OscarGuy wrote:It's already past the saturation point this year, so the less said the better.
The less said by you, the better. You haven't seen the film and therefore really have nothing of any substance to say about it, or what awards it does or doesn't deserve. I find it ridiculous that people can speak so authoritatively about movies they haven't even seen.
Thanks, Flipp, I didn't realize I didn't acknowledge my inability to speak about tone in the phrase "I can speak more about the film's tone and style in respect to Oscar's history". I needed you to remind me of that, of course.
And of course, you're on the pro-No Country for Old Men bias bandwagon, so I really can't expect you to look at the film from an outsider's perspective.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
OscarGuy wrote:I don't think they are deserving of career recognition at this point. And that's what an award to them would be at this point.
Not really. I'm pretty sure an empirical case could be made to argue that No Country for Old Men is the most warmly received film in their careers (certainly by critics, grosses are still being accumulated on the popular front).
OscarGuy wrote:It's already past the saturation point this year, so the less said the better.
The less said by you, the better. You haven't seen the film and therefore really have nothing of any substance to say about it, or what awards it does or doesn't deserve. I find it ridiculous that people can speak so authoritatively about movies they haven't even seen.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
OscarGuy wrote:Let us not forget critics darlings Brokeback Mountain, L.A. Confidential and Fargo, all of which picked up massive numbers of critics prizes, but ultimately fell to more conventional entertainment pics.
But what movie would that "more conventional" film be? I'd argue that No Country is shaping up to be the most conventional of the likely BP nominees; it's a straight-ahead chase thriller with a memorable villain that only upends 'convention' in the last 15 minutes. It's the most classically styled of all of this year's awards-bait films.
Based on PT Anderson's resumé, I'm going to assume that There Will Be Blood will be unconventional; Sweeney Todd--a horror musical--is certainly more unconventional than, say, Chicago or Dreamgirls; Atonement may, at first glance, seem like a conventional historical romance, but not only is the subject matter so much more than that, but the approach is clearly much more unconventional than the Coens; Juno may end up being a crowd pleaser, but obviously aims for an Indie vibe; etc.
Thus, to me, No Country seems like the most traditionalist choice among the critically acclaimed films this year.
You have a point, though I would say Atonement is far more in line with the Academy's track record than most of the others. Then again, I could also say the not-dead-in-the-water American Gangster is far more traditional and from what I've heard (again, I still haven't seen the film), There Will Be Blood is far more traditional than Anderson's done in the past.
Miramax still has not gotten my package to me, so hopefully I'll have No Country before the weekend and can get that and Gone Baby Gone out of the way so I can speak more about the film's tone and style in respect to Oscar's history, but all I've heard about it suggests that it's too dark and still quite a bit Coen-quirky for the Academy's tastes.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I don't think they are deserving of career recognition at this point. And that's what an award to them would be at this point. Martin Scorsese at least had something of a career before he won last year and The Departed/Scorsese victory could easily be seen as a "sorry we didn't get to you before now, so here's an Oscar".
And I can't be the only one (whether I end up liking the film or not) who is tired of hearing the words "No Country for Old Men". It's like the Dreamgirls talk last year. I got tired of hearing about it just as much as others did and I loved the movie. It's already past the saturation point this year, so the less said the better.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
OscarGuy wrote:Let us not forget critics darlings Brokeback Mountain, L.A. Confidential and Fargo, all of which picked up massive numbers of critics prizes, but ultimately fell to more conventional entertainment pics.
But what movie would that "more conventional" film be? I'd argue that No Country is shaping up to be the most conventional of the likely BP nominees; it's a straight-ahead chase thriller with a memorable villain that only upends 'convention' in the last 15 minutes. It's the most classically styled of all of this year's awards-bait films.
Based on PT Anderson's resumé, I'm going to assume that There Will Be Blood will be unconventional; Sweeney Todd--a horror musical--is certainly more unconventional than, say, Chicago or Dreamgirls; Atonement may, at first glance, seem like a conventional historical romance, but not only is the subject matter so much more than that, but the approach is clearly much more unconventional than the Coens; Juno may end up being a crowd pleaser, but obviously aims for an Indie vibe; etc.
Thus, to me, No Country seems like the most traditionalist choice among the critically acclaimed films this year.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
I see the comparison, but I don't think the history of the Academy lines up with it. The Coens have already won an Oscar and been nominated since, and PTA has also been nominated in the past. Todd Haynes has never been nominated.
But I also see that the whole point of the post could be summed up in your inclusion of the word "sadly."
Let us not forget critics darlings Brokeback Mountain, L.A. Confidential and Fargo, all of which picked up massive numbers of critics prizes, but ultimately fell to more conventional entertainment pics.
Sadly, I, too, can see them throwing a career bone to the Coens...but that's only if the Academy, as a whole, actually likes them, which remains to be seen, IMO.
This is also the group (the Academy) that's completely ignored critics darlings like Todd Haynes and Paul Thomas Anderson.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
ITALIANO wrote:Yes, as I said: a very interesting year (though, let's face it, through all these different messages the precursors send us each day, there is one movie which never fails to show up - and this is why, in such a contradictory, confused year, this movie almost certainly will win).
You are correct. I could absolutely see this year boiling down to a "the Coens deserve this" coronation.
The only thing that could possibly stand in its way would be if There Will Be Blood managed to claw its way into the BP lineup and siphon off votes from the vanguard demographic.
anonymous wrote:What IS the deal with Ruby Dee's role? I've been told it's minuscule. If nominated, she'd probably be in the Top 10 shortest Oscar-nominated performances ever.
Frankly, I thought Ruby Dee was the best part of American Gangster. Denzel's performance felt phoned-in and uninspired, Russell Crowe was boring with a forgettable side-story, and much of the rest of the supporting cast was either wasted or undeveloped. Then Ruby Dee waltzes in, chewing up scenery for the bulk of her screentime only to deliver the most authentic moment found in the whole film at the 11th hour. It's a good performance and should certainly not be discounted come Oscar time.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
anonymous wrote:Have you seen Sweeney Todd, rolotomasi?
not this again!
if you go to comingsoon.net you will find 17 clips from the film, along with several dozen trailers and featurettes. like DREAMGIRLS last year, i could tell from the clips i saw this film is not as incredible as people in the industry are hyping it (coincidentally the same people who hyped DREAMGIRLS).
oh, i know what some of you are already saying, "you cannot judge a film from some poorly acted, directed, and (in this case) sung clips because they have to be judged within the context of the entire movie." not for me. these clips reveal how out of place burton is in the world of a muscial, and johnny depp has admitted in countless interviews he cannot sing and would never do it again. http://www.pantagraph.com/article....255.txt
i will eventually see this film because i love everything tim burton does visually, but the man has only once made a work of art dramatically: ED WOOD. SWEENEY TODD is burton at his visual best, but the heart of the story seems to have been sacrificed. i may not have seen the play on broadway, but even the community theatre production i saw was of higher quality than this movie.
the academy may still go crazy for this film, but i am predicting (and hoping) for another best picture shut-out similar to DREAMGIRLS.
Hmmm.
I'm a huge Sweeney Todd fan. I own the DVD of the stage play which I've seen more than once and I've also watched the concert version. I've listened to several versions of the entire Broadway score. I know the story top to bottom, left to right. I couldn't think of any other director better suited to transfer this material to the screen than Tim Burton. The material fits right into his oeuvre.
I've also watched most of those clips. I've seen the trailers. I've listened to the entire soundtrack. I thought they've done an excellent job based on what I've seen and heard. I thought Johnny Depp's version of "The Barber and His Wife" and "My Friends" are both better than Michael Cerveris'.
If you wanna continue discussing this, rolotomasi, we can switch over to the Sweeney Todd thread below. Thanks.
Well, not so understated - it is, after all, and among other things, a love story set during the war, and while the actors may not be "big" stars, still Redgrave is a former Oscar winner and Knightley a former Oscar nominee (and I'm not sure that James McAvoy is less famous than the boy from Into the Wild). You are right - the performances aren't "showy", but the movie is; and at least McAvoy's intense turn was, I (mistakenly) thought, the kind of acting which the SAG could have appreciated. It is also possible that the SAG tends to like British movies less than the Oscar does - I thought this too - but still, let's face it, it's not a good moment for this film. I still think that the PGA might remember it - I'm less sure about the DGA and honestly, as I always say, even less about Joe Wright's chances with the Directors' Branch of the Academy. Not this year.
I haven't seen Sweeney Todd yet, so I have more problems in understanding why it was ignored and what its Oscar chances are right now.
And let's just hope than Blanchett won't get two nominations at the Oscars too - her good performance in I'm Not There deserves the praise it's getting, but if she's nominated for that dreadful Elizabeth II it will mean that she's not great, but fashionable - a big risk, for any actor.
I have a lot of respect for the sags and love seeing my favorites nominated so i'm just going to comment on the nominees, not on what it means in terms of the academy.
Ensemble
I can see why they went for hairspray...everyone for the most part was very good and very fun and very enjoyable...i didn't really care for the film at all though so i wish they chose something else. Into the wild is very deserving, the whole cast was wonderful. Same goes for no country and yes american gangster...love the film or not, the whole cast did a great job, from small parts to the leads. And i really enjoyed 3:10 to yuma...nice to see it show up...i would rather have seen before the devil knows your dead in its place but it was a very well acted and fun to watch western.
Actor
I haven't seen lewis yet. Clooney and Gosling are still in my top five and couldn't be happier with their inclusion here. I loved into the wild but i would have passed on giving hirsh a nomination. Same goes for viggo...i thought he was amazing but i did think denzel and hoffman from devil knows your dead were better. But i can't complain about those two because they were both excellent...assuming day lewis is good these are great choices overall.
Actress
Very weak year for this catorgory. I really didn't like la vie en rose very much...and cotillard was good but not great but i knew all along people would eat that performance up...i still say in a better year for this catorgory like last year, that performance is forgotten. Fine with jolie's nomination and christies...christies is still my top performance but i'm hoping i see a better one. Juno opens tomorrow here....and i can't tell you how much i hate the blanchett nomination....she was good, but there were so many other "good" lead actress performances...pick a better one from a film thats watchable at least. How about jodie foster or nicole kidman, but those films aren't really watchable either...ok how about ashley judd, that would have been a good choice.
Supporting Actor
I'm a big fan of all four supporting performances here and the lead performance they stuck in there. The sag has always put supporting performances in the lead catorgory where they didn't belong in the past, i don't understand how they couldn't put afflecks there. But whatever...all great performances can't complain...i would have nominated hawke for devil knows your best instead of affleck and put him in the lead instead of hirsch. One day i'll have the authority to do these things, lol.
Supporting Actress
Again all great performances and really con't complain....i love ruby dee as much as everyone else its so nice to see her name there, and as much as i loved her in the film, it was just a little too small of a part to pass over the likes of kelly macdonald, jennifer jason leigh, taraji henson(talk to me), charlotte gainsbourg, or emily mortimer...but like i said, nice seeing her name there.
OscarGuy wrote:I wonder if Denzel's lead performances in both Great Debaters and American Gangster cancelled out. I'm not certain this is the case, but it would make more sense than him being completely ignored..
I actually think the bizarre notion that Denzel rates a nomination for Gangster was put to rest today. If you assume my theory is correct, that December releases were hobbled in getting nominations, and you note the nods for both Gangster in Ensemble and Ruby Dee in support, and then you see Denzel left out in favor of another Ryan Gosling movie nobody saw...I think you have to say his getting to the Oscar is an extreme long-shot.
Gangster as a best picture contender, however, remains a sorry possibility. Its appearance today is too reminiscent of The Green Mile showing up at SAG '99.
