Entertainment Weekly predicts BABEL Best Picture win.- Page 3

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 2:43pm

Eh, I wouldn't have nominated any of the men from SUNSHINE - I would have given the slot to Sheen for THE QUEEN.

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 2:45pm

Having seen Blood Diamond a second time last night, I would take Hounsou out and put Sheen in.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 2:46pm

I don't find Babel unbelievable. It just didn't gel for me.

"My problem with Crash was that the characters were constantly interacting with each other. Are these the only people in Los Angeles?"

I am constantly amazed when theatre people say this. Crash is a heightened reality. And, actually, how many times have we all experienced coincidences where people who would seem to have nothing to connect them knew each other? And,clearly, the characters in that film were connected. Why would you randomly throw in a character who wasn't? The focus has to be on those that all pertain to the story being told. That was the idea of the story--that as much as we fill disconnected to people, particularly because of our bigotry, we are all connected and have an effect on each other.

[Ciaron McCarthy]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 3:16pm

Sorry but "Crash" winning the Oscar was a joke. The movie is to cliche. The script was good but I liked it better when it was called "Magnolia".

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 3:22pm

And Magnolia should have won Best Picture.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 3:22pm

I agree about the excellence that is Magnolia.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 3:27pm

Djimon was brilliant in BLOOD DIAMOND. That's all.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 3:30pm

I love 'Magnolia' but, really, it didn't have much in common with 'Crash' and it's not like 'Magnolia' was the first movie to ever weave a large group of characters in and out of a non-linear story.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 3:53pm

Wow, Margo. I am really surpised. My guess is that possibly expected Babel to be a film it's not intending to be. I've heard this "manipulation" charge before about Babel, and I just don't get it. What made you feel manipulated? Did you feel manipulated because you didn't believe the coincidences? If so, I would contend that the film is about an exploration of globalization in a world that doesn't "speak the same language"...and not an exploration and rumination on the power of coincidence.

I don't think it is the best film of the year, but I can say I felt more manipulated by Iwo Jima than Babel.

Updated On: 1/29/07 at 03:53 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 4:06pm

Margo, I LOVED that you used the word "folderol" too. I pictured you as Celeste Holm in sequins just then... is that so terribly wrong?

ray & doodle --- When Davis didn't get nominated for "Of Human Bondage (in 1934) there was indeed a write-in campaign to get her the Oscar. It was undermined by the fact that Jack Warner was so outraged by her lack of a nomination, he threatened to pull all of Warner Bros. out of the Academy for good. He had just cause too. Her performance in that film was heralded universally as "reinventing acting for film." So much for ground-breakers.

The Academy took Jack Warner's threats to heart, because he would have finished the Academy and the Oscars, if Warners had pulled out. Not enough people appreciated Warner's bullying tactics though, and she didn't get the award on a write-in. Instead, she won it the following year for a largely forgettable performance in a largely forgettable film called "Dangerous." That was her payback in 1935, which was also the year a write-in won for "Midsummer Night's Dream" cinematography. The same year they changed the rules so that would never happen again.

Such drama!

[mateo]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 4:08pm

is this EW isssue dated the first week of Feb?

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 4:49pm

My problem wasn't so much the coincidences -- though I thought that the effort and visible strain that the filmmaker and screenwriter put into making all their little precious puzzle pieces fit together was off-putting -- but the general air of condescension toward the audience the film had in trying to "teach" me its "important" message.

I got it -- bad things happen to good people; seemingly trivial actions can have unseen, even global consequences; the divide between rich and poor globally continues to grow; the world is in trouble because we don't know one another better and our inability to communicate with and understand each other imperils us all ....... got it. Had it. Had it LONG before I walked into the theater. Yet, the film insisted on underlining and numbingly overemphasizing every little (simple-minded) point it had to say as if it was some Global Politics 101 history lesson for the mentally challenged, telegraphing every plot twist with a level of obviousness and leaden pacing that I found the entire experience excruciating to sit through. Ultimately, I didn't find any of the episodes compelling enough on its own to justify the time spent telling it and that the overall impact of the collective story to be as tedious, facile, emotionally muted, and unilluminating as an Afterschool Special.

Updated On: 1/29/07 at 04:49 PM

[DG]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 4:52pm

"bad things happen to good people; seemingly trivial actions can have unseen, even global consequences; the divide between rich and poor globally continues to grow; the world is in trouble because we don't know one another better and our inability to communicate with and understand each other imperils us all"

Margo, you might know these things (obviously!) but I'm not sure how much of the general populace has been willing to address these issues - you can hardly be considered the norm in our society! I haven't seen the film, but just by subject matter, if this is what it endeavors to address, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 4:54pm

DG, you are such a cock-eyed optimist!

[DG]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 4:59pm

jerby - The cup overfloweth - always!

And, 'he-he' - you said cock-eyed!

[purpleprince101]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 5:16pm

i wish dreamgirls won, ohh wait, they got snubbed!

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 5:20pm

I agree with Margo and Plum 1000000%. I really hope Little Miss Sunshine wins Best Picture.

I think The Departed will though.

[Plum]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 5:22pm

Well, if I have to pick from the actual nominees, I'd go for The Queen or Little Miss Sunshine.


I'm a big believer in the educative power of art. I also believe that Babel, like Crash, fails miserably in that respect. They're anvilicious, as people on TWoP would say. Good art should be about catching the audience's imagination and using it to make them examine themselves and their assumptions from a new angle. All I'm seeing from these films is self-congratulatory confirmation of things we're all already aware of.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 5:26pm

I liked Crash a hell of a lot more than most people on this site. I thought it was one of the best films of last year. I just found Babel to be bloated, pain-stakingly slow, uninvolving, overwrought, and if it wins the Best Picture trophy, I will be pissed.

On the other hand, Innaritu's 21 Grams was wonderful.

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 5:26pm

Jerby, I think the difference with the two films was the direction. With Haggis's film, I couldn't take my mind off the coincidences and the dialogue, which ran the gamut from inspired to sloppy. A better director might have gotten a better handle on that and the cast, which (like the script) was uneven. That's just how I feel, and I know I'm in the minority on this one. *shrugs*

With Babel, I didn't feel like I was being hit over the head with a message. The director had me riveted from start to finish, and I left completely satisfied. I saw three different, equally compelling stories with characters that I connected to (Barraza and Kikuchi, in particular).

[DG]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 5:27pm

"things we're all already aware of."

Again, I'm just not sure that's a true statement.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 6:08pm

Margo, I would contend that the film is about putting a face and a name to oft-prescribed political soundbytes we consume. The movie wasn't about showcasing plot twists we didn't see coming, but it was about reflecting a culture that "knows" about other cultures, but doesn't really know more than we see on a CNN ticker, and the consequences of that.

A film like Iwo Jima seemed a little obvious to me (the enemy are people, too), and I didn't get much more beyond that. I think that a film like Babel will be something people consider next time they vote on issues like immigration policy and issues affecting American globalization. Because people walked into the theatre with a name, and left with a face.

But, I will be the first to contend that Margo is much smarter than me. I just am willing to believe that this is one of those instances where hype and the wrong movie at the wrong time made for a bad movie experience.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 6:54pm

The thing is that over the years, I've found myself rather immune to hype -- as soon as the lights go down for a play or movie, I generally forget everything I've heard and judge what I see on its own merits. I've loved and hated both things that were supposed to be great and things that were supposed to be bad -- sometimes I agree with the critics, sometime I don't.

With BABEL, actually, I don't remember any hype. I didn't read a single review before I went into the theater (I tend to avoid reviews before I see something and go out of my way to avoid any plot synopses), had no idea what it was about (or even that it had multiple plots) and aside from having a vague memory that Pitt and Blanchett were in it, really knew nothing about it. While a couple of friends had told me that they didn't like it (but, didn't specify why other than they thought it was overlong), a couple of others said that they thought it was one of the best movies of the year. In other words, since opinion was split right down the middle, pro and con, I had no preconceived notions going in and was more or less a blank slate. I wasn't disappointed by the film, because I really had no specific reason to think it would be great to begin with (or conversely, no reason to think it would be bad).

Since seeing the film, however, I've gone back and read reviews and most seem to echo many of my complaints about it. It received a score of 69 on both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, while the other 4 nominated films have scores in the 80s and 90s (which makes me wonder why BABEL got a Best Picture nod in the first place, over dozens of others films that were much better received -- Pan's Labyrinth, Children of Men, United 93, Volver, Little Children, Borat, Casino Royale, Notes on a Scandal and even the much-maligned Dreamgirls all scored MUCH higher).

Hype or no hype, IMO, BABEL is a deeply flawed film that has no business being included on any list of the top 5 films of 2006.

Updated On: 1/29/07 at 06:54 PM

[americanboy99]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 7:47pm

I actually see and hope THE QUEEN wins best picture.

Also:

Why was their no Oscar or really any award buss for the fantastic Michael Sheen?

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/29/07 at 8:08pm

I believe it was a case of everyone being so impressed by Hellen Mirren that they forgot about everyone else in the film. I believe Michael Sheen gave the most underrated performance of the year.