Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
The Oscars
Comments
-
I pretty much agree with you on everything else, the obnoxious pomp and circumstance and all that. But I do think on this point, I suspect more people than you think can tell the difference given they work in the business. I really enjoy a podcast called "The Flop House," which sas two Oscar voters (Daily Show writer Dan McCoy and former Daily Show Head Writer Elliott Kallen). It's a bad movie podcast, but when you listen to cinephiles talk about these films, they know their shit, even if they've worked exclusively in TV.JiMMy 85 said:
The crazy thing is, many of those voters don't watch a lot of the movies they're voting for.Chunes said:
The voters for The Oscars are 8,000+ people who work in the industry.MuttleyCAFC said:
Totally agree. It is just opinions of a few stuck up movie related people. Because of criticism, it has even moved beyond the best, and other considerations come into play.JiMMy 85 said:I used to really enjoy it. Then realised it’s not much different from Starbucks doing awards for the best makers of coffee and asking me to care.
Loads of trades have awards, fair enough. But how seriously actors take themselves is cringe-inducing.
I think there's a lot of cultural value in storytelling - we've always done it - since we were sat around campfires or drawing on cave walls. Its how we passed on lessons and morals and tales of our ancestors and it carries a lot more weight and meaning compared to drinking coffee.
It's bizarre how the human brain works. We get told there's an official seal of approval and we buy into it. We ignore that the voters are just ticking boxes on a sheet of paper. Some of them are thinking "Well I want to vote for Black Panther cos it's got a great Africa thing going on" even though Black Panther really isn't that good a film.
Or "First Man didn't get a nomination for the 10 categories it should have done, I think I'll give it the special effects award" - I love First Man so much, but the special effects were beautifully simple (they built a giant LCD screen and played the backgrounds 'live' behind the actors). Infinity War is a far more incredible achievement.
How many of those 8,000 can tell the difference between sound editing and mixing? Or really know what makes a great adapted screenplay?
And if they really cared about editing, there's literally no way Bohemian Rhapsody could have won!!
There's nothing 'official' about the actual voting. It's just human beings bashing out some votes, but once the seal appears on a movie, the movies seem to carry more clout and receive an upload of gravitas!
That's not to say all of the voters do, not by a long shot. But I do think there are a lot of things you pick up working in the industry. And having grown up in LA, albeit not really "*that* LA, I could see that.
But yeah, don't think I've seen a single film that was nominated. Not interested in most of them, apart from BlackkKlansman (it's Spike Lee so I imagine there are moments of brilliance and moments of nonsense) and Black Panther (because it was a culturally significant film). So take everything I've said with a grain of salt.0 -
Pleased for Olivia Colman. Norwich lass as well!
She went to an upmarket private school called Gresham's (in Holt). I used to train cadets there, lovely place.1 -
It may have won the Animated award, but if anyone says there's a film with better visual effects than Into The Spider-Verse...they're lying0
-
Awards or 'Winners' of any subjective art holds no credibility, and other than a night out and back patting serves no purpose.@JiMMy 85 (who works in that industry and knows his stuff) wrote an interesting and educational post reasoning why a scene in Bohemian Rhapsody was edited appallingly, having looked the scene, I now understand his points and agree. However, most people dont see these details and just 'love' the film.0
-
I’m chuffed Green Book won . I would have been happy if that or Bohemian Rhapsody has won .
They got it right at last !1 -
Film cost $15m to make, and apparently Netflix spent $30m lobbying for it to win the Best Pic Oscar.rina said:
I'm so glad you were wrong about that one, Roma was beautifully shot but oh my god it was dull. would have been a travesty if it had wonBedsaddick said:The Academy will get it wrong again and give it to ROMA . Good film but nowhere near the best.
0 -
Probably time is one of the best judges of great art.
For all that it is clearly dated, Casablanca is still a great film for example.0 - Sponsored links:
-
-
That's gooners for you.0
-
I think Spike Lee's reaction is crap. Green Book is a great film (way better than Black Panther for example which was in the morass of good but forgetable films I caught last year). I've seen some spiky reactions in the trendy press like the Independent and the Guardian who are wringing their hands over this. One of them quoted a scene in which the driver Tony Lip explaining that he was blacker than the pianist to the pianist. Ridiculous. But it's a film about 1962. I'd imagine similar conversations could have been heard a long time afterwards.
BlackKklansman is still on my bucketlist of films to see. But I guess I'll catch it for free on a long distance flight this year.
1 -
Rami Malek’s performance as Freddie Mercury was astoundingly good - well deserved.3
-
The Oscars generate some general interest, together with marketing benefit for the nominated films and actors but I think they are too political to take very seriously.
Pleased for Olivia Coleman, though. I thought that Glenn Close was pretty much nailed on to win Best Actress, given that The Academy tend to adopt a ‘Buggins’ Turn’ approach to awards. As some bloke commented on the radio, Glenn Close has now had a record seven nominations without winning, making her - as he delicately put it - “the biggest loser in Oscar history” !
0 -
I certainly didn't think Olivia Colman should have won and thought she was pretty hammy in the film. Glenn Close and Melissa McCarthy for me put in far better performances.Blucher said:The Oscars generate some general interest, together with marketing benefit for the nominated films and actors but I think they are too political to take very seriously.
Pleased for Olivia Coleman, though. I thought that Glenn Close was pretty much nailed on to win Best Actress, given that The Academy tend to adopt a ‘Buggins’ Turn’ approach to awards. As some bloke commented on the radio, Glenn Close has now had a record seven nominations without winning, making her - as he delicately put it - “the biggest loser in Oscar history” !
I wouldn't argue the Oscars were political other than to ignore minorities and foreign films most of the time.0 -
They are political in the sense that the acceptance speeches often have some sort of reference to heritage/immigration, and if I recall correctly there were quite a few presidential digs in the past couple of years.0
-
Are you more concerned with acceptance speeches or the choice of films?cafctom said:They are political in the sense that the acceptance speeches often have some sort of reference to heritage/immigration, and if I recall correctly there were quite a few presidential digs in the past couple of years.
The biggest weakness with the Oscars has been how conservative it has been in terms of its choices for much of its existence.0 -
Glenn Close gets nominated seven times and doesn't win. That's still better than the record of arguably the best actress of the last 40 years, Isabelle Huppert, who has only ever been nominated once. That's the price you pay for being in foreign language films.0
-
I agree that Coleman was pretty hammy but that was the role she was tasked with in Lanthimos' absurdist drama/black comedy. Was her's really the best performance and was she any better than the first-time actress, Yalitza Aparicio in 'Roma' ? I don't know but it's in the nature of these things that you're not comparing like with like and it's all a matter of impression. I'm pleased for Coleman because she's British and seems a nice lady (if a somewhat gushy one).hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I certainly didn't think Olivia Colman should have won and thought she was pretty hammy in the film. Glenn Close and Melissa McCarthy for me put in far better performances.Blucher said:The Oscars generate some general interest, together with marketing benefit for the nominated films and actors but I think they are too political to take very seriously.
Pleased for Olivia Coleman, though. I thought that Glenn Close was pretty much nailed on to win Best Actress, given that The Academy tend to adopt a ‘Buggins’ Turn’ approach to awards. As some bloke commented on the radio, Glenn Close has now had a record seven nominations without winning, making her - as he delicately put it - “the biggest loser in Oscar history” !
I wouldn't argue the Oscars were political other than to ignore minorities and foreign films most of the time.
I thought that Glenn Close was very good in 'The Wife' but she is a consistent performer and I'm not sure that her performance in that film was particularly outstanding - although I expected her to win simply because she has been nominated so many times. I agree that Melissa McCarthy was excellent - as was her co-lead, Richard E Grant - and I was disappointed that 'Can You Ever Forgive Me ?' didn't get nominated for Best Film or win the Adapted Screenplay Award.
As to the political nature of the Oscars, the Academy was created by Louis B. Mayer to suppress unionisation and it has always tended to reward conservative films with very conservative messages. There is also a tendency to respond to the latest media drumbeat. For example, whilst 'Moonlight' is a very good film, its Best Film Award a couple of years ago was probably assisted by the (entirely laudable) 'oscars so white' campaign which had gathered substantial momentum in the period leading up to the vote. I also find it hard to respect a competition where companies throw tens of millions of dollars at campaigns focused solely on securing Academy nominations and awards - a process principally driven by Harvey Weinstein - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/movies/oscars-harvey-weinstein.html
Bringing things up to date, it's reported that 'Roma' cost $15million to make and that Netflix spent double that, some $30million, on its Oscar campaign - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6735813/How-Netflix-spending-30million-sway-Oscar-voters-Roma-Best-Picture-award.html.
All I can say is that these companies must be providing very generous goodie bags.0
