Page 2 of 6
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:26 pm
by Sonic Youth
ITALIANO wrote:the self-made (young) man, who may be selfish and weird but must still be forgiven since he's become also very rich and successful - and the movie does forgive him in the end. There's his face on the cover of Time as "person of the year", not a writer's or a scientist's. And that says alot, I think. (It also says alot about a country going through a crisis which is first of all economical, but not only.)
On this, you're right. As I've said before, the movie gives him a redemption that's entirely unearned, and worse, unexplained. It's just assumed.
But there's no way a writer or scientist is going to be "Person of the Year" in this day and age unless someone discovers the cure for cancer. Since 1927, Time's Person of the Year has meant someone who has made the greatest impact on the news that year, the person who defines that particular year. It doesn't matter if the person in question is a shit or not. Hitler was Time's "Man of the Year" once.
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:56 am
by ITALIANO
Well, maybe it's not a celebration of Facebook and Zuckenberg - Sorkin and Fincher are too smart to do that. But let's face it, they aren't Francesco Rosi either, so I wouldn't say that their point of view is one of uncompromising criticism. And this ambiguous attitide is one of the reasons why the movie is so popular in America, I think. Zuckenberg may be a controversial hero, but he's still a hero, and I'd say that he represents a typically American kind of hero - the self-made (young) man, who may be selfish and weird but must still be forgiven since he's become also very rich and successful - and the movie does forgive him in the end. There's his face on the cover of Time as "person of the year", not a writer's or a scientist's. And that says alot, I think. (It also says alot about a country going through a crisis which is first of all economical, but not only.)
And it could also say something about Best Picture. Even I am sure that most Academy members couldn't care less about the subject of this movie and its annoying characters. But the movie is very accessible, it's directed in a very smooth, "clean" way, and most importantly. it's an "officially" great movie - the best-reviewed American movie since Schindler's List. Nobody wants to look or sound "old", out of sync with today's relevant issues (which is what the movie and its subject are), and the Academy isn't an exception. Unless, of course, there's a good, solid alternative - Crash is a perfect example: a movie which is both prestigious and easy to swallow. But there's no Crash this year; only after I see The King's Speech I will know if it can fit this role, but based on what I've read here, I doubt it.
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am
by Sonic Youth
rolotomasi99 wrote:Uri wrote:rolotomasi99 wrote:I agree. If anyone is going to reject the Facebook movie, the Academy seems like the group.
Just wondering, didn't you think TSN was actually NOT celebrating the Facebook phenomenon?
I think the movie was saying Facebook was amazing, the man who made it was a genius, and you should totally excuse his horrible behavior because all he wanted was to be liked by pretty girls (or one girl in particular) and accepted by the cool kids. It was a celebration of the man who made Facebook more than the website itself, but you can only admire Zuckerberg (which the movie wants you to) if you admire what he has created.
...really?
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:27 am
by rolotomasi99
Uri wrote:rolotomasi99 wrote:I agree. If anyone is going to reject the Facebook movie, the Academy seems like the group.
Just wondering, didn't you think TSN was actually NOT celebrating the Facebook phenomenon?
I think the movie was saying Facebook was amazing, the man who made it was a genius, and you should totally excuse his horrible behavior because all he wanted was to be liked by pretty girls (or one girl in particular) and accepted by the cool kids. It was a celebration of the man who made Facebook more than the website itself, but you can only admire Zuckerberg (which the movie wants you to) if you admire what he has created.
I wish the movie had been told from Eduardo's point of view. If the movie had been focused solely on this naive and diligent young man who was screwed over by his evil partner, I think it would have been far more interesting dramatically.
For me the line that really sums up my problem with the film is "You're not an asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be one." Sorkin wants to show us all of Mark's mean and dishonest behavior, but redeem him with a final shot of him still trying to win the woman he loves. I was not swayed by this cheap moment, and I seriously wonder whether the Academy will be.
I still think THE KING'S SPEECH is a danger to THE SOCIAL NETWORK. I keep thinking back to SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE beating SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. I do not think for a second the Academy thought the former was better than the latter, but they just enjoyed it so much more. THE KING'S SPEECH seems to offer the same pleasure while still seeming important and Best Picture worthy.
Being the Facebook movie is not THE SOCIAL NETWORK's only problem. Being the Zuckerberg movie is also what hurts it.
Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1292686751
Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2010 2:33 am
by Uri
rolotomasi99 wrote:I agree. If anyone is going to reject the Facebook movie, the Academy seems like the group.
Just wondering, didn't you think TSN was actually NOT celebrating the Facebook phenomenon?
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:18 pm
by rolotomasi99
Bog wrote:My father is 55 years old and I think the only thing he would disapprove of more than anyone, especially my brother and me, having a facebook account is a felony charge. It gets even more extreme as you go up the family tree, and I guess it seemed to me eventually this film would hit a group of voters that would bring it back down to earth, Academy voters seemed the likeliest possibility.
I agree. If anyone is going to reject the Facebook movie, the Academy seems like the group.
Then again, I never thought they would like the strange little Bollywood film centered around a game show. The Academy can surprise you sometimes.
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 5:05 pm
by Bog
Sabin wrote:It seemed that way. I have to believe there were others like myself and my sister. However, this audience would have also likely chosen The Green Mile over American Beauty, Chocolat over Gladiator, Seabiscuit over The Return of the King, Finding Neverland over Million Dollar Baby, etc. The Academy is a creature of consensus.
The consensus part would definitely be the key, and your argument is pretty solid, but of the 8 films you listed, all of them, even Return of the King, had something to offer outside of mere follow the herd voting. I could be dead wrong here, but of the people we envision as the typical Academy voter, it wouldn't seem Social Network offers them anything but a "well this is the choice this year" type vote.
My father is 55 years old and I think the only thing he would disapprove of more than anyone, especially my brother and me, having a facebook account is a felony charge. It gets even more extreme as you go up the family tree, and I guess it seemed to me eventually this film would hit a group of voters that would bring it back down to earth, Academy voters seemed the likeliest possibility.
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:14 pm
by Sabin
Perhaps I didn't phrase it as well I could have. Outside of Nicholson, the only other performer with four Oscars to his or her resumé was Katherine Hepburn.
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:56 pm
by criddic3
Sabin wrote:The only other performer whose resumé yielded a fourth was Katherine Hepburn, and About Schmidt clearly had detractors as per its surprising screenplay snub.
I think you meant Jack Nicholson.
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:51 pm
by Mister Tee
For me, apart from the performances/films, it comes down to the Youth of America (Eisenberg, Franco, maybe Gosling), Already-honored Veterans (Bridges, Duvall), and one guy who hits the sweet spot: previously-nominated-but-never-won veteran, in a film fairly well-liked. That the sweet spot guy managed to take both the NY & LA prizes makes him the closest to a lock the year offers so far.
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:30 pm
by Sabin
(Bog @ Dec. 17 2010,1:13)
Yes, and weren't you the one whose fellow audience in the theater was one contemporary of yours and the rest Academy members eating it up with a spoon? Yeah, same here.
It seemed that way. I have to believe there were others like myself and my sister. However, this audience would have also likely chosen The Green Mile over American Beauty, Chocolat over Gladiator, Seabiscuit over The Return of the King, Finding Neverland over Million Dollar Baby, etc. The Academy is a creature of consensus.
RE: Jesse Eisenberg vs. Adrien Brody.
2002 was a terrific lineup of Leading Male Actor nominees, yet each one of them had a strong handicap. Michael Caine was a sole nominee from a little seen film that Miramax treated like an other child. Nicolas Cage had already won, his resumé didn't cry out for a second, and Adaptation. was weird. The only other performer whose resumé yielded a fourth was Katherine Hepburn, and About Schmidt clearly had detractors as per its surprising screenplay snub. And while few could begrudge Day-Lewis' performance, many clearly loathed the film, and it fuels my belief that people don't really watch these films before voting. That left Adrien Brody as a default winner, and a very pleasant one. The most sympathetic part of the lot in clearly the most beloved film of the lot. For a such a strong lineup, Academy voters behaved like it was pulling teeth!
This year, we have Colin Firth, who has no negatives going against him. I'm increasingly convinced he's going to win. If not him, then we have James Franco, who has close to no negatives going against him. And then there is Jesse Eisenberg poised as a dark horse. It's a stronger roster of contenders.
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:44 pm
by ITALIANO
Greg wrote:anonymous wrote:Bog wrote:I just did not want to go so far as saying because Social Network might win best picture and several other awards means Colin Firth is not still the prohibitive favorite, and Eisenberg seems least likely to be swept up with all the potential winning (with the Academy).
The one major thing against Jesse Eisenberg actually winning is his age. The Academy doesn't usually like giving acting Oscars to younger actors. He's only 27.
Adrien Brody was only 29 when he won no too long ago.
But for a completely different kind of role (and, by the way, in a movie which DIDN'T win Best Picture).
It's too early to say now, and I must be careful not to be influenced by my view of the movie itself, but while I can easily see The Social Network (I am not blind) winning Best Picture, I honestly find very, very difficult to imagine Eisenberg winning Best Actor. But of course I still haven't seen The King's Speech, so it's more about feelings than rational thinking.
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:37 pm
by Greg
anonymous wrote:Bog wrote:I just did not want to go so far as saying because Social Network might win best picture and several other awards means Colin Firth is not still the prohibitive favorite, and Eisenberg seems least likely to be swept up with all the potential winning (with the Academy).
The one major thing against Jesse Eisenberg actually winning is his age. The Academy doesn't usually like giving acting Oscars to younger actors. He's only 27.
Adrien Brody was only 29 when he won no too long ago.
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:32 pm
by anonymous1980
Bog wrote:I just did not want to go so far as saying because Social Network might win best picture and several other awards means Colin Firth is not still the prohibitive favorite, and Eisenberg seems least likely to be swept up with all the potential winning (with the Academy).
The one major thing against Jesse Eisenberg actually winning is his age. The Academy doesn't usually like giving acting Oscars to younger actors. He's only 27.
Edited By anonymous on 1292614396
Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:13 pm
by Bog
Yes, and weren't you the one whose fellow audience in the theater was one contemporary of yours and the rest Academy members eating it up with a spoon? Yeah, same here.
Hey I'm just saying that's still where my money would go as of this morning. I'm not pulling something insane completely out of my ass here like declaring 127 Hours the likely best picture winner. Vegas has the odds as of today at 2/1 for King's Speech and 3/2 for Social Network.
I just did not want to go so far as saying because Social Network might win best picture and several other awards means Colin Firth is not still the prohibitive favorite, and Eisenberg seems least likely to be swept up with all the potential winning (with the Academy).