OSCARS 2013

i hope he tears a picture of seth mcfarlane in half after his acceptance speech

The buzz among the snobbiest of my Twitter follows is that No is the class of the lineup.

No Oscar for Deakins? Wow. If he weren't insane/not willing to play ball, I imagine Christopher Doyle would have managed one by now, too.

Saw a local review of "Amour" that described Riva, ironically I thought, as "ageless."

i hope he tears a picture of seth mcfarlane in half after his acceptance speech

fixed.

tarantino tantrum just now on Channel 4 news: Perhaps he was pissed he didn't get a nom.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/quentin-tarantino-tells-interviewer-you-cant-make-me-dance-im-not-a-monkey-8446660.html
tbf krishnan was being really arsey.

― danzig, Thursday, January 10, 2013 2:54 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

almost every interviewer has been asking him that same hacky question for 20 years with no variation or nuance, i get why QT snapped

I have a feeling that if I were a famous director on the interview circuit, I would turn into a big dick after, like, two interviews. It must be numbing, especially when your interviewing is being a smug prat.

There's a famous story in the "Devil's Candy" book where De Palma, having been ground down by relentless inane interviews, suddenly springs to life when asked about his socks.

Deakins was all set to win for Old Country and then he got double nominated that year.

I have a feeling that if I were a famous director on the interview circuit, I would turn into a big dick after, like, two interviews. It must be numbing, especially when your interviewing is being a smug prat.

while i'm sympathetic to QT and the interviewer was definitely a mega-dick, he also seemed a little "on edge" from the get-go

That interview is compelling and not especially fun. Personally, I think Tarantino comes across terribly--he's like when the one Gibb brother would stomp out if an interviewer brought up Saturday Night Fever. So he always gets asked the same questions; someone might be inclined to say he should feel fortunate there are still people who want to interview him based on the lingering greatness of three films from 15-20 years ago.

someone who missed that his recent films are doing even better in the box office

He’s a name brand, now, true enough. I don’t think you have to look very far to find artists whose popularity is inversely proportional to the quality of their art. But I can’t get too far into this argument: I (intentionally) haven’t seen his last two films. (And suspect I’d still find him petulant in the interview even if I were to love them.)

(Actually, Scorsese's adjusted figures aren't as screwy as the unadjusted ones. But you've still got Cape Fear, The Aviator, and Shutter Island ahead of Taxi Driver and Goodfellas, Raging Bull middle of the pack, and The King of Comedy down near the bottom.)

he's definitely petulant in the interview, blowing smoke up his own ass and then getting cranky when he realizes the journalist is trying to corner him. but saying he's coasting on old glories fame-wise would be nothing but pique even if you saw the later stuff (and i prefer the 90s biz myself)

Not coasting, that’s not what I mean. It’s more like...groping; I see a guy who had a window of a few years in the ‘90s when his films were treated as events, and they deserved to be treated that way. He’s now a name brand, and his films are still treated as events by the machinery of the industry. But for a number of critics and former fans (like me), they shouldn’t be, not anymore. My guess is--maybe I’m totally wrong--he feels that disconnect, and when he finds himself subjected to that kind of interview at this particular moment, he gets defensive. I bet he wouldn’t have reacted that way if you plunked him into the same interview circa Jackie Brown; I bet he would have taken it in stride and had some fun.

this is a pretty impressive observation to make about critical & commercial hits you haven't seen

I bet he wouldn’t have reacted that way if you plunked him into the same interview circa Jackie Brown; I bet he would have taken it in stride and had some fun.

― clemenza, Friday, January 11, 2013 12:16 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGQaJcwAtpU

"no i did not see the emperor's new clothes but...maybe i'm totally wrong...but i think he knows he's really naked"

i'm under the impression yelling at people he doesn't respect is tarantino's idea of having fun

he seems friendly 2 me

She does seem appreciably more hostile than the British interviewer, who seemed to me to like Django, but point taken.

I just haven't been able to bring myself to see the last two. I see the commercials, think about how disappointing the Kill Bills were after Jackie Brown, and I stay clear. (From the reviews I've read, I'd quibble with "critical hits"--not in the sense that Pulp Fiction was, anyway.)

dude, bro, watch inglourious basterds. just check it out.

both inglorious and django are getting raves, though you've probably forgotten the occasional slams and dismissals pulp got, too. and it's kind of silly when he's complaining that he's been answering a question for 20 years to say that he'd take it in stride if you brought it up 15 years ago.

I don't know--maybe in the wake of something like Newtown, any kind of questions that broach the subject of cause-and-effect push a button with him. Maybe that's behind his defensiveness. I just found it quite excessive for such relatively mild questions.

It's on the shelf, has been for a while. It keeps Shutter Island company.

i bet you'll like it dude!

i think he's always felt slightly attacked by these questions, and probably is even more defensive because of newtown yeah

it's also possible he was jacked up

re: the quibble, if rotten tomatoes is some kind of barometer - pulp and reservoir have ratings around 95% (and that includes reviews of 20th anniversary DVDs and whatnot), django and inglorious around 89%

though if we're going to imagine that tarantino slaps paparazzi because he knows his career has been a lie for a decade, i guess we can fantasize that these critics are afraid of fanboy assaults

I'm sure in the aggregate, the reviews are good. But it's easy to find much more ambivalent reviews--I just read David Thomson's a day or two ago.

http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/111648/django-unchained-all-talk-nothing-say

I'm suggesting uncertainty, not a lie. For a 50-year-old filmmaker to be less sure himself than he was at 30 would hardly seem unusual.

fine, it's possible tarantino's acting like his usual manic self because he's increasingly insecure, and it's possible that these movies you haven't seen are only popular because of his brand and machine.

All right, Ramblers--let's get ramblin'.

lol guess what other movie the new republic was ambivalent about: http://www.tnr.com/article/film/shooting#

Meanwhile, however, what's most bothersome about Pulp Fiction is its success. This is not to be mean-spirited about Tarantino himself; may he harvest all the available millions. But the way that this picture has been so widely ravened up and drooled over verges on the disgusting. Pulp Fiction nourishes, abets, cultural slumming.

So much of what inundates us these days--in film, in various kinds of pop music--is calculated grunginess, of climate and temper. So much of what goes on in (what I hear of) rock music revels in the lower end of every kind of spectrum, grungy ideas and diction delivered by grungy people. So much of modern film seems to compete in grunginess. Very little of this stuff seems to have anything to do with the lives actually lived by its avid public. Most of it seems designed as guided tours of an underworld for people otherwise placed--career-oriented students, job-holding others. Escapism always has been one function of theater and film, and for ages it was cloyingly pretty-pretty. Boy, has the pendulum swung.

kill bill flix are imo good but def his weakest. inglourious basterds is arguably his best.

I'd forgotten Kauffmann reviewed PF--I've got it in one of his books. He does praise most of the acting. The only thing I'd say is that Thomson speaks well of PF in his Django review ("artful structure," "deeply intriguing"), and seems to be someone who'd be predisposed to like Django. I've read a lot of Kauffmann over the years, and PF is generally not his kind of film. But fair point.

I step away and this has become another Tarantino thread

it's ILX.

don't watch inglourious basterds, clem, it's foul shit.

i wouldn't necessarily recommend it myself. and i'll probably save django for dvd

If it's not already common wisdom, Basterds > Django

Oh and ...

Ugh, so not looking forward to the whining of Batman fanboys.

Got scratch. No one cared.

I think even most Batman fanboys were not particularly impressed by the Dark Knight Rises.

you really should at least watch Basterds clemenza

Anyone who sat through Reservoir Dogs ought to give everything else QT does a chance.

I'd agree with that. Everything of his is worth watching at least once, really, and if all of his post "Jackie Brown" pastiche output is sort of incoherent, there are enough moments of sustained brilliance to justify the two hours or so. Personally, I think "Kill Bill," taken as a whole, might actually be my fave of the later stuff. It's pretty lively, if in love with itself.

I've enjoyed all of QT's movies to some degree but Basterds really was a return to form for him IMO. Love that movie.

You've all convinced me--will watch IB over the weekend. I'll make sure to post on the relevant thread if I have anything to say.

So what do we think is the best explanation for the Bigelow/Affleck snubs?

1. Political backlash

2. Personal bias (Bigelow as a woman, Affleck as a pretty-boy actor)

3. Desire to spread the wealth among deserving candidates, perhaps mixed with
3a. a faulty assumption that Bigelow and Affleck were already locks and thus didn't need help

4. Shortened voting schedule, leading to
4a. less time to catch up with screeners (particularly the late-released ZDT)
4b. an inability to use the DGA slate as a guide

5. Harvey Weinstein (nudging Russell in)

IMO, 1 and 4a don't make sense to me since the films still landed expected nominations elsewhere. 2 might be true in Bigelow's case, though Oscar is usually kind to handsome actor-turned-directors like Affleck (cf. Costner, Clooney). The others offer varying degrees of plausibility.

With Affleck I think the Jenny from the Block video is to blame:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dly6p4Fu5TE

Bigelow has already won an Oscar, which sort of disproves 2 but might be why she didn't get a directing nom. If they wanted to punish the movie for its politics, Boal wouldn't have been nominated (though clearly there are more writing slots so maybe that's bullshit).

Russell getting in was a surprise, but with four acting noms it's they probably saw his work there as drawing out great performances so maybe it makes sense.

Regarding your first point, which I probably should've included: I think winning an Oscar is sometimes an impediment to further wins but not to further nominations.

Bigelow: no idea why she was snubbed.
Affleck: his direction is merely adequate (see also: his acting).

and that disqualifies you from getting an Oscar?