Forum Replies Created
November 16, 2019 at 1:24 pm #1203182305
After seeing The Irishman yesterday, I have to ask… How the fuck Robert De Niro isn’t being considered as one of the frontrunners?
I know he’s getting praise, but not enough (the majority is going to Pesci and Pacino)… Serious, it’s a extremely powerfull performance, and I don’t remember the last time that I was so touched by a performance. The last 30 minutes of the movie is De Niro in his best. He conveys so much truth in his trembling words, in his melancholy look…
De Niro in The Irishman is my favorite piece of acting of 2019. And this is from someone who absolute love Joker and, of course, the Joaquin performance.November 16, 2019 at 8:22 am #1203182036
Saw The Irishman last night. I’m speechless.
It’s the best movie of the year. Scorsese did it again.October 24, 2019 at 6:31 pm #1203151541
In all fairness, Manchester was marginally more popular than Fences. One made just over 60 million at box office, the other made 70 something. “Overdue narrative” not always works, as we’ve seen newbie Rami Malek win over 4 times nominee Bradley Cooper and also 4 times nominee Willem Dafoe this year. Not to mention Glenn Close. We also do not know how much of a hit Marriage Story will be. Sure, it will not be a box office hit like Joker, after all is a Netflix movie that will have a limited release, but it might get a big audience on Netflix and be talked about, like some other Netflix original movies that became hits.
Cooper has multiple nominations, yeah, but he’s not a overdue yet. Dafoe? Yes, but his movie was very small, without any hype. He never had chances.
But hey, who gave the loudest and transformative performance? Rami.
I would say that Colman also give the loudest performance among females nominated… And she won too.
So, Joaquin has the “overdue narrative”, a movie with immense popularity and a louder performance. He meets all requirements.October 24, 2019 at 3:46 pm #1203151321
Lol. Gotta love when people say statements like these with absolutely NOTHING to back it up. Just because you post it on GoldDerby doesn’t make it true? Driver is beloved in the industry and gives a performance tons of actors will relate to. He’ll get plenty of praise.
And where I said that he’s not beloved or don’t will get a plenty of praise? Calm down… Yes, he is respected and is receiving a lot of praise for MS.
But Joaquin is a bigger name (with the “overdue” narrative in his side), in a acclaimed and bigger performance and a movie that is already a phenomenon in pop culture.
Yes, in 2016 Denzel was a bigger name than Casey and give a bigger, loud, performance. But Manchester by the sea was even more popular than Fences and Denzel didn’t have the “overdue” narrative with him.October 23, 2019 at 8:58 pm #1203149943
Serious praises for Joaquin here. No way Driver will have this same level of reception from people of industry. He can win the awards from critics, as Joker is far from unanimous among them, but the Oscar (and SAG)? I think only a disaster can stop Phoenix.October 13, 2019 at 6:15 pm #1203135028
Oh, and knowing the HFPA, I don’t doubt that Joker win Best Picture Drama in the Golden Globes.
I think that will be multiple BAFTA nominations for it as well, as the reception outside of America was really great.October 13, 2019 at 6:09 pm #1203135024
If it was a few years ago, maybe Joker wouldn’t be nominated.
But today we know of the Academy’s necessity to include popular movies in the race. And Joker is already a cultural phenomenon (it can even hit 1 billion, for God’s sake), whether you like it or not.
And it’s important to remember that a movie doesn’t have to be unanimous to be nominated for best picture. It just needs a relevant number of passionate supporters, people who really loved it. And we know that a lot of people really loved Joker. Saying that this received “ok reviews” is not so true at all. Bohemian Raphsody received “ok reviews”. Joker, though polarizing, has received a lot of great reviews (received more 10/10 reviews than Black Panther, for example). And it seems that was really well-received by people in industry (Sean Baker, Michael Moore, Chris Rock and Josh Brolin are examples of people who expressed admiration for this movie).
Check out these predictions from Scott Feinberg, who is one of the best-sourced journalists in the industry:
Joker has no chance of winning (in this case, being too divisise is a serious problem), but is almost guarantee to be nominated.October 8, 2019 at 8:21 pm #1203128632
Oh someone is allowed to think it’s a good (or even great) film but a masterpiece it is not.
This is pretty silly. Out of (north) America, the movie is being praised by many (especially in Europe, a place that historically has much more artistic sense than the USA) as a masterpiece.
Here in Brazil, for exemple, it’s almost consensus that it is a great movie / masterpiece.
Americans are weird, man.October 6, 2019 at 1:01 am #1203123516
People are just too concerned with the plot, with the themes, with the clarity of a message of a movie… Is the “that’s the movie we really need right now” stupidity that dominates these film analysis today.
This is really annoying. They are certainly important elements, but the analysis of a movie is so much more than that . Some people treat art in a extremely superficial way.
Joker is, essentially, a character study (duh). The focus is Arthur Fleck, and the social questions serve just as context. The movie is about the arc dramatic of Fleck, and the aesthetics of this piece serves him. He’s the element that conduct the movie, not the social themes.
The poverty, mental illnes, class warfare in the city… All these things are essential to understand Arthur moral and mental degradation, but serves more as background in the construction of his psyche than anything else. The movie simply establishes these elements as facts, and the protagonist is inserted in this context, and he has to act on accordingly.
So, it don’t have to explore in depth the question of Gotham poverty and class struggle, for exemple. No, it’s not a excuse for a shallow treatment of these questions. The point is that subtext is enough, everyone can infer the reasons for that situation in the movie: Period of neoliberal rule and crisis of capitalism in the 80s, with the decline of life quality and unemployment, which means angry and desesperate people (that is the context, and Arthur is affected by this). So, nothing of that is “forced” or “pretentious” (Jesus, I hate this word) as some are calling, because these elements simply exist in the reality in a historic sense. No need to make a kind of profund take about the nature of poverty, lol.
It is about a men in a f*cked and decadent neoliberal world (the fact that the year of the movie is the same year of Reagan election is not a accident), in a period of a general hopelessness, where he finds no salvation or hope and only found meaning in meaninglessness, because he simply don’t stand a chance in this material world that oppresses and alienates him day to day. He never had chance, actually.
So yeah, this movie has nuances. More than some people think.October 5, 2019 at 6:36 pm #1203123250
Honest, I found the script absolutely fantastic and I think that many people still don’t get it. The cinematic language of the movie articulate with the subject perfectly. Saying that this is shallow is simply no true… Anyway, this could be a little long (sorry for any possibly error in these words, english is not my first language):
The greatest quality of the movie is how it turns comedy into a device of absurdity. Both through bizarre and violent situations and the way it deals with the backdrop of mental health.
The movie is not exactly a comedy, but it proposes ambiguous extreme situations in which the viewer’s laughter turns out to be a possible escape. Is as if it integrated some of the character’s own disturbance into the narrative. Laughter is a kind of pathology (the disease that makes the protagonist laugh) and is not linked directly to a funny situation, but to an extreme and unexpected resolution.
As Robert De Niro’s character says, “I’m waiting for the punchline.” It is a work that delays this punchline in general, which works with its irony through grotesque and self-deprecating relationships as a response to this meaninglessness that culminates in the meaninglessness of existence in general. The character himself says he feels like he never existed.
And in this it traces Arthur’s manic outbreaks very well in relation to his state of mental health. It exposes the ambiguous values of an ultra-polarized world that does not care about its actions as long as these actions seem to be the right thing, as long as the political image of these pseudo-heroic acts (killing rich people for killing) prevails. And, consequently, it highlight the effects of an unbridled collectivization (the movement of clowns) that finds in these extreme acts a symbol of resistance.
The way it deals with character disturbances seems to me to be well aware of the effects of the failure of a psychological individuation. A man who cannot become a man (voice and attitude start like a child’s). A man who can only become someone through these extreme acts (he acts like an adult only after he starts killing). It is a society that glorifies this as a projection of its yearnings against the oppressors.
Perhaps the way the movie “vibrates” with everything is what makes it, for some, an irresponsible work. I see more as a work that explores the graphic possibilities of these situations from a very well articulated cinematic power. Especially because of the way Phillips reconciles the stylization of plans with the raw nature of violence. Few Hollywood movies have so well balanced the protagonist’s dramatic and psychological construction with the extreme acts he performs. This is a exemple of a great dramatic arc.
And then the whole thing goes back to Scorsese in the best sense, since Phillips, while balancing these forces, creates a very clear and straightforward narrative from that. Much of Scorsese’s success comes from this game between an ambiguous protagonist and a story that goes on unabated.
In the case of the Joker, besides this direct narrative, the director still combines a very natural explicit violence. It is not a movie that simply wants to show how explicit it is. It does not want to make it an element of pride or merely appealing. He works much harder with an idea of the absurdity of this violence (the scene with the dwarf in the apartment is the pinnacle of this relationship) who never judges his actions, only highlight the meaninglessness of his actions.
Better yet, play with it through the ambiguity of comedy. Arthur scaring the dwarf trying to leave the apartment is as extreme as it is witty. The way in which the film generally places itself within these limits is what best evidences this lack of senses of the pathology it addresses.
For exemple, I find Joker more rich, honest e coerence than the slight overrated The Dark Knight, a very good movie, but that has numerous inconsistencies.
*Interesting note: TDK is, essentially, a much more reactionary/conservative piece than Joker and don’t has any controversy. The problem is that many people only see the superficie of movies.October 3, 2019 at 9:06 am #1203119186
I watched Joker last night (I live in brazil). And men… What a spectacular piece of art. The way Todd Phillips conducted this is a revelation… His direction here is being underappreciated, but ok, is understandable because of Phoenix legendary performance. Best Original Score of the year till now, easily; what a marvelous work by Hildur Guðnadóttir.
And let me put this: Almost all criticism (most from american critics/blogguers, these weird people) are absolutely unbelievable silly, and actually empty (is funny how some are accusing the movie for being “emptiness”, what is absurd and laughable).
I saw some criticism calling it pretentious … This is an example of silly and empty criticism. It is clear to me that if the same movie were directed by another director (a more respectable one) and without DC logo, there would certainly be no such criticism. And hell, being pretentious is not even, necessarily, a bad thing (mostly of great piece of art in history are pretentious in some way, to be honest)… This is a dumb criticism. Please, trie different.
These people deserves ordinary and forgettable movies for the rest of their lives.September 29, 2019 at 2:22 am #1203111433
I’ve been thinking about Joker chances, and I’m starting to think that’s very unlikely this not be nominated.
By the reactions, I have a feeling that the professionals of the industry, people who really work with cinema, are really liking this. And these people are the people who’s voting in the Oscars.
What I’m saying is that the artistic merit of the movie seems undeniable. The Golden Lion was not an accident.
The backlash does exist, yeah, but it’s more of a minority of louders critics / blogguers. Green Book had a strong backlash and won Best Picture. Hell, BR was even poorly received by critics and won four Oscars. Obvious I’m not saying that Joker is gonna win Best Picture. No way, because in the ending, it will be too dark for The Academy, and we know how the voting system for best picture works.
Anyways, what made Bohemian Raphsody there last year was: Box Office success, a huge popularity (The Academy are looking for some of these movies to increase audience numbers, this is no secret) and a strong campaign. Joker will have all of this, alongside with artistic merit.
And more important: The voting begin in early January (three months after Joker release). What this mean? Everything. If Joker through theaters without any kind of serious problem (we hope for that), then the backlash collapses.
So, only a tragedy (literally) can stop Joker.September 28, 2019 at 12:47 am #1203109657
lol, Pryce is not happening, guys.
Sandman has more chances than him, to be honest.September 28, 2019 at 12:32 am #1203109642
No way the Academy won’t nominate any woman this year.
The only doubt is if it will be Heller or Gerwig (maybe Lulu Wang could be in the conversation, but i think it’s unlikely).
Scorsese and Heller/Gerwig are the only locks till now, to me. Baumbach is very likely, but his movies are more about the script and performances, so i’m not 100% confident about his nomination.