Oscar Predictions and Final Awards Comments

[nix]

fuck the oscars, that Scorsese comercial was the best thing all night.

"When did I loose the narritive thread?!"

[picolas]

of the things not yet mentioned

the worst was the awkward moment when that interviewer forced Castle-Hughes to meet Depp.

the best was when Connery kept saying "the movieejsh."

and Travolta recaptured my heart. in the end, that's all that oscar.

[Weird. Oh]

fuck the oscars, that Scorsese comercial was the best thing all night.

"When did I loose the narritive thread?!"

Haha yeah that was great. Am I mistaken or haven't I seen that commercial several years ago?

[Pedro]

fuck the oscars, that Scorsese comercial was the best thing all night.

"When did I loose the narritive thread?!"

Haha yeah that was great. Am I mistaken or haven't I seen that commercial several years ago?

i saw it a while ago too

[MacGuffin]

I saw it here:

http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1262

[soixante]

I think directing the Lord of the Rings trilogy is logistically more difficult than directing a smaller film like Lost in Translation, but what matters is the end result.  Peter Jackson had more time, money and people at his disposal than Sofia Coppola had for her film.  Also, all the CGI at Jackson's disposal did some of the work for him.  It is arguable to say what's harder, directing enormous battle scenes or getting nuanced, layered performances from actors.  It is really hard to get the right moment from actors to make a scene play, but Sofia Coppola has that ability.  

I even question the notion that LOTK is more ambitious than Lost in Translation.  From a budgetary and logistic standpoint it is, but maybe not from an aesthetic one.  Who's to say that the small, intimate, relatable moments in Lost in Translation aren't a greater achievement than LOTK's sound and fury?  As I have indicated before, advances in special effects will make LOTK look dated in time, whereas Lost in Translation, a film about recognizable human emotions, will always be relevant because human nature doesn't change.

a few things: 1. like i mentioned Jackson could make a small human film (see: Heavenly Creatures) if he wanted to and Sofia couldnt make 4 minutes of LoTr if she spent her whole life on it.  if she had won best director over jackson it would have been pitiful.  
2. lord of the rings isnt a landmark for special effects (with the exception of possibly gollum, the best CGI creation to date), some of the effects are kinda poor.  what makes lotr connect and what will continue to make it connect years from now (even when effects are miles beyond what they are now) is the small intimate relatable moments throughout the trilogy.  the human emotions will be relevant because human nature doesnt change.

Heavenly Creatures is not exactly a small human film, as it has plenty of effects.  Can Jackson make a film that doesn't have creatures and effects?  Who knows what Sofia could do with Jackson's budget.  I don't think it would have been pitiful if she had beat Jackson for Best Director -- I would have been overjoyed, as it would represent the triumph of an art film defeating technology and commerce (as Annie Hall rightfully  trounced Star Wars 25 years ago at the Oscars).

Also, for such a young woman, Sofia Coppola makes mature films, unlike arrested adolescents like Peter Jackson (and those other twin pillars of the Peter Pan Syndrome, Spielberg and Lucas).  I hope Sofia Coppola's Oscar will help other women get the greenlight.  It seems like most directors are guys who grew up reading comic books and playing video games.  Ms. Coppola mentioned her inluences in her acceptance speech -- Godard, Fosse, Antonioni.  No wonder her films are so good.  Notice how she didn't mention comic books or Spielberg?

[Sanjuro]

didnt anyone else think fernando meirielles truly deserved the best director award among everyone else??????? ok lets just say besides peter jackson since it seems everyone thought he really deserved the oscar?

[SoNowThen]

Ms. Coppola mentioned her inluences in her acceptance speech -- Godard, Fosse, Antonioni.  No wonder her films are so good.

Mentioning good filmmakers and making movies as important/influential as they did are two different things.

[Henry Hill]

this thread would be really boring to read if we all had the same opinions. i thought this was one of the best oscar shows in the last couple years. i dont always agree with the academy, but i look forward to the awards every year. i actually enjoy billy crystal hosting. who else would have the balls to say what he did to bill murray after he lost?
highpoints of the night for me....
-sean penn winning best actor (i have been waiting a long ass time for this and it finally happened. he deserves it. amazing, amazing performance.)  8)
-if nothing else peter jackson winning best director. he put his heart and soul into this massive undertaking. i am glad the academy took notice.
-jennifer garner looked amazing!
-tim robbins winning best supporting actor. he was fantastic in his performance. he gets extra points for not spewing politics. it was also a really classy move to talk about abuse and such.
-sofia coppola winning best original screenplay. i thought it was a wonderful story that she wrote. she may write better in the future, she may not. it was personal and heartfelt. without a good story you have no movie. she had a great story and made a great movie.
-johnny depp getting recognized. he should have been recognized years ago. i dont know that i personally would have voted him into the best actor category for this particular performance (dont get me wrong, i loved it) i do think he has had better work in the past that went unrecognized. heres to J.M. Barrie's Neverland. may he pull out an oscar worthy performance.
-ben stiller, owen wilson, jack black, and will ferrell.

low points for me.....
-did any of these oscar nominated songs even play during the films? besides A Mighty Wind? the songs just didnt do it for me.
-best cinematography...come on, City of God should have at least won SOMETHING.
-uma thurman looked horrible.
-bill murray has won numerous awards already for his work in Lost in Translation. i know he probably wanted to win an oscar really bad, but he didnt seem to be a very good sport when he didnt get it. at least he got recognized. before Rushmore he didnt have a chance in hell, except maybe for Ed Wood. it was as if he was pouting. that was just my impression. i know billy crystals comments didnt help any.

all in all a great show. i cant wait to see what films come out on top for next years award show. here is to film in 2004. may it be a HUGE improvement over a less than thrilling year in 2003.

[kotte]

What was it Billy Crystal said when Murray lost? I can't remember...

[Gloria]

-uma thurman looked horrible.

I think I'm the only person who thought she didn't look that bad.  Sure, my fashion education doesn't go beyond flipping through InStyle magazine, but I think she was just going for something a little different with that dress.  She's the only actress that, I think, could get away with it. I even thought that Diane Keaton looked alright in that Charlie Chaplin-like getup as well.  Originality usually lacks on the red carpet, so its fun to see people try something different.

[mogwai]

What was it Billy Crystal said when Murray lost? I can't remember...

"bill, donnn't gooooo, bill don't goooo. hehehehe   "

fucking twat.

[Pubrick]

it's lame how ppl are talking about the red carpet, i didn't even see that shit.

What was it Billy Crystal said when Murray lost?

"don't go bill, we love u."

[grand theft sparrow]

Ms. Coppola mentioned her inluences in her acceptance speech -- Godard, Fosse, Antonioni.  No wonder her films are so good.

Don't forget she mentioned Wong Kar-Wai, whose In the Mood For Love, LiT reminded me the most of.

I don't think it would have been pitiful if she had beat Jackson for Best Director -- I would have been overjoyed, as it would represent the triumph of an art film defeating technology and commerce (as Annie Hall rightfully trounced Star Wars 25 years ago at the Oscars).

If I may put my two cents into this conversation, I'm a little distressed by this comment.  Not because I'm one of those people that wonders how anyone would dare not give Peter Jackson his due; I'm not.  I'm also not a huge Tolkien freak either.  I'm bothered by that because it leaves a lot open for interpretation.  

I'm not trying to nitpick your statement but to me, it seems like you're saying that all art films are good and anything with a budget over $5 million is worthless, or at least less worthy. That's also to say that the Lord of the Rings films, commercial juggernauts though they may be, are artless.  I just have to disagree.  

It's not like we're talking about Pearl Harbor or some CGI-driven spectacle.  LOTR is a spectacle, certainly, but no more or less so than Ben-Hur or The Ten Commandments (just to name 2 off the top of my head).  The characters are archetypes, not stereotypes, as Robert McKee would say.  That makes all the difference, I think.  To write something off simply because it's escapist entertainment or makes use of technology bothers me as much as people who don't bother seeing foreign language, independent, or otherwise classified as "artsy-fartsy" films.

I enjoyed Lost in Translation, maybe not as much as most other people, but I liked it.  However, I think that The Virgin Suicides was a stronger film.  My major complaint about Lost in Translation was that, though it was a character study, I didn't feel very much like I knew what they were about so much as I knew what they weren't about.  I'm not looking for closure or a happy ending.  I just feel like a more accomplished writer/director would have been able to plumb some sort of depths that LiT just didn't.  Maybe it wasn't supposed to and that's fine; maybe I have to see it again, but that's the best way for me to explain what I thought was wrong with it.  But I do think that Sofia Coppola is talented and I look forward to her next project.

Also, for such a young woman, Sofia Coppola makes mature films, unlike arrested adolescents like Peter Jackson (and those other twin pillars of the Peter Pan Syndrome, Spielberg and Lucas).

That's just falling into the trap of "artsy-fartsy," only the other way around.  What is the definition of a "mature" film?  Like the only good films ever made are the ones where people are just sitting around arranging flowers and sighing.  That's not true and again, I say, there's nothing wrong with escapist entertainment, provided that it's done well (just like any film).

No wonder her films are so good. Notice how she didn't mention comic books or Spielberg?

In all fairness, neither did Peter Jackson.  

And what's wrong with comic books or Spielberg, honestly?  If it's a question of maturity or immaturity, then explain folks like me who pay our bills on time, have steady jobs, don't live with our parents, and still know every line to Raiders of the Lost Ark.

It's all about balance: comics and Spielberg are fine, so long as you balance it out with Nabokov and Satyajit Ray.  The opposite is also true.

[©brad]

hacksparrow is right.