Oscar Predictions and Final Awards Comments

Started by MacGuffin, February 27, 2004, 12:31:11 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User actions

soixante

#120
March 02, 2004, 02:55:28 PM
It is true, that mainstream films can be artistic, and "art" films can suck.  But in spite of all the obvious effort and talent that went into the Rings films, I prefer the low-key craftsmanship of Eastwood and Sofia Coppola to Peter Jackson's visually dazzling style.  I feel that getting the intimate emotional details of Mystic River right is harder than making something like LOTK.  LOTK is physically harder to pull off, but Mystic River is emotionally and intellectually more difficult.  Lost in Translation and Mystic River seem like they are easy to make, but they could have gone wrong if they weren't done with the right sense of delicacy, whereas LOTK can always fall back on its admittedly amazing set-piece sequences if the story doesn't work for you.

Also, isn't directing actors part of the Best Director package?  By that measure, the acting in Lost in Translation and Mystic River outstrips LOTK.

For the record, I do like the Rings films, it's just a matter of how much I like them.  I liked Heaveny Creatures quite a bit, and Jackson is obviously the only guy who could have pulled off this whole trilogy.  Ultimately, for me, I think Mystic River has more profound things to say about the world than LOTK.  Mystic River is not merely a gritty, kitchen sink exercise in realism.  It looks into the souls of its characters, and it explores such timeless themes as the sins of one generation infect the next generation, and the inevitability of fate, and the foolish cycle of vengeance that continues on and on.  For all these reasons, I think Mystic River is the best film of 2003, and will emerge as a classic years from now.
Music is your best entertainment value.

SoNowThen

#121
March 02, 2004, 03:02:40 PM
LOTK examines such timeless themes as Good vs Evil, Fathers and Sons, Coming Of Age.

And as to directing the actors: how much did Sophia actually do in LIT? Or did she let Bill and Scarlett just do their thing? Will we ever know? Can we really say who "directed" the actors better? Better acting does not always mean better directing...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

kotte

#122
March 02, 2004, 03:06:54 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenLOTK examines such timeless themes as Good vs Evil, Fathers and Sons, Coming Of Age.

And as to directing the actors: how much did Sophia actually do in LIT? Or did she let Bill and Scarlett just do their thing? Will we ever know? Can we really say who "directed" the actors better? Better acting does not always mean better directing...

Like PTA says...the directing lies in the writing. The actual directing on-set is more about watching the actors play...

SoNowThen

#123
March 02, 2004, 03:11:08 PM
For some.

In case of Fellini, he controlled virtually everything (maybe not so much for Marcello). Whereas other directors pride themselves on just letting the actors have total freedom (Altman, perhaps).

Has a lot to do with shooting style, too, really.


I'm just thinking that since Sophia had a much looser film (narrative wise), and was going for a more natural approach, she might have had to depend on the actors a lot more. Whereas Jackson, who had to supervise so many units, had to really keep tight control over his actors, especially since they shot soooo out of sequence. And in that case, it would seem like Jackson "did more" directing, in a purely literal sense, anyway.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Ravi

#124
March 02, 2004, 03:15:12 PM
Even if Jackson spent the better part of a decade making his films, I was touched more by LIT.  I don't think it was the best film of the year or anything, but the LOTR films for me were not much more than well made escapist entertainment.  I do admire his adapting and executing that large tome, though, so don't think I'm dismissing his hard work.

cine

#125
March 02, 2004, 03:19:07 PM
Peter Jackson this. Sofia Coppola that.

It should've went to Clint Eastwood.

SoNowThen

#126
March 02, 2004, 03:20:43 PM
Wow, for a second there I thought I'd open things up to a nice discussion of forms, formulas, and "what is directing" in accordance with this award...

and alas, we've gone down to __Versus__ again.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

grand theft sparrow

#127
March 02, 2004, 03:55:12 PM
Fair enough.  

Quote from: soixanteI feel that getting the intimate emotional details of Mystic River right is harder than making something like LOTK.  LOTK is physically harder to pull off, but Mystic River is emotionally and intellectually more difficult.

I think of it as that there was a lot more at stake in getting Mystic River right than in doing LOTR, for the reasons you said before. Drama that sinks into melodrama can be just as awful as a poorly conceived special-effects odyssey but the special effects are an adequate substitute for story to some people.  Bad drama sticks out like a sore thumb.


Quote from: soixanteAlso, isn't directing actors part of the Best Director package?  By that measure, the acting in Lost in Translation and Mystic River outstrips LOTK.

You got me there.  But the performances in LOTR were a hell of a lot better than the ones in Titanic and they gave James Cameron a Best Director Oscar for that so...

But that brings me to what I noticed after I last posted.  It's not like the Oscars are based entirely on merit.  The nominations are but the awards show is just that - a show.  It's "how fun can we make this?"  I stuck to my picks from the day of the nominations and I got every one of them right (except Sean Penn but I know I'm not alone in that one).  It's a formula and all you need to know is who won what in the past and who didn't?

For example:

Al Pacino was nominated several times and never won until Scent of a Woman.  That year, he beat out Denzel Washington for Malcolm X (one of my favorite performances of all time).  Denzel won for Training Day (good performance but seriously...), beating out Russell Crowe for A Beautiful Mind (not the best movie but a good Crowe performance IMHO).  The reason Russell Crowe didn't win that year is because he won the year before for Gladiator, a lesser performance than both A Beautiful Mind and The Insider the year before that, which he lost to Kevin Spacey in American Beauty.  Crowe could have repeated but it was too soon after Tom Hanks' one-two punch in the early 90s.  (I don't know how these things get so complicated.)

And Mystic River got beat out by ROTK because Clint already won for Unforgiven in 93, best picture and director.  "Let's give it to the new guy Jackson who's made 2 good movies before this one and this one is the best of the bunch.  It'll be like rewarding him for all three movies."

They wouldn't give it to Sofia Coppola because she may be good but she hasn't quite paid her dues yet, as far as the Academy is concerned.  Someone might smell a rat if "Francis Ford Coppola's daughter" won best director her first time nominated.  So give her the screenplay award.

It's all about payoff for previous screwings.  That's why in recent years, my two favorite moments at the Oscars were when Almodovar won Best Original Screenplay last year for a foreign film and this year when Keisha Castle-Hughes met Johnny Depp before the ceremony.

I have yet to see Mystic River but it's on my list; regrettably I haven't been inside a movie theatre since Christmas day but I'll get to it.  In the long run, though, a lot of my favorite films were not major Oscar winners and I think it's more satisfying when a film doesn't win awards but it still manages to earn a place in cinema history.

soixante

#128
March 03, 2004, 03:02:29 AM
I think better acting does mean better directing.  Bill Murray hit notes that he has never hit as an actor before, as did Scarlett Johansson.  Whatever Sofia Coppola did, whether it was giving them lots of freedom or giving them line readings, it turned out great.

I have noticed that actors are usually at their best working for directors like Altman and Scorsese.  If you want to see why Altman is so good, compare Donald Sutherland's work in MASH to his peformance in Backdraft or Lock Up.  Or look at Tom Skerrit in MASH vs. Tom Skerrit in Top Gun.

I think Kirsten Dunst and John Hartnett were at their best in Virgin Suicides.  Even James Woods hit some new, interesting, unexpected notes in that film.  I ascribe all this to Sofia Coppola's direction.
Music is your best entertainment value.

SoNowThen

#129
March 03, 2004, 08:59:28 AM
Fair enough. I can certainly agree with everything except Murray. I just found nothing spectacular about his character or performance in that movie. But that's just me...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

grand theft sparrow

#130
March 03, 2004, 09:27:17 AM
Quote from: soixanteI think better acting does mean better directing.  Bill Murray hit notes that he has never hit as an actor before, as did Scarlett Johansson.  Whatever Sofia Coppola did, whether it was giving them lots of freedom or giving them line readings, it turned out great.

I have noticed that actors are usually at their best working for directors like Altman and Scorsese.  If you want to see why Altman is so good, compare Donald Sutherland's work in MASH to his peformance in Backdraft or Lock Up.  Or look at Tom Skerrit in MASH vs. Tom Skerrit in Top Gun.

I think Kirsten Dunst and John Hartnett were at their best in Virgin Suicides.  Even James Woods hit some new, interesting, unexpected notes in that film.  I ascribe all this to Sofia Coppola's direction.

I'm glad that you mention Altman because he is the best example I can come up to show that acting isn't everything.

Let me preface this by saying that I respect Altman and his contribution to cinema.  Without him, we wouldn't have the vast majority of the new crop of good directors. And I completely understand why he has the reputation he's got.  I think he is a smart man and I even met him once.

However...

I have been underwhelmed by much of his work.  I don't think he is a poor director; I just don't agree with his philosophy of filmmaking.  His desire to drop story and focus on the acting is just as irresponsible as Michael Bay's paper-thin character development smothered in CGI.  Occasionally, moments will spring up in Altman's films that are tremendous but a powerhouse performance in a misguided movie is no different from a giant metal spider in a misguided movie; Helen Mirren in Gosford Park (which I thought was a very overrated film with several great performances) is a perfect example.  

My greatest criticism of Altman's work is that he hasn't really grown as a filmmaker since the 70s.  Let's face it: visually, Altman is not the greatest and never has been; a lot of wide shots zooming into a medium or a closeup, he moves the camera like he's still in soaps.  But that's fine. It just gets a little exhausting.  Like I said, it's not that he's a bad filmmaker all around, but he's spent the last 25-30 years resting on his 70s laurels.

What I think of Altman can be best summed up by my thoughts after seeing Nashville, which I only saw for the first time in 2001 at a special screening.  The first thing I said was, "If I was around in 1975, this would be my favorite movie ever." That's to say that, years ago, he was the best around, but so many younger filmmakers that he has influenced have gone so far above and beyond him (The Andersons and Soderbergh among them) that they've rendered him obsolete as a filmmaker.

But that's me...

Going back to what you said about Lost in Translation, you're absolutely right about Murray and Johannsen; they were both phenomenal.  But acting is a device by which you can tell a story on film, as are special effects or stuntwork.  As it stands, acting is more essential to telling a story than FX and I hope it stays that way.  But acting is still only a part of telling a story and so the aesthetic success of a film cannot be judged solely, or even primarily, on the success of its acting.

Henry Hill

#131
March 03, 2004, 10:36:14 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenFair enough. I can certainly agree with everything except Murray. I just found nothing spectacular about his character or performance in that movie. But that's just me...

interesting you should say that, apparently he disagreed. this from the internet movie database...

Murray Upset at Oscar Result


Actor Bill Murray shocked guests at Sunday night's Academy Awards - when he refused to clap as rival nominee Sean Penn was named Best Actor. The Lost In Translation star looked annoyed when Nicole Kidman announced Penn had won for his performance in Mystic River. According to British newspaper The Sun, Murray later shouted at organizers, "If I knew this was going to happen, I wouldn't have bothered coming." The 53-year-old comedian has made no secret of his dislike of award ceremonies, and didn't show up to collect the Best Actor award at London's BAFTAs last month. Murray has said, "Awards are meaningless to me, and I have nothing but disdain for anyone who actively campaigns to get one. It's a really unattractive sight to see an actor or actress who really wants an Oscar. And you often see it on the show - you see their faces and the desperation is so ugly."

its like, why the fuck did he come then if he doesnt care. clearly he thought he was the best actor of the year and fully expected to win.  when george c. scott won for Patton, he didnt show up. neither did marlon brando when he won for The Godfather. both of them disagreed with the award for whatever reason. scott i beleive didnt come because he got snubbed in the past or something and was still pissed. murray is the biggest hipocryte of all. he says "its really unattractive sight to see an actor or actress who really wants an ocscar." well didnt he? thats why he showed up. he said he wouldnt have come if he thought he wouldnt win. i enjoy bill murray on film, but what a sore loser...my respect for him has diminished quite a bit. wow!  :shock:

Pubrick

#132
March 03, 2004, 10:39:27 AM
under the paving stones.

Henry Hill

#133
March 03, 2004, 10:47:52 AM
damn...i thought i had the scoop. thanks.  :)

soixante

#134
March 03, 2004, 12:13:14 PM
Per a previous post, I think Altman has a great visual style -- for example, McCabe and Mrs. Miller is visually stunning.  I can't see a great DP like Zsigmond working with Altman on a few movies if Altman didn't have a good visual sense.  Altman certainly has a nice sense of composition, but he also likes to "ruin" shots by panning or zooming, just to give a sense of immediacy to the drama at hand, or to make the audience aware they are watching a movie (something Godard does a lot).  A perfect example of this is the end of the Player, with a perfectly composed shot of Tim Robbins' house, then panning and zooming onto the top of a palm tree.  Why did Altman do that?  To make us aware that it is all artifice -- just as the voice-over announcer in MASH lists the cast names at the end of MASH.

As for Altman's ability to tell a story, many of his films are solidly structured but seem looser than they are.  MASH, for example, seems like it is tossed-off, but in fact it starts with Sutherland arriving and ends with him leaving for home.  Everything is seen through his character's eyes, which gives the audience a guide to follow through a chaotic environment.  McCabe and Mrs. Miller follows McCabe closely, and once he is established in Presbyterian Church, a series of "entrances" ratches up the drama -- first, Mrs. Miller comes to town and becomes his partner, then the company men arrive and offer to to buy out McCabe, then the hired killers arrive shortly thereafter.  Then, like all Westerns, there is a gunfight at the end.

Two of Altman's films, MASH and Gosford Park, have won Best Screenplay Oscars.  

Sometimes, storytelling is not Altman's strong suit (example: Ready to Wear), and in those cases all of Altman's stylistic devices don't work, just as any CGI trickery or Michael Bay-esque fast-cutting will not make a bad story into a good movie.  Like most directors, if Altman doesn't have a good script, he won't make a good movie.
Music is your best entertainment value.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User actions