OSCARS 2013

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?

Generally, no. But this year, apparently so.

Of course, with ten best picture noms and only five best director noms, what used to be odd - films nominated for best picture but not director - are now the norm.

I think it helps to look at the people who actually were nominated

Michael Haneke – Amour
Ang Lee – Life of Pi
David O. Russell – Silver Linings Playbook
Steven Spielberg – Lincoln
Benh Zeitlin – Beasts of the Southern Wild

Bigelow and Affleck both have Oscars, and Affleck got his when he was ten years prettier (albeit for writing, but still behind the camera). Hollywood's also thrown director trophies to pretty boys like Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood. Four of the 5 directed best picture nominees and two of them were always front runners. So basically the message is that more people liked Beasts Of Southern Wild and Life Of Pi more than Zero Dark Thirty and Argo. While I did not see the former pair, I did see the latter and was not particularly impressed. If anyone was nudged on, it was haneke, and well

i mean if anything, it's awesome that haneke got a nod instead of two movies about CIA agents looking anxious while middle eastern music plays

I think someone needs to get to the bottom of why Knuckleball isn't up for best documentary. I mean, c'mon, Wilbur Wood--I thought he had lots of friends in the Academy.

Robert Redford quintessential pretty boy to get Best Director trophy.

Forgotten but worth mentioning cuz he was nominated: Paul Newman for Rachel Rachel

Redford should have won for Quiz Show.

same year as Tarantino

i prefer it to PF but i suppose it's the screenplay that makes it so good.

(we've discussed this before i know)

@Michael_Haneke
on my roof drinkin tequila and screemn the lyrix 2 'i got 5 on it' but im changin 'on it' to 'oscar nominayshuns' lol #friday

Did anyone see Life of Pi or Beasts? Magical symbolic journeys aren't usually my thing and we didn't get screeners - is there a reason not to be glad their directors got nods over the CIA thrillers?

no

Beasts is all indie shakey-cam shit but I guess he got a good performance out of the little girl. Life of Pi has a pretty jaw-dropping hour and a bit, but the opening act and final scenes are pretty terrible. ZDT deserved it for directing, but Argo didn't.

was bored by Beasts, a tourism segment for post-Katrina Southern states suitable for Epcot.

There's some good stuff in Beasts (mostly the sets/design, which reminded me of Where the Wild Things Are but better and 1/90th the cost), but yeah it's pretty bad.

beasts isnt really 'bad' its just nothing spesh

I wouldn't say Life of Pi has a jaw-dropping HOUR, but the shipwreck sequence is stunning.

Pi >>>> Beasts

life of piss

Piss > Beasts

Well, life of Pissing, technically.

Quiz Show was a "TV movie," albeit a fairly good one. Turturro's character/performance was cringily one-note (the ethnic loudmouth).

Affleck got his when he was ten years prettier

Ben Affleck is so much better looking now than when he won his writing Oscar (it was 15 years ago btw); I thought Hollywood's barely-out-of-the-cradle standards of beauty only applied to women....

Affleck has never been a box-office star on the scale of Redford, Eastwood, or even Costner at his peak. When he had his shot, he was blamed for killing one potential franchise (that 'Jack Ryan' BS) and made stuff like Gigli. It's entirely fitting that after making a very good directing debut, and an OK second film, he gets a bunch of AA attention for his worst of the three,

http://www.davidmixner.com/2013/01/why-the-oscar-nomination-for-how-to-survive-the-plague-is-so-important.html

xpost I'd say they're all on a roughly equal middle-of-the-road level; Gone Baby Gone not as good as you remember

"ten years prettier" was a joke, he's quite handsome today yes

gone baby gone had great parts but casey affleck's speech at the climax is torture