Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

She's probably a critics' darling by now. I went to Stories We Tell expecting what American reviewers had promised - an intriguing, suprising, twisty Rashomon-like structure, a profound meditation on "truth", and the different aspects of it as seen by different family members - and was honestly shocked at this well-edited but absolutely linear, not unsettling and most importantly unambiguous family story (I mean, frankly, MY family would be much more varied and contradictory in telling stories about our past together!). There is admittedly a "big" secret being revealed at a certain point - not unusual (and actually very frequent in Europe, maybe less so in Canada), but potentially devastating from a very personal, emotional point of view - the problem is, I didn't feel any emotion going on.

I'm surprised at how many prizes this documentary is getting. But I feel that it will be different at the Oscars.

Mister Tee wrote:

The Original BJ wrote:

Okri wrote:Polley's film also has a pretty strong critics-bait hook (I thought LA was a virtual lock, actually)

Now having seen Stories We Tell, I totally get it. It's not that the movie is so overwhelming that it would have to dominate everywhere, but that hook seems like catnip for film critics awarding documentary prizes.

Can you guys clarify what you mean by this? Simply the "everybody has a view of the story, but if you (Sarah) edit it, it becomes your version" slant? Or is there something else I'm missing? I did like the movie, though, honestly, I found the "what is reality?" angle in the last 20 minutes or so less compelling than the drama that preceded. Did like the last beat, though. (And knew he was going to say it before he opened his mouth)

HUMONGOUS SPOILER FOR STORIES WE TELL FOLLOWS DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE:

I mean the reveal that Sarah Polley cast actors to play her family members in much of the "stock footage." While watching the movie, I kept thinking, HOW did she get some of this footage, and though I registered the scene where she was clearly filming actors as her family members, it didn't totally hit me until I saw the cast list in the credits. This seemed to me like the kind of tricky what-is-a-documentary? formal experiment that critics groups typically celebrate.

The Original BJ wrote:

Okri wrote:Polley's film also has a pretty strong critics-bait hook (I thought LA was a virtual lock, actually)

Now having seen Stories We Tell, I totally get it. It's not that the movie is so overwhelming that it would have to dominate everywhere, but that hook seems like catnip for film critics awarding documentary prizes.

Can you guys clarify what you mean by this? Simply the "everybody has a view of the story, but if you (Sarah) edit it, it becomes your version" slant? Or is there something else I'm missing? I did like the movie, though, honestly, I found the "what is reality?" angle in the last 20 minutes or so less compelling than the drama that preceded. Did like the last beat, though. (And knew he was going to say it before he opened his mouth)

Okri wrote:Polley's film also has a pretty strong critics-bait hook (I thought LA was a virtual lock, actually)

Now having seen Stories We Tell, I totally get it. It's not that the movie is so overwhelming that it would have to dominate everywhere, but that hook seems like catnip for film critics awarding documentary prizes.

Justin Chang's insider take on the voting and his own ballot.

http://variety.com/2013/film/columns/in ... 200935340/

Uri wrote:Edit: it’s probably a Tom Daley/Dustin Lance Black kind of logic.

Although, with Magilla's logic, Adams could be Exarchopoulos' grandmother.

Mister Tee wrote:3) When you get to the spot in the queue I currently occupy, a whole lot more people start to qualify as youngsters.

Alas, that is so true, even from my place in the line…

The Original BJ wrote:I thought almost all of the songs in Inside Llewelyn Davis were NOT original.

Not only not original: some, like Fare Thee Well, are as much as a century old.

Uri wrote:

Mister Tee wrote:I'd say her trek has become more difficult with the emergence of Amy Adams as possibility; if she were the only youngster in the pack, she'd have an easier time.

Sorry for nitpicking, but how come a 19yo and a 39yo are put together as “youngsters”? Exarchopuoulos is an unknown French teenager. Adams is an established, seemingly much respected and very busy Holiwood actress, only 5 years younger than glamour queen Blanchet.

It is really the bare skin factor, isn’t it?

Edit: it’s probably a Tom Daley/Dustin Lance Black kind of logic.

A multi-faceted answer:

1) I was (in my head) keeping sure-shot Blanchett out of the discussion. And Amy Adams is for sure younger than the Dench/Streep/Thompson/Bullock crew (in descending age order).

2) This may line up with your "edit", but the fact that Amy Adams is 39 may be one of Hollywood's best-kept secrets. I bet most audiences would figure her for around 30. She's the Dick Clark of actress.

3) When you get to the spot in the queue I currently occupy, a whole lot more people start to qualify as youngsters.

FilmFan720 wrote:There are rumors, though, that Please Mr. Kennedy won't be eligible because it is based on existing material.

I mentioned this in another thread. Apparently there were several songs titled "Please Mr. Kennedy" in the early 1960s which inspired the song in Inside Llewyn Davis.

Uri wrote:

Mister Tee wrote:glamour queen Blanchet.

This seems like an odd description of her, no?

There are rumors, though, that Please Mr. Kennedy won't be eligible because it is based on existing material.

At least one of them, Please Mr. Kennedy, is an original.

I thought almost all of the songs in Inside Llewelyn Davis were NOT original.

I think people just assume the Academy will be fuddy-duddy about them and won't nominate them. Besides, we have to wait to see the eligible list before we know what the actual chances are.