Forum Replies Created
April 24, 2019 at 11:55 am #1202865084
Chastain was definitely the one they would have gave it. She was nominated everywhere and even won a GG and a CC at some point. How many licks does it take to make you see she came second?
Lawrence won for obvious reasons. had Chastain won BAFTA, the story would have been the same. Because her role was just not that baity. But she could have won without Lawrence in the competition that year.
I agree that Chastain would’ve won without Lawrence in the competition but that doesn’t necessarily mean she was 2nd with Lawrence. I can imagine that a lot of people who voted for Lawrence would’ve gone for Chastain with the former out of the picture, and Chastain would’ve ridden a similar narrative to Lawrence’s despite being quite a bit older, but as the competition stood I think Lawrence was getting the bulk of those votes from the more “mainstream” fraction of the Academy, whereas Riva appealed to a different kind of voter. In February 2013 it was easy to observe Chastain losing momentum while Riva gained it.April 24, 2019 at 11:35 am #1202865028
Lol if you really have seen “Beale Street” & “The Favourite”, you (if you’re not a blind fan of Regina) would know Rachel Weisz/Emma Stone are far better.
They were better, but they’re also not supporting, which is why I’d have voted for Regina. Why make the effort to decide between Emma and Rachel when they don’t even belong in the category?April 24, 2019 at 11:27 am #1202865012
About bloody time with the expansion of the Makeup category. I’m just sad they didn’t make the decision last year, 2018 was a fantastic year for makeup.
I always thought ‘Best Foreign Language Film’ was an unfitting name when there were films not in English that were ineligible due to being US productions, such as Letters from Iwo Jima and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. ‘Best International Feature Film’ is more accurate in accordance with their current rules, as well as more eloquent.April 20, 2019 at 3:46 am #1202859772
[Bibi Andersson] will be dearly missed, and I will never forget her magnificent turn in what I’d put at #1 in my all-time-best list of movies, Persona.
Bergman seems to have fallen out of fashion in some circles, yet the reputation of Persona continues to grow, I predict that in 2022 it will crack the Sight and Sound Top 10 (it was #17 in 2012). And Andersson’s (and Ullman’s) performance is one of the greatest in film history.April 20, 2019 at 3:30 am #1202859757
True that Weaver was the frontrunner in 1988, but the reason I lumped Davis in with those wins is that she benefitted from vote-splitting. Weaver had two-way vote splitting between Cusack and her nomination in Leading, and both of the other nominees were in BP nominees that the Academy responded well to. It is probably one of the weirdest years for BSA ever, as it doesn’t totally fall into “de facto frontrunner upset out of nowhere” or “weak category benefits winner by vote-splitting” categories, it’s a mix of the two.
But why would Weaver split votes with Cusack? That would be like Catherine Zeta-Jones splitting votes with Queen Latifah in Chicago – in both cases, one clearly had a bigger role and better shot at winning than the other. Weaver was just unlucky to compete with an even more favoured performance. She was probably 2nd while Cusack was 5th.April 16, 2019 at 11:05 am #1202855592
Best Picture has obviously seen upsets in pretty much every decade besides the 70’s(Casablanca, The Greatest Show On Earth, An American In Paris, Oliver!, Chariots Of Fire, Shakespeare In Love, Crash, Moonlight, Green Book).
Was Oliver! really considered an upset? I’m genuinely asking because I don’t know. I do know that The Lion in Winter won DGA and there was no PGA, but Oliver! is so in line with other musical winners of the 60s.April 12, 2019 at 2:16 am #1202849011
I’m 90% certain that The Lion King will be ineligible and virtually 100% certain that Cats will be ineligible, unless they bring back the “Adaptation or Treatment” Oscar.April 12, 2019 at 1:57 am #1202848980
I hate the SAGS. If anything has ruined the ‘surprises’ of the Oscars more than anything its these awards.
Yup. I genuinely wish they didn’t exist, not only because they’ve increased the predictability of the Oscars but also because their collective taste is so basic and mainstream, more so than the Globes to be honest. A lot of those really inspired passion choices that get in at the Oscars like Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves, Charlotte Rampling in 45 Years, and even Joaquin Phoenix and Amy Adams in The Master, were missing at SAG. The best that can be said about them is that, unlike the Oscar, the Actor actually has a penis.April 10, 2019 at 2:11 pm #1202847387
I am dearly hoping that what appears to be an underwhelming vocal performance from Ejiofor turns out to work better in full context. He is a fantastic actor and I really don’t want him to become widely known as an inferior Jeremy Irons to those currently unfamiliar with him (and there are many, despite his recent Oscar and Emmy nominations). Don’t they sometimes use different takes in trailers anyway?April 10, 2019 at 2:02 pm #1202847370
One that comes to mind is Joel Grey in Cabaret – he seems to draw the ire of many Godfather fans for beating all three of its supporting actor nominees, especially Al Pacino. But frankly Pacino was in the wrong category (he’s more of a lead than Brando ffs, and didn’t he boycott the ceremony because of this?) and while Caan and Duvall were both terrific and deserving of nominations, I would not rate them above Grey’s sublime, hilarious and haunting Master of Ceremonies, which is far more than a showy song-and-dance routine, considering the thematic weight his character holds.
Also someone’s already brought her up, but Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love to me represents everything supporting acting awards should be about – making an indelible impression with limited screen time. (I’d even defend Beatrice Straight’s win with even less screen time if Piper Laurie hadn’t been in contention that year.) Dench’s line deliveries could sharpen a blade, but she also manages to subtly convey a sense of history of Elizabeth I beyond the events on screen, without a hint of sentimentality. She won the National Society of Film Critics award as well, so there was serious appraisal for her performance outside of simply getting swept up by the love for Shakespeare in Love.April 10, 2019 at 1:18 pm #1202847327
execution is always more important than conceptualization though in everything.
You’re right but in this case I meant conceptualisation as opposed to the physical reality of built sets. I was arguing against the notion that Black Panther‘s designs being rendered partly by green screen is problematic in terms of awarding it. Of course if the sets looked unconvincing in the finished product then it wouldn’t deserve an award no matter how good the conception was, but that wasn’t the case in my opinion.April 10, 2019 at 11:45 am #1202847221
I have heard SO many people say that Louise Fletcher didn’t deserve it and I’m honestly astonished. If you want to make an argument that it’s a borderline supporting performance than that’s valid, but her competition was non-existent that year and it was an iconic performance that still blows me away to this day.
Do you mean her competition was non-existent in terms of standard or chances of winning? Because if the former, I would have to challenge that as Isabelle Adjani is revelatory in The Story of Adèle H – I can’t believe she was only 19 during shooting, she really was prodigiously talented. But Fletcher was also great in Cuckoo’s Nest.April 10, 2019 at 11:39 am #1202847203
I’m actually fine with Black Panther’s wins for Costume Design and Score (predicted the latter since they weren’t going to give it song). BP would’ve been a fine Best Picture winner in comparison to GB. But I do think that The Favourite should’ve gotten Production Design, at least. The former being primarily of green screen kinda turns me off but then again, Colman won Actress so I guess that covers it.
But it’s an award for Production Design, so conceptualisation should be the main factor imo. The set designs for Wakanda were really unique.April 10, 2019 at 11:28 am #1202847162
If The Theory of Everything is Oscar bait, then Roma and The Favourite are just as Oscarbaity. Because Lord knows they were made SPECIFICALLY for Oscars. Pretentious + snobish = The New Oscar Bait.
Well not anymore apparently, considering how well Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody did. And if the Lord “knows” that Roma and The Favourite were made specifically for Oscars, then the Lord is stupid.