January 31, 2006

• Allright, the nominations aren't so much kife as just bland and predictable. Films that should be rewarded (*coughnewworldcough*) get a token nomination, if any. Films that aren't as groundbreaking as they suggest are richly rewarded. The reign of the biopic continues.
• Fuck the oscars.
• I've seen exactly two of these nominated films--each nominated for but one award apiece--and I can say honestly that I rilly don't give a damn. I am not the target demographic.
• Who cares about the nominations? It's the fashion horrors on the red carpet I hang out for....
• kife? Who coins such naff neologisms?
• Uh, that would have been my sister.
• I looked it up in the urban dictionary, apparently it means "shite" or "to nick". That's the problem with neologisms. No quality control, you see. We need a central committee to legislate language change or there will be anarchy.
• No quality control, you see. Hear hear. And what's worse, those rhyming-different-word slang terms used in the UK, etc. (i.e: trouble -> rubble -> "barney"). Why not just say "bubbelabubbelabubbela"? It's about as decipherable and twice as clever.
• You'll be wanting the Cockney rhyming slang, Fes me old dutch, as previously discussed here... I haven't seen a single one of these movies, and second deconstructo on the not caring. Out of interest, who is the target demographic?
• Ah, well, that certainly clears that up, thanks milady. *shakes head in ugga-wugga fashion, much like a dog with a snootful of snow*
• I'll be watching Jon Stewart.
• No Grizzly Man? Bah! (Still, there's a lot of movies nominated that I wouldn't mind seeing. The last few years have been pretty meh.)
• Now see, this year the nominations actually seem good. For best pic, I've seen one (Brokeback Mountain, which was nice but a bit boring) but really want to see three others (Capote, Crash, and Good Night and Good Luck). The reason I didn't see Capote and GNaGL is that they barely played locally as they were much smaller films, not big blockbuster stuff. And Crash is partly a Canadian film. Including Munich is a sop to big Hollywood, but the other choices are much more subtle, interesting flicks and I actually find myself caring a bit about which one wins, and pleased because now Capote and GNaGL might come back around to the theatres here (we can't all be near big centres all the time) for a while. I don't really care about awards shows in general, and I understand that attitude, but the 'oh oscars blah blah suck I'm hip' attitude is a bit annoying when there's actually some better movies and performances being recognized for a change. And as with Mickey, I'll be watching for Jon Stewart, ahoy!
• I watch only to see Johnny Depp show up and look delicious.
• I hear that this year's host is going to reference Brokeback Mountain by delivering his opening monologue while buttfucking Billy Crystal.
• who is the target demographic? As the Oscars are awards nominated by the entertainment industry establishment (i.e. members of the Academy). You may note that they are generally about 6,000 in number. Paring down "all movie professionals" to "American movie professionals" and then further to "American movie professionals who live and work in LA for one of the major studios and not even one of the so-called 'indie brands' like Miramax" still amounts to far more than 6,000 people. The Academy is an exclusive club. I don't mean this as a dismissal of the Academy. Possibly, they are not only the establishment, they are also the elite and so therefore one might conclude their judgement is more worthy than the Greater Beloit Sewing Circle and Film Society. Certainly the fact that film celebrities we know and adore are part of this academy contributes to greater interest than the nice folks from Beloit...and is one of the reasons the broadcast is so popular. But as for the films themselves, again, these are nominations from the film establishment generally to films from established studios and established directors. Though the rules don't specifically bar films, you can see that one of the basic rules states that eligible films need to have been shown in Los Angeles County. This isn't a world competition of film--and my impression is that some of the detractors feel that the Oscars are or should be. However, the nominations are never going to reflect that--much less the winners, who do not seem to be based on merit so much as perception and acknowledgement of past performance. A good recent example of that would be, immo*, Russel Crowe winning Best Actor for Gladiator the year after The Insider. Crowe's work in The Insider was impressive and generated much buzz amongst critics and cinemaniacs, but the theme of the film, which included how a media company hamstrung its news division and the reporting of truth because of lawsuits and economic concerns, led to some real world acrimony. Gladiator, on the other hand, as a film, was an enjoyable echo of the great Hollywood epics of old. Crowe's role was far less demanding, and he did a fine job of fighting, scowling, and generally brooding. It was nothing compared to his previous work, but it made a safe vehicle for the Academy to say, "Hey, Russ, good job there. We're a tetch late, but you don't mind, doya?" The more technical oscars, like Sound Mixing, may be spared some of this, but they can similarly be swepte up in the "Sweep Mentality" should the Academy as a body politic feel that Titanic was just super-groovy-keen and needs every accolade that can be bestowed. So yeah I'll be watching. I'll be hosting a party in fact. But though the Oscar gives you considerable industry clout and I wouldn't turn down one, I take it with a grain of salt. It's not the end-all be-all in film. * in my monkey opinion
• I've seen the movies nominated for best special effects and that's about it...
• Seen quite a few of the nominees, which is surprising, given how generally sucky my local cineplex is. Capote was excellent, but that has more to do with Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance more than the film as a whole. The guy has been consistently brilliant throughout his career, and if not this Oscar, he wins the Alec Guiness Prize for Being Completely Unrecognizable in Each Role Despite Looking Exactly the Same. Didn't see Bearback Mountin', and am unlikely to do so. Not because I have problems with the subject matter, I just think it'll be boring and trite. Didn't see Crash, but I've heard nothing but good things. And it's partly Canadian, so there. Munich was excellent, but not the highest-grade of excellent. Well done in every respect, just not as engaging as it could have been. Spielberg will at least take home the Woody Allen Award for Still Pumping Out Quality Movies Better Than Anything Else Out There, But Are Still Nothing Compared to His Own Brilliant Past. And I'm still having a problem imagining Daniel Craig as 007. Good Night and Good Luck was first rate. Genuinely surprised by the quality of writing and direction. I knew Clooney had an excellent wit, but translating that into a script is a different matter. He made his points well, and avoided being preachy. Quite a bit packed into that hour and a half. I've put my money on Bearback Mountin' being the big winner, but it's won't be a Big Winner by any stretch. And I don't have a problem with the nominations as a whole, had A History Of Violence and The New World never been released. All of which is respectfully submitted, yada yada yada.
• And King Kong. They missed out on King Kong. A great Hollywood movie. Action, adventure, romance between a blonde in clingy negligee and a giant monkey. What's not to love? Certainly much more fun that that interminable hike through the mountains to drop something in a lava pit. But I guess Jackson has reached his lifetime allowance of Oscars, so no more for him...
• Yeah, there's a whole lot missing (no Mysterious Skin, no Sin City, no Millions, no GODDAMN SERENITY) but... it's the Oscars. They ignore genre films and they ignore most indies, they're Ameri-centric and they like glitzy pseudo-profundity ("prestige fluff", as someone from Empire called it). We know that. But to me (seen a few, read far too many reviews of the others) this seems like it's far and away the best list of Oscar films in a long time. There's cleverness and subtlety and stuff like that going on in loads of these films. There's films that actually give a fuck about something. And there's a distinct lack of prestige fluff. Hell, any year that Ron Howard isn't nominated for best director is a good year. And one of the original song nominees is called "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp" - I mean, what more d'you want?
• And it's partly Canadian, so there. You and your damned patriotism!
• BAREBACK, dude. Bareback Mountin'. If you're going to make that same tired old joke, at least spell the sexual practice right. There is only one bear in the movie, and he don't do no sexin'.
• Serenity didn't get nominated because it was a flop at the box office and it's science fiction. The only time science fiction ever gets anything is if it's a big-budget blockbuster, and even then it'll be relegated to the techie awards. Also, it is my fervent hope that Serenity didn't get nominated because at TWO DIFFERENT POINTS, the captain of the ship fires a gun into someone's head from 100+ feet away, once firing at a moving target about 200 feet away from a moving vehicle. This is pretty good shooting, no? But when he'd actually be served by shooting someone in the head (the way he does in every other scene in which he shoots someone), and is actually in a range where a human being could realistically do so -- close to point-blank range, even -- he shoots the guy, whom he knows to be a well-armored assassin, in his well-armored chest. Between that and hiring a flake who shows herself to be freaked out by a little fire as the engineer on a rust-bucket of a spaceship, I can't understand why anyone would say "OH MY GOD IT DEFIES ALL GENRE CONVENTIONS." What, by making them STUPIDER?
• BAREBACK, dude. Bareback Mountin'. If you're going to make that same tired old joke, at least spell the sexual practice right. There is only one bear in the movie, and he don't do no sexin'. Yeah, I fucked up on preview again. I'd thought I'd let it rest rather than messing up the thread with a correction. Much obliged.
• And I don't mind at all that Jarhead got shut out. Can't understand how you can have a war movie that's niether pro- nor anti-war. Just 'from the soldier's perspective'. Guy goes to Iraq, has no opinion whether he felt good or bad about it. For my ten bucks, I'd like a message, please. Turned out that message was 'Jarhead is a waste of time'.
• I do not like the Oscars, but I have to root for my favorites because they translate into box office bucks, which then means my favorites can make more movies. That said, there are few actors I have enjoyed more over the past 25 years that William Hurt. Is there anything to do other than laugh that he was nominated for A History of Violence? He was in it for less than ten minutes, and he was one-dimensional. Awful.
• No, you're right. He was really, really bad. I think the nomination is one of those compensatory nominations, for having not been given the nod for something much better. At least, that's what I'm hoping. A much as it hurts to say it, Hurt's performance was the weakest part of the film.
• Serenity didn't defy genre conventions. Serenity was all about the genre conventions. It embraced them, lovingly. It clasped them tight, stroked them gently, and whispered quietly in their ear. Then it started moving its hands over the genre conventions body, teasing and playing sensuously with the genre conventions' ample curves. The it was all, like, "Hey baby... what say we try something a little... different?" And the genre conventions looked confused, and a little apprehensive, but Serenity just brushed their hair aside and looked them knowingly in the eye. It drew them closer to it, held them in its strong arms, and kissed them gently. "It's nothing dirty, genre baby," it whispered. "I was just thinking, how about we make this a bit more interesting? Maybe... maybe a little dressing up?" And the genre conventions were like, "Well, I guess... if you really want to, honey." And suddenly the genre conventions got this look in their eye, a look that was flirtatious and naughty and hungry, like something wanton had been released inside. The genre conventions leant back in Serenity's arms, eyelashes fluttering dangerously. "What... what did you have in mind, sweetie pie?" "Well, shucks, Miss Conventions... I've always had this thing about cowboys..." That's what it was like. I don't actually think it should have got many nominations, though - I loved the film, but there wasn't really any one element that was outstanding, just the whole package. I'd have done the happy happy dance if Whedon had got a screenplay nod, but apart from that... I'm not all, like, NATHAN FILLION WAS ROBBED.
• flashboy, that's some lovely metafanfic you've got there.
• A much as it hurts to say it, Hurt's performance was the weakest part of the film. I disagree. At least Hurt seemed like he was having fun. The rest of the performances in the movie were more like lumber impersonations. And Ed Harris is also a fine actor and he wasn't any good either. The dialogue was stilted and the direction and production were both heavy-handed and inconsistent. The premise for the film had a great deal of promise but really, the whole thing just stank.
• *gasp!*
• 50 cent got robbd.
• LOL he literally did get robbed.
• is LOL allowed on monkeyfiltre? I'm on Warp records
• A much as it hurts to say it, Hurt's performance was the weakest part of the film. So...did it hurt the film? Get it? Did it...oh, nevermind.
• Just saw Capote tonight, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman was, as per usual, the cat's ass. Movie was shite, though. And yeah, saying Hurt was the weakest part of A History of Violence is like saying undigested corn is the grossest thing to find in your stool.
• I haven't really seen many of the major nominees, because they seem so self-righteously "serious" and "powerful." I mean "manufactured for Quality." (Brokeback Mountain, for example... does anyone who hears the premise NOT know how it ends?) I can't explain why that's a turnoff for me in the last few years; I've come to prize invention, and not ham-handed attempts to be didactic or Show The Indomitable Quality of the Human Spirit. I plan to see Capote and Munich, but probably on video. The one of those movies that I genuinely wanted to see was Good Night and Good Luck, and the fiance went and saw it without me on a Boys' Night Out. I've seen many other movies this year, just not the top nominees. I hated Memoirs of a Geisha for its tediousness, but it was at least very, very beautiful, in both visual and musical terms. I really will be pulling for it in those categories; it deserved the nominations it did get, and none of the ones it didn't. Narnia was also a huge disappointment, with fewer redeeming qualities. On the other hand, I have seen all the Animated Feature nominees (and I called them, too!). I'm rooting for Howl's Moving Castle, but I think it will probably go to Wallace and Gromit, even though that movie recycled much of the plot and themes of the previous W&G shorts "A Close Shave" and "The Wrong Trousers". The reason I think it's going to the W&G movie is because the academy loved the shorts: Nick Park has only lost the Animated Short award once, in 1990. To himself. They already gave Miyazaki an award for Spirited Away, and Howl's isn't as good as that film was, though it is very good. The Corpse Bride is lovely but has, in many parts, a puzzlingly generic feel. (& yes, I say that as a huge Burton/NMBC fan.) I think it's interesting that all three of these nominees were done with minimal CGI, when CGI has become the preferred format of the big American animation companies. I think this particular slate of nominees has a lot to do with the fact that Pixar didn't release a new film in 2005. I care about the awards less and less, though occasionally something wins that I loved. However: A Beautiful Mind? A slightly-above-average biopic. American Beauty? Looking at the other nominees, nothing else was even truly competitive; the same goes with the year Gladiator won (I mean... they actually nominated Chocolat? On purpose?) Is there any doubt that Nicole Kidman's The Hours award was really for Moulin Rouge and The Others and getting dumped by Tom Cruise for not being Scientological enough? 2002 was a good year for actors and such, but... Chicago? Meh. And every year they do what they can to make the ceremony duller - the one good choice they've made was the one to stop using Whoopi. (And this year's choice to start using Jon.) Also, Johnny Depp keeps not winning. This is a travesty. Except in relation to Chocolat, which was itself a travesty. Give the man an award; he's entirely different in every role. And give one to perennial also-ran Daniel Day-Lewis, otherwise you're going to have to give him an honorary one in another 30 years, and that's just embarrassing for everyone. Nonetheless, my man still refers to it as, "[his] Super Bowl." So we still watch it. I just don't keep a scorecard like I did when I was a teenager. You hear me, Oscar? You're dead to me! DEAD TO ME!
• Feh. When I was a newspaperman, every year my staff and I would dutifully trot off to the regional journalism awards convention. We'd win a few, lose a few. Then one year, we got BLOWN OUT by papers that were easily inferior to us. I hit the roof - my people were disappointed, I was livid (professional pride, baby - toughest shackle ever). So, we get back, I trot down to my publisher's office and do my vent. I yelled, I stomped, I generally made an ass out of my self, and throughout my publisher said nothing. I finally wind down, he says in response: "It's 199X, Fes." Me: "Yeah, I know, I paste up the friggin date on every paper - so?" Him: "This is the year that regional association fees are due." Me: "Wuzzah?" Him: "The association lives on its fees. They know that we will remain a member regardless, but it's the smaller papers that tend to drop out. So, on dues year, the little papers sweep the awards. Then they don't feel so quick to drop out, see?" Me: *satori* The point being, that which the award professes to be about is sometimes not a consideration as to who actually ends up with an award. I can't prove it, but suspect it may be the case with these awards. So, watch what you want! It could be that all this foofaraw is simply because it's a dues year, so to speak.
• The animated category is disapointing. Not that the nominies aren't good, but there just aren't enought high quality animated films to keep the competition interesting. Also, it puts animated films in a ghetto - Spirited Away ought to have been nominated for best overall picture. But then again, they will never give that to them. Really what they should have is Best Animation, and also allow animated films in the best picture category (and directors, actors, sound, etc, in their respective categories). That would be the fair way to do it.
• I don't know about "Best Animated Performance" awards - for one thing, it would be very difficult to decide who to give the award to. The lead animator on a character? The voice artist? What about all the assistant animators? Character designers? Etc. But I agree that Spirited Away should have been nominated for Best Picture Period. The reasons it never would have won were twofold: animated and foreign. Also, a kids' movie. (That's debatable among animation fans, of course, but although all ages find it enchanting, it is for kids - in comparison with Princess Mononoke etc.) Best Picture that year was Chicago, and although I didn't really care for that film, it's such a different animal from Spirited Away that I really don't know if I could compare them. Also, the competition in the Animated feature category that year wasn't stiff... this year, it is. It does seem that they're taking animated features more and more seriously... I don't know how it's been in the past, but along with some writing awards, the Animated Feature award is one of the few categories that was actually made a part of the big announcement in the (ABC) broadcast I saw. Will that translate to someone like Miyazaki ever getting a "real" Oscar? I don't know. As to the rest - what Fes said. I cared a lot more about Oscars before I understood the system.