Oscars Talk

[bleedorange]

Who's watching tonight? I'm especially looking forward to the show this year, because I'm anxious to see James Franco and Anne Hathaway as hosts. Plus, I think the nominees are pretty strong this year.

 

My picks (who I want to win):

 

Best Picture: The Social Network

Best Actor: Jesse Eisenberg

Best Actress: Natalie Portman

Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale

Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo

Best Director: Darren Aronofsky

Best Cinematography: True Grit

Best Original Screenplay: The King's Speech

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Social Network

Best Score: The Social Network

Best Editing: Black Swan

[u2roolz]

I'll watch. But I could really care less who wins because it's all a political show. I don't agree with 5 of the Best Picture nominees and think it's stupid that someone should win because last year they lost. And someone should win because she lost twice to Hilary Swank seems foolish.

 

I'm also pissed that Weinstein Co. is recutting The King's Speech to receive a PG-13 rating to bring in more revenue pretty much. That one scene that "earned" them an R should not be cut out at all. And don't even get me started on the nonsense of originally giving Blue Valentine an NC-17. Any time we see a man going down on a woman it somehow makes the MPAA freak out and automatically give it an NC-17 (see: The Cooler, In The Cut and now Blue Valentine).

 

Edit: And what's the point of making groundbreaking cinema that challenges the medium and the audience, if the Academy decides to award the film that looks like it came straight from PBS's Masterpiece Theater. I really enjoyed The King's Speech, but I don't think it will be that memorable 5 years or so down the road.

 

Regarding the 5 films that I don't think belong in the Best Picture category: The Kids Are All Right, Winter's Bone, 127 Hours, True Grit & Toy Story 3.

[Sir Stewart]

Picture: The Social Network

Actor: Colin Firth

Actress: Natalie Portman

Supporting Actor: John Hawkes

Supporting Actress: Helena Bonham Carter

Director: David Fincher

Cinematography: The Social Network

Original Screenplay: The King's Speech

Adapted Screenplay: Toy Story 3 (something's gotta be a big water cooler surprise, no?)

Score: The Social Network

Editing: The Social Network

Documentary: Inside Job

Foreign Language: In a Better World

[bleedorange]

I'll watch. But I could really care less who wins because it's all a political show. I don't agree with 5 of the Best Picture nominees and think it's stupid that someone should win because last year they lost. And someone should win because she lost twice to Hilary Swank seems foolish.

 

I'm also pissed that Weinstein Co. is recutting The King's Speech to receive a PG-13 rating to bring in more revenue pretty much. That one scene that "earned" them an R should not be cut out at all. And don't even get me started on the nonsense of originally giving Blue Valentine an NC-17. Any time we see a man going down on a woman it somehow makes the MPAA freak out and automatically give it an NC-17 (see: The Cooler, In The Cut and now Blue Valentine).

 

Edit: And what's the point of making groundbreaking cinema that challenges the medium and the audience, if the Academy decides to award the film that looks like it came straight from PBS's Masterpiece Theater. I really enjoyed The King's Speech, but I don't think it will be that memorable 5 years or so down the road.

 

Regarding the 5 films that I don't think belong in the Best Picture category: The Kids Are All Right, Winter's Bone, 127 Hours, True Grit & Toy Story 3.

 

You're telling me there are awards shows that aren't political? Nobody is saying this has to be the be-all-end-all arbiter of great movies, it's just a fun show for people who love movies. And most of the movies and performances up for awards are well worth recognizing. I disagree with you on The Kids Are All Right and Toy Story 3...both great films. Haven't seen 127 Hours yet.

[u2roolz]

You're telling me there are awards shows that aren't political? Nobody is saying this has to be the be-all-end-all arbiter of great movies, it's just a fun show for people who love movies. And most of the movies and performances up for awards are well worth recognizing. I disagree with you on The Kids Are All Right and Toy Story 3...both great films. Haven't seen 127 Hours yet.

 

I agree that Toy Story 3 is a great film, if not the best Pixar film of all time. But I can't get down with double dipping. It seems a bit unfair for a film to be nominated for Best Animated Film and Best Picture. I would feel the same way if a Foreign Language film that was a shoe in to win that category, snuck into the Best Picture pool. It doesn't sit well with me at all. And the only way for people to wake up and realize this is for something like Toy Story 3 to win Best Picture and Best Animated Film. Let's see what people would say then. And you know that they would never disqualify something like Toy Story 3 from the animated category (if it wanted to solely be in the 10 Best Picture slots) because people would get upset. I really wish that they'd add a Best Comedic Film category.

 

I really hated Kids Are All Right and gave quite a lengthy review on here. I'll try to get it and post it here in spoiler text.

 

I did not like this film. I didn’t read any reviews about it, so I didn’t know anything about the plot going in. I did know that the film was about a lesbian couple. I also feel that I wrote a better review on here last night that didn't show up due to an error of not showing the spoiler. I hope that I can remember everything. I created an MS Word document with my points.

 

In the first big scene where the whole family is shown at a dinner setting, the film failed to convey the family dynamics. Instead the preceding 4-5 “indie” rocks songs seemed to bleed right over into this scene and lingered on, as they listened to “indie” rock as they ate. It seemed intent on creating mood rather than creating character dynamics in a very early important scene. The over usage of “indie" rock songs (in the 1st 5 minutes no less) seemed to cry out at a certain sense of inauthenticity that was already ruining the film for me. It already felt manufactured to be an indie film by having "indie" music and certain cliches from the indie film palette. An article of clothing was meant to address a character: during the opening dinner scene Moore wears a late 70s/early 80s Elvis Costello shirt which pretty much screamed out to me: slacker clinging onto her past. There was also something immediately off about Moore's performance. She seemed uncomfortable in this opening scene (foreshadowing?) and it also felt like she was giving a performance, meanwhile Bening was her character and came off as completely natural.

 

In the opening sequence (before the above mentioned dinner scene) we are quickly shown what the kids are doing: the 15 year old son mothered by Moore (played by a great Josh Hutcherson) is sniffing stuff up his nose with a friend & the 18 year old daughter mothered by Bening (played by the already amazing Mia Wasikowska) is in her room playing a game with a boy who may or may not like her & vice versa and a female friend who is supposed to come off as slutty because she throws around the typical language to establish this. The kids are indeed alright and give off the best performances because they feel real and their conflicts feel real. The adults come off as plot points embodied by Moore and Mark Ruffalo, whereas Bening is the only one that feels very much real which leads me to my 1st big problem with the film's inauthenticity.

 

The 1st intimate scene between Bening & Moore is right after the dinner scene and seems to be a Hollywood Double Standard via how it plays out. They put on Gay Porn, while Moore is invisible under the covers as she goes down on Bening. The big problem with this scene for me is where it heads rather quickly: right into slapstick comedy. If the writer/director isn't going to treat her characters with respect and conviction, then why should we? This scene feels made for the hetero folks uncomfortable with the subject material (and quite possibly the single demographic for this film. I'll address this later on) and can be viewed as quite offensive to lesbian couples. Mulholland Drive had a much better lesbian sex scene that was simultaneously emotional, tender, beautiful and erotic. Here this scene is played for cheap laughs and it comes early on where we don't know much about these women. Already the tone and feel of this film is a distraction for me and it only got worst.

 

Major Spoiler: Moore ends up having an affair with Ruffalo because she doesn't feel appreciated by Bening and she feels some attraction towards Ruffalo. Their sex scenes are very graphic in contrast to the lesbian scenes and in your face. It also offered another slap in the face to the lesbian community when Moore marvels at Ruffalo's penis as she undoes his pants. Plus, the way that they show how she enjoys it may make a lot of heteros in the audience laugh at the scene in a tasteless way. Keep in mind that Moore & Bening have built a family life together for 18 plus years and have 2 children via this very person Ruffalo plays. Not only does this whole plot "twist" feel forced, it doesn't feel honest and feels totally manufactured to create a conflict for the film. You mean to tell me that a lesbian woman...nay...I guess we'll have to refer to her as bisexual now...would have a fling with a man after she spent 18 years building her beautiful family. It seems very impulsive as I am telling you, but it happens so quickly in the film that the audience isn't given enough time to question it and instead they have to hop along for it.

 

Once again this feels like a plot twist tailor made for the hetero audience and is an unkind representation of a lesbian couple for their demographic. I am completely hetero and had a huge problem with this because of one big thing that it seems to be saying to the audience: a genuine lesbian couple doesn't exist in this world that we created, as you can see one of the female characters is bisexual and almost left her lesbian lover for a man. It makes us question the nature of one's sexuality and I think it's the wrong question to be asking here because it feels like a copout. You need to ask a good sample of lesbian women and gay men and see if they would do what Moore does in this film. I'm sure that most of them would disagree with her decision. The single notion that Ruffalo is an option for Moore is another setback for lesbians. At least in Brokeback Mountain the driving force of that film was Ledger & Gyllenhaal exploring their sexuality with each other while they had emotional connections to women in their life. In that film it felt like a revelation to them: living hetero lifestyles while really homosexual or you can argue that they really were both bisexual. In this film, it seems as if the whole thing is backwards. Moore & Bening are already together as a lesbian couple and Moore goes off exploring her own sexuality with a man. I guess I also don't like the basic conflict at the core: the idea that a man is the biggest threat to the lesbian culture seems immature and made for hetero couples seeing this film.

 

The reason why I question this is because Ruffalo's scenes with the 2 children seem to suggest a very positive "fatherly" influence in their life that has been a void for them in the past 18 years. The film stands a rather neutral ground for this hot topic and should have possibly stuck to a genuine lesbian couple and had other conflicts that didn't involve Ruffalo & Moore's affair. It could have been a very unique voice, but instead it ponders questions that appeal to heterosexuals. Wouldn't the kids be better off with a male influence in their life?

 

I have no problem with women directors. I loved Kathyrn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker (in fact, I saw that 1 year ago last night at the same theater that I saw this), Nicole Holofcener's Friends With Money and Sofia Coppolla's Lost In Translation, to name a few. I enjoyed Lisa Cholodenko's Laurel Canyon and never saw High Art which from what I hear is similar subject matter to Kids Are All Right.

 

I stand by my motto of art doesn't answer questions it raises them, but in this film it feels as if all of the wrong questions are being asked.

 

Oh, and another thing that made me question the authenticity of the film was when Bening has a breakdown at a dinner. She putdowns the ideas of composting, buying local food, & being into the "trendy" organic food. It is a rather long rant that seems to be a big middle finger to the supposed "indie" crowd seeing this film or is a wink to them. A lot of the characters in the film are involved in the above 3 things and at the time it felt very "indie" cliche, now it feels even more cliche because of this cruel putdown out of nowhere. It made their lifestyles feel even more inauthentic than they already were. It made me question once again who is this film actually for.

 

Ultimately, I felt that this film was a manufactured hypothetical question that wanted to raise conversations about the topic and have people talk so much that they forget how fake the film actually felt while watching it. If the film was more concerned with the characters, rather than which "indie" band to put into this scene, I think it would have been much better. I also questioned the fact that maybe Cholodenko was under pressure to have certain things happen this way and show certain things happen that way via the studio (not so sure about that since indie arm Focus Features is distributing it) and is really a snapshot of where we are at right now in terms of showing "alternative" lifestyles on film.

 

Lastly, I felt that lesbians weren't given a fair hand in this film. Once again I am not trying to make things out to be black & white about one's sexuality, but am I crazy when I think that a lesbian means a woman who desires another woman? I guess to finally put it to rest and into words is my feeling of this: if you come into this film expecting what you think a lesbian couple should be as advertised in the posters & ads, it will make you question yourself and ponder how many lesbians (in a couple) actually have sex with a man and whether a lesbian couple can be defined as a lesbian woman & bisexual woman living together in love. In the end is it really my business at all? Of course not.

 

Edit: I guess I don't like the bait & switch pulled on a certain demographic: those who don't like the gay & lesbian lifestyle, but love the little "indie" films that can be all about Oscar. The film seems catered to them by advertising a hip "indie" film about lesbians and then playing in the comfortable zone of having a man be the main conflict to tear them apart. As I mentioned earlier, it seems to deny the existence of lesbians to this demographic by having Moore have an option out of Ruffalo. I worked at a movie theater when Brokeback Mountain was out and certain people used to ask for "The Gay Cowboy Movie" and giggle or sometimes keep a straight face which is even more strange. So I guess that this film is made for those faux older "hipsters" who don't know a single gay person or know one, but refuse to learn anything about them or flat out not acknowledge it. But they want to keep up with the times and see an Oscar film that the critics seem to be praising and thus feel hip by seeing it and hearing these "indie" bands in the film also adding to their inauthentic "hipness". I see a trend here.

 

 

[Beltmann]

It doesn't sit well with me at all.

It's best not to get worked up about anything related to the Oscars. The Oscars have always been a terrible barometer of artistic merit; better to just enjoy the show for what it is rather than complain about what it isn't.

[u2roolz]

It's best not to get worked up about anything related to the Oscars. The Oscars have always been a terrible barometer of artistic merit; better to just enjoy the show for what it is rather than complain about what it isn't.

 

Oh, I agree with you 100%, but I guess I feel the need to create some sort of "awareness". Plus, I'm stuck here in the snow.

 

I also addressed the Criterion Collection on a friend's Facebook page link (he made mention of Criterion=Quality and all titles were 50% off). I pointed out that certain filmmakers have been overlooked or rather simply won't sit down with the good folks over there and sit through the telecine process. What this creates is an unfair imbalance of "over accommodating" filmmakers having their films get the Criterion Collection treatment (read: Wes Anderson who currently is batting a 1,000). It's a damn shame that there aren't any films by the Coen Bros., David Lynch, Woody Allen or Paul Thomas Anderson (to name a few). I'm sure that people realize this, but it always helps to create this dialog to prove that this Collection isn't the definitive collection that it makes itself out to be. It feels like an exclusive club, rather than an inclusive club. And I know that you can't force anyone listed above into this sort of thing, so who knows.

[Sir Stewart]

You totally just brought up an entirely separate subject in order to have a long reply, didn't you.

[bleedorange]

I think you are way off-base regarding The Kids Are All Right. Mainly because you seem to be so fixated on the characters' sexuality. Which misses the entire point. It's a family drama. It makes complete sense that Julianne Moore's character would be attracted to Ruffalo's. They share so many personality traits. And it's obvious that at the point the movie is taking place (thanks in large part to the out-of-sync sex scene you don't like), the marriage is in that mid-life crisis zone.

[u2roolz]

You totally just brought up an entirely separate subject in order to have a long reply, didn't you.

 

That is unheard of at VC, ain't it?

 

OK. I will respond to Bleedorange's original question, but can I politely modify it to who I "want" to win and who I think "will" win?

 

"Want" to win/"Will" win

Best Picture: Inception/The Social Network

Actor: Colin Firth (he needs to win this, so that Social Network can win the big one. Really wish Ryan Gosling was here. Totally deserved it)/same

Actress: Natalie Portman/same

Supporting Actor: Bale/same

Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo/same (although recent talk about her own Oscar campaign may have turned some people off)

Original Screenplay: Inception/The King's Speech (why the fuck isn't Black Swan here?!)

Adapted Screenplay: The Social Network/same (although I can't picture this and King's Speech dominating this category as well as Original Screenplay & Best Pic)

Animated Feature: Toy Story 3/same

Documentary: Exit Through The Gift Shop (is it really a documentary in the classic sense of the word?)/Inside Job

Art Direction: True Grit/The King's Speech

Cinematography: Inception/True Grit (because Roger Deakins hasn't won yet)

Costume Design: True Grit/Alice In Wonderland (very showy costumes)

Editing: The Social Network/same

Makeup: Barney's Version/same (Academy Award winner and The Wolfman should not be anything that I ever hear, unless if it's done right)

Visual Effects: Inception/same

Original Score: Inception/The Social Network (Academy Award winner Trent Reznor?!)

Sound Mixing: Inception/same

Sound Editing: Inception/same

 

I can't really comment on Foreign Language film because unfortunately I haven't seen any yet. And would it be wrong to give Best Animated Short to Day & Night, if I haven't seen any of the other nominees?

 

I also have 0 opinion on Best Song. It's a lackluster year.

[bleedorange]

What about director?

 

I'm surprised you like Inception so much. Thought it was good, but ultimately disposable.

[u2roolz]

What about director?

 

I'm surprised you like Inception so much. Thought it was good, but ultimately disposable.

 

Oops! David Fincher all the way. I'm pretty sure that James Cameron's clone won't win (Tom Hooper). Seriously, it's scary how much they look alike. Still surprised at Nolan's exclusion.

 

I fell in love with Inception. It was my favorite and best filmgoing experience of 2010. In 2009, it was Inglourious Basterds. I love how Nolan made an airtight film that can be picked apart and you'll still get something different out of it. There really is no answer. It's a filmed Penrose staircase.

 

Edit: (a bit off topic) I was considering writing an essay comparing Darren Aronofsky & Christopher Nolan to David Cronenberg & David Lynch, respectively. The similarities are strange. Aronofsky & Cronenberg both love depicting fascinations with the flesh and putting your body through extreme conditions. And Nolan & Lynch both love making films with labyrinthian plots.

 

Edit Part Two: Mmm. Jennifer Lawrence. Mmm.

[stooka]

I'm shocked that Inception has so much attention. I wasn't impressed by it at all even though I liked Following and Memento.

I enjoyed Black Swan and thought Natalie Portman was stellar. As was Jeff Bridges in True Grit!

[auctioneer69]

I will be happy if Christian Bale gets best supporting actor. An amazing performance. The only shame is that he wasn't nominated in the "Best Actor" category. I wouldn't be surprised if Geoffrey Rush wins for "The King's Speech". The latter was an utterly predictable film that left me completely unmoved. One of a long-line of made-for-the-Oscars type films from Miramax. I will also be delighted but surprised if Natalie Portman doesn't win an Oscar for some of the worst acting I have had the displeasure to see in "Black Swan". For 2/3rds of the film her acting consisted 100% of the same gormless expression. It seems that all you have to do to win an Oscar sometimes for best leading lady is to be an attractive actress who plays against type. The other travesty is that Christopher Nolan isn't nominated for best director for "Inception". Again, there's a long tradition of the Oscars not recognising commercially successful films that aim for a wide audience (except for "Titanic").

 

Overall, I don't think I'll watch. Unlike the Golden Globes the Oscars take themselves way too seriously.

[Beltmann]

I think you are way off-base regarding The Kids Are All Right. Mainly because you seem to be so fixated on the characters' sexuality. Which misses the entire point. It's a family drama. It makes complete sense that Julianne Moore's character would be attracted to Ruffalo's. They share so many personality traits. And it's obvious that at the point the movie is taking place (thanks in large part to the out-of-sync sex scene you don't like), the marriage is in that mid-life crisis zone.

I don't have time to elaborate, so I'll just say this: Right on.

[u2roolz]

Mainly because you seem to be so fixated on the characters' sexuality. Which misses the entire point. It's a family drama. It makes complete sense that Julianne Moore's character would be attracted to Ruffalo's. They share so many personality traits. And it's obvious that at the point the movie is taking place (thanks in large part to the out-of-sync sex scene you don't like), the marriage is in that mid-life crisis zone.

 

Really?! Would you like me to go out and interview lesbian couples and see how many of them would leave their respective partner to fool around with a man? That's all that I'm trying to get at. How realistic is that? I guess I'm going with the true sense of the word lesbian and thinking that that applies to women who sexually desire and wants relationships with other women. I also realize that can also apply to a lesbian woman and bisexual woman as presented in the film. I just really felt like the whole Ruffalo thing was an unnecessary copout of a plot driver. The man presented as the main conflict from keeping two women apart. It kind of reinforces that myth that a "real" lesbian couple does not exist and that a man is always lurking around the corner as an option. I don't want people (possibly homophobic) watching this and thinking that every lesbian couple in the world will face this "conflict".

 

The main reason why I didn't like the scene at all was because it took place beneath the sheets and out of sight from the audience. It felt either ashamed or afraid to show anything, but then the Ruffalo/Moore scenes are a lot more graphic.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Sexuality is based on labels of convenience; to have a sexual experience 'out of type' is hardly novel. Many straight people have had same-sex encounters; to hold gay or lesbians to a different standard is ignorance. After all, how many GLBT people produced children in 'straight' marraiges before divorcing? How many of them had gay affairs that broke up the marraige?

 

It's a very common tale, but with a more attractive cast.

[cryptique]

I'm especially looking forward to the show this year, because I'm anxious to see James Franco and Anne Hathaway as hosts.

Well, I for one thought they were horrible. Absolutely atrocious.

[PopTodd]

Well, I for one thought they were horrible. Absolutely atrocious.

I love both of them as actors and I was really looking forward to loving both of them as hosts.

Sadly, you are correct (from what I saw of the show); they were terrible hosts. I think if you're gonna use a Freaks & Geeks alum, Seth Rogen would have been a more-solid choice for something like this.

[bleedorange]

They weren't great. But they weren't horrible either. They kept the show moving pretty well. The opening montage scene was well done. They had a few funny moments. Then again, I don't need a lot out of an Oscar host anyway.

 

The biggest buzzkill of the night, though, came when Tom Hooper won Best Director. He did have a nice speech, though.

[cryptique]

I love both of them as actors

Meh. Franco has been hit and miss for me, mostly miss. Hathaway is gorgeous but I can't say she's ever left much of an impression on me with her acting.

 

I figured they'd be competent and boring, but instead they were annoying and boring.

[cryptique]

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/oscars/index.html?story=/ent/tv/feature/2011/02/28/oscars_2001_telecast

[lamradio]

Hathaway is gorgeous

 

 

 

That was enough to keep me interested.

 

And Franco, yeah he just seemed kind of awkward and fake.. He didn't look so good either. Was it just me or did he look pale and like he was about to vomit through out most of the show..

[jff]

Hopefully next year Kent and Vyxsyn from The Amazing Race will host the Oscars.

[auctioneer69]

I love both of them as actors and I was really looking forward to loving both of them as hosts.

Sadly, you are correct (from what I saw of the show); they were terrible hosts. I think if you're gonna use a Freaks & Geeks alum, Seth Rogen would have been a more-solid choice for something like this.

 

 

James Franco was either stoned out of his gourd or giving a fantastic acting job of someone who is. I can't recall a worse host for anything.