OscarGuy wrote:Yes, RainBard, Keisha Castle-Hughes did collapse, but Whale Rider isn't exactly True Grit. One film got one single nomination, the other got 10, anchoring a film that the Academy liked quite a lot.
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?
Could you tell me please how strong is Castle-Hughes career?
OscarGuy wrote:Yes, RainBard, Keisha Castle-Hughes did collapse, but Whale Rider isn't exactly True Grit. One film got one single nomination, the other got 10, anchoring a film that the Academy liked quite a lot.
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?
Could you tell me please how strong is Castle-Hughes career?
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.
rolotomasi99 wrote:What the fucking-fuck just happened?
Apparently all the editors in the Academy need to be expelled, and new blood should be brought in. INCEPTION not being nominated for editing is a fucking insult to the film itself and the editing category in general.
As Magilla has pointed out, it's BEST Editing, not Most Editing. Kudos to the Editing Branch for ignoring the mess that is Inception.
What a stupid conclusion.
I'm not a fan of Inception, but editing is superior.
Yeah, I'd say it's misrepresentative to say Nolan will get nominated (or that Fincher did get nominated) for changing style. In each case, it's a matter of changing genre. The Academy -- especially the directors' branch -- has shown a lack of recognition for genres it views as juvenile: sci-fi and fantasy, and also in many cases the thriller (though there have been exceptions in each case, whether The French Connection or Star Wars). Nolan's big Oscar hopefuls of the last few years have simply not come in the genres the Academy likes to honor; this is why I analogize him to Spielberg, for all those years when he had difficulty getting Academy validation.
And we call them fanboys because they, by contrast, tend to be rabidly devoted to just such genres, and view them as automatically deserving of high honors (while often, though not always, being disdainful of adult drama). And it seems, at least, like many of these folks developed this taste when they were high schiool students and have never grown beyond it.
I think the difference between a fan and a fanboy is rabidness. While I am a fan of Nolan's, I wouldn't classify myself as a fanboy because I'm not crying in my milk that he wasn't nominated. I certainly think he was more deserving than Tom Hooper, David O. Russell and the Coens, but the Academy directors branch has already shown how much they dislike him, so I'm not the least bit surprised.
Of course, it took James Cameron a long while to net his first nomination despite creating several highly popular critical successes? He had to go super serious with Titanic. Not Aliens. Not Terminator 2.
Aronofsky's a less comparative case, but he too was ignored for several prominent critical successes and received only his first nomination for Black Swan. David Fincher the same. Paul Thomas Anderson. Steven Spielberg. Gus Van Sant. It's the modus operandi of the directors branch. Unlike actors who like to recognize young ingenues, the directors branch tend to recognize stalwarts who've stuck with the game for a decade or more.
Since Nolan's next film is Dark Knight Rises, he's not going to be pegged for that, so it may be longer before they recognize him, but it will eventually happen. And as Aronofsky and Anderson have proved, he doesn't have to give up his creativity or originality to accomplish it.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Mister Tee wrote:Which should have been the end of it. But by then Spielberg was such a Hollywood fixture, and the number of times he'd been passed over had become such a narrative, that he became a cause celebre, leading to his winning the DGA prize. I don't see Nolan in similar position; outside of fanboy circles, he's truly not that big a deal. And, importantly: Spielberg's case had a month or so to build subsequent to the Oscar snub. DGA votes this year are, I presume, mostly already in.
So...has the word fanboy officially replaced the word fan? Is a fanboy just the perjorative version of the word fan? If someone likes something you like, they are a fan; if they like something you do not like, they are a fanboy? It is really getting over used around here and other sites.
I would say Nolan is a big deal because critics really like him, audiences really like him, and the DGA clearly appreciates him. The Academy apparently (to borrow another internet phrase) are just haters, and as we all know haters gotta hate.
I am not as upset about the Nolan snub as others since, THE DARK KNIGHT prepared me for it and he was replaced by the Coens who I actually thought deserved a nomination more than Nolan. However, Nolan certainly deserves a nomination more than Hooper, so his snub is still bizarre.
Since the DGA awards are being announced on Saturday, I am assuming the ballots were already turned in. Perhaps the DGA had heard from fellow directors in the Academy Nolan was headed for another snub. That is the only way they could be giving him the award as a "message" to the Academy. I still think Fincher has the best shot, but a Nolan win now seems more possible because of the Oscar snub.
As someone else pointed out, Nolan is not going to be nominated for an Oscar until he changes his directing style. Much like Fincher was not nominated until his style became more bland, Nolan will only be noticed when he stops being himself. I would rather keep Nolan as he is as a director, than see him destroy what I like about him in pursuit of an Oscar nom.
Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1295990076
"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
OscarGuy wrote:Yes, RainBard, Keisha Castle-Hughes did collapse, but Whale Rider isn't exactly True Grit. One film got one single nomination, the other got 10, anchoring a film that the Academy liked quite a lot.
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 haven't seen The King's Speech and I don't think Inception was that impressively edited, but historically the editors branch is one of the most conservative in the Academy - as proved in the past by nominations for things like Come Back Little Sheba.
I also havent seen True Grit, but I trust the Coen brothers too much to expect a Tatum O'Neal-like performance from this young actress. But if she's really in most scenes of that movie, it's once again plainly wrong. And how can she NOT win? They obviously love True Grit, and this is, with the possible exception of Best Cinematography, the only place where they can vote for it. Plus, her main rival, Melissa Leo, is an ageing actress (never a good thing), in a REAL supporting role (so, I guess, a shorter role), with another actress nominated for the same movie (also traditionally a slight problem), and in a movie which, while certainly liked by the Academy, will already get the OTHER supporting Oscar. I certainly hope it won't happen, but it's very possible that it will.
Best Actress is the most interesting race this year. Even before the nominations I wrote that Natalie Portman would be the perfect winner this year (and not only this year), if Black Swan were a more "pleasant" movie (and thank God it's not a pleasant one, of course). This morning the nominations have confirmed my fears. Don't get me wrong - right now I'd still say that Portman will get it, even just for the fact - not uninfluential - that she deserves it. But it won't be an easy race, and the safer alternative of the much-liked Annette Bening in the easier-to-like lesbian movie will be a possible one till the moment Jeff Bridges opens the envelope. In a way, the old five-Best-Pics format would have made things a bit easier - it would have told us if The Kids Are All Right (or Winter's Bone) is really more loved than Black Swan or not (the SAG could be really important only if Bening wins).
It strikes me the this year's Oscar nominations highlight that the two most divisive films are Inception and Black Swan. I, personally, split the difference and wound up pro Inception and con Black Swan.
Mister Tee wrote:They're saying it on other sites: How long till the directing category is expanded to ten? The moaning over Nolan recalls the mishegas over Spielberg decades back. In each case, there've been angry accusations of AMPAS resisting youth and innovation...when, really, it comes down to directors preferring serious subject matter (even if it extends to solemn and dreary) over popcorn entertainment. Nolan, like Spielberg, began with a serious movie (Memento/Sugarland Express), but each made his bones with blockbusters. If Nolan moves on/back to something with more intellectual respectability, the "snubs" will suddenly cease, as they did for Spielberg.
It is interesting you make the comparison to Spielberg. I am wondering if in light of the DGA's three nominations for Nolan resulting in three Oscar snubs, do you think the DGA will give him their award? Like Spielberg for THE COLOR PURPLE and Howard for APOLLO 13, their is precedence for the DGA to honor a director ignored by Oscar for a film nominated for Best Picture.
Just a thought. I still think Fincher has a really strong shot, but if the DGA did give it to Nolan the race would be really interesting.
I wouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand, but I think it's unlikely. The non-nomination for The Color Purple was different from Spielberg's earlier encounters with the Oscars.
Jaws was simply too popcorn-y in a year with five other auteurist contenders.
Close Encounters (for which I'd have voted for him) was director-cited but got boxed out of best picture because (pick your theory) 1) Star Wars with its mega-gross was the dominant fantasy film of the year; 2) Herb Ross, by the rules of the time, could get only one directing slot but had two films competing (and ultimately nominated); or 3) the probably-now-forgotten David Begelman scandal was thought to have worked against any Columbia release.
Raiders and ET both got film/director, so now the issue jumped from "why won't they nominate Spielberg?" to "why can't he win?". I can't argue that ET was less deserving than the lugubrious Gandhi, but, again, the Academy showed a preference for High Seriousness in opting for Attenboroigh's film.
With The Color Purple, Spielberg went serious. The problem for many of us was, the movie wasn't very good -- wildly sentimentalized, practically incoherent in the final half-hour. 1985 was such a dismal year, however, with best picture candidates so few, the film managed to become a best picture nominee regardless. But the directors, displaying the better taste that has shown up at various points over the decades, left him off.
Which should have been the end of it. But by then Spielberg was such a Hollywood fixture, and the number of times he'd been passed over had become such a narrative, that he became a cause celebre, leading to his winning the DGA prize. I don't see Nolan in similar position; outside of fanboy circles, he's truly not that big a deal. And, importantly: Spielberg's case had a month or so to build subsequent to the Oscar snub. DGA votes this year are, I presume, mostly already in.
As for Ron Howard...his directing omission is still incomprehensible to me. I think the DGA voted for him simply because they'd spent most of the year thinking his film was the year's best, and the fluky Oscar nomination miss wasn't enough to change their minds.
Mister Tee wrote:They're saying it on other sites: How long till the directing category is expanded to ten? The moaning over Nolan recalls the mishegas over Spielberg decades back. In each case, there've been angry accusations of AMPAS resisting youth and innovation...when, really, it comes down to directors preferring serious subject matter (even if it extends to solemn and dreary) over popcorn entertainment. Nolan, like Spielberg, began with a serious movie (Memento/Sugarland Express), but each made his bones with blockbusters. If Nolan moves on/back to something with more intellectual respectability, the "snubs" will suddenly cease, as they did for Spielberg.
It is interesting you make the comparison to Spielberg. I am wondering if in light of the DGA's three nominations for Nolan resulting in three Oscar snubs, do you think the DGA will give him their award? Like Spielberg for THE COLOR PURPLE and Howard for APOLLO 13, their is precedence for the DGA to honor a director ignored by Oscar for a film nominated for Best Picture.
Just a thought. I still think Fincher has a really strong shot, but if the DGA did give it to Nolan the race would be really interesting.
Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1295982846
"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
Yes, RainBard, Keisha Castle-Hughes did collapse, but Whale Rider isn't exactly True Grit. One film got one single nomination, the other got 10, anchoring a film that the Academy liked quite a lot.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
