So, what did you guys think? First of all, we should note that they quoted the name of this blog when they were throwing out some memorable movie quotes. Nice.
Considering that they had much less time than usual to prepare (due to the recent end of the writer's strike), I think it came out alright. It was sort of low key when compared to previous years, but that's fine. (Bring back the interpretive dance!) I liked the collections of old clips they showed before the main categories. It gives a nice perspective. I imagine many of those clips were prepped in anticipation of a possible writer-less ceremony. The joke clip collection of "Oscar Tribute to Binoculars and Periscopes" was funny. My favorite clip collection every year is the In Memorium one; being a sentimental and melancholy fellow somewhat obsessed with death and the past, it always effects me. But did I miss Brad Renfro? I don't remember seeing him in the clips.
Jon Stewart? He's no Johnny Carson, but he is a much better host than Whoopi, Letterman or Chris Rock. He's got the right combination of being whip smart, slightly irreverent, but fundamentally a congenial guy who won't make cracks that are too uncomfortable for the stuffed suit affair. I say bring Stewart back next year.
I didn't disagree with too many of the winners, at least out of the nominees that were given to us to choose from. (Now the choice of nominees is a different matter). Best Picture for "No Country For Old Men", I'll go with that. Same for the Coen Bros. winning the Director award. It was a great, atmospheric and dark thriller. And Bardem's portrayal of the sadistic killer was probably the lock of the night. Daniel Day-Lewis will generally be nominated whenever he decides to act every few years. But his turn as the Evil Capitalist Oilman was masterful. Best Actress...who cares. As for Best Supporting Actress, I would have gone with Cate Blanchett for her turn as the "Don't Look Back"-era Bob Dylan over Swinton.
There were some fun acceptance speeches, but none that will be remembered for years to come. What's with the Europeans taking over our awards? Day-Lewis and Swinton are English, Bardem is Spanish and Marion Cotillard is French.
Complaints? "Zodiac" was my favorite film from last year, and it was nominated for nothing. That's ridiculous. We get three cheesy tunes from freakin' "Enchanted", but Eddie Vedder is not nominated for any one of his sublime tunes he provided for the "Into The Wild" soundtrack? Also ridiculous. He would have given a great performance at the ceremony. And why wasn't "Into the Wild" nominated for more than the sentimental career-achievement nomination for Hal Holbrook (who did not seem to find Jon Stewart very funny, by the way). Finally, "The Bourne Ultimatum" won three technical awards, and that film was TERRIBLE. Unwatchable. It is the apex of fast cut, steady-cam, ADD, MTV filmmaking. While I think "The Bourne Identity" was one of the best action flicks in years, its two more celebrated sequels were crap.
Opinions?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Constitutionally qualified to be your president
Other Blogs/Sites You Should Check Out
Blog Archive
Labels
About Me
- Dezmond
- Texas, United States
- Dezmond is a jack of all topics, but master of none. An attorney/teacher by trade, he needs a creative outlet, hence this Blog.
14 comments:
Yes, I noticed that you got a little free publicity there in the quotes section of the show. I was a little upset that they didn't mention my new blog, "Come with me, if you want to live."
No, you did not miss Brad Renfro, because he was not there to miss. A very interesting choice, especially since his death was so recent, and so tied, for better or for worse, with Heath Ledger's death. The Academy says it was a time issue, and they simply can't show everybody. But, that sounds like a bunch of crap to me, because they managed to fit in the fourteen agents that no one had ever heard of. To be fair, though, they also didn't show Marcel Marceau...another interesting ommission.
I also agree with most of the winners. Although, I probably would have given "There Will Be Blood" the nod over "No Country For Old Men". It just seemed more impressive to me. However, they were both excellent films, and it's hard to go wrong with either of those two.
I happen to agree with you on your feelings that Blanchett should have won over Swinton. However, I am curious about your reasoning, since, as far as I know, you have not actually seen Michael Clayton. What exactly is your basis for choosing Blanchett over Swinton, when you have not seen one of the performances? Or, is it simply more of your innate hatred for women on screen? Should women only be awarded when they do a passable job of portraying men? If that's your reasoning, then you should actually like Swinton, because she's one of the least feminine people I've ever seen.
As for song, we could have definitely done with at least two fewer selections from "Enchanted". I would have loved to have seen The Moldy Peaches in the competition with their song from "Juno". In my mind, when we choose Best Song at The Oscars, we have to look at it in a movie-related context. So, it's not just which song is the best piece of music on its own, but did it add to the film it was in, was it consistent with the "feel" that the director was going for, did it even help to create that "feel"? A good example is the movie "Magnolia". Aimee Mann's soundtrack for that film is almost an additional character...as if that movie needed any additional characters. Anyway, I think that if the Academy really felt that "Juno" was a movie that deserved recognition (an assertion that is very open to debate), then The Moldy Peaches should have been given their due. Maybe they were afraid that it would have been too confusing to put them into competition aginst the duo from "Once".
I don't know if you can really fault "The Bourne Ultimatum's" victories. As you say, the film is the apex of fast cut, steady-cam, ADD, MTV filmmaking, which is precisely what it won awards for. At least, it makes more sense for a film like that to win an award for film editing, then, say, "Atonement".
Off Topic: Dez, if we need to email you, where do we send it? Case in point, this. .
As a McCain supporter, this should reinforce some support for John.
As for Hal Holbrook, the man is 83 years old! I would imagine that his sense of humor is not what it used to be.
Now look here, Walter...alright, you are correct. I didn't actually see "Michael Clayton". But that is irrelevant, and here is why. My Good/Bad Movie Radar is quite accurate. I would say with 91% accuracy I can tell you whether a film is worth seeing before I've seen it, assuming I have at least seen a preview or two and read something about the film in a reputable source. "Michael Clayton" is probably very good, and I am sure that Swinton did a fine job. But it is a fairly conventional film and a fairly conventional role. In "I'm Not There", on the other hand, Cate Blanchett not only had to play a person of the opposite sex (a hat trick that has been performed before, I know), but a cultural icon of the opposite sex. Have you ever seen "Don't Look Back", the famous D.A. Pennebaker documentary shot during Dylan's 1965 British tour? Blanchett was playing Dylan during that period, and she did an absolutely remarkable job. So, I made a judgment call on that one and determined that since Blanchett's performance was one of the more remarkable performances by an actress I had seen in a long time, and the fact that "Michael Clayton" had a good reputation but was not overly praised; I went with Blanchett on that one. And as you said, you agreed with my judgment anyway.
On the In Memorium, I have a hard time believing that it was a time issue. But after checking out the AP story on the "Oscar snub" of Renfro, that is what they were saying. Weird. (Note: the late, great Roy Scheider was not included because he died on Feb 10, and they only went up to Jan 31, so he ought to be in next year's group.)
I completely agree with your reasoning for Best Song nominees. And that reasoning makes Vedder's snub all the more glaring, because his songs/score for "Into the Wild" were perfect and contributed to the mood and spirit of the film in a fundamental way. Along those same lines, it is even more absurd that Jonny Greenwood's score for "There Will Be Blood" was overlooked.
I could not agree more about "There Will Be Blood". When I watched this movie a second time, I was struck by how integral the score actually was. It plays a huge role in setting the tone for this film. As you say, it is completely absurd that this score was omitted from the list of nominees.
Greenwood wasn't overlooked -- he fell victim to the bureaucratic rules. A certain percentage of a score can't have been written for reasons other than the movie, and some of Greenwood's was. So.
I agree about Blanchett, and I did see Michael Clayton -- a very good movie, Dez; you should check it out. Well put together in a way I think you'd really appreciate.
Hal Holbrook was not just a sentimental choice, damn it! He was terrific in that role!!
Come on, JMW, Holbrook's nomination stank of Career Appreciation Nomination. He was very good, but one of the five best supporting acting performances of the entire year? No. He was only in the film for maybe 10-15 minutes.
See, that's a SUPPORTING role, not like Bardem, who might as well have been nominated for Best Actor.
Also, the Moldy Peaches make me want to plug my ears with rabid woodland creatures.
Hoodlumman, I just set up an e-mail account for blog purposes. So if anybody wants to e-mail me regarding blog issues of a personal nature, send it to gonnaneedabiggerboatblog@gmail.com.
JMW, the line between Supporting Actor and Actor has always been one of contention. Holbrook was a Supporting Actor in "Into the Wild", if not a cameo. But Bardem was also Supporting. The decision on how to categorize is not really quantifiable by screen time or aything else, it is more of a feel for the film and what that actor is doing for the film. To me, the only Actor role in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was that of Josh Brolin. Bardem and Tommy Lee Jones (and Woody Harrelson, who was great) were all Supporting, albeit in substantial Supporting roles.
Again, I just want to be clear that I also agree about Blanchett. However, I was finding way too little to complain about in Dez's original post. So, I had to grasp on to something.
JMW's right, Dez. You would enjoy Michael Clayton, and it's out on DVD already. So, check it out.
That's good to hear about Greenwood's score. At least, there is some explanation. What was it used for...other than the movie?
As for The Moldy Peaches, I want to make something clear. I am not advocating that you run out and purchase their collected works. However, in the category of Best Song, don't you think it would have made sense as a nominee, considering the way that it fit into that film, which was already being lauded by the Academy as a great movie? Personally, JMW, I think your comment about causing yourself physical pain with rabid woodland creatures lends even more credence to my assertion, because most of the dialogue in that movie caused me to have very similar feelings. Therefore, the song clearly fit well into the general tone of the film.
Personally, I have always been a little bothered by this Supporting vs. Lead distinction. It seems to me that Hal Holbrook's role is exactly the type of role that should be honored in the Supporting category. I can even see your point, Dez, with Tommy Lee Jones in "No Country", because his role was not nearly as significant as the other two. But, Javier Bardem? Come on! He was a MAJOR part of that movie, and had only slightly less screen time than Brolin. Clearly, he belonged in the Lead Actor category. I'm pretty sure the only reason this happened is so that he and Daniel Day Lewis would not get in the way of each other's wins.
This discussion came up back in 1994 when "The Shawshank Redemption" was out in theaters. Should Morgan Freeman be considered a Lead Actor, or a Supporting Actor? After all, the movie was about Tim Robbins' character. In the end, it was decided that Freeman was so integral to the story, and that he had such a significant amount of screen time, that he should be nominated in the Lead Actor category. That was the right choice. Javier Bardem should have been a Lead Actor.
Walter Evans, you've chosen a confusing name for yourself. Unless that's your real name.
Unlike the Academy, I didn't think Juno was a great movie. I thought it was an uneven, but ultimately good movie. But I didn't like the M.P. songs, and what's more, I thought they completely went against the character's nature -- she loved hardcore 70s punk. I have a feeling she would hate the M.P.s.
Dez, your own rundown of No Country just proves how silly the distinction for supporting is. I agree with you that we KNOW, in general, what the academy will consider something, but given that the vague sense it uses to consider with is completely ridiculous, that should hardly matter. Brolin, Jones, and Bardem, in some ways, were ALL supporting roles by the Academy's usual standards. I agree Holbrook was on screen much less than any of them, but it was not a cameo. It was probably the last 20 minutes of a very long movie.
JMW, I know, you know, and the American people know that this "walter evans" is not really Walter Evans. But if he wants to use that hallowed name as his moniker, that is fine.
"Walter", I recall years ago we had this Shawshank debate. Freeman was rightly nominated in the Best Actor category, but not for the reason you gave. Shawshank Redemption was NOT about the Tim Robbins character. It was about the Freeman character. In fact, Freeman was unquestionably a Best Actor nominee, but Robbins could have fit either as Best Actor or Best Supporting. The Shawshank Redemption is about how the Freeman character is effected by Robbins. Robbins does not fundamentally change during the film. In that way he is hardly even human. But Freeman's entire life and perspective goes through a change due to his relationship with Robbins. Shawshank was about Freeman, not Robbins.
Bardem is arguable. But generally, No Country For Old Men was about Brolin's character coming across the money and him dealing with the temptations and consequences. The other characters were reacting to Brolin's actions.
JMW, you've just blown my mind with your whole "Juno would not even like The Moldy Peaches" argument. You're completely right, of course, and I'm very upset with myself that I didn't see that earlier. I take back everything I said.
I'm glad There Will be Blood did not win. I agree it was a great film in many ways, but I did not enjoy it. Depressing films should not be allowed to be that long. I don't understand how Walter could sit through this a 2nd time. Clearly, Daniel Day-Lewis deserved the Oscar, though. It was a diabolical performance but hard to watch.
I thought Tilda Swinton was fantastic in Michael Clayton. Unfortunately, I haven't seen I'm Not There yet, so I have to withhold judgment until I have.
I loved Juno, but it was clear there were only 2 legitimate nominees for best picture.
Hal Holbrook was awesome. That was not a career achievement nomination. I think he was on screen a lot more than Ruby Dee.
Javier Bardem was a supporting actor. He was certainly not the lead, but I agree there is a gray area here that is often manipulated for strategic purposes. Does anybody really care?
Walter - you've just blown my mind with your blog name. This is going to mess me up for life.
Post a Comment