General Show Discussion

For the films of 2013
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15029
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Big Magilla » Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:20 am

The "old and out of it" strategy was prevalent but there were some who suggested, at least one who even more than suggested, that a vote for anything else was racist. The "old and out of it" spears were thrown more vigorously at those who dared to not be bowled over by The Wolf of Wall Street.

User avatar
Sonic Youth
Laureate
Posts: 7350
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Sonic Youth » Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:48 am

Mister Tee wrote:About those 12 Years partisans – not just fans, but rabid “I couldn’t move for half an hour” acolytes -- I think they did their film a massive disservice over the course of this season. From the start, they announced the film an indisputable masterpiece, with anyone who dissented dismissed as either old and out of it or a covert racist. Any film perceived as a threat to its award prospects (as Hustle was, early on, and later Gravity) was attacked with both barrels. In the end they won (though in considerably more limited fashion than expected before year-end), but for at least some there’ll always be the suspicion voters were intimidated/bullied into voting for the film (for every anonymous voter who said they couldn’t make themselves watch it, there seemed to be another who only got halfway through it but voted for it anyway). I confess these partisans made it difficult for me to enjoy any awards success for a film I did admire.


"Covert racist" is one thing, but isn't "old and out of it" rather standard bitching that happens every season? As well as suspicions of voters being coerced and influenced (or, if you prefer, bullied)? Being anti-Scorsese may not have the stigma of being racist, but in some years it brought out considerable hostility in some Scorsese partisans.

I will admit I've spent very little time this year reading Oscar pundits, so your perspective may be more informed than mine.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15029
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:27 pm

I've waited all day and I still haven't seen a single apology from any one of the self-proclaimed Oscar experts on the other sites for selling the Academy membership short in saying that they wouldn't give Best Picture to 12 Years a Slave because it was too difficult to watch. At least none of them have proclaimed themselves savior by claiming to having been the one to get through to their collective conscience - yet.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5934
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:25 pm

One thing I forgot to mention: When Will Smith was introduced to give out best picture, my first thought was, Ten years ago he was a big enough star to merit the spot, but the year he was a Razzie favorite seemed an odd time. But then I thought, a black actor who made his fame in movies set in space was perhaps the perfect person to open the envelope for this particular race.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 3856
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby The Original BJ » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:57 pm

OscarGuy wrote:As difficult as I've heard David O. Russell is, this sounds to be more of a John Ridley problem than a Russell/Steve McQueen problem.


So the story goes, George Clooney was staying in a hotel, and was informed that the writer of Three Kings was also there and wanted to see him. Clooney's response was, "If you mean David O. Russell, tell him I never want to see him again in my life. If you mean John Ridley, tell him he didn't write Three Kings."

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12289
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:47 pm

As difficult as I've heard David O. Russell is, this sounds to be more of a John Ridley problem than a Russell/Steve McQueen problem.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 3856
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby The Original BJ » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:26 pm

Mister Tee wrote:So, what the hell is going on between McQueen and John Ridley?


Word on the street is that there was a major credit feud between McQueen and Ridley over the screenplay credit, and arbitration gave sole credit to Ridley (i.e. the opposite outcome from the credit debacle between Ridley and Russell over Three Kings).

More soon, but I wanted to provide commentary on that.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5934
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Mister Tee » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:03 pm

Not with a bang, but a whimper.

That what seemed such a promisingly open (not to mention high-quality) film year should end with a stupefyingly predictable set of Academy choices makes me wonder, as Italiano does, whether the sometimes-loony but quirky Academy results on which I was raised are now a thing of the past. This was not only not the hoped-for night of stunners…it ended up one of the most surprise-free evenings of recent vintage. At our party, the winner missed only one of 21 categories (we don’t do shorts) – the kind of result only seen in years like The Last Emperor or Titanic sweeps. The last two years had fewer obvious, blogger-forecast outcomes.

This is not to disparage the winners. I don’t think a single victory last night was unmerited, even if I might have voted differently in a number of categories. As I said back in October, I think 12 Years a Slave is the best top winner since No Country for Old Men. Three of the top six (Blanchett, Leto, Cuaron) would be my overall choices on the year. And it’s hard to quibble about any of Gravity’s tech wins, or Gatsby’s design prizes.

My problem is the way the slate seemed to have been arrived at. There was a stretch, from 1979 through 1984 (’81 excluded), when the results seemed fore-ordained each year. But that arose from enormous critical unanimity – Hoffman and Field in ’79, DeNiro and Spacek in ’80, Kingley and Streep in ’82 etc. swept through the main critics’ prizes, and became clear favorites. This year, only Blanchett rated that kind of sweep; yet, somehow, we ended up with the other three categories decided in advance (even in the seemingly open one, supporting actress, the lean to Nyong’o was exceedingly heavy). I see it the same way Italiano does: that the bloggers have insinuated themselves into the process, and got the result they desired…even to the point of setting up a split that historical precedent says would be very difficult to achieve. So, even if the outcome is positive, the method of getting there seems to have been taken out of the hands of the actual voters, which to my mind makes it a lot less fun.

That overall perspective having been given, a bunch of random individual reactions:

We tongue-lashed these producers last year for having no sense of how to maintain suspense -- putting the competitive supporting actor earlier than the slam-dunk supporting actress, saving the Daniel Day-Lewis coronation till after the at-least-theoretically open best actress category – so let’s give them credit for doing the opposite this year. The tighter races (supporting actress, lead actor) were held longer, and, except maybe costumes, the first ten or so main competition awards were the easiest to predict --makeup, animated feature, visual effects, both sounds. I ended up with four wrong in the non-short categories, but at the show’s mid-point I was sporting a perfect score. It’s not the producers’ fault that the later competitive awards failed to produce any surprises; give them credit for at least knowing how to place them.

Ellen is getting the usual Internet criticism, but I think she’s at the sweet spot of where this show wants to go: not so moribund as Billy Crystal seemed last time out, nor so cutting-edge-aspirant as Chris Rock or MacFarlane last year. I thought her monologue was very strong (she even managed to make that cruel-ish Liza joke seem gentle), though I got tired of her in-the-aisles bits after a while.

“Happy” got the show off to a rollicking start; if you’d taken an audience poll right afterward, the song would have won a landslide. All the songs were done pretty well, though Idina Menzel seemed to miss the high note toward the end. Then again, no harm: the audience didn’t know who she was, thanks to the incomprehensible mangling John Travolta gave her name. (Kudos to Ellen for saying it twice afterward)

This audience was standing-ovation-happy, wasn’t it? Once the Darlene Love surprise one happened, I knew we were going to be off the charts with total ovations. Pink? U2? However: though I’m a long-long-time fan of Bette Midler, it felt to me like she was standing there begging for hers.

I think my instinct was right about the voter-expansion for foreign film and documentary. The Great Beauty is just the sort of favored-but-not-overwhelmingly-favored foreign effort that’s been losing routinely over recent decades, to more sentimental efforts like Broken Circle or The Hunt. Its winning here may be a signal the award will henceforth be more in line with standard opinion – which’ll make for fewer interesting surprises, but I’d guess better movies. As for documentary: I disagree with whoever it was in another thread that dismissed 20 Feet from Stardom as lightweight. It’s not the great work The Act of Killing is, but it’s a very clear-eyed, unsentimental look at an overlooked aspect of the entertainment industry.

People seem to be ragging on Matthew McConaughey’s speech, but, honestly, it was the first I’ve heard from him all season that didn’t make me sorry he’d won. I was, however, right to the end rooting for someone else to win – not because I thought he was undeserving (he was among the 3-4 deserving entrants), but because, as with Phillip Seymour Hoffman in ’85, I didn’t think he rated complete unanimity in such a strong year.

I liked all the actors’ speeches, actually, and Cuaron’s. And I was amused (and surprised) by Steve McQueen’s wholly uncharacteristic onstage leap.

So, what the hell is going on between McQueen and John Ridley? Ridley blew right past him without a glance – even while stopping to shake hands with one-time antagonist David O. Russell – and then pointedly didn’t mention him in his speech.

Speaking of Russell…I suppose the Internet nerds (especially 12 Years partisans, who targeted his film after its NY Critics’ win) are gleeful about his shut-out. He’s certainly going the wrong direction with the Oscars – winning two for The Fighter, one for Silver Linings and now zero despite all his nominations. I feel like, in Academy world, this could create sympathy for him; however counter-intuitive this may sound, I look for him to storm through the awards in the not-too-distant future.

About those 12 Years partisans – not just fans, but rabid “I couldn’t move for half an hour” acolytes -- I think they did their film a massive disservice over the course of this season. From the start, they announced the film an indisputable masterpiece, with anyone who dissented dismissed as either old and out of it or a covert racist. Any film perceived as a threat to its award prospects (as Hustle was, early on, and later Gravity) was attacked with both barrels. In the end they won (though in considerably more limited fashion than expected before year-end), but for at least some there’ll always be the suspicion voters were intimidated/bullied into voting for the film (for every anonymous voter who said they couldn’t make themselves watch it, there seemed to be another who only got halfway through it but voted for it anyway). I confess these partisans made it difficult for me to enjoy any awards success for a film I did admire.

But, end on a positive note. A lot of people I like won Oscars last night – Blanchett, for a great performance; Cuaron, 7 years after he deserved it, for a spectacular feat; Spike Jonze, at last; Emmanuel Lubezki, even more emphatically at last. It wasn’t a bad set of awards. It just wasn’t the kick I hoped for.

Bog
Assistant
Posts: 792
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Bog » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:26 am

That and 6000 is just simply too many to overcome for just about any surprise. I wanted to think Dern was a possibility and likely several years ago his age, career, and good will would have triumphed at this exact awards ceremony. Those days have passed.

And yes, what I should have added was a Binoche scenario either would have been pushed by bloggers and obvious come Oscar night or the flip side been a Hawkins-esque 5000/1 shot to win...

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:19 am

OscarGuy wrote:This is partly true. Foreign films don't come here very often at all. Until after the Oscars are over, we don't typically get the foreign nominees and usually only the winners. Even this year, I doubt I'll see The Great Beauty arrive in theaters. Therefore, I typically have to wait until their on video. Of course, I have a screener for it now, thanks to the Spirit Awards voting, but I probably won't get to it until late in the year if at all. Currently working on a 1996 project along with my regular Feed the Queue entries. So, that segues into the secondary reason:

The other factor is time. I just don't feel like I have the time I once did to catch up on everything. The Oscar season was so busy this year that I didn't get out to see films I wanted to see: Her or films I didn't want to see: The Wolf of Wall Street. I saw the top three contenders, 12 Years (only because I got a screener), Gravity and American Hustle, but I just never got around to seeing Philomena, Wolf, Captain Phillips and Her. No screeners. No extra time. I may have to change that for next year (or maybe next year, we'll actually get some fucking screeners from Weinstein and Paramount).



You are honest and I appreciate it. Others aren't as honest as you are - yet you feel that they haven't actually seen the movies, that their predictions are pure theory. And even for this reason seeing the Academy following THEIR predictions makes me sad.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12289
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby OscarGuy » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:14 am

This is partly true. Foreign films don't come here very often at all. Until after the Oscars are over, we don't typically get the foreign nominees and usually only the winners. Even this year, I doubt I'll see The Great Beauty arrive in theaters. Therefore, I typically have to wait until their on video. Of course, I have a screener for it now, thanks to the Spirit Awards voting, but I probably won't get to it until late in the year if at all. Currently working on a 1996 project along with my regular Feed the Queue entries. So, that segues into the secondary reason:

The other factor is time. I just don't feel like I have the time I once did to catch up on everything. The Oscar season was so busy this year that I didn't get out to see films I wanted to see: Her or films I didn't want to see: The Wolf of Wall Street. I saw the top three contenders, 12 Years (only because I got a screener), Gravity and American Hustle, but I just never got around to seeing Philomena, Wolf, Captain Phillips and Her. No screeners. No extra time. I may have to change that for next year (or maybe next year, we'll actually get some fucking screeners from Weinstein and Paramount).
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:09 am

Bog wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:And you feel it. You feel it even in the nominees who are there, and who, with few exceptions, don't look especially anxious or especially disappointed when they lose. The tension which used to be there has gone, and I believe that it's gone forever.


This is the main point you hit about what this all boils down to nowadays...just a basic lack of wonder. I like to always get a feel for how Vegas looks at something like major awards. Vegas isn't perfect by any means, but like they say they don't keep adding more tall buildings by making a habit of being wrong. This is what blows me away...we went into an Oscar ceremony last evening with the director for the literal favorite to win Best Picture (12 Years) absolutely, without a doubt out of the race for Best Director. Has this ever been? Even 5 or 10 years ago we had a little wonderment. Steve McQueen knew it too...what can he do but just attempt to have a good time and cap off the night the only way Benji could last year as well? You had to put $300 down just to win 1 single measly dollar if you chose to bet Cuaron...that's certainty...and also quite depressing.

One last interesting note about where we are today...in the 6 Oscars my wife and I have been together...we've always done a ballot within the household, sometimes including friends. It is now to the point my wife, only peripherally listening to me chat or rant about what we "do here" correctly predicted 19/24 awards. This from someone who vocalized her desire for a DBC, McQueen, Hawkins, DespicableMe 2, and Happy ticket, but "knew better" than to predict their victories.

Wonder what Gay Harden's Vegas odds would have been, let alone Binoche...ahh the days of a little white knuckling somewhere during the ceremony.



Yes. If the 1974 Oscars had happened today, my point is not just that most internet blogs wouldn't have predicted Art Carney's win - it's that Art Carney probably wouldn't have won.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:05 am

Big Magilla wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:I don't like an Oscar which follows Oscar Guy's predictions. And at least Oscar Guy HAS seen most of the nominees (though how can one into Oscars NOT watch the Foreign Film nominees? This makes me think).

Availabiity.


Please.

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15029
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Big Magilla » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:02 am

ITALIANO wrote:I don't like an Oscar which follows Oscar Guy's predictions. And at least Oscar Guy HAS seen most of the nominees (though how can one into Oscars NOT watch the Foreign Film nominees? This makes me think).

Availabiity.

Bog
Assistant
Posts: 792
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: General Show Discussion

Postby Bog » Mon Mar 03, 2014 9:00 am

ITALIANO wrote:And you feel it. You feel it even in the nominees who are there, and who, with few exceptions, don't look especially anxious or especially disappointed when they lose. The tension which used to be there has gone, and I believe that it's gone forever.


This is the main point you hit about what this all boils down to nowadays...just a basic lack of wonder. I like to always get a feel for how Vegas looks at something like major awards. Vegas isn't perfect by any means, but like they say they don't keep adding more tall buildings by making a habit of being wrong. This is what blows me away...we went into an Oscar ceremony last evening with the director for the literal favorite to win Best Picture (12 Years) absolutely, without a doubt out of the race for Best Director. Has this ever been? Even 5 or 10 years ago we had a little wonderment. Steve McQueen knew it too...what can he do but just attempt to have a good time and cap off the night the only way Benji could last year as well? You had to put $300 down just to win 1 single measly dollar if you chose to bet Cuaron...that's certainty...and also quite depressing.

One last interesting note about where we are today...in the 6 Oscars my wife and I have been together...we've always done a ballot within the household, sometimes including friends. It is now to the point my wife, only peripherally listening to me chat or rant about what we "do here" correctly predicted 19/24 awards. This from someone who vocalized her desire for a DBC, McQueen, Hawkins, DespicableMe 2, and Happy ticket, but "knew better" than to predict their victories.

Wonder what Gay Harden's Vegas odds would have been, let alone Binoche...ahh the days of a little white knuckling somewhere during the ceremony.


Return to “86th Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest