Page 4 of 8
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 2:45 am
by dylanfan23
If this film was at the level of amadeus(and i know many believe it is) or more importantly more widely seen and appreciated by the masses i really believe affleck would be in the lead catorgory for these awards....but the film had flaws and wasn't very appealing to the masses(i don't consider that to be a flaw). And tom hulce was not a brad pitt.
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:49 am
by matthew
I don't know if this has been mentioned before but the whole Casey Afleck thing reminds me of 'Amadeus' back in the 80's. At least they had the good sense of recognising that F. Murray Abraham was a lead and rightly awarded the prize to him
Posted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:21 am
by Okri
re: Casey Affleck in supporting
Maybe I've been conditioned by this board, but a vote for Affleck in best supporting actor is, to me, essentially meaningless because it perpetuates a misunderstanding of the film. Not simply a different reading (I'd argue that the debate around the trio from No Country for Old Men is an example of that - different readings of the film give different suggestions as to who is lead/support). You can't give a reading of the film and tell me Affleck is supporting.
Oh, and I echo Aakash's comments on NCFOM. Bardem was good, but I prefered virtually everyone else.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:18 pm
by ITALIANO
Akash wrote:He must have had his Crazy to English dictionary out.
Or maybe he's just intelligent.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:00 pm
by Bog
Touche
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:37 am
by Akash
He must have had his Crazy to English dictionary out.
Edited By Akash on 1198514334
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:29 am
by ITALIANO
Bog wrote:I am almost certain you described exactly what Marco was trying to explain earlier in this same thread, which I'm now furthering it's off topic-ness (sorry). Bardem is not the "star" to the general public of this film at all, and he plays the "villain role"- the bad guy. And in our American cinema, that is considered a supporting (though showy role).
You perfectly understood what I was trying to say.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:32 am
by Bog
Well I would guarantee that he won't win a lead Oscar or be nominated for one at the Oscars
As for the rest of it I guess agree to disagree? Haha
I am almost certain you described exactly what Marco was trying to explain earlier in this same thread, which I'm now furthering it's off topic-ness (sorry). Bardem is not the "star" to the general public of this film at all, and he plays the "villain role"- the bad guy. And in our American cinema, that is considered a supporting (though showy role).
Maybe there was no inner monologue, and for story arc, if he didn't have one, then who did, most of the cast appeared in the film in direct regard to him, other than Brolin and MacDonald (maybe), he is who Tommy Lee Jones talks about throughout, other than the title being about Jones' character, I feel it's mostly his show.
I guess you have different tendencies than screen time to be considered there, so I'll throw that one in at the end, he's got that too
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 9:32 am
by Sabin
Josh Brolin gives my favorite performance in 'No Country for Old Men'.
I think Bardem is going to win the Globe and maybe the SAG award as well, but I just keep thinking that Hal Holbrook can't lose for 'Into the Wild'. Ed Gonzalez rightly calls his big scene the most tasteful Oscar scene in history. The man...is not...acting. You can't watch this film and not weep for Hal Holbrook's character.
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 3:19 am
by Akash
Oh I'm sure he'll be nominated, but I'd be shocked if he won a lead Oscar for this. It's not the kind of role that usually wins and -- while not always the case with Oscar frontrunners -- in this case it also happens to be undeserving I think.
I don't think anyone in the film is really a traditional lead but if there is, it's definitely Josh Brolin, and perhaps even Tommy Lee Jones in a way. And they're both lovely in the film.
And other than the stupid tendency to use screen time as an indicator, I really don't see how Bardem can be considered a lead at all. He's Death. That's it. No inner monologue, no real story arc, nothing. He's supposed to appear, chase, terrorize and then disappear. He doesn't have a journey, he doesn't take us on any -- rather, he interrupts the journeys of others (and ends them). This is not a lead role in any pure sense of the term.
I may eat these words later, but judging by the kinds of performances the Oscars are usually drawn to, I think Tommy Lee Jones has the best chance of winning an Academy Award for this film.
Edited By Akash on 1198504444
Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:55 am
by Bog
Akash wrote:I love No Country for Old Men, but I'd be shocked if Bardem won for this.
I agree with just about everything you said Aakash and would take it one step further, I would think a lot of the confusion spouts from Bardem being the only real thing I think should be considered lead in the film (Brolin close but still not there literally from beginning to end), so when he gets pushed for supporting and voters look at Jones, MacDonald, and moreso Harrelson, voters must be perplexed to some extent
All this being said, Aakash, you'd be shocked? Really?
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:33 pm
by Akash
I love No Country for Old Men, but I'd be shocked if Bardem won for this. I personally think it's the easiest performance in the film (oh he's a terrific actor and competent in it, but the role is intended to be one dimensional -- a blank canvas so that we can project the specter of death/God/the Devil unto him) and would much rather see nominations for Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin (absolutely wonderful!), Woody Harrelson, and Kelly MacDonald.
Actually I'm disappointed that Brolin and MacDonald haven't gained as much attention. Their interaction/marriage is one of the emotional centers of the film. The film asks, "How do human beings make sense of a world without god?" And if Jones' character answers, "with narrative, with the stories we tell, and with human compassion", then Brolin and MacDonald answer, "with love and tenderness, and human relationships." MacDonald's final scene is important to the film -- a strong woman who refuses to allow the great question of life and death to be settled by chance and randomness, and instead places her life in faith, love and responsibility.
The actress handles her few scenes so well (subtle, nuanced, underplayed) that I was drawn to her whenever she was onscreen and wanted to see even more of her. (Same goes for Brolin) This is a REAL supporting performance -- the kind that really adds to a film without ever drawing too much attention to itself -- and it's the kind that rarely ever gets recognized. I wish she were getting as much attention as Amy Ryan for Best Supporting Actress and it would be sad if she and Brolin were overlooked.
Edited By Akash on 1198471371
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:06 pm
by Hustler
Penelope wrote:cam wrote:Penelope wrote:If you think about it, the front-runners in 3 of the 4 acting categories are all villians,
Quite likely, that only one of them will be nominated for Actor--that is probably Day-Lewis.
Don't know about Bardem, and if Amy Ryan is a true villain, neither of them will win. Bet.
I'll take that bet! Ten bucks says both Bardem and Ryan will win.
I doubt about Bardem. IMO Affleck could be the winner.
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:00 pm
by Hustler
cam wrote:Penelope wrote:If you think about it, the front-runners in 3 of the 4 acting categories are all villians,
Quite likely, that only one of them will be nominated for Actor--that is probably Day-Lewis.
Don't know about Bardem, and if Amy Ryan is a true villain, neither of them will win. Bet.
I don´t consider Amy Ryan a villain. I´d rather assume she´s a victim.
Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:18 pm
by cam
You're on!