Page 396 of 482
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:27 pm
by Hustler
Le Graine et le Mulet by Abdelatif Kechiche (2007) 10/10. A Gem.
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:23 pm
by Penelope
For a Lost Soldier (1992; Roeland Kerbosch) 8/10
As usual, I'm probably being too generous; after all, the cinematography is kinda gauzy and the framing device--choreographer has a creative block--is a bit silly in presentation; additionally, I've heard that the book the film is based on (an autobiographical novel) has a different take on the subject matter. Oh, what it's about: a 13 year old boy in WWII Amsterdam is sent to the seaside to have a more stable existence; Canadian soldiers liberate the village and the young boy, already beginning to realize his homosexuality, has an affair with a 20-something soldier.
The film treats the love between them in a tender way, which is where I hear the difference between the book and the film lie: the book reportedly has the soldier be more predatory, though still developing feelings for the boy. Nevertheless, the film is affecting and though it handles the material with a slight distance, one can't help but feel that this was a great love, at least for the boy, a formative experience that has a very bittersweet climax.
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:21 pm
by Damien
dreaMaker wrote:The Green Mile (Frank Darabont, 1999)
9/10
Say it isn't so. Please. You're jokng, right?
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:58 pm
by Big Magilla
I've addressed this issue before as relates to the question in general, but not specifically to the 1960s.
The short answer is no, it wasn't done in the 60s. The long answer is it's an issue that goes back to the beginning of the supporting awards.
In the very first year of the supporting awards, 1936, Spencer Tracy, who was already a major star, but who was billed below the title in San Francisco, which starred Clark Gable and Jeanette MacDonald, was nominated for Best Actor while Stuart Erwin, a popular radio actor, but not a "movie star" was nominated in support for Pigskin Parade for which he was the clear lead.
By 1939, however, Olivia de Havilland, who was very much a star and whose role in the nearly four hour Gone With the Wind was larger than some of that year's best actress nominees (Greer Garson in Goodbye, Mr. Chips in particular) was relegated to the supporting actress category so as not to take votes away from Vivien Leigh.
Paulette Goddard in So Proudly We Hail! and Jennifer Jones in Since You Went Away (the year after she won a Best Actress award) were early examples of co-leads being nominated in support.
Category confusion was so prevalent by 1944 that Barry Fitzgerald was famously (infamously?) nominated in both lead and supporting categories for the same performance in Going My Way after which the rules changed.
For many years the Academy looked to the studios for category classification.
Four famous examples of this:
1950 - Fox wanted to list Anne Baxter in support for All About Eve so as to not have her competing with Bette Davis in lead. Baxter howled, Fox caved in.
1955 - Columbia wanted to campaign Rosalind Russell in Picnic in support. Russell howled and was not nominated in either category.
1963 - Fox inadvertently listed all cast members in Cleopatra as lead thus shutting out Roddy McDowall's chances at a supporting actor nomination.
1970 - Trevor Howard, though obviously a supporting player in Ryan's Daughter, was listed as lead by MGM to the consternation of many leading to the eventual reinstatement of the right of the membership to determine the category with the restrictions in place that prevent a double nomination like Fitzgerald's from recurring.
In 1967 it would have been unthinkable for a star of Sidney Potiier's calibre to have been nominated in support even though a case could be made for that in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner which is dominated by Spencer Tracy in his last role.
Today, perhaps, Poitier would be campaigned as lead in In the Heat of the Night and Steiger would be campaigned in support but I somehow can't see Steiger sitting still for that.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1248487158
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:23 pm
by The Original BJ
kaytodd wrote:Some of you Oscar historians out there can tell me if the now common practice of taking a lead performance and promoting it as supporting in order to increase a film's potential Oscar nominees was being done in the 1960's. Poitier's performance today would have been promoted as one supporting Spencer's and he would get a nomination. I am glad that did not happen for I think the two from that film that were nominated were very deserving and true supporting performances.
I'm not one who was around in the '60's, but I think the answer to your question (at least in the larger Oscar history sense) is no and yes.
On one hand, it obviously wasn't unheard of to have more than one lead in the same category as it is today. The last such case was Thelma & Louise, but pre-90's saw Amadeus, Becket, Terms of Endearment, The Turning Point, Sleuth, Midnight Cowboy, The Defiant Ones, From Here to Eternity, I'm sure there are others. Plus, there are a number of movies -- Giant, All About Eve, Network, Judgment at Nuremberg -- where it's practically unfathomable to think that the actor with the smaller role wouldn't be demoted to supporting in today's era.
On the other hand...it's not like category fraud didn't exist in Oscar's earlier decades. Timothy Hutton, Tatum O'Neal, and Mary Badham were all recognized for playing clear protagonists, but nominated down-ballot because of their age.
Similarly, Haing Ngor in The Killing Fields, Wilder in The Producers, John Ireland in All the King's Men, Pacino in The Godfather were non-stars in multiple lead films, and competed for the junior trophy.
I think the difference today might be that while Casey Affleck still might have had trouble landing a lead nod thirty years ago, it's pretty tough to imagine actors as big as Cate Blanchett, Jamie Foxx, and Jake Gyllenhaal slumming in support in the old days.
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:40 pm
by kaytodd
flipp525 wrote:Sabin wrote:Cool Hand Luke (1967) - Stuart Rosenberg
9.5/10
Paul Newman was R-O-B-B-E-D for not getting an oscar for this performance. A masterpiece.
I mean, the fact that he was nominated in lieu of Sidney Poitier was reward in itself. He was up against Warren Beatty, Dustin Hoffman, Rod Steiger, and Spencer Tracy. I think Dustin Hoffman was robbed that year. You don't get much better than The Graduate.
For those who are particularly interested in this year's race, you should definitely check out the book Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood which has been mentioned in other threads. It exhaustively and thrillingly chronicles the making of the five Best Pictures of that year, four of which were represented by the actors in that slate.
It's amazing that Poitier, who had three high-profile roles, two of them in Best Picture nominees, did not find a place in this line-up.
I recently read and enjoyed Pictures At A Revolution. Informative and entertaining.
Poitier gave award worthy performances in Heat Of The Night, Guess Who's Coming To Dinner and To Sir With Love that year. But I honestly cannot justify removing any one of the five that were nominated in favor of any of Poitier's performances. IMO, the Academy made the correct choice with Steiger. My second choice would have been Beatty (a very close second to Steiger, IMO), rather than Dustin or Newman. What a lineup.
Some of you Oscar historians out there can tell me if the now common practice of taking a lead performance and promoting it as supporting in order to increase a film's potential Oscar nominees was being done in the 1960's. Poitier's performance today would have been promoted as one supporting Spencer's and he would get a nomination. I am glad that did not happen for I think the two from that film that were nominated were very deserving and true supporting performances.
Edited By kaytodd on 1248471645
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:50 pm
by dreaMaker
The Green Mile (Frank Darabont, 1999)
9/10
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 3:01 pm
by flipp525
Sabin wrote:Cool Hand Luke (1967) - Stuart Rosenberg
9.5/10
Paul Newman was R-O-B-B-E-D for not getting an oscar for this performance. A masterpiece.
I mean, the fact that he was nominated in lieu of Sidney Poitier was reward in itself. He was up against Warren Beatty, Dustin Hoffman, Rod Steiger, and Spencer Tracy. I think Dustin Hoffman was robbed that year. You don't get much better than The Graduate.
For those who are particularly interested in this year's race, you should definitely check out the book Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood which has been mentioned in other threads. It exhaustively and thrillingly chronicles the making of the five Best Pictures of that year, four of which were represented by the actors in that slate.
It's amazing that Poitier, who had three high-profile roles, two of them in Best Picture nominees, did not find a place in this line-up.
Edited By flipp525 on 1248466034
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:10 pm
by Big Magilla
If ever there was an argument for a six nomination field this was it. I treasure all five nominated performances and Poitier's in In the Night of the Night as well.
I think, though, that Steiger, while never one of my favorites, deserved the win.
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:58 pm
by Sabin
Cool Hand Luke (1967) - Stuart Rosenberg
9.5/10
Paul Newman was R-O-B-B-E-D for not getting an oscar for this performance. A masterpiece.
I mean, the fact that he was nominated in lieu of Sidney Poitier was reward in itself. He was up against Warren Beatty, Dustin Hoffman, Rod Steiger, and Spencer Tracy. I think Dustin Hoffman was robbed that year. You don't get much better than The Graduate.
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 12:59 pm
by dreaMaker
Nurse Betty
6.5/10
Fun. Renee is great.
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:17 am
by mlrg
Cool Hand Luke (1967) - Stuart Rosenberg
9.5/10
Paul Newman was R-O-B-B-E-D for not getting an oscar for this performance. A masterpiece.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:01 pm
by Sabin
Chicago 10 (Brett Morgen) - 6/10
Modern technology applied to "present tense" (ish) documentary. I felt angry NOW. That it happened months ago or a year ago and that it's not happening now. It's a well-calculated surface gesture.
/28 Days Later.../ (dir. Danny Boyle) - 8/10
The enemy, in fact, is us. Really like this film in spite of how ramshackle the third act is. I think this is the best acted Boyle film to date. I prefer the bleak(est) ending.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:48 pm
by Damien
Heksagon wrote:Mamma Mia! (Phyllida Lloyd, 2008) 2/10
--The actors can barely sing...
And in this movie they can hardly act.
Plus it must be the most godawful score for any musical. Ever. Even "The Story of the Archies" would be prereable.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:54 pm
by dreaMaker
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
10/10
God, what a masterpiece.