course not, which is probably why Oppenheimer didn’t win best adapted screenplay. I thought if the screenplay did anything well, it reminded audiences of a very significant moment in human history and the cascading effect that follows into today. Yes it was a biopic but it certainly wasn’t filmed like traditional biopics. Nolan’s style is what elevates the story and it’s why I think he deserved best director. Seeing it win best picture was icing on the cake.

True, however The Thin Red Line was a completely different film than Saving Private Ryan. The Thin Red Line, like most of Terrence Malik's output, is dreamlike and philosophical while Saving Private Ryan throws you into the carnage and brutality of war like no movie had ever done up to that point. Literal bullets whizzing over your head. I still don't understand to this day how someone can win Best Director but their film not win Best Picture. In my opinion, the two categories go hand in hand.

@@gregmeyer1805 very recently, Jane Campion deservedly won as Best Director for The Power of the dog, that should have also won as Best Picture. Instead, the Best Picture went to Coda, an unremarkable, forgettable, and forgotten movie, a remake of a much better French movie, and a box office super bomb. I think that, in that case, the Academy simply did not want to award a Netflix movie?

Wasn't the voting for best picture ranked-choice? So, there wouldn't have been any vote-splitting.

@@lfricmunuc4534 The Oscars didn't start using rank choice voting until 2009.

​@@vins1979I will disagree with you because I believe that The Power of the Dog is more unremarkable than Coda. Direction wise, sure we can say that TPOTD is superior. But Coda is elevated by so many other factors including great performances from the entire cast which some being people with real disabilities. Funny how that case is similar to Saving Private Ryan vs Shakespeare in Love, since TPOTD is about a dark story vs a story of fighting for your dreams in Coda. For the record I will say that I consider Saving Private Ryan to be a superior movie over Shakespeare in Love, and it should have won best picture 100%.

Many of them. Oscar almost always does Not goes to the best movie. In this movie, there is definitely one that was sumply the brst these years - exactly Pulp fiction

It's certainly the most insidious thing he's done. I know he got a lot of people to work with him by promising them Academy Award wins & nominations.

Don’t forget Jennifer Lawrence

Did nothing for mine.

Weinstein gave her his goop.

Thought Brad threatened to punch the sh/t out of Him for mashing on Gwyneth.

Lofe is beutiful was alot better movie then saving private ryan. Thats my pick

Same here! Shakespeare in love was so cliche on an unbelievable level and it was something a hack romance novelist conjured up out of pure laziness.

Saving Private Ryan was clearly the better movie.

Don’t forget The Thin Red Line.

​@@gujonteitur4853 then your pick is really shit .

That is preposterous. Meryl Streep is responsible for Meryl Streep’s nominations. Clearly, you are concussed. I recommend avoiding saving private Ryan, as you’re not supposed to fall asleep if you’re concussed

@@aysadatalented actresses get overlooked all the time, it is conceivable that she got a boost of support from him and it’s widely known he campaigns heavily for his movies. Two things can exist at once.

What about Return of the King?

@@Segadrome hmm that too

@@CrazyPlatinum92 Curious. Lotsa people love the Peter Jackson LotR films. What would you have replaced them with?

Everyone winning for a Tarantino movie other than Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, that should be included, too.

They already revoked him. Expelled from the Academy.

Her win was well deserved..

​@@percyweasley9301no.

Glad you found it useful! And yes, the Godzilla win had be very excited. Probably my favorite win of the night. I wish Japan had submitted it for Best International Feature as well.

IMO, the Thin Red Line was rather disjointed and poorly edited,the acting though not bad was however kind of forced and lack nuance…

@@54blewisbro said mallick lacked nuance gotta be a smooth brain mcu enjoyer

Thin red line isn’t close to being in the same league as Saving Private Ryan

@@DaltonNichols-lu9ub agreed 👍

​@DaltonNichols-lu9ub Neither are perfect but the Thin Red Line is a much better film and specially anti war film than Saving Private Ryan.

What were your thoughts on the recent awards? General consensus seems to be it was better than most years.

@@Syntopikon I have not seen every movie nominated for best picture in any other year. I only saw every best picture nominee for the 1999 Oscars. So that is why I don’t feel like I can comment on other years

Thanks! And yeah, I mostly agree. I can understand wanting to market the thing you make (otherwise people won't hear about it), but at a certain point, it gets to be excessive. At that point, you have to ask "If it's so good, why're you being so aggressive about it?" Spielberg wanted to let Saving Private Ryan speak for itself, whereas Weinstein just wanted to give the speech (he didn't even let the writer, Marc Norman, speak).

Thanks!

Thanks! At least someone's alright with my voice 😭

Glad you enjoyed it! Will try to speak slower + louder going forward.

Glad you enjoyed it - and thanks!

Lol glad you appreciated it. Always nice to see another Entourage fan in the wild.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Glad you enjoyed it! Yeah, campaigns had happened before but Weinstein took them up to 11 and it's not really come down since. No one is as aggressive as he was now, but there's a LOT more money in the campaigning (sometimes more than the movie cost to make).

Harvey’s fav casting couch occupier

It's a one week qualifying run before the end of the last week in December.

Cruise not winning is a real shame. Probably the most iconic actor of the last 40ish years. I hope it changes with his upcoming Iñárritu film.

Johnny Depp doesn’t have an Oscar? 😮

No.

Yup. Over the long run, it's certainly backfired on them.

I think that's more tacky than anything else (especially by current standards). Weinstein would try to convince people staying at the Academy retirement home that had voting rights to vote his way (which is more tacky than corrupt) as well as filling out peoples ballots on their behalf (which is definitely plain corrupt) and trying to get journalists to drag his opponent. It's interesting to compare it to The Alamo campaign you're talking about, though, because I think it does illustrate how reactions to campaigning have changed over time. People thought of it as tasteless for the time, but seemingly in that it was "ungentlemanly" to want an award so desperately (to the point of invoking the dead at the Alamo). Whereas with Weinstein, despite running afoul of Academy rules (or papering over them at the last minute), and his campaigning being an open secret, people, though miffed, seemingly turned a blind eye (especially in votes - whereas The Alamo was nearly shut out at the awards and John Wayne apologized for Chill Wills, Shakespeare In Love won plenty).

I appreciate it. Trying to improve the voice 😭

That they certainly did. He bet that they wouldn't care, and they didn't.

18:31

Agreed. 11/11 - a perfect sweep. Shape of Water is second for me - I'm always glad to see fantasy movies get the recognition they deserve.

The Departed, No Country for Old Men, and Million Dollar Baby are others that come to mind.

Have you seen Parasite?

@@moviefan19S Fantastic film.

Yup. What's hard to figure out is: does the entertainment industry have an above average rate of slimeballs, or, because they're public figures, do we just know about more of them?

@@Syntopikon I would argue they had more. Money gives you opportunities that you wouldn’t have otherwise. Plus, very rarely do people get filthy rich without giving up something 🤷🏽‍♀️ - these people opt to give up integrity seems like.

I'm in wholehearted agreement. It's a solid film in its own right and its unfortunate association with Weinstein is the biggest knock against it. It would've done well even without Weinstein; his involvement just tainted it (like it's done for so many great films).

You feel bad for a movie full of millionaires just because people say bad things about it? Are you 12?

Pretty much a decline onwards from 1998 Awards, when Titanic won 11/13.

@@Syntopikon Very few are interested in the legacy 20th century centralized Hollywood entertainment model anymore. Based on recent comments from legacy entertainment execs, it’s clear they still have no idea why nobody is willing to pay $$ to watch 2 hrs of their "educational", ham fisted, and overt social engineering messages/lessons, delivered by uninteresting, one dimensional characters. They continue to blame Covid somehow, which is hilarious bc that should have been the time that they made even more $$.. it's anything and everything else but not the thing everyone else can see as plain as day

It's an interesting topic and worth exploring further. My sentiment is that art is a personal thing and what one thinks is good, another might think is bad. JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is my favorite book of all time but I've met people that are bored to tears by it. I don't understand why and I think they feel the same way about me liking it. It's undoubtedly art (I consider literature, film, video games, music, and pretty much any creative endeavor to be art of some kind) but it's difficult to make an objective statement. We could go the route of whatever is most popular is objectively better, but that has it's own issues. But your sentiment that art created in innocence cannot be bad is interesting and not a POV I've heard before.

There absolutely is good and bad art. Example, Raphael was objectively a great painter. Picasso was objectively abysmal, but a product of good marketing and hype culture.

You'd have to make an argument for the objective qualities you're judging on, though, and establish those as the basis for all art. Plus, Raphael's patron was the Pope. That's as much hype and marketing as anything with Picasso. @@alexman378

@@Syntopikon There are qualities that we can agree on in terms of good art versus bad. Essentially art is a form of expression from the artist to the recipient. Great art manages to communicate a lot very effectively, from more basic concepts to more complex ones, simultaneously. Thus something like the LOTR can easily be considered high art, as can Raphael, Picasso can not. Most modern art communicates nothing but the artist's ephemeral feelings about themselves (or their mental illness). Dostoevsky on the other hand shows us the parts of ourselves we didn't know existed and perhaps didn't want to admit they exist. In short, there are very good reasons why Shakespeare is the most performed playwright 400 years after he died, and art is a lot less subjective than people think.

It's one of those "gentlemanly" kind of things. Something similar actually took place at the founding of the United States. None of the first several presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams 2 - campaigned on their own behalf for president because it was frowned on to show ambition (even though all of them were VERY ambitious). They let people who worked with them do the campaigning for them so they could try to be above it all. It was something similar here - a "may the best man win" kind of approach on Spielberg's part. Unfortunately - for the time - he didn't quite understand just how ambitious Harvey Weinstein was and how low he would go (or, rather, he knew but wasn't comfortable going that far). By that point, Spielberg had been in the industry for 3 decades and had attended several awards, so he probably did have a good feel for who would win. He just wanted to avoid campaigning politics, which is something Weinstein evidently thrived on.

That's an interesting idea. On further reflection, it does seem like something Steven Spielberg could direct. I know a lot of people drag him because they think he's just "mass entertainment", but he's probably one of the few directors with such a wide range over his career.

@@Syntopikon I agree with you, with the qualifying statement that a lot of people mistake Spielberg as only a “mass entertainment “ director. He is a “mass entertainment director,” but that is only one arrow in his quiver. He is arguably the most versatile ingenious director of our time. This is a person who has shown the ability to deliver such a wide range as ET The Extra-Terrestrial, to Schindler’s List and the film under discussion Saving Private Ryan. He is a popular director, I think because he is a master of his craft and seems to be a kind, wise person.

Yeah, they really ramped up after that stinging loss to Weinstein.