Oscar noms quick survey

[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.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

They used to get a lot of them right. I loved Unforgiven and was shocked when it won. What I'm noticing more recently is that they don't even nominate anything if it sold any tickets. I suppose Arrival did ok at the box office. They have overweighted the art house movies beyond others. The enduring movies from 2016 probably start with Rogue One and Captain America Civil War. And both had a little bit of heft to them, Civil War was about a very important issue and left it up to the viewer in a rare but wise move. These movies are just dismissed now, but similar films used to garner nominations. The LOTR movies for example, Gladiator, Braveheart. Titanic won, but was hardly weighty in regard to any issue of the day....it was recognized as great movie entertainment.

If the Oscar people want the Oscars to be relevant they way they once were, they need to at least nominate some popular films if they are well made and well acted.

 

[8893]

They used to get a lot of them right. I loved Unforgiven and was shocked when it won. What I'm noticing more recently is that they don't even nominate anything if it sold any tickets. I suppose Arrival did ok at the box office. They have overweighted the art house movies beyond others. The enduring movies from 2016 probably start with Rogue One and Captain America Civil War. And both had a little bit of heft to them, Civil War was about a very important issue and left it up to the viewer in a rare but wise move. These movies are just dismissed now, but similar films used to garner nominations. The LOTR movies for example, Gladiator, Braveheart. Titanic won, but was hardly weighty in regard to any issue of the day....it was recognized as great movie entertainment.

If the Oscar people want the Oscars to be relevant they way they once were, they need to at least nominate some popular films if they are well made and well acted.

Did you see Hidden Figures or Manchester By The Sea? I didn't think either one was an art house movie. Hidden Figures in particular was very Hollywood to my eyes. I have no idea if it sold a lot of tickets because I don't pay attention to that. I thought it was a very well done movie that told an important story, but was also entertaining.

I liked Rogue One also. Didn't see Captain America.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Did you see Hidden Figures or Manchester By The Sea? I didn't think either one was an art house movie. Hidden Figures in particular was very Hollywood to my eyes. I have no idea if it sold a lot of tickets because I don't pay attention to that. I thought it was a very well done movie that told an important story, but was also entertaining.

I liked Rogue One also. Didn't see Captain America.

No. Plan to watch Hidden Figured for sure on DVD. I have hearing issues so try to watch most things at home with subtitles. Movie theater does now have a device for those so we've gone to more lately.

 

[8893]

No. Plan to watch Hidden Figured for sure on DVD. I have hearing issues so try to watch most things at home with subtitles. Movie theater does now have a device for those so we've gone to more lately.

My mother-in-law has pretty severe hearing issues and wears very expensive hearing aids and she hadn't been to the movies in decades for the same reason. She moved down close to us a year or so ago and our local theater has the device. She went to the movies with us recently and said it worked great.

 

[superjohn]

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.

Haven't seen Fences yet but what is it about Denzel that bugged you? Does he not pull off what a black man in Pittsburgh would have sounded like in the 1950's? I think he's a great actor so curious.

 

[8893]

Haven't seen Fences yet but what is it about Denzel that bugged you? Does he not pull off what a black man in Pittsburgh would have sounded like in the 1950's? I think he's a great actor so curious.

Certainly a big part of it is that I don't always love Denzel as an actor. I liked him Malcolm X, Flight, Philadelphia and Mo' Better Blues, among others, but I just wasn't buying him in this role, which seemed to be more of a caricature than an actual character to me. Admittedly, I don't know what a black man from Pittsburgh sounded like in the 1950's, but I couldn't get past the "Denzel Washington playing the role of a poor old black man" feeling so I never really embraced the movie--and the next thing I knew I was asleep.

 

[Dogdeacon]

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.

I partially disagree with you, the quote/line as spoken was definitely off-putting. I mean if you really mince the words and highlight 'celebrates' or conveys as you more accurately interpret, then she has a bit of a point, but only if or when you broadly include all of the disciplines (especially writing) within a profession of making movies AND every type of ARTIST (her opening; 'I became an artist and thank god I did b/c being an artist is the only profession...") But being a Doctor doesn't celebrate what it means to live a life? Education!? Heck, party planning fits the definition if you go broad. Virtually anyone on the planet does something within their job or personal life to celebrate or express the human condition. It is incredibly vain to pretend becoming a movie actress vaulted her from some humdrum life where someone else would have to pretend something in a made up story for her life to mean anything.

Restate as 'an industry that CONVEYS what it means to live a life' and the quote accomplishes what she wanted to say without exalting herself and belittling everyone else.

 

[8893]

I partially disagree with you, the quote/line as spoken was definitely off-putting. I mean if you really mince the words and highlight 'celebrates' or conveys as you more accurately interpret, then she has a bit of a point, but only if or when you broadly include all of the disciplines (especially writing) within a profession of making movies AND every type of ARTIST (her opening; 'I became an artist and thank god I did b/c being an artist is the only profession...") But being a Doctor doesn't celebrate what it means to live a life? Education!? Heck, party planning fits the definition if you go broad. Virtually anyone on the planet does something within their job or personal life to celebrate or express the human condition. It is incredibly vain to pretend becoming a movie actress vaulted her from some humdrum life where someone else would have to pretend something in a made up story for her life to mean anything.

Restate as 'an industry that CONVEYS what it means to live a life' and the quote accomplishes what she wanted to say without exalting herself and belittling everyone else.

Yeah, I disagree. Just saying what my reaction was in real time and haven't read or heard any other reaction to it other than here in this thread. I didn't find it off-putting at all in context, which, again, referred to the lives lying in the graveyard that she spoke about at the start.

I think I "got" what she meant and I think you and Deep and whoever else was offended by it were looking for something to offend you. I'm sure you're not alone; it seems to be in vogue these days.

Then again, I'm a lawyer and don't have any illusions about my profession being glorified or in the running for one that "celebrates what it means to live a life" (even though I actually spend a fair amount my work doing precisely that), and I generally don't expect positive reinforcement about it from, well, anyone but myself and my clients.

 

[superjohn]

Yeah, I disagree. Just saying what my reaction was in real time and haven't read or heard any other reaction to it other than here in this thread. I didn't find it off-putting at all in context, which, again, referred to the lives lying in the graveyard that she spoke about at the start.

I think I "got" what she meant and I think you and Deep and whoever else was offended by it were looking for something to offend you. I'm sure you're not alone; it seems to be in vogue these days.

Then again, I'm a lawyer and don't have any illusions about my profession being glorified or in the running for one that "celebrates what it means to live a life" (even though I actually spend a fair amount my work doing precisely that), and I generally don't expect positive reinforcement about it from, well, anyone but myself and my clients.

This board is amazing at false outrage.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Yeah, I disagree. Just saying what my reaction was in real time and haven't read or heard any other reaction to it other than here in this thread. I didn't find it off-putting at all in context, which, again, referred to the lives lying in the graveyard that she spoke about at the start.

I think I "got" what she meant and I think you and Deep and whoever else was offended by it were looking for something to offend you. I'm sure you're not alone; it seems to be in vogue these days.

Then again, I'm a lawyer and don't have any illusions about my profession being glorified or in the running for one that "celebrates what it means to live a life" (even though I actually spend a fair amount my work doing precisely that), and I generally don't expect positive reinforcement about it from, well, anyone but myself and my clients.

I'm not offended, I like her, I just thought it was a self-important thing to say, braggy at worst.

In contrast I'm inspired by/love the musical line; "I can't believe that we would lie in our graves, dreaming of things we might have been..." Likewise I'm not pissed at Thoreau for writing that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." He didn't have to say 'not me, I'm off in the woods discovering cool lakes that I'm gonna call a pond and journaling about plants.'

 

[Fishy]

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.

The problem with giving an actor an award for acting is that you'll likely get some more acting after you give them the award.

Some people loved her speech - I cringed through it.

 

[Fishy]

The enduring movies from 2016 probably start with Rogue One and Captain America Civil War.

If you're 14 years old, I'd agree.

If you're not, those are entertaining pop corn movies that you can rewatch over and over because you can turn your brain off.

And, sweet Jesus, my opinion of your opinion fell off the table with your review of Chariots of Fire.

 

[8893]

The problem with giving an actor an award for acting is that you'll likely get some more acting after you give them the award.

Some people loved her speech - I cringed through it.

I didn't love it or hate it. It made me think for a minute when she conjured images of the stories of the people lying in graveyards, which I thought was an interesting insight, but she overdid it a bit and I wanted it to end by the time she started cry-talking. I get enough of that drama at home.

What I guess I find most interesting is that the pendulum has swung so far that a black woman who grew up in abject poverty and just won her first Academy Award is being pilloried for expressing some pride in her life's work during her acceptance speech, and a 70 year old white billionaire who grew up a millionaire is being celebrated because he gave a speech without peeing on his shoes.