Academy Awards 2013

[islandclimber]

I've heard good things about "Holy Motors," and it's on my list of movies to see, IslandClimber.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

[faithosaurus]

I'm really hoping Jennifer wins best actress. She's so talented.

And Django Unchained was awesome; better than I thought it would be.

[qimissung]

Saw Amour. It has moved to the top of my list. I wish it would win, although I think that's unlikely.

[islandclimber]

Amour is such a splendid film. It's nice to see it was nominated for best picture, Haneke for best director, Rivas for best actress. Yet, Jean-Louis Trintignant, was so magical in this film and was a huge snub. His performance and Lavant's in Holy Motors were certainly the best of the year on the male side of the coin (with Mads Mikkelsen and Daniel Day Lewis as honourable mentions here)...

[qimissung]

He was magical, wasn't he!?

[DSsentialDScott]

I need to have an Oscar Weekend and watch most of these nominees. I've heard good things about Zero Dark Thirty and the extended previews for Les Mis looked very promising in theaters. Django was overhyped by a lot of my friends so I put off seeing it until I can be a little more objective (when people oversell movies for me, I tend to feel let-down if it doesn't meet my inflated expectations).

But, I do think Seth MacFarlane will be an entertaining host. I saw him host another live, televised event (I forget what it was now), but he was pretty funny.

[qimissung]

Looking forward to the show tomorrow. I personally think the best part are the winner's speeches. Why does no one else like themmmm??? I hate when they play the music and try to hustle them off the stage. Not only is it their big moment, I would think, ostensibly, it's why we're all watching.

Anywho, I found this article on Oscar-nominated film-editors which was quite interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/22/showbi...iref=allsearch

I never did manage to see Argo or Lincoln. Oh well. Would I enjoy them, do you think? I don't really care for politics, although I do find Lincoln the man interesting.

[Desolation]

Lincoln's good. I mean, it's the kind of movie that you really enjoy when you're watching, but hardly think about after you leave the theater (which, unfortunately, seems to be the case with many of the recent top Oscar picks). Daniel Day-Lewis naturally delivers an amazing performance. It should be noted that the movie focuses entirely on the last few months of his life, though, and is mostly concerned with politics.

I never could gather up the energy to care about Argo or Zero Dark Thirty, but I might check them out once they hit RedBox.

[qimissung]

Thanks, Desolation. Actually, I enjoyed Zero Dark Thirty. I would probably enjoy Argo, also, although I'm sure there's little about it to separate it from the herd, so to speak.

[OrphanPip]

Argo is still getting flak in Canada for making it seem like the CIA was primarily responsible for saving the US citizens. It was an alright movie though.

[qimissung]

What?!? Americans take credit for something they didn't do? I find that very hard to believe. Here's a little something about it:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...d_by_argo.html

[TheFifthElement]

Argo is still getting flak in Canada for making it seem like the CIA was primarily responsible for saving the US citizens. It was an alright movie though.

Equally so in Britain as the film portrays the British embassy staff as having turned away the Americans but in fact they took them in at great personal risk. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...s-in-Iran.html

Should a movie which is such a gross misrepresentation win any plaudits?

[Emil Miller]

Well it's not the first time US film makers have let the facts get in the way of a good storyline. Objective Burma ( starring Errol Flynn ) implied that the US was a major player in the WWII Burma campaign.

'Even though it was based on the exploits of Merrill's Marauders, the film was withdrawn from release in the United Kingdom after it infuriated British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and drew protests about the Americanization of an almost entirely British, Indian and Commonwealth conflict.'

Then there is the more recent U-571 about the capture of an Enigma code machine.

'According to U-571, it was the US Navy that recovered the code machine, but the device was really captured by the crew of HMS Bulldog.
They disabled and seized German submarine U-110 to retrieve the device.'

But then the American cinema's view of history has often, though not entirely, been erratic to the point of being laughable. The Agony and the Ecstasy, about Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel, comes to mind. One critic's view was: 'The vulgarity of the whole concept has none of the joyfully enthusiastic philistinism of a de Mille; rather its tone is a dry, almost cynical, condescension.'

[qimissung]

Equally so in Britain as the film portrays the British embassy staff as having turned away the Americans but in fact they took them in at great personal risk. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...s-in-Iran.html

Should a movie which is such a gross misrepresentation win any plaudits?

Probably not, but it will not stop them if they are intent on doing so, I assure you (and as you well know ).

But on a more serious note, there is the matter of adapting material taken from real life and imposing a narrative designed for the screen on it. Something has to go, it can't all be up there on the screen. This question was also addressed concerning the events in zero Dark Thirty and in the Chilean film No.

And Emil, not to mention one of my favorite movies The Great Escape which is based on real events, none of which included Americans (sorry, Steve McQueen).

[Tabac]

The Comcast homepage yesterday had someone listing his choices for 10 Worst Best-Picture-Awards, followed by his choice for the one that should have received the Oscar. These went back as far as the eary 40s. It was interesting. I think the article is still available today.