Nomination Talk

[rolotomasi99]

I SO don't want to see this movie. I will have to see it, of course, but I keep postponing the moment. I find it absurd that Americans can still make movies of this kind - especially considering how violent their country is, not only against foreign enemies. At the same time, rolotomasi, IF you are American, I'd say that your reaction to it is a sign that there's still some hope.

I never thought on this board of all place my opinion about AMERICAN SNIPER would be in the minority. I only watched the damn film because of the Oscars. I knew Eastwood was conservative but LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA gave me hope for him as an artist. I am really surprised at the Academy for nominating this crap. If it were a brilliant piece of filmmaking, then I could accept that, but this is just competently made bigoted propaganda. Thrilling certainly, but not art. At least the Directing branch did not fall in love with it.

[rolotomasi99]

Eastwood knew the true ending of the movie would be a bummer, so he created a final moment for the audience to cheer...he just had to lie about real people to create that moment. To me, why someone changes history in a movie is more important than what they change. I think Eastwood knew the audience needed a Middle Eastern equivalent of Chris Kyle to help the less blood thirsty audiences feel comfortable watching Kyle kill all these folks. He needed to create a false enemy so everyone watching could understand why Kyle needed to stay there and keep killing. That is what pisses me off.

I don't know what "true ending" means. If you're referring to the end of Kyle's life, that is something Eastwood had to stay clear of because his killer has not yet been tried. It might have jeopardized his eventual trial.

Well now I am just confused. Have you seen the movie? It ends with his funeral. Eastwood, or maybe screenwriter Jason Hall, completely fabricated some vendetta between Chris Kyle and the real-life sniper Mustafa. The big action climax of the film is Kyle killing Mustafa in a ridiculously over-the-top America, Fuck Yeah! moment. That is what the film is being criticized for. For fuck's sake, AMERICAN SNIPER treats Kyle killing Mustafa as a bigger moment than ZERO DARK THRITY treated killing Bin Laden. AMERICAN SNIPER sees no moral ambiguity in what Kyle is doing or what the U.S. is doing in the entire region. This is not TORA! TORA! TORA! or PLATOON, this is John Wayne directing THE ALAMO or THE GREEN BERETS, this is Michael Bay directing PEARL HARBOR. This is pure Fox News level bullshit. It is well made bullshit, but it is still very clear in its agenda. It is the cinematic equivalent of this picture which popped up on my Facebook feed from a cousin I never thought was this conservative.

[ITALIANO]

American Sniper reflects life for many Americans and their families. We went on a mission in Iraq and these people's lives were heavily centered and invested in it. Certainly these folks would be excited to see the portrayal of their lives on screen.

Wait, wait, wait. I thought the reason THE HURT LOCKER did not make any money was because people were not interested in seeing this awful war depicted on film. I guess ZERO DARK THIRTY signaled the change in people's feelings. The success of LONE SURVIVOR and AMERICAN SNIPER prove people are willing to see films about our conflicts in the Middle East as long as they depict unambiguous moral superiority in our role there. None of the wishy-washy motivations for being a soldier we saw in THE HURT LOCKER. Jeremy Renner's character was not in the army because he felt a patriotic duty to protect his country or fellow soldiers, and he certainly was not there because his god told him to wipe out the infidels. He was there because he got an adrenaline rush from putting his life in danger.

People are flocking to AMERICAN SNIPER for the same reason they loved RAMBO (the sequel, not FIRST BLOOD). They want to see us win. Chris Kyle is a legend to his fellow soldiers in the movie, and to the audiences flocking to see it. He is a real life Rambo who killed more people than anyone else, and was never taken down by the enemy. He also gets to say in the movie all the bigoted things many in this country say themselves about the people we are killing in the Middle East. If people are saying Eastwood cleaned up Kyle's racism, then that asshole must have been David Duke because he is still pretty horrible in the movie.

I SO don't want to see this movie. I will have to see it, of course, but I keep postponing the moment. I find it absurd that Americans can still make movies of this kind - especially considering how violent their country is, not only against foreign enemies. At the same time, rolotomasi, IF you are American, I'd say that your reaction to it is a sign that there's still some hope.

[Big Magilla]

Eastwood knew the true ending of the movie would be a bummer, so he created a final moment for the audience to cheer...he just had to lie about real people to create that moment. To me, why someone changes history in a movie is more important than what they change. I think Eastwood knew the audience needed a Middle Eastern equivalent of Chris Kyle to help the less blood thirsty audiences feel comfortable watching Kyle kill all these folks. He needed to create a false enemy so everyone watching could understand why Kyle needed to stay there and keep killing. That is what pisses me off.

I don't know what "true ending" means. If you're referring to the end of Kyle's life, that is something Eastwood had to stay clear of because his killer has not yet been tried. It might have jeopardized his eventual trial.

[rolotomasi99]

I'm not taking sides in this argument, but there are a few points I'd like to make.

1. DuVernay's inaccuracies relate to her reduction of LBJ's role in obtaining the Voting Rights Act. Eastwood is being accused of the opposite, softening his central character's alleged racism. Whitewashing the ugly truth in real life central characters is centuries old in literature and stage plays. So is making real life characters appear more evil than they actually were. I don't think either charge hurts most people's enjoyment of either film.

2. Conservative is not a dirty word any more than liberal is. The box office, while certainly surprising, is not because conservatives are starved for another Death Wish, which this film hardly is anyway. People of all political stripes are going to see it as a result of Warner Bros. savvy release pattern for the film. They are opening it wide on a holiday weekend in wake of the Oscar nominations at a time when moviegoers who have been busy with other things suddenly have an appetite to see something new and this is the film that most strikes their collective fancy.

3.The modern warfare scenes in American Sniper are as realistic and harrowing as those in The Hurt Locker, but the difference is that Kyle's homecoming and readjustment to civilian life after four tours of duty is given more weight here than in the Oscar winner from five years ago. That is what most audiences are relating to. Will the sudden increase in interest in the film be enough to change the Oscar conversation? I doubt it, but you never know.

1. As I said in another post, if Eastwood softened Chris Kyle, then he must have been a full-on white supremacist. Also, I was talking about taking a real person like Mustafa and turning him into some Terminator character Kyle has to personally kill before he can go home. It was not enough to simply show Kyle killing more than 200 people, they had to give him a personification of evil to defeat. Eastwood knew the true ending of the movie would be a bummer, so he created a final moment for the audience to cheer...he just had to lie about real people to create that moment. To me, why someone changes history in a movie is more important than what they change. I think Eastwood knew the audience needed a Middle Eastern equivalent of Chris Kyle to help the less blood thirsty audiences feel comfortable watching Kyle kill all these folks. He needed to create a false enemy so everyone watching could understand why Kyle needed to stay there and keep killing. That is what pisses me off.

2. AMERICAN SNIPER was always going to be successful because this country is obsessed with action movies. However, for it to make more than $100 million in four days requires something special, and that was the promise to conservatives that this action movie would depict their hateful values in a heroic light. They want validation of all their most vicious prejudices against the people living in the Middle East, and this movie gives them moment after moment showing every person living in that region as sub-human. The word conservative can refer to a variety of political values. I am referring to the conservatives who believe the straight, white, Christian, male is this country's greatest asset, and everything wonderful about this country is thanks to the people who fit that description. The rest of us should be grateful we are even allowed to live in the United States, and we should worship the straight, white, Christian, men who keep us safe and strong. This movie gives them the recognition they think they deserve. That is why they are flocking to see it.

3. More screen time is devoted to home life in AMERICAN SNIPER, but those moments are not given more weight. You have scene after scene of Sienna Miller as Kyle's wife weeping about his safety, begging him to come home to his family, and threatening to leave him if he signs up for another tour. However, none of it works on Kyle who is almost emotionally barren accept for his fear and hatred of the people in the Middle East he considers his enemy. What resonates with audiences is the desire to kill people who are different from you and do not cooperate with your invasion of their country. Kyle represents to them the type of super soldier we need to completely wipe out our Semitic foe. He is here to cleanse the planet of all these "savages" (as he refers to them constantly) until they stop rebelling against our colonization of their motherland. That is why it is resonating more with certain audiences than THE HURT LOCKER.

[rolotomasi99]

American Sniper reflects life for many Americans and their families. We went on a mission in Iraq and these people's lives were heavily centered and invested in it. Certainly these folks would be excited to see the portrayal of their lives on screen.

Wait, wait, wait. I thought the reason THE HURT LOCKER did not make any money was because people were not interested in seeing this awful war depicted on film. I guess ZERO DARK THIRTY signaled the change in people's feelings. The success of LONE SURVIVOR and AMERICAN SNIPER prove people are willing to see films about our conflicts in the Middle East as long as they depict unambiguous moral superiority in our role there. None of the wishy-washy motivations for being a soldier we saw in THE HURT LOCKER. Jeremy Renner's character was not in the army because he felt a patriotic duty to protect his country or fellow soldiers, and he certainly was not there because his god told him to wipe out the infidels. He was there because he got an adrenaline rush from putting his life in danger.

People are flocking to AMERICAN SNIPER for the same reason they loved RAMBO (the sequel, not FIRST BLOOD). They want to see us win. Chris Kyle is a legend to his fellow soldiers in the movie, and to the audiences flocking to see it. He is a real life Rambo who killed more people than anyone else, and was never taken down by the enemy. He also gets to say in the movie all the bigoted things many in this country say themselves about the people we are killing in the Middle East. If people are saying Eastwood cleaned up Kyle's racism, then that asshole must have been David Duke because he is still pretty horrible in the movie.

[The Original BJ]

I realized this could conceivably be the first year since the expansion that every Best Picture nominee wins an award. (We nearly got there in 2012, with only Beasts of the Southern Wild missing, though that field had one more nominee.)

American Sniper looks very strong in its down-ballot categories.

Birdman has Actor, Original Screenplay, and Cinematography as very possible winners.

Boyhood seems a threat to take all of its prizes but Supporting Actor.

Grand Budapest looks like the clear best bet in Production Design, and I'd say contends in Original Screenplay, Score, and Costume Design as well.

The Imitation Game seems like the Adapted Screenplay frontrunner, with Score a very strong possibility as well.

Selma, of course, would have to win Song to pull this off, which seems well within reach.

The Theory of Everything certainly contends in Best Actor, and maybe could repeat its Globe Score win.

Whiplash has Supporting Actor all but sewn up, and maybe could be a threat in some other categories too.

Not saying we'll definitely get this outcome, but it could very well shake out that way.

[Big Magilla]

So, American Sniper at the box office......

Fucking insane. They are projecting more than $100 million over the four-day weekend. It is always interesting to me to see conservatives rally around certain movies. AMERICAN SNIPER is the 21st Century equivalent of DEATH WISH. This country clearly wants to be assured that some all-American white alpha male is going to shoot all the dark skin bad guys that threaten our decadent way of life.

To think, Ava DuVernay is the director having to apologize for her movie. Just disgusting.

I'm not taking sides in this argument, but there are a few points I'd like to make.

1. DuVernay's inaccuracies relate to her reduction of LBJ's role in obtaining the Voting Rights Act. Eastwood is being accused of the opposite, softening his central character's alleged racism. Whitewashing the ugly truth in real life central characters is centuries old in literature and stage plays. So is making real life characters appear more evil than they actually were. I don't think either charge hurts most people's enjoyment of either film.

2. Conservative is not a dirty word any more than liberal is. The box office, while certainly surprising, is not because conservatives are starved for another Death Wish, which this film hardly is anyway. People of all political stripes are going to see it as a result of Warner Bros. savvy release pattern for the film. They are opening it wide on a holiday weekend in wake of the Oscar nominations at a time when moviegoers who have been busy with other things suddenly have an appetite to see something new and this is the film that most strikes their collective fancy.

3.The modern warfare scenes in American Sniper are as realistic and harrowing as those in The Hurt Locker, but the difference is that Kyle's homecoming and readjustment to civilian life after four tours of duty is given more weight here than in the Oscar winner from five years ago. That is what most audiences are relating to. Will the sudden increase in interest in the film be enough to change the Oscar conversation? I doubt it, but you never know.

[nightwingnova]

American Sniper reflects life for many Americans and their families. We went on a mission in Iraq and these people's lives were heavily centered and invested in it. Certainly these folks would be excited to see the portrayal of their lives on screen.

So, American Sniper at the box office......

Fucking insane. They are projecting more than $100 million over the four-day weekend. It is always interesting to me to see conservatives rally around certain movies. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and THE BLIND SIDE were surprise hits because they spoke to a segment of our country that usually feels ignored by Hollywood. Supposedly UNBROKEN owes its success to conservatives as well. I am sure I am going to have to deal with all sorts of hateful Facebook posts from family members about the Middle East and the millions of people who live there. AMERICAN SNIPER is the 21st Century equivalent of DEATH WISH. This country clearly wants to be assured that some all-American white alpha male is going to shoot all the dark skin bad guys that threaten our decadent way of life. How can something as beautiful as LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA come from the same director as this xenophobic, jingoistic piece of shit?

To think, Ava DuVernay is the director having to apologize for her movie. Just disgusting.

[rolotomasi99]

So, American Sniper at the box office......

Fucking insane. They are projecting more than $100 million over the four-day weekend. It is always interesting to me to see conservatives rally around certain movies. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and THE BLIND SIDE were surprise hits because they spoke to a segment of our country that usually feels ignored by Hollywood. Supposedly UNBROKEN owes its success to conservatives as well. I am sure I am going to have to deal with all sorts of hateful Facebook posts from family members about the Middle East and the millions of people who live there. AMERICAN SNIPER is the 21st Century equivalent of DEATH WISH. This country clearly wants to be assured that some all-American white alpha male is going to shoot all the dark skin bad guys that threaten our decadent way of life. How can something as beautiful as LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA come from the same director as this xenophobic, jingoistic piece of shit?

To think, Ava DuVernay is the director having to apologize for her movie. Just disgusting.

[Okri]

So, American Sniper at the box office......

[nightwingnova]

The solution is to let all folks maximize their talents and not stand in their way, let the chips fall where they may.

I'm not talking about this year or any year in particular. I'm talking about a general lack of support for women in the film industry and, in tandem, an under representation of women at the Oscars and other major movie awards. It isn't that women don't have the capability of being great in any role they want, but because certain groups are "boys clubs," finding a way in is difficult at best.

Yes, but again - words, just words, repeated over and over like a mantra, and a mantra which I am personally a bit tired of (I usually try to go beyond cliches). The problem of women in society is, of course, a real one, and it includes any aspect of society (till recently, for example, all the most famous cooks in the world were men, and it's not like women traditionally never see a kitchen in their whole life) - but we must try to truly solve it, rather than conveniently detect it in, say, a movie (and forgetting about countless other pro-women movies) or in the Oscar nominations of a particular year. Because let's face it - the Academy can't invent a Best Score woman nominee if she, simply, doesn't exist, or if she's not a very good one (and, contrary to what some here seems to think, some women are simply terrible at their job. Just like men). Really, it's a much more complex issue, and looking at it in this way, it's like staying on the surface of things, rather than going to the roots of the problem.

I don't have anything against women or black people. But can I be honest? I find a certain "politically correct" attutude, especially by men towards women and by white people towards black people, a bit condescending, a bit patronizing - as I said before, just words, all form and no substance, which can make some people happy, maybe, but which I haven't much patience for. And I will say more - aren't those who are TOO ready to see antifeminism and racism in everywhere, secretly, unconsciosly even, scared to death by women or by the blacks? Isn't their resaction a self-protective way of avoiding deep issues inside themselves and attributing it to someone else? I'm not talking about this board, of course, but often, when I go to other places amd read some comments, that's what I get.

[Greg]

Screeners are part of the campaign.

What I meant by campaigning was specifically personally attending various events.

[Big Magilla]

Screeners are part of the campaign. Both Selma and Cake sent out screeners to Academy members. If they didn't watch them it was because they didn't want to.

The Oscars are not the Golden Globes, The Broadcast Critics or the Screen Actors Guilds. Campaigns unfortunately matter more than they should, but the campaigns have to have the goods to back them up. Jennifer Aniston may be a beloved TV star but her films have ranged from bad to mildly entertaining. SAG voters, most of whom are non-working actors waiting in restaurants and coffee shops for their big break, were always going to be Aniston's biggest supporters, but she had a higher bar with Academy members. She may yet see an Oscar nomination but I would think it would have to be for something better reviewed than Cake.

Selma is another story. It's a good movie but there's nothing in it that most Academy members don't already know. DuVernay deserved a nomination for the sheer scope of what she managed to do, but the screenplay, the acting, everything else about it except the song "Glory" was always going to be a tough sell with the various branches. What would be interesting would be for someone to canvas voters to determine the percentage of non-votes it got between members who didn't see it and members who saw it but were unimpressed.

[Greg]

So, does anyone else think that the combined results of Selma and Jennifer Aniston mean that, for the Oscars, screeners matter much more than campaigning?