Eddy Q
Members Since
Oct 13, 2012
Last Login
Apr 20, 2019
Game Points
661849
Quiz Points
0
Total Points
661849
Forum Replies Created
-
-
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.
ReplyApril 20, 2019 at 3:35 am #1202859764Some of her line readings feel so cringe worthy
Which line readings? I don’t mean to seem hostile but I honestly can’t begin to imagine which ones you mean.
ReplyApril 20, 2019 at 3:30 am #1202859757True 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.
ReplyApril 16, 2019 at 11:05 am #1202855592Best 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.
ReplyApril 12, 2019 at 2:16 am #1202849011I’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.
ReplyApril 12, 2019 at 1:57 am #1202848980I 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.
ReplyApril 10, 2019 at 2:11 pm #1202847387I 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?
ReplyApril 10, 2019 at 2:02 pm #1202847370One 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.
ReplyApril 10, 2019 at 1:18 pm #1202847327execution 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.
ReplyApril 10, 2019 at 11:45 am #1202847221I 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.
ReplyApril 10, 2019 at 11:39 am #1202847203I’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.
ReplyApril 10, 2019 at 11:28 am #1202847162If 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.
ReplyMarch 9, 2019 at 2:07 pm #1202810500It’s interesting to think about how predictions would’ve looked if Close had won an Oscar in the 80s. I think she still would’ve won SAG this year (mirroring when Julie Christie won when she already had an Oscar but no SAG award in film), but despite this more people would’ve predicted Colman having learned from the Christie/Cotillard race (and Colman had the added advantage of being in a Best Picture nominee).
ReplyMarch 9, 2019 at 1:26 pm #1202810477Thanks for clarifying. Anyway, what was your take on the date change for the Oscars?
I’m not completely sure what to think about it yet, but I agree with those saying that studios will want to adjust and avoid releasing their Oscar-contenders too late. Thing is, movies released in late December are already at a disadvantage, so I’m concerned that the whole month of December will become an awards-death zone, especially if they don’t premiere at Telluride or Toronto.
ReplyMarch 8, 2019 at 2:43 pm #1202809429@bennunis: Sorry I should have been more clear, I did not mean to suggest you were stating that Ebert deliberately tried to appeal to the masses in his taste. I raised that as a follow-up point to what I initially took issue with which was Ebert “not trying to be snobbish in the direction of artsy films” being in sharp contrast to most modern critics, which I perceived to be your point. But thank you for clarifying further, it was an interesting read.
Reply
