Some thoughts about Oscar trends

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15266
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:33 am

No, the film is a highly sanitized version of Ziegfeld's life. MGM not only had to kowtow to the Hays office, but to Billie Burke who had final script approval.

In the film, Ziegfeld and Held are married and divorced when she finds a showgirl coming on to him. In reality Ziegfled had many affairs even through his marriage to Burke, which are not even hinted at. Burke, of course, wasn't there when he died as in the film. She was in Hollywood filming A Bill of Divorcement.

The film also omits Held's death in 1918, four years after his marriage to Burke at the age of 45. Ziegfeld was highly criticized at the time for the way he treated her and for not attending her funeral. The Follies were her idea, another fact missing from the film.

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:44 am

Big Magilla wrote:Good article, though someone should put out to Susan W. that the tragic Anna Held was not technically Ziegfeld's ex-wife. She was married to, but separated from, Uruguayan playboy, Maximo Carrera, with whom she had a daughter, through her years together with Ziegfeld, but because she lived with Ziegfeld for more than seven years she is generally referred to as his common-law wife. Billie Burke, though, was his only legal spouse.

I didn't know that. Was that the case with the movie's Anna Held as well? Doesn't sound like something the Hays Office would have allowed back then.
"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: 15266
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:29 am

Good article, though someone should put out to Susan W. that the tragic Anna Held was not technically Ziegfeld's ex-wife. She was married to, but separated from, Uruguayan playboy, Maximo Carrera, with whom she had a daughter, through her years together with Ziegfeld, but because she lived with Ziegfeld for more than seven years she is generally referred to as his common-law wife. Billie Burke, though, was his only legal spouse.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1298439029

User avatar
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Postby Damien » Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:51 pm

Didn't want to start a whole new thread for this, so I'll just post it here.

Me in USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/life....A_N.htm
"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

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7049
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Postby Sabin » Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:51 am

I haven't seen The Blind Side and I most likely won't, but I was incredibly struck by how manufactured her entire journey to winning an Oscar was. You couldn't write a more prototypical Oscar journey than that. It was like a joke from In & Out. She was a former America's Sweetheart starring as a no nonsense Southern Momma, a career woman in an implausibly high concept rom-com, and a crazy bitch who looks and acts retarded. Even the speech she gave was one of those tailor-made "How can I make everybody love the shit out of me?" moments that takes years of showering.

It felt especially weird to me because I could not buy the notion of Sandra Bullock being taken seriously as an actor. Like, at all. She was popular for maybe two years and then she starred in Speed 2: Cruise Control, and who gave a shit? I understand that she had the Miss Congeniality series, but those always struck me as one of those "Nothing else was playing" $100-million hits, like a modern day Steve Martin hit. It's different from Reese Witherspoon, who had made an early career of more off-beat, indie roles before graduating into something mainstream. And it's different from Julia Roberts, who had two other Oscar nominations under her belt and more striking periods of highs (and lows). Sandra Bullock really is proof that all you need to win an Oscar is a year.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5000
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Postby anonymous1980 » Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:58 am

Hustler wrote:I still can´t understand why she won.

I think it's media-generated hype surrounding how much she's "due" + the surprising success of the film because it appealed to the red states. You know how they like tough gals with guns who take care of their pet black boys.

Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Postby Hustler » Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:12 pm

I still can´t understand why she won.

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2696
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Postby criddic3 » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:47 pm

I think one thing that gets forgotten (probably willfully) is that The Blind Side was also up for Best Picture. Granted, it was a filler in a 10-slot race, but it could have easily been replaced by Star Trek or Crazy Heart. Enough Academy members liked the movie to nominate it along with Sandra Bullock. That gave her an extra push for the win, as well. So there are three factors involved in her win: 1. people wanted to root for Bullock after years of hit movies, 2. people liked the movie she was in, 3. her movie had made a boat-load of money at the box-office. All the bashing of her and the movie almost made me give in and nominate her last year. She was fine in the role, but it wasn't a particularly challenging one in the sense that it was fairly generic (it could have been a TV movie). Yet I don't view it as a horrific choice. In some ways , its along the same lines as the role that won Reese Witherspoon her Oscar (though I think she deserved it more) or Julia Roberts hers (didn't think she should have won).



Edited By criddic3 on 1296701436
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15266
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:48 pm

What helped Bullock was that her film was released late in the year and was still doing business when the awards started rolling in. It was a classic case of the underdog suddenly looking good. Had the film been released early this year instead, it would probably have been forgotten by awards season.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 3956
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Postby The Original BJ » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:31 pm

Mister Tee wrote:I think Bullock hit a perfect storm -- a year of unknown or undistinguished candidates, where even supporters of the otherwise-front-runner couldn't make the argument it was in the top 60% of her performances. I'm not even sure Sandra'd have eked out a nomination this year, given the competition, and it's impossible for me to accept that she'd have stolen the award from among a group of actresses this accomplished.

You're right that I'm being a little too cynical -- I think Natalie Portman would have beaten her. And probably Bening.

But I disagree that Bullock wouldn't have been nominated this year, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that I've realized she was a bizarre Oscar anomaly, who won her trophy mainly on the basis of the sentiment that "Sandy needs an Oscar." Though this year's overall field (nominees and otherwise) was much more competitive than last year, I'm not sure a lot of this year's nominees have much better win-credentials than the slate in '09. Let me put it this way -- there's no WAY Bullock would have lost to little-seen Kidman or Williams, and I don't think Lawrence's chances would be any better than the two (accomplished) breakthrough actresses who lost last year.

I guess what I mean to say is that, while last year is typically viewed as a weak year for actresses (which, in a broad sense, it was), I saw three perfectly acceptable candidates passed over because voters decided that Sandra Bullock just had to have an Oscar. I'm not entirely convinced that a bit better field COULDN'T have produced the same result (since I just don't view the nominees in '09 as being THAT anemic), though you're right that the presence of Portman and Bening would make it less likely. I'm certain she would have been nominated, though.

In thinking about this, one also has to wonder if Bullock had had her boffo box office year in '10, AFTER her disastrous break-up, how that might have affected her awards run, which was already sentiment-based to begin with.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6119
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Postby Mister Tee » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:48 pm

The Original BJ wrote:
Sabin wrote:Imagine Sandra Bullock winning for The Blind Side this year.

She probably still would.

I think that's too cynical (though god knows that's an understandable feeling after the past week).

I think Bullock hit a perfect storm -- a year of unknown or undistinguished candidates, where even supporters of the otherwise-front-runner couldn't make the argument it was in the top 60% of her performances. I'm not even sure Sandra'd have eked out a nomination this year, given the competition, and it's impossible for me to accept that she'd have stolen the award from among a group of actresses this accomplished.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 3956
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Postby The Original BJ » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:33 pm

Sabin wrote:Imagine Sandra Bullock winning for The Blind Side this year.

She probably still would.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 7049
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Postby Sabin » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:20 pm

(rolotomasi99 @Feb. 02 2011,10:43)
Every single Best Actress nominee this year came from a very small-budget indie film released by a smaller studio. Clearly the major studios are failing to give actresses some strong roles. Pathetic.

Maybe it's where I'm spending a lot of my focus these days but when I think "very small-budget indie film", I don't think of films by Darren Aronofsky. Sure, they're modest in scope but we're not talking about Zoe Kazan in The Exploding Girl here.

Black Swan ~ $13 mil before P&A
Rabbit Hole ~ $5 mil before P&A
The Kids Are All Right ~ $4 mil before P&A
Winter's Bone ~ $2 mil before P&A
Blue Valentine ~ $1 mil before P&A

There were a slew of possible contenders that just faded away, dramatic turns in antiquated fashion like Hilary Swank in Conviction and Diane Lane in Secretariat, comedic misfires like Rachel McAdams in Morning Glory and Anne Hathaway in Love and Other Drugs...Gwyneth Paltrow in Country Strong...Reese Witherspoon in How Do You Know...I mean, if you have to blame anyone, it's not for lack of trying. It's for lack of execution. On paper, all of these look like very good bets for nominations. It might be pathetic that the studios couldn't pull it off, but it might be at the expense of one of the strongest lineups in ages. Imagine Sandra Bullock winning for The Blind Side this year.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5665
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Postby flipp525 » Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:29 pm

There's something, I don't know, faintly misogynistic about this thread.



Edited By flipp525 on 1296676709
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

User avatar
rolotomasi99
Associate
Posts: 1913
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: n/a
Contact:

Postby rolotomasi99 » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:43 am

Hustler wrote:First of all I am terribly happy with Sundance influence every year on the Oscars. As for Uri´s comments I have to disagree parcially on this. I find that actresses are having big difficulties in getting major roles lately as the big companies are reducing their offer planning just to release big commercial movies performed by men. This black hole was compensated by the indies with more creative and risky lead roles for women.

Every single Best Actress nominee this year came from a very small-budget indie film released by a smaller studio. Clearly the major studios are failing to give actresses some strong roles. Pathetic.

Vera Farmiga's directorial debut HIGHER GROUND has received some good press out of Sundance. It is described as "A chronicle of one woman's lifelong struggle with her faith." Sounds like it could fit in with this trend you are talking about.
"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


Return to “83rd Nominations and Winners”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest