Observations on an Onrushing Race

paperboy
Temp
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 10:52 pm
Location: melbourne, oz

Post by paperboy »

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this but it just occurred to me that the Oscar nominations are being announced on January 22nd, which is the first anniversary of Heath Ledger's death.

Good luck anyone else trying to grab a headline that day.
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

maybe james franco is just having too much fun in interviews, but from what he has been saying (see clip)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHsi3eE5o7g

...there will be quite a bit of kissing and lovemaking and full-frontal! :laugh:

PHILADELPHIA was the big hollywood gay movie with no gay affection (beyond slow dancing). BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was the small hollywood gay movie with one quick-but-graphic sex scene and a few kisses. now MILK is the small hollywood movie with (presumably) a couple sex scenes (unclear on how long or graphic) and several kisses, plus nudity!

i have a feeling MILK is going to be the critical darling of the year. maybe not to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN levels, but still well liked. i am still surprised more oscar tracking sites do not have it higher on their best picture predix list, but i consider it the one sure thing so far.

as for the win, i still think it will follow the focus feature pattern. director, screenplay, maybe actor...but no best picture.

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE will take the win. i think it is unfair to compare the film to JUNO and LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE. i think a better comparison would be CHARIOTS OF FIRE. both are tiny films for across the pond. both have no big stars and are not revolutionary in their artistry. both are films with the heart and talent to win over the majority of academy voters without being truly great or memorable. do not underestimate this film.




Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1227046868
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

Seriously, how many biopics have you seen with a raunchy or even remotely titillating sex scene? The Eleanor Roosevelt Story aside, I mean.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Post by flipp525 »

FilmFan720 wrote:Second, and I feel like this is huge, is that Milk is going to be a different film than Brokeback. Brokeback Mountain is a film about gay LOVE, that contained a lovely, tasteful, yet graphic (especially for middle America) gay sex scene. That took a lot of people by surprise, and made a lot of people uncomfortable. Milk is a film about gay RIGHTS. I am guessing, don't quote me here, that the film is not going to contain the graphic love scenes that Brokeback did, nor will it feel as intimate. The bedroom is not going to be as major a player in this film as Brokeback. Like it or not, but I think a lot of people are more comfortable with homosexuality if they don't have to think of it as sexual. Harvey Milk fought for things like letting gay people keep their jobs, which most everyone agrees with today.

Obviously, I haven't seen Milk yet either, but I can honestly say that I'm going to feel cheated if the movie doesn't show a love/sex scene between Penn and Franco (or Rivera). Any other biopic would and this should be no different. Not showing gay guys having sex in order to make a film more palatable to the "old guard" would be akin to Southern theaters cutting out the kissing scene in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner back in the late 60's, a shot which was already abbrogated and shown in the rearview mirror of a taxi cab.

Also, I have to say that if the film is about gay RIGHTS, one of those rights is the right to actually have sex (an act which was still prohibited up until Bowers v Hardwick in 1985 and even after in some places) as well as the ability to be affectionate in public without getting bashed in the head.

Great points brought up in your post overall, FilmFan.




Edited By flipp525 on 1227043457
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Big Magilla wrote:For all know there won't be a consensus favorite at all this year, though Milk does seem to be emerging as though it may well be.
From what I'm hearing, right now Benjamin Button is the consensus favorite. That can change of course.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

Lots of male on male kissing scenes and James Franco's full frontal nude scene (prosthetic notwithstanding) to make the old guard uncomfortable, but it is based on fact so they can't easily invoke the image of John Wayne turning over in his grave as they did with Brokeback Mountain.

All of this is supposition at this point, of course. For all know there won't be a consensus favorite at all this year, though Milk does seem to be emerging as though it may well be.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Post by FilmFan720 »

Big Magilla wrote:
rain Bard wrote:It seems like a number of people are sort of thinking this year has a sort of 2005 vibe. But I don't see it. If Milk resonates like Brokeback Mountain did (and early reviews seem to indicate it might) I don't think there's anything on the radar that has the ability to play a Crash-like spoiler. I guess the logic is that the homophobia in the Academy runs so deeply that a gay-themed film will never win Best Picture? Call me naive, or locked into a November 2008 mindset that will have dissipated by Oscar time, but it seems to me like recent events have given Milk the inside track.

Or they could bend over backwards to show they are not homophobic. I wouldn't say a gay themed movie will never win the Oscar, but as long as people like Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine are still around, it's quite possible we will see a repeat of 2005 this year.
Now, I haven't seen Milk, nor have I read much about it, but from having seen the documentary and knowing a little about Harvey Milk, I feel like it has a couple of advantages over Brokeback in 2005. First off, the fact that it is coming out in this political climate seems to speak a little better. You have to imagine that even three years later, people's minds have continued to change. California is proof that the country is not yet on board, but 48% of California voted against it. That percentage is certainly enough to win Best Picture in a five-horse race (plus I think the Academy is more liberal than the rest of California).

Second, and I feel like this is huge, is that Milk is going to be a different film than Brokeback. Brokeback Mountain is a film about gay LOVE, that contained a lovely, tasteful, yet graphic (especially for middle America) gay sex scene. That took a lot of people by surprise, and made a lot of people uncomfortable. Milk is a film about gay RIGHTS. I am guessing, don't quote me here, that the film is not going to contain the graphic love scenes that Brokeback did, nor will it feel as intimate. The bedroom is not going to be as major a player in this film as Brokeback. Like it or not, but I think a lot of people are more comfortable with homosexuality if they don't have to think of it as sexual. Harvey Milk fought for things like letting gay people keep their jobs, which most everyone agrees with today. Futhermore, it stars Academy favorite Sean Penn, and contains a large scope of the historical biopic, which the Academy loves. Brokeback was the breakthrough of some indie favorites (Ledger, Gyllenhall, Williams) who the Academy didn't know. Also, I think that Milk is going to have the feel of an explosive 1970s film that the Academy loves, while Brokeback often felt like a quiet European film mixed with a romantic Western, which the Academy doesn't love so much.

Finally, as someone else pointed out, there is no Crash out there. Granted, Crash was on none of our radars in Nov. 05, so something could sneak in, but I still feel if it wasn't an option Brokeback would have squeaked through. The Academy was faced with another message movie they could feel good voting for over Brokeback (racism is bad, let's vote for that). Of the competitors this year, none of them have a clear political message that makes the Academy feel good or virtuous for voting for it. Slumdog has some, but not that American vibe that Milk has. Wall-E does, and I feel like it could sneak in as a meaningful cartoon, but that is a real uphill battle. Doubt never rams a message down your throat, Frost/Nixon has a dated message, Benjamin Button is cold...there is no other great option.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Post by Okri »

1. Why is The Dark Knight only a smaller contender? I recall Mister Tee mentioning somewhere that the reason the Lord of the Rings films got nominated wasn't because the academy suddenly overcame their aversion to fantasy, but because of the elements that they were comfortable with (costume drama, epic, war film). Eric mentioned something similar with TDK - that the film's serious elements recalled any oscar bait picture, and Damien mentioned that the film suffers from too many themes (or it can't handle the themes it has). I can see an NBR mention or maybe even a win in LA. I think it's at least a solid contender for a nomination.

2. So yeah, Rachel Getting Married wasn't as acclaimed as I thought it was. In fact, going through metacritic (as reliable as it is), I'm surprised at the level of some film's acclaim (About Schmidt? Capote?). Oh well - I think by virtue of (possibly) appealing to actors (three nominations here is reasonable) writers (near dunk, I think), and directing (pending critics), it's a viable contender (which I realize no one was discounting), even if I'm not as gung-ho about the possibility.

3. So, becoming Mr. Quibble man for a second, IFC also distributed My Big Fat Greek Wedding, so A Christmas Tale has a long way to go, but I like the idea of it being a writing contender. Makes more sense then people predicting 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days last year, anyway.

4. I think the Slumdog comparisons to Juno and Little Miss Sunshine come strictly from the crowdpleasing Fox Searchlight aspect, truthfully.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Post by The Original BJ »

Slumdog Millionaire is not a "little" movie. It's not some gargantuan cinematic masterpiece, but in terms of emotional heft, the number of years the plot encompasses, and the geographic locales the characters traverse, it's pretty difficult to call Slumdog minor.

I actually think Sonic hit it on the head with his comment that the no-name actor element makes the film seem "smaller" in people's minds when it's got to be bigger in scope than stuff like, say, Doubt.

Slumdog is probably oversold. I could see people around here wanting a little bit more, but to me, it was so much better than almost everything else that's out there, I was grateful for a real movie with originality, ambition and feeling, even if it didn't reinvent the wheel.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Sabin wrote:
People are making the comparisons because an entertainment reporter or two wrote that as far back as Teluride, plus there was the Focus Features connection.

Fox Searchlight.
Oops. :p
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10748
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

People are making the comparisons because an entertainment reporter or two wrote that as far back as Teluride, plus there was the Focus Features connection.

Fox Searchlight.

And don't worry about it winning Best Picture. I don't think anyone has any expectations of that happening.

I'm not so much worried as speculating about a film that I haven't seen yet procuring nominations following an awards season that hasn't happened yet. So it's not so much being "worries" as "clearly not using my time properly for a decade on end."

I think it's totally possible it picks up more. Right off the bat, it looks very good for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Film Editing but what I'm saying is that being a relatively modest production of only $15 million anything more turns it from the little movie that could into the little movie that will.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

rain Bard wrote:It seems like a number of people are sort of thinking this year has a sort of 2005 vibe. But I don't see it. If Milk resonates like Brokeback Mountain did (and early reviews seem to indicate it might) I don't think there's anything on the radar that has the ability to play a Crash-like spoiler. I guess the logic is that the homophobia in the Academy runs so deeply that a gay-themed film will never win Best Picture? Call me naive, or locked into a November 2008 mindset that will have dissipated by Oscar time, but it seems to me like recent events have given Milk the inside track.
Or they could bend over backwards to show they are not homophobic. I wouldn't say a gay themed movie will never win the Oscar, but as long as people like Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine are still around, it's quite possible we will see a repeat of 2005 this year.
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

Sabin wrote:'Slumdog Millionaire' seems like a good bet for only four nominations whereas other films have a decent grab on more. Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Film Editing. I think *that's* why most people are comparing it to 'Little Miss Sunshine' and 'Juno': because it doesn't have an innate grasp on more nominations.

Nah! That ain't why. People are making the comparisons because an entertainment reporter or two wrote that as far back as Teluride, plus there was the Focus Features connection. Absent other information, that angle sorta stuck and people have been tossing it back and forth like a game of telephone until it became conventional wisdom. This tyranny of expectations has determined in their minds what sort of movie it's going to be, not how many nominations its going to receive.

As for the comparison itself, that sounds more like a "Letters From Iwo Jima" comparison. But what about the techs? No cinematography, no score, no art-set direction? Are you sure you're not underestimating here? They'll likely forgo acting noms, since lately it's been tough for a contending foreign language film to secure one. (None for "Letters", "Crouching Tiger", or "Diving Bell".) But a respectable tally of six or seven noms looks very doable.

And don't worry about it winning Best Picture. I don't think anyone has any expectations of that happening.

EDIT: ...except rolotomasi99.




Edited By Sonic Youth on 1226960431
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
User avatar
rolotomasi99
Professor
Posts: 2108
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Post by rolotomasi99 »

Mister Tee wrote:Am I like most in pre-discounting Australia because 1) Luhrmann fails to float my boat and 2) the trailer makes it look like Far-er and Away-er? This might be a film to fear, given how it greases the long-estabished Academy prejudice Magilla mentions.
i love baz luhrmann's three previous films. they were all very artificial, but had such energy and joy. if you were entertained by the energy, you accepted the artifice. with AUSTRALIA, the trailer makes it seem like luhrmann slowed everything down and killed the energy to prove he could direct a movie for grown-ups. the artifice is still there, but without the joy the whole thing feels very empty. for me, this is why i have not put AUSTRALIA on my predix list except for cinematography and set nominations.

i think this is the same way i am feeling about THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON. i have it nominated for set, costume, cinematography, editing, sound editing, visual effect, and make-up...yet i just cannot see it in the best picture line-up due to the chilly feeling fincher has given the film. instead of magical it feels somber.

as more and more of the big oscar contenders fall to the wayside, either because of bad reception or being pushed to 2009, it seems THE DARK KNIGHT and WALL-E have a very good shot at nominations. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE seems intent on making everyone love it, and could easily take the prize all the way. REVOLUTIONARY ROAD and THE READER are battling it out for the somber art house film attention. neither has the emotional pull of SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE or the timeliness of MILK to make them hits, so both will rely on great word of mouth among the art house crowd. it is not necessarily a one-or-the-other sort of situation, but they do seem to be going for many of the same voters -- whether in best picture or other categories. DOUBT and FROST/NIXON seem performance showcases, and nothing else. i refuse to even talk about GRAN TORINO until it generates a little more buzz -- the trailer just looks so stupid.

MILK seemed highly likely to dominate the critics awards, and with the visible anger from prop 8 it seems all the more likely to dominate the cultural discussion. i do not believe it will be able to undue the focus features curse. TRAFFIC, THE PIANIST, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN were all considered one of the best films of the year, and were able to win director and screenplay plus one or more categories...yet lost best picture to a far less critically acclaimed film. i think dustin lance black and gus van sant have very little competition in their categories, yet could still lose the big prize to THE DARK KNIGHT or SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10748
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Call me naive, or locked into a November 2008 mindset that will have dissipated by Oscar time, but it seems to me like recent events have given Milk the inside track.

I think the fact that Gus Van Sant has established himself very much as fiercely indie-minded anew following three studio forays of results ranging from disastrous to anonymous accessible. In a year where he has also offered the critically acclaimed 'Paranoid Park', he could potentially be this year's Soderbergh-ian double thread cited for both films. Mike D'Angelo writes that 'Milk' is a very standard biopic with brilliant performances. That sounds like enough to push it to the mainstream.
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “81st and Other 9th Decade Discussions”