Oscars 2016

[Xela M]

There was a preview for the Revenant. I have to ask, for what purpose would someone watch that?

It's really just worth seeing how far a man's obsession with the Oscar will take him.

Other than that, it's an awful way to spend an evening and I actually had hopes for it because I love the director. At first I thought the trailer didn't reveal the actual story, but the trailer is, in fact, a pretty accurate reflection of the film.

 

[skatesindreams]

No matter how well made the movie is, I'm not interested in the subject matter.

 

[BlueRidge]

This column is quite brutal: The Revenant is meaningless pain porn. (The Guardian)

And in all probability, it will win every Oscar going. Critics have lavishly praised its “visceral” imagery, its “authentic” feel; it is, they say, “immersive” film-making at its finest. Though, arguably, not as immersive as putting a camera in a cage and then setting a man on fire. Have you seen that one? Where the man is burned alive? It’s not by González Iñárritu, but Isis. It wasn’t nominated for anything but the pain is even more real, more visceral, more – what was the word, thrilling? – than DiCaprio’s.

 

[Xela M]

@Xela M, I've seen excerpts, and I think it's a very interesting story, and I hope Alicia Vikander wins Best Supporting Actress Oscar for The Danish Girl. I was surprised Vikander didn't at least win the Golden Globe for Ex Machina, since she was nominated in two acting categories, and is very popular in Hollywood right now.

I read a NYTimes review of The Danish Girl, which I discussed earlier in one of the movie threads in GSD, and I agree with the reviewer's fair and thoughtful critique of Redmayne's acting in this film and in last year's The Theory of Everything. Again, taking nothing away from his skill as an actor, Redmayne has already won an Oscar for Best Actor, and he's a fine technical actor who could challenge himself to further broaden his emotional range beyond surface effects.

ITA and then some that 12 Years a Slave, although good work from its talented director and some of it's cast, really and truly was not close to being a better film than Selma. That's exactly what I'm talking about!

To be quite honest, Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained was a better film in many ways than 12 Years a Slave.

I think Steve McQueen (director of 12 Years a Slave) did absolutely outstanding work with two of his prior films: Hunger, and Shame, both of which starred and brought deserved attention to Michael Fassbender. Both of those films should be on everyone's must-see list.

As to 12 Years a Slave, I say read the original book which provides much more power and impact. I have a problem with many of McQueen's casting decisions, misinterpretations, and directing decisions re 12 Years a Slave, since I read the book first.

I think Will is a much better emotional actor than Redmayne, but Redmayne is a better technical actor than Will.

Totally agree with you that Leo deserved to be rewarded for The Aviator (but he has often had bad luck with who else is on the ballot in the years he's been nominated). Of course Leo was very good in other roles too. I believe he's been nominated 5 times for an acting Oscar. He was good in The Wolf of Wall Street, but I just didn't like that film.

ETA:
@Xela M, I see you said earlier in this thread that in The Danish Girl, Vikander "even stole the scenes from Redmayne." I definitely agree with this observation, and that's what the NYTimes reviewer elaborated on too. That's in part what I'm talkin' bout! You should read that review.

To be honest, I don't understand what "technical" vs "emotional" actor is. I thought Redmayne was superb in both The Theory of Everything and The Danish Girl - truly outstanding acting in both and he shows a lot of (deep and subtle) emotion in The Danish Girl. All I can say is that I believed him watching it and although the subject matter is not something that would normally appeal to me, the acting of the two leads made it worthwhile.

12 Years a Slave was SO overrated it was infuriating to me and I didn't think Lupita Nyong'o deserved her Oscar at all. The role demanded absolutely nothing of her, except one emotional scene, which she completely botched. Selma was a much, much better film.

I absolutely loved The Wolf of Wall Street and thought it should have got Best Picture. What is it that you don't like about it?

 

[dramatheater]

It would interesting to know whether or not Michael Keaton was campaigned for lead actor (he did take some critics awards at the end of the year).

In the previous movie thread, I had commented that this was an ensemble piece throughout (no apparent leads), so anybody that was to be nominated in the acting categories should be nominated in the supporting category (IMO).

totally
I couldnt really pick a standout. Very well acted all around

Btw our Konstantin Bronzit got a nom for best animated short "we cant live without Cosmos"
Congrats Konstantin Eduardovich!

 

[Jenny]

In my eyes Leo should have won for Wolf of Wall Street over Matthew McConaughey whose performance was good but overrated in my view and I thought Dallas Buyers Club (and all performances therein) were overrated.

At the time, there were some who said it was a body of work Oscar for Matthew, and that the role itself justified the Oscar while the voters were really thinking about the tv series True Detective, in which he was truly superb.

 

[Seerek]

Just saw 'Carol' . It surpassed my expectations. Of course I expected great acting from Cate and Rooney, but I wasn't sure if I would like the movie. I did. I was totally absorbed in it. I couldn't figure out though what era it was. Was it the 50's or 40's?

If I was to pin-point a year, I'd say 1952/3, as I believe there were TV screenshots of Eisenhower winning his first election.

I fully understand that Carol's somewhat languid pace throughout will probably be too slow for most audiences expecting more "action" or "conflict based" storytelling, but I personally think the film pretty much gets it right as far as context between characters and their environment is concerned (the emphasis on the implied and the covert throughout was very spot on, IMO).

As I had mentioned in the earlier movie thread, I was curious as to how strong the Douglas Sirk treatment would be in this film compared to Haynes prior work "Far From Heaven". My final verdict - I'd say the colour spectrum used in "Far From Heaven" is more diverse and striking, but "Carol" uses colour in a far more directed, pointed manner to emphasize overall themes.

 

[Vash01]

To be honest, I don't understand what "technical" vs "emotional" actor is. I thought Redmayne was superb in both The Theory of Everything and The Danish Girl - truly outstanding acting in both and he shows a lot of (deep and subtle) emotion in The Danish Girl. All I can say is that I believed him watching it and although the subject matter is not something that would normally appeal to me, the acting of the two leads made it worthwhile.

12 Years a Slave was SO overrated it was infuriating to me and I didn't think Lupita Nyong'o deserved her Oscar at all. The role demanded absolutely nothing of her, except one emotional scene, which she completely botched. Selma was a much, much better film.

I absolutely loved The Wolf of Wall Street and thought it should have got Best Picture. What is it that you don't like about it?

I loved both roles of Eddie R. Very deserving of the Oscar. I never understood the criticism on fsu.

IMO 12 years a slave was a very intense movie about a historical era. It deserved the Oscar but Selma's snub was shameful it should have received several Oscar nominations.

I was a little surprised by Lupita's win, but it's not very different from a few other wins that had short screen time with just one intense scene.

I hated The Wolf of Wall Street for its crudeness and filthy language, although Leo was very good in it. He deserved his nomination but the film didn't. I was more on the Matthew Mc side for best actor win. Either way it would have been right.

 

[Vash01]

This column is quite brutal: The Revenant is meaningless pain porn. (The Guardian)

After reading this, I am likely to pass on this movie. I could never understand why over the top violence gets rewarded in the movie industry and particularly at the Oscars. I had problems with wins by Departed, and one that I can't remember but the violence and gore made me shut my eyes many times. Sounds like Revenant is one of those movies.

 

[Xela M]

I loved both roles of Eddie R. Very deserving of the Oscar. I never understood the criticism on fsu.

IMO 12 years a slave was a very intense movie about a historical era. It deserved the Oscar but Selma's snub was shameful it should have received several Oscar nominations.

I was a little surprised by Lupita's win, but it's not very different from a few other wins that had short screen time with just one intense scene.

I hated The Wolf of Wall Street for its crudeness and filthy language, although Leo was very good in it. He deserved his nomination but the film didn't. I was more on the Matthew Mc side for best actor win. Either way it would have been right.

I thought I was the prude one here on FSU I thought the Wolf of Wall Street was genius cinema - on a different level to the rest of the films that year. The whole cast's acting was out of this world and it was a brilliant satire of the whole industry. I've seen it about 4 times. Some scenes were SO real - especially everything to do with the Swiss banker (again phenomenal acting by Dujardin). This is such a typical Swiss banker https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TyFJx9GGumQ

...or this scene... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e3ANCx4h2Lk I could never understand how some people could NOT like this film

 

[danceronice]

Thing is, the REAL story "The Revenant" is based on is...exciting, I guess. Interesting. (Trapper is mauled by bear, companions bury him, reasonably assuming he's dead, take his stuff, rightfully traumatized guy digs self out, realizes they buried him and took his stuff, goes looking to get his stuff back, understandably scares bejesus out of them as people don't expect dead guys to come looking for their stuff, gets stuff back, lives off story. I think may have killed one of the guys, too.) They drama-ed it up by adding a son, but mostly the movie seems to be "I got mauled by a bear, buried in filth, wrapped myself in a dead animal and ate raw liver. GIVE ME THE G--D--- OSCAR." (Dude, if Peter O'Toole didn't win for Lawrence of Arabia....)

 

[VGThuy]

All this harping and detailed descriptions on The Revenant makes the movie sound a ton more interesting ambitious, and way better than the overrated and hollow and shrill and gimmicky Birdman (and, IMO, only promoted to stop Boyhood from winning Best Pic from those who didn't think Boyhood was that great and wanted to tear it down from front-runner status).

 

[Artemis@BC]

I thought I was the prude one here on FSU I thought the Wolf of Wall Street was genius cinema - on a different level to the rest of the films that year. The whole cast's acting was out of this world and it was a brilliant satire of the whole industry. I've seen it about 4 times. Some scenes were SO real - especially everything to do with the Swiss banker (again phenomenal acting by Dujardin). This is such a typical Swiss banker https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TyFJx9GGumQ

...or this scene... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e3ANCx4h2Lk I could never understand how some people could NOT like this film

Satire? Really?

I might have bought it as a clever satire if it hadn't been a depiction of real people and real events. So while the movie was well-crafted, to be sure, I was just so complete disgusted by the subject matter -- and by the fact that a completely un-apologetic Jordan Belfort made money from it -- that I just couldn't love it.

 

[Xela M]

Satire? Really?

I might have bought it as a clever satire if it hadn't been a depiction of real people and real events. So while the movie was well-crafted, to be sure, I was just so complete disgusted by the subject matter -- and by the fact that a completely un-apologetic Jordan Belfort made money from it -- that I just couldn't love it.

But the movie is not depicting these people as good guys. It's mocking the disgusting degenerates that they are. The film has no "good guys". The whole film is a satire on the rotten industry and everyone therein.

The story is close to my heart because my dad was one of those people who got rich fast on the stock market, although obviously to a lesser extent than Jordan Belfort, and then lost it all years later. And even though Jordan Belfort is a complete arse (and is portrayed as such in the film) I have to admire people who made so much money, lost it all and had to start over, but don't let themselves be brought down. He came to London to give a few "motivational speeches" a year ago and quite a few of my colleagues went to the lectures.

 

[manhn]

I am so over anti-heroes. A movie has to be really, really good for me to really enjoy a movie where anti-heroes exist. As such, Wolf of Wall Street was fine--but I didn't love it.

 

[Artemis@BC]

But the movie is not depicting these people as good guys. It's mocking the disgusting degenerates that they are. The film has no "good guys". The whole film is a satire on the rotten industry and everyone therein.

That might have been Scorsese's intent, but it didn't come across that way to me. It was far too accurate in its depiction to be mocking, IMO -- and comes off more as a glorification of their behaviour than a condemnation of it.

But I guess something like that is really in the power of the beholder. I feel the same way about a lot of Scorsese's movies in how he depicts violence.

 

[Xela M]

I think people who are offended by the Wolf of Wall Street misunderstood the humour in it. It's definitely mocking and not glorifying any of the guys.

With all the disgusting violence we get shoved in our face in most films (with this year's Best Picture nominees just about taking the biscuit) I found it odd to read that some people found the Wolf of Wall Street offensive.

 

[Artemis@BC]

Well, for the record, I find the OTT violence in those films just as offensive.

And also for the record, I have a very highly developed sense of humour, thank you very much. If it came across as glorification rather than mocking, then the fault is in the filmmakers, not me.

Nor am I the only one to think so:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jan/15/wolf-wall-street-satire-without-bite

 

[pat c]

I am so over anti-heroes. A movie has to be really, really good for me to really enjoy a movie where anti-heroes exist. As such, Wolf of Wall Street was fine--but I didn't love it.

Yes. There has to be something interesting about the story or the character, but sometimes the underlying theme is they are assholes and these people were too dumb to see it. (generalizing)

.......But I guess something like that is really in the power of the beholder. I feel the same way about a lot of Scorsese's movies in how he depicts violence.

Scorsese lost me with his endless mafia films, and he seems to have switched to wall street/greed. (shrug) I am not questioning his skills, just his subject matter.

 

[Vash01]

I think people who are offended by the Wolf of Wall Street misunderstood the humour in it. It's definitely mocking and not glorifying any of the guys.

With all the disgusting violence we get shoved in our face in most films (with this year's Best Picture nominees just about taking the biscuit) I found it odd to read that some people found the Wolf of Wall Street offensive.

I have posted numerous times how much I hate extreme violence. I may not even see The Revenant to save myself from the pain I am reading about, and yes, I was disgusted with a The Wolf if Wall Street for a different reason. A person can have more than one types of dislikes.

 

[Xela M]

Well, for the record, I find the OTT violence in those films just as offensive.

And also for the record, I have a very highly developed sense of humour, thank you very much. If it came across as glorification rather than mocking, then the fault is in the filmmakers, not me.

Nor am I the only one to think so:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jan/15/wolf-wall-street-satire-without-bite

I disagree entirely and I loathe The Guardian I think we will never agree on this. How is this not satire?! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JVrh2Z77ENw

And they had an issue with the helicopter scene? Really? I loved it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5DZ4SrczABo

 

[Cachoo]

So Jada and Spike are boycotting the awards. I don't know that it will help. But they have to do what they think is right. Until they changing the complexion of the voting body they might want to open the big acting categories up for more nominations.

 

[Buzz]

So Jada and Spike are boycotting the awards. I don't know that it will help. But they have to do what they think is right. Until they changing the complexion of the voting body they might want to open the big acting categories up for more nominations.

Good on them!!! I fully support their decision and hope more follow!

 

[vesperholly]

I disagree entirely and I loathe The Guardian I think we will never agree on this. How is this not satire?! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JVrh2Z77ENw

And they had an issue with the helicopter scene? Really? I loved it https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5DZ4SrczABo

I agree with you Xela - more satire. Scorsese films are sharp and witty. Loved Goodfellas, The Departed, etc. *shrug* I don't care about judging "disgusting" characters in movies or needing to like them as people to enjoy the films. They're interesting characters and plots.

 

[screech]

I didn't think Lupita Nyong'o deserved her Oscar at all. The role demanded absolutely nothing of her, except one emotional scene

I found her performance extremely overrated as well.

Actually, speaking of slavery movies, Leo in Django Unchained was pretty damn awesome too, not only because he sliced his hand open, blood everywhere, and kept filming (a scene which made it into the movie).

So Jada and Spike are boycotting the awards. I don't know that it will help. But they have to do what they think is right. Until they changing the complexion of the voting body they might want to open the big acting categories up for more nominations.

I really think that there is a hell of a lot more to diversity than the colour of one's skin. For example, in the lead actress category, of the 5 ladies nominated, there are 4 different nationalities (USA - Lawrence and Larson, Ireland - Ronan, England - Rampling, Australia - Blanchett), and 4 different nationalities in supporting ladies as well (USA, UK, Sweden, Canada). What about mother tongues? Brie Larson grew up in a French speaking household, Alicia Vikander - Swedish. What about religion and ancestry?

And the focus seems to be mainly on black vs white. I don't see that much outcry over a lack of Middle Eastern, Latin, Asian and Indigenous nominees.

 

[Jimena]

So Jada and Spike are boycotting the awards. I don't know that it will help. But they have to do what they think is right. Until they changing the complexion of the voting body they might want to open the big acting categories up for more nominations.

I don't think that's enough. Yes, there's a diversity problem in the Academy. But there's a huge diversity problem in the studios. They keep making movies for white guys. They're ridiculously risk-averse when it comes to casting. I shouldn't even call it risk averse. There are bankable actors who are people of color and they just don't get the roles because the people who give the go ahead to make these movies see a risk where there really truly isn't. Thus, the main cast of Exodus, for example, are white people pretending to be brown people. It's awful.

ETA: The perceived focus is on the lack of black nominees but I think that has a lot to do with the films and performances that were recognized as being Oscar-worthy, but were not nominated. And you have to take into consideration that Gonzalez-Inarritu (one of my favorite directors) is nominated and won last year.

 

[Cachoo]

I love the response of Ice Cube: "We didn't make " Straight Outta Compton" for the Oscars. We made it for the people!!!" I think you are right Jimena. And I know we are talking about color here but when Amy Schumer pointed to her roly-poly stomach and said that was the reason she had to write her own material and seek funding was because she wasn't so-to-speak "f*******" to the powers that shell out the money I wanted to scream. Maybe the answer is in building coalitions with the people who are left out.

 

[Cachoo]

I found her performance extremely overrated as well.

Actually, speaking of slavery movies, Leo in Django Unchained was pretty damn awesome too, not only because he sliced his hand open, blood everywhere, and kept filming (a scene which made it into the movie).


I really think that there is a hell of a lot more to diversity than the colour of one's skin. For example, in the lead actress category, of the 5 ladies nominated, there are 4 different nationalities (USA - Lawrence and Larson, Ireland - Ronan, England - Rampling, Australia - Blanchett), and 4 different nationalities in supporting ladies as well (USA, UK, Sweden, Canada). What about mother tongues? Brie Larson grew up in a French speaking household, Alicia Vikander - Swedish. What about religion and ancestry?

And the focus seems to be mainly on black vs white. I don't see that much outcry over a lack of Middle Eastern, Latin, Asian and Indigenous nominees.

That is an interesting angle Screech. I think there is the black/white focus here because of our painful past and reoccurring problems in present life. And maybe also the belief that change is either nonexisistent or very slow. I wish I had answers.

 

[manhn]

And the focus seems to be mainly on black vs white. I don't see that much outcry over a lack of Middle Eastern, Latin, Asian and Indigenous nominees.

Okay, as an Asian person, I'll make a fuss. Now, is the outcry legitimate?

And having the Canadian Rachel McAdams really adds to the diversity.

 

[VGThuy]

I know people are tired of hearing about it, but this problem isn't new at all. It's just that thanks to social media and people feeling empowered to speak out about it now, you're hearing about it now. Same thing with gender-based equal pay. The whole female wage gap Jennifer Lawrence is publicizing isn't new, but the timing is ripe for people to listen now. There is certainly an issue if a lot of the younger generation isn't seeing themselves represented substantively on film and when there are choices (with critical acclaim and backing so that's not an issue though defensive types always go to the old "those movies aren't good enough" defense) that can be awarded that does showcase populations of the U.S. that are often not represented, it makes one question the relevancy of the award. The reason why race is a big issue is because the outcry of the Oscars is just really part of the bigger outcry of Hollywood. The Oscars do nominate foreign films, but they are still an American awarding body that by-in-large rewards American productions. So it gets the American-related criticisms. Though if studios were smarter, they'll learn how to market to underserved populations. There's a way to appease people and exploit the demand to make more money. I find that TV has been much more successful at that for the past decade and there's a reason why people are stating that there's a "golden age of television" happening right now while no such proclamations are being made by anyone in regards to American film.

As for it being a black/white thing, I think it's just selectively finding sound bites or headlines. The whole conversation is being conducted by POCs of all spectrums and women and LGBTQ communities all over social media. And the idea that Oscar needs to award more foreign films and actors (ones that had an LA release and are eligible for general awards) has been a major criticism of the Oscars since the French New Wave and rise of Fellini films in the 1950s and 1960s and has continued on thanks to the likes of Bergman, Kurosawa, and many others.