For the fourth year in a row, I've taken a look at the education and drama training of the Oscar nominees in the acting categories. In years past, drama degrees have most often proved triumphant, but last year saw acting classes outside of college and no education beyond high school taking the biggest numbers. Where will this years research lead? Read on to find out!
Demián Bichir
Comes from a director father and actor mother and two brothers (referred to, by some, as the Barrymores of Mexico) Bichir was in his first professional play at age 3, started acting on television at age 14, and had his first lead in a play (Ah! Wilderness!) at age 17, all in Mexico. When he auditioned to train at Lee Strasberg in New York they told him he was already an actor and to save the tuition. Years later, he moved back to Mexico where he became a huge success, winning the Mexican equivalent of an Oscar. In terms of training, Bichir has said, "we had all we needed in our library at home"
College Education: None as far as I can find
Acting Training: Training through experience
George Clooney (Previously nominated twice for acting, won once)
No formal training. Attended Northern Kentucky University, then the University of Cincinnati, double majoring in History & Political Science, but did not graduate. Took classes at the Beverly Hills Playhouse.
College Education: Yes, but no degree
Acting Training: Classes
Jean Dujardin
No college education, worked in construction and in the army out of high school. Began his career with a one man show in Paris, but first garnered attention when he appeared on a French talent show. Appeared on a French comedy show before landing Brice de Nice, which made him a star.
College Education: None as far as I can find
Acting Training: No formal training
Gary Oldman
Studied at the Greenwich Young People's Theatre, then got his BA in theater arts from Britain's Rose Bruford Drama College. His dream was to go to RADA, but he didn't get in, advised to pursue something other than acting after his audition. Performed in rep for years after graduating, including with the RSC.
College Education: Bachelor of Arts
Acting Training: Formal training
Brad Pitt (previously nominated twice)
Journalism major at the University of Missouri, acting in many of his fraternity's shows on the side. Left college two weeks before earning his degree to move to LA & take acting classes, studying with Roy London.
College Education: Yes, but no degree
Acting Training: Classes and coaching
The rest after the jump
See full post
Showing posts with label Oscars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oscars. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Predicting The Top Line Oscar Winners: Six Week Mark
Cross-posted on and commissioned by Film.com
Oh Oscars. Here you are, a mere six weeks away! This time last year I was writing epic pieces on how The King's Speech didn't have a chance in hell of winning, and why The Social Network was the best ever and would easily walk away with the trophy. How quickly things turned around. This year no category is set in stone, though the Critic's Choice Awards would certainly like us to think otherwise. For those of you that aren't plugged into the scene, here's a look at what the safe bet predictions are at this time. Though, between you and me, I hope most of these drastically change by February 26th and below you'll also catch my two cents on the upset front. I should note: These were all the safe bet predictions BEFORE the Critics Choice Awards aired so….yeah. Let's just hope some of these are wrong and this year doesn't become another snoozefest.
Supporting Actress
Six Weeks Out Safe Bet: Octavia Spencer, The Help
Everyone loves The Help and Spencer was fantastic, providing a lot of the films comedy where Davis provided the heart, but still managed to be completely sympathetic in her…questionable practices. Personally, I think Chastain's role was a bit more of an acting challenge, but nailing a role simply is not something to be discounted either. Still, I wonder if a flashier role will end up upsetting come Oscar night. Something's got to be slightly unpredictable. Will this be the category to fulfill that duty?
But Don't Be Surprised If: Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
A lot of people are arguing that Melissa McCarthy has the potential to upset here, and while I think that is valid and possible, it also strikes me as just SO bizarre. Comedic performances should be appreciated and acknowledged more, yes, and McCarthy stole Bridesmaids out from under the whole rest of the cast. But to win? An Oscar? Seems more about riding the Melissa McCarthy train than really awarding her performance, and I would hate to see her reach the pique of praise in one year and than have everyone forget about her or call her overrated. Let's just calm down here a little bit, I think. Still, I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't seriously acknowledge her dark horse potential. Assuming she even gets a nomination, I can see more passion behind Academy voters checking the box for McCarthy than for the other favorite to upset and critics prize leader, Jessica Chastain.
My Hope: A category where I doubt my two favorites will be nominated, so I don't really have much at stake, but both Spencer and Chastain were fantastic, I'm happy to root for The Help picking up an award here, especially if Davis ends up not getting Actress.
For Your Consideration: Vanessa Redgrave in Coriolanus gives one of the top five performances of the year, hands down. The fact that she isn't making most short lists is absurd, and every actor should be somewhere between ashamed and offended. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE would watch Coriolanus and think Redgrave doesn't deserve a nomination. If she doesn't make the cut, mark my words, it's because no one bothered to put on the screener. Carey Mulligan also deserves a nomination here for breaking out of the box so triumphantly in Shame. She defied all expectations of what she is and can do, thanks to this fearless performance. The fact that she isn't being more seriously considered is baffling. I never thought Janet McTeer was a man for a SECOND! Berenice Bejo didn't even have to memorize lines! (Okay, that's a cheap shot, cause she was top notch at what she did do, but STILL.) Fingers crossed the actors branch doesn't go the obvious route with nominations here.
More after the jump!
See full post
Oh Oscars. Here you are, a mere six weeks away! This time last year I was writing epic pieces on how The King's Speech didn't have a chance in hell of winning, and why The Social Network was the best ever and would easily walk away with the trophy. How quickly things turned around. This year no category is set in stone, though the Critic's Choice Awards would certainly like us to think otherwise. For those of you that aren't plugged into the scene, here's a look at what the safe bet predictions are at this time. Though, between you and me, I hope most of these drastically change by February 26th and below you'll also catch my two cents on the upset front. I should note: These were all the safe bet predictions BEFORE the Critics Choice Awards aired so….yeah. Let's just hope some of these are wrong and this year doesn't become another snoozefest.
Supporting Actress
Six Weeks Out Safe Bet: Octavia Spencer, The Help
Everyone loves The Help and Spencer was fantastic, providing a lot of the films comedy where Davis provided the heart, but still managed to be completely sympathetic in her…questionable practices. Personally, I think Chastain's role was a bit more of an acting challenge, but nailing a role simply is not something to be discounted either. Still, I wonder if a flashier role will end up upsetting come Oscar night. Something's got to be slightly unpredictable. Will this be the category to fulfill that duty?
But Don't Be Surprised If: Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
A lot of people are arguing that Melissa McCarthy has the potential to upset here, and while I think that is valid and possible, it also strikes me as just SO bizarre. Comedic performances should be appreciated and acknowledged more, yes, and McCarthy stole Bridesmaids out from under the whole rest of the cast. But to win? An Oscar? Seems more about riding the Melissa McCarthy train than really awarding her performance, and I would hate to see her reach the pique of praise in one year and than have everyone forget about her or call her overrated. Let's just calm down here a little bit, I think. Still, I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't seriously acknowledge her dark horse potential. Assuming she even gets a nomination, I can see more passion behind Academy voters checking the box for McCarthy than for the other favorite to upset and critics prize leader, Jessica Chastain.
My Hope: A category where I doubt my two favorites will be nominated, so I don't really have much at stake, but both Spencer and Chastain were fantastic, I'm happy to root for The Help picking up an award here, especially if Davis ends up not getting Actress.
For Your Consideration: Vanessa Redgrave in Coriolanus gives one of the top five performances of the year, hands down. The fact that she isn't making most short lists is absurd, and every actor should be somewhere between ashamed and offended. I find it hard to believe that ANYONE would watch Coriolanus and think Redgrave doesn't deserve a nomination. If she doesn't make the cut, mark my words, it's because no one bothered to put on the screener. Carey Mulligan also deserves a nomination here for breaking out of the box so triumphantly in Shame. She defied all expectations of what she is and can do, thanks to this fearless performance. The fact that she isn't being more seriously considered is baffling. I never thought Janet McTeer was a man for a SECOND! Berenice Bejo didn't even have to memorize lines! (Okay, that's a cheap shot, cause she was top notch at what she did do, but STILL.) Fingers crossed the actors branch doesn't go the obvious route with nominations here.
More after the jump!
See full post
Friday, February 25, 2011
What Would It Mean If _____ Won Best Picture?
At this point the race has really come down to The King's Speech vs The Social Network to walk away with Best Picture come Oscar night. Or if you like to believe almost every prognosticator ever, just The King's Speech. But I refuse. REFUSE. Because at the end of the day, we don't really know what the Academy is going to do. Sure, they more often than not follow a particular formula, but they've also gone completely out of the box from time to time (Marcia Gay Harden, anyone?) so we decided to take a look at what it would mean should something more unexpected take the win Sunday night. A breakdown of what would it mean if each nominated picture won, in order of most likely to least likely.
The King's Speech - Same old same old. Traditional wins out over exciting or new. What I think this practically means is Academy members saw The Social Network months ago and saw The King's Speech most recently out of the nominated 10, as The Weinstein Company sent it well after every other screener had arrived. It warmed members' hearts, so they marked it on their ballot and sent it on its way. Timing is often everything when it comes to the Oscars. Also possible that The Social Network simply didn't hit them the way The King's Speech did and with the academy members' ages generally skewing older, it could be that TSN just didn't read to them, though I'm kind of offended by the idea that "age" = "unable to understand anything new," Andy Rooney. Mostly, should this happen, it means everyone sucks.
The Social Network - Ten nominees is working out! It means the riskier, more passionate choices actually have a shot winning over more old fashioned options. This may mean members took the time to re-watch The Social Network, re-fall in love with in and re-appreciate everything that's brilliant about it. Could also mean many voters decided to go with the objectively better film over the one that may have given them stomach fuzzies, but would be forgotten in years to come. Most likely, this means anyone who *didn't* vote for The King's Speech or The Social Network for #1, ranked The Social Network higher than The King's Speech in their preferential ballot. Also, this means everyone rules.
The Fighter - Ah the beauty of low expectations! Here we have a movie very much marketed as one thing while it was in fact another. The anti-schmaltz sports story, it was dark, funny, brilliantly acted. It could have been such a delightful surprise to Academy members, that it ended up staying in the highest of regard come ballot time.
True Grit - Ah the beauty of beauty! Plus the Coen Brothers! The most gorgeously shot of the bunch, True Grit was quite the feat in that it was a classic Western in every way while simultaneously being distinctively Coen Brothers. And it is a legitimate star maker, introducing us to Hailee Steinfeld. A nice combination of beauty, heartfeltness, great filmmaking and humor, if True Grit wins, it means Academy members ignored what they were being told was the "old school favorite" and *actually* voted with their hearts. Because if we ARE taking age into consideration here, wouldn't members more likely be fans of the WESTERN, a classic AMERICAN genre, over a period piece like The King's Speech, when 3 Westerns have won Best Picture but a film centered around a British monarch never has? So if we're talking nostalgia/old fashioned, shouldn't that lie with the Western for the American voter?
Black Swan - Don't underestimate the power of the cray-cray . Only one horror film has ever won Best Picture, but it has happened. When executed well enough, it stands a chance, and Black Swan certainly fits that bill. If it wins, it means members decided to go with the movie that stuck with them the most, that got under their skin and affected them beyond the experience of just sitting & watching a movie. Or they just want to support lurid fantastical lesbian sex scenes. Which is just as valid a reason.
Inception - Similar to Black Swan in motivation, it would mean Inception stuck with members, changed the way they dreamed, was a source of discussion for weeks, and when it came time to mark the ballot, was the film that jumped out as having most transcended the common movie going experience. Inception winning over Black Swan means that science fiction has become a truly legitimate genre when it comes to Oscar films, it's what Silence of the Lambs did for Horror and Return of the King did for Fantasy. Will be really nice when this finally happens for Sci-Fi. Which, by the way, will not be this year. Just. You know. FYI. Sigh.
The Kids Are All Right - Everyone finally realized their political fallacy by choosing Crash over Brokeback Mountain in 2005 and decided to make up for it by selecting The Kids Are All Right for the win, which happens to be a much superior film to Brokeback anyway. Said it. Or, the real reason, since, believe it or not, personal beliefs actually *don't* play a role when selecting the best movie of the year, members think fondly on the warmth, originality, careful direction and stellar performances that came from such a small film that really says something about the here and now, and ultimately thought to let a true underdog upset.
Winter's Bone - There just aren't enough movies about backwoods meth addicts. Academy members want more. MOAR SQUIRREL GUTTING PLZ. OH AND METH, MOAR METH TOO K THX. Or members ended up going for the quiet, underdog nature of the truest indie of the bunch. Note: They didn't.
Toy Story 3 - Disney called in all of their favors and had too much hanging over too many people's heads for anyone to say no.
127 Hours - We've entered into an alternate universe where Fincher's Benjamin Button swept two years ago for and now it's Danny Boyle's "turn". Because that is the only possible explanation for 127 Hours winning Best Picture.
See full postInterview with an Academy Member - 2011
Every year, numerous publications, including the LA Times & Entertainment Weekly, reveal how anonymous Academy members voted, in the hopes of shedding some light on the way this years Oscars go down. Last year we were lucky enough to chat with a member who most often votes off the beaten path and he agreed to talk to us again this year, this time going even more in depth.
How do you think 2010 fared in general?
Overall, I actually think it's been a very impressive year. It may not have been very deep in terms of quantity of good films, but the top 10-12 were pretty exceptional. As a matter of fact this is the first time since I've been in the academy in which all the films I nominated actually made it on to the final ballot. I have heard some murmuring about this year's films lacking in some way and just last week on Show Business!, Peter Guber complained it was not a particularly great year because he didn't see any "Godfathers" out there. Truth of the matter is that I don't see any "Godfathers" in many of the recent Best Pic winners, so I'm really not quite sure what he was talking about. It certainly wasn't The Departed or No Country for Old Men. In terms of cinematic scope, I'd have to look back to Return of the King, and in terms of perfection, I think you'd have to go all the way back to Shakespeare in Love, but still neither of those touch The Godfather. So, I guess what I'm saying is sure, we'd all like to see more "Godfathers" being made, but in the mean time, this year's crop is a pretty damn good one.
What is your philosophy when it comes to filling out your ballot?
Well by the time I get the ballot I have tried very consciously to have already seen all of the major contenders and beyond, and then if I've seen all five nominees in a given category, I'll fill out the ballot IMMEDIATELY. This way it reflects my true gut feelings about the work itself. It is after all an Academy of motion picture arts and sciences, it's not about commercial success or "pimping" yourself to win (as one actress has infamously described her campaign). I can understand a studio campaigning for a film just to be sure that it's seen by as many members as possible, but it's hard for me to accept that one actor wants to have an Oscar more than any of the other nominees. So taking out an ad that essentially says "pick me because I want it more" seems counter intuitive to awarding the Oscar based on the performance alone. One of the major benefits of filling it out as soon as possible is to avoid being influenced in any way by all of the ensuing typical Oscar campaigns.
Was Supporting Actress a category you filled out before all the controversy, or did the ad end up affecting your choice?
I had seen all five nominees and in all honestly it was a no brainer for me to pick Hailee Steinfeld, who basically stole the entire picture and on whose shoulders the story rested. I thought Melissa Leo's performance in The Fighter was terrific, I could also name half a dozen other actresses who could have hit it out of the park as well. However it took looking at something like 14,000 girls to find Hailee Steinfeld and she was uniquely spot on. All of this being said however, if Julianne Moore had been nominated in this category, I very probably would have voted for her because she was the heart and soul of The Kids Are All Right and although that film is as close to an ensemble piece as the Best Picture nominees go, she truly supported every other performance in the movie. Her performance also took me by surprise in that it's the warmest, earthiest, most sensual, most vulnerable, most lovable that I've ever seen her in a film. She made the pivotal scenes with Mark Ruffalo believable and organic, when they so easily could have been cliched or come across as a stereotypical male fantasy.
Clearly Moore was a snub you weren't happy with, was there anything else you disappointed to see not receive a nomination?
First I have to reiterate that we Academy Members never get together and decide to snub someone. And for all I know, Julianne Moore pulled herself out of this category because her not getting nominated is incomprehensible to me. The only other film I wish had been nominated was Tangled for Best Animated Film as it came closest to giving me as an animation lover everything I enjoy about classic animated films. I didn't think the animation itself was as beautiful as it could have been, but the voice performances, the screenplay, the humor and the music were wonderful, as well as the twist of changing Rapunzel's rescuer from a prince to a thief, which worked extremely well. Everything about it seemed genuine, especially the lead performances and so your emotional responses to the story were more authentic than they were to Toy Story 3, which to me seemed to be working overtime to manipulate your emotions. The Illusionist was beautifully animated, but I can't say the story was all that engaging and while I really enjoyed the story, music and flight sequences of How To Train Your Dragon, the character design and particularly the lead voice acting and the dragons themselves just weren't very appealing. If Toy Story 3 had recused itself, as I think any animated film nominated for Best Picture should, that third slot would have most likely gone to Tangled. And just to clarify, I'd feel the same way about a Best Foreign Language film. If it should be nominated for Best Picture, it should not also be nominated for Best Foreign. I don't think there should be a built-in consolation prize.
Which were your top 5 and in which order were they nominated?
1. The Social Network
2. True Grit
3. Black Swan
4. Inception
5. The Kids Are All Right
So The King's Speech, the front runner, didn't even make your top five?
When I saw the movie, my first reaction was Colin Firth just gave the best performance of his career, deeply nuanced from the inside out... and is going to win an Oscar, but I honestly did not think I just saw one of the best movies of the year. It's that simple. I don't mean to diminish it in any way whatsoever by saying it would have worked as well on television, because I think some of the best television ever made is being produced now, but ultimately, it's was just not as outright cinematic as the films I did nominate.
What was your pick for Best Director?
I hope it's Fincher's year. There's not much else to say other than The Social Network was brilliantly directed. I've seen it 3 times now and it impressed me more with every viewing.
What was your pick for Best Actress?
I thought all 5 leading performances were absolutely wonderful this year, but I put the check next to Natalie Portman as soon as I opened my ballot. Jennifer Lawrence and Michelle Williams gave beautiful, subtle performances and I loved Annette Bening, but simply did not see that role as either the lead character or her best work. Natalie Portman's immersion in that character is what made Black Swan as stunning as it is and she was breathtaking in it.
What was your pick for Best Original Screenplay?
The King's Speech kind of carved its story out of historical tidbits and existing works whereas the Kids Are All Right was a wholly original, authentic, genuine portrayal of truly complex relationships thats is also very relevant to what's going on in our society today. It reflected the way that real people really speak and interact and it actually felt original, like something you hadn't seen before, which I don't think was accomplished by The King's Speech's screenplay, as well written as it might be.
Anything else you'd like to say?
On a side note, I wish there was someway to acknowledge the animated sequence in Harry Potter, which is probably among the finest animation I've seen this year in any context or format. I can only hope that if Deathly Hallows wins either of the categories it's nominated in (Art Direction, Special Effects), that the animator gets a well deserved piece of that award.
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Bottom Line: Melissa Leo's Personal Oscar Campaign
Crossposted on and commissioned by Film.com
In true industry fashion, for the first couple days following the publication of Melissa Leo's controversial "For Your Consideration" ads, the Internet was ablaze with talk of how inappropriate and awkward they were, asking what she was thinking and pondering whether it was going to hurt her chances. But in ever truer industry fashion, a couple days after that, the backlash to the backlash had begun, the Internet then ablaze with people being offended by the notion that these ads would affect her potential Oscar win, defending Leo, saying, *if* you're going to judge her at least try to get a sense of who she really is first.
I've actually been struggling with all of this myself. When I initially saw the ads, my reaction was one of pure and unbridled "WTF." Why on EARTH would the front-runner for the Academy Award find it necessary to take an ad out for herself, let alone an ad that is nothing more than a glamor shot. If this is about the performance? Why isn't the ad ... about the performance?
Then a few days later, after reading multiple defenses, I changed my tune. Everyone else has studios or publicists taking out ads for them; she had to take matters into her own hands. She isn't desperate, just excited -- who cares how she campaigns, plus, fun fact! She actually seems like a pretty amazing person.
Well now that the initial fervor has somewhat died down, I've finally settled on how I truly feel about the matter and whether or not it will affect her predicted win.
Academy members *should* only vote based on performance, this is true. It's what we all hope for. But if we are going to believe in this principle, we need to really believe it. All of us. Which would mean no ads based on anything other than touting the performance. How can we ignore the ads and claim awards are about the performance, when that doesn't even seem to be what Leo believes? I love her, but it does sort of seem like she wants us to think that this is about *her*, not the character of Alice Ward, that she's been in this industry for years, that she's an old pro, that she's due -- nothing about her campaign or previous speeches have implied otherwise. So the whole argument seems very uneven. I'm all for focusing only on the performance, but it needs to apply all around. This would also mean, as much as I've loved the pieces I've read on the matter, that there shouldn't be articles explaining why she is a good person. It shouldn't matter.
To further complicate the situation, Hailee Steinfeld was being primed to upset Leo before all this ruckus started. Her momentum had definitely begun. If anything, this mini controversy may have simply brought up the conversation slightly sooner. But in terms of predictions I've been reading and industry insiders I've been talking to, the win was starting to swing in Steinfeld's direction BEFORE the ads came out. And the reason is the performance. Many people simply appreciate Steinfeld's performance more. It's been explained to me that Maddie does more to support Cogburn's journey than Alice did for Mickey's, and that Alice is more of a fun character role than an Oscar-worthy one. The biggest argument I've heard against Steinfield is that this is her first movie (...and?), the second biggest being that she is so vital to the film because she is actually the lead and therefore shouldn't win supporting. But the mere fact that whether she is lead or supporting is debatable; add to that the fact that kids have traditionally always ended up in the supporting categories, and that should squash this argument once and for all. Her placement is what it is, don't blame Steinfeld for it. (For what it's worth, I think her monologue at the end proves that Cogburn is in fact the "lead" -- it might have been her story, but it was her story about *his* redemption. He is the one that changes. She supports that change.)
Ultimately it comes down to this: I don't think Leo should have taken out those ads, but I do hope the Academy ignores them. And for that matter, any other ads. Performance should always be considered first, then role, then movie, then sentiment/history, then politics. While those last two factors are unfortunately inevitable, they should *at least* be considered after what really matters.
The worst part of this? If someone does upset Leo, guess what people are going to point to for the reason? Not the performance. Not the role. Perhaps not even the movie. They will point purely to this controversy. And this is reason enough alone not to have taken the ad out. It makes the Supporting Actress race unnecessarily focused on politics and outside factors, pure and simple. If anything is to come from the ad, perhaps it is Academy members being forced to "think about the performance," as people jumping to Leo's defense have urged them to do, that will end up hurting her come Oscar night -- maybe such a suggestion will make members second guess going with a supposed lock and really take another look at the other nominated performances.
I'd like to think voters will forget about this entire situation before sending in their ballots, especially because Melissa Leo was an absolute genius in The Fighter, and I'd be thrilled to see her take the win with no controversy. Unfortunately, in true industry fashion, no one forgets anything. Expect mention of these ads in every Oscar wrap-up article on the Internet should Leo win OR lose. Sigh. See full post
In true industry fashion, for the first couple days following the publication of Melissa Leo's controversial "For Your Consideration" ads, the Internet was ablaze with talk of how inappropriate and awkward they were, asking what she was thinking and pondering whether it was going to hurt her chances. But in ever truer industry fashion, a couple days after that, the backlash to the backlash had begun, the Internet then ablaze with people being offended by the notion that these ads would affect her potential Oscar win, defending Leo, saying, *if* you're going to judge her at least try to get a sense of who she really is first.
I've actually been struggling with all of this myself. When I initially saw the ads, my reaction was one of pure and unbridled "WTF." Why on EARTH would the front-runner for the Academy Award find it necessary to take an ad out for herself, let alone an ad that is nothing more than a glamor shot. If this is about the performance? Why isn't the ad ... about the performance?
Then a few days later, after reading multiple defenses, I changed my tune. Everyone else has studios or publicists taking out ads for them; she had to take matters into her own hands. She isn't desperate, just excited -- who cares how she campaigns, plus, fun fact! She actually seems like a pretty amazing person.
Well now that the initial fervor has somewhat died down, I've finally settled on how I truly feel about the matter and whether or not it will affect her predicted win.
Academy members *should* only vote based on performance, this is true. It's what we all hope for. But if we are going to believe in this principle, we need to really believe it. All of us. Which would mean no ads based on anything other than touting the performance. How can we ignore the ads and claim awards are about the performance, when that doesn't even seem to be what Leo believes? I love her, but it does sort of seem like she wants us to think that this is about *her*, not the character of Alice Ward, that she's been in this industry for years, that she's an old pro, that she's due -- nothing about her campaign or previous speeches have implied otherwise. So the whole argument seems very uneven. I'm all for focusing only on the performance, but it needs to apply all around. This would also mean, as much as I've loved the pieces I've read on the matter, that there shouldn't be articles explaining why she is a good person. It shouldn't matter.
To further complicate the situation, Hailee Steinfeld was being primed to upset Leo before all this ruckus started. Her momentum had definitely begun. If anything, this mini controversy may have simply brought up the conversation slightly sooner. But in terms of predictions I've been reading and industry insiders I've been talking to, the win was starting to swing in Steinfeld's direction BEFORE the ads came out. And the reason is the performance. Many people simply appreciate Steinfeld's performance more. It's been explained to me that Maddie does more to support Cogburn's journey than Alice did for Mickey's, and that Alice is more of a fun character role than an Oscar-worthy one. The biggest argument I've heard against Steinfield is that this is her first movie (...and?), the second biggest being that she is so vital to the film because she is actually the lead and therefore shouldn't win supporting. But the mere fact that whether she is lead or supporting is debatable; add to that the fact that kids have traditionally always ended up in the supporting categories, and that should squash this argument once and for all. Her placement is what it is, don't blame Steinfeld for it. (For what it's worth, I think her monologue at the end proves that Cogburn is in fact the "lead" -- it might have been her story, but it was her story about *his* redemption. He is the one that changes. She supports that change.)
Ultimately it comes down to this: I don't think Leo should have taken out those ads, but I do hope the Academy ignores them. And for that matter, any other ads. Performance should always be considered first, then role, then movie, then sentiment/history, then politics. While those last two factors are unfortunately inevitable, they should *at least* be considered after what really matters.
The worst part of this? If someone does upset Leo, guess what people are going to point to for the reason? Not the performance. Not the role. Perhaps not even the movie. They will point purely to this controversy. And this is reason enough alone not to have taken the ad out. It makes the Supporting Actress race unnecessarily focused on politics and outside factors, pure and simple. If anything is to come from the ad, perhaps it is Academy members being forced to "think about the performance," as people jumping to Leo's defense have urged them to do, that will end up hurting her come Oscar night -- maybe such a suggestion will make members second guess going with a supposed lock and really take another look at the other nominated performances.
I'd like to think voters will forget about this entire situation before sending in their ballots, especially because Melissa Leo was an absolute genius in The Fighter, and I'd be thrilled to see her take the win with no controversy. Unfortunately, in true industry fashion, no one forgets anything. Expect mention of these ads in every Oscar wrap-up article on the Internet should Leo win OR lose. Sigh. See full post
Friday, February 4, 2011
Muse's Eight Most Upsetting Snubs of Oscars 2011
Crossposted on & commissioned by Film.com
Last Tuesday, I was hoping for a pleasant morning. For an Oscars 2010 kind of morning, where you wake up and find out that District 9 got nominated for Best Picture. Instead it was an Oscars 2009 kind of morning. A The Dark Knight got snubbed for Best Picture kind of morning. Translation: A really bad morning.
The only happy surprise of the main 8 categories? Michelle Williams getting a nod. But there was no Ryan Gosling. There was no Julianne Moore, though no one really thought she'd make it in. And most upsettingly, there was no Andrew Garfield, the heart and soul of The Social Network. His snub alone began to unravel my previously stable belief that The Social Network has Best Picture locked up (now almost completely shattered by The King's Speech winning at the SAG Awards). If the actors branch, the largest branch of the academy, didn't appreciate his performance enough to get him a nod, does that mean they don't appreciate the movie enough?
But then something even worse was announced. The nominees for Best Director. Don't get me wrong. I love David Fincher. I love Darren Aronofsky. I love the Coen Brothers. I even love notoriously crazy David O Russell. But the fact that Christopher Nolan, a director committed to using the language of cinema to not only tell a story, but make you think and make you feel in ways you don't even understand or realize you're feeling until it's over - the fact that one of the most innovative, creative, most aspiring to cinematic greatness directors working today did not get a nomination for Best Director is disappointing at best. But, and not to beat a dead horse, Tom Hooper, who impressed me directorally only in his casting of the three leads, did. And then won the DGA award later that week. Because the universe hates me.
So when the director nominations were announced, I got worried. I immediately went online, found the complete list of Oscar nominations...and I didn't like what I saw. There were more snubs than the obvious - more than Gosling, Garfield, Mila Kunis & Nolan, Waiting for Superman in Doc, The Town in Picture. So here is my list of the top eight most upsetting snubs.
8.Lisa Cholodenko - Director - The Kids Are All Right
No one seemed to prognosticate that Lisa ever had a chance, but since I believed that the top five would have been The Social Network, The King's Speech, Black Swan, True Grit or Inception & The Kids Are All Right (if following the genre standards set by the aughts), I was still hoping that maybe the directors would reflect this. Unfortunately it seems as though The Fighter would have potentially taken that last slot, leaving The Kids Are All Right out in the cold and Cholodenko with it. But her direction was actually quite remarkable. The way the scenes were framed & lit that seemed to inform the relationships, the comfort levels in each location, the lingering shots, the attention to detail, the warmth - plus it really feels like open, honest acting from everyone in the cast. There is no schmacting, there is no indicating, Cholodenko knew exactly how to capture what she wanted. I was so sincerely hoping there would be a slot for this movie in direction and not just because Lisa is a woman, though that would have been a cool plus side coming off of last year's historic win for Kathryn Bigelow. Le sigh.
7. Daft Punk- Score - Tron: Legacy
This movie would be a big fat nothing without two things: The visuals & the score. Daft Punk MADE this movie work for me. Looking at Tron: Legacy as one long Daft Punk music video suddenly made it not suck. Aside from the fact that it is absurdly necessary for the movie to even work on any level, the score is *awesome* to listen to. It's atmospheric when it needs to be, triumphant when it needs to be, popping when it needs to be, forlorn when it needs to be - each track is distinct, yet clearly Daft Punk and clearly from Tron: Legacy. I've listened to it on multiple occasions for multiple reasons and was really hoping to be able to say "Oscar nominees Daft Punk." Not everyone can be Three Six Mafia, I suppose.
6. & 5. Visual FX: Tron: Legacy and Scott Pilgrim
The other aspect that made Tron for me was obviously the VFX. The ways in which Tron utilized 3D and the IMAX screen to actually help tell the story (as stupid as the story was) I thought deserved some praise. This movie looked so utterly cool, it's the first time I have *ever* excused a terrible story and terrible dialogue because I loved the effects so much. I was so taken with this universe, I felt like I was actually inside it and I loved every moment. No one can deny the feat that was accomplished with the visuals and those very visuals have been a subject for discussion since we first got a glimpse of what would be at Comic-Con three years ago.
Then you have Scott Pilgrim, which played with vfx in a very different way, but still a style I've never seen before. They play into the environment and help specify that this world isn't exactly our world, but rather a much more badass one. Or, to be slightly more accurate, a much more EPIC one.
It seems endlessly strange to me that the opening sequence of a movie, Hereafter, featuring a type of effect that has been done many times before, tsunami, (see: Deep Impact, 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, etc etc etc) deserved a nomination more than two films that really created something unique and essential to the storytelling of the film. Using fx as a flavor of ice cream itself instead of the cherry on top, if you will?
4.& 3. Sound Editing & Mixing - Scott Pilgrim & Black Swan
I don't know much about sound. Which is precisely why I think Scott Pilgrim & Black Swan deserved some recognition. Sound played essential roles in both of these films and not in the obvious action movie sense.
In Scott Pilgrim, there is almost *always* a specific sound cue designed to help tell the story - whether it's by referencing something else, setting the location, keeping the pace, directing the audience's attention - sound plays a HUGE role in the movie. The choices in sound were actually on the same level as the choices in music and special effects, to the point where all three departments were working together to create the most immersive result possible. It mystifies me that that much detail doesn't deserve some recognition. I don't see how "train sounds" is more innovative or creative than what Julian Slater and his team did for Scott Pilgrim. I'm sure Unstoppable's sound was edited perfectly, but to what imaginative end? With Pilgrim, Every punch with a different person sounded different. There was a specific sound scape running through every scene, playing a vital role in letting us know what to think & how to feel. It's a travesty Pilgrim was snubbed here, nothing less. For more, head here.
Then you have Black Swan, in which the sounds affect environment as much as the cinematography and production design do. They are integral in creating atmosphere, in getting inside Nina's head, in suggesting emotion. The cracking, the whispering, the breathing, the sound was almost a living entity. It is an artistic use of sound, both in editing and mixing that has sadly gone unnoticed by the academy. Fore more on Black Swan and sound, head here.
2. Lesley Manville - Actress - Another Year
Now THAT is a performance. Yes, the other actresses were fantastic and I begrudge none of them, but it would have been wonderful to see Manville sneak in there. Her performance is almost beyond description. Her character is so thoroughly authentic that you have trouble believing she's real. It's difficult to play unstable that accurately. Watching her, I was uncomfortable, but couldn't pull my eyes away. Every choice was fascinating. I'm honestly not sure any other actress nominated could have pulled off that character. I was positively in awe and absolutely believe the reason she didn't make it is that simply not enough actors saw Another Year to get her quite enough votes.
1. Lee Smith - Editing - Inception
The one you've probably heard the most bitching about on Twitter and rightly so. A crucial element in Inception was tricking the audience into thinking we are following a much more straightforward story than we actually are. To edit so seamlessly that we don't realize anything is truly strange until the end of the movie. Like a dream itself. Part of what makes Nolan so masterful is his ability to make a movie like Memento and really make us feel like we don't have a short term memory, to make a movie like Insomnia and make us feel like we have insomnia, and with Inception, to make us feel like we've been dreaming, or to go even further, than we've been incepted. (Sidenote: I LOVE Inception theories.) But this would not be possible without top notch editing. The only reasonable explanation for this is that Smith ended up as #6 and by a remarkably small margin.
If any of these snubs affected you the way they affected me, check out the nominations for the second annual Fangirl Awards...Scott Pilgrim got 14 nominations. Take that, The King's Speech with 12 Academy Award nominations! ... I'm not going to be happy on Oscar night, am I? See full post
Last Tuesday, I was hoping for a pleasant morning. For an Oscars 2010 kind of morning, where you wake up and find out that District 9 got nominated for Best Picture. Instead it was an Oscars 2009 kind of morning. A The Dark Knight got snubbed for Best Picture kind of morning. Translation: A really bad morning.
The only happy surprise of the main 8 categories? Michelle Williams getting a nod. But there was no Ryan Gosling. There was no Julianne Moore, though no one really thought she'd make it in. And most upsettingly, there was no Andrew Garfield, the heart and soul of The Social Network. His snub alone began to unravel my previously stable belief that The Social Network has Best Picture locked up (now almost completely shattered by The King's Speech winning at the SAG Awards). If the actors branch, the largest branch of the academy, didn't appreciate his performance enough to get him a nod, does that mean they don't appreciate the movie enough?
But then something even worse was announced. The nominees for Best Director. Don't get me wrong. I love David Fincher. I love Darren Aronofsky. I love the Coen Brothers. I even love notoriously crazy David O Russell. But the fact that Christopher Nolan, a director committed to using the language of cinema to not only tell a story, but make you think and make you feel in ways you don't even understand or realize you're feeling until it's over - the fact that one of the most innovative, creative, most aspiring to cinematic greatness directors working today did not get a nomination for Best Director is disappointing at best. But, and not to beat a dead horse, Tom Hooper, who impressed me directorally only in his casting of the three leads, did. And then won the DGA award later that week. Because the universe hates me.
So when the director nominations were announced, I got worried. I immediately went online, found the complete list of Oscar nominations...and I didn't like what I saw. There were more snubs than the obvious - more than Gosling, Garfield, Mila Kunis & Nolan, Waiting for Superman in Doc, The Town in Picture. So here is my list of the top eight most upsetting snubs.
8.Lisa Cholodenko - Director - The Kids Are All Right
No one seemed to prognosticate that Lisa ever had a chance, but since I believed that the top five would have been The Social Network, The King's Speech, Black Swan, True Grit or Inception & The Kids Are All Right (if following the genre standards set by the aughts), I was still hoping that maybe the directors would reflect this. Unfortunately it seems as though The Fighter would have potentially taken that last slot, leaving The Kids Are All Right out in the cold and Cholodenko with it. But her direction was actually quite remarkable. The way the scenes were framed & lit that seemed to inform the relationships, the comfort levels in each location, the lingering shots, the attention to detail, the warmth - plus it really feels like open, honest acting from everyone in the cast. There is no schmacting, there is no indicating, Cholodenko knew exactly how to capture what she wanted. I was so sincerely hoping there would be a slot for this movie in direction and not just because Lisa is a woman, though that would have been a cool plus side coming off of last year's historic win for Kathryn Bigelow. Le sigh.
7. Daft Punk- Score - Tron: Legacy
This movie would be a big fat nothing without two things: The visuals & the score. Daft Punk MADE this movie work for me. Looking at Tron: Legacy as one long Daft Punk music video suddenly made it not suck. Aside from the fact that it is absurdly necessary for the movie to even work on any level, the score is *awesome* to listen to. It's atmospheric when it needs to be, triumphant when it needs to be, popping when it needs to be, forlorn when it needs to be - each track is distinct, yet clearly Daft Punk and clearly from Tron: Legacy. I've listened to it on multiple occasions for multiple reasons and was really hoping to be able to say "Oscar nominees Daft Punk." Not everyone can be Three Six Mafia, I suppose.
6. & 5. Visual FX: Tron: Legacy and Scott Pilgrim
The other aspect that made Tron for me was obviously the VFX. The ways in which Tron utilized 3D and the IMAX screen to actually help tell the story (as stupid as the story was) I thought deserved some praise. This movie looked so utterly cool, it's the first time I have *ever* excused a terrible story and terrible dialogue because I loved the effects so much. I was so taken with this universe, I felt like I was actually inside it and I loved every moment. No one can deny the feat that was accomplished with the visuals and those very visuals have been a subject for discussion since we first got a glimpse of what would be at Comic-Con three years ago.
Then you have Scott Pilgrim, which played with vfx in a very different way, but still a style I've never seen before. They play into the environment and help specify that this world isn't exactly our world, but rather a much more badass one. Or, to be slightly more accurate, a much more EPIC one.
It seems endlessly strange to me that the opening sequence of a movie, Hereafter, featuring a type of effect that has been done many times before, tsunami, (see: Deep Impact, 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, etc etc etc) deserved a nomination more than two films that really created something unique and essential to the storytelling of the film. Using fx as a flavor of ice cream itself instead of the cherry on top, if you will?
4.& 3. Sound Editing & Mixing - Scott Pilgrim & Black Swan
I don't know much about sound. Which is precisely why I think Scott Pilgrim & Black Swan deserved some recognition. Sound played essential roles in both of these films and not in the obvious action movie sense.
In Scott Pilgrim, there is almost *always* a specific sound cue designed to help tell the story - whether it's by referencing something else, setting the location, keeping the pace, directing the audience's attention - sound plays a HUGE role in the movie. The choices in sound were actually on the same level as the choices in music and special effects, to the point where all three departments were working together to create the most immersive result possible. It mystifies me that that much detail doesn't deserve some recognition. I don't see how "train sounds" is more innovative or creative than what Julian Slater and his team did for Scott Pilgrim. I'm sure Unstoppable's sound was edited perfectly, but to what imaginative end? With Pilgrim, Every punch with a different person sounded different. There was a specific sound scape running through every scene, playing a vital role in letting us know what to think & how to feel. It's a travesty Pilgrim was snubbed here, nothing less. For more, head here.
Then you have Black Swan, in which the sounds affect environment as much as the cinematography and production design do. They are integral in creating atmosphere, in getting inside Nina's head, in suggesting emotion. The cracking, the whispering, the breathing, the sound was almost a living entity. It is an artistic use of sound, both in editing and mixing that has sadly gone unnoticed by the academy. Fore more on Black Swan and sound, head here.
2. Lesley Manville - Actress - Another Year
Now THAT is a performance. Yes, the other actresses were fantastic and I begrudge none of them, but it would have been wonderful to see Manville sneak in there. Her performance is almost beyond description. Her character is so thoroughly authentic that you have trouble believing she's real. It's difficult to play unstable that accurately. Watching her, I was uncomfortable, but couldn't pull my eyes away. Every choice was fascinating. I'm honestly not sure any other actress nominated could have pulled off that character. I was positively in awe and absolutely believe the reason she didn't make it is that simply not enough actors saw Another Year to get her quite enough votes.
1. Lee Smith - Editing - Inception
The one you've probably heard the most bitching about on Twitter and rightly so. A crucial element in Inception was tricking the audience into thinking we are following a much more straightforward story than we actually are. To edit so seamlessly that we don't realize anything is truly strange until the end of the movie. Like a dream itself. Part of what makes Nolan so masterful is his ability to make a movie like Memento and really make us feel like we don't have a short term memory, to make a movie like Insomnia and make us feel like we have insomnia, and with Inception, to make us feel like we've been dreaming, or to go even further, than we've been incepted. (Sidenote: I LOVE Inception theories.) But this would not be possible without top notch editing. The only reasonable explanation for this is that Smith ended up as #6 and by a remarkably small margin.
If any of these snubs affected you the way they affected me, check out the nominations for the second annual Fangirl Awards...Scott Pilgrim got 14 nominations. Take that, The King's Speech with 12 Academy Award nominations! ... I'm not going to be happy on Oscar night, am I? See full post
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
My The King's Speech Rant Of The Day
Think I can keep this up for 25 days?
Today's rant was inspired by three words in Lisa Schwartzbaum's article about the absurdity of Tom Hooper winning the DGA award.
"privileged fellow’s triumph" in reference to what The King's Speech is actually about.
And this got me thinking.
Lots of people complain that The Social Network is just a movie about some bratty nerds making a website that people will forget about next week and The King's Speech is about World War II and will last forever.
A. Incorrect
B. Let me provide you with a different perspective.
The King's Speech is about a rich royal who feels like he isn't good enough because he has a stutter. Did I mention he is rich as balls and the King and never has to want for anything and also that he never mentioned maybe his nazi sympathizer brother shouldn't be King, oh, because he's a nazi sympathizer, not just cause he fell for a divorced woman? Oh yeah, marrying someone who was married once before is SO much worse than being a nazi-lover. Yup. So: privileged entitled King to be gets over his stutter with the help of a failed actor who isn't as rich cause he isn't PART OF THE ROYAL FAMILY and they become friends, despite the fact that again, one of them isn't part of the royal family, OMG. ...
As opposed to a film about someone who could be called privileged if being a genius is a privilege. Someone who was flawed and fucked up emotionally but managed to use his smarts to LITERALLY CHANGE THE WORLD. THE WHOLE WORLD. ACTUALLY. It's about young people yes, young people who eventually have a shit load of money, some young people who have money already, like Eduardo - but they all *worked* for it, they all used their minds to get into school, to make money, to eventually revolutionize the way people communicate.
If we're talking purely subject matter, all people are from now on forbidden from positing that The King's Speech, because it's all warm & fuzzy, is somehow more important. Excuse me for being more interested in seeing how someone my age, born into nothing particularly special, except a mind and the determination to use it, changes the world and loses the only people he cares about in the process, versus a movie about someone born into royalty who has one fault and it's his stutter, but through friendship, he fixes it zzzzzzzzzzzz. Give me a break. And give The Social Network its damn Oscar.
Muse out.
Updated with response (in comments) -
It's only my vitriol, unfortunately...
Definitely see them. Both. Then read my 2000 word article on why The Social Network should win, haha.
The King's Speech is a perfectly lovely film. I saw it before all the hype, before it was a front runner, before all of this. It didn't move me. It didn't impress me. I thought Colin Firth was a GENIUS, but that's it. Then all of a sudden, it's winning everything and Harvey Weinstein is hiring lawyers to defend its historical accuracy (Check this out - http://www.slate.com/id/2282194/) and wanting to recut the movie without the "fucks" so middle america will see it and making all sorts of phone calls and claims about how TKS is *actually* the timely, yet timeless one. So my "Oh, I liked it!" has turned into "FUCK THAT GOD DAMN MOVIE, EFFING GOD DAMNIT"
And while it's true that these kids were from middle to upper middle class families, they didn't *have* to go to Harvard, they didn't *have* to revolutionize communication as we know it. They could have been asshole idiots. But they were smart and knew how to use their smarts they made that shit happen.
The truth is though, subject matter is the least of my arguments for TSN and against TKS. I'm sick of people all of a sudden saying TKS will last forever cause World War II blah and TSN will be forgotten about cause it's about nerds, which makes me want to laugh and/or choke on my own vomit.
The King's Speech is totally delightful. Would sweep at the Emmys. But it's the most conventional, safe, boringly shot, uncreatively made, least cinematic movie of what has been generally an *incredible* Oscar season.
And it didn't even move me, for all it's supposed fuzziness. Another Year moved me. Toy Story 3 at least manipulated me so perversely that I couldn't feel my face afterwards from all the tears. Black Swan and Inception made me cry out of sheer goosebumpy awe. Yet TKS, supposedly the best and most moving of the bunch? Not a tear. And keep in mind, when I saw it, I WANTED to love it. Was before any of this.
So that's that. Definitely see those two, see True Grit, keep an open mind. I just hate that Harvey Weinstein has shoved a perfectly fine movie with one incredible performance down everyone's throats so much that now it's gonna win Best Picture. In 2011. In a year with The Social Network, Black Swan, Inception, True Grit, The Kids Are All Right, I just...ugh.. See full post
Today's rant was inspired by three words in Lisa Schwartzbaum's article about the absurdity of Tom Hooper winning the DGA award.
"privileged fellow’s triumph" in reference to what The King's Speech is actually about.
And this got me thinking.
Lots of people complain that The Social Network is just a movie about some bratty nerds making a website that people will forget about next week and The King's Speech is about World War II and will last forever.
A. Incorrect
B. Let me provide you with a different perspective.
The King's Speech is about a rich royal who feels like he isn't good enough because he has a stutter. Did I mention he is rich as balls and the King and never has to want for anything and also that he never mentioned maybe his nazi sympathizer brother shouldn't be King, oh, because he's a nazi sympathizer, not just cause he fell for a divorced woman? Oh yeah, marrying someone who was married once before is SO much worse than being a nazi-lover. Yup. So: privileged entitled King to be gets over his stutter with the help of a failed actor who isn't as rich cause he isn't PART OF THE ROYAL FAMILY and they become friends, despite the fact that again, one of them isn't part of the royal family, OMG. ...
As opposed to a film about someone who could be called privileged if being a genius is a privilege. Someone who was flawed and fucked up emotionally but managed to use his smarts to LITERALLY CHANGE THE WORLD. THE WHOLE WORLD. ACTUALLY. It's about young people yes, young people who eventually have a shit load of money, some young people who have money already, like Eduardo - but they all *worked* for it, they all used their minds to get into school, to make money, to eventually revolutionize the way people communicate.
If we're talking purely subject matter, all people are from now on forbidden from positing that The King's Speech, because it's all warm & fuzzy, is somehow more important. Excuse me for being more interested in seeing how someone my age, born into nothing particularly special, except a mind and the determination to use it, changes the world and loses the only people he cares about in the process, versus a movie about someone born into royalty who has one fault and it's his stutter, but through friendship, he fixes it zzzzzzzzzzzz. Give me a break. And give The Social Network its damn Oscar.
Muse out.
Updated with response (in comments) -
It's only my vitriol, unfortunately...
Definitely see them. Both. Then read my 2000 word article on why The Social Network should win, haha.
The King's Speech is a perfectly lovely film. I saw it before all the hype, before it was a front runner, before all of this. It didn't move me. It didn't impress me. I thought Colin Firth was a GENIUS, but that's it. Then all of a sudden, it's winning everything and Harvey Weinstein is hiring lawyers to defend its historical accuracy (Check this out - http://www.slate.com/id/2282194/) and wanting to recut the movie without the "fucks" so middle america will see it and making all sorts of phone calls and claims about how TKS is *actually* the timely, yet timeless one. So my "Oh, I liked it!" has turned into "FUCK THAT GOD DAMN MOVIE, EFFING GOD DAMNIT"
And while it's true that these kids were from middle to upper middle class families, they didn't *have* to go to Harvard, they didn't *have* to revolutionize communication as we know it. They could have been asshole idiots. But they were smart and knew how to use their smarts they made that shit happen.
The truth is though, subject matter is the least of my arguments for TSN and against TKS. I'm sick of people all of a sudden saying TKS will last forever cause World War II blah and TSN will be forgotten about cause it's about nerds, which makes me want to laugh and/or choke on my own vomit.
The King's Speech is totally delightful. Would sweep at the Emmys. But it's the most conventional, safe, boringly shot, uncreatively made, least cinematic movie of what has been generally an *incredible* Oscar season.
And it didn't even move me, for all it's supposed fuzziness. Another Year moved me. Toy Story 3 at least manipulated me so perversely that I couldn't feel my face afterwards from all the tears. Black Swan and Inception made me cry out of sheer goosebumpy awe. Yet TKS, supposedly the best and most moving of the bunch? Not a tear. And keep in mind, when I saw it, I WANTED to love it. Was before any of this.
So that's that. Definitely see those two, see True Grit, keep an open mind. I just hate that Harvey Weinstein has shoved a perfectly fine movie with one incredible performance down everyone's throats so much that now it's gonna win Best Picture. In 2011. In a year with The Social Network, Black Swan, Inception, True Grit, The Kids Are All Right, I just...ugh.. See full post
Friday, January 28, 2011
Why The Social Network Deserves To Win Best Picture
Crossposted on & commissioned by Film.com
Something's happened. For the first time in at least seven years, I actually want the Oscar front runner for Best Picture to win Best Picture.
This may not seem important to you, but check it out - Fantastic Mr Fox was my #1 last year. The year before, I hated Slumdog Millionaire. The year before that, No Country? Eh. I wanted There Will Be Blood to win. The year before that, my two favorite movies, Children of Men & United 93, were virtually ignored. This goes on...and on...and on...a brief break at Return Of The King, then on...and on...and on yet again. The aughts were terrible in terms of my taste matching the Academy's. So you can imagine how sublimely jazzed I, an Oscar enthusiast who lists the date as a conflict on any form I fill out because it's my CHRISTMAS, am that the front runner for best picture of this year may actually in fact be...the best picture of this year...and I'm here to break down exactly how and why The Social Network fits that bill.
It Fires On All Cylinders Beginning to End
Except for the hardly hangable offense of a little too much CGI breath, there is not a weak element in this movie. I've heard criticisms of course - that it's boring (have you seen a movie before?), that its characters are unrelatable (have you met people? - are you a person?) or even further - all the characters are "douchebags" (not the movie's fault if you can't read into subtext or understand acting...also, if you only like watching things where everyone is nice, I know this GREAT show called Wonderpets on Nickelodeon. It's about animated pets rescuing other animated pets through the power of teamwork, you'd love it), so on and so forth. Contrarians gonna be contrarians, but the fact of the matter is, The Social Network is masterfully crafted from top to bottom.
It is the complete package in terms of writing, directing, cinematography, performance (and for that matter - casting), score, editing, spot on costuming & production design, even visual effects (Winklevai!). It is technically superb. And even further, it tells an important, relevant story in a smart, compelling way. When you find yourself jealous that these actors get to say those lines and have those moments, you know the script is good. The direction is so seamless, it manages to step out of the way while still dictating the best path to follow. The Social Network is an example of what movies *should* be and *can* be . It's a film that is bare boned in its classic brilliance - it has nothing to hide behind and it doesn't need anything to hide behind. It's non-controversial (an American studio movie that did great at the box office!) while being totally controversial (young! edgy! plays with the truth! forces us to think about social networking in relation to our ability to connect on an interpersonal level!) Cinematic yet intimate. For more on the meaning of it all, head here for some great analysis.
Words This Great Rarely Look This Great
The Social Network is one of those rare movies that has a script sharp enough to be a play, but is elevated by the direction to such an extent that it could still only be a movie. Each scene is so fluid and expertly written, you could easily imagine seeing them performed live and still be at the edge of your seat, leaning in to make sure you get every word so that your brain can keep up with the verbal tenacity you're lucky enough to be witnessing. It's no coincidence Sorkin has plenty of playwriting experience under his belt.
But then Fincher pulls the camera back with cinematic sequences like In The Hall Of The Mountain King, the creation of Facemash intercut with the Phoenix party, even the sound levels in the club where Parker confirms his place in Zuckerberg's life that make you feel like you're next to them in the club eavesdropping - only movies can do that and The Social Network the only one this year to pull off such a feat.
Take The King's Speech - it could absolutely be a play as is. There is nothing that screams "technical achievement" about anything in the movie. It's mostly close ups and static two shots in one of three locations. Then take something like The Black Swan - it could absolutely not be a play, unless perhaps you were Julie "Cray Cray" Taymor. It uses the cinematic language to such an extent that cinema is the only home for it - same goes for Inception. But The Social Network is unique. It has a script so crackling, so complete but cinematography so dynamic, score so essential, direction so visually exciting and relentless in the pursuit of the perfect performance, that Fincher makes it *distinctly* cinematic. What other movie this year can live up to those standards?
It's Controversial In The Best Way Possible
In Oscar history, more often than not the safe choice overcomes the controversial one, it's true. But take a look at last year. The Hurt Locker was a tough movie with an even tougher message. It was incredibly timely in a way most people didn't want to think about or acknowledge as truth. And the Academy actually had the balls to consent to etching its name in the hallway of the Kodak Theater for the rest of time. I don't see why this year should be any different. Maybe it's the 10 movies, maybe it's the influx of new, young Academy voters, maybe it's a combination of both, where the unexciting vote gets divided too much amongst the other nominated films, so the passionate vote wins out, but I feel like we've entered into new era and that's awesome.
It's Written By Aaron Sorkin and Directed By David Fincher...Enough Said
These are both artists that have been honing their craft for years and are incredibly well respected in the community. It's the guy who directed Fight Club and the dude who invented Jed Bartlet! Together! I want to eat the very idea of it! They've both had creative slumps (...depending on who you ask), so they've been there, they've done that, but Fincher figured out how to to infuse his incredible visual style into just simply telling a story and Sorkin stopped doing shrooms. The fact that neither has an Oscar should be remedied immediately and will. It's thrilling when two artists, both virtuosos on their own, come together and manage to create something even greater, much greater, than the sum of its parts. And shouldn't the best written & directed film of the year be, you know, considered the best picture of the year?
It Defines A Generation (I Went There)
I connected with this movie in a very intense way. I went to one of the first few schools that had Facebook, I've been around for every update, for every privacy debate, to see other websites come and go (yes, I was a member of ConnectU), to see new forms of social networking come into existence because Facebook set the groundwork for how to do it right, I've partaken in Facebook stalking and not to toot my own horn, but I'm sure I've been Facebook stalked. Who hasn't? And that's the point. This is very much a movie that could not have been made before now. And making it now and not in twenty years is rather courageous, if you ask me. The events depicted in The Social Network began eight years ago. Not only is every character in the movie able to see themselves portrayed, but most of us watching remember all of this happening. We remember site revamp after site revamp, the creation of the wall, the invention of tagging, the news stories about money and members and lawsuits. And if that doesn't convince you - the main character in the movie also happened to be Time's Person of the Year in 2010. The Zeitgeist Factor should play more of a role than it has in the past. And when someone can tap into the Zeitgeist and make beautiful art at the same time? That deserves some recognition. And you know what? Social networking isn't going away. So not only does it define our generation, but it will remain definitive for generations to come.
Other movies that defined their generations in terns of media impact & influence include Citizen Kane & Network, two powerful films that came very much out of their respective eras but are still applicable today to an INSANE degree. Neither film won Best Picture. They lost to safe choices. To triumph of the human spirit choices. To rather irrelevant choices. But as I touched on earlier, this may have happened in the 30s or the 70s, but 2011 is another story. How about we finally award a film that challenges the predominant form of media that runs our lives? Make it so when people look back on 2011 and ask which film won Best Picture, the answer is "The Social Network! Of course!" instead of "I don't remember, but it beat The Social Network.
It Would Be Really Awkward If It Lost
I'm seeing lots of articles making proclamations along the lines of "But remember that one year where something was a front runner and lost? And that other year where that happened too?!" but everyone seems to be glossing over the true universality of praise this film has gotten. It is not simply the frontrunner - it has won *every* critics award and *every* top prize at an awards show so far this season (except for the PGA...inexplicably...but it's only forecast the Oscar choice 65% of the time and that's when other awards/critics groups have agreed at least once, usually many times, which is not the case here.) The last movie that was the closest in echoing this sweep? Schindler's List. Just saying.
And if The Social Network doesn't win Best Picture - why? The only film being groomed to upset is The King's Speech, which is the safest, most conventional, least creative, least use of the film medium of any movie being talked about right now. For that to win would set the Academy back and just be really awkward for everyone. Even if something that was actually artistically deserving like Black Swan or True Grit pulled an upset, the prevailing thought would still be "Really?" This might not seem like a valid reason, but accept it or not, politics do play a factor in the Oscars and the odds are politically stacked in The Social Network's favor. I normally rail against this kind of funny business, but when said business is actually backing something that deserves it, that's a miracle and I'd like no one to futz with it.
Because most importantly here, we should be celebrating the fact that The Social Network is the front runner, not inventing rivalries and pretending movies can & will upset it. Think about what this movie is and what it has accomplished on multiple levels. This is the kind of movie we wait for and hope will get the kind of love it deserves. And it happened! It actually happened. Let's ride the wave of acclaim all the way to the podium and dance around and update our Facebook statuses when it wins and get The Social Network trending on our social networks. We can root for the movie that is likely to win, not against it this year! I mean, are you really gonna own The King's Speech and watch its commentary and show it to your kids years from now? I highly doubt it. The Social Network is a special movie, it truly is. Don't let the hype fool you. You don't always have to root for the underdog - when the front runner deserves the win, you're allowed to enjoy it.
For more on this matter, specifically why I don't think The King's Speech should or will upset on Oscar night, head here. See full post
Something's happened. For the first time in at least seven years, I actually want the Oscar front runner for Best Picture to win Best Picture.
This may not seem important to you, but check it out - Fantastic Mr Fox was my #1 last year. The year before, I hated Slumdog Millionaire. The year before that, No Country? Eh. I wanted There Will Be Blood to win. The year before that, my two favorite movies, Children of Men & United 93, were virtually ignored. This goes on...and on...and on...a brief break at Return Of The King, then on...and on...and on yet again. The aughts were terrible in terms of my taste matching the Academy's. So you can imagine how sublimely jazzed I, an Oscar enthusiast who lists the date as a conflict on any form I fill out because it's my CHRISTMAS, am that the front runner for best picture of this year may actually in fact be...the best picture of this year...and I'm here to break down exactly how and why The Social Network fits that bill.
It Fires On All Cylinders Beginning to End
Except for the hardly hangable offense of a little too much CGI breath, there is not a weak element in this movie. I've heard criticisms of course - that it's boring (have you seen a movie before?), that its characters are unrelatable (have you met people? - are you a person?) or even further - all the characters are "douchebags" (not the movie's fault if you can't read into subtext or understand acting...also, if you only like watching things where everyone is nice, I know this GREAT show called Wonderpets on Nickelodeon. It's about animated pets rescuing other animated pets through the power of teamwork, you'd love it), so on and so forth. Contrarians gonna be contrarians, but the fact of the matter is, The Social Network is masterfully crafted from top to bottom.
It is the complete package in terms of writing, directing, cinematography, performance (and for that matter - casting), score, editing, spot on costuming & production design, even visual effects (Winklevai!). It is technically superb. And even further, it tells an important, relevant story in a smart, compelling way. When you find yourself jealous that these actors get to say those lines and have those moments, you know the script is good. The direction is so seamless, it manages to step out of the way while still dictating the best path to follow. The Social Network is an example of what movies *should* be and *can* be . It's a film that is bare boned in its classic brilliance - it has nothing to hide behind and it doesn't need anything to hide behind. It's non-controversial (an American studio movie that did great at the box office!) while being totally controversial (young! edgy! plays with the truth! forces us to think about social networking in relation to our ability to connect on an interpersonal level!) Cinematic yet intimate. For more on the meaning of it all, head here for some great analysis.
Words This Great Rarely Look This Great
The Social Network is one of those rare movies that has a script sharp enough to be a play, but is elevated by the direction to such an extent that it could still only be a movie. Each scene is so fluid and expertly written, you could easily imagine seeing them performed live and still be at the edge of your seat, leaning in to make sure you get every word so that your brain can keep up with the verbal tenacity you're lucky enough to be witnessing. It's no coincidence Sorkin has plenty of playwriting experience under his belt.
But then Fincher pulls the camera back with cinematic sequences like In The Hall Of The Mountain King, the creation of Facemash intercut with the Phoenix party, even the sound levels in the club where Parker confirms his place in Zuckerberg's life that make you feel like you're next to them in the club eavesdropping - only movies can do that and The Social Network the only one this year to pull off such a feat.
Take The King's Speech - it could absolutely be a play as is. There is nothing that screams "technical achievement" about anything in the movie. It's mostly close ups and static two shots in one of three locations. Then take something like The Black Swan - it could absolutely not be a play, unless perhaps you were Julie "Cray Cray" Taymor. It uses the cinematic language to such an extent that cinema is the only home for it - same goes for Inception. But The Social Network is unique. It has a script so crackling, so complete but cinematography so dynamic, score so essential, direction so visually exciting and relentless in the pursuit of the perfect performance, that Fincher makes it *distinctly* cinematic. What other movie this year can live up to those standards?
It's Controversial In The Best Way Possible
In Oscar history, more often than not the safe choice overcomes the controversial one, it's true. But take a look at last year. The Hurt Locker was a tough movie with an even tougher message. It was incredibly timely in a way most people didn't want to think about or acknowledge as truth. And the Academy actually had the balls to consent to etching its name in the hallway of the Kodak Theater for the rest of time. I don't see why this year should be any different. Maybe it's the 10 movies, maybe it's the influx of new, young Academy voters, maybe it's a combination of both, where the unexciting vote gets divided too much amongst the other nominated films, so the passionate vote wins out, but I feel like we've entered into new era and that's awesome.
It's Written By Aaron Sorkin and Directed By David Fincher...Enough Said
These are both artists that have been honing their craft for years and are incredibly well respected in the community. It's the guy who directed Fight Club and the dude who invented Jed Bartlet! Together! I want to eat the very idea of it! They've both had creative slumps (...depending on who you ask), so they've been there, they've done that, but Fincher figured out how to to infuse his incredible visual style into just simply telling a story and Sorkin stopped doing shrooms. The fact that neither has an Oscar should be remedied immediately and will. It's thrilling when two artists, both virtuosos on their own, come together and manage to create something even greater, much greater, than the sum of its parts. And shouldn't the best written & directed film of the year be, you know, considered the best picture of the year?
It Defines A Generation (I Went There)
I connected with this movie in a very intense way. I went to one of the first few schools that had Facebook, I've been around for every update, for every privacy debate, to see other websites come and go (yes, I was a member of ConnectU), to see new forms of social networking come into existence because Facebook set the groundwork for how to do it right, I've partaken in Facebook stalking and not to toot my own horn, but I'm sure I've been Facebook stalked. Who hasn't? And that's the point. This is very much a movie that could not have been made before now. And making it now and not in twenty years is rather courageous, if you ask me. The events depicted in The Social Network began eight years ago. Not only is every character in the movie able to see themselves portrayed, but most of us watching remember all of this happening. We remember site revamp after site revamp, the creation of the wall, the invention of tagging, the news stories about money and members and lawsuits. And if that doesn't convince you - the main character in the movie also happened to be Time's Person of the Year in 2010. The Zeitgeist Factor should play more of a role than it has in the past. And when someone can tap into the Zeitgeist and make beautiful art at the same time? That deserves some recognition. And you know what? Social networking isn't going away. So not only does it define our generation, but it will remain definitive for generations to come.
Other movies that defined their generations in terns of media impact & influence include Citizen Kane & Network, two powerful films that came very much out of their respective eras but are still applicable today to an INSANE degree. Neither film won Best Picture. They lost to safe choices. To triumph of the human spirit choices. To rather irrelevant choices. But as I touched on earlier, this may have happened in the 30s or the 70s, but 2011 is another story. How about we finally award a film that challenges the predominant form of media that runs our lives? Make it so when people look back on 2011 and ask which film won Best Picture, the answer is "The Social Network! Of course!" instead of "I don't remember, but it beat The Social Network.
It Would Be Really Awkward If It Lost
I'm seeing lots of articles making proclamations along the lines of "But remember that one year where something was a front runner and lost? And that other year where that happened too?!" but everyone seems to be glossing over the true universality of praise this film has gotten. It is not simply the frontrunner - it has won *every* critics award and *every* top prize at an awards show so far this season (except for the PGA...inexplicably...but it's only forecast the Oscar choice 65% of the time and that's when other awards/critics groups have agreed at least once, usually many times, which is not the case here.) The last movie that was the closest in echoing this sweep? Schindler's List. Just saying.
And if The Social Network doesn't win Best Picture - why? The only film being groomed to upset is The King's Speech, which is the safest, most conventional, least creative, least use of the film medium of any movie being talked about right now. For that to win would set the Academy back and just be really awkward for everyone. Even if something that was actually artistically deserving like Black Swan or True Grit pulled an upset, the prevailing thought would still be "Really?" This might not seem like a valid reason, but accept it or not, politics do play a factor in the Oscars and the odds are politically stacked in The Social Network's favor. I normally rail against this kind of funny business, but when said business is actually backing something that deserves it, that's a miracle and I'd like no one to futz with it.
Because most importantly here, we should be celebrating the fact that The Social Network is the front runner, not inventing rivalries and pretending movies can & will upset it. Think about what this movie is and what it has accomplished on multiple levels. This is the kind of movie we wait for and hope will get the kind of love it deserves. And it happened! It actually happened. Let's ride the wave of acclaim all the way to the podium and dance around and update our Facebook statuses when it wins and get The Social Network trending on our social networks. We can root for the movie that is likely to win, not against it this year! I mean, are you really gonna own The King's Speech and watch its commentary and show it to your kids years from now? I highly doubt it. The Social Network is a special movie, it truly is. Don't let the hype fool you. You don't always have to root for the underdog - when the front runner deserves the win, you're allowed to enjoy it.
For more on this matter, specifically why I don't think The King's Speech should or will upset on Oscar night, head here. See full post
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Why Everyone Needs to STFU About The King's Speech
Crossposted at Film.com
If one more person types to me with a straight face that The King's Speech has the potential to upset The Social Network, I will scream and/or hit my coffee table with mild force. Because this is not going to happen. There is not the remotest chance of chances that this will happen.
And my opinion isn't totally worthless.
Last year, I said the same thing about Avatar when people started to say it was going to win. I said it pre nominations, I said it post nominations, I said STFU everyone, The Academy may be dumb sometimes, but not Avatar-is-Best-Picture dumb. And I maintain that now, here, in this Awards season, the Academy is still not that dumb. The Academy is not The-King's-Speech-Is-Best-Picture dumb. Or in a more accurate statement The Academy Is not The-Kings-Speech-Is-Best-Picture-Old Fashioned. Maybe in 1954. Maybe even in 2004. But not in 2011.
Now, don't get angry. If you loved The King's Speech, I am not aiming to insult you, it is definitely a good movie and has Emmy written all over it's delightful Masterpiece Theater-esque script, cinematography & direction. But the only, and I mean ONLY thing that elevates The King's Speech from good ol' PBS quality (other than the film grain...) are the performances, most specifically Colin Firth's, and he will be rewarded for it.
The idea that BRITISH AS HELL movie The King's Speech is poised to clean up at the BRITISH FILM AWARDS shouldn't surprise anyone or in any universe be considered as dictating the way the Oscars will go down. Does anyone understand how rare and beautiful a thing it is when an AMERICAN studio movie is as good, relevant, successful & well received on all levels as The Social Network is? Cinematical writer & film buff David Ehrlich will rarely consider an American studio picture as worthy of his top five, but The Social Network is his #2 (behind Certified Copy, technically a 2011 release.) I've heard arguments that the "people who overlap the voting bodies for the BAFTAs and the Oscars overlap more than the Globes and the Oscars, therefore..." But, ummm...was anyone arguing against that fact? Did anyone ever offer the argument that the Globes influence the Oscars because they share voting members? Didn't think so. My hair is SUCH a bird.
Not to mention, once you remove the BAFTA overlap, there are still thousands, yes THOUSANDS of AMPAS members remaining. The closest number anyone has been able to estimate in terms of overlap is roughly 1000. There are just under 6000 members of AMPAS. Plus, the BAFTAs are notorious for having an obvious and acceptable bias towards British film. Most importantly, in the past 11 years, the BAFTAs and the Oscars have only agreed on Best Picture four times. That's not even half. NOT EVEN HALF. OF THE TIME. LESS than HALF. You with me?
A conventional, safe British film about a 20th century king, consisting mostly of close-ups and sentiment is not going to win Best Picture in a year where its competition involves an astonishingly original science fiction movie, the return of the Western, a new & unconventional story about a new & unconventional family dynamic, a hallucinatory extravaganza set in the world of ballet - even The Fighter isn't the typical schmaltz-fest the trailers made us think it was. The best movies in 2010 were not Oscar bait bullshit, they've been original, innovative, creative, often times genre-bending, and in the case of The Social Network, perfectly scripted, acted, directed, edited and relevant. And in case you aren't convinced yet, I'll have an article up on this site few days explaining exactly why The Social Network deserves the win.
One thing I'll grant you - in such a predictable year, having something to root against is fun, it at least allows for a tiny bit of suspense come February 27th. But don't kid yourselves. The King's Speech doesn't ACTUALLY have a chance. And can we please take a moment to appreciate that fact? This is a good thing, guys. The Academy is getting a clue. The Social Network FTW!
Editor's Note: The King's Speech has since won the PGA, but the PGA only has a 65% overlap rate with the Oscars, and that is in years when its winner has won *other* awards. In this season, the PGA is the *only* award The King's Speech has received in the Best Picture category See full post
If one more person types to me with a straight face that The King's Speech has the potential to upset The Social Network, I will scream and/or hit my coffee table with mild force. Because this is not going to happen. There is not the remotest chance of chances that this will happen.
And my opinion isn't totally worthless.
Last year, I said the same thing about Avatar when people started to say it was going to win. I said it pre nominations, I said it post nominations, I said STFU everyone, The Academy may be dumb sometimes, but not Avatar-is-Best-Picture dumb. And I maintain that now, here, in this Awards season, the Academy is still not that dumb. The Academy is not The-King's-Speech-Is-Best-Picture dumb. Or in a more accurate statement The Academy Is not The-Kings-Speech-Is-Best-Picture-Old Fashioned. Maybe in 1954. Maybe even in 2004. But not in 2011.
Now, don't get angry. If you loved The King's Speech, I am not aiming to insult you, it is definitely a good movie and has Emmy written all over it's delightful Masterpiece Theater-esque script, cinematography & direction. But the only, and I mean ONLY thing that elevates The King's Speech from good ol' PBS quality (other than the film grain...) are the performances, most specifically Colin Firth's, and he will be rewarded for it.
The idea that BRITISH AS HELL movie The King's Speech is poised to clean up at the BRITISH FILM AWARDS shouldn't surprise anyone or in any universe be considered as dictating the way the Oscars will go down. Does anyone understand how rare and beautiful a thing it is when an AMERICAN studio movie is as good, relevant, successful & well received on all levels as The Social Network is? Cinematical writer & film buff David Ehrlich will rarely consider an American studio picture as worthy of his top five, but The Social Network is his #2 (behind Certified Copy, technically a 2011 release.) I've heard arguments that the "people who overlap the voting bodies for the BAFTAs and the Oscars overlap more than the Globes and the Oscars, therefore..." But, ummm...was anyone arguing against that fact? Did anyone ever offer the argument that the Globes influence the Oscars because they share voting members? Didn't think so. My hair is SUCH a bird.
Not to mention, once you remove the BAFTA overlap, there are still thousands, yes THOUSANDS of AMPAS members remaining. The closest number anyone has been able to estimate in terms of overlap is roughly 1000. There are just under 6000 members of AMPAS. Plus, the BAFTAs are notorious for having an obvious and acceptable bias towards British film. Most importantly, in the past 11 years, the BAFTAs and the Oscars have only agreed on Best Picture four times. That's not even half. NOT EVEN HALF. OF THE TIME. LESS than HALF. You with me?
A conventional, safe British film about a 20th century king, consisting mostly of close-ups and sentiment is not going to win Best Picture in a year where its competition involves an astonishingly original science fiction movie, the return of the Western, a new & unconventional story about a new & unconventional family dynamic, a hallucinatory extravaganza set in the world of ballet - even The Fighter isn't the typical schmaltz-fest the trailers made us think it was. The best movies in 2010 were not Oscar bait bullshit, they've been original, innovative, creative, often times genre-bending, and in the case of The Social Network, perfectly scripted, acted, directed, edited and relevant. And in case you aren't convinced yet, I'll have an article up on this site few days explaining exactly why The Social Network deserves the win.
One thing I'll grant you - in such a predictable year, having something to root against is fun, it at least allows for a tiny bit of suspense come February 27th. But don't kid yourselves. The King's Speech doesn't ACTUALLY have a chance. And can we please take a moment to appreciate that fact? This is a good thing, guys. The Academy is getting a clue. The Social Network FTW!
Editor's Note: The King's Speech has since won the PGA, but the PGA only has a 65% overlap rate with the Oscars, and that is in years when its winner has won *other* awards. In this season, the PGA is the *only* award The King's Speech has received in the Best Picture category See full post
Thursday, December 9, 2010
15 Year Old Muse Predicts The Oscars
Was just looking through my old files for the Fan Fiction I wrote in middle school and stumbled across this Oscar article I wrote for my school newspaper when I was 15. It was in regards to the 73rd Annual Academy Awards, for the films released in 2000 - telecast airing in March of 2001. Below I have reprinted the article.
It's equal parts cringe-worthy (you can tell I read A LOT of Oscar articles and think I know what I'm talking about) and insightful for a 15 year old (shhhh, it is, sort of). My personal top five seems to consist of Wonder Boys, Almost Famous, Quills, Requiem for a Dream & Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. ... How did Crouching Tiger make my top 5? Interesting. And I REALLY loved Kate Hudson in Almost Famous. In retrospect however, that may be her only great performance, so I'm glad she lost the Oscar.
Read on if you dare!
Well, everyone, it’s that time of year again! On February 13th at 5:00 AM the Oscar race officially began, showcasing some of the most original and entertaining movies we’ve seen in a long time. This years nominations run the gamut in variety, from serious, involving movies about matters of life and death to action-filled, sometimes mystical movies that took us back to another time and place. It’s been forever since an Oscar race was this diverse, and even more odd is the fact that in no categories, excluding Best Actress, is there a shoe-in. With almost every critic disagreeing with each other, this year will prove to be incredibly unpredictable, at times surprising, and just maybe, historic.See full post
Some of the nominations alone have made history. The sweet fable, “Chocolat” surprised everyone by managing to nab a nomination for best picture thanks to Miramax’s aggressive early campaign, yet “Cast Away” and “Almost Famous”, both backed by the very powerful Dreamworks, were snubbed in that category. Another interesting fact, making history this year, is director, Steven Soderbergh not only being nominated twice in the best director category but having both of his films be nominated for best picture. But, the biggest news of all this year is the fact that a foreign film garnered 10 nominations, 2 away from having the most. “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”, a Taiwanese film entirely in subtitles is nominated in such prestigious categories as Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director, and Best Picture. If it wins best film of the year, it will be the first time ever a foreign film has received such an honor. But, will it win? Many people across the country are now debating over what film will take top honors and what actors will walk away with shiny new Oscars. Here are my predictions and thoughts on the Oscar race this year: What will win, what should win, and what shouldn’t even be nominated.
Best Adapted Screenplay
Stephan Gaghan – “Traffic”
Wang Hui Ling, James Schamus and Tsai Kuo Junh – “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”
Ethan Coen and Joel Coen – “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”
Steve Kloves – “Wonder Boys”
Robert Nelson Jacobs – “Chocolat”
Can I just say, if you haven’t seen “Wonder Boys”, please, please, go see it. Such a good movie with such a good script, it’s just too bad it won’t be winning this category. “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”, another movie with an exceptional script will be robbed as well, I’m afraid. I’m pretty sure that this award will go to Stephan Gaghan for adapting “Traffic”, a 6 hour mini-series, into a 2 and a half hour movie. He won the Golden Globe and seems to be the favorite in this category. With all the other wonderful scripts nominated though, here’s hoping it’ll end up going to one of them.
Who Should Win: Steve Kloves, “Wonder Boys”
Who Will Win: Stephan Gaghan, “Traffic”
Best Original Screenplay
Cameron Crowe – “Almost Famous”
David Franzoni, John Logan and Willian Nicholson – “Gladiator”
Susannah Grant – “Erin Brockovich”
Kenneth Lonergan – “You Can Count On Me”
Lee Hall – “Billy Elliot”
In this category, I am torn between “Erin Brockovich” and “Almost Famous” the most. Both were very well written, perfect blends of drama and comedy. Ultimately, I’m pulling for “Almost Famous”, but I’m not sure if the Academy feels the same way. I actually have this sick feeling in my stomach, worrying that they might give it to “Gladiator”, a movie not made at all by the screenplay, but rather the directing, budget, and scope. I enjoyed the movie, I did, but the screenplay was not it’s strong point. It does not deserve to win. It didn’t even deserve to get the nomination. “You Can Count On Me” has a good script, but it’s not my favorite. Same goes for “Billy Elliot”, but with a bit more affection.
Who Should Win: Cameron Crowe, “Almost Famous”
Who Win Will: Cameron Crowe, “Almost Famous”
Best Supporting Actress
Kate Hudson – “Almost Famous”
Judi Dench – “Chocolat”
Frances McDormand – “Almost Famous”
Julie Walters – “Billy Elliot”
Marcia Gay Harden – “Pollock”
Although great performances all around, my personal favorite this year is Kate Hudson and I’m fairly certain that the academy feels the same way, but unlike the Best Actress category, this win isn’t completely in the bag. Judi Dench is a great actress and loved by the Academy, as is Frances McDormand. Still, here’s hoping that Hudson gets it.
Who Should Win: Kate Hudson
Who Will Win: Kate Hudson
Best Supporting Actor
Benicio Del Toro – “Traffic”
Jeff Bridges – “The Contender”
Willem Dafoe – “Shadow of the Vampire”
Albert Finney – “Erin Brockovich”
Joaquin Phoenix – Gladiator
For me, personally, this is absolutely the toughest category. Willem Dafoe, Albert Finney and Joaquin Pheonix all put on great performances. The two that stand out the most for me are Dafoe, who so completely looked and acted like Nosferatu, it was scary, and Phoenix, whose portrayal of an insane roman emperor was mesmerizing. Finney, who has been acting for years and years and never won, put on a great performance in “Erin Brockovich”, and if he won, I know I would be happy, because even though it wasn’t the best performance of the year, it’s been a long time…he deserves one. In this category though, I think it will go to Benicio Del Toro. There is tremendous buzz surrounding him right now, especially after winning the Golden Globe. Though his performance was very good, it wasn’t the best, so if he does win it will be quite disappointing considering he has the rest of his life to put on even greater performances whereas someone like Albert Finney has already been waiting his whole life.
Who Should Win: Albert Finney
Who Will Win: Benicio Del Toro
Who I Want to Win: Joaquin Pheonix
Best Actress
Julia Roberts – “Erin Brockovich”
Joan Allen – “The Contender”
Juliette Binoche – “Chocolate”
Ellen Burstyn – “Requiem for a Dream”
Laura Linney – “You Can Count on Me”
I think this year most everyone would agree that Julia Roberts put on an amazing performance. True, it was fantastic…but it wasn’t the best. I might be a minority here, saying this, but I think the best actress this year was Oscar winner, Ellen Burstyn, in “Requiem for a Dream”. Her performance was breathtaking. I don’t think I’ve ever been so moved or so astounded by someone’s ability to act. Because of all the buzz though, Julia should still win or it would be the biggest upset in the history of the Oscars.
Who Should Win: Julia Roberts
Who Will Win: Julia Roberts
Who I Want to Win: Ellen Burstyn
Best Actor
Tom Hanks – “Cast Away”
Javier Bardem – “Before Night Falls”
Russell Crowe – “Gladiator”
Ed Harris – “Pollock”
Geoffrey Rush – “Quills”
Even though Geoffrey Rush, Ed Harris, and Javier Bardem gave us wonderful performances, for some reason the race has been cut down to Russell Crowe and Tom Hanks. I wouldn’t mind if Crowe won, he gave the role his all, but I definitely don’t want Hanks to win. “Cast Away” was not that great of a movie and though Hank’s performance was good, he’s already got two Oscars. But I’m thinking that maybe where that issue is concerned the academy agrees. Since my favorite performance, Michael Douglas in “Wonder Boys” wasn’t nominated, I will throw my support to Russell Crowe.
Who Should Win: Michael Douglas, but then he would have to be nominated…
Who Will Win: Russell Crowe
Best Director
Ang Lee – “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”
Ridley Scott – “Gladiator”
Steven Soderbergh – “Erin Brockovich”
Steven Soderbergh – “Traffic”
Stephan Dalory – “Billy Elliot”
Sadly, some speculate that Stephan Soderbergh will cancel himself out, ruining his chances to win for the movie that should win for best direction, “Traffic”. Under these circumstances, keeping in mind that Ridley Scott, albeit respected, is not a well-liked man, Ang Lee just might get the Oscar. Not that that’s completely a bad thing though.
Who Should Win: Steven Soderbergh, “Traffic”
Who Will Win: Ang Lee, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”
Best Picture
“Gladiator”
“Traffic”
“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”
“Erin Brokovich”
“Chocolat”
This year, unlike most years, the Best Picture race is the most unpredictable. I’ll just try to guess based on decisions the Academy has made in previous years. I think this one will go to “Gladiator”. As for my pick, well, I’d say either “Traffic” because of the political impact and strong message or “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”, because it’s the only one nominated that is on my own personal top 5 list. The other 4 on my list, “Wonder Boys”, “Almost Famous”, “Quills”, and “Requiem for a Dream”, were all snubbed in this category. Any of those deserved the nomination over “Chocolat”, which although sweet, isn’t even close to being the best picture of 2001.
What Should Win: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or Traffic
What Will Win: Gladiator
What I Want to Win: Requiem for A Dream, but that’s not exactly possible
The Oscars air, Sunday, March 25.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
If You Feel Like Crying From Laughter Today [Video of the Moment]
This just got sent to me by my friend Dan (The same Dan whom Eruditechick wants cast as Captain America & for which she has started a Twitter campaign. I SUPPORT THIS! OMG Those sentences were brought to you by Questionable Grammar.) and by the end, I was laughing so hard, I had tears in my eyes.
MUST WATCH
See full post
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Oscar Party Themed Dishes
We had a wide array of Oscar themes dishes this year, so I thought I'd share! I don't have photos of everything, but I do have a list. Enjoy!
See full post
The complete menu!
Prawns - District 9
Sigourney Weiners (Cocktail hot dogs)
Fruit Salad - A Single Man (Tongue in cheek, worry not)
Strawberry Apple Struedel - Inglourious Basterds
Cockroach Clusters - Harry Potter & The Half Blood Prince
"Crazy Hearts" Heart shaped whiskey shortcake w/ strawberries
Crazy Heart shaped pastries
Beouf Bourgonion - Julie & Julia
Cinema Pasta Italiano - Nine
Nine Ingredient Dip - Nine
Fantastic Mr Lox
A Serious Man's Bagels
Corn Muffins - CORNy movies/moments
Cheese Plate - CHEESEy movies (like The Blind Side)/moments
The Brine Side Crab Dip
A Pringle Man (by @thedanifesto)
Hard Apple Cider - Fantastic Mr Fox (by @brazenlycastle)
The Lovely Scones
Ribs - The Lovely Bones
The Hurt Lasagna & Garlic Bread Bombs (by @xoxogg and @tooadorkable)
Sweet Lady Jane cake decorated like Pandora - Avatar
Monday, March 8, 2010
Oscars 2010: Things I Loved. Things I Didn't Love.
Things I loved
- Elongated clips of supporting actors
- Individual tributes to lead actors
- Dancing set to scores I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY...though true, I didn't get the robot dance during the Up score
- Explaining the difference between sound editing and mixing
- Unpredictable winners! Missed both screenplays and actress on one of my ballots. Missed both screenplays and picture on my other.
- Getting a bunch of people on stage either presenting or tributing, who KNOW HOW TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC. This list includes not only our wonderful hosts, but Tim Robbins, Michelle Pfeiffer (eternal class), Tina Fey, Ben Stiller, Stanley Tucci, Julianne Moore, RDJ and Oprah. Amanda Seyfried, Kristin Stewart and the rest of you youngins - TAKE NOTE.
- Speeches by: Michael Giacchino, Jeff Bridges, Mo'Nique, Sandra Bullock, Hurt Locker editors Chris Innis and Bob Murawski
-The Horror montage
- The intros for Best Animated Film
- Fantastic Mr Fox > Up, to me, but Pete Docter being an Oscar winner is full of nothing but win :)
- This commercial:
- Stanley Tucci's reaction to the clip of his performance in The Lovely Bones.
- Everything about Gabourey Sidibe, especially Oprah making her cry with her amazing tribute
- T-Bone Burnett. Only he and Jack Nicholson can pull off wearing sunglasses inside. Also - ENTIRELY too cool to actually give a speech. Good for him.
- Alec Baldwin & Steve Martin. I know not all of you loved them, but that specific absurd, awkward kind of humor had me in tears during certain parts of the opening monologue. Loved it.
- Tina Fey and Robert Downey Jr.
- The clips of Lauren Bacall being sassy, elegant & hilarious when she accepted her honorary Oscar (if only there could have been more!)
- James Taylor
- Damn! Sharlto Copley cleans up well. Wish I had a way of screen capping him sitting in the audience.
- Long Best Picture clips. I LOVE clips from the Oscar nominated movies. Relax, people.
- John Hughes tribute. Loved seeing old clips and then the actors all growed up.
- Fashion-wise?
Things I didn't love
- Mariah Carey talking non stop about how ugly she looked in Precious. Really?! Have you nothing else to say?
- As @thedanifesto pointed out, they changed the phrase "And the Oscar goes to" back to "And the winner is." We strongly disapprove.
- Not getting to see elongated clips of the lead acting nominees! But I guess snippets worked okay enough since it meant getting the tributes
- No clips for Cinematography? Really? Would have liked some examples of sound editing/mixing from the nominated movies as well.
- That awkward Kanye moment. Looking for info on what the hell that was? Click here.
- Not letting the director of The Cove, Louie Psihoyos, say ANYTHING on stage. So unfair.
- Not gonna lie, kinda wish I could have seen Almost There & The Weary Kind performed on stage.
- Hurt Locker winning the sound awards over Avatar
- Hurt Locker winning Original Screenplay over Inglourious Basterds
- Unpredictable winners! Missed both screenplays and actress on one of my ballots. Missed both screenplays and picture on my other. (I lost the pool by 2....siiigh)
- And yet no upset by Inglourious Basterds for Best Picture
- Tom Hanks making the Best Picture announcement unnecessarily anticlimactic
- Where's Jack Nicholson?
- This commercial:
- Sean Penn. ... What just happened?
- Fashion wise? Pretty much everyone else. WAY too many sparkles, shimmers, construction and ruffles. Do not want.
- Kristin Stewart's scowl. Beautiful dress, gorgeous face, but girl needs to learn how to exist in the public eye. She constantly looks either terrified, tired or angry.
- On a similar topic - the presence of Kristin Stewart, Miley Cyrus & Taylor Lautner. Zefron can be there. But the rest of you? Shoo.
- Being reminded that Jamie Foxx is an Oscar winner
- Puff Daddy on the red carpet after the Oscars, going to the Vanity Fair party "I don't know what her name is, but the woman who directed Hurt Locker." Go home.
- That now the Oscars are over. A whole year til my next Oscar party?! Nooooo. See full post
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Interview With An Academy Member
Every year the LA Times & Entertainment Weekly talk to anonymous members of the Academy and even though they are not supposed to reveal their votes, we had the opportunity to talk to a long time Academy member this weekend to at least see what his or her thinking is at this point in the game, just before his or her ballot was sent in. This particular member's opinions seem to stray off the beaten path from what's been published so far, so I especially thought it was worth hearing.
What do you think of the 10 nominees versus 5 nominees?
Im a big supporter of expanding the best picture list to 10 in that it does now make it more likely that popular genre or comedy films might be acknowledged, even if they have little chance of winning. In recent years, some of the movies I personally considered to be the best of the year were almost totally ignored by the academy and this change will help widen our scopes. If you look back at the history of the Academy and the years when there used to be 10 nominees, its very hard to argue that any of them don't deserve to be there. I think the same will ultimately hold true now. The proof is in the pudding in that this year's nominees actually do reflect a much wider range and include some films which would not have had a chance last year.
Which movies do you think may have benefited from ten nominees earlier on?
Last year, Dark Knight, no doubt, which everyone thinks was number 6. And in prior years, Children of Men, Charlie Wilson's War, Eternal Sunshine and so on. Though it never stood a chance, I actually nominated Shaun of the Dead for the 77th Annual Academy Awards and I don't think anyone can make a valid argument that Best Picture winner Million Dollar Baby is a better movie or had more of an impact on cinema today than Shaun of the Dead did.
How did you rank the top five of the ten nominees when you sent in your ballot?
1. Inglorious Basterds
2. Avatar
3. Hurt Locker
4. District 9
5. Up
How this Academy member voted in the big 4 acting categories after the jump!
See full post
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Crap. Could Avatar Win After All?
In reading Entertainment Weekly's anonymous interviews with academy members, I got...concerned. The majority picked Cameron &Avatar over Bigelow & Hurt Locker or Basterds? Really? Then looking at their top ten lists brought up a whole bunch of other anxieties. I realized that this year, not only are there 10 films, but there is a new scoring system. So even if Hurt Locker or Basterds get the most #1 votes, I think Avatar stands a better shot at being nominated in one of the top three slots over those two, which would clinch it winning Best Picture. Sure, there is no precedent for this (winning BP in a modern day race w/ no acting or writing nominations), but with a brand new scoring system, everything we thought we knew might be out the window.
I think at the end of the day, I will be happy with whatever wins best picture. Sure, the second time I saw Avatar, the magic died a little (couldn't avoid paying attention to the horrible, horrible dialogue and the dumb cliche after dumb cliche) but I did absolutely adore it the first time I saw it and I'm trying to remember that. It was a wonderful experience. But as of right now, I really don't know what I will select as my prediction come Oscar night.
Really, as long as Kathryn Bigelow wins, I won't be upset. Just...just please don't fuck that up, Academy. See full post
Friday, February 26, 2010
Nathaniel R On Inglorious Basterds
The Film Experience's Nathaniel RI was specifically struck by Nathaniel R's take on why Inglorious Basterds is so beloved, despite its obvious flaws. I personally adore Basterds, but many of my friends do not, and I often find myself in situations where I find it difficult to explain why the movie had such an impact on me & why I think it has a good chance to upset on Oscar night. Check out Nathaniel R's theory below.
Basterds is a weird beast for me. I totally understand why its critics think it's sadistic, immature and inconsistent and all the other typically cited Tarantino troubles but I still love it. Here's my theory on why the vast majority of fans can ignore those flaws (which are there, no question). I think our attachments to movies have become incredibly splintered. We primarily watch movies on DVD with chapter menus. We have seemingly infinite access to individual clips and we see endless repeats of the best moments on televisions, awards shows and youtube. People fixate on minutae more than they ever have (blame blogging?) and movies are so interactive now, too: fan fiction, trailers, homages, art projects even (Remember that huge swath of Where the Wild Things Are inspired art this year?See full post
I think Tarantino's strengths as a filmmaker are perfectly suited to this compartmentalized way we have of loving art. I hated Chapter Two of Inglourious Basterds and yet when I'm thinking of the movie, I invariably ignore it and I'm giggling about the game in the cellar bar or marvelling at how many ways Tarantino works comedy and suspense into the very nature of language. I think he's an absolute master of The Moment as it were. Movies are less novelistic than they used to be. Now, they're just strings of sentences and Tarantino can work an exclamation point, a parenthetical and a memorable turn of phrase better than just about anyone.
Am I making any sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
