Forum Replies Created
April 1, 2022 at 11:10 pm #1204893795
I thought we had all come to an agreement that Charlize would be playing all kick-assery roles going forward? Especially those requiring little to no hair? I’m so behind on my memos.
If not, Shira Haas is a) younger, b) completed military theater in the IDF, and c) rocked the heck outta that scalp in Unorthodox.ReplyApril 1, 2022 at 10:58 pm #1204893789
WGA published a list of screenplays which had the correct films in the wrong positions.
The internet has informed me that this is the general problem with all lists on every subject everywhere. How confounding, and what are we to do to stop this madness and get the ordering of thing right once and for all? To quote every commercial on every show my parents watch, “there’s just got to be a better way!”
Is it this we are referring to https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-greatest-screenplays/list?
or, the more recent this https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-best-screenplays-of-the-21st-century-so-far/list?
or, perhaps the most entertaining of all https://www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-funniest-screenplays/list?ReplyApril 1, 2022 at 10:52 pm #1204893783
I will forgive you for reminding me Newsies exists, because you just reminded me to rewatch that Once performance a few days prior.
Oh, no particularly interesting reason, I just think it is a rather poor musical on a script/score level, and there were several girls in my drama classes who massively overexposed it to me when it debuted. Just a bit of cheek is all.
Once was the deserved Tony champ. When I saw it in my native San Fran, it set an absolute spell of swooning, melancholic bliss over the entire building from the first moment on. Still love it.
Happy Belated Birthday, William Daniels!ReplyApril 1, 2022 at 10:46 pm #1204893780
I don’t know about you guys, but I honestly don’t think this can be answered with as intriguing a variety of choices as many of the others in this Gems series, which is itself a gem of an idea (thanks, Manav!)
In almost all cases, at base, great film IS a great screenplay handed to a great director. As opposed to Gems in costume or music or whatnot, where plenty of overall masterpieces may be competent rather than notable and plenty of overall misfires may feature superb examples of these elements, an honest list of Gems in Screenplay would be very close to your typical list of the greatest films overall, period.
It’s like saying the secret ingredient to my pound cake is flour.ReplyApril 1, 2022 at 10:38 pm #1204893776
Any Adams and her wigs in American Hustle
I didn’t know it, but now that I have been confronted with the truth, I see this really is the correct answer. If every one of those wigs counts as an onscreen relationship, then AmerHustle is sneakily the greatest portrayal of polyamory on film.
Then again, that film (which I still unironically support all 10 noms for), really is one of the last great mid-budget feats of glamorous people making illegality look good through sheer pizzaz. Everyone turns in their best work, and everyone sans Bale is at their hottest. It’s such bisexual catnip, I had to consciously avoid saying “meow” a dozen times while re-watching with my Dad (great Dad film too, btw). But this isn’t really about me.ReplyApril 1, 2022 at 10:29 pm #1204893773
Wait, I’m not up to speed on the latest, but… you’re telling me that team behind one of my favorite non-indie films of the century so far (LLL) is making a new project employing one of the sexiest women on the planet, the rightful empress of TV, and that old dude my aunt still likes…
…AND it’s based on the most underrated Lady Gaga song??
Sign me the fork up! And on the day I figured out how to finally give myself a proper profile pick too! What a time to be alive.April 1, 2022 at 10:23 pm #1204893769
Lol. Did you say enough to make your point?
When it comes to my beloved musical theater, which I have been defending since 14 wee years of nerdy age?
No, NEVER!ReplyApril 1, 2022 at 10:22 pm #1204893767
Now realizing I didn’t actually answer the question… going off of A) masterpiece on stage, that B) has cinema potential, but C) failed to get a film that did justice, the answers seem clear.
Among classics, Carousel and Gypsy, definitely both legit contenders for best musical ever. Both possess the miraculous combination of a specific sense of time and place but also timeless quantities of every base human emotion and desire, killer lead roles, and scores of overwhelming beauty and drive. Both films are about as interesting as cardboard (although Gypsy does feature a great Natalie Wood).
Among a more contemporary style, I imagine Rent could become the classic we all know it should be if redone in a few decades with age-appropriate leads and creatives with the spine to leave the sung-through nature intact.
My #1 is absolutely Into the Woods, though. The stage show is the level of brilliant that has the ability to permanently alter your entire perception of storytelling, and it is begging to unleash its full power on film. But despite a good cast, the Disney/Marshall outing was so incompetent. Problem was less the shooting style (though that wasn’t the best either), but that Lapine’s original script is SO perfectly constructed that abridging it at all meant taking pieces from a house of cards: it all became incomprehensible. Then they cut off the ending, featuring the best songs and the emotional denouement that balances the tone; Disney actually made it more dark and less uplifting. Sondheim gets done dirty in general though. A Little Night Music needs to be redone by an arthouse auteur, stat.
Company and Sunday in the Park belong on stage only, as did A Chorus Line. Not everything should be everything.ReplyApril 1, 2022 at 9:56 pm #1204893742
First things first: I understand the sentiment I have heard a few times since Spielberg’s WSS came out that “Hey, stage shows get revived all the time for a new generation, so why not the films based on those stage shows?”
To me, that goes against the entirety of what I view as being special about both cinema and theater, or to put in another way, it disregards the magic of both art forms at their ideal. Theater is, by definition, fully alive in the moment and constantly evolving, but also ephemeral. No two performances are ever exactly alike, and the experience is reliant upon memory – when it’s gone its gone, and so if new groups of actors and creatives don’t get to try it out, new audiences will never experience it in any form. In this way, any show is just like life (in that it slips away when it is complete), as well as larger than life (in that the story and characters can live through a million different interpretations.)
In contrast, film is fully complete from the time it is shot and released, and if you watch any given film in a different time or place from its initial release, your eyes and ears are still experiencing the exact same work – to the frame – as someone watching it 40 years later on a different continent. Each scene can be shot 50 times over until everyone involves comes to the agreement that what they have captured is the best version of their vision possible. Film at its best is a total, definitive, self-contained vision. So remaking a classic seems not just redundant but antithetical to the entire ideal goal of the artform itself: Whereas perfection is impossible on a nightly basis in theater, a cinematic adaptation of that show can and should reach for perfection, and if close to successful, it will last forever. So if we agree something achieved near-perfection in cinema, it shouldn’t be touched. You can’t get better than 99%, so move on.
WSS 2022, although profoundly unnecessary, was able to get away with sacrilege not necessarily because the story had a moment of increased relevance, but because Spielberg-Kushner-Peck is such a towering commingling of talent that they alone could conceivably rival the talent/vision of Wise-Robbins-Laurents-Bernstein-Sondheim team.
So it depends. If something is a masterpiece on stage, has cinematic possibility, but made the leap to the screen in disappointing fashion first go-around, maybe another go-around could be justified. If not, put down your ego and back the hell up, Bradley Cooper. You are not Bob Fosse.ReplyMarch 29, 2022 at 11:28 pm #1204889356
Jane Campion (The Power Of The Dog)
Rebecca Hall (Passing)
Sian Heder (CODA)
Celine Sciamma (Petite Maman)
Emma Seligman (Shiva Baby)
Winner: Sian Heder (CODA)
Manav, the fact that you can create so many lineups of such choice offerings so quickly really puts the lie to the whole “BuT MaYbE ThErE JuSt WeRe’Nt WoMeN WhO DeSeRvEd It ThIs YeAr” malarkey.
It also demonstrates your impeccable taste and knowledge. But that should go without saying for someone with your current avatar.ReplyMarch 29, 2022 at 11:22 pm #1204889352
Sounds as if this as much a misreading of climate change as it was that misreading of the race for BP
Though at least the stats on climate change warrant spreadsheeting.
I am always ready to reconcile, so I will say on the last point we absolutely agree.
Do you happen to live in West Virginia? I have some phone numbers for you if so…ReplyMarch 29, 2022 at 11:16 pm #1204889342
AS A PERSUN WHO HAS DONE THESPIAN ACTING, let me step in and give the definitive answer, which is…
Well, any actor of above-average talent, surrounded by a good crew, with good material. Given those things, and the right competition, literally anyone is one role away from an Oscar.
If you have been previously nominated, you are even closer.
That said, among the people who inexplicably haven’t been invited yet, at all: Oscar Isaac and Paul Dano. Oh, and obvs Emily Blunt. We luv you gurl, stay versatile.
I’m also keeping my eye on this Ariana DeBose woman. You probably haven’t heard of her, but I have my finger on the pulse. I’m telling you all, if she just gets a chance, I think she could at least get nominated…ReplyMarch 29, 2022 at 11:11 pm #1204889335
We’re still talking about this?
It does not matter what career someone has had.
It does not matter what they represent, or what the event is.
It does not matter if they felt what was said to them (or someone you feel responsible for) was offensive.
You don’t physically strike people. (Unless it is the only way to keep them from immediately physically injuring you, and it is beyond clear they intend to do so.)
I repeat, you don’t physically strike people.
Unless you are in an active wartime battle situation, this is the one area where context is irrelevant.
It doesn’t really matter what consequences Will Smith gets from this, career, legal, or none.
Duh. Geez.ReplyMarch 29, 2022 at 11:01 pm #1204889331
I got two wrong that I could kick myself for since the result in 1 was obvious. But I used my GUT backed by experience 80% over numbers and stats.
Interested in what you think about that. Got any stats on which way works better?
Pook, good sir, I unfortunately have no advice to offer you, and was just about to reply to one of your recent posts to say as much. Your foresight this weekend was beyond incredible, and I must bow down. Huzzah!
People here seem to think that either brain or gut must be the superior thing to go off of. Apparently by my demonstrating a pure-numbers approach, some folks seem to think I am taking a stance against relying on gut. But my stance is to simply use whatever works to get you the most right. My gut is, and has always been, worth less than the current value of the ruble, so the lesson I’ve learned this year is that I will do my personal best if I ignore it and just go with my models, which I have polished to a nice shiny sheen. If I had listened to the models I woulda still missed some but gotten Hopkins, McDormand, and one or two techs I whiffed by falling for “the narrative.” How many bragging rights would I have had then!
But your gut appears to work wonders, so best for you to ignore me and stick with that. I recommend the same to anyone with a well-working gut, unlike mine, which perpetually needs a metaphorical dose of whatever that yogurt was the Jamie Lee Curtis used to peddle.
But if you come for my numbers acting like they don’t work at all, well… A certain person here with a habit of using “100%! [cry-laugh emoji]” in each post has apparently decided to pick a fight with me, unaware that I am the most stubborn person alive, and would get so much enjoyment out of the tomfoolery it practically replenishes my electrolytes. Huzzah!ReplyMarch 29, 2022 at 10:37 pm #1204889303
How dlu and licorice pizza didn’t break the stat ? I would say Belfast broke the stat of winning screenplay with just the cc and GG and not winning best picture
I’m not quite sure what you mean, but when I say my analysis led me correctly to Belfast, I don’t mean that there are one or two magic combinations that I think need to be fulfilled for a film to win a given category. I can’t speak for anyone else here who is pro-stats, but when I do my analysis I truly use a tally dozens upon dozens of awards and notices – every one I can find – each of which gets a value of how often it lines up with the Oscar winner. I also have other points allocated for the strength of any festival run, the career of the nominee, the studio running the campaign, the strength of the film in all other categories, how much momentum the film seems to be gaining, and more. The sum total of all of this is how I make my choice, not some rulebook of “x plus y MUST result in a win.” In the model I ran this year for my own nerdy enjoyment, Belfast came out on top (although Licorice Pizza was leading early on). It’s how I made my choice in every other category too; in previous years I tried to guess where the models would go wrong to try to get more points on GoldDerby, but the my own math always ends up beating me and I regret it, so this year I just decided to go with it almost straight down the line. I missed the strength of CODA, but got everything else correct, so to me it paid off. Hope this makes sense 🙂ReplyNot now