I responded to David K., but I'll go ahead a post to the entire list. I agree with David and Franc on this one entirely. I'm not what anyone would characterize as a huge Spielberg fan, although I recognize his enormous accomplishments in purveying popular films. In my book he has had several particularly satisfying films - SCHINDLER'S LIST, E.T., and a few others. But LINCOLN is an extraordinary film driven by an extraordinary script adapted from an extraordinary book with extraordinary performances. Is that enough "extraordinaries" fer ya? I enjoyed ARGO; it was entertaining. But clearly Spielberg and company were robbed. I think the sorry decision to have 9 best picture nominations is going to produce what I'll bet are (regrettably) "plurality" decisions like this one.
I thank Steven Spielberg for bringing together this great pool of talent and leaving us with a picture that generations will enjoy again and again. Kirby McDaniel www.movieart.net On Mar 1, 2013, at 7:09 PM, Franc wrote: > Very interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing themt. Somehow after Ben > Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going to > be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argot was > cleary a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become > a classic. > > FRANC > -----Original Message----- > From: MoPo List [mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David > Kusumoto > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM > To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU > Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. > > A pair of interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along > with pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are my favorite "still-living" directors of all > time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but > I thought "Lincoln" and the "Silver Linings Playbook" were better. > Meanwhile, this year's Oscars telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in > my mouth a little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the second is from > the NY Times. - d. > > “Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's Biggest Loser > > Once again, the Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood > have against its most successful resident? > > by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff Writer, February 24, 2013 > > > Image by Mario Anzuoni / Reuters > > Tonight, Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph > of Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory from the jaws of Lincoln > brings Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at > bats for entertainment's biggest prize. > > And tonight, not only did he lose out on the Best Picture prize that once > seemed his, but the consolation prize of Best Director, the category in which > Argo's Affleck was not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed > to Life of Pi's Ang Lee. > > For a man who is widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his > unbelievable fifth decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable > since before many of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet > another defeat at the hands of his people starts to look like a clear and > consistent rebuff. > > Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just distant also rans. Most of his > seven nominated films were at some point in their campaigns considered > favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg the Academy's Charlie > Brown, forever having the football pulled away. > > This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar nominations > being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked like a > shoo-in to win the prize. Only to see Argo stage a last minute surge and > steal its thunder again. > > So to what do we attribute this ongoing snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's > love/hate relationship with its greats. The number one thing Hollywood hates > is failure. The sad fates of those who have fallen beneath the C list > demonstrate every day how little empathy the town has for those who can't > soar with the eagles. > > But the number two thing Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall > of its mighty is practically the industry's official religion. > > Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily forget > his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving one for a > Best Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws, but then being denied > for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar finally broken down and ponied up > nods for E.T. — when it became the day's highest grossing of all time — and > Color Purple. > > But both those films still lost out on the grand prizes, and to add insult, > he was shut out in Best Director category throughout the 70s and 80s as well. > > After the Color Purple loss, Academy officials were so alarmed by the serial > snubbing of Hollywood's most successful director that they took the unheard > of step of bestowing upon Spielberg at age 40 the Thalberg Lifetime > achievement award, until then reserved for septuagenarians at the end of > their careers. > > It wasn't until seven years later, when he made a three hour holocaust film > that Oscar finally couldn't deny giving him their grand prize for Schindler's > List. But since then, it has been a 20 year sea of also-rans. > > Of course, he hasn't gone completely unrecognized. Eight Best Picture > nominations is something most directors will never even dream of. Add to > that, two Best Directing awards making him the most awarded director since > William Wyler in the 1950's. > > But still, somehow the Best Picture prize keeps sliding from his grasp, and > for a man at the top of Hollywood, to be the town's perpetual also-ran in its > biggest contest has to be galling. > > In a town with — despite the disruptive presence of the internet — a fixed > number of studios and a shrinking number of major releases, entertainment > remains a zero-sum game. Celebrating the achievement of the man with a > permanent position on top is never entirely in one's best interest (unless > you're doing it to his face). > > And in a place where, as William Goldman famously put it, "no one knows > anything" and everyone knows that they don't know anything, seeing the mighty > stumble does even the chaotic playing field a bit. > > But even more to the point, as big a business as entertainment is, even as it > stands as America's #1 export, the residents of Hollywood still need to think > of themselves as scrappy outsiders, the oppressed souls who fled the closed > minds back in their small towns and came to a place where at last they could > breathe the air of artistic freedom. > > The fact that this is the story of almost no one in modern Hollywood, dampens > its power not a bit. Even as they drive their $50,000 hybrids paid for by > CGI-explosion fests, Hollywood's need to think of itself as The Oppressed > Outsiders holds an undying power. > > In choosing their Best Picture each year, the members of the Academy choose > what story they want to tell the world about Hollywood. First there is the > story the film tells on the screen; and in recent years these have become > trended heavily towards the edgier, hipper end of the dead center of > middlebrow filmmaking; Oscar has ceased awarding the schmaltzy Braveheart's > and Driving Miss Daisy's that paint the industry as a place of uptight > squares in favor of Slumdog Millionaire's and Hurt Locker's. > > Even a thriller like Argo is animated by a minimalist aesthetic that speaks > to restrained, hipster sensibilities far more than the genre winners of a > decade or two ago. > > But more than the story on the screen, Oscar likes to tell a good story off > the screen about the making of a film. And however contorted and difficult > the journey of a Spielberg film to get to the multi-plex (and Lincoln did > take thirteen years) in the end, "Billionaire Hollywood Titan Makes Good > Movie", is not a tale to inspire the unwashed masses. > > On the awards trail this year, Ben Affleck ran circles around Spielberg > playing up the gracious, just-happy-to-be-allowed-back comeback story. He > showed up at all the events, was warm and self-deprecating. People who > remembered how far he fell post-Gigli could not help but be touched by his > redemption story. And when the empire seemed to be rubbing it in by shutting > him out of the Best Director nominations, they rallied to his side. > > In contrast, Spielberg, as he always is when he gets into an Oscar race, went > into a heavily managed bunker posture, limiting his appearances, keeping his > interviews to few, appearing handled and protected at every turn. > > The fact of the matter is that a heavily guarded, insulated oligarch is much > closer to the true face of Hollywood than a vanquished actor giving one more > chance to redeem himself, as an artist. But its not about what story is true, > it's about what story projects the way Hollywood would like to think of > itself. > > The shame of it is, the real Spielberg on the rare moments when he emerges > from behind the palace gates is a wonderful story and a wonderful story > teller. He has had a career like no other of his generation, has in his time > taken enormous risks both as an artist and producer that have led to be > triumphs and disappointments. He is responsible for a busload of films high > and low destined to stand the test of time. > > And when he submits to interviews, he is warm, gracious, avuncular, > undefensive and endlessly fascinating with five decades of filmmaking stories > under his belt. > > However, he is also, as this race shows again, all too willing to play the > mighty mogul on high. And in the end, the fear that position inspires might > keep him at the top of the industry, but as he has discovered once more, it > doesn't make Hollywood see him as its ambassador to the world. > > http://www.buzzfeed.com/richardrushfield/argo-win-makes-spielberg-hollywoods-biggest-loser > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Oscar-Winning Lessons in History and Hard Sell > > > By MELENA RYZIK for the NEW YORK TIMES > February 27, 2013 > > LOS ANGELES — A few months into awards season, at a party celebrating another > movie, a veteran actor-writer-director-producer, who takes his Academy Awards > duties very seriously, whispered to me that he was sure “Lincoln” would win > big on Oscar night. > > “Because it’s Lincoln,” he said. “It’s like not voting for George Washington. > And you really feel like you get to know Lincoln. We can’t not vote for our > favorite president.” > > The more than 6,000 members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and > Sciences apparently did not see it as their patriotic duty to vote for > “Lincoln” or its director, Steven Spielberg. > > Daniel Day-Lewis’s win for his performance demystifying the 16th president > was not compensation. > > Mr. Spielberg, one studio boss said, looked stricken when he lost the best > director award to Ang Lee. > > In the days after “Argo” won best picture at the ceremony on Sunday, it’s > been a parlor game among Hollywood types to figure out why “Lincoln” lost. > After all, it had all the hallmarks of an Academy Award-dominating film: a > venerated director; a celebrated, erudite scriptwriter in the Pulitzer > Prize-winning Tony Kushner; a landmark role for Mr. Day-Lewis; good reviews > and even better box office; and, not least, millions to spend on campaigning. > > Lobbying voters is frowned on by the Academy and yet a necessity of the > monthslong award cycle. This season, insiders said, the team behind “Lincoln” > — executives at DreamWorks and Disney — overcampaigned, leaving voters with > the unpleasant feeling that they were being force-fed a highly burnished > history lesson. “It was a good movie, not sliced bread,” one veteran awards > watcher said. > > Overreaching was perhaps a failure of the broadcast itself too. The host, > Seth MacFarlane, and the producers, Neil Meron and Craig Zadan, tried to > marry old-school showbiz panache with “provocative” humor and the result was > an entertainment grab bag: the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles; a > foul-mouthed talking teddy bear; splashy song-and-dance numbers for every > conceivable demographic (save anybody who likes hip-hop); Captain Kirk; sock > puppets (sock puppets!); racist, sexist punch lines that seemed lifted from > the insult-comic era; and the first lady of the United States. About the only > things missing were kitten videos and the Harlem Shake (but in blackface). > > But since the ratings were up slightly, especially in the coveted 18-to-49 > age bracket, and despite some high-level protests — the reviews were not > entirely scathing, the production could ultimately be considered a success. > (Mr. MacFarlane, though, has already said he won’t be back as host.) > > In a three-and-a-half-hour spectacle of glossy celebration for a roomful of > superstars dripping with jewels and self-regard, the question of how much is > too much may seem moot. But with the right tone and perspective, even that > ego parade can seem fun to watch. In choosing Mr. MacFarlane in its quest for > a younger, more male viewership, the Academy sacrificed its central > constituency — women make up the majority of the Oscar audience — and > fomented cultural battles in an awards season already full of them. > > Then again, it was the political posturing that made this one of the most > interesting Oscar races in recent memory. As the vibrant discussion of just > how much truth bending is acceptable in fact-based movies shows, authenticity > — or at least the perception of authenticity — still counts. > > Though it took liberties with its story, “Argo” squeaked by on truthiness. It > also triumphed as a consensus choice in a field of high-quality candidates, > each with its own passionate faction of defenders. As Mr. Spielberg himself > said, when he lost the Directors Guild Award to Ben Affleck and “Argo,” > “There have been moments when I wish it was a slightly less incredible year > for movies.” > > There may have been other reasons “Lincoln” fell by the wayside. Dimly > illuminated, to replicate the lighting of the period, and stuffed with long > passages of speechifying by waistcoated, bearded men, the film did not play > well on DVD screeners (nor, perhaps, did another historically based > competitor, “Zero Dark Thirty”). > > Cynics also say that Mr. Spielberg, as Hollywood’s reigning titan, was primed > for a takedown — envy being as motivating a force as greed in this industry — > and that voters were enthralled by the comeback story that Mr. Affleck > represented. > > Somehow Mr. Affleck could not overcampaign, or at least, his combination of > movie-star charm and tabloid comeuppance won people over. Also, he talked > film references like an expert. Which, having won an Oscar at 25 (for writing > “Good Will Hunting” with Matt Damon) after a career as a child actor, this > college dropout turned director pretty much is. > > Casual viewers often wonder if Oscar victory comes down to something simpler: > who makes the best movie. It does not. Nor does the funniest person make the > best Oscar host. There is a narrative to both endeavors, a combination of > self-effacement and artistry (voilà, Mr. Lee), being of the moment and > timeless, that is hard to pull off. Mr. Spielberg will no doubt try again, > and in the meantime he and the other also-rans can console themselves with > another prize, Hollywood’s ultimate popularity contest: record-breaking > ticket sales. > > And next year, may we suggest to the Academy, hire Jennifer Lawrence to host. > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu > 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: lists...@listserv.american.edu > 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: lists...@listserv.american.edu In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
