2013 Oscar Discussion Discussion Thread

[MEB]

What I'm very confident about:

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln)
Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway (Les Misérables)
Best Director: Steven Spielberg (Lincoln)

I've got no strong feelings for the rest, yet. But those three are the ones that I feel have definitely earned their respective awards.

Mark

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Darth Marcus

It's not a recent phenomenon, but they have been playing it safer more recently than late.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The reason iconoclastic directors like Wells, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Scorsese and Spielberg have had a rough time at the Oscars is because of the political power struggle between actors and directors. The acting branch dominates all others in terms of numbers in the Academy. Scorsese and Hitch and Kubrick didn't lose because they made bad movies, they lost because their films were about the directors, and the acting was secondary to the director's vision. The actors branch responds and protects their own. This has been going on for decades.

[remake]

Speaking of nominations, last year when Melissa McCarthy and Jonah Hill were nominated, was it shocking or expected? Did anyone actually think they could get nominated?

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by victim

Speaking of nominations, last year when Melissa McCarthy and Jonah Hill were nominated, was it shocking or expected? Did anyone actually think they could get nominated?

Best supporting actor and actress are frequently given out to comedies, so it wasn't shocking or unexpected to me. The only thing that surprised me about Jonah is that it was for 'Moneyball', not something else. But he was very good in it, so it was a good nomination.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The reason iconoclastic directors like Wells, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Scorsese and Spielberg have had a rough time at the Oscars is because of the political power struggle between actors and directors. The acting branch dominates all others in terms of numbers in the Academy. Scorsese and Hitch and Kubrick didn't lose because they made bad movies, they lost because their films were about the directors, and the acting was secondary to the director's vision. The actors branch responds and protects their own. This has been going on for decades.

I understand what you're saying, I just simply disagree. Some of these "director-centered" films that have not won Best Picture have featured what was considered to be the best performances of the year at the time, and either won an acting Oscar (supporting or leading) or at the very least was nominated. I think it is true some of the time, just not every single year.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Darth Marcus

I understand what you're saying, I just simply disagree.

Disagree all you want, it's how industry politics works.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Disagree all you want, it's how industry politics works.

Right. Are you a member of the Academy?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Man, the Franco/Hathaway show was brutal. I liked Crystal well enough last year, I really did. It was more of a throwback show, for better or for worse, but nothing is worse than the former. I wish they'd get Neil Patrick Harris to host, or bring Hugh Jackman back. Now that was a damn good show.

The main reason we got the Franco/Hathaway disaster is that they wanted to recreate Hugh & Anne, but Hugh couldn't make it at the last minute.
So they brought in Franco as a bench substitute, and called it the "Young, hip Oscars!" Nice try.

The good thing about last year's Billy show is that they suddenly had to scrap the Eddie Murphy show script, and didn't have time to let Bruce Vilanch write his same three gay/dopey variety-show gags (kidding the audience, coming out in funny costumes) for the new host, and Crystal had to assemble the show from his own experience of what worked. HE, at least, knew.
I started to panic when we got the "Wizard of Oz focus group" sketch (yeesh, that looked Bruce-ish...He's back, he's back! ), but just turned out to be Crystal giving pal Christopher Guest another mockumentary gag. Whew.
And it wasn't until afterwards that I found out the Cirque du Soleil appearance was just a plug for their "Iris" show, and not a salute to their '02 number. Still, did add to the show's theme as "A tribute to Everything That Worked in past shows".

Now, can someone PLEASE tell me why every nice, serviceable, satisfying non-disastered Oscars immediately, on Monday morning, gets called "Boring" and "Worst ever!"? (Okay, we'll grant that the second Jon Stewart hosting was a deathmarch, for trying to cut all the entertainment for time, but Steve Martin? Alec Baldwin?? )
That's like saying a day was "boring" because your car wasn't hit by a tractor trailer truck. I'd rather have that kind of "Boring" than their kind of "Memorable".

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Darth Marcus

Right. Are you a member of the Academy?

I have a strong suspicion I've made out with with more Academy members than you. Which means absolutely nothing, of course -- the acting branch dominates all others in terms of Academy membership, and therefore has a strong influence on what wins every year. You don't need to know what the spit tastes like to know that.

[Britnasty]

Who Really Should Win:

Best Actress: Marion Cotillard (Rust & Bone) or Emmanuelle Riva (Amour)

-Jennifer Lawrence is good, but overrated.

-Jessica Chastain takes 63 minutes to transform her character from paper pusher to power house.

-Keira Knightley should be nominated for Anna Karenina and take the role, but critics are too judgmental of the films execution and overall style, whereas, in my opinion, Keira hasn't been this breathtakingly good since Pride & Prejudice, a film for which the Oscar should've been handed to her.

-Naomi Watts was fantastic in The Impossible, but the films extreme underlying racial tones is far too much of a blanket for her performance to shine.

-Quvenzhane Wallis was my frontrunner, as Beasts of the Southern Wild, is something to experience once in a lifetime but....

-Marion Cotillard in Rust & Bone is a VISION. Her role in Rust & Bone isn't just a role that challenges her, but it challenges her male costar for every minute of the film. The emotional connection one feels is unreal. It almost makes her role in la Vie En Rose look worthless.

-Emmanuelle Riva, who at 85, gives the tour de force performance of the year in Amour. Its going to be heavily overlooked but if instead of politics and rat races, Emmanuelle would win in a heartbeat. Amour wrecked me emotionally and Emmanuelle played with my soul.

Best Supporting Actress: Ann Dowd (Compliance)

Compare Anne Hathaway's paltry 15 minutes of screentime to Ann Dowd's tour de force 90 minute soul raping performance, and Anne Hathaway looks like Selena Gomez in Monte Carlo.

I saw Compliance with a soldout crowd, as it only screened here in Milwaukee for 1 week. There were 8 walkouts halfway through and by the end of the film, I felt personally violated and raped by what progresses in that 90 minute film. My friend and I were reduced to tears because its a film that is so impactful that its really a great testament to film.

Ann's performance is something to witness. Many will scoff, but if you watch how she progresses from start to finish, and then in that final scene with the interviewer. The sheer delusional aspect she brought to the role is immense.

Other oversights:
Best Actor: Matthias Schoenaerts (Rust and Bone)
Best Original Song: Wide Awake by Katy Perry; Breath of Life by Florence + the Machine (sorry but next to Skyfall, these two are the best original film songs)

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I have a strong suspicion I've made out with with more Academy members than you. Which means absolutely nothing, of course -- the acting branch dominates all others in terms of Academy membership, and therefore has a strong influence on what wins every year. You don't need to know what the spit tastes like to know that.

I don't know, maybe if you send some in a jar to my house and I taste it for myself, I might become as prophetic as you. Do you have any in a jar? You could probably sell some on Ebay for a hefty price.

Who are they to protect their own from? If they're protecting their own, why are they lining up to be with directors like Scrosese and Spielberg? If they want to focus on more actor-centered projects, why not finance their own films, cut out the director and make a movie about actors directed by actors? Some of these actors and actresses certainly make enough money to do so. But then of course the actors would become the directors, and would no longer be protected by their own. I never argued that the acting branch isn't a majority of the Academy membership, but I do argue that they "stick it to the directors" every year.

Why would they choose Slumdog Millionaire for Best Picture? Slumdog Millionaire was not an actor-centered project, and was very much Danny Boyle's vision. Or maybe they just switch it up every few years to keep people like me from catching onto their evil scheme.

[Darth Marcus]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I have a strong suspicion I've made out with with more Academy members than you. Which means absolutely nothing, of course -- the acting branch dominates all others in terms of Academy membership, and therefore has a strong influence on what wins every year. You don't need to know what the spit tastes like to know that.

And if what you say is true, then the only clear winner for Best Picture this year is Argo, as it is directed by an actor.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Britnasty

Other oversights:
Best Actor: Matthias Schoenaerts (Rust and Bone)
Best Original Song: Wide Awake by Katy Perry; Breath of Life by Florence + the Machine (sorry but next to Skyfall, these two are the best original film songs)

I believe songs have to be written for the film (as is fair), which would make those two not qualified.


For those of you counting on a nom for Skyfall here is some math to consider.

Although up to 10 films can be nominated, voting academy members only nominate 5 films for best pic, so Skyfall has to be in the persons top 5 films of the year. I don't see that happening, though its not impossible, its extremely improbable.

If members could nominate up to 10 films, then I can see a case to be made, but as it is, I wouldn't bet any money on it.

[Britnasty]

Originally Posted by Snicket

I believe songs have to be written for the film (as is fair), which would make those two not qualified.

Both songs WERE written specifically for their respective films. "Breath of Life" was written by Florence for Snow White and the Huntsman and Katy Perry wrote "Wide Awake" for Kat Perry: Part of Me.

Both songs are in the 75 eligible list released by the academy.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Britnasty

Both songs WERE written specifically for their respective films. "Breath of Life" was written by Florence for Snow White and the Huntsman and Katy Perry wrote "Wide Awake" for Kat Perry: Part of Me.

Both songs are in the 75 eligible list released by the academy.

Ohhhh, I stand corrected.

[Show spoiler]But if I had to see Katy Perry preform at the Oscars I would jump out a window.

[kiltymchaggis]

IMHO, here are my predictions:

Best Picture: Argo
Best Director: Ben Affleck
Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis
Best Supporting Actor: Leonardo DiCaprio (If Christoph Waltz gets nominated and wins, I wouldn't be surprised)

As much as I would love to see Tarantino win for Best Director, I honesty think Ben Affleck is more deserving of the award. I would also love to see Looper get surprise nominations for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I have a strong suspicion I've made out with with more Academy members than you. Which means absolutely nothing, of course -- the acting branch dominates all others in terms of Academy membership, and therefore has a strong influence on what wins every year. You don't need to know what the spit tastes like to know that.

Is Coppola a good kisser? You wouldn't think so to look at him but sometimes the quiet ones can surprise you.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Darth Marcus

And if what you say is true, then the only clear winner for Best Picture this year is Argo, as it is directed by an actor.

No, but Affleck is going to be a real threat to Spielberg in the Best Director category. Lincoln is an actor's piece, with Spielberg taking a restrained mode allowing a powerful ensemble to come to the fore. Look to the SAG awards to see which way the acting branch is breaking.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Snicket

For those of you counting on a nom for Skyfall here is some math to consider.

Although up to 10 films can be nominated, voting academy members only nominate 5 films for best pic, so Skyfall has to be in the persons top 5 films of the year. I don't see that happening, though its not impossible, its extremely improbable.

But then the same thing could have been said about, say, District 9 back in 2009 and that got through despite being a geek-loved blockbuster. And Skyfall, with its cast, Sam Mendes, Roger Deakins and Thomas Newman, plus its tradition, its reviews and it harking back to a more classic era (which the Academy loves), has a fair bit of prestige on its side for that sort of film. I'd say it has a good shot.

I mean, after Extremely Loud got through last year, anything's possible.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by octagon

Is Coppola a good kisser? You wouldn't think so to look at him but sometimes the quiet ones can surprise you.

He's ok, he doesn't wash his beard very often, so you smell everything he's eaten in the last 2-3 days. And in his case, that's a lot of seafood pasta.