Best Picture and Director 1988

1927/28 through 1997

Please make your selections for Best Picture and Direcotr of 1988

The Accidental Tourist
3
6%
Dangerous Liaisons
15
29%
Mississippi Burning
3
6%
Rain Man
1
2%
Working Girl
4
8%
Charles Crichton - A Fish Called Wanda
4
8%
Barry Levinson - Rain Man
0
No votes
Mike Nichols - Working Girl
2
4%
Alan Parker - Mississippi Burning
3
6%
Martin Scorsese - The Last Temptation of Christ
16
31%
 
Total votes: 51

Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by Heksagon »

No great films here, but on the other hand, only Mississippi Burning is really terrible - I agree with Eric and Mister Tee's comments on that film.

Rain Man is a classic film, kind of. It certainly influenced the way in which people look at mental illnesses - not just autism - as being something "special", and obviously, it was a huge influence on dozens of films since then that have dealt with mental illnesses.

Unfortunately, the film's artistic merits are very limited. The film's framing story is typical for the 80s, but unfortunately the formulaic story and the shallow characters don't really allow this film much of an opportunity to develop its potential as a drama.

My votes go to Dangerous Liaisons and for director... uh, I'll go with Charles Crichton, for a film which I like even it is rather shallow. I'm not a particular admirer of The Last of Temptation of Christ, even if it is a better film than most of the best picture nominees this year.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by Mister Tee »

The Original BJ wrote:I'm curious as to whether people expected Bird to do better. I like it more than your average biography, though not as much as top-tier Eastwood, but with a Golden Globe WIN for Director and nominations for both actors, was it seen as more in the running than its one tech nomination would suggest?
I didn't see it that way. The Globe directing win seemed wholly personal/star-whorey, much the way Streisand's for Yentl a few years earlier had; it didn't suggest best picture heat. Whitaker was certainly impressive, but, as we see, the best actor category was crowded enough that William Hurt couldn't crack it in a best picture nominee. Diane Venora was one of about a dozen solid supporting actress hopefuls that year -- she could have slipped through, but voters clearly went with the best picture representatives. The critics' choices (Venora, Ruehl, Bujold) did unusually poorly.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by Big Magilla »

The Decalogue may have been ineligible because it was first shown on Polish TV, but it would have been ineligible in 2000, not 1988 as that is the year of its theatrical release in L.A.

There is no need to be sheepish about voting for Working Girl. It may be lightweight, but it is a lot of fun - my second favorite comedy of the year after Bull Durham and slightly ahead of Married to the Mob which I liked better than the over-rated, gimmicky Big; Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Midnight Run which are good, but not as good in my estimation. There is no comparison in my mind to 9 to 5 which unlike Working Girl was not realistic or even plausible, verging as it did on complete idiocy. Also the title was wrong. The film is set in L.A. where the standard workday is 8 to 5, not 9 to 5. I should know, it was a big adjustment for me coming from a 9 to 5 (albeit often 9 to 9) East Coast workday to an 8 to 5 West Coast workday not long after the film's release.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by The Original BJ »

I guess everyone's entitled to one vote that makes everyone else's head explode -- this is probably mine (though I see I'm not completely alone either).

I think this is a pretty wan lineup -- not pathetic like 1985, as I'm more positive overall on a number of the movies nominated, but without many candidates that excite me, especially given what was excluded. I, too, feel that the best movie of the year is The Unbearable Lightness of Being, and it's fairly lame that after making two great movies (this and The Right Stuff) smack dab in one of the Academy's favorite genres (historical epic), that Philip Kaufman couldn't even get on the Director ballot for either.

But there are a lot of other movies I find more exciting as well -- Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, Dead Ringers, A Cry in the Dark, inventive comedies like Big, Bull Durham, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (the first movie I ever saw, and one I continue to find a dazzlingly inspired bit of lunacy). And obviously it wasn't Oscar-eligible (and maybe it even counts more as "tv") but The Decalogue is a major achievement as well.

I'm curious as to whether people expected Bird to do better. I like it more than your average biography, though not as much as top-tier Eastwood, but with a Golden Globe WIN for Director and nominations for both actors, was it seen as more in the running than its one tech nomination would suggest?

You sort of get the sense that the Academy wasn't too thrilled with many options this year -- only one movie scored nods in Best Picture, Director, and Screenplay. And I can't say I'm too thrilled with that movie, Rain Man. It's not I Am Sam idiocy, but I find it fairly bland, with a script that feels very overdetermined in its structure, and a central performance by Dustin Hoffman that I've always found very one-note. It's easy to see why audiences liked it -- the story is really built to goose audience emotion, and I'll admit that it does so in a way that isn't terribly manipulative. But it's just so little, and Barry Levinson's work is so anonymous, it's hard for me to watch it knowing it was an Oscar sure-thing, when I don't see anything major here at all.

I think that the movies I would consider voting for are all about at the same level, or rather, they each have notable strengths and demerits. The Accidental Tourist is probably the deepest of the Best Picture nominees, the one with the most emotional and thematic resonance. I think the movie’s ideas—about loneliness and human connection, about the difference between planning out your life and living it with spontaneity—are very movingly articulated, and acted by a solid cast, especially the winning (in every sense of the word) Geena Davis and the bafflingly un-nominated William Hurt. But I think there are some tonal issues here—Kasdan doesn’t always handle the humor with the right touch, so certain scenes (like the skateboard mishap) feel a bit off; though I admire that a movie this melancholy can have so many laughs, I’m not sure every moment feels like it’s of the same piece. And perhaps I experienced a sense of disappointment, too, when viewing it as the winner of the New York Film Critics Award—I would have thought a film that yielded that prize would have been a bit more ambitious, less slice-of-life than the more modest effort we get here.

I’m not surprised Dangerous Liaisons has gotten a decent number of votes, as it’s another nominee I strongly considered. In terms of what constitutes the best filmmaking of the Best Picture nominees, it’s the standout. Visually it’s the most impressive, from the eye-catching sets and costumes to the polished but haunting photography, and the actors (at least those not named Keanu Reeves) throw themselves at their roles with startling intensity. So as the most ambitious and technically successful effort, it’s a very tempting candidate. But I have some qualms about the material. For starters, I think the set-up is pretty lame—it basically amounts to “let’s play a trick on her,” which I find to be an exceedingly weak conceit to set a story in motion. (I could channel Day-Lewis’s character in Unbearable Lightness and suggest that Close and Malkovich just as easily could have NOT decided to play a trick on Pfeiffer, and then there would have been no movie.) And even though the stakes escalate dramatically, I find a lot of the script to be somewhat arch, with a lot of witty quips and narrative backstabbing, but not all that much weight at its core. In other words, I think it’s a cold movie, and one to which I have trouble feeling attached emotionally. For this reason, I can’t understand the movie’s wide triumph here.

But it’s not as if Working Girl is a movie I’d mount a huge defense for either. The biggest criticism leveled against it—that it’s too lightweight for Best Picture—isn’t something I’d argue against. But on the flip side, I would say that I think Working Girl is the most flat-out enjoyable of the Best Picture nominees. I think it has a lot of laughs, from the delightful Melanie Griffith, the wonderfully bitchy Sigourney Weaver (“I am, after all…me.”), and a really fun Joan Cusack. And I do think the movie is quite interesting as a time capsule piece, in the way it explores issues relating to women in the workplace during the ‘80’s. (It’s possible that the context in which I first saw the film—in a History class in college, during a week on gender roles in the ‘80’s—has allowed me to view it in more elevated terms than I otherwise might have, but a favored professor of mine made a very compelling case for the movie’s value, and I’m not immune to that kind of influence.) And…not that I want to sound insane or anything…but couldn’t you make a pretty good case that Working Girl is in fact the most auteurist of the Best Picture nominees? In career terms, Mike Nichols rates well above the other directors with Best Picture nominees, and I think it’s his sensitivity that grounds the movie in something more emotionally resonant than broad comedy. I think he is the reason I find the movie to be a lot closer to Broadcast News than 9 to 5. So, though I could have gone for Tourist or Liaisons, I’ve decided to vote like many Academy members probably do, and just pick the movie I enjoyed the most. So I cast a somewhat sheepish vote for Working Girl as Best Picture.

What…you thought I’d pick Mississippi Burning? Absolutely not, but I didn’t want to tip my hand too early! This is the worst of the Best Picture nominees, for reasons everyone has already said. It’s a movie that fancies itself on the right side of history, that loudly clucks it tongue at all of those grotesquely racist Southerners, while patting on the back a collection of white heroes from an organization that obstructed far more civil rights progress than it engendered. Of course, this was exactly the kind of hollow racial drama that Roger Ebert would go to bat for time and again over the years, usually with the Academy following suit. And while Alan Parker’s more exploitative sensibilities worked quite well for something as nightmarish as Midnight Express, here they just feel offensive, reducing a very significant struggle for human rights to cheap thrills.

As far as Best Director goes, Charles Crichton is a bit of a puzzling nominee. He isn’t really a hip enough choice to fit in with a lot of the lone director candidates, and I can’t imagine that A Fish Called Wanda was a just-miss in Best Picture either, which would at least allow him to fit in with many of the others. Mister Tee’s theory at least has made me understand this nomination a bit more. I think A Fish Called Wanda is a funny movie, but not outrageously so, and not as inventive as some of the other comedies this year that weren’t cited here. And, as others have said, there isn’t that much going on visually in the movie either. He definitely would not get my vote, and even if my favored directors couldn’t have made it, Kasdan and Frears for otherwise Oscar-approved efforts would have been more worthy as well.

Martin Scorsese is my clear choice as Best Director, and I think The Last Temptation of Christ should have been on the Best Picture ballot as well. It isn’t a perfect movie—Harvey Keitel’s New Yawk accent alone takes the viewer out of the story on a number of occasions—but I find it to be the product of a grand vision, with exciting images and genuine emotional heft. I actually wrote a paper in college on the film and the controversy from religious groups surrounding it, and though I think dws makes very valid points, I have always found the film to be an ultimately affirming portrait of the trials Jesus Christ put himself through to save his followers from their sins. The final sequence—“It is accomplished”—is an incredibly moving portrait of Christ rejecting human temptation and embracing his divinity, and something I find far more spiritually uplifting than anything in Mel Gibson’s torture-porn version of this history. Certainly, though, however one comes down theologically with respect to the movie, it’s hard to deny the complex ambition of Scorsese’s film, and the fact that it succeeds at even provoking the kinds of questions we’re discussing here sets it well above the rest of the Director ballot in my book.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by FilmFan720 »

Usually every year has something I can attach myself too, but this Best Picture lineup does not feature a single film in my Top 10 for the year. Not that any of these films are bad, in fact I quite like a lot of them. None of them are anything special, though, besides well-made, interesting Hollywood material. Dangerous Liaisons is probably the best of the films, but I cast a vote for Working Girl. I think it is a smart, entertaining romantic comedy of the kind that I wish were still made, and this is a vote of "I wish that the Oscars would nominated this type of film more" than "this is the best 1988 had to offer."

Best Director has two of my favorite films of the year in the running. I would love to cast a vote for Charles Crichton, as I think A Fish Called Wanda is one of the funniest films ever made and he gives the film a wonderful touch. But I have to vote for Martin Scorsese (a filmmaker I don't love, but who will get my vote twice in a three-year period). The Last Temptation of Christ is easily, in my eyes, his masterpiece, a film that I find such a powerful meditation on faith and a moving emotional experience to boot. To me, this is a no-brainer choice.

My Top 5s
1. The Last Temptation of Christ
2. Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown
3. The Thin Blue Line
4. Running on Empty
5. Another Woman

1. Martin Scorsese, The Last Temptation of Christ
2. Pedro Almodovar, Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown
3. Robert Zemeckis, Who Framed Roger Rabbit
4. George Sluizer, The Vanishing
5. Woody Allen, Another Woman
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by Mister Tee »

1988 was for me first and foremost about The Unbearable Lightness of Being – not only by a long shot my favorite film of the year, but also my favorite of the entire decade, and what I’d put forward as perhaps the finest example of a quality literary work being turned into a film of equal quality. There have obviously been other good novels turned into good or excellent films, but usually with corners cut/changes made. Unbearable Lightness is the rare case of a film that moved me in precisely the same, slyly perceptive way its literary source did – and with the added tonic of Kaufman’s glorious visuals: the swimming pool, the trysts in Sabina’s studio, the unforgettable crushing of the Prague uprising (for which Sven Nykvist deserved yet another Oscar). I found this a pretty much perfect film, and it and Kaufman would get my votes in an open ballot.

1988 seemed on the whole a more cheerful year for movie-going than most of the preceding decade, even though nothing else rose to the level of Kaufman’s film. Among the not-nominated films, I’d advocate (along with dws) for A Cry in the Dark, which I often feel the urge to force-feed to people who comment with slim knowledge about current court cases. I also very much enjoyed two baseball films from opposite ends of the mood spectrum, Sayles’ Eight Men Out and Shelton’s Bull Durham. I find both Bird and Gorillas in the Mist better-than-average bio-films. And on the pure fun level, I greatly liked Beetlejuice, Big, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (Zemeckis’ best film by far, and, until its frantic finale, a surprisingly soulful one).

Of the films that did make the Academy cut, I’d have to agree with Eric that Mississipppi Burning is the worst/most offensive. I caught the movie quite early – within a day or two of its opening, when it was being touted as a potential best picture winner – and was shocked by what I found. It had been sold as a liberal message movie, but it was at best a liberal version of an Eastwood or Bronson picture (I’m obviously using “Eastwood picture” the way we commonly did in those pre-Unforgiven days, to refer to Dirty Harry and his other vigilante-ish movies) -- the all-knowing lawman comes to town, instantly scopes out the bad guys (which isn’t hard, since they just about drool when they talk), but watches them elude the clutches of a weakling “law” and has to resort to extra-legal methods to bring them to justice. That all this was pure fiction – the FBI was in fact one of the least helpful parts of the federal government in bringing the perpetrators to justice – only made it more offensive. Gene Hackman and Frances McDormand managed solid performances, but all in the service of nothing.

Working Girl had got pretty solid reviews, but I found it to be quite flimsy – a routine comedy, with no narrative surprises, enlivened only by the presence of Melanie Griffith, who had been seen to stronger effect in Body Double and Something Wild in the years just previous, but here was made safe for the multiplexes. Why this comedy – rather than Big or Bull Durham – should have got the full-on Academy treatment is a mystery…you’d hate to think it was simply because the others were summer openers and this one came along in December.

A Fish Called Wanda was the only one of the summer comedy hits to register with the Academy in these top categories. The directing nod may have been a gesture from the directors’ branch in salute to the whole Ealing era; certainly Crichton’s visual style was nothing that needed enshrining…but the chance to honor the largely-forgotten director of The Lavender Hill Mob may have been irresistible. That said, A Fish Called Wanda was genuinely funny, and a genuine surprise hit, the latter of which the directors’ branch has also been prone to honor. I see no reason to vote for the film, but I don’t find its presence irksome.

I saw Rain Man during its first week, and was surprised by what I found. I’d expected something glum, in I Am Sam territory – in Mr. Stiller’s terms, the full retard. Instead, I found pretty much a mainstream film – very much in Tom Cruise’s cocky-kid-learns-responsibility wheelhouse – that had a lot of humor (the bulk of it delivered by Hoffman) and was touching in an uncloying way. Obviously a lot of audiences agreed with this, as the film became a huge word-of-mouth hit (in fact becoming, in pure dollar terms, the first MGM film to outgross Gone with the Wind). It was this overwhelming success (and lack of much obvious alternative) that made it the going-away best picture favorite. Such status was clearly wild over-inflation – much as it was for Argo this past year – and I suspect for a lot of people now going in and seeing it as an Oscar juggernaut there’s a strong degree of disappointment. But for me it will always be that surprisingly fun film I saw in December ’88, and though I see it as a minor film, and have no impulse to vote for it, I don’t dismiss it.

Because of the massive brouhaha that accompanied its August release, The Last Temptation of Christ had always seemed to me a possibility for a lone director slot – a chance for directors to speak out for freedom of speech. I’d wavered on that in my final predictions, simply because there so many candidates in the directing category (as evidenced by two prime best picture contenders missing out on nods), but when Scorsese did manage to land the nomination, I assumed I’d been right in my instinct. When I finally saw the film (almost a year later, in video), however, I changed my mind, and decided the directors had chosen Scorsese on merit.

I’m probably not the best person to counter dws’ quite understandable position on the film. I was, like Scorsese, raised Roman Catholic, but it was in the 50s nuns-with-steel-rulers era – a period of such (to my young mind) psychological terror that it left me with nothing but sour memories, and certainly none of the comfort or metaphysical understanding religion offers so many. So I very much empathized with Scorsese’s much-quoted attempt to create a Christ who “didn’t glow in the dark” – who struggled with the same human demons as the rest of us. This is not to say Scorsese’s vision matches mine – on the whole he has a far darker view of humanity than I (as a priest once said of his films, “Too much Good Friday, not enough Easter Sunday”), and I’d agree with dws that intellect is not his strong suit. But I found Last Temptation a gripping, heartfelt effort, and, given the slim offerings in the directing category this year, he’d have to be my choice.

I understand why many are going for Dangerous Liaisons as best picture. In terms of sheer technical and narrative competence, it’s probably the fullest success of the group – the same standard by which I ended up voting for Out of Africa three years back. But, at the time, having watched Gandhi/Amadeus/Out of Africa/The Last Emperor sweep through the Oscars (32 awards among them), I was mortally sick of remote period pieces running off with the prizes. Plus I’d seen the show on stage (as Les Liaisons Dangereuses), and found it kind of stuffy, so, even here with much more exciting actors (the casting is the film’s greatest virtue, even above the sumptuous costumes), it all felt too dull to get behind.

The Accidental Tourist can hardly be called fully successful in the way Liaisons is. Pretty much everything centered around Kathleen Turner – especially including that deadening final section in Paris – is a misfire. But I found much of the movie an unexpectedly perfect translation of Anne Tyler’s unique sensibility to the screen – William Hurt’s daring but on the nose grumpy Macon, Geena Davis’s ideal Muriel, and all the dotty members of the Leary family (whose every brief appearance brought audience reaction when I saw the film). For all those parts of the film – and for Davis’ redemptive final grin – I cherish the movie, and, because I prefer in this restricted case to encourage the more contemporary, somewhat ambitious effort, I vote for Accidental Tourist in a close vote over Liaisons.
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by Reza »

Everyone keeps going on and on about Gandhi being one of the worst Best Picture winners of this decade. Personally I find the wins for Rain Man and Dustin Hoffman positively grotesque - easily my choice for being amongst the worst winners in the history of the Academy.

Voted for Dangerous Liaisons and Charles Crichton.

Best Picture
1. Dangerous Liaisons
2. A Fish Called Wanda
3. The Unbearable Lightness of Being
4. The Last Temptation of Christ
5. White Mischief

The 6th Spot: Dead Ringers

Best Director
1. Charles Crichton, A Fish Called Wanda
2. Phillip Kaufman, The Unbearable Lightness of Being
3. Stephen Frears, Dangerous Liaisons
4. Martin Scorsese, The Last Temptation of Christ
5. Michael Radford, White Mischief

The 6th Spot: David Cronenberg, Dead Ringers
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by dws1982 »

Eric wrote:
dws1982 wrote:Director, I just can't make a pick. I see most gravitating towards Scorsese, but I can't. As a practicing Christian, I do find Last Temptation (as a novel and a film) to be, if not blasphemous, then extremely wrong-headed.
I took it on faith when most of the friends I knew studying for their masters in divinity (not myself; I waver between agnosticism and atheism) swore by Last Temptation. It's been a few years, so their defenses have slipped from memory, but it's possible most of them saw in Dafoe's Jesus the flawed, human mouthpieces they saw in themselves ... which I guess makes them guilty of pride. Nonetheless, it's a film that clearly risks something and (to my eyes) succeeds.
I can kind of see that, and I can understand the idea of presenting a humanized Jesus who was subject to the same temptations as a regular man. I just find the way Scorsese (and Kazantzakis) goes about it to be the problem. And I don't even think Scorsese even meant to be blasphemous; I think he just kind of stumbled into it. He's a good filmmaker, but he's not much of a thinker.

I actually have a friend moving to Minneapolis in a few days to attend a seminary, and I've always wondered what he would think about it. I'm almost certain he would dislike it, but I also think the conversation following the movie would be as long as the movie itself.
Bog
Assistant
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by Bog »

Eric wrote: I took it on faith
Too good to pass up this tongue in cheek comment...
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by Eric »

dws1982 wrote:Director, I just can't make a pick. I see most gravitating towards Scorsese, but I can't. As a practicing Christian, I do find Last Temptation (as a novel and a film) to be, if not blasphemous, then extremely wrong-headed.
I took it on faith when most of the friends I knew studying for their masters in divinity (not myself; I waver between agnosticism and atheism) swore by Last Temptation. It's been a few years, so their defenses have slipped from memory, but it's possible most of them saw in Dafoe's Jesus the flawed, human mouthpieces they saw in themselves ... which I guess makes them guilty of pride. Nonetheless, it's a film that clearly risks something and (to my eyes) succeeds.

Oh, and also all of the other alternatives in the category this year are in for extremely watered-down work or, in the case of Alan Parker, produced truly offensive, pernicious pieces of filmmaking.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by dws1982 »

Big Magilla wrote:Dangerous Liaisons seems to be winning by default. Did anyone vote for it because they thought it was the best picture of the year or just the best of the nominees?
Best of the nominees. Of mainstream releases, I prefer Bird, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, A Cry in the Dark, A World Apart, and Another Woman--easily Woody Allen's most underrated film, in my opinion.

Dangerous Liaisons does, of course, have one of the best final scenes/shots of any movie. Glenn Close's TV series Damages ended with a scene that was clearly meant as a callback to it, and it was really effective on that, as well.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by Big Magilla »

Dangerous Liaisons seems to be winning by default. Did anyone vote for it because they thought it was the best picture of the year or just the best of the nominees? Ditto, Scorsese, for what is a flawed film, although one I did not think deserved all the backlash it got. In addition to some of the things DWS pointed out - the desert scene in particular, Harvey Keitel's Judas is quite jarring.
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by dws1982 »

Let's see: Dangerous Liaisons is the clear pick for Best Picture, although I think Milos Forman's take on the material is every bit as good (and a bit more fun).

Director, I just can't make a pick. I see most gravitating towards Scorsese, but I can't. As a practicing Christian, I do find Last Temptation (as a novel and a film) to be, if not blasphemous, then extremely wrong-headed. I don't wish to get into a theological debate, but I do feel like I should explain what my issue is: I don't take issue with the temptation sequence exactly (well, it doesn't bother me theologically), but my issue is more general: So much of the Jesus portrayed in it is just completely antithetical to Christian belief and theology. It's not that I'm offended by a portrait of a "human" Jesus who faced the same temptations as all humans. The Jesus portrayed here is someone actively trying to do things that would merit divine hatred in order for God to leave him alone. There's a difference between focusing on his humanity and contradicting his divinity. But, I can accept that for the most part. I gave Reds my Director vote in 1981--even though I would've fought on the side of the Whites in 1917--because it's a really well-made film. I just don't find any compensation in Last Temptation. Watching it again recently, I found so much of it to be simply dull--that sequence where Jesus goes off into the desert seems to go on forever, and has some absolutely ridiculous imagery, then the controversial temptation sequence is pretty endless itself. Can't vote for Scorsese, and there's two nominations coming up where he'll have a shot at my vote.
ksrymy
Adjunct
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:10 am
Location: Wichita, KS
Contact:

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by ksrymy »

mojoe92 wrote:Also I didn't know where to post this since there is not an 86th Oscars Discussion board
It's under the 9th Decade. You just have to click on those words since it's not immediately in the small text beneath it.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
mojoe92
Graduate
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:27 am

Re: Best Picture and Director 1988

Post by mojoe92 »

Okay this was just released today and I can say I am shocked completely.

Also I didn't know where to post this since there is not an 86th Oscars Discussion board

http://www.goldderby.com/news/4656/mery ... 49257.html

So looks like Meryl will be campaigning for a Supporting Actress spot instead of Lead Actress which is complete bull shit leaving Julia Roberts ( ugh I fucking cannot stand her) to campaign for Lead. Also seems that Oprah is campaigning for Supporting when she is the Lead... this pisses me off for many reasons.

I have seen both films already and like I said above both women are leads and in their films other actresses should be campaigning
Jane Fonda- Supporting Actress- The Butler
Margo Martindale-Supporting Actress- August: Osage County
Juliette Lewis- Supporting Actress- August: Osage County

Having Meryl and Oprah switching categories are just a big fuck up and a gamble now for other actresses...

thoughts ?
Post Reply

Return to “The Damien Bona Memorial Oscar History Thread”