Oscar nominations (ack...cough...)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Ok, I loathe the Oscars as much as the next Ilx-er but I was pretty appalled by some of the choices. Master & Bater for best picture?!? Seabiscuit?!?

But I did get a tiny thrill today imagining Harvey Weinstein's heart exploding as Nicold Mountain received neither best picture nor best actress noms. Old Harv thought he could browbeat his way to the award as he did last year with that abomination Chicago. Heh-heh.

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I loathe the Oscars as much as the next Ilx-er

what's there to hate? they are what they are.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:33 (twenty-two years ago)

But we love the oscars!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:48 (twenty-two years ago)

And Chicago was good, not Best Film-good, but still good.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:49 (twenty-two years ago)

I have a private theory that Harvey let Cold Mountain dangle on the line, knowing that its status within the Academy was mixed at best, specifically so he could run an old school, from-the-ground-up Miramax campaign right out of the Il Postino playbook for City of God. It seems clear that City of God, which had a couple techs, a writing, and a directing nomination, was probably just on the fringes of getting a BP nod, which would've sent everyone into another frenzy of "Miramax can do anything" apoplexy. Didn't quite happen, tho, and so this becomes the official "year Miramax couldn't buy a BP nomination."

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

i get what you're saying a.k.m., but it is unfortunate that the majority of the u.s. views this as some kind of true measure of the best the year has to offer for cinematic art. although most somewhat-intelligent people know this is a ridiculous concept, it is still unfortunate that so much crap gets such recognition, when there is fantastic work that should be spotlighted.

but in the end, you kind of just have to suck it up and remember that it's kind of nice that everyone in the world isn't aware of the films you like. there's a certain pleasure in knowing that you've been exposed to something beautiful that only a small portion of the population has seen or knows about.

and hey, at least it's not the grammys! "they give awards for that kind of music?"--woody allen, annie hall

― jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not so sure about your Cold Mountain theory. First off, there was the classic end-of-year release date (when it's been ready since late August), and there were reports last week of Harv personally making phone calls to Academy members. I think he got cocky with this one -- assumed that it didn't need as much work as Chicago. (Have you all read Harvey's tear-filled confessional about Cold Mountain? If not, you should.)

Harvey Weepy About Cold Mountain

Regardless of what happened, I'm pleased as punch that CM was passed over for BP.

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 21:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I've been fairly active on this thread today:

Oscar Nominations Out

It's safe to say that I like the Oscars a lot. AKM's first post is OTM.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 23:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Master and Commander was excellent. I'm assuming you didn't see it?

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 23:05 (twenty-two years ago)

the majority of the u.s. views this as some kind of true measure of the best the year has to offer for cinematic art.

Poor plebes.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 23:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, you know what, this thread makes me curious what everyone on ILF liked in 2003. Can we do a P&J-esque poll? Or at least a top 10 thread? (Although if we do, it will take me a few days to draw up a list, as last year felt really all over the map to me.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 23:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I did see M&C, only because I was getting a lot of sh*t for slagging off a film I hadn't seen. Instantly forgettable. Zero character development, and there was hardly an arc to be found. They end just as they started, just a lot wetter.

I see this film being used in management training seminars in years to come.

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 23:40 (twenty-two years ago)

P&J-esque?

I've not finished my top-ten as there are still a few films I've not seen yet (particularly The Company).

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 23:41 (twenty-two years ago)

strange how the "common-man" types on this forum end up seeming like the biggest snobs...glad to say i'm not an apologist for having high standards.

― jay blanchard (jay blanchard), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 23:58 (twenty-two years ago)

"Zero character development, and there was hardly an arc to be found. They end just as they started, just a lot wetter. "

This sounds like the kind of criticism you hear at Screenwriting seminars. "Characters must have an arc. They must develop." Why? Just to satisfy the demands of an audience weaned on this sort of stuff?
"Master & Commander" was more discursive than narrative-driven, it actually had characters with depth - often an arc replaces this, as if changing a one-dimensional characters single dimension disguises lack of depth - and it has a few ideas aside from providing a convincing period spectacle (which it also does).
I hope it wins, not that it matters a damn what wins, really...

― David Nolan (David N.), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:07 (twenty-two years ago)

P&J-esque: after the Village Voice Pazz and Jop music poll, the format of which allows you to distribute 100 points among your top 10.

Jay B, I'm sorry: how am I being snobby? Having high standards does not necessitate routinely showing contempt/pity for "the masses."

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Nor does it necessitate patting yourself on the back for being "somewhat intelligent."

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I see this film being used in management training seminars in years to come.

This was a brilliant putdown even if I don't agree with it.

I really enjoyed Master And Commander. There WAS no story to speak of, but it had pirate ships, puffy shirts, dinner at the captain's table, and a wonderful sense of charm. Not enough films have those things!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 01:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Also whatever you might think about Russell Crowe, he is clearly a brilliant actor.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 01:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Hear hear! Even in the worst of his movies (Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind), he's not the problem. In fact, he reportedly was not happy with Gladiator, and had endless on-set fights with Ridley Scott over the script. And more amazing still, his Best Actor Oscar doesn't seem to be going to his head. A Beautiful Mind was the obligatory post-Oscar message melodrama, but I don't see him getting stuck in that rut (*cough*KevinSpacey*cough*).

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 01:11 (twenty-two years ago)

russel crowe was awesome in M&C (which was also awesome, in a near-formalist kind of way)

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 01:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I haven't seen M&C, but I'm probably the type of guy that would prefer Depp's seaman to Crowe's. It's like preferring Laughton in Mutiny on the Bounty to Gable in Muntiny on the Bounty, no? Overacting usually has a better shot at winning Oscar nods than underacting (which is why the implosive Bacon is virtually the only Mystic River cast member unnominated this morning), but shamelessly enjoyable mugging usually has even less a chance. Nice to see the Oscars aren't always fun-haters.

The ILF-P&J poll would be a great idea, but I couldn't possibly participate in it, having seen, like, 8 films from 2003. (As opposed to the huge handfuls of older stuff.)

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 03:38 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, so we've gotten over the fact that, like every year, the Oscar nominees are a disappointment (haven't we gotten used to this by now). So which films deserved to be nominated?

On a side note, I was pleasantly surprised to see Johnny Depp nominated, even though he's been better in the past. And although I haven't seen City of God, I liked the fact that, for once, the BD nominees didn't coincide exactly with the BP nominees.

― Anthony (Anthony F), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 04:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, the BD and BP rarely match 5 for 5. The average is 4 but sometimes the matches only number 3 (2001: Lynch and Scott instead of In the Bedroom and Moulin Rouge).

I still like it in principle that the directors seem to very often find room for a foreign contender. Writers, too...

Talking about the nominations today reminded me just how much "the masses" or "commen-men" (who brought that up?) really don't like Mystic River at all. I haven't seen this much vitriol for a critics' favorite that also happened to be a firmly mainstream film since... jeez, I guess Eyes Wide Shut or The Thin Red Line. (It's in good company, isn't it?)

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 04:33 (twenty-two years ago)

i really liked it, it's not in the same class as those two films tho ;)

i didn't realize the "proles" disliked it so much. it plays like a really good tv drama at times.

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 04:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, who doesn't like Mystic River? Are you referring to its box-office tally or something?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't really like it, but I'm not a critic.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Also an ILF ballot would be good, but I can't remember many 10 great new films I saw last year. It wasn't the best for cinema IMHO.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:13 (twenty-two years ago)

For what it's worth, I liked it just okay. But Eric is suggesting that it wasn't received well by the public -- I hadn't suspected that myself.

I agree with you on 2003 being a not-that-great year for film. What if we did a top 5 instead? I think I could easily fill that. I mean, I only saw 20 new films this past year.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Okay, let's do it!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh ... one small problem ... different release dates in US/UK. How do we determine what's eligible?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:30 (twenty-two years ago)

(I mean, as much as I'd be happy to see votes for 25th Hour, I'm not voting for it personally because I think of it as a 2002 film.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:33 (twenty-two years ago)

(That's just an example -- I think it was a 2003 release in the UK, yeah?)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Most of my friends must be "proles."

Seriously, none of you have experienced the bitter dissatisfaction of the public towards this film? It was almost inescapable for a few weeks in November.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:42 (twenty-two years ago)

No, I missed that altogether. Never heard of such a thing. Maybe it was a story blown up by some news agency. Someone saw the movie, thought, "People are going to hate this ending," then sat down and wrote about how people hate the ending, and before anyone knew it, it was supposed common knowledge. That's a guess.

I liked the movie, especially Sean Penn and Tim Robbins, but it was a little too much like an episode of Law and Order to make my top 5.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Eric - I don't really know anyone that wasn't disappointed by it, if that's what you're getting at.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:45 (twenty-two years ago)

btw, I am looking at my top 5 now and it's very weak.

And yes J, I think 25th Hour was 2003 in the UK, as was City Of God and (I think) All The Real Girls.

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:47 (twenty-two years ago)

All the Real Girls was 2003 in the U.S., too.

City of God opened in some U.S. cities in 2002 but in others in 2003. Ordinarily, I'd say it was a 2002 film, but these Oscar nominations now have me all confused.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Was Spider 2003?

My whole top 5 is going to be films that just got released in the UK at the beginning of 2003!

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Spider : JAN 3, 2003 in the UK, apparently. Hmmm....

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Spider was similar to City of God.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 05:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Must be a Mineapolis thing. Although, I admit, even the people I've talked to who didn't like it at all probably didn't reach the same levels of hysteric hatred aimed at the other two films I mentioned upthread.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:00 (twenty-two years ago)

And I always thought you were in chicago. Who knew?

*shrugs*

― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Re: release dates: It depends on which critic you ask, too. Jonathan Rosenbaum is very strict in his Chicago Reader top 10 about only including films that opened in Chicago within the year. So, 25th Hour appeared on his 2003 list, and Gosford Park got an honorable mention in 2002. Roger Ebert, on the other hand, had no problem with including City of God on his 2002 list, despite it not having opened here until this past year.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:03 (twenty-two years ago)

And I always thought you were in chicago. Who knew?

There's not room enough in this town, etc.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:04 (twenty-two years ago)

It's easy enough for Rosenbaum, since no one outside Chicago reads him. Ebert has a much larger audience to cater to.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:10 (twenty-two years ago)

That's only partially true. Lots of people outside Chicago read Rosenbaum -- but not for his top 10 list, I'm guessing.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 06:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Regarding Master & Commander and arcs: nobody hates formulaic McKee-influenced screenwriting more than I -- however, given that M&C was clearly not about plot (was there ANY doubt how it would end?), it should have been all about character -- which it wasn't. Nobody learns anything, nobody changes, it just....ends.

The little diversion on the Galapagos was, in my opinion, embarrassing.

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 16:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I wasn't disspointed by Mystic River, @d@m! However the ending sucked.

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

you have triumphantly missed the point of that movie babybuddha

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

i take that back. didn't mean to be snarky (tho i do think you should reconsider--the things you think are "wrong" with it are intentional.)

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Then enlighten me -- I'm certainly not beyond admitting I am wrong. I really tried to look for something in that film. After all, Weir usually has something to say.

― BabyBuddha (BabyBuddha), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 17:31 (twenty-two years ago)

It was like Seinfeld on a boat.

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 17:41 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.