Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:37 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition" 
Author Message
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1147
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Ken wrote:
The only bold thing about picking The Artist (incidentally, a great movie) is that it's mostly silent, in 1.33:1, and black and white, which only sounds artsy-fartsy if you haven't seen it.

Indeed. It was only slightly less down-the-middle than "The King's Speech." If we're truly talking 'artsy-fartsy,' stuff like "The Tree of Life" would end up winning every year (of course, I think I'd prefer that world :ugeek: )... and no film that's even remotely that inaccessible has ever won Best Picture. :P


Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:20 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1542
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
I slept on it overnight and kind of formed an opinion as to why the Oscars suck.

The Oscars are supposed to represent the best in American cinema. The problem is, they don't. More often than not, they represent decent but mediocre studio product. For starters, let me pick a few Best Picture nominees from the past several years:

Moneyball
The Blind Side
Avatar
Benjamin Button
Finding Neverland
Seabiscuit
Erin Brokovich

Do any of these really scream "great"? The way I see it, the Oscars suck not because they're too arty-farty, but because they're too middle of the road. They'll let truly good films like Drive, Fight Club and Do The Right Thing nibble around the edges, but won't fully embrace them. As for extremely challenging fare like We Need To Talk About Kevin and Melancholia, forget it.

On the other hand, the Academy doesn't want to seem too low-brow by nominating shit like Transformers (except maybe in a technical category). So you end up with a show that satisfies no one. Except maybe the winners.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:21 pm
Profile
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
I slept on it overnight and kind of formed an opinion as to why the Oscars suck.

The Oscars are supposed to represent the best in American cinema. The problem is, they don't. More often than not, they represent decent but mediocre studio product. For starters, let me pick a few Best Picture nominees from the past several years:

Moneyball
The Blind Side
Avatar
Benjamin Button
Finding Neverland
Seabiscuit
Erin Brokovich

Do any of these really scream "great"? The way I see it, the Oscars suck not because they're too arty-farty, but because they're too middle of the road. They'll let truly good films like Drive, Fight Club and Do The Right Thing nibble around the edges, but won't fully embrace them. As for extremely challenging fare like We Need To Talk About Kevin and Melancholia, forget it.

On the other hand, the Academy doesn't want to seem too low-brow by nominating shit like Transformers (except maybe in a technical category). So you end up with a show that satisfies no one. Except maybe the winners.


The Academy has always been kind of snobbish and elitist when it comes to nominating movies from certain genres. They usually thumb their noses at genres like horror, science fiction action/adventure, westerns, etc.


Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:57 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1441
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Indeed. It was only slightly less down-the-middle than "The King's Speech." If we're truly talking 'artsy-fartsy,' stuff like "The Tree of Life" would end up winning every year (of course, I think I'd prefer that world )... and no film that's even remotely that inaccessible has ever won Best Picture.


Sexual Chocolate wrote:
The Oscars are supposed to represent the best in American cinema. The problem is, they don't. More often than not, they represent decent but mediocre studio product. For starters, let me pick a few Best Picture nominees from the past several years:

Moneyball
The Blind Side
Avatar
Benjamin Button
Finding Neverland
Seabiscuit
Erin Brokovich

Do any of these really scream "great"? The way I see it, the Oscars suck not because they're too arty-farty, but because they're too middle of the road. They'll let truly good films like Drive, Fight Club and Do The Right Thing nibble around the edges, but won't fully embrace them. As for extremely challenging fare like We Need To Talk About Kevin and Melancholia, forget it.

On the other hand, the Academy doesn't want to seem too low-brow by nominating shit like Transformers (except maybe in a technical category). So you end up with a show that satisfies no one. Except maybe the winners.


After seeing The artist last Friday I remarked that I would have no problem with it winning Best Picture. I still have no problem. I like it a lot better than I did The King's Speech. Yet, part of me wonders how well it holds up in about 10 years. Consider the following:

1: The English Patient beat Fargo at the 1997 Oscars. Today Fargo's widely viewed by much of the public as a classic, people still quote it and people still watch it. The English Patient is more or less remembered because it won the Oscar.

2: Brokeback Mountain lost to Crash at the Oscars. Yet I saw BM on many end of the decade best of lists. Crash wasn't on many (if any) of them.

3: Ordinary People won the Oscar instead of Raging Bull. Today, the Scorsese film is regarded as one of the top 5 of the 80s. Ordinary People is viewed as a passable directorial debut for Robert Redford. But not the piece of cinematic brilliance so many people seemed to think it was in 1981.

And so on. The King's Speech beat out The Social Netowrk last year. The King's Speech wasn't a bad movie by any means. But it was a good movie not a great one and its initial charms fade the more one thinks about it and realizes it's part underdog becomes a champ story, part inspirational friendship story, part standard issue bio-pic. Why did it win? Perhaps there was the fact that The King's Speech had a likable protagonist to root for and the protagonist of Social Network was a self-centered jerk. Perhaps the Facebook part fo the story kept many people away from it, seeing it as an of the moment film that would be dated in 5 years time. Perhaps it was simply too edgy for the academy. While I lean most towards the last of those possibilities, I have a feeling that in about 10 years, The Social Network will be regarded as a modern classic while The King's Speech is basically forgotten.

Oscar does tend to go for the most obvious choices. I don't think most people expected The Help to win Best Picture. But it made money and it was a dramatic film in a year that featured mindless popcorn movies out the wazoo.

When Do The Right Thing didn't get a nomination for best picture, some critics suspected racism. I'm not too sure about that. I think its omission was brought on more by the fact that it was too contentious for many of the Oscar voters to handle. Born On The Fourth Of July was also harrowing. But by that point Vietnam was 15 years in the past and Spike Lee's film presented racism as it was happening right then and there.

At the same time it's hard to nail the academy for not recognizing the best of Hollywood because there's no universal definition of what constitutes the best. My personal best pick for 2005, Sin City, got no nominations at all. The thought of it getting a best picutre nod was laughable given the subject matter and the fact that it's based on a graphic novel. Yet no one though to give Mickey Rourke a nomination for his performance. A few other people I know agree with me on this. Yet I also know a few peopel who'd look at me funny if I said that out loud to them and argue that Sin City is a juvenile film that appeals only to the under 30 crowd. Likewise, when The Hurt Locker won, a freind was complaining on her FB about it winning instead of Avatar. I agreed that the wrong picture won although I most certainly did not prfer Avatar, my pick was Precious.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:44 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1147
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Likewise, when The Hurt Locker won, a freind was complaining on her FB about it winning instead of Avatar. I agreed that the wrong picture won although I most certainly did not prfer Avatar, my pick was Precious.

And my pick was "A Serious Man." :)

Honestly, the best-case scenario would be holding the Oscars like 10 years after the fact to truly shake all the proverbial excess leaves off the cinematic tree. Of course, then people would complain about why should they still care about movies that came out a decade ago? :| But at least it would avoid fluky, trendy, and safe Best Picture winners like the afore-mentioned "English Patient," "King's Speech," and "Ordinary People" as well as "Kramer Vs. Kramer," "My Fair Lady," "The Sting," "Driving Miss Daisy," etc.


Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:18 pm
Profile
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Likewise, when The Hurt Locker won, a freind was complaining on her FB about it winning instead of Avatar. I agreed that the wrong picture won although I most certainly did not prfer Avatar, my pick was Precious.

And my pick was "A Serious Man." :)

Honestly, the best-case scenario would be holding the Oscars like 10 years after the fact to truly shake all the proverbial excess leaves off the cinematic tree. Of course, then people would complain about why should they still care about movies that came out a decade ago? :| But at least it would avoid fluky, trendy, and safe Best Picture winners like the afore-mentioned "English Patient," "King's Speech," and "Ordinary People" as well as "Kramer Vs. Kramer," "My Fair Lady," "The Sting," "Driving Miss Daisy," etc.

There's also Titanic winning over L.A. Confidential, I won't begrudge anyone for liking Titanic, but it's not best picture material in any universe.


Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:48 pm
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Likewise, when The Hurt Locker won, a freind was complaining on her FB about it winning instead of Avatar. I agreed that the wrong picture won although I most certainly did not prfer Avatar, my pick was Precious.

And my pick was "A Serious Man." :)

Honestly, the best-case scenario would be holding the Oscars like 10 years after the fact to truly shake all the proverbial excess leaves off the cinematic tree. Of course, then people would complain about why should they still care about movies that came out a decade ago? :| But at least it would avoid fluky, trendy, and safe Best Picture winners like the afore-mentioned "English Patient," "King's Speech," and "Ordinary People" as well as "Kramer Vs. Kramer," "My Fair Lady," "The Sting," "Driving Miss Daisy," etc.

I think either A Serious Man or Inglourious Basterds will be the films that hold up over time from that year, though The Hurt Locker's a tad better than good if you ask me.

I've been pimping the ICS lately. Here are their nominees from that year. They ultimately went with A Serious Man.


Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:20 am
Gaffer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 24
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Pedro wrote:
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Likewise, when The Hurt Locker won, a freind was complaining on her FB about it winning instead of Avatar. I agreed that the wrong picture won although I most certainly did not prfer Avatar, my pick was Precious.

And my pick was "A Serious Man." :)

Honestly, the best-case scenario would be holding the Oscars like 10 years after the fact to truly shake all the proverbial excess leaves off the cinematic tree. Of course, then people would complain about why should they still care about movies that came out a decade ago? :| But at least it would avoid fluky, trendy, and safe Best Picture winners like the afore-mentioned "English Patient," "King's Speech," and "Ordinary People" as well as "Kramer Vs. Kramer," "My Fair Lady," "The Sting," "Driving Miss Daisy," etc.

I think either A Serious Man or Inglourious Basterds will be the films that hold up over time from that year, though The Hurt Locker's a tad better than good if you ask me.

I've been pimping the ICS lately. Here are their nominees from that year. They ultimately went with A Serious Man.


These guys are holding a do-over with an awards ceremony and all 20 years later: http://2020awards.org


Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:06 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1147
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Pedro wrote:
I think either A Serious Man or Inglourious Basterds will be the films that hold up over time from that year, though The Hurt Locker's a tad better than good if you ask me.

But it's technically an '08 film, since it premiered at that year's TIFF (and "Crash" is also technically an '04 film). :ugeek:


Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:32 pm
Profile
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
H.I. McDonough wrote:
Pedro wrote:
I think either A Serious Man or Inglourious Basterds will be the films that hold up over time from that year, though The Hurt Locker's a tad better than good if you ask me.

But it's technically an '08 film, since it premiered at that year's TIFF (and "Crash" is also technically an '04 film). :ugeek:

I don't like that rule. :lol:


Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:56 am
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Vexer wrote:
There's also Titanic winning over L.A. Confidential, I won't begrudge anyone for liking Titanic, but it's not best picture material in any universe.


It did??? That is just utter madness.

That isn't to say that Titanic was a bad movie, it wasn't. It WAS exploitative, manipulative, overly long and suffered from a weak central story but served the purpose of dramatizing a huge event in history.

LA Confidential did very little wrong. In terms of 'the better movie', I'd have said it was above Titanic in certain respects (although the importance of said respects is entirely subjective anyway).

Bloody Oscars.


Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:08 pm
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Vexer wrote:
There's also Titanic winning over L.A. Confidential, I won't begrudge anyone for liking Titanic, but it's not best picture material in any universe.


Who are you and what have you done with Vexer???


Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:07 am
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
johnny larue wrote:
Vexer wrote:
There's also Titanic winning over L.A. Confidential, I won't begrudge anyone for liking Titanic, but it's not best picture material in any universe.


Who are you and what have you done with Vexer???


Where have you been hiding when Vexer went on his thousands of rants on Titanic. Hell, I don't feel safe even mentioning an iceberg without Vexer coming in and talking about how much he hates Titanic.


Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:27 pm
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
Patrick wrote:
johnny larue wrote:
Vexer wrote:
There's also Titanic winning over L.A. Confidential, I won't begrudge anyone for liking Titanic, but it's not best picture material in any universe.


Who are you and what have you done with Vexer???


Where have you been hiding when Vexer went on his thousands of rants on Titanic. Hell, I don't feel safe even mentioning an iceberg without Vexer coming in and talking about how much he hates Titanic.


I think I was more surprised by his elevation of L.A. Confidential.


Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:07 pm
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:42 pm
Posts: 40
Post Re: February 27, 2012: "The Post-Oscar Hangover, 2012 Edition"
I'm inclined to think that at this point the Oscars are embarrassing Hollywood. Once upon a time, the Academy Awards were a celebration of Hollywood movies, with occasional exceptions. The most recent old-fashioned middlebrow Hollywood drama to win Best Picture was A Beautiful Mind, and that was more than 10 years ago. (I suppose you could cite Million Dollar Baby, but I consider that a genuinely great and special film, so it's on a different plane.) At this point the Academy has to go outside mainstream Hollywood to find movies that even try to be "Oscar-bait." It seems like Hollywood is so terrified of losing money that all they bankroll are superhero movies, superhero movie parodies, and formulaic romantic comedies. Not that there's anything wrong with those things necessarily, but I have a problem with that stuff to the exclusion of all else. And because of the bombardment of advertising, most people aren't even exposed to non-Hollywood movies. Audiences are at least somewhat smarter than Hollywood gives them credit for, and I imagine that eventually the Hollywood machine will collapse under its own weight.

That's what I have to say about the Oscars and Hollywood right now. The precedeing paragraph has nothing humongously original or insightful, but it felt good to get it off my chest.


Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:40 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr