Before I'd seen them I thought I'd like The King's Speech and be ambivalent about The Social Network. After I saw them, I was still ambivalent about The Social Network, but largely disapproving of The King's Speech, liking it enough to fill a spot on the lower half of my ten best lists but not enough to put it in the top tier.
The Social Network on the other hand has grown on me. It's not a great film, but it is a good one and in the end, the film I liked most last year.
The absurdity that just because The King's Speech pulled off twelve nominations and The Social Network eight means that the world has turned upside down is ridiculous. Except for Andrew Garfield's omission, The Social Network got all the nominations it was likely to get.
Don't these people remember The Turning Point and The Color Purple with their 11 nominations and no wins? The King's Speech is poised to win Best Actor, but may not win a single other award, tying it with those two earlier films as the biggest loser of all time in terms of wins to nominations.
On the other hand, what will Sasha Stone and Jeff Wells do if not only The Social Network loses Best Picture, but Natalie Portman loses Best Actress? Jump out the window? Give up blogging?
83rd Academy Awards Nominations
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I think the question of whether the earth opened up this morning and swallowed The Social Network whole is silly, but how you take recent developments depends on where you stood yesterday (or, better, last Saturday, prior to the Producers award). For Sasha Stone and Jeff Wells, whose every breath has seemed consumed with making the world bow down and accept the film's inevitabile triumph, it has to come as a jolt. (Sasha, generally a nice lady, is swinging bi-polar over this; she's suddenly, ridiculously, claiming Hooper's going to sweep through DGA) On the other side, for Dave Poland and his Gurus (could there a more silly thing to call yourself?), who've been pushing "The Social Network cannot win" for months, it's a Victory is Mine! moment. Poland is crowing today that his entire crew is united in predicting King's Speech. He might want to remind them -- and himself -- that 24 hours ago each of them was 100% sure Christopher Nolan was a directing candidate.
As usual, I stand somewhere in between these black-or-white positions. I think The Social Network is a very strong film, well worthy of standing alongside recent best picture winners. But it isn't an all-time top ten movie, and, even if it were, that wouldn't mean it would necessarily possess the easy-for-audiences factor that has led to many a best picture win. That's not to say it can't win -- I had the same doubt about No Country for Old Men or The Hurt Locker, and they had no difficulty in the end. But I also have never felt Social Network was a sure thing, and The King's Speech, with its Toronto audience award, was always waiting out there to swoop in if voters were looking for alternatives. This has seemed to me from the start a race about whose outcome I wouldn't feel confident until the final envelope was opened.
Which is where we stand today, regardless of recent developments. The list of preliminary honors Social Network has racked up remains formidable, but King's Speech has just hit a couple of strong notes -- winning a Guild and grabbing an unexpected nomination or two -- that indicate it's still hanging around. It may be people are making too much of the sound mixing nomination, or of Andrew Garfield's omission. We'll find that out in a month. (Certainly the hysteria they've provoked is well in excess of what they rate in any sensible analysis) But they are factors, and, while I'd block out the cable-news-level frenzy the other blogs are promoting, I'd consider them carefully before coming to my final prediction.
Of course, if King's Speech romps at SAG, we'll go through this whole thing all over again.
As usual, I stand somewhere in between these black-or-white positions. I think The Social Network is a very strong film, well worthy of standing alongside recent best picture winners. But it isn't an all-time top ten movie, and, even if it were, that wouldn't mean it would necessarily possess the easy-for-audiences factor that has led to many a best picture win. That's not to say it can't win -- I had the same doubt about No Country for Old Men or The Hurt Locker, and they had no difficulty in the end. But I also have never felt Social Network was a sure thing, and The King's Speech, with its Toronto audience award, was always waiting out there to swoop in if voters were looking for alternatives. This has seemed to me from the start a race about whose outcome I wouldn't feel confident until the final envelope was opened.
Which is where we stand today, regardless of recent developments. The list of preliminary honors Social Network has racked up remains formidable, but King's Speech has just hit a couple of strong notes -- winning a Guild and grabbing an unexpected nomination or two -- that indicate it's still hanging around. It may be people are making too much of the sound mixing nomination, or of Andrew Garfield's omission. We'll find that out in a month. (Certainly the hysteria they've provoked is well in excess of what they rate in any sensible analysis) But they are factors, and, while I'd block out the cable-news-level frenzy the other blogs are promoting, I'd consider them carefully before coming to my final prediction.
Of course, if King's Speech romps at SAG, we'll go through this whole thing all over again.
Moviewes, I think for me I'm wondering if The King's Speech is peaking better than The Social Network. I think if TSN loses DGA, the race is done, but I don't think that needs to happen for The King's Speech to win. I don't get why they ignored Garfield - a near leading role, acclaimed performance, soon to be star, sympathetic turn in a film devoid of them.... realistically, he shouldn't have been left off. And since it underperformed with the actors (as opposed to any other group) and is against a film that did quite well....
Well, you see where this is headed.
Well, you see where this is headed.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Okay, well it is still takes place within the last 30 years. It might not be modern, but it's modern enough to illustrate my point and is infinitely more contemporary than The King's Speech.flipp525 wrote:No Country for Old Men takes place in 1980.MovieWes wrote:The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, No Country for Old Men, The Departed, Crash, and Million Dollar Baby are all films that take place in the here and now, and The Social Network fits in perfectly with this crop of films far better than a pompous, lumbering, long-winded bore like The King's Speech.
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
MovieWes wrote:The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, No Country for Old Men, The Departed, Crash, and Million Dollar Baby are all films that take place in the here and now, and The Social Network fits in perfectly with this crop of films far better than a pompous, lumbering, long-winded bore like The King's Speech.
No Country for Old Men takes place in 1980.
Edited By flipp525 on 1296016696
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Sonic Youth wrote:MovieWes wrote:I think that everyone is making too much over the whole nomination count issue. The fact remains that The King's Speech failed to win a single Picture or Director prize from any critics organization, big, small, or anything in between. Last night, everyone was predicting The Social Network to win Best Picture. This morning, it picked up every nomination it was expected to with the exception of Andrew Garfield, who was always on the fringe after SAG left him off their list. The King's Speech, likewise, was nominated for everything it was expected to be nominated for, picking up only one surprise nomination in the Best Sound Mixing category. What was true last night still holds true today.
But it's not like nothing's changed. The Social Network's theatrical run has mostly passed. The King's Speech is hitting its peak now (as is True Grit). The twelve nominations reflect this, and because it's now percieved as the front-runner it will arouse further interest. It's in all the headlines, and CNN has already run a piece on historical back-story.
Oh, I think that absolutely nothing has changed except maybe the Oscar bloggers' perception of the race. I see nothing particularly telling about these nominations except for the general lack of enthusiasm towards Inception and Black Swan. The two frontrunners, however, got exactly what they were expected to get this morning. It was always a foregone conclusion that The King's Speech had far more opportunities to be nominated than The Social Network. The King's Speech is a film that was, by its very design, destined to rack up a bunch of Oscar nominations. I don't think that anybody ever expected The Social Network to show up in the Art Direction or Costume Design categories and it's not as if its cast was populated by a bunch of distinguished, classically trained British thespians. There is nothing at all surprising by the 12 nominations by The King's Speech. Perhaps the only surprise is its inclusion in Best Sound Mixing, but it seems as if everyone has completely ignored the fact that The Social Network is also nominated for Best Sound Mixing in spite of it not being the loud action blockbuster that is typically nominated in this category.
In fact, I would argue that the 8 nominations for a contemporary film like The Social Network is fairly extraordinary. Contemporary films are hardly ever recognized for Best Cinematography, yet there it is. Nobody expected it to be nominated for Best Original Score because it was too "modern" for the music branch's taste, but it is now one of the frontrunners in the category. I'd say that Best Sound Mixing, as I mentioned earlier, is an indication of its widespread support. Just think about it... this is a film set in modern times with no big, lavish sets, no pretty, intricately designed costumes, no classically trained British actors, and yet it is only 4 nominations behind the film that does (not to mention tied with another lavishly designed, tech-heavy blockbuster).
Also, its theatrical run may be over, but it is the top selling DVD and Blu-ray in America and Mark Zuckerberg continues to be in the news almost daily. Also, just looking at the past few Best Picture winners should be an indication that the Academy is shifting towards younger, hipper, and more relevant films than they have in the past. The Hurt Locker, Slumdog Millionaire, No Country for Old Men, The Departed, Crash, and Million Dollar Baby are all films that take place in the here and now, and The Social Network fits in perfectly with this crop of films far better than a pompous, lumbering, long-winded bore like The King's Speech.
Edited By MovieWes on 1296016661
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
I'm actually liking the Shakespeare in Love/The King's Speech comparison...the races could be similar:
In 1998, you had a film that spent almost the entire year being hailed as THE film to beat, an important, exciting movie that did better at the box office than most expected, from a director with pedigree that was immediatly hailed as a classic for the ages. It picked up a lot of the precursors, including the Golden Globe, LAFCA and NYFCC. Come nomination time, it managed only 1 acting nomination (and was highly unlikely to win that), but got a boatload of other nominations, is certain to pick up a couple of technical awards, and was almost a surefire Best Director winner. [While The Social Network doesn't have the surefire tech wins, it does have a surefire Screenplay win and the critics sweep in its back pocket]
Then, late in the season, comes a British period piece that became the nomination leader as well as a box office hit beyond what seemed like the film's niche audience. It is hinged on a surefire Acting win (and 3 acting nominations!), is a crowd-pleaser in ways its darker competitor isn't, should take several craft awards and could feasibly win the most awards that night. Add in the Supporting Actor nomination for Geoffrey Rush, and you have a pretty strong parallel...if you ask me.
In 1998, you had a film that spent almost the entire year being hailed as THE film to beat, an important, exciting movie that did better at the box office than most expected, from a director with pedigree that was immediatly hailed as a classic for the ages. It picked up a lot of the precursors, including the Golden Globe, LAFCA and NYFCC. Come nomination time, it managed only 1 acting nomination (and was highly unlikely to win that), but got a boatload of other nominations, is certain to pick up a couple of technical awards, and was almost a surefire Best Director winner. [While The Social Network doesn't have the surefire tech wins, it does have a surefire Screenplay win and the critics sweep in its back pocket]
Then, late in the season, comes a British period piece that became the nomination leader as well as a box office hit beyond what seemed like the film's niche audience. It is hinged on a surefire Acting win (and 3 acting nominations!), is a crowd-pleaser in ways its darker competitor isn't, should take several craft awards and could feasibly win the most awards that night. Add in the Supporting Actor nomination for Geoffrey Rush, and you have a pretty strong parallel...if you ask me.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
I would have no problem with King's Speech winning the SAG Ensemble award. Outstanding performances all around. My choice for Ensemble is The Kids Are Alright but I know that ain't happening. But if Hooper wins the DGA that would be an undeserved winner. I liked The King's Speech but it has the look and feel of a TV movie. I enjoyed the film because of the performances. I guess Hooper deserves some credit for this but I have a feeling he had good actors well cast and he let them do their thing. Meh, one could argue he deserves a win for being smart enough to do that. But I would have left Hooper off the DGA list in favor of Cholodenko or the Coens.MovieWes wrote:Now, if the DGA and SAG go with The King's Speech over The Social Network, people should start worrying.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
I appreciate your love pal as well as I would appreciate to visit ItalyITALIANO wrote:Hustler wrote:Could you tell me please how strong is Castle-Hughes career?rain Bard wrote: I was really replying to Sonic's argument that for a young performer "just being nominated" in lead is better for a career than winning in support.
You gave a perfect example of a supporting actress win that became the basis for a strong career, and I thought I'd add to that with an example of a lead nomination that became the basis for... not very much, not yet anyway. Might Shunji Iwai's Vampire function as her Hurlyburly?
I love Hustler...