Forum Replies Created
July 4, 2014 at 5:50 am #156070
I was surprised both by how many winners are from Italy and how many I loved. Upon thinking about it, I think these film show a perspective of innocence. In American films, children are wise crackin’ miniature adults who do not act like children. In these films, you can understand innocence and perhaps recall it in your youth.
Have you seen Cinema Paradiso? Go see it! I was fascinated that there are two different cuts: the theatrical version + a much longer director’s cut in which the main character actually reconnects with his lover. Harvey Scissorhands strikes again!
Bergman and Fellini and DeSica dominated this category. They never lost when nominated (the first two)! There are some very strong wins. The Bicycle Thief and Rashomon were presented honorary awards before there was a category—two of the most important films ever. Virgin Spring is great. I still can’t believe Au Revoir Les Enfants didn’t win the Oscar.April 6, 2014 at 3:10 pm #150011
It’s just too ingrained in me, through the people I was watching it with, all the groans.
Then those people can eat what Divine is having at the end of Pink Flamingos.
Huh, why should they? People in the movie industry in positions of power clearly felt the same way.April 6, 2014 at 2:39 pm #150005
^^^ I swear I’m not a terrible person. It’s just not one of my favorite Oscar moments, regardless of the significance. And when Sidney won, he was very professional and refused to draw attention to the moment when asked by the press. I’m sure others felt the same way when they watched Halle Berry win on television, and my guess is it also rubbed people in the industry the wrong way. Check out the SAG awards just a few weeks earlier in 2002…it’s the same thing. I love that Halle made fun of the Oscar speech when she won the Razzie.
Lol. I was only trying to provide a different perspective in the hope of changing your mind. But to each their own 🙂
LOL I understand. It’s just too ingrained in me, through the people I was watching it with, all the groans.April 5, 2014 at 10:38 pm #150000
^^^ I swear I’m not a terrible person. It’s just not one of my favorite Oscar moments, regardless of the significance. And when Sidney won, he was very professional and refused to draw attention to the moment when asked by the press. I’m sure others felt the same way when they watched Halle Berry win on television, and my guess is it also rubbed people in the industry the wrong way. Check out the SAG awards just a few weeks earlier in 2002…it’s the same thing. I love that Halle made fun of the Oscar speech when she won the Razzie.April 5, 2014 at 8:29 am #149994
Sure, I can explain. Halle wasn’t the one doing 70 years of waiting. For me, it didn’t ring as genuine at all and felt like an act, calling off black actresses who had been overlooked, holding her gaping mouth open for what seemed like minutes. She gave that same speech/reaction at the SAG Awards too, so I had seen it before. I know there were people in the audience who stood up as to not be criticized. I find the whole thing cringeworthy to watch to this day and find Gwyneth’s much more bearable, knowing her father and grandfather were very sick at the time (which came across more clearly in her Golden Globes speech) and died soon after she won. I understand if it’s not a popular opinion, but I much prefer how Denzel handled his speech, and Kathryn Bigelow in 2010—not touching on race or gender.April 4, 2014 at 11:12 am #149933
Of course, in hollywood circles perceptions might be different than the public’s. And of course, people bitch to those closest to them, the trusted ones. I know Spielberg has a tough rep, especially with writers–he’s a businessman. He wasn’t too happy with the Rain Man situation….I’m glad that’s out there. I know he wanted Star Wars to win the Oscar over Annie Hall; I wish we had genuine reaction on Gandhi/Chariots of Fire/Shakespeare in Love. And Scorsese, for all the preservation he does, does have his favorites, in terms of directors he likes and almost always praises the same people. It’s important for him to be seen as “cool.” When directors criticize it does (most of the time) reek of jealousy in one form or another.April 3, 2014 at 8:22 am #149968
Honestly, I think Halle Berry’s win is hated partly because of her ridiculous acceptance speech. So over the top, so unnecessary. The expressions in the audience were priceless.April 2, 2014 at 10:37 am #149929
If I were a director, I wouldn’t publicly criticize my peers. I think Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg take the right approach; they seem to be very polite and respectful to other directors and most importantly keep their own opinions to themselves.
I’m surprised Spike Lee-Quentin Tarantino’s very public feuding didn’t appear here.
Also, I know Stanley Kubrick was a tremendously encouraging director to his peers. He spent time with James Cameron and sent a note to Kathryn Bigelow. You can still admire other directors for what they do, even if they don’t aspire to do what you do.February 21, 2014 at 9:04 am #142401
Mike Nichols’ awards are pretty damn impressive for a director. I wouldn’t rank him as a great film director, but the well-rounded acclaim, top awards for film, television, and dramatic productions.
For acting, Helen Hayes…the top Oscar, top Emmy, and top Tony.
Besides Nichols and Hayes (non-honorary EGOTs), I would say Barbra Streisand. Her awards haul is enormously impressive, probably the most impressive of all: The highest Oscar for leading role, the Album of the Year, the Song of the Year Grammys, four Emmys, Kennedy Center too.January 28, 2014 at 6:57 pm #137086
I’m posting this again so it doesn’t get lost. It seems like the lead/supporting distinction is a real problem. Instead of arguing past cases, could a system be put in place that would appropriately classify performances and fight studio/talent demands?
I think there needs to be a committee established that determines category placement and sets precedents. The way studios and powerplayers have been able to finagle lead performances as supporting and vice versa (like Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York) is completely ridiculous. Some people think they can get everything they want, but there should be some body that tries to function apart from outside influences to leaven the playing field.January 28, 2014 at 5:03 pm #137080
I think there needs to be a committee established that determines category placement and sets precedents. The way studios and powerplayers have been able to finagle lead performances as supporting and vice versa (like Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York) is completely ridiculous. Some people think they can get everything they want, but there should be some body that tries to function apart from outside influences to leaven the playing field.December 13, 2013 at 10:08 am #388259
Stolen from Twitter:
“Can’t wait to hear the song Taylor Swift writes for her next album about Beyonce ruining her birthday.”
This is a gamechanger. No single. Only sold as a complete album (remember those?), when music was art, and songs were designed in a specific order for an experience. Videos for every song….wow. Some are calling it a huge marketing gimmick. I’m just surprised there were no leaks or spoilers.July 8, 2013 at 8:13 am #545292
This was a very controversial year. I remember (please correct if I’m getting the details wrong) Harvey Weinstein got director Robert Wise of West Side Story and Sound of Music fame to “write” an op-ed/campaign advertisement supporting Scorsese’s direction of Gangs of New York. It received huge backlash when Wise didn’t write the column, including William Goldman’s response column criticizing Scorsese’s direction. It really was quite the hooplah (http://www.altfg.com/blog/movie/robert-wise-miramax-martin-scorsese-oscar-campaign-scandal/), and it must’ve been a huge shock when Polanski won (and neither Scorsese or Marshall). You can actually see Harvey’s response in the video footage….LOLMarch 26, 2013 at 7:42 am #543488
In my opinion, this was always between Meryl and Viola. The others were significantly behind them and had no chance to win: I think Michelle Williams came up short in her portrayal of Marilyn Monroe; there is a quality that Marilyn had that is missing in her performance, and it’s quite noticeable to pick up on. Glenn’s movie wasn’t widely seen and it wasn’t a showy role, overall quite boring. And Rooney’s work will always be overshadowed by Noomi Rapace’s superior characterization in the Swedish version.
I know that it’s arguable whether Viola was lead or supporting, but there’s no doubt in my mind that she gave the most powerful performance nominated here. Viola has a gift that she is an incredibly convincing actor; she brings a gravity to many of her projects, and carries a natural wear and lived-in pain of many years in her voice and presence. Yes, I know The Help itself is engineered to appeal to a mass audience and because of this feels rather trite, but I appreciate what Viola brought to the film. Meryl’s performance for me was severely lessened by the quality of the film. Instead of actually probing Margaret Thatcher’s life, it only barely scrapes at who she was, just nipping at the surface. That for me made Meryl come across as much more hammy, even a caricature, than she should have been. My favorite performances from her have always been the ones without the facades: no makeup, no flash, no accents. Though I wanted to see her win her third Oscar (and this year was by far her best chance: she was completely out of the running in the years people usually cite—Cry in the Dark, Madison County, Adaptation, Julie & Julia), I wish the vehicle was better, and I was a little disappointed she never acknowledged Thatcher in her acceptance speeches, which was a shame. So overall, I would’ve gone with Viola.March 24, 2013 at 3:52 pm #543256
Same here. I also don’t see how the AFI thinks this movie is better than Pulp Fiction. TSR is almost 20 spots higher than Pulp Fiction on the list. Forrest Gump is even higher than Pulp Fiction!
I find the AFI list is fairly generic and uninspired; one that reads more for the American public than for high achievements in cinema. In my opinion, Forrest Gump should not be there…plain and simple; it was a box office hit, but in no way shape or form is it a significant piece of art. Other examples of a film outranking another: Sophie’s Choice over Goodfellas, Rocky over Network…please. There are great American films that surpass many on the list that go unnoticed: McCabe & Mrs. Miller, the Howard Hawks films, Stagecoach (on the recent list), The Shining, Hitchcock’s Rebecca (which dwarves many of these)…just a few off the top of my head. In fact, the top 10 reads as a very standard list, but one that would read differently had great directors been polled of their top films. Of course, Vertigo, Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Raging Bull, and Lawrence of Arabia would be there, but the others are not as significant as the American public may believe them to be. It’s very telling that Schindler’s List received no mentions at all from critics or filmmakers in the recent Sight and Sound poll, for comparison.
The 1994 Oscars is the perfect example of what’s wrong with the Academy Awards. Yes, that could be said for any year I know, but Pulp Fiction was a truly landmark film and was recognized as such in 1994, even before it influenced countless projects. It’s a film that was seen as hugely new and innnovative in its storytelling and screenplay, told with such passion and pizzazz, and it was passed over for pure ephemeral schmaltz. Why couldn’t Harvey have won that one a Best Picture, a film he recognizes as the most significant he has backed?? Forrest Gump did nothing for me except insult my intelligence. I find it tremendously discouraging when one’s own industry cannot judge which film made the greatest contribution to cinema that year, going back to the first sentence.