SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, while not the first example, was the year when the
Oscars really ost serious cred for me.
If David Strathairn doesn't win (even a as a combo for perf and body of
work) then I know it's really rooted.
This guy has been giving acting lessons to all of them for 20 plus
years. He's the real deal and deserves it.
Phil
David Kusumoto wrote:
While they are fun to watch (and bet on), I long ago stopped paying any
attention to the Oscars as an indicator of whether I should see a
film or
not.
** What the nominations do, however, is three things:
1) they can enhance your interest in films you were on the "fence"
about...
2) ...or never heard of...
3) ...and serve as a major factor in your decision to watch the awards at
all.
** I predict Sunday's awards will be one of the lowest watched in
America --
simply few people have seen the films nominated for best picture.
** Outside NY or LA -- it took a real effort to see the five films:
Brokeback Mountain (esp. early on), "Crash," "Good Night, And Good Luck,"
"Capote" and "Munich." Not one of 'em is a "crowd pleaser" akin to the
following Best Picture winners during the past 10 years: "Chicago,"
"Lord
of the Rings," "Titanic," "Braveheart" and "Gladiator."
** Some films, like last year's "Million Dollar Baby" and 1999's
"American
Beauty" got a huge three-week post-award boost at the box office from
people
who actually WAITED until after the Oscars to decide what they'll see.
** I'm just disappointed that this is will be first year in recent memory
whereby all five films nominated for Best Picture were "non-commercial,"
with 4 of the 5 "message" pictures that many people looking for a nice
night
out would rather not see except in a class room.. No "King Kong," no
"Cinderella Man?" This ruins it for viewers, most of whom are left with
just watching who shows up and what they're wearing.
** I'm not suggesting the Oscars should be equivalent to the People's
Choice
Awards (which I never watch) -- but you can't tell me "King Kong" --
despite
its flaws -- didn't deserve a nomination for Best Picture. What, just
because it was about a big ape? Now that we know what the Academy
thinks
is its "top five" -- I say, 'hey, even "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith"
wasn't bad.'
** It's not up to me of course -- but "Crash," "Munich" and esp. "Good
Night, And Good Luck" (a film that made my former profession, broadcast
journalism, actually a dull and boring civics lesson) -- could've been
easily replaced in the "final five" with better films, such as a
well-written thriller like Woody Allen's "Match Point."
-koose.
----Original Message Follows----
From: JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: JR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: OSCAR TRIVIA and the Losers
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 02:06:44 -0500
> And the Bluebird - a far superior film, though very similar.
> to OZ - was ignored then, and is still ignored.
Wow, I'll say... I don't even know what film you're talking about here.
Details?
I think one mistake people make when comparing Oscars given or not given
over
the past decades is to assume that "The Academy" is some kind of
consistent
and even monolithic organization, when in fact it is simply made up of
those
who work in the industry and qualify to vote for the awards in any given
year.
It's actually a very small group of voters whose tastes can fluctuate
wildly
over the space of a few years. You have periods when the members are
giving
the award mostly to the big money-makers and other periods where
everything
goes to the arty films. Rarely do you have any genuine critical balance
where
the results for the big-category winners are concerned... it's all too
dependent on the political and social fashion among the "in crowd" at the
time.
Now, lower down the food chain in the less-publicized categories, you
tend
to
get more realistic appraisals and awards given on recognized standards of
merit, since they limit voting in those categories to other members
who work
in the same field or have some expertise in it. That's why they
specify them
as "technical awards".
But where the big-categories are concerned, there really has been
precious
little consistency or predictable standards applied for choosing the
winners
over the years, and this year doesn't look to be any different.
While they are fun to watch (and bet on), I long ago stopped paying any
attention to the Oscars as an indicator of whether I should see a film or
not.
-- JR
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
