Your favourite Oscar shows

[ITALIANO]

I love jack.

I would never even mention Bill Condon - I'm forced to do so by others. If I don't like A PART of a show, it's because "of your hatred for Bill Condon". Come on.

But yes, I have a very Italian way of discussing, I admit it. I honestly think that it makes for more interesting conversations, even in real life. I'm not a "knitting circle" type.

[Big Magilla]

In America only spoiled children and right-wing television talking heads always say what's on their mind. Most well-bred American children and adults have a certain amount of reserve and decorum that is almost quaintly British in which we adhere to the old adage, "if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all".

I thought it was supposed to be: if you don't have anything interesting, entertaining, intellectually stimulating and, even, provoking to say, don't say anything at all. We are here since this is a DISCUSSION board, otherwise one might as well join a knitting club.

Another comment taken out of context.

Yes, this is a discussion board with a myriad of topics. Why must we always have the same discussion about the same topic?

[Uri]

In America only spoiled children and right-wing television talking heads always say what's on their mind. Most well-bred American children and adults have a certain amount of reserve and decorum that is almost quaintly British in which we adhere to the old adage, "if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all".

I thought it was supposed to be: if you don't have anything interesting, entertaining, intellectually stimulating and, even, provoking to say, don't say anything at all. We are here since this is a DISCUSSION board, otherwise one might as well join a knitting club.

[jack]

I would say the year I enjoyed most would be the year LOTR sweeped. I loved all three films and loved watching the third win everything. I didn't care that the evening was predictable (the Adapted Screenpay award was a bit of a shock - I thought Mistic River was going to win).

Regarding this years show I thought it was okay. If I had to choose I'd rather go back to the more traditional style of the Oscar telecast.... Now as we all seem to be talking about Bill Condon I'll throw in my two cents. Gods and Monsters I loved. It's ten years old and still doesn't show its age. Kinsey was okay. I've only seen in once, and see no reason for watching it a second. Dreamgirls, much like Kinsey is only okay. I've watched it twice; on first release and about two months ago. Watching it for second time it's actually quite a strange musical. I got the impression that it was a musical a bit embarassed of admiting that it's a musical. Aside from writing Chicago I can't understand why Condon was chosen to direct. Anyway I do have hope for his Richard Pryor biopic, as it seems more in keeping with his only true success to date: Gods and Monsters.

A further note, as I completely agree with ITALIANO that talk will surface next year about Eddie Murphy as a Best Actor nominee. And I'd welcome it if it happened.

[Big Magilla]

The key word was "always". We all have our likes and dislikes, some of us choose to express them more freely than others.

A biopic about Richard Pryor is not something I'm dying to see. It could be good or bad. I'll wait and see on that one.

[Reza]

But I mean, it's not like his next movie can't be good. We will see. After all, I spent many sleepless nights thinking: "How come nobody has ever done a Richard Pryor biopic? We need a Richard Pryor biopic!". Now we will finally get it. No but seriously, it CAN be good. Just, please, let's not declare it a masterpiece two years before it comes out, ok?

But on the basis of Richard Pryor's dramatic and comic life it would be fairly safe to predict Eddie Murphy as a possible Oscar nominee for it.....that is, if the film came to be made.

[ITALIANO]

In America only spoiled children and right-wing television talking heads always say what's on their mind. Most well-bred American children and adults have a certain amount of reserve and decorum that is almost quaintly British in which we adhere to the old adage, "if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all".

Well, first of all I'm not American and I'm too old to become American even if I wanted. But for example Damien, whom we all love and I'm not joking, IS American, still I don't think he's that reserved and polite when he talks about people he doesn't like, like Philip Seymour Hoffman and others. Oh but maybe you mean that in America it's ok to do so if it's behind one's back - if our target will never read what we say of him. I understand now.

Anyway, I've been violently attacked here in the past by Americans who, believe me Big Magilla, weren't spoiled children or right-wing television talking heads. And, in a more general context, I don't see such American "reserve" in shooting at people in universities or invading foreign countries, but maybe I missed the sublety and decorum here. Please.

There are several ways of being aggressive. I prefer - if I have to be - a more direct way. Others choose to do so between the lines, or, as I have said, behind one's back. I think my way is, in the end, more honest, and it hurts less. Reserve and decorum can be used as weapons too.

As for Bill Condon, let's make one thing clear. I don't know him personally so I can't hate him. What I don't like is the reverential approach towards him here on this board - a reverential approach which nobody, I guess, can deny. As for his movies, true, I don't think they are very good, but for example I think he has some talent in directing actors and, even more importantly, there is I feel a basic honesty in what he does - I think he has very good intentions, the only problem is the results, which are always quite disappointing (not only in Dreamgirls).

But I mean, it's not like his next movie can't be good. We will see. After all, I spent many sleepless nights thinking: "How come nobody has ever done a Richard Pryor biopic? We need a Richard Pryor biopic!". Now we will finally get it. No but seriously, it CAN be good. Just, please, let's not declare it a masterpiece two years before it comes out, ok?



Edited By ITALIANO on 1235847245

[Big Magilla]

If some here, who were disappointed in the film, held back their negativity for fear of offending Damien, so what?

So what?! I hope you are joking. I was almost lynched for saying the truth about that movie, Big Magilla - go back to those threads and you will see. If a movie is bad, one must say it - it's not like Damien is a child and can't face honest opinions, and by the way it wasn't even HIS movie. I don't understand Americans, sorry.

Also Big Magilla, it's true, Damien, as you said, "fanned the flames" of that movie, but he acted more like Bill Condon's paid agent than an objective critic, and it was a big mistake. I would have never done that, really. But even worse was - and please go to those threads or I will - how you all were so easily led to expect a masterpiece. An intelligent individual (and this is why I have sometimes a not-so-high opinion about some of you) should NEVER be so easily influenceable. Never, Big Magilla. Remember this. A real man doesn't fall so quickly into these traps - if he has a brain.

There you go again, taking a phrase out of context to spin the same old record. The full quote was:

"Then came Dreamgirls which Damien fanned the flames of from the initial announcement through post-production and previews, but so did a lot of the press. Finally it came out to generally favorable but far from ecstatic reviews. If some here, who were disappointed in the film, held back their negativity for fear of offending Damien, so what? Not saying you didn't like something is a far cry from heaping undue praise on it, which no one here did."

In America only spoiled children and right-wing television talking heads always say what's on their mind. Most well-bred American children and adults have a certain amount of reserve and decorum that is almost quaintly British in which we adhere to the old adage, "if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all". Unless a film is truly dreadful most people, whether professional reviewers or just the guy in the street, will not jump all over it. Dreamgirls was not a bad movie at all, it just wasn't as good as we had hoped, more bottom half of our ten best lists than the very top if we considered it top ten material at all, but hardly something to be embarrassed about.

If, however, there were people here who really didn't like it and held back in saying so as not to rain on Damien's and Bill Condon's parades, it wasn't lying.

I can't speak for anyone else, but film versions of Broadway musicals have always been a favorite genre for me, tacky as some of them may be. The genre had reached its nadir in the period from 1977 (A Little Night Music) through 1985 (A Chorus Line) but seemed to be having a resurgence with Chicago, which was scripted by Bill Condon. I had every reason to hope that Dreamgirls would continue that resurgence. Damien's posts merely served to underscore what I was already anticipating. I don't for a minute think there was anything insincere about Damien's fanning the flames. He was truly excited and his excitement was infectious and not just here. Oprah was even more excited and had far more influence.

Anyway I don't get your deep seeded hatred of anything to do with Bill Condon. He is, after all, the only person in American show business who still has something nice to say about Roberto Benigni. He seems to be the only one to admit he loved Benigni jumping up on seats at the Oscars, something that reviled most of us here.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1235845162

[ITALIANO]

That might be a wrong word to use, true. But what I really mean by that isn't that they lie INTENTIONALLY. Rather that they are led to, if not lie, not say the whole truth. Out of - I repeat - very respectable feelings like politeness and diplomacy.

Anyway I've been called much worse than a liar here, especially when I was right about something.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1235838288

[Okri]

Italiano, you don't think calling people liars is riling them up? Not even a little bit?

[ITALIANO]

accusing anyone who thinks this year's telecast was among the best they've seen with a) deceiving themselves, or b) expressing an opinion they don't really feel, perhaps in order to go along with the crowd or something.

Yes, maybe, or they are just simply wrong - it happens, what's the problem with that? If I said that "I know that I am right" ON THIS, it's because sorry but I know one thing or two about television. As I said before, I would never say "I know that I am right" about, for example, gardens.

Also, maybe it's me, but when I see, say, 50 people having the same reaction - the same EXTREME reaction - to a show, or to anything else actually, I start having doubts. Big doubts.

Anyway, Rain Bard, next time you want to criticize me, please stick to my opinions and ask yourself: is he right or wrong? Do you think the show was great? Honestly. Because this is the point. The rest doesn't mean anything.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1235823899

[rain Bard]

I said that the show was good but not great - and to you I am "riling-up" my readers? So I should say that it's perfect and I would be ok? No, sorry, I don't think this show was perfect or great and I will honestly say it.

The "riling up" sense doesn't come from the degree to which you liked or didn't like the telecast.

It comes from statements like "I KNOW that I am right. Objectively right." that go beyond expressing a personal opinion, but into the realm of accusing anyone who thinks this year's telecast was among the best they've seen with a) deceiving themselves, or b) expressing an opinion they don't really feel, perhaps in order to go along with the crowd or something.

[ITALIANO]

If some here, who were disappointed in the film, held back their negativity for fear of offending Damien, so what?

So what?! I hope you are joking. I was almost lynched for saying the truth about that movie, Big Magilla - go back to those threads and you will see. If a movie is bad, one must say it - it's not like Damien is a child and can't face honest opinions, and by the way it wasn't even HIS movie. I don't understand Americans, sorry.

Also Big Magilla, it's true, Damien, as you said, "fanned the flames" of that movie, but he acted more like Bill Condon's paid agent than an objective critic, and it was a big mistake. I would have never done that, really. But even worse was - and please go to those threads or I will - how you all were so easily led to expect a masterpiece. An intelligent individual (and this is why I have sometimes a not-so-high opinion about some of you) should NEVER be so easily influenceable. Never, Big Magilla. Remember this. A real man doesn't fall so quickly into these traps - if he has a brain.

(I can't deny that Bill Condon is a sort of poor man's auteur - his five divas praising the nominees is, in its baroque emptiness, a reprise of the ending of his work of art, Dreamgirls - yes, I know, he didn't put a crying black child at the Kodak theatre, but otherwise the level is, depressingly, the same.)

Rain Bard, I don't understand one thing. I said that the show was good but not great - and to you I am "riling-up" my readers? So I should say that it's perfect and I would be ok? No, sorry, I don't think this show was perfect or great and I will honestly say it. And I don't think anyone - even Bill Condon's fans here - should be offended. But if they are it's not my fault - I certainly don't get any secret pleasure from being attacked, so erase from your mind the idea that I intentionally look for that. I am always very objective and I don't like to provoke people (in Italy my opinions on these Oscars would be considered very mild and acceptable). As for Roger Ebert - whom you and Damien unsurprisingly mention - his opinions are usually dismissed here, yet now that he praises this show he's suddenly worth quoting? Please. Your - and my - friend Hedgy would have never done this mistake.

Oscar Guy, you appreciate honestly, I am sure, so I will be very honest with you. Yes, I think that my opinions are more solid and rational than those of most people writing here (there are exceptions of course, including Sabin, Johnny Guitar, Uri, Eric, Mister Tee, sometimes Rain Bard or FilmFan, and others - I might disagree with them but I can often see their points and sometimes their ideas are even better than mine). This is, of course, MY opinion again - so you are free to disagree with it. But I must admit that in most people here I see a lack of objectiveness, of intellectual standards and artistic values, a tendency towards emotionalism, moodiness, something which has to do with character I think and as such VERY respectable, but which still make their opinions, how shall I put it, not always to be taken seriously. By myself of course, I'm not saying that anyone should do like me - in the same way that for example you often don't agree with MY opinions. You are free to do that. Also, if you notice, they tend to think "as a group", which is something a bit disturbing, don't you agree with me? One says: "Dreamgirls will be a great movie", "This Oscar show was the best ever" and, as if by magic, they all join the idea. I smile when I see that, and have come to like it even - but it's very wrong of course. And I won't even go into such absurdities which I've read here like "soap operas are works of art" which, I'm sorry, and believe me I am right, make ANY other opinion from those who said so suddenly worthless.

You are right though. One can see thousands of Oscar shows - and thousands of movies - and still don't understand anything of either. But it helps. And this is why now my suggestion is: try to see as many movies as you can. Don't wait for Nine to see Fellini's 8 1/2. Don't make this mistake, Oscar Guy. See the true masterpieces of cinema, so that you can see through movies like Color Purple or Dreamgirls. Because only if you are in touch with Art you can hope to have a balanced, profound approach to movies in general. This is a friendly advice - and "friendly" in the Italian way, which doesn't have nothing to do with praising an individual's work just because he is a "friend" of a "friend".



Edited By ITALIANO on 1235825061

[rain Bard]

My feeling on all this is that Italiano may have a point even if its mostly hidden between a lot of bluster and attempted riling-up of his readers.

I don't think I can evaluate this year's Oscar telecast on the same grounds that I evaluate others. There are always sentimental associations that obfuscate perfectly rational judgment (whether or not one likes the films nominated, for example) but this year was the first that someone I've been in on-line contact with for a decade, who has introduced me to a number of films and filmmakers I don't know if I'd have encountered otherwise, and who I once shared a cafe table and a real-life conversation with, was involved in the production in some capacity. That surely affected my subjective experience of the broadcast viewing. I know that part of my enjoyment in watching the montages was wondering if I was watching an expression of Damien's taste when, for instance, clips from a number of films I know he's no fan of were intercut with his beloved the Reader. While most at the party I attended were watching and commenting on the 2009 preview clips, I was paying more attention to the credits to see if his name was mentioned. Those are only the most conscious examples of ways I viewed the show differently this time, but I would be surprised if there weren't other, more sub-conscious effects of knowing, even in a limited way, someone involved in the production.

I don't know what I'd do if I were, say, assigned to write an article critically evaluating this past Oscar ceremony. Would I recuse myself because I once spent about an hour with the show's research consultant? Or would I mention that fact? I don't know. As I say, there are always subjective factors that can interfere with mathematical critiques of tv programs, films, books, meals, etc. I still am not sure if the greatest critics are the ones who can anticipate, avoid, and/or adjust for these subjectivities, or those who embrace them as a central part of the critique. (I certainly don't consider myself a great, or even a very good, critic).

For me, the Oscar viewing experience has always been different. There have been years when I watched by myself or with a quiet group, others where I've joined a raucous party of some sort. I wouldn't be able to separate these external-to-the-show factors oout of a comparative judgment, just as I don't think I could separate my feelings for the nominated films, or my connection to Damien, and make a truly unbiased evaluation. Maybe others here are better at compartmentalizing all of this, but whether or not we are, I'm going to guess that Italiano would like to see some acknowledgment that we on this board may be more subjectively influenced this year than other years.

By that token, I don't think Italiano is immune to these subjective influences over his evaluative skills either. Which may be why he feels and expresses so strongly, even when confronted with evidence (from Roger Ebert and others well outside the "Damienite" influence) to the contrary, that this was "objectively" not one of the best Oscar telecasts. Or perhaps he's trying to push our buttons a little too.

[Sabin]

I know! What if I said the wrong thing? I'm gonna get in trouble, dude!



Edited By Sabin on 1235778645