What should have won the Oscar?- Page 3
What should have won the Oscar?
#50What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 11:20amAll this love for THE ARTIST surprises me. I didn't see enough of the competition to say who should have won over it. But THE ARTIST was smack dab at the bottom of the list of films I did see that year.
#51What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 11:38am
Well, I loved The Artist AND Benjamin Button. Brilliant films and easily two of my top favorites from the past 15 years.
So there!
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#52What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 11:53am
I give Fincher credit for trying to stretch and apply himself in doing a sprawling, classicist period drama but still, the film was a little too cold and clinical for me. Not to mention I found Eric Roth's adaptation to have too many of his own recycled beats (Forrest Gump, anybody?) when that really didn't need to happen. It's still beautiful and well-acted enough but the collaboration of Roth and Fincher felt like oil and water to me- which is strange because on paper you can say that about Roth and Michael Mann but The Insider is still a great film.
"All this love for THE ARTIST surprises me. I didn't see enough of the competition to say who should have won over it. But THE ARTIST was smack dab at the bottom of the list of films I did see that year."
Yeah, but look at what got nominated. Films like My Week With Marilyn (another Harvey Weinstein special), Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Albert Nobbs, and The Iron Lady. I would say the difference between what was put out in 2011 versus what got nominated is world's apart. I'd dump all of the Best Actress nominees for performances like the un-nominated Charlize Theron and Kirsten Dunst performance in a hot second. The Artist had film festival cache and really, it's a charming film with a strong central performance. I never got the hate but I found myself having to find elements in the nominated films than really loving. I know stuff like Midnight in Paris, Hugo, The Descendants, and Moneyball get love but I can only pine for what they were nominated over.
Updated On: 2/12/14 at 11:53 AM
Roscoe
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
#53What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 12:01pm
I dug THE ARTIST -- a genial and amusing film of great warmth and humanity that managed to embody the magic of the movies, in terms of good old-fashioned story character and cinematic technique, in ways that Scorsese's tedious kiddie flick HUGO could only lecture me about.
An undying masterwork? Nah. But good solid filmmaking that never sinks under the weight of its own pretensions (HUGO, TREE OF LIFE, BENJAMIN BUTTON, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, Eastwood's career output). I'd have been much happier had the criminally non-nominated TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY won Best Picture, to be honest.
BENJAMIN BUTTON is wretched excess -- three godforsaken hours of production design and CGI gimmickry and Brad Pitt being made to look like Paul Williams. Fincher's lowest point, before the appalling HOUSE OF CARDS horror.
#54What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 12:07pm
Strummergirl, why did you have to go reopening the "Charlize Theron snub" wound? She gave a masterful performance in YOUNG ADULT, fearless too, and ultimately way too pointed for the Academy who chose people like Rooney Mara (!!!!!) instead. Ugh, and EXTREMELY LOUD? Did anyone see that? What a horrible, horrible (and quite offensive) movie--the image of the little kid taking a picture of Viola Davis as if she was a zoo animal almost makes me hate my beloved Stephen Daldry (well, I should say my beloved pre-THE READER Daldry).
Roscoe, you are right about the novel storytelling in SLUMDOG.
Oh, and I loved THE ARTIST. That's one that I have seen a couple times since it gone and only love it more and more. Jean Dujardin gives the definition of a star performance, and Berenice Bejo makes it look so easy that it's almost easy to dismiss her charming, grounded turn as Peppy Miller. I also really liked the SUNSET BLVD/SINGIN' IN THE RAIN feeling behind the movie.
#55What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 12:20pm
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy would've been my pick that year too. It got Oldman a well-deserved nomination but it's design and direction were omitted when for me it nailed the 70s in its fictional sphere than Argo did in its 'based on a true story' sphere. All hail garish orange and yellow and brown offices.
ray- Ugh. I know. That nomination morning I was in class and checked my phone because I knew nominations were announced near the tail-end. I looked it up and thought I was being punk'd with that nominations list. Scott Rudin pulled an 11th hour on everybody and while I liked TGWTDT, that Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close nomination still leaves me dumbstruck. The less said of Thomas Horn, the better.
I thought for certain either Charlize or Tilda would be nominated and therefore I could be a happy camper. But nope. Both bit the dust despite each having a respectable amount of precursors. How? I admitted that Patton Oswalt might get lost in the shuffle but Albert Brooks too?
#56What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 12:32pm
Charlize gave a performance worthy of the win, same with Kirsten Dunst, who gave the Naomi Watts in MULHOLLAND DRIVE performance--insanely brilliant, yet always bound to be criminally underlooked by the Academy.
Roscoe, thank you for saying that about HUGO! I was at an Oscar party that year with a bunch of my colleagues (all English and/or film academics) and they insisted HUGO was the "good" one and THE ARTIST was the "commercial" one. I was baffled, as I thought HUGO was indeed such a tedious, vacuous and cliched movie with lots of spectacle and very little in the way of emotions. I didn't see how a $200 million movie like that was the "underdog" in the eyes of these people. The scene where Jean Dujardin dreams about a world with sound has much more emotion and pathos than anything in HUGO.
#58What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 12:46pm
The first time I saw Hugo, I felt pretty much the same way you did, ray.
But I watched it again about a year ago and had a different, much better reaction to it. I don't think it's better than The Artist, but I didn't dislike it as much as I did the first time.
I saw it as the valentine toward early cinema that Scorsese intended. It didn't work on all levels, but it also didn't belly-flop for me the way it did the first time as a misguided, self-indulgent tribute.
I had a similar, stronger set of experiences with "Unforgiven." I absolutely hated that film when I first saw it. Everything about it didn't work for me. I saw it again about 10 years later, and it was like watching a different movie. I wouldn't call it one of my favorite films, but it's a damn good film. The anti-Western.
Have any of you had similar experiences? Or do you lock your opinion on a film in stone after the first (and perhaps only) time you see it?
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#59What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 1:31pm
Besty, your post actually makes me reconsider watching HUGO--perhaps next year when I have enough distance from it. I definitely saw it as "a misguided, self-indulgent tribute" the first time around.
There are plenty of these Oscar films I've come around to the second or third time I saw them. SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE is the first one that comes to mind. I disliked it so much the first time I saw it, which was around 2001. I was so indignant that Cate Blanchett had lost for ELIZABETH and I was pretty much set to hate it (I was also like 15 at the time), and hate it I did. Then, my boyfriend made me rewatch it in the early days of our relationship and that time, I thought it was such a lovely, romantic, beautiful film with an unfairly maligned performance by Gwyneth Paltrow. I'll think about some others, but that's one I vividly remember hating with a passion the first time I saw it, and then loving the second time around.
Roscoe
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
#60What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 1:48pm
"Have any of you had similar experiences? Or do you lock your opinion on a film in stone after the first (and perhaps only) time you see it?"
I've seldom done an absolute about face on a film. For many years, though, I didn't get the second half of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA -- it just felt rather prolonged to me. And then one day, after not having seen it for a while, I picked it up at the local video store, watched it straight through, and oh my goodness did I suddenly get the second half, in a VHS copy on a tiny color TV. Likewise with Hitchcock's NOTORIOUS -- I found all the set up frankly boring, until after a few years and some growing up later I finally GOT IT.
But those are movies that I already liked on some level, there was something there for me that made me go back, and I'll cop to being too young to appreciate those aspects of the films I mentioned. Sometimes you've just got to have some life under your belt to get some works of art.
That said, it is having life under my belt that renders sh*t like CHICAGO and COLD MOUNTAIN and BENJAMIN BUTTON unendurable. They only get worse on repeat viewings. THE ENGLISH PATIENT -- my God, I suffered through that when it first came out and found it exactly as lifeless recently when I chanced upon it while channel surfing. I think by now, as I've seen many many movies over many many years, that my bull**** detector is pretty sharp. I can tell when it would be best to reserve judgment on something because I'm not the ideal audience for some reason, as in Sokurov's RUSSIAN ARK, a film I admire but can't bring myself to totally embrace because I don't have the required knowledge of every aspect of Russian history art and literature that the director wants me to have to be able to appreciate his work. Likewise with Michael Powell's BLACK NARCISSUS -- I can appreciate the skill of the production, but it always strikes me as being a deeply silly little movie that I can't hope to sympathise with -- I freely admit that I don't get it, and probably never will get it (all the overheated panting about the struggle between THE SPIRIT and THE FLESH just hits me as being ludicrous) despite some repeat viewings.
I can also tell when a movie is just a big fat f*cking hopeless botch from start to finish -- as in way too many of the Oscar nominated films. A second viewing of MICHAEL CLAYTON? What the f*ck for?
#61What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 2:08pm
The three movies that I initially hated in the theatre and subsequently grew to love on video were Moonstruck, The Accidental Tourist and Pee Wee's Big Adventure. In the case of Pee Wee, I knew nothing about him or his style when I initially saw the film. As for the other two, it was probably my mood when I saw the films or some expectation of what it would be. And the fact that I was a teenager and just didn't have to maturity to pick up on certain styles of humor or subtlety in direction, performance or writing.
But there are some beloved films that I simply will never enjoy like Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, The Departed, Dancer in the Dark or Full Metal Jacket.
#62What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 2:26pm
I've also gone the other way on films. Movies I liked or loved, then viewed later on and thought, "What was I thinking?"
I'm not talking about films I loved when I was a child and then saw them with an adult's eyes later on. Actually, more often than not, I retain my love for those films because I was a child when I first saw them. So, warts and all, I still value them as nostalgia.
I'm talking about movies I loved as an adult, then saw later on and thought they were pretty bad. A couple that come to mind are A Star Is Born (Garland). It's a big bloated, morose mess as a film, but I loved it the first few times I saw it, mostly because of Judy's performance. Also Funny Girl gets worse and drops a notch for me every time I see it now. Another morose mess with a brilliant, star performance.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#63What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 2:31pm
The movie (actually TV movie) that comes to mind when I think of an evolving opinion is the Midler GYPSY. I remember thinking when I first saw it that Midler was ghoulish and bizarre and awful.
Then...we watched it on Fire Island this summer (I was not pleased). Turns out I loved it. It's a terrific filming of a great musical and Midler is wonderful. And I NEVER think that Midler is wonderful.
Roscoe
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/15/03
#64What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 2:42pmI'll cop to having enjoyed GANGS OF NEW YORK on that first viewing when it first came out, with some reservations about Dicaprio. I was swept along by the big story and big characters and the big sets and the big history that Scorsese kept throwing around, and it was kind of seductive, I'll admit. Repeat viewings during that intial run didn't help my appreciation of the film, which I know find unwatchable. The total lack of chemistry between Cameron Diaz and Dicaprio is just bizarre.
#65What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 2:46pm
I sobbed through Titanic (both my maternal grandparents had died and I was vulnerable). I was overwhelmed by what I saw on the screen.
I can no longer watch it. I think it's a truly terrible film.
#66What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 3:01pm
I didn't much care for ON THE WATERFRONT when I first saw it, but I think it's entirely life-context: when I first saw it, it was a film studies class and we were advised to pay attention to the "method" acting - we watched the date scene where Brando picks up her glove and plays with it before giving it back two or three times alone. I was all teenager-y disdain with my "so what? anyone could do that? so he plays with a glove, so what?" that I lost the forest for the trees.
This past summer, when Criterion released it on Blu-ray, I picked it up knowing I wanted to give it a second chance. This time, the sterling HD transfer coupled with knowing much more about Elia Kazan's personal trials with HUAC, it was like realizing there was an entirely different treasure map in invisible ink under the map I had first played with many years ago. I always remembered liking Karl Malden in the film, but Brando and Cobb leapt off the screen and suddenly I saw all these titanic performances in the context of the ripped-from-the-headlines tragedy that they played under originally.
I look forward to occasionally giving those movies I was underwhelmed by second chances periodically, hoping to catch my stubborn judgments out and appreciating anew.
#67What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 4:29pm
On the Waterfront was a movie I watched on DVD (pre-Criterion, obviously) when I was 12-13 and fell instantly in love with it. Also saw Rebel Without a Cause at the same time and it clinched my love of films. Budd Schulberg's On the Waterfront screenplay was also used in my High School English class in addition to viewing the film and never was I so vocal in my praise and defenses of a piece of writing in that class*. Even my issues with Schulberg and Kazan's behavior during the HUAC years actually has helped me look at a film critically, probably one of the first films I ever did, actually.
*-Forget critics, the most jaded group of people to show any film designated a classic film to are teenagers.
Roscoe, I'm with you on Russian Ark. An amazing feat in its whole achieved pretense but sometimes I feel at odds with films that feel like structural exercises be it how long a shot is held or working entirely on improvisation. You couldn't pay me to sit through a marathon on mumblecore films, even if I actually quite like figures or filmmakers who grew from that 'movement' (Andrew Bujalski, the Duplass Brothers, Greta Gerwig). Sometimes things feel too studied and slick, feeling like more is owed to watch the filmmakers watched/was inspired by than having me, the viewer, live in the skin of their film. It's a problem in a lot of movies but even the art films I want to like I often reject if I can see the gears moving and what they are trying to do off the bat.
I've changed me tune a lot on Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive after I saw films it clearly owed itself to, The Driver and Thief. Those films just have a more interesting unnamed protagonist, better at capturing a sense of space and place, and being minimalist not just to flex their muscles for critics that I feel like Refn does even in films I kinda like of his.
There are films that after repeat viewings my reservations disappear. That can be applied to a few Coen Brothers films and Frances Ha, that became one of my favorite films this past year. Re-watching Vertigo, albeit I first saw it as a kid as in an audience member who is probably not getting it, was kind of revelatory in the context of what Hitchcock is saying about himself and not just Jimmy Stewart's character.
Updated On: 2/12/14 at 04:29 PM
#68What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 4:48pmI keep wondering if I should revisit The Sweet Hereafter, thinking I might find it more revelatory than tedious and boring.
blueroses
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/18/04
#69What should have won the Oscar?
Posted: 2/12/14 at 4:50pmTwo huge upsets for me back in 1990. GOODFELLAS lost to DANCES WITH WOLVES, and Lorraine Bracco lost to Whoopi Goldberg. It still burns.
Videos