Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:08 am




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners! 
Author Message
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
Bondurant wrote:
Looking over the list of names I have no clue as to what this was about. The Ebert angle isn't difficult to figure out but in a discussion of lifetime achievement in cinema, Chaplin shouldn't even be a discussion (let alone a holdover).

Chaplin is widely recognized by the establishment as a genius whose career has produced several masterpieces. Perhaps that means we should be obligated to recognize him as well, to put him before our own choices out of deference to his importance... but actually, it doesn't mean that at all. In fact, I think the point of this contest is quite the opposite.

If it were down to just one choice--Ebert or Chaplin--I would choose Ebert in a heartbeat. Ebert's career has meant more to me. I vote with that in mind. Chaplin has certainly had a greater cumulative effect on the art of film, and he's certainly reached more people through the history of film... but that's completely irrelevant. I have my own personal vote, and that vote is not for evaluating how someone's career has affected others who aren't me.

If we're obligated to put our personal perspectives aside, then we might as well not do this at all. There are plenty of movie award contests that acknowledge the perspectives of people who aren't us.

And if you're truly worried that Chaplin has gotten shortchanged here, perhaps you should have made a more vociferous case for him before voting day.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:59 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2473
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
gkanchan wrote:
It's interesting that contrary to the Academy, the Pedros award best picture and director to two different films every time. The Wolf of Wall Street winning best picture and nothing else is strange, cool but strange. Well, this happened with the Academy in the teething stages (Grand Hotel). The near sweep in the acting categories by 12 Years A Slave is impressive. Gravity wins the most with 4, followed by 12 Years A Slave and American Hustle with 3 apiece. We need more people to vote next year!


I think the Wolf of Wall St winning best film but nothing else reflects that it is an enormously fun film, rather than a great work of art

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:07 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:51 pm
Posts: 489
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
Ken wrote:
Bondurant wrote:
Looking over the list of names I have no clue as to what this was about. The Ebert angle isn't difficult to figure out but in a discussion of lifetime achievement in cinema, Chaplin shouldn't even be a discussion (let alone a holdover).

Chaplin is widely recognized by the establishment as a genius whose career has produced several masterpieces. Perhaps that means we should be obligated to recognize him as well, to put him before our own choices out of deference to his importance... but actually, it doesn't mean that at all. In fact, I think the point of this contest is quite the opposite.

If it were down to just one choice--Ebert or Chaplin--I would choose Ebert in a heartbeat. Ebert's career has meant more to me. I vote with that in mind. Chaplin has certainly had a greater cumulative effect on the art of film, and he's certainly reached more people through the history of film... but that's completely irrelevant. I have my own personal vote, and that vote is not for evaluating how someone's career has affected others who aren't me.

If we're obligated to put our personal perspectives aside, then we might as well not do this at all. There are plenty of movie award contests that acknowledge the perspectives of people who aren't us.

And if you're truly worried that Chaplin has gotten shortchanged here, perhaps you should have made a more vociferous case for him before voting day.

Ken said everything perfectly. The Lifetime Achievement Award is not about recognizing the best cinema has to offer, but rather the most meaningful to us as a voting body. I love Chaplin, but there's about fifty names I'd consider nominating before him based on which filmmakers have made an impact in my life. No less than fifty.

Kieslowski, Murray, Bergman, Disney, Kurosawa, Lang, Welles, Miyazaki, Binoche, Vertov, Tarkovsky, Cage, Herzog, Stewart, Murch, Nykvist, Willis, Willis, Ford, Ford, Bunuel, Godard, Wilder, Ozu, Bacall, Coppola, Kelly, Hopkins, Toland, Cotten, Morricone, Hoffman, Plummer, Eastwood, O'Toole, Grant, Takahata, de Sica, Lemmon, Eisenstein, Burtt, Newman, MacMurray, Fellini, Renoir, Hepburn, Pacino, Truffaut, McCarey, The Marx Brothers.

See look: fifty. (Also: fodder for next year.)

Also, Bondurant, did you vote? I have bad bookkeeping, but I don't remember getting a ballot from you.

_________________
I no longer have an image here! I got away with it for so long...


Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:50 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:14 am
Posts: 307
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
One more defense of Ebert: This is a forum on a movie critic's website. Its members' main interest in film is approaching it from that perspective. So who better to recognize for lifetime achievement than the man who is by far the most famous film critic of the past half century? Not to mention how instrumental he was in advancing film criticism on the Internet. Less germane perhaps but still apropos is that our illustrious webmaster credits his early support for Reelviews' success. Without Ebert there's a good chance that none of us would be here.


Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:32 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 12:14 am
Posts: 307
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
ilovemovies wrote:
Damn. I should have voted. Because then Her might've won.


Ditto. Dammit. Sorry Pedro...

I'm already motivated to try to catch more movies this year so I don't have to play catch up as much next time. That's a positive development then.


Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:20 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:51 pm
Posts: 489
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
If you look at the subforum for The First Annual ReelViews Academy Awards (I should ask James to get rid of that "First"), you'll see that I'm beginning to compile a complete list of everyone who's ever been nominated for a Pedro. This might take me several weeks, but I thought it'd be nice for you guys to look through our history.

_________________
I no longer have an image here! I got away with it for so long...


Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:33 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
Great job, Pedro! I didn't vote, but this is still great to see. Good on ya.

NotHughGrant wrote:
I think the Wolf of Wall St winning best film but nothing else reflects that it is an enormously fun film, rather than a great work of art


And how did you come to that conclusion? Is this something you believe, or believe others believe? I believe it's a pretty fantastic work of art. Had I voted, and voted in favor of Scorsese's film, that belief would have been the main reason for doing so. You can believe that.








Believe!


Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:59 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2473
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
PeachyPete wrote:
Great job, Pedro! I didn't vote, but this is still great to see. Good on ya.

NotHughGrant wrote:
I think the Wolf of Wall St winning best film but nothing else reflects that it is an enormously fun film, rather than a great work of art


And how did you come to that conclusion? Is this something you believe, or believe others believe? I believe it's a pretty fantastic work of art. Had I voted, and voted in favor of Scorsese's film, that belief would have been the main reason for doing so. You can believe that.








Believe!


I think its broad appeal comes from it being fun and accessible - and its ability to provoke a bit of envy too, if I'm honest.

I actually voted it too.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:38 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
NotHughGrant wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
Great job, Pedro! I didn't vote, but this is still great to see. Good on ya.

NotHughGrant wrote:
I think the Wolf of Wall St winning best film but nothing else reflects that it is an enormously fun film, rather than a great work of art


And how did you come to that conclusion? Is this something you believe, or believe others believe? I believe it's a pretty fantastic work of art. Had I voted, and voted in favor of Scorsese's film, that belief would have been the main reason for doing so. You can believe that.








Believe!


I think its broad appeal comes from it being fun and accessible - and its ability to provoke a bit of envy too, if I'm honest.

I actually voted it too.


I'm with you in terms of the reasons for the movie's broad appeal. Do you think that prohibits it from also being a work of art? I thought I remembered you thinking differently, but maybe not.


Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:08 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1716
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
Quote:
I'm with you in terms of the reasons for the movie's broad appeal. Do you think that prohibits it from also being a work of art? I thought I remembered you thinking differently, but maybe not.


I'd be more interested in the reverse question. Do you think a film's lack of art prevents from being solid entertainment?

I don't think Wolf of Wall Street is anything approaching art. Also didn't think it was any fun at all, easily the most boring, least stimulating film of the year even compared to 12 Years a Slave. And thank God I don't have a shred of envy for any of those scumbag characters. I've known people like that in real life and feel nothing but hate. And I certainly don't think its voting as "Reelviews Best Picture" is evidence of broad appeal. The members of this site represent one single demographic.


Fri May 02, 2014 6:43 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
MGamesCook wrote:
I'd be more interested in the reverse question. Do you think a film's lack of art prevents from being solid entertainment?


Not at all. The first Pirates of the Caribbean movie, for instance, is solid entertainment that doesn't even pretend to be art.

That said, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and the overlap between them is what interests me most about movies. The best movies strive to combine the two.

MGamesCook wrote:
I don't think Wolf of Wall Street is anything approaching art. Also didn't think it was any fun at all, easily the most boring, least stimulating film of the year even compared to 12 Years a Slave. And thank God I don't have a shred of envy for any of those scumbag characters. I've known people like that in real life and feel nothing but hate. And I certainly don't think its voting as "Reelviews Best Picture" is evidence of broad appeal. The members of this site represent one single demographic.


I don't think anyone said it being voted in as Reelviews' Best Picture is evidence of it's broad appeal. It making close to $400 million worldwide is certainly evidence of broad appeal, though. Like it or not (and you clearly don't), the movie appealed to a variety of people for a variety of reasons.

Both of our stances on the movie have been made crystal clear numerous times over the past few months, so I don't really feel the need to defend the film yet again.


Fri May 02, 2014 9:03 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1716
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
No no, my question is...why does "broad appeal" have bearing on whether you like it or not (as it clearly does)? Transformers has a few factors more broad appeal than Wolf of Wall Street, but I don't think you'd argue for it as much as Wolf.

Quote:
That said, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and the overlap between them is what interests me most about movies. The best movies strive to combine the two.


I don't think they even need combining because cinema is the art OF entertainment. But Pirates is checking off a list of a box office draws, I don't think it's trying to entertain on any immediate, visceral level.


Fri May 02, 2014 3:56 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3611
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
I agree that a film does not have to be art in order to be entertaining, though I would argue that POTC is a poor example of that, for me that film was not remotely entertaining in any way, I would go so far as to call it "anti-entertainment"

For me a better example would be Die Hard, is it art? Not really, is it entertaining? Very much so.


Fri May 02, 2014 4:09 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
MGamesCook wrote:
No no, my question is...why does "broad appeal" have bearing on whether you like it or not (as it clearly does)? Transformers has a few factors more broad appeal than Wolf of Wall Street, but I don't think you'd argue for it as much as Wolf.


A movie, any movie, having broad appeal (or not) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I like it. After rereading my posts in this thread, I honestly have no clue where you got that from. Not once have I made the argument that WoWS having broad appeal is indicative of its quality. That's absurd.

MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
That said, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and the overlap between them is what interests me most about movies. The best movies strive to combine the two.


I don't think they even need combining because cinema is the art OF entertainment. But Pirates is checking off a list of a box office draws, I don't think it's trying to entertain on any immediate, visceral level.


You may not find Pirates entertaining, but there's not even a question of whether or not it's meant to entertain. It wouldn't exist otherwise.

You may view cinema as the art of entertainment, that's perfectly fine. I don't. I try to take movies at face value and try not to force them into some pre-existing idea about what cinema can or cannot be. There are movies made purely to entertain an audience, there are movies made purely as an artistic expression, and there are movies made that combine the two.


Fri May 02, 2014 4:29 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
Vexer wrote:
I agree that a film does not have to be art in order to be entertaining, though I would argue that POTC is a poor example of that, for me that film was not remotely entertaining in any way, I would go so far as to call it "anti-entertainment"

For me a better example would be Die Hard, is it art? Not really, is it entertaining? Very much so.


Die Hard works too. The point I'm making is more important than the example.


Fri May 02, 2014 4:31 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1716
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
Quote:
You may not find Pirates entertaining, but there's not even a question of whether or not it's meant to entertain. It wouldn't exist otherwise.

You may view cinema as the art of entertainment, that's perfectly fine. I don't. I try to take movies at face value and try not to force them into some pre-existing idea about what cinema can or cannot be. There are movies made purely to entertain an audience, there are movies made purely as an artistic expression, and there are movies made that combine the two.


A movie like Pirates is made for $$. That does not necessarily correlate with entertainment. But if your definition of art corresponds with expression specifically, then surely action films can qualify? Many action directors legitimately express themselves and their personalities/world views through fight and chase sequences. I don't believe Die Hard is an example of that, but there are many I could name.

In any case, if a film is made for artistic expression and someone enjoys watching it, then it's automatically a piece of entertainment right? For instance, Holy Motors. Certainly a very personal, expressive film, even alienating to the mainstream audience, but I also found it highly enjoyable to sit through, as I know many others did.

I don't find any expressiveness in Wolf. Taxi Driver oozes expressionism out of every frame, Wolf feels relatively impersonal. It never feels like an anguished artist crying out as Taxi Driver does. But if you can also feel the anguish behind action cinema, then action cinema can also be art (and just so happens to be entertaining).


Fri May 02, 2014 4:47 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
Lot of people tossing the word "art" around. What does it even mean?

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri May 02, 2014 6:10 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1716
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
Ken wrote:
Lot of people tossing the word "art" around. What does it even mean?


Exactly to be honest. For me there's no art vs entertainment, there's just good vs bad.


Fri May 02, 2014 7:16 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
MGamesCook wrote:
A movie like Pirates is made for $$. That does not necessarily correlate with entertainment. But if your definition of art corresponds with expression specifically, then surely action films can qualify? Many action directors legitimately express themselves and their personalities/world views through fight and chase sequences. I don't believe Die Hard is an example of that, but there are many I could name.


You realize in order for a movie like Pirates to make money, it has to give the promise of entertainment, right? It may not succeed in your eyes, but it's designed as a form of entertainment in order to get people to pay.

And yes, of course action movies can be art. I never said they couldn't. I just agreed with Vexer that Die Hard is an example of a movie designed as entertainment, not art. That says nothing about action movies as a whole.

MGamesCook wrote:
In any case, if a film is made for artistic expression and someone enjoys watching it, then it's automatically a piece of entertainment right? For instance, Holy Motors. Certainly a very personal, expressive film, even alienating to the mainstream audience, but I also found it highly enjoyable to sit through, as I know many others did.


No, not at all. I haven't seen Holy Motors, but I understand your point. If you find it entertaining, then it's entertaining. I you find more value in it outside is pure entertainment, then it can be considered art. There are countless movies, songs, books, paintings, etc. that aren't necessarily entertaining, but qualify as art. It's honestly something so painfully obvious that I don't really know how to explain it. If you stare at The Last Supper for an hour and come away with a new appreciation, or understanding of something, you've consumed a work of art, but that's not something virtually anyone would call entertainment. If you agree with that, then why can't the same thing be applied to movies? You can find value in a movie (or anything else) without necessarily being entertained by it. And vice versa, and everything in between.

MGamesCook wrote:
Ken wrote:
Lot of people tossing the word "art" around. What does it even mean?


Exactly to be honest. For me there's no art vs entertainment, there's just good vs bad.


In other words, reading Slaughterhouse Five is the same thing as watching Transformers. One's just good, one's just bad.


Fri May 02, 2014 9:15 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: The Fifth Annual ReelViews Academy Award Winners!
MGamesCook wrote:
Ken wrote:
Lot of people tossing the word "art" around. What does it even mean?


Exactly to be honest. For me there's no art vs entertainment, there's just good vs bad.

I do think it's silly to define art as being somehow in opposition to entertainment. That's not to say that I think it's a useless term, but it's pointless to quibble over what is art and what is not if we haven't even talked about what we mean by the word. If Vexer says something is art and I don't know how Vexer is defining art, or if MGamesCook says something is art and I don't know how he defines art, then I haven't learned anything and don't know what anybody is really trying to say.

I think art can be used as a value judgment, but I don't find it terribly useful for that myself. There are so many other things you could say about something that expresses whether you think it's valuable or not. I think the term art is much more useful as a statement of definition, without any connotation of value attached to it. For example, the reproduction of the Superman #1 cover illustration hanging on my wall is art (whether it's good or bad is a separate issue), whereas the dump my dog took on the sidewalk earlier is not. (It seemed pretty good as far as dumps go.)

So I am perfectly willing to accept Die Hard as art. Some talented people put some hard work into it and it obviously resonates with its audience well enough that it's often brought up as a classic of its genre. I am also perfectly willing to discuss whether or not Die Hard qualifies as good art. I am not quite as enamored with it as a lot of action fans are, but I'd still say it's a pretty good flick. It plays like a lean western in 1980s urban clothing.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri May 02, 2014 9:27 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


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