zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Actually I stole that from Donald Glover, as did I'm sure "social media"
Movie Thread
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
Actually I stole that from Donald Glover, as did I'm sure "social media"
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Oscars left me very ehhh. Most things that were supposed to win did. Only shock to me was Linklater not winning Director, but the trends for that started after SAG
I guess Selma couldn't be shut out of the Oscars for fear from the PC crowd, but damn did Everything is Awesome deserve to win. In 5 years no one will remember Glory, everyone will still remember Everything is Awesome.
I'm glad Interstellar won the visual effects. Would have for sure been the biggest academy snub. I mean Interstellar should have been up for way more. But visually it's one of the best movies I've ever seen, and unlike say Gravity, it actually was rooted in reality.
I guess Selma couldn't be shut out of the Oscars for fear from the PC crowd, but damn did Everything is Awesome deserve to win. In 5 years no one will remember Glory, everyone will still remember Everything is Awesome.
I'm glad Interstellar won the visual effects. Would have for sure been the biggest academy snub. I mean Interstellar should have been up for way more. But visually it's one of the best movies I've ever seen, and unlike say Gravity, it actually was rooted in reality.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Keaton I think doesn't take major roles for a reason. Unlike say DDL, he doesn't take his job that seriously is something I've always imagined.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
I'm fine with Birdman, though I think Boyhood was better. It's a joke Richard Linklater and Wes Anderson weren't at least recognized, though. If Birdman had still won picture, Linklater director and Anderson screenplay, that would have been much more legit.
The Academy voting for Birdman was nothing more than a chance for those people to become even more self-absorbed. Third time in four years Best Picture winner has been about the industry to some degree, and none of those three were the best movie that year.
The Academy voting for Birdman was nothing more than a chance for those people to become even more self-absorbed. Third time in four years Best Picture winner has been about the industry to some degree, and none of those three were the best movie that year.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I was pulling for Linklater because I think he bends the form more than most of the directors out there. I think Slacker is an underrated classic. He plays with time a lot and I've always found his work interesting. I've always liked Wes Anderson's work as well. But I have no beef with any of the awards. I thought Eddie Redmayne was great, but would have had no problem had Michael Keaton won. I was very happy to see J.K. Simmons win. He's taken on so many interesting roles on the screen and tube and he always brings something great to the role he is playing.
I agree with bravesnumberone that the show biz folks always love a show biz story. I still can't believe The Artist won a few years back. Talk about forgettable. Birdman is a much better film than The Artist, but the same formula plays in each case.
I agree with bravesnumberone that the show biz folks always love a show biz story. I still can't believe The Artist won a few years back. Talk about forgettable. Birdman is a much better film than The Artist, but the same formula plays in each case.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
And in 10 years, interstellar will be the only movie still watched heavily.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I personally thoroughly enjoyed The Artist—and if you enjoy "bend[ing] the form", I'm surprising you found it so "forgettable", considering Hazanavicius' film to me definitely defied a lot of expectations as to what can be a successful film in the Twenty-First Century, and likewise exercised some formal elasticity and experimentation that—while not entirely novel—was certainly novel in the space of contemporary mainstream cinema.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Personally, the “Hollywood loves films about Hollywood” dismissal strikes me as a fairly jejune, uncritical appraisal/complaint—regarding Birdman, or any other acclaimed film about making spectacle (for stage or screen; the distinction seems less germane here).
A more trenchant old-saw for this sort of discussion would be “Artists love Künstlerroman”—which at least has some substance to be parsed, and instead sees creative narcissism for what it is: a fundamental, often useful, acutely human condition of (at least sapient) existence. This, as opposed to pursuing a line of argument that casually brushes off creative narcissism as a unique sepsis of Hollywood's taint—which it most certainly isn't (as that's giving way too much credit to 20th-/21st-century, mostly-Western celluloid—though I do personally love the hell out of the cinema).
Moreover, narratives exploring the intimate relationship of ego/techne, of self-concern/creation, seem especially relevant in today's society, where individuals increasingly—sometimes even to totalizing extents—come to view themselves as artists, creators, content-generators, an experience that often feels global/universal, thanks to technology, even if the content may be mundane and/or the broadcast merely local.
Ultimately, I'm not even claiming Birdman was the best film this cycle, Academy-nominated or otherwise*; just that "Hollywood gonna fellate Hollywood" (while possibly true, generally speaking) seems like a bull s h i t dismissal of the successes of Birdman, both last night at the Oscars and in the work it does as a text.
*(For what it's worth: I probably enjoyed Grand Budapest Hotel—in its way, another Künstlerroman—more than Birdman, but that doesn't diminish the latter, nor does it mean that the former was a more successful or substantive cinematic text.)
A more trenchant old-saw for this sort of discussion would be “Artists love Künstlerroman”—which at least has some substance to be parsed, and instead sees creative narcissism for what it is: a fundamental, often useful, acutely human condition of (at least sapient) existence. This, as opposed to pursuing a line of argument that casually brushes off creative narcissism as a unique sepsis of Hollywood's taint—which it most certainly isn't (as that's giving way too much credit to 20th-/21st-century, mostly-Western celluloid—though I do personally love the hell out of the cinema).
Moreover, narratives exploring the intimate relationship of ego/techne, of self-concern/creation, seem especially relevant in today's society, where individuals increasingly—sometimes even to totalizing extents—come to view themselves as artists, creators, content-generators, an experience that often feels global/universal, thanks to technology, even if the content may be mundane and/or the broadcast merely local.
Ultimately, I'm not even claiming Birdman was the best film this cycle, Academy-nominated or otherwise*; just that "Hollywood gonna fellate Hollywood" (while possibly true, generally speaking) seems like a bull s h i t dismissal of the successes of Birdman, both last night at the Oscars and in the work it does as a text.
*(For what it's worth: I probably enjoyed Grand Budapest Hotel—in its way, another Künstlerroman—more than Birdman, but that doesn't diminish the latter, nor does it mean that the former was a more successful or substantive cinematic text.)
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
I liked The Artist fine, but it was middle of the pack as far as nominees that year went. Just my opinion of course.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
Sure; and I recognize that—as a bit of a film-nerd who's pretty heavily interested and invested in silents, black-and-white cinematography, and especially the liminal period in Hollywood when sound technology had hit the scene but top-notch silents were still being produced/released (1927/1928, basically)—The Artist appealed to me very strongly and specifically, and was hardly forgettable nor middle-of-the-pack seeming. Certainly, I felt it was more a "Hollywood" or "industry" or "film-nerd" film than Birdman (which, with its claustrophobic pseudo-single-take seems much more of a theatre-nerd's film, and more concerned generally with ego and spectacle than celluloid per se).
I'm wondering what you preferred to The Artist amongst the 84th nominees? I liked Hugo as well, but its concerns overlapped in a lot of ways with The Artist, and it was a lot less formally daring; Tree of Life is the only other film from that list I've seen, and it was great, if a tad ponderous, and would have been deserving as well (though I think I still vastly prefer Malick's Day's of Heaven.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I found The Artist to be a dash of Charlie Chaplin in an ocean's worth of water. Maybe that's interesting in a retro sense, but I thought it lacked originality when viewed in the tradition it appeared to be trying to emulate. Linklater has lurched back and forth a bit in his career, moving from off-beat story-telling to animation to the more standard form and while I believe Boyhood is slightly overrated because of its originality over its actual story and quality of the story-telling, it was a very novel piece of work.
I'm fine with Birdman because I really enjoyed it. Inarritu is a very good director (I loved Babel and have always thought 21 Grams to be underrated) and I think Michael Keaton showed he is more than his 1980s schtick. Great supporting cast as well. But if it would have been set in a steel mill, it wouldn't have elicited the response that it did. Hollywood loves Hollywood.
In other news, my heart is still pounding from watching CitizenFour (Snowden documentary). May actually vote for Rand Paul.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Tree of Life, Moneyball, War Horse. I enjoyed The Artist but I don't think it wins without it's subject matter. There's just too good a history of the Academy doing this over the last couple decades. Even if Birdman was largely satirizing the industry, I don't have complete faith in most of those voters to understand or even care. It's all about that self-absorption. And partially sticking it to the critics who vastly preferred Boyhood.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
See, this is the line of thinking I keep coming back to with Birdman, and while it's a claim that works for a film like The Artist, I just don't think it tracks with Iñárritu's film. To me, the story of Birdman seems much more universal, at least in 2015; and—though I think it'd be tougher to set this sort of text in a steel-mill, and though it does make some nice meta-nods at Keaton's biography/filmography for a layer of dramatic irony that rests atop the core of the narrative—I don't really see it as a "film about film", nor a particularly "Hollywood" text, nor a film that's self-absorbed as much as it is a film about self-absorption.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Not big, but he's been in so many awesome things. He was amazing in his bit part in 30 Rock, but he was so fantastic in the Other Guys. The Other Guys is arguably one of the most underrated films in the last 5 years.
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
The other annoying thing is aside from it being a technical masterpiece in many ways, Michael Keaton was the best part of Birdman. And didn't even win. Although it's extremely hard to argue with Eddie Redmayne.