Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Recommended Posts

You know, miliosr, I thought she was good but not all that. The late Heath Ledger was just as good IMO, but he was at a disadvantage, lacking the gimmick of being in drag.

I'm also against the recent trend in the Supporting Actor/Actress categories of nominating stars in slightly subordinate (or actually co-starring, as in the case of Jamie Foxx in "Collateral") roles. That's not what they're for - the intention is to recognize acting of distinction by non-leading actors, although there may be some overlap. Blanchett already has a best supporting and one of these days she'll get best actress. Better to spread the wealth. I thought Kelly Macdonald was excellent in No Country for Old Men, for example, and would have been a deserving nominee here.

Link to comment
I'm also against the recent trend in the Supporting Actor/Actress categories of nominating stars in slightly subordinate (or actually co-starring, as in the case of Jamie Foxx in "Collateral") roles.

They did that with Jake Gyllenhall too, and that was just as much a starring role as Ledger's.

Cate Blanchett has a lot of talent, but I've yet to her see her really as sharp as she needs to be--a few more revolutions, a touch more energy and she'll be there. That Katharine Hepburn imitation didn't impress me that much, and this partly because Ava Gardner would be even harder to do--but I thought Kate Beckinsale really did get a lot of the quality. Never would have expected it.

Link to comment

I'm going to wait and see if there will be a red carpet and acceptance speeches before I start analysing and making bets.

I'm also against the recent trend in the Supporting Actor/Actress categories of nominating stars in slightly subordinate (or actually co-starring, as in the case of Jamie Foxx in "Collateral") roles.

I totally agree. This category used to be for the old, the young and the ugly - and that's how it should be. :)

Link to comment
This category used to be for the old, the young and the ugly –

Well...I’d not go quite that far, although I do see what you mean, GWTW. The category is not for children IMO, and my example, Kelly Macdonald, is young and beautiful and a plausible leading woman.

I'm going to wait and see if there will be a red carpet and acceptance speeches before I start analysing and making bets.

I agree – do the awards mean as much if unaccompanied by a big ceremony and the attendant fuss? I suppose they do, kind of, but it’s definitely not the same. :)

Link to comment

I hardly attend cinema anymore. Most is rubbish. The theatres are way overpriced, dirty ad noisy.

Hollywood has now given cinema a bad rep. The only movie we saw in 07 was Sicko. But we knew what he was telling us without seeing it on the silver screen.

The award ceremonies are marketing exercises. Screw that.

Link to comment
The award ceremonies are marketing exercises. Screw that.

SanderO, there are many things wrong with awards ceremonies as well as contemporary cinema, but it is possible to discuss them without deploying phrases like 'screw that' and I wish you would keep this consideration in mind should you choose to post any further observations on the matter.

Link to comment

I am sorry if that offended others. I really see the AA as part of the dumbing down of what can be a rather high art form.

The purpose if only to gin up box office and art films get little attention. I am sorry, but I won't put on rose colored glasses and see this award ceremony as anything but.

In fact companies are campaigning films just for the reward it might bring with a win. The TV and the media get in the act as well as the haute couture industry and all the red carpet nonsense. Marketing marketing PR PR and more of the same.

Capitalism can ruin anything and the Academy Award Ceremonies are a prime example.

Color me cynical and that is about as far away from esoteric ballet discussions as I can think.

Link to comment

A glaring omission in my opinion was Josh Brolin. He could have been nominated as lead actor in Country for Old Men or Supporting Actor in American Gangster. I also love the work of James McAvoy in everything I've seen him in so far. And I was surprised not to see a nomination for Denzel Washington in American Gangster. Although I imagine all the lead actors are cursing that they happened to be nominated in a year that Daniel Day-Lewis decided to come out with a film :dunno:

Link to comment

I've been an admirer of Daniel Day Lewis since I first saw him in Stars And Bars, a quirky little fish out of water comedy. This man's talent is mind-boggling. Due to living in the boonies, There Will Be Blood hasn't opened in my town yet. Dirac, your comments would be appreciated if you have seen it!

The other English actor that came to my attention at about the same time as Lewis is Gary Oldman. He gives such intense, deeply soulful performances.

Link to comment
In fact companies are campaigning films just for the reward it might bring with a win. The TV and the media get in the act as well as the haute couture industry and all the red carpet nonsense. Marketing marketing PR PR and more of the same.

ALL the arts are market-driven, even if not only market-driven--it's not a matter anymore of pop art and classical art in that sense. ABT and NYCB galas, fundraising, courting big donors, you can see the whole hierarchy of patrons in any Playbill, and the biggest contributors are favoured--purely on the amount donated, not on whether they are Old New York or vulgar nouveau-riche. I don't care for the awards ceremonies either, and don't watch them, but it should come as no surprise that many people do enjoy these, and they are certainly harmless. They are no worse than 'THE SOLD-OUT SENSATION RETURNS' which is about Balanchine and Martins at today's HOT NEW NYCB and is not 'esoteric ballet discussion'.

All arts institutions are a part of capitalism, by the way, and I think we are not supposed to get into political theory on this board. There are plenty of hard-Marxist blogs for which I can even supply you with names if you want to talk about government funding in semi-Socialist nations in Europe, but ABT and other American ballet companies are into BIG MONEY.

Link to comment
Capitalism can ruin anything and the Academy Award Ceremonies are a prime example.

SanderO, you have made me feel very old at this moment because I never thought I would live to see the day that I would take exception to the phrase "Capitalism can ruin anything". :dunno:

Of course, the Academy Awards are about money and very big money at that. However, they are the symptom and not the problem. The problem is the bizarre business model practised by the US movie business, which means that in mainstream cinemas you see extremely short runs of a very limited number of movies, the blockbusters and only the blockbusters. Everyone is focussed on the first weekend, and if a movie doesn't make whatever is deemed to be enough that first weekend, then it is a 'flop' and removed. In this environment, there is no way for word-of-mouth or even for critical reviews to influence the audience. Marketing is also focussed only on the blockbusters.

The award ceremonies and the film festivals have become almost the only way for smaller, non-blockbuster movies to publicise themselves. In fact, I think that in recent years, the award ceremonies (for film, not for TV) have celebrated relatively more 'esoteric' films than they used to, because the industry as a whole has dumbed down and nowadays the block-busters do not get to the Golden Globes, Academy Awards, etc.

Hollywood has now given cinema a bad rep.

There are trashy movies in every country with a film industry. Being American, you just haven't seen them.

Link to comment

I stand by my comment about Blanchett (although Ledger was hard on her heels (boots?) in I'm Not There.) Blanchett for the win!

Did anyone happen to see her other Oscar-nominated role as Queen Elizabeth I? I took a pass as the commercials made it look unbearably campy (which is saying a lot coming from me) -- "England will not fall ON MY REIGN (pounds floor)"

Link to comment

I love the awards, even though the last nominated films I saw were Ballets Russes and Farenheit 911.

The last film I saw that was in anyway a popular success was Farenheit 911. I live within a 6 minute walk of 21 screens (including the art house Lincoln Plaza and Lincoln Center's Walter Reade), but I do not have a movie habit. So who wins and who loses is pretty irrelevant to me.

Still, I like to watch and I'd miss the Awards (granted, as a guilty pleasure, but I'd miss them nonetheless) if I couldn't see them.

Link to comment
"England will not fall ON MY REIGN (pounds floor)"

Thing is that EQI is known to have said things like that. Is it campy to be historically correct? (Not that Shekhar Kapur doesn't take liberties with history from time to time because he does.)

P.S. I haven't seen this film (yet) but I did see her 1998 "Elizabeth" where she played Elizabeth in her earlier years.....IMHO, she was fantastic in that film tho not as good as either Helen Mirren (but then, who could ever be??) and Anne-Marie Duff.

Link to comment
but I did see her 1998 "Elizabeth" where she played Elizabeth in her earlier years.....IMHO, she was fantastic in that film tho not as good as either Helen Mirren (but then, who could ever be??) and Anne-Marie Duff.

She was sometimes very good in the film, better than in 'the Aviator', but I thought the 1998 'Elizabeth' very hokey, just a lot of cliches mostly. Would have been more interesting to see Elizabeth doing nothing but hammering out policy, instead of the usual beheadings and castle paranoia. I didn't really get excited about anybody in that but Fanny Ardant, though, who's always welcome as far as I'm concerned. I'm having a hard time even remembering it, and I didn't get to it till about 3 months ago. The face was good when made up for this one. They often do a Botticelli look for Elizabeth I, and I think in the 70s that's what Glenda Jackson's looked like. Now that I think of it, Glenda Jackson might be the way for Blanchett to go. Glenda always 'filled out' her roles, even if she couldn't do everything (who can? nobody), and Ms. Blanchett, though prettier, reminds me a bit of Jackson. This is just off-the-cuff, I just thought of it, and it could be off. I just don't think Blanchett quite fulfills the potentials as much as she implies are there, but 'The Aviator' was mostly a failure too. I wonder if Blanchett has potentials for Jackson-type roles like 'Women in Love' and 'The Rainbow' and also 'Return of the Soldier', which is very moving and not often seen (Jackson, Christie, Bates, Ann-Margret--and they're all good in it.)

I'm with carbro, though, in never caring who wins, even though I watch more movies. Even though I wouldn't watch it, I hope the show happens, just because there's too much abnormal going on, and this is a national ritual--just like the Fourth of July, I guess. The writers' strike combined with the stock market and mortgage mess--we managed to do Xmas and New Year's, and now we need some other frivolities so we don't sink.

Link to comment
Thing is that EQI is known to have said things like that. Is it campy to be historically correct? (Not that Shekhar Kapur doesn't take liberties with history from time to time because he does.)

Welcome to the thread, Sandy. Good to hear from you. I had the misfortune of seeing “The Golden Age,” and taken in that context miliosr is quite correct – it was campy. (The whole movie is hopelessly camp. Normally I rush to the theatre at the prospect, but "The Golden Age" is not fun and I don't recommend it.)

To say that Kapur takes liberties with the historical record is putting it mildly. I didn’t mind it in “Elizabeth” because the result was enjoyable and the narrative was coherent, but “The Golden Age” did not work at all. It mostly involves Blanchett mooning over hunky Sir Walter Raleigh in the person of Clive Owen, who doesn’t bring much more to the role than Errol Flynn would have, and there’s a particularly wince-inducing scene in with Gloriana is forced to cadge a kiss from her unenthusiastic swain. Arrgggh.

Of course, “Elizabeth” had its campy bits, too. I have a friend who at the mention of the movie once stamped his foot and declared with Blanchettian hauteur, “I am NO MAN’S ELIZABETH!”

I myself would enjoy having the opportunity to fling up my arm and say things like “Leave us!”

I thought Blanchett was superb in “Elizabeth” and she would have been a most deserving Best Actress that year had she won, which she didn’t. I doubt she will win for “The Golden Age,” but if she does it will be something of a joke.

I've been an admirer of Daniel Day Lewis since I first saw him in Stars And Bars, a quirky little fish out of water comedy. This man's talent is mind-boggling. Due to living in the boonies, There Will Be Blood hasn't opened in my town yet. Dirac, your comments would be appreciated if you have seen it!

The other English actor that came to my attention at about the same time as Lewis is Gary Oldman. He gives such intense, deeply soulful performances.

A glaring omission in my opinion was Josh Brolin. He could have been nominated as lead actor in Country for Old Men or Supporting Actor in American Gangster. I also love the work of James McAvoy in everything I've seen him in so far. And I was surprised not to see a nomination for Denzel Washington in American Gangster. Although I imagine all the lead actors are cursing that they happened to be nominated in a year that Daniel Day-Lewis decided to come out with a film

Hi, perky and barbara.

The Best Actor category is traditionally the most competitive due to the larger number of hefty roles for men, and there are always one or two deserving performances that get left out. I’m sorry Josh Brolin was left out too, but let’s hope we’ll see more from him. (Apparently he’s being discussed as the lead for Oliver Stone’s proposed Bush movie!?!)

I like Oldman, too. I saw Sid and Nancy on cable again not too long ago and he was amazing in it.

I’m a huge fan of Day-Lewis, and every appearance of his is an event these days, like Garbo’s (he’s even got her cheekbones), but I regret to say that I was disappointed by There Will Be Blood and his performance in it. Note that I’m swimming against a very strong tide – I haven’t searched out every review, but all the ones I’ve seen so far have been dazzling. The movie is worth seeing and it has some wonderful passages, but I did not care for it as a whole. Day-Lewis’ body language is eloquent and powerful, but for this role he adopted a hideously fake voice, with echoes of Walter and John Huston, Henry Fonda, and I don’t know who all else, and it only served as an unhappy reminder for me of how much better Walter Huston would have been for this role. (You have not been replaced, sir.) He has also developed a disturbing penchant for ham, which was always latent in his special intensity but is now often right up front.

Although I don’t know what any actor could do with the last scene of There Will Be Blood except gird up his loins and charge through it.

I am sorry if that offended others. I really see the AA as part of the dumbing down of what can be a rather high art form.

I’m sorry if I was a bit sharp with you, SanderO, but I hope you see why. :blush: I do take your point. The movies have always been an art and a business, for better and for worse.

The award ceremonies and the film festivals have become almost the only way for smaller, non-blockbuster movies to publicise themselves.

Very good point, GWTW.

Link to comment

dirac, I've been around, just not very active :blush:.

I had the misfortune of seeing “The Golden Age,†and taken in that context miliosr is quite correct – it was campy.

I should let miliosr speak for him/herself, but I think he/she was referring to the 1st Blanchette movie "Elizabeth" (1998), not to the most recent one, when he/she said the previews were too campy.

I eat up just about anything pretaining to QEI (she is definitely one of my heros -- if history is to be believed at all), so I will get "Golden Age" on DVD and watch it regardless (out in a week or so I think). Even if it is bad, I will enjoy it. I won't be disappointed either because, altho Blanchette was my favorite since Jackson and Davis, she was surpassed in my pantheon first by Anne-Marie Duff, and then in short order both were upped by Helen Mirren. I guess I just love them all (with the crown going to Mirren).

Link to comment
I didn't read your post before adding my profound insights. Didn't mean to ignore you!

Oh please, my 'sensitive-type' period disappeared ages ago, it's the profound insights I cherish! I really think I must compare the 1998 Blanchett film automatically not with other films about The Virgin Queen, but rather with 'A Man for All Seasons' and 'The Lion in Winter'--and by the 90s, all sorts of styles were taking place in these 'history films'. I found it easy, in light of this, to skip (forever) 'Shakespeare in Love' and some 1996 movie about Thomas Jefferson, whose name I can't remember. Already by 'Ghandhi' I wasn't caring too much for these films.

Link to comment
dirac, I've been around, just not very active :blush:.
I had the misfortune of seeing “The Golden Age,” and taken in that context miliosr is quite correct – it was campy.

I should let miliosr speak for him/herself, but I think he/she was referring to the 1st Blanchette movie "Elizabeth" (1998), not to the most recent one, when he/she said the previews were too campy.

I understood that, Sandy, but thank you for clarifying. I meant that miliosr’s impression from the preview was perfectly accurate.

I'm with carbro, though, in never caring who wins, even though I watch more movies

It generally makes no difference to me personally who wins, but a couple of years ago I was rooting fervently for Brokeback Mountain over the ghastly Crash - never was movie more aptly titled.....

Link to comment

I was referencing Cate Blanchett's second stab at the part of Elizabeth. The commercials I saw this past summer/fall were very over-the-top. The scene of Cate Blanchett pounding the floor was like something Joan Collins would have done on Dynasty -- "Colby Co. will not fall UNDER MY REIGN!" I think Blanchett's Oscar nomination for this part came as a bit of a surprise to everyone (including her.)

Link to comment

The MOST overlooked actor for the best acting award is Chris Cooper in Breach. The movie came out early in the year and apparently was seen by people with short memories. Also in the movie was Laura Linney in a role in which she had to spew out tons of information and not make it sound like a teletype; just watching her do this was a study in acting. Yes, she was good in The Savages but she was astounding in Breach.

Philip Seymour Hoffman should win any darn thing that comes up!!

Angelina Jolie was ignored for A Mighty Heart. As always it seems impossible to win an Oscar for a movie released before Sept.

Giannina

Link to comment
The MOST overlooked actor for the best acting award is Chris Cooper in Breach. The movie came out early in the year and apparently was seen by people with short memories. Also in the movie was Laura Linney in a role in which she had to spew out tons of information and not make it sound like a teletype; just watching her do this was a study in acting. Yes, she was good in The Savages but she was astounding in Breach.

Philip Seymour Hoffman should win any darn thing that comes up!!

Angelina Jolie was ignored for A Mighty Heart. As always it seems impossible to win an Oscar for a movie released before Sept.

Giannina

Thank you, Giannina, for mentioning 'Breach.' Cooper and Linney were excellent and Ryan Phillippe wasn't too bad, either. It is true that movies considered likely to win awards are most often held for the autumn so the voters don't forget about them. But it is possible for films released earlier to win. A Mighty Heart bombed and some were put off by the publicity, so that may have hurt Jolie's chances as well.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...