Oscar noms quick survey

[temery]

So when you give the wrong ending you use "spoiler", but when you give the right ending you don't??

I take it you haven't seen the movie. Watch it. You'll like it, even with the Scoobee Doo ending where one of the aliens pulls his mask off and it's Jodie Foster returning from her trip in Contact.

 

[superjohn]

I think I've said this here or elsewhere, but the worst thing for Moonlight is having big expectations. It's a small film, not a big movie. And yes, it is a much slower pace than most modern movies. On the one hand, I never would have seen it but for the hype; on the other hand, I didn't think it lived up to the hype. But I am glad I saw it. It is a provocative movie that stays with you if you stay with it, but it doesn't hit you over the head with anything. There are some very good individual performances that I think are Oscar-worthy, but I'm not sure I agree that the movie itself is worthy of best picture, either.

As for "the point," again I think I have said this when comparing it and Manchester By The Sea, but I think the point was to depict the humanity of living a tortured existence, and what people do to cope and try to overcome it in less-than-ideal circumstances, to put it mildly.

The thing I loved about Moonlight is that it doesn't hit you over the head to make a point like some Spike Lee films and that awful dreck "Crash" from Paul Haggis. Moonlight is a slow burn, I have thought about it several times since.

 

[meyers7]

I take it you haven't seen the movie. Watch it. You'll like it, even with the Scoobee Doo ending where one of the aliens pulls his mask off and it's Jodie Foster.

I've seen it. Just messing with Sasquatch.

 

[8893]

I'd agree with that. The downside of Moonlight could be described as the movie focusing on the outcome, moreso than the coping. Maybe a bit too superficial feeling. I definitely fell into the cliche movie trap of expecting more bad things to happen than actually happened, but I think that's what mainstream movies will do to you, I guess. Maybe the issue is more that it tried to stradle that line too hard.

The thing I loved about Moonlight is that it doesn't hit you over the head to make a point like some Spike Lee films and that awful dreck "Crash" from Paul Haggis. Moonlight is a slow burn, I have thought about it several times since.

Funny you say that, SJ, as I was just writing a reply to @Deadrody 's post along those lines. I think the movie does a good job of showing cause and effect, but not making the connections so obvious. Perhaps this is what Deadrody means when he refers to "focusing on the outcome." Personally, I didn't focus much on the outcome until after the movie.

As for "expecting more bad things to happen than actually happened,"

Spoiler: Spoiler

I mean the kid grows up fatherless, black and gay in drug-infested 1980s Miami. His mother is a crack whore who is being supplied by the guy who becomes his de facto father figure, and who is apparently killed himself. He doesn't know that he's gay or what it means until that one night with his friend, who promptly beats him to a pulp the next day at the urging of the school bully. He apparently overcompensates for that by retaliating and getting himself thrown in jail, where he models himself on the dead drug dealer/father figure to survive. Years later he reconnects with the friend and confides that that one night back in school was the only time in his entire life that he has been touched by another human?!? I'm getting pretty moved again just typing that and thinking about it again. At the time I had no idea what to think, but upon reflection it's pretty breathtakingly sad imo, yet ultimately hopeful in that he is able to express it and, hopefully, build from there.

So...lots bad things happened to my observation, but we don't see most of the bad things; instead, we see the effects of them. I think that was a very interesting and unique stylistic choice, and one that has made it have a greater impact at the end of the day.

 

[Fishy]

I saw Hacksaw Ridge last night.

Ah, it was fine. Nothing special - great story, but kind of a generic war movie most of the way.

 

[Deepster]

Saw La La Land this morning. Thought it was shot well and captured the city and "story" of what people,come to LA for....but I think 14 oscar moms is crazy.

 

[superjohn]

Saw La La Land this morning. Thought it was shot well and captured the city and "story" of what people,come to LA for....but I think 14 oscar moms is crazy.

14 oscar moms is definitely crazy.

 

[Fishy]

14 oscar moms is definitely crazy.

Just whip up a batch of cosmos and see where the night goes.

 

[Deepster]

Saw Arrival last night. Yeah, I've been on a movie binge lately. I thought it was the best of all the Oscar flicks I've seen. The payoff in the last half hour was not at all what I expected and I had to really think to try and grab it all. Very well done.

 

[superjohn]

Funny you say that, SJ, as I was just writing a reply to @Deadrody 's post along those lines. I think the movie does a good job of showing cause and effect, but not making the connections so obvious. Perhaps this is what Deadrody means when he refers to "focusing on the outcome." Personally, I didn't focus much on the outcome until after the movie.

As for "expecting more bad things to happen than actually happened,"

Spoiler: Spoiler

I mean the kid grows up fatherless, black and gay in drug-infested 1980s Miami. His mother is a crack whore who is being supplied by the guy who becomes his de facto father figure, and who is apparently killed himself. He doesn't know that he's gay or what it means until that one night with his friend, who promptly beats him to a pulp the next day at the urging of the school bully. He apparently overcompensates for that by retaliating and getting himself thrown in jail, where he models himself on the dead drug dealer/father figure to survive. Years later he reconnects with the friend and confides that that one night back in school was the only time in his entire life that he has been touched by another human?!? I'm getting pretty moved again just typing that and thinking about it again. At the time I had no idea what to think, but upon reflection it's pretty breathtakingly sad imo, yet ultimately hopeful in that he is able to express it and, hopefully, build from there.

So...lots bad things happened to my observation, but we don't see most of the bad things; instead, we see the effects of them. I think that was a very interesting and unique stylistic choice, and one that has made it have a greater impact at the end of the day.

Great analysis.

 

[Fishy]

The only category on which I can speak with authority...

Moana should win best animated movie, but it won't. Zootopia is favored, but I suspect Kubo and the Two Strings will win.

 

[Fishy]

All right, I was wrong.

 

[Walker11]

Poor Warren Beatty. What sad sack gave him the wrong card?

Poor Lala Land folks even though the film was hugely overrated.

Thank God Moonlight wasn't the initial announcement, only to be overturned.

 

[superjohn]

Poor Warren Beatty. What sad sack gave him the wrong card?

Poor Lala Land folks even though the film was hugely overrated.

Thank God Moonlight wasn't the initial announcement, only to be overturned.

Why is everyone blaming Warren Beatty? He seemed a bit confused the whole time he was up there but he looked like he tried to stall and Faye Dunaway read La La Land. Someone else screwed up by handing them the wrong card.

 

[Walker11]

Why is everyone blaming Warren Beatty? He seemed a bit confused the whole time he was up there but he looked like he tried to stall and Faye Dunaway read La La Land. Someone else screwed up by handing them the wrong card.

Undoubtedly. I haven't seen the backlash since my social media feed is solely NBA writers who were more concerned about the end of the Hornets Clippers game but I imagine their is a lot of unfounded vitriol towards Beatty. Colossal F up regardless.

 

[Deadrody]

Funny you say that, SJ, as I was just writing a reply to @Deadrody 's post along those lines. I think the movie does a good job of showing cause and effect, but not making the connections so obvious. Perhaps this is what Deadrody means when he refers to "focusing on the outcome." Personally, I didn't focus much on the outcome until after the movie.

As for "expecting more bad things to happen than actually happened,"

Spoiler: Spoiler

I mean the kid grows up fatherless, black and gay in drug-infested 1980s Miami. His mother is a crack whore who is being supplied by the guy who becomes his de facto father figure, and who is apparently killed himself. He doesn't know that he's gay or what it means until that one night with his friend, who promptly beats him to a pulp the next day at the urging of the school bully. He apparently overcompensates for that by retaliating and getting himself thrown in jail, where he models himself on the dead drug dealer/father figure to survive. Years later he reconnects with the friend and confides that that one night back in school was the only time in his entire life that he has been touched by another human?!? I'm getting pretty moved again just typing that and thinking about it again. At the time I had no idea what to think, but upon reflection it's pretty breathtakingly sad imo, yet ultimately hopeful in that he is able to express it and, hopefully, build from there.

So...lots bad things happened to my observation, but we don't see most of the bad things; instead, we see the effects of them. I think that was a very interesting and unique stylistic choice, and one that has made it have a greater impact at the end of the day.

I meant more on the downstream side. Yeah, lots of "bad" growing up, but other than you know he's a dealer, and alone, lots of people live far worse existences. When you light that fuse with him as a kid, I expected it to blow later on and it never did. Not in the least. The idea that Moonlight was best picture is laughably stupid. Fine job by the Academy of beclowning themselves. As usual.

 

[Deadrody]

BTW, we saw Manchester by the Sea on Saturday. Great story to work with, horrific execution. The time jumps were completely unnecessary and really distracted from story. I guess now "brooding grief" or more accurately, "Casey Affleck in most every movie he's in" is the new standard for best actor. Really bad Oscars IMO. The dude in Moonlight winning best supporting, when he's in 1/3 of the movie and has 10 lines of dialog was not a shining moment for them, either. Yikes.

 

[8893]

I meant more on the downstream side. Yeah, lots of "bad" growing up, but other than you know he's a dealer, and alone, lots of people live far worse existences. When you light that fuse with him as a kid, I expected it to blow later on and it never did. Not in the least. The idea that Moonlight was best picture is laughably stupid. Fine job by the Academy of beclowning themselves. As usual.

BTW, we saw Manchester by the Sea on Saturday. Great story to work with, horrific execution. The time jumps were completely unnecessary and really distracted from story. I guess now "brooding grief" or more accurately, "Casey Affleck in most every movie he's in" is the new standard for best actor. Really bad Oscars IMO. The dude in Moonlight winning best supporting, when he's in 1/3 of the movie and has 10 lines of dialog was not a shining moment for them, either. Yikes.

So, not enough grief for you in Moonlight; too much in Manchester By The Sea.

Safe to say you entirely missed the point of both, Goldilocks, but that's nothing new.

 

[Deepster]

I ended up rewatching Moonlight yesterday afternoon and really didn't give it a fair shot the first time around. I realize I had cut it short really, really soon into the first third and thought the 2nd and 3rd "acts" were pretty amazing. I don't agree with the Best Supporting Actor award though. He was in it for the first third and barely spoke.

 

[8893]

I have more of a problem with lead actors and actresses opting for the supporting category instead, which is what it looks like Viola Davis and Dev Patel did imo. How were they not leads?

I think Michelle Williams had less screen time and fewer lines in Manchester By The Sea than Ali had in Moonlight; but both of their roles were very impactful and the epitome of "supporting" imo, as were Naomi Harris in Moonlight and Lucas Hedges in Manchester By The Sea. I thought all were deserving of their nominations.

Ali's “At some point, you got to decide for yourself who you’re going to be. Can’t let nobody make that decision for you.” line and that scene were very moving and I loved his character from the get-go. And clearly even though he was only in the first third his influence on Chiron is pretty profound.

 

[John]

Faye Dunaway, despite being older than the hills, is still a feast for the eyes.

 

[Deadrody]

So, not enough grief for you in Moonlight; too much in Manchester By The Sea.

Safe to say you entirely missed the point of both, Goldilocks, but that's nothing new.

Yeah, ok Einstein. The third act of Moonlight went absolutely nowhere, the entire thing was an amateur production, and I think literally any director in America could have made a better movie out of the Manchester story. Between the jumping back and forth in time and the horrid, exactly scripted style of dialog talking over one another, the story was butchered. And no, there wasn't "too much" grief in Manchester. Hardly.

We can revisit this year's Oscars in 5 years or so and see if Moonlight standr the test of time. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

 

[superjohn]

Yeah, ok Einstein. The third act of Moonlight went absolutely nowhere, the entire thing was an amateur production, and I think literally any director in America could have made a better movie out of the Manchester story. Between the jumping back and forth in time and the horrid, exactly scripted style of dialog talking over one another, the story was butchered. And no, there wasn't "too much" grief in Manchester. Hardly.

We can revisit this year's Oscars in 5 years or so and see if Moonlight standr the test of time. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

You should probably sit this one out, Chief.

 

[8893]

Yeah, ok Einstein. The third act of Moonlight went absolutely nowhere, the entire thing was an amateur production, and I think literally any director in America could have made a better movie out of the Manchester story. Between the jumping back and forth in time and the horrid, exactly scripted style of dialog talking over one another, the story was butchered. And no, there wasn't "too much" grief in Manchester. Hardly.

We can revisit this year's Oscars in 5 years or so and see if Moonlight standr the test of time. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

Both movies require emotional intelligence and empathy, which you obviously lack.

You didn't like or "get" either movie, and that's okay. Plenty of other people didn't, either.

But getting mad that other people had the capacity to appreciate them is pretty silly, even for someone who apparently can't function without being mad at something or someone.

The irony is that you might benefit by learning something from them, if you had the capacity to.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Both movies require emotional intelligence and empathy, which you obviously lack.

You didn't like or "get" either movie, and that's okay. Plenty of other people didn't, either.

But getting mad that other people had the capacity to appreciate them is pretty silly, even for someone who apparently can't function without being mad at something or someone.

The irony is that you might benefit by learning something from them, if you had the capacity to.

I didn't see either one, and probably won't. But it's pretty clear that the Academy has, for a long time really, failed to understand what a great movie is. Occasionally they get it right, because someone makes a great movie that pushes their buttons the right way. But go back through the winners, and ask yourself how many are enduring films? 2010 with The King's Speech might be the last one they got right. They miss more than they hit.

Ever since Chariots of Fire (one of the worst movies ever) beat Raiders of the Lost Ark (one of the best ever) I realized that they were hopelessly clueless. They need to look for great stories, well directed and acted and well told. They used to do that. Many winners used to also be Box Office winners. Not since The Departed in 2006 have they picked a movie that audiences really wanted to see.

 

[8893]

I didn't see either one, and probably won't. But it's pretty clear that the Academy has, for a long time really, failed to understand what a great movie is. Occasionally they get it right, because someone makes a great movie that pushes their buttons the right way. But go back through the winners, and ask yourself how many are enduring films? 2010 with The King's Speech might be the last one they got right. They miss more than they hit.

Ever since Chariots of Fire (one of the worst movies ever) beat Raiders of the Lost Ark (one of the best ever) I realized that they were hopelessly clueless. They need to look for great stories, well directed and acted and well told. They used to do that. Many winners used to also be Box Office winners. Not since The Departed in 2006 have they picked a movie that audiences really wanted to see.

I'll throw Birdman up there as one I thought they got right. I loved that movie and think it will be enduring.

No argument that they don't always get it right.

I just reject the notion that Moonlight and Manchester By The Sea were failures as movies and the performances unworthy of recognition. I like them both (on record here as soon as I saw them btw, and before the hype machine was in full gear for either) and I get that plenty of people don't; that's what makes the world go 'round. But I don't get mad if the movies I didn't like end up winning award shows. It doesn't make me like the ones I liked any less. Sometimes, it makes me see something I wouldn't have seen; and I don't always end up liking them, but sometimes I do.

I didn't like what I saw of Fences, for example, but now I'm thinking I should give it another try, because I never gave it much of a chance once Denzel Washington's patois started to bug me. It made me not like it, but it didn't make me burn with desire to hate everything about it. Clearly, it moved lots of people, so it succeeded as a movie.

 

[Deepster]

I didn't like what I saw of Fences, for example, but now I'm thinking I should give it another try, because I never gave it much of a chance once Denzel Washington's patois started to bug me. It made me not like it, but it didn't make me burn with desire to hate everything about it. Clearly, it moved lots of people, so it succeeded as a movie.

Can Denzel's "patois" be any worse than the acceptance speech by Viola Davis?

 

[8893]

Can Denzel's "patois" be any worse than the acceptance speech by Viola Davis?

Eh, it went on a bit long and she was obviously overcome with the moment, but I was happy for her. It seemed very genuine.

 

[Deepster]

Eh, it went on a bit long and she was obviously overcome with the moment, but I was happy for her. It seemed very genuine.

I thought the exact opposite of it. I found her to be phony and contrived. And the whole part about acting being the only profession that "celebrates a life" really struck me the wrong way. What a pompous, self absorbed thing to say.

 

[8893]

I thought the exact opposite of it. I found her to be phony and contrived. And the whole part about acting being the only profession that "celebrates a life" really struck me the wrong way. What a pompous, self absorbed thing to say.

I just watched it again to make sure I heard it right, but it didn't strike me that way at all. The actual line was "the only profession that celebrates what it means to live a life," and the context for it began at the start of her speech when she spoke of all the potential lying in graveyards and the need to "exhume" those bodies and tell their stories--stories of ordinary lives and loves and struggles. That's what she meant, and she was speaking to a roomful of actors celebrating their profession.

I suppose priests and other religious leaders could make a similar claim in a different context, as could biologists; but what she said was pretty insightful and accurate in context imo. To me, great acting means conveying something about the human condition, and I think it is fair to say that's that what she was talking about.