Oscar Gold
Feb. 5th, 2010 11:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenI posted the other day on Tor.com about the Oscars hating on genre films. This year, I've seen a surprising number of the films nominated already, mostly due to the fact that a) there are more films nominated and b) the extra films nominated were almost assuredly nominated solely as a ploy to get normal people to watch the damn Oscars. So out of the list of ten, you can guess which ones I've seen. Go ahead, guess!
Nah, I'm just fucking with you. I'll tell you. I've seen Up, Inglourious Basterds, District 9, and Avatar. Of the ones I've seen, I'd say District 9 was the best of the bunch. Up managed to make me cry in the first five minutes and yet I felt kind of blah about it afterward. (It's definitely not the Pixar movie I'd have said deserved a nomination for Best Picture.) Avatar is only the prettiest picture. If it won, I'd pretty much give up on life. Because wtf?
Inglourious Basterds is definitely enjoyable, but I had sort of the same problem with it as I did with Up: while I was watching it, I was transported, but the second you leave, it falls flat. This is Tarantino's masterwork, far as I'm concerned. I like Kill Bill and Grindhouse better, but this is the best movie he's done. But it's still fairly hollow at parts. I explained my issue to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
feiran when we saw it as being that although Every. Single. Conversation. was dead fascinating while you were involved in it, hardly any of them contributed a thing to the overall story. In fact, at least two conversations set up characters/events that led absolutely nowhere. And because they were written by Tarantino, who likes to hear himself talk through his characters, they go on forever. Were they fun to listen to? Sure. Useful? Er...
(Side note: Christoph Waltz WILL win for that movie. He was the person who went through the most conversations with any sense of purpose, and it was the purpose of a very cheerful man-eating shark. He was amazing. The rest of the movie is entertaining, nothing more.)
District 9 would be the best of the bunch, if only for having the balls to make the lead patently unlikeable and yet still sympathetic. Wikus van der Merwe was a loser and a bigot and a jerk. He reacted reflexively to his situation and not always heroically. And yet? He was able to recognize at times when things were so very wrong that even he, a nobody, had to do something. Yet even then, it came from a position of self-preservation. And that's okay with me. I like the idea of a character still being really flawed, even ultimately selfish, and still being heroic. That's a hard line to walk. Compare the protagonist-joins-the-natives narrative of this movie to Avatar's and you see just how novel parts of this movie were. (Yes, there was some heavy-handed allegory. Get over it.)
Of the films I haven't seen, I think neither Precious nor The Blind Side have any chance of winning best picture. The pretentious full name of Precious alone is enough to make me roll my eyes. I lump these two movies together because both are about elevating poor black people. Being that I'm a liberal with a more complex understanding about race relations than ever Hollywood will have, you can guess how I feel about the basic plot of The Blind Side. Precious is more difficult. The black community response has been sharply divided, between people who see the film and think it reflects reality and that that is good and those who think it reflects a part of reality that then upholds stereotypes about poor black people and that's bad. I'm worried that that second group is right. If The Blind Side won't win because it's a fairy tale (that happens to be based on a true story), Precious won't win because it's the other side of the fairy tale--the Brothers Grimm version.
A Serious Man had zero name recognition for me, which goes to show how well it has been promoted. I suppose the Coen Brothers had Miramax boosting it behind the scenes. Too dark horse and they already got an Oscar for one of their shitty movies recently. Pass.
This leaves the heavies: Up in the Air, The Hurt Locker, and An Education. Realistically, the contest is between the first two. An Education was lauded more for performance than anything else, and it might win for that. Up in the Air and The Hurt Locker, though, have had critics singing their praises start to finish. My money's on The Hurt Locker. It was the best-reviewed movie and it's just won so much already.
I will update my predictions as I get to see more movies. But I'm pretty sure I know what the score is on Best Picture. The acting categories for the women are, as ever, up for grabs. (Okay, maybe that's not true. Sandra Bullock has a lot of momentum going, I just refuse to acknowledge that.) For the men, Jeff Bridges and Christoph Waltz will win.
Nah, I'm just fucking with you. I'll tell you. I've seen Up, Inglourious Basterds, District 9, and Avatar. Of the ones I've seen, I'd say District 9 was the best of the bunch. Up managed to make me cry in the first five minutes and yet I felt kind of blah about it afterward. (It's definitely not the Pixar movie I'd have said deserved a nomination for Best Picture.) Avatar is only the prettiest picture. If it won, I'd pretty much give up on life. Because wtf?
Inglourious Basterds is definitely enjoyable, but I had sort of the same problem with it as I did with Up: while I was watching it, I was transported, but the second you leave, it falls flat. This is Tarantino's masterwork, far as I'm concerned. I like Kill Bill and Grindhouse better, but this is the best movie he's done. But it's still fairly hollow at parts. I explained my issue to
feiran when we saw it as being that although Every. Single. Conversation. was dead fascinating while you were involved in it, hardly any of them contributed a thing to the overall story. In fact, at least two conversations set up characters/events that led absolutely nowhere. And because they were written by Tarantino, who likes to hear himself talk through his characters, they go on forever. Were they fun to listen to? Sure. Useful? Er...(Side note: Christoph Waltz WILL win for that movie. He was the person who went through the most conversations with any sense of purpose, and it was the purpose of a very cheerful man-eating shark. He was amazing. The rest of the movie is entertaining, nothing more.)
District 9 would be the best of the bunch, if only for having the balls to make the lead patently unlikeable and yet still sympathetic. Wikus van der Merwe was a loser and a bigot and a jerk. He reacted reflexively to his situation and not always heroically. And yet? He was able to recognize at times when things were so very wrong that even he, a nobody, had to do something. Yet even then, it came from a position of self-preservation. And that's okay with me. I like the idea of a character still being really flawed, even ultimately selfish, and still being heroic. That's a hard line to walk. Compare the protagonist-joins-the-natives narrative of this movie to Avatar's and you see just how novel parts of this movie were. (Yes, there was some heavy-handed allegory. Get over it.)
Of the films I haven't seen, I think neither Precious nor The Blind Side have any chance of winning best picture. The pretentious full name of Precious alone is enough to make me roll my eyes. I lump these two movies together because both are about elevating poor black people. Being that I'm a liberal with a more complex understanding about race relations than ever Hollywood will have, you can guess how I feel about the basic plot of The Blind Side. Precious is more difficult. The black community response has been sharply divided, between people who see the film and think it reflects reality and that that is good and those who think it reflects a part of reality that then upholds stereotypes about poor black people and that's bad. I'm worried that that second group is right. If The Blind Side won't win because it's a fairy tale (that happens to be based on a true story), Precious won't win because it's the other side of the fairy tale--the Brothers Grimm version.
A Serious Man had zero name recognition for me, which goes to show how well it has been promoted. I suppose the Coen Brothers had Miramax boosting it behind the scenes. Too dark horse and they already got an Oscar for one of their shitty movies recently. Pass.
This leaves the heavies: Up in the Air, The Hurt Locker, and An Education. Realistically, the contest is between the first two. An Education was lauded more for performance than anything else, and it might win for that. Up in the Air and The Hurt Locker, though, have had critics singing their praises start to finish. My money's on The Hurt Locker. It was the best-reviewed movie and it's just won so much already.
I will update my predictions as I get to see more movies. But I'm pretty sure I know what the score is on Best Picture. The acting categories for the women are, as ever, up for grabs. (Okay, maybe that's not true. Sandra Bullock has a lot of momentum going, I just refuse to acknowledge that.) For the men, Jeff Bridges and Christoph Waltz will win.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 05:20 pm (UTC)The thing to remember with the new voting system is that when you get down to the last two movies, a majority will have to prefer the winner to the runner-up -- not always the case with a plurality system. That should weed out schmaltzy pretentious depressing movies that might win in another year--specifically The Blind Side and Precious (OK, only Precious could win in another year). Also completely unknown movies, so no statue for A Serious Man, or even mostly unknown movies, so An Education is out.
Up is good, but not good enough to overcome the bias against animated films (and I liked it a lot more than you did). District 9 has the same problem, and was independent, plus there's a bigger sci-fi movie stealing from it.
Down to Avatar, Up in the Air, The Hurt Locker, and Inglourious Basterds. I think when you look at head-to-head votes, it has to go to The Hurt Locker, but the combination of lefty preachiness, fantastic special effects, incredible box office, and James Cameron may fragment things and result in Avatar facing off against Up in the Air or Inglourious Basterds, in which case I'd bet on Avatar.
Odds I'll give:
50% The Hurt Locker
40% Avatar
5% Inglourious Basterds
5% Up in the Air
no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 05:27 pm (UTC)How are they doing the balloting? Are they eliminating the bottom five and then taking the second-choice votes from those ballots? I'll be interested to know.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 05:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:02 pm (UTC)But? There were large stretches of an old man and a kid walking through a jungle with a house literally on their backs. And there was a crazy old kook living in the jungle with talking dogs. That was at least half the movie, if not more, and it was not effective, even if it was cute/funny. The bird was a MacGuffin, and Russell's father issues were pasted on (rather confusingly), and his and Carl's relationship course was straight out of romantic comedy playbooks: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, etc. etc.
Up was definitely touching, but what came in between was enough to distract from the themes. It keeps it from being truly worthy of a Best Picture nomination. I'm not sure it doesn't also put the Best Animated Picture contest into something more like an actual struggle. There were some other animated movies that are garnering equally positive reviews...
no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:23 pm (UTC)It depends on how the ballot works. Presumably, if you think Up is the Best Picture of the year, you also think it was the Best Animated Picture. Makes sense: if you select a film of the best of everything, it has to be the best of a slice of everything. But you and I know the Academy doesn't work that way. Someone who can elevate Up to be Best Picture might then think they should toss a bone to Coraline et al. Or that putting something in Best Picture somehow changes it from being "only animated" and not vote for it there. It depends on how stupid voters are. (The answer: very.)
no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:34 pm (UTC)Of course, if we wanted to note the greatest achievement, we could give Up the Best Animated Short prize :)
no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:36 pm (UTC)What do you mean about giving Up the short prize? For the one with the cloud that came before it? (That one, like Up also made me cry.)
no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 05:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:09 pm (UTC)A Serious Man...god, I was excited at first thinking it was A Single Man and that maybe I'd get to see that at the Oscar showcase, but no. It had to be the goddamned Coen Brothers. No, I didn't like No Country for Old Men, and, no, I haven't forgiven them for it yet either. So they can bite me.
There. My less-informed $0.02
no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 09:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:13 pm (UTC)Please, please, please, do not hang your life on the Academy's good taste.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 06:30 pm (UTC)Where you run into trouble is when he makes profitable but strictly technical things that really only advance technology that you'll hope will be used in better movies later and everyone tells him he's an artist. He's an artist all right--a con artist, as this video shows:
He wants to be George Lucas. Who is not an artist either. I have no problem with them being amazing engineers. But they need to check themselves when they get carried away with their own genius...
no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 09:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 09:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 10:43 pm (UTC)Do they have substantial world building? Oh yeah. But the technology tells a better story, for both directors. Whatever George Lucas' additions to his own works, he's always been better at pushing the effects (and making money) than he has at art. I give him only as much credit as an artist as I do Cameron in that both had control over their stories and wrote them and created them. The fact that Lucas created something that took off in the hearts and minds of people is hardly his doing, however. The most memorable bits and the best Star Wars movie were almost entirely not his doing. In that sense, Cameron is more of an artist because he did actually write stuff for Aliens, Terminator, and, yes, even Avatar that was good to a larger extent. Lucas works when people tell he's wrong and change things. (Or other people write/direct for him.) Cameron can do fine on his own, Avatar not withstanding.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 05:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 05:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 07:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 07:06 pm (UTC)The difference, then, is that Cameron had ideas that he took forward. When he realized them, he was mostly successful. Lucas, less so, showing that his artistry is definitely lacking, even if he's not entirely devoid of creativity. Does that make sense?
no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 08:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 10:18 pm (UTC)Suffice to say, I understand creativity being in both men, but I draw the line at artistry at a different boundary. I'm willing to push Cameron closer to the artist line because I feel he has executed more than Lucas. Regardless, I hardly feel either stands among his peers--writers, directors, what have you--as an artist. Just that on the sliding scale, Cameron may be more of one than Lucas.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 07:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-06 08:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 08:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-05 08:49 pm (UTC)