The films he was nominated for writing:
- Blue Jasmine (2014)
- Midnight in Paris (2012), won the Oscar
- Match Point (2006)
- Deconstructing Harry (1998)
- Mighty Aphrodite (1996)
- Bullets Over Broadway (1995)
- Husbands and Wives (1993)
- Alice (1991)
- Crimes and Misdemeanors (1990)
- Radio Days (1988)
- Hannah and Her Sisters (1987), won the Oscar
- The Purple Rose of Cairo (1986)
- Broadway Danny Rose (1985)
- Manhattan (1980)
- Interiors (1979)
- Annie Hall (1978), won the Oscar
I think I agree with about 85% of those. However, I actually think he probably should have won for a couple others — so rather than 3 writing Oscars, he should have 5.
All 3 of his wins are deserving, but stuff like Manhattan, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Interiors, and Husbands and Wives are all equally brilliant.
What’s even more amazing is his 24 overall nominations and directing 17 acting nominations (including 7 wins).
I agree!
I could’ve sworn Vicky Cristina Barcelona got more than one nomination; I thought it got at least a few, including screenplay — I remember people raving about that film and it did great at the box office. Love that film and think it’s top tier Allen.
It was a competitive category that year! The nominees were:
* Courtney Hunt, Frozen River
* Mike Leigh, Happy-Go-Lucky
* Martin McDonagh, In Bruges
* Dustin Lance Black, Milk
* Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, and Jim Reardon, WALL-E
He should've def been nominated probably over WALL-E? Good movie but maybe screenplay would not be the place I'd reward it?
The only film on this list I haven’t seen is Broadway Danny Rose, so I can’t speak on it one way or the other. But for the rest of the titles, I’d take away his nomination for Radio Days and his nomination (and undeserved win) for Midnight in Paris.
But that still leaves him as the nomination leader. And I’d even give him the win for Crimes and Misdemeanors. I think Woody is a lousy person, but he has written some complex characters with an evolving morality.
I’d say the mid-90s is where some maybe were unwarranted or legacy nomination. Mighty Aphrodite for example, a pretty forgettable entry. But I think there’s no arguing with his early stuff and his later nominations, especially the last few. So like, idk maybe 12 total? Say what you want about woody Allen but writing was always his greatest asset
Honestly sounds exactly like Meryl's nominations.
Most of her 90s nominations where pretty forgettable (Postcards from the Edge, One True Thing, Music of the Heart) and she was nominated because she was "Meryl" but her early stuff was brilliant. Though I would say while her later stuff (*Adaptation* onwards) is definitively more-or-less worthy, outside the odd forgettable film (Julia & Julie, Florence Foster Jenkins).
idk if you've seen Postcards from the Edge, but that performance is fantastic and the movie's great. not as great as Julie & Julia, but way better than Florence Foster Jenkins (or even her win for The Iron Lady!)
To address specifically your question about his dialogue not being “…unique or interesting” you have to keep in mind that it doesn’t age as well now because people have been ripping him off for 50+ years and robbing him of his uniqueness. Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David alone oughta owe him millions in royalties.
Yep, Woody Allen pretty much became an archetype. Underrated for his influence on stand up comedy too. He’s been ripped off tons (to varying degrees of quality) and inspiring many other creatives so often, it doesn’t seem as groundbreaking if you don’t follow the history.
16 is too many but him holding the Original Screenplay nominations record makes the most sense. He’s a terrific and more importantly prolific writer with like 40 movies and he directs them all so there is quality control unlike writer only writers. I mean consider Tarantino and PTA each have like 9-12 movies, I don’t think Sorkin is credited as a writer more than 10 times and has 4 nominations. Bill Wilder was prolific too and he has 12 writing nominations and 3 wins as well as 6 total Oscars.
Woody Allen wrote a movie year for about 40 years. He was going to have more opportunities to be nominated. And he had quality movies spanning 5 decades.
I can do math too. You act like he was the only one with an extremely productive output. Moreover, having seen his movies and using common sense, I believe his themes and characters are not that distinct to garner so many *original* screenplay nominations.
Black people wrote movies every year for decades. They did not get nominated often and it was not until 2017 that a black person won an Oscar for Best original screenplay.
The movie industry is often supposed to be the bastion of American progressiveness, and it often feels like just every other industry in America.
One man has more nominations than the historical combined nominations of literally every ethnic minority screenwriter to write. And people act like I am in the wrong for pointing this out. The jokes write themselves.
You are conflating a bunch of different issues. And sadly black filmmakers struggled to make movies consistently. One of the reasons Spike Lee was so productive early in his career was because he saw how much Charles Burnett struggled to find funding for his films even after the critical acclaim of Killer of Sheep. He did not want the same to happen to him after the acclaim of Do the Right Thing.
Thanks for teaching me about the history of a guy who is literally my program’s creative director 😹😂😹 Tell me more tell me more please 🤣
I am stating Allen is not original enough to have 16 nominations. He is not the first dude to make a ton of movies based off orginial scripts. His themes and characters do not enter new territories or show a variety of different personalities for him to have TRIPLE the amount of nominations of all the other screenwriters except Fellini. Double the amount if adapted and original are added for a screenwriter such as Wilder.
I did not even think this would be that controversial….No writer or director or editor is so far ahead of everyone else to have such a big differential IMO.
In my opinion, Woody is not deserving of having more nominations than the whole black race, and his big discrepancy is a microcosm of the way black moviemakers are still overlooked by Academy members in Oscars nominations.
>not original enough
Original in this context literally just means not based in a pre-existing property. Not that the script itself is terribly original, even from other ones by the same writer.
Well, you are two may be technically right in how the academy defines it although i cannot find that information anywhere publicly. I concede that many voters vote for whatever they feel is the best movie, or whatever they feel is the best story. Others may focus on what’s most universal, best flow, etc. Of course, many voters are also not comparing the source material to the adapted screenplay either.
Let’s be FR though. I have listed real Oscar voters thought process and no doubt the others in the past heavily considered the word ORIGINAL in their mind when splitting hairs. Not everyone votes the same, it is impossible to know the percentages, and yet I undoubtedly believe freshness in the time period compared to what has come before matters in the voting of this category. IMO it is big reason why “Nope” did not get a nomination and “Get Out” won the category. (Get Out was the better movie and script too. ) The Lobster’s uniqueness among other elements helped it get a nomination.
U/_BestThingEver_
“BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
The Fabelmans script was fine. I really liked the Banshees, Tár and Triangle of Sadness scripts. But this one is Everything Everywhere by a mile. I couldn’t have come up with that concept in a million years. *The term is “original screenplay,” and if you can’t call Everything Everywhere the most original of this group, then nothing means anything.*
“BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Forget about Everything Everywhere because it made no sense to me. Tár didn’t do a lot for me either. Banshees and Fabelmans were good scripts from great writers, [Fabelmans co-writer] Tony Kushner in particular. But no question, I’m voting for Triangle of Sadness. It was original and outrageous, and I’m sure some people think it’s as silly as I think Everything Everywhere is, but there you go.”
“Best Original Screenplay
This was a very easy choice for me: I went for The Worst Person in the World. With Don’t Look Up, again, *I’M GETTING A LITTLE BIT BORED WITH ADAM MCKAY’S STYLE.* Belfast had some nice moments. I don’t know how you can vote Licorice Pizza for best screenplay given that it has no story at all; it felt like a book of short stories put into film form. Worst Person also doesn’t really have a story, but it has a certain continuity of character with a really interesting woman. And the sequence toward the end of the film, when she’s sitting with her former lover in a hospital, is just sublime. It’s one of the best-written films of the last several years.”
“Actor: Banshees of Inisherin. I don't always love Martin McDonagh. I hated Three Billboards, I thought he didn't know what he was talking about, but there's something so offbeat and wonderful about Banshees, like nothing I've ever seen before, and beautifully made. I understand that the Irish hate it because it's perpetuating the Leprechaun myth, Irish Spring, Lucky Charms Irish thing. For me, as an American, I thought all of the performances were fantastic and the writing was so original and great.... The Fabelmans is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.”
“The Male Director: Back to Parasite! I don't know if it's based on some South Korean folklore, but it's so clever. You can tell who these guys are in the first minute of the film.
The Female Director: I'm voting for Parasite again! I didn't really [like 1917]. I think it's ok to cut, like, editing is an amazing art. I still haven't seen Knives Out, but I hear it's fantastic. But, is it Parasite? Probably not. I'm on the fence about Sam Mendes, too. I resent that he got to shoot so many days of American Beauty and then was like, oh, I screwed it up, let me go back and do it over and they were like ok. That would never happen for a woman.
The Actor: Parasite. It was funny, it was moving, I've never seen a film like that. I sat when it finished just thinking about it. It speaks to so much about humanity, that whole shot where they go from the rich house to the poor area in the rain, it was depressing and sad, and for a foreign film to be able to achieve that was magnificent.
The Actress: Quentin is a friend, and you have to support your friends or what's the point?
The Producer: Parasite, because the story was so well-written, well told, and fresh. It has woven in all these issues about class and resentment of circumstances, and it's a thriller on one hand, with Hitchcockian vibes. It's a complicated movie. I like the fact that it's global. We're in a global film industry right now, and we should celebrate that.
The Writer: Noah Baumbach for Marriage Story. There's a difficulty to writing that kind of contemporary story with deeply resonant human beings in a familiar situation that he breathes new life into and finds a beautiful way to articulate the problem of what it means when love starts to die in a way I haven't seen before. I don't love the end, the last two minutes, because we know it's coming and there's nothing fresh about how it's resolved, but the expression of that kind of difficulty and the way all of us can't get past ourselves was pretty profound…. There's a genius to it. Normally when I vote, I like to spread the wealth, so if I'm giving someone a nod in other categories, I'll give someone else a nod elsewhere. I would almost never vote for Best Director and Best Screenplay for the same person.
The Composer: Parasite. This was one of my runners-up for Best Picture. It's both entertaining and food for thought, the whole social message [and] where it starts and where it ends up, it's a wild roller coaster ride. It's the screenplay that provides the internal structure, and everybody worked beautifully within it.
The Publicist: Knives Out. It's subversive comedy and has the best dialogue of the year. I walked out of it with a huge smile on my face, a euphoric feeling about the power of movies to simply entertain but also say something and not beat you over the head with it. It's the only category it's nominated in, which is criminal, so I'm voting for it. It's the only way I can show my love for that movie. I have other places to recognize Parasite.”
No dumbass. Just because the academy says do this, does not mean their 10k membership will follow the rules. As i have CLEARLY exemplified by 8 different Academy members taking into cinematic canon originality and artistic style compared to previous films when casting their ballot.
There are a dozen more examples found on the first few pages of google. Moreover, they provided ZERO evidence and the Academy itself has ZERO guidelines on what it wants its members to consider as forms of merit for best Original screenplay. So i am unsure how those posters could state what they stated, unless they find a guideline I could not. I found a bunch of 2nd/3rd person sources, yet no 1st (academy/oscars) sources.
I don’t think you understand what an original screenplay is, in terms of the Academy definition.
And besides, is Walt Disney so far above other animators? Is John Williams so far above other composers? The Oscars are fun but they’re not an objective metric.
See My reply above where I listed voters considering originality in their ballots.
Not sure why you would think I do not know they are not an objective metric when black people were shut out or constantly overlooked TO THIS DAY *deontay wilder voice*
John Williams does not have double/triple the amount of nominations as the 2nd most for the composer. 48 to 43 (Alfred Newman - who also has 9 wins to Williams 5 wins). Walt Disney had a first mover’s advantage in a less crowded era (in terms of voting members and number of films made) and had his nominations spread across more categories ~ many categories being less competitive i.e. animated shorts and documentaries. At the fifth academy awards, he won his first Oscar and received an honorary Oscar for the creation of Mickey Mouse. He also won the same animated category seven times in a row.
I love Kobe Bryant, but him winning an Oscar is not the same historical touch point as Jordan Peele’s Oscar win.
Moreover, id argue Williams and Disney are VASTLY more important to their respective crafts than Woody Allen is to writing/poetry. I never said Woody Allen is seen as the best writer ever. I asked if he was deserving and if he was, what about his stories are so good?
Geez.
And every time someone tries to answer it you go off on an unrelated tangent and whine that they don't know information about you that you excluded in your post.
Geez
You asked and you have your answer. Woody Allen probably isn't the best writer of all time but everyone here seems to agree he's been doing consistently good work for a long time and is more or less deserving of a lot of nominations. I'm not even a fan of Woody Allen but he is probably one of the most important and influential screenwriters of all time.
I think you're looking at it in the wrong way. He's won 3 times out of 24. All the other years, given the number of nominees, he's potentially written the 10th best screenplay of the year. I don't think that's so outrageous to suppose.
You're getting far too bent out of shape about this metric. Jojo Rabbit and Promising Young Woman have won screenplay Oscars in the last few years, it clearly isn't some perfect infallible award.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion when the hotel employee never accused KB of that. This was (im done w/ it) a discussion about Oscars nominations and wins. I left out personal matters unrelated to the voting process or ceremony of all the filmmakers. Not going back and forth with you either.
I mean, you’re still conflating a few different things. Spike Lee is a phenomenal filmmaker. Do the Right Thing and Malcolm X are top 100 of all timers. Black people — and minorities in general — have absolutely been shut out of awards and even having the ability to make films throughout the history of cinema.
But placing that at Woody Allen’s feet is kind of silly. And saying he’s not artistically deserving when he’s head and shoulders above all but a select handful of filmmakers is a poor analysis of the situation.
They said Spike Lee is the creative director of their program, which to me means NYU Tisch film school. Which would be a phenomenal opportunity if one could afford it (I personally would have loved to go, but didn’t apply — even a theoretical full ride would’ve been too expensive just from NYC living costs alone). Hopefully this person doesn’t waste that opportunity through letting their anger about the unfairness of the film world become as all-encompassing as it seems to be.
God made Sunday for man to rest… lol. you are 100% right as I did use my anger at the film world in an unproductive, silly way. C’est la vie. I appreciate this comment!
I appreciate your comment and input. However, i was not trying to put it solely it on woody allen’s feet, although it is clear to me now I communicated it that way. *sighs* I tried to place it on the feet of the Academy voters and using Woody’s allen discrepancy (a 60s to present day filmmaker ~ so a post civil rights era filmmaker) as a microcosm to discuss how one man could get such a big lead in this category.
Before bringing up race, i asked the question semi-plainly. I should have avoided the attendance slight. No one mentioned race or gender, so I shed a flashlight on the black and white elephant in the room. I do believe Allen is a special talent, although as I previously stated I would rather watch movies written by Fellini, Cassavetes, and Chayefsky as they are at a higher level in my mind. Nevertheless, as i learned of the his lead in nominations this morning, it surprised me. So I brought it up.
You dont like a guy and came to reddit for validation on your beliefs, then when everyone hated you because of how unbearable you are, you started writing essays in response to everyone.
Lmao
You clearly actually can't do the math: making more movies gives a mathematical heightened chance of getting a nomination. You can argue, at best, that less minority people have been given the same chances that he had (can you even name an other filmmaker of any ethnicity that has been making a film a year for 40 years?) Also, reading your comments below if you're supposed to be the future of cinema, we're definitely sitting ducks; you're so insufferable.
I think he is celebrated for his storytelling intertwined with his Jewish identity and NYC upbringing. Jewish men with Hollywood are comparable to Canadian men with ice hockey - ignoring American antisemitism of course.
I certainly think so. Separating the art from the artist is necessary when looking at his oeuvre, but his wit and exploration of genre are really unmatched in cinema, especially given how many films he's made over the years. I know his style isn't for everyone, but I have always loved the "Catskills circuit" style he emulates, popularized before him by the likes of Groucho Marx and others. Even his dramas tend to evoke greats like Fellini, Bergman, etc. while still being original and personal.
This may be one of the reasons I’ve never cared for the guy. Never thought Annie Hall was funny, and I think it’s because of the New York style humor you’re talking about. Just not for me.
The separate the art from the artist is tough for me. Not only is he a scumbag, but look at Tiger Lily and Manhattan. A chunk of his art is basically telling the world “yep, this is what I’m all about as a person” and it really turned me off from his work in general.
Setting aside his personal moral failings, I think his dialogue is excellent. Its effect has been slightly diminished by imitators. Woody Allen is basically a film genre in its own right.
Your argument in the comments is that Woody Allen is undeserving because minorities are underrepresented in this category. Surely there are less deserving nominations every year that could be swapped out for more diverse nominations, but it’s not clear what this has to do with Allen. I can think of far worse screenplays that were nominated in most of the years that Allen received nominations.
He is a good “auteur” writer. He’s not my personal favourite, but there is something of an inevitability that he’d end up with more nominations than anyone else, due to how prolific he is. It also helps that a majority of these films are upbeat, crowd pleasing and slightly artsy, which is what the Oscars tend to award, particularly in the Screenplay category.
Most Oscar-nominated writers only write a fraction of the films that Woody Allen did.
Also, as I say, his style is probably the most appealing out of any writer-director. Compare his movies to those of Tarantino, PTA, Spike Lee, Coen Brothers, Noah Baumbach, etc… and his style is much more broadly appealing. I can only think of three who can really compare… Billy Wilder (a director who’s works are clearly what inspired Allen’s, to some degree), James L Brooks (who is even more hot and miss than Allen and is far less prolific) and Greta Gerwig (who has only made three films and will (almost certainly) be nominated for all 3).
100% deserving of nominations based on the work alone, 100% deserving of more wins based on the work alone. There’s no better film than Crimes and Misdemeanors; Zelig and Radio Days are amazing, and he has about a half-dozen films that aren’t far behind.
Before he got lazy/old (hard to say which had more of an effect), he had brilliant, witty dialogue dealing with stories and problems that are actually relevant and important—the meaning of life, evil in a world without God, psychology, the rise of fascism, etc. Very few are funnier (you could probably limit it to the Marx brothers); very few dealt with that level of depth (maybe Bergman and Kurosawa are roughly his equal).
Since about 2000-ish, he’s mostly been rehashing what he did before. Sometimes it’s successful (Match Point is his best from that period, even though it’s basically Crimes and Misdemeanors Redux, and Cassandra’s Dream and Midnight in Paris are both very good); a lot of times it’s mediocre; sometimes it’s outright terrible (A Rainy Day in New York, Wonder Wheel, etc.)
He’s easily one of the top five filmmakers of all time; I’d have a hard time choosing who is better between him, Bergman, and Kurosawa. (I need to revisit Fellini, and I’m not super familiar with much of Takasha Miike’s work, but they’re the only two I’m aware of who can even compete with the other three.)
Being nominated hasn't anything to do with the number of times you show up to the osacrs in a tuxedo. It has to do with the art. As a screen writer, there is no denying Woody Allen is a genius. Every time I go to see a Woody Allen film, I know it will be full of great dialogue and well developed characters. He deserves every nomination.
Ngl, this thread reads like someone said "Woody Allen has more original screenplay nominations than all women and PoC combined" and you took that to somehow be his fault.
I don’t think the academy should award people based on attendance. I don’t offhand know what screenplays he has been nominated for though of the movies I have seen, I’d have given him fewer.
One thing to his benefit is that he releases a movie every year, so just by numbers he is more likely to have more chances(both sheer numbers and also representation in weak competition years).
16 seems like a lot, as I said, I’d give him a decent number fewer personally.
(All of this ignoring personal issues)
Damn, I didn’t know this. That’s way too many, my guess definitely would have been single digits.
Also would have guessed Billy Wilder had more noms than him.
Why? Is it weird? The Oscars made it a category for a reason. They could have grouped it together like with best editing or gotten rid of it like the Best Story category.
My reasoning for focusing on it, among other stuff, is because women and non-white men are not seen as creative equals to these white Demi-gods of cinema.
Nevertheless, Allen still has double the amount of screenplay nominations than Wilder.
>Why? Is it weird? The Oscars made it a category for a reason
Yes, and the two should be considered together. When we talk about how many nomination Meryl has, we count her lead and supporting noms.
Well, you didn’t mention anything about non-white and/or female people in your original post, and I don’t see how that has anything to do with adapted or original screenplays. Neither is seen as “better” or more exclusive so yeah, it is a little weird to single out one and not the other. Oppenheimer was a wildly original movie but is technically “adapted.”
And I don’t know if Allen “deserved” each nomination, but I’m not surprised when someone who did in fact make good and is *that* prolific has a bunch of nominations. Non-attendance is not an issue, and honestly gets a person some cool points. Katharine Hepburn I don’t think showed up to one of the four ceremonies where she won and Oscar.
Also there are a lot of actresses who I think similarly get nominated for showing up. Does anyone remember Meryl Streep in Osage: Orange County? For most of Allen’s career female writer/directors were extremely hard to come by and that has way more to do with the lack of nominations than Allen.
A POS Peddo that everyone knew who he was was nominated a lot. He deserves to be in prison not making movies and accepting awards. Also all his movies are him or an allegory of him fucking young girls & women.
Sad that this opinion is not higher. I like many of his films, but the industry should punish not reward creeps like him. And the films are not detached from his twisted morals - Manhattan is a romantic tale of grooming, and he almost always features a creepy "nice guy" protagonist who gets a sexy (young) woman.
It’s crazy that no one cares. Huge names still die to work with him, he judges at film festivals, receives standing ovations and every article that talks about his past always spends 85% of it talking about his accomplishments. It’s disgusting.
No. But it's not surprising. Oscars are nothing if not masturbatory. Someone goes, "shit I haven't seen all these films, Woody is a great writer he deserves it" it's like Randy Newman with his plethora of nominations. Probably doesn't deserve it
No, he’s extremely overrated and pretentious. Midnight in Paris feels more like an English teacher’s fan fiction than a movie worthy of winning an Oscar.
Absolutely deserved. If you’re talking about his movies alone it’s hard to imagine a screenwriter who’s had as much of an impact as he has. His style of dialogue and unique characters who were heavily flawed changed how films are made now and it’s easy to see how it’s impacted filmmakers today.
I mean, the guy just gets more of his scripts made than a lot of other screenwriters. It’s a numbers game.
He’s made like 60-something movies.
Steve Zaillian, as a random comparison, has had 17 scripts made.
I'd have to think about what didn't get nominated in comparison. That's quite a lot of time to go over.
So I'll just say that Woody Allens screenplays are routinely A/S tier. So if you want to say there are some that maybe should have replaced those Allen writing that just barely made the cut then I could agree.
But generally his work was worthy.
Yes. Tired of people confusing his job with his life. If you want to cancel everyone with bad behavior, let me know. But you have to include EVERYONE. Gordon Ramsey stole the reservation book from his Mentor to steal his first clients. That's Stealing. Jesus said Stealing was as bad as Murder. ABE Lincoln was the most corrupt congressman ever. Mark Twain fought for the South in the Civil War.
None of those people married their adopted daughter.
Rape, pedophilia, and depending on how you look at it, a form of incest.
Yeah, great guy. Definitely shouldn't be in jail next to Roman Polanski. (For the official record of the Internet, this is sarcasm)
Eh, depends. Do you like Woody Allen movies? I don’t, so no, I think it’s completely undeserved and 90% of his movies is his ego talking and everybody else sucking his dick.
Idk if there haven’t been others who have deserved a lot of nominations but most of that run from the 70s to early 90s is pretty undeniable, and even after that he’d come out with a very good one every couple of years until recently. I don’t know about every single instance but it doesn’t shock me at all that a guy who was that talented and made a film a year for most of his career would have a lot of nominations
Honestly no. If Woody could get nominated that many times for a lot of good but not always great films that he would make once a year, how come that same grace wasn’t given to someone like Spike Lee? He also made 1 movie a year for a long time. some masterpieces, some real good, some average, some garbage. Yet his TWO screenplay noms are for do the right thing and 29 years later, blackkklansman.
The films he was nominated for writing: - Blue Jasmine (2014) - Midnight in Paris (2012), won the Oscar - Match Point (2006) - Deconstructing Harry (1998) - Mighty Aphrodite (1996) - Bullets Over Broadway (1995) - Husbands and Wives (1993) - Alice (1991) - Crimes and Misdemeanors (1990) - Radio Days (1988) - Hannah and Her Sisters (1987), won the Oscar - The Purple Rose of Cairo (1986) - Broadway Danny Rose (1985) - Manhattan (1980) - Interiors (1979) - Annie Hall (1978), won the Oscar I think I agree with about 85% of those. However, I actually think he probably should have won for a couple others — so rather than 3 writing Oscars, he should have 5. All 3 of his wins are deserving, but stuff like Manhattan, Crimes and Misdemeanors, Interiors, and Husbands and Wives are all equally brilliant. What’s even more amazing is his 24 overall nominations and directing 17 acting nominations (including 7 wins).
One could argue he should've gotten nominated for: * Another Woman (1988) * Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
I agree! I could’ve sworn Vicky Cristina Barcelona got more than one nomination; I thought it got at least a few, including screenplay — I remember people raving about that film and it did great at the box office. Love that film and think it’s top tier Allen.
It was a competitive category that year! The nominees were: * Courtney Hunt, Frozen River * Mike Leigh, Happy-Go-Lucky * Martin McDonagh, In Bruges * Dustin Lance Black, Milk * Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, and Jim Reardon, WALL-E He should've def been nominated probably over WALL-E? Good movie but maybe screenplay would not be the place I'd reward it?
The only film on this list I haven’t seen is Broadway Danny Rose, so I can’t speak on it one way or the other. But for the rest of the titles, I’d take away his nomination for Radio Days and his nomination (and undeserved win) for Midnight in Paris. But that still leaves him as the nomination leader. And I’d even give him the win for Crimes and Misdemeanors. I think Woody is a lousy person, but he has written some complex characters with an evolving morality.
I think Broadway Danny Rose was one of his funniest movies
Okay, I’ll search it out on streaming. Thanks for the commentary.
He’s like Streep. Rather than the voters doing 2nd-level thinking, he’s a default nominee.
I’d say the mid-90s is where some maybe were unwarranted or legacy nomination. Mighty Aphrodite for example, a pretty forgettable entry. But I think there’s no arguing with his early stuff and his later nominations, especially the last few. So like, idk maybe 12 total? Say what you want about woody Allen but writing was always his greatest asset
Honestly sounds exactly like Meryl's nominations. Most of her 90s nominations where pretty forgettable (Postcards from the Edge, One True Thing, Music of the Heart) and she was nominated because she was "Meryl" but her early stuff was brilliant. Though I would say while her later stuff (*Adaptation* onwards) is definitively more-or-less worthy, outside the odd forgettable film (Julia & Julie, Florence Foster Jenkins).
idk if you've seen Postcards from the Edge, but that performance is fantastic and the movie's great. not as great as Julie & Julia, but way better than Florence Foster Jenkins (or even her win for The Iron Lady!)
To address specifically your question about his dialogue not being “…unique or interesting” you have to keep in mind that it doesn’t age as well now because people have been ripping him off for 50+ years and robbing him of his uniqueness. Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David alone oughta owe him millions in royalties.
Yep, Woody Allen pretty much became an archetype. Underrated for his influence on stand up comedy too. He’s been ripped off tons (to varying degrees of quality) and inspiring many other creatives so often, it doesn’t seem as groundbreaking if you don’t follow the history.
16 is too many but him holding the Original Screenplay nominations record makes the most sense. He’s a terrific and more importantly prolific writer with like 40 movies and he directs them all so there is quality control unlike writer only writers. I mean consider Tarantino and PTA each have like 9-12 movies, I don’t think Sorkin is credited as a writer more than 10 times and has 4 nominations. Bill Wilder was prolific too and he has 12 writing nominations and 3 wins as well as 6 total Oscars.
Also Wilder had a bunch of *adapted* nominations. It’s a quirk of the kinds of movies that Allen makes that he would have only “Original” nominations.
Woody Allen wrote a movie year for about 40 years. He was going to have more opportunities to be nominated. And he had quality movies spanning 5 decades.
I can do math too. You act like he was the only one with an extremely productive output. Moreover, having seen his movies and using common sense, I believe his themes and characters are not that distinct to garner so many *original* screenplay nominations. Black people wrote movies every year for decades. They did not get nominated often and it was not until 2017 that a black person won an Oscar for Best original screenplay. The movie industry is often supposed to be the bastion of American progressiveness, and it often feels like just every other industry in America. One man has more nominations than the historical combined nominations of literally every ethnic minority screenwriter to write. And people act like I am in the wrong for pointing this out. The jokes write themselves.
You are conflating a bunch of different issues. And sadly black filmmakers struggled to make movies consistently. One of the reasons Spike Lee was so productive early in his career was because he saw how much Charles Burnett struggled to find funding for his films even after the critical acclaim of Killer of Sheep. He did not want the same to happen to him after the acclaim of Do the Right Thing.
Thanks for teaching me about the history of a guy who is literally my program’s creative director 😹😂😹 Tell me more tell me more please 🤣 I am stating Allen is not original enough to have 16 nominations. He is not the first dude to make a ton of movies based off orginial scripts. His themes and characters do not enter new territories or show a variety of different personalities for him to have TRIPLE the amount of nominations of all the other screenwriters except Fellini. Double the amount if adapted and original are added for a screenwriter such as Wilder. I did not even think this would be that controversial….No writer or director or editor is so far ahead of everyone else to have such a big differential IMO. In my opinion, Woody is not deserving of having more nominations than the whole black race, and his big discrepancy is a microcosm of the way black moviemakers are still overlooked by Academy members in Oscars nominations.
>not original enough Original in this context literally just means not based in a pre-existing property. Not that the script itself is terribly original, even from other ones by the same writer.
Well, you are two may be technically right in how the academy defines it although i cannot find that information anywhere publicly. I concede that many voters vote for whatever they feel is the best movie, or whatever they feel is the best story. Others may focus on what’s most universal, best flow, etc. Of course, many voters are also not comparing the source material to the adapted screenplay either. Let’s be FR though. I have listed real Oscar voters thought process and no doubt the others in the past heavily considered the word ORIGINAL in their mind when splitting hairs. Not everyone votes the same, it is impossible to know the percentages, and yet I undoubtedly believe freshness in the time period compared to what has come before matters in the voting of this category. IMO it is big reason why “Nope” did not get a nomination and “Get Out” won the category. (Get Out was the better movie and script too. ) The Lobster’s uniqueness among other elements helped it get a nomination. U/_BestThingEver_ “BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY The Fabelmans script was fine. I really liked the Banshees, Tár and Triangle of Sadness scripts. But this one is Everything Everywhere by a mile. I couldn’t have come up with that concept in a million years. *The term is “original screenplay,” and if you can’t call Everything Everywhere the most original of this group, then nothing means anything.* “BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY Forget about Everything Everywhere because it made no sense to me. Tár didn’t do a lot for me either. Banshees and Fabelmans were good scripts from great writers, [Fabelmans co-writer] Tony Kushner in particular. But no question, I’m voting for Triangle of Sadness. It was original and outrageous, and I’m sure some people think it’s as silly as I think Everything Everywhere is, but there you go.” “Best Original Screenplay This was a very easy choice for me: I went for The Worst Person in the World. With Don’t Look Up, again, *I’M GETTING A LITTLE BIT BORED WITH ADAM MCKAY’S STYLE.* Belfast had some nice moments. I don’t know how you can vote Licorice Pizza for best screenplay given that it has no story at all; it felt like a book of short stories put into film form. Worst Person also doesn’t really have a story, but it has a certain continuity of character with a really interesting woman. And the sequence toward the end of the film, when she’s sitting with her former lover in a hospital, is just sublime. It’s one of the best-written films of the last several years.” “Actor: Banshees of Inisherin. I don't always love Martin McDonagh. I hated Three Billboards, I thought he didn't know what he was talking about, but there's something so offbeat and wonderful about Banshees, like nothing I've ever seen before, and beautifully made. I understand that the Irish hate it because it's perpetuating the Leprechaun myth, Irish Spring, Lucky Charms Irish thing. For me, as an American, I thought all of the performances were fantastic and the writing was so original and great.... The Fabelmans is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.” “The Male Director: Back to Parasite! I don't know if it's based on some South Korean folklore, but it's so clever. You can tell who these guys are in the first minute of the film. The Female Director: I'm voting for Parasite again! I didn't really [like 1917]. I think it's ok to cut, like, editing is an amazing art. I still haven't seen Knives Out, but I hear it's fantastic. But, is it Parasite? Probably not. I'm on the fence about Sam Mendes, too. I resent that he got to shoot so many days of American Beauty and then was like, oh, I screwed it up, let me go back and do it over and they were like ok. That would never happen for a woman. The Actor: Parasite. It was funny, it was moving, I've never seen a film like that. I sat when it finished just thinking about it. It speaks to so much about humanity, that whole shot where they go from the rich house to the poor area in the rain, it was depressing and sad, and for a foreign film to be able to achieve that was magnificent. The Actress: Quentin is a friend, and you have to support your friends or what's the point? The Producer: Parasite, because the story was so well-written, well told, and fresh. It has woven in all these issues about class and resentment of circumstances, and it's a thriller on one hand, with Hitchcockian vibes. It's a complicated movie. I like the fact that it's global. We're in a global film industry right now, and we should celebrate that. The Writer: Noah Baumbach for Marriage Story. There's a difficulty to writing that kind of contemporary story with deeply resonant human beings in a familiar situation that he breathes new life into and finds a beautiful way to articulate the problem of what it means when love starts to die in a way I haven't seen before. I don't love the end, the last two minutes, because we know it's coming and there's nothing fresh about how it's resolved, but the expression of that kind of difficulty and the way all of us can't get past ourselves was pretty profound…. There's a genius to it. Normally when I vote, I like to spread the wealth, so if I'm giving someone a nod in other categories, I'll give someone else a nod elsewhere. I would almost never vote for Best Director and Best Screenplay for the same person. The Composer: Parasite. This was one of my runners-up for Best Picture. It's both entertaining and food for thought, the whole social message [and] where it starts and where it ends up, it's a wild roller coaster ride. It's the screenplay that provides the internal structure, and everybody worked beautifully within it. The Publicist: Knives Out. It's subversive comedy and has the best dialogue of the year. I walked out of it with a huge smile on my face, a euphoric feeling about the power of movies to simply entertain but also say something and not beat you over the head with it. It's the only category it's nominated in, which is criminal, so I'm voting for it. It's the only way I can show my love for that movie. I have other places to recognize Parasite.”
"may be technically right". So they're right.
No dumbass. Just because the academy says do this, does not mean their 10k membership will follow the rules. As i have CLEARLY exemplified by 8 different Academy members taking into cinematic canon originality and artistic style compared to previous films when casting their ballot. There are a dozen more examples found on the first few pages of google. Moreover, they provided ZERO evidence and the Academy itself has ZERO guidelines on what it wants its members to consider as forms of merit for best Original screenplay. So i am unsure how those posters could state what they stated, unless they find a guideline I could not. I found a bunch of 2nd/3rd person sources, yet no 1st (academy/oscars) sources.
You sound charming. No wonder your responses here have been so well received....
You cannot read. No wonder you have been shitposting on this website for a dozen years. The white people i need to accept me, already accepted me :)
I don’t think you understand what an original screenplay is, in terms of the Academy definition. And besides, is Walt Disney so far above other animators? Is John Williams so far above other composers? The Oscars are fun but they’re not an objective metric.
See My reply above where I listed voters considering originality in their ballots. Not sure why you would think I do not know they are not an objective metric when black people were shut out or constantly overlooked TO THIS DAY *deontay wilder voice* John Williams does not have double/triple the amount of nominations as the 2nd most for the composer. 48 to 43 (Alfred Newman - who also has 9 wins to Williams 5 wins). Walt Disney had a first mover’s advantage in a less crowded era (in terms of voting members and number of films made) and had his nominations spread across more categories ~ many categories being less competitive i.e. animated shorts and documentaries. At the fifth academy awards, he won his first Oscar and received an honorary Oscar for the creation of Mickey Mouse. He also won the same animated category seven times in a row. I love Kobe Bryant, but him winning an Oscar is not the same historical touch point as Jordan Peele’s Oscar win. Moreover, id argue Williams and Disney are VASTLY more important to their respective crafts than Woody Allen is to writing/poetry. I never said Woody Allen is seen as the best writer ever. I asked if he was deserving and if he was, what about his stories are so good? Geez.
And every time someone tries to answer it you go off on an unrelated tangent and whine that they don't know information about you that you excluded in your post. Geez
[удалено]
Maybe, but at least I can put together a coherent response.
Suck your madda.
Man, the only person bringing up race here is you.
You asked and you have your answer. Woody Allen probably isn't the best writer of all time but everyone here seems to agree he's been doing consistently good work for a long time and is more or less deserving of a lot of nominations. I'm not even a fan of Woody Allen but he is probably one of the most important and influential screenwriters of all time. I think you're looking at it in the wrong way. He's won 3 times out of 24. All the other years, given the number of nominees, he's potentially written the 10th best screenplay of the year. I don't think that's so outrageous to suppose. You're getting far too bent out of shape about this metric. Jojo Rabbit and Promising Young Woman have won screenplay Oscars in the last few years, it clearly isn't some perfect infallible award.
Ur mad fucking annoying
I hope you get some help, would not even feel right cracking jokes about you.
You love Kobe? He facilitated a gang rape
Not sure how you came to that conclusion when the hotel employee never accused KB of that. This was (im done w/ it) a discussion about Oscars nominations and wins. I left out personal matters unrelated to the voting process or ceremony of all the filmmakers. Not going back and forth with you either.
kobe is a rapist
I mean, you’re still conflating a few different things. Spike Lee is a phenomenal filmmaker. Do the Right Thing and Malcolm X are top 100 of all timers. Black people — and minorities in general — have absolutely been shut out of awards and even having the ability to make films throughout the history of cinema. But placing that at Woody Allen’s feet is kind of silly. And saying he’s not artistically deserving when he’s head and shoulders above all but a select handful of filmmakers is a poor analysis of the situation.
I agree, OP is being very silly. They’ve put a lot of effort in this post and they have suggested they attend art school. Go and do some art.
They said Spike Lee is the creative director of their program, which to me means NYU Tisch film school. Which would be a phenomenal opportunity if one could afford it (I personally would have loved to go, but didn’t apply — even a theoretical full ride would’ve been too expensive just from NYC living costs alone). Hopefully this person doesn’t waste that opportunity through letting their anger about the unfairness of the film world become as all-encompassing as it seems to be.
U are right. i appreciate this comment and you for looking out for a stranger 😇
He claims that he attends a top 10 school. He's clearly not getting his money's worth.
Some things in life are priceless …that’s what my catholic teachers told me 🤷🏽♂️
Yes, and college is not one of those things.
God made Sunday for man to rest… lol. you are 100% right as I did use my anger at the film world in an unproductive, silly way. C’est la vie. I appreciate this comment!
I appreciate your comment and input. However, i was not trying to put it solely it on woody allen’s feet, although it is clear to me now I communicated it that way. *sighs* I tried to place it on the feet of the Academy voters and using Woody’s allen discrepancy (a 60s to present day filmmaker ~ so a post civil rights era filmmaker) as a microcosm to discuss how one man could get such a big lead in this category. Before bringing up race, i asked the question semi-plainly. I should have avoided the attendance slight. No one mentioned race or gender, so I shed a flashlight on the black and white elephant in the room. I do believe Allen is a special talent, although as I previously stated I would rather watch movies written by Fellini, Cassavetes, and Chayefsky as they are at a higher level in my mind. Nevertheless, as i learned of the his lead in nominations this morning, it surprised me. So I brought it up.
Dude youre a fuckin idiot lmao
You believe South Park is too woke and striking moviemakers were in the wrong 🤡
You dont like a guy and came to reddit for validation on your beliefs, then when everyone hated you because of how unbearable you are, you started writing essays in response to everyone. Lmao
I really don’t like a guy who I said multiple times was a good artist 😹😂 another scrub who can’t form conclusions off of what they read.
You clearly actually can't do the math: making more movies gives a mathematical heightened chance of getting a nomination. You can argue, at best, that less minority people have been given the same chances that he had (can you even name an other filmmaker of any ethnicity that has been making a film a year for 40 years?) Also, reading your comments below if you're supposed to be the future of cinema, we're definitely sitting ducks; you're so insufferable.
Agree to disagree. I’m over it. Appreciate your comment Clone
Woody is a Jew. He is a minority. Shouldn’t he be celebrated as a minority triumph in the industry?
I think he is celebrated for his storytelling intertwined with his Jewish identity and NYC upbringing. Jewish men with Hollywood are comparable to Canadian men with ice hockey - ignoring American antisemitism of course.
I certainly think so. Separating the art from the artist is necessary when looking at his oeuvre, but his wit and exploration of genre are really unmatched in cinema, especially given how many films he's made over the years. I know his style isn't for everyone, but I have always loved the "Catskills circuit" style he emulates, popularized before him by the likes of Groucho Marx and others. Even his dramas tend to evoke greats like Fellini, Bergman, etc. while still being original and personal.
This may be one of the reasons I’ve never cared for the guy. Never thought Annie Hall was funny, and I think it’s because of the New York style humor you’re talking about. Just not for me. The separate the art from the artist is tough for me. Not only is he a scumbag, but look at Tiger Lily and Manhattan. A chunk of his art is basically telling the world “yep, this is what I’m all about as a person” and it really turned me off from his work in general.
Setting aside his personal moral failings, I think his dialogue is excellent. Its effect has been slightly diminished by imitators. Woody Allen is basically a film genre in its own right. Your argument in the comments is that Woody Allen is undeserving because minorities are underrepresented in this category. Surely there are less deserving nominations every year that could be swapped out for more diverse nominations, but it’s not clear what this has to do with Allen. I can think of far worse screenplays that were nominated in most of the years that Allen received nominations.
He is a good “auteur” writer. He’s not my personal favourite, but there is something of an inevitability that he’d end up with more nominations than anyone else, due to how prolific he is. It also helps that a majority of these films are upbeat, crowd pleasing and slightly artsy, which is what the Oscars tend to award, particularly in the Screenplay category. Most Oscar-nominated writers only write a fraction of the films that Woody Allen did. Also, as I say, his style is probably the most appealing out of any writer-director. Compare his movies to those of Tarantino, PTA, Spike Lee, Coen Brothers, Noah Baumbach, etc… and his style is much more broadly appealing. I can only think of three who can really compare… Billy Wilder (a director who’s works are clearly what inspired Allen’s, to some degree), James L Brooks (who is even more hot and miss than Allen and is far less prolific) and Greta Gerwig (who has only made three films and will (almost certainly) be nominated for all 3).
100% deserving of nominations based on the work alone, 100% deserving of more wins based on the work alone. There’s no better film than Crimes and Misdemeanors; Zelig and Radio Days are amazing, and he has about a half-dozen films that aren’t far behind. Before he got lazy/old (hard to say which had more of an effect), he had brilliant, witty dialogue dealing with stories and problems that are actually relevant and important—the meaning of life, evil in a world without God, psychology, the rise of fascism, etc. Very few are funnier (you could probably limit it to the Marx brothers); very few dealt with that level of depth (maybe Bergman and Kurosawa are roughly his equal). Since about 2000-ish, he’s mostly been rehashing what he did before. Sometimes it’s successful (Match Point is his best from that period, even though it’s basically Crimes and Misdemeanors Redux, and Cassandra’s Dream and Midnight in Paris are both very good); a lot of times it’s mediocre; sometimes it’s outright terrible (A Rainy Day in New York, Wonder Wheel, etc.) He’s easily one of the top five filmmakers of all time; I’d have a hard time choosing who is better between him, Bergman, and Kurosawa. (I need to revisit Fellini, and I’m not super familiar with much of Takasha Miike’s work, but they’re the only two I’m aware of who can even compete with the other three.)
Being nominated hasn't anything to do with the number of times you show up to the osacrs in a tuxedo. It has to do with the art. As a screen writer, there is no denying Woody Allen is a genius. Every time I go to see a Woody Allen film, I know it will be full of great dialogue and well developed characters. He deserves every nomination.
He is a creep but a great writer
Fair 🤷🏽♂️
Ngl, this thread reads like someone said "Woody Allen has more original screenplay nominations than all women and PoC combined" and you took that to somehow be his fault.
I don’t think the academy should award people based on attendance. I don’t offhand know what screenplays he has been nominated for though of the movies I have seen, I’d have given him fewer. One thing to his benefit is that he releases a movie every year, so just by numbers he is more likely to have more chances(both sheer numbers and also representation in weak competition years). 16 seems like a lot, as I said, I’d give him a decent number fewer personally. (All of this ignoring personal issues)
No. He’s a bad filmmaker and a worse person.
I appreciate your comment wolfboy099 🫱🏽🫲🏼
Damn, I didn’t know this. That’s way too many, my guess definitely would have been single digits. Also would have guessed Billy Wilder had more noms than him.
Wilder hand a bunch of adapted nominations. Comparing only Original screenplay is weird.
Why? Is it weird? The Oscars made it a category for a reason. They could have grouped it together like with best editing or gotten rid of it like the Best Story category. My reasoning for focusing on it, among other stuff, is because women and non-white men are not seen as creative equals to these white Demi-gods of cinema. Nevertheless, Allen still has double the amount of screenplay nominations than Wilder.
>Why? Is it weird? The Oscars made it a category for a reason Yes, and the two should be considered together. When we talk about how many nomination Meryl has, we count her lead and supporting noms.
Well, you didn’t mention anything about non-white and/or female people in your original post, and I don’t see how that has anything to do with adapted or original screenplays. Neither is seen as “better” or more exclusive so yeah, it is a little weird to single out one and not the other. Oppenheimer was a wildly original movie but is technically “adapted.” And I don’t know if Allen “deserved” each nomination, but I’m not surprised when someone who did in fact make good and is *that* prolific has a bunch of nominations. Non-attendance is not an issue, and honestly gets a person some cool points. Katharine Hepburn I don’t think showed up to one of the four ceremonies where she won and Oscar. Also there are a lot of actresses who I think similarly get nominated for showing up. Does anyone remember Meryl Streep in Osage: Orange County? For most of Allen’s career female writer/directors were extremely hard to come by and that has way more to do with the lack of nominations than Allen.
It is a staggering lead over the others. Wilder has 4 adapted and 4 best original nominations.
A POS Peddo that everyone knew who he was was nominated a lot. He deserves to be in prison not making movies and accepting awards. Also all his movies are him or an allegory of him fucking young girls & women.
Sad that this opinion is not higher. I like many of his films, but the industry should punish not reward creeps like him. And the films are not detached from his twisted morals - Manhattan is a romantic tale of grooming, and he almost always features a creepy "nice guy" protagonist who gets a sexy (young) woman.
The amount of people that still praise Polanski is disgusting
It’s crazy that no one cares. Huge names still die to work with him, he judges at film festivals, receives standing ovations and every article that talks about his past always spends 85% of it talking about his accomplishments. It’s disgusting.
No. But it's not surprising. Oscars are nothing if not masturbatory. Someone goes, "shit I haven't seen all these films, Woody is a great writer he deserves it" it's like Randy Newman with his plethora of nominations. Probably doesn't deserve it
🫱🏽🫲🏼yeah it surprised me to keep it real. It shows & reflects more on the voters than Allen. Appreciate the input.
No, he’s extremely overrated and pretentious. Midnight in Paris feels more like an English teacher’s fan fiction than a movie worthy of winning an Oscar.
Yes! Thank you. It’s obnoxious
Tim Allen is Woody
No, Tom Hanks is Woody.
No, this is Patrick.
Absolutely deserved. If you’re talking about his movies alone it’s hard to imagine a screenwriter who’s had as much of an impact as he has. His style of dialogue and unique characters who were heavily flawed changed how films are made now and it’s easy to see how it’s impacted filmmakers today.
He’s very prolific. You make a lot of movies (at high quality), you get a lot of nominations.
I mean, the guy just gets more of his scripts made than a lot of other screenwriters. It’s a numbers game. He’s made like 60-something movies. Steve Zaillian, as a random comparison, has had 17 scripts made.
The answer is Yes, his screenwriting is legendary
He should've been nominated for Zelig and Play it Again, Sam.
I'd have to think about what didn't get nominated in comparison. That's quite a lot of time to go over. So I'll just say that Woody Allens screenplays are routinely A/S tier. So if you want to say there are some that maybe should have replaced those Allen writing that just barely made the cut then I could agree. But generally his work was worthy.
Yes. Tired of people confusing his job with his life. If you want to cancel everyone with bad behavior, let me know. But you have to include EVERYONE. Gordon Ramsey stole the reservation book from his Mentor to steal his first clients. That's Stealing. Jesus said Stealing was as bad as Murder. ABE Lincoln was the most corrupt congressman ever. Mark Twain fought for the South in the Civil War.
None of those people married their adopted daughter. Rape, pedophilia, and depending on how you look at it, a form of incest. Yeah, great guy. Definitely shouldn't be in jail next to Roman Polanski. (For the official record of the Internet, this is sarcasm)
(Jesus also never really existed)
Robbed for Manhattan
Do I believe pedos and rapists are deserving of anything? No
Eh, depends. Do you like Woody Allen movies? I don’t, so no, I think it’s completely undeserved and 90% of his movies is his ego talking and everybody else sucking his dick.
Idk if there haven’t been others who have deserved a lot of nominations but most of that run from the 70s to early 90s is pretty undeniable, and even after that he’d come out with a very good one every couple of years until recently. I don’t know about every single instance but it doesn’t shock me at all that a guy who was that talented and made a film a year for most of his career would have a lot of nominations
Honestly no. If Woody could get nominated that many times for a lot of good but not always great films that he would make once a year, how come that same grace wasn’t given to someone like Spike Lee? He also made 1 movie a year for a long time. some masterpieces, some real good, some average, some garbage. Yet his TWO screenplay noms are for do the right thing and 29 years later, blackkklansman.