Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
Oh okay. I haven't seen The Greatest Show on Earth, or Giant, but want to now...I don't agree with the Oscars that often myself, but I almost never think they pick a bad movie by any means. The two biggest miss-steps they made for me where picking Gladiator and The Deer Hunter for best picture, and maybe The Graduate as I felt that out of all the ones I have seen, those three were the most overrated.
But aside from those, everything else they picked that I can think of, has been reasonably good. |
Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
I usually agree, with a few notable exceptions. Not all BP winners are bad movies, but quite often there are better films I would have preferred to have won. Such as L.A. Confidential in 1997, but there was no stopping Titanic.
|
Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
I've heard that to, that people say L.A. Confidental was better. I went and watched it, and it was very good but a near miss from winning for me, as I cannot help but get on the Titanic boat, no pun intended. It was just a little better for me.
However, Gattaca, was very good that year too, and it was't even nominated. |
This thread is a headache....
1917 shouldn't have been in the mix, it was in the mix because it was the UK nom and nationalism is becoming a problem with the Academy. South Korea, France, Mexico, and UK have all had winners since the Academy expanded the field to 10. The Academy often gets it wrong, multiple factors go into this
|
Originally Posted by Wyldesyde19 (Post 2065228)
Is it entirely possible that perhaps the academy actually voted for the right film for once?
This. Not sure what all the fuss is about. People who think main award is only for Hollywood, just go and watch Plan 9 from Outer Space on repeat 92 times!! This might start a trend though, probably for the better. But I am not betting on it. |
Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
There are a few reasons I think Parasite won, which I've stated before. None of them I think involve Mendes being a sellout.
|
Originally Posted by aronisred (Post 2065002)
2) You need to understand what it would mean if sam mendes won the oscar and 1917 won best picture. It would put him in the same ranks as spielberg/innaritu/ang lee/curon. All those directors have never been sell outs. Yes, ang lee made hulk/gemini man but those are experimental failures. Whereas mendes was a sell out when he made the bond movies. So in that respect academy voters are acutely aware of whom they are giving their vote to and what that means for that person.
3) Its a bloody competitive year. Period.
4) The cruel but inevitable fate of auteur culture. The reason why mendes didn't win director is exactly the same reason why Scorsese and Tarantino has loads of fans and it is the exactly the same reason why Tarantino probably will never win director Oscar. Mendes doesn't exactly have a directorial style. He is a competent director but you don't see any correlation between jar-head and american beauty or even with sky-fall. Skyfall feels very much inspired by the dark knight and 1917 by dukirk. I am not saying they are the same but there is some strong correlation. So when academy voters sees 1917, the world war aspect of it feels like inspired by dunkirk. And the "immersive" experience in 1917 is very much inspired by birdman/revenant. You could say they are inspired by work of terrence malick but that is not true. Malick's work is much more small in scale in terms of production. Where as these movies are huge in scale especially revenant and 1917. They will notice that. Tarantino is sort of locked into his style that he can't, wont and shouldnt get out of. If his magnum opus didnt win him a single Oscar then I am not sure if he will ever win. But the moment he breaks from it he will fail with critics and industry. When your entire style is pro-populist and not artistic enough for the majority of the academy then you will have a very tough time breaking through.
Anyway, I would actually argue that the closer point of comparison for 1917 would be Gravity and its primary focus on two people's journey through empty yet hostile territory being rendered through elaborate technical means. Like 1917, it also got criticised because of the slightness of its underlying plot and characterisation. That might be the reason why I think the Academy has gotten a bit wary in recent years over giving Best Picture and/or Director to the most technically impressive movie - sure, it takes a good director to pull it all together, but maybe that just makes the Academy look like they're easily impressed by a glossy surface with little underneath.
5) But the big baddy of all is competition, it is the greatest enemy when it comes to Oscars. No matter anything else if there is someone with a better narrative than you then there is a very strong possibility they will win. Narrative should be natural not forced unlike Greta gerwig or people of color representation.
|
Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
OP is obviously a troll, no?
|
Originally Posted by ironpony (Post 2065242)
Can you give any examples of how they got it wrong? I mean for example there are sometimes movies that I think should win best picture that aren't even nominated. For example in 1998, the whole weather or not Shakespeare in Love, or Saving Private Ryan should have picked, I vote neither, and say The Truman Show should probably, but it wasn't even nominated, cause they do not tend to pick sci-fi movies.
Or in 1995, instead of Braveheart winning, I thought Kids, was the best movie of the year probably, but I guess the Academy is not going to nominate an NC-17 rated independent film. |
Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
I can understand not liking it, but you know what else was nominated that year? Darkest Hour was so dry and British it made The King's Speech look like Spring Breakers.
|
Originally Posted by neiba (Post 2065240)
Pulp Fiction won best Original Script.
|
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect (Post 2065266)
There are a few reasons I think Parasite won, which I've stated before. None of them I think involve Mendes being a sellout.
|
Originally Posted by modelshop (Post 2065291)
OP is obviously a troll, no?
|
Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
For what it’s worth, I felt 1917 was a fine film. Is it better then Parasite? I don’t know, and won’t until I’ve watched it. But the better film has rarely ever won, and even then not everyone will agree with it if it does.
Take The Silence of the Lambs. I didn’t feel that was the best film that year. By far. Boys in the Hood would have been my pick and it wasn’t even nominated. But there are many who would defend it. And that’s alright, as no one will ever agree with every winner across the board. That’s the way the Oscars goes. |
Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
I would have picked either Terminator 2 or JFK over The Silence of the Lambs, but the Oscars are not going to nominate a sci-fi action movie like T2 normally.
As for Parasite, out of every movie I have seen this year it was the best, but I haven't seen 1917 yet, wish I had made time for that one. So having not seen it, I do agree that Parasite is the best movie I've seen all year, and the last movie before it that won best picture that I agree with his Slumdog Millionaire Before that, Schindler's List. Maybe Titanic I agree with too, but haven't seen all those films that year. So it seems I would probably agree with the best picture choice, about every decade or so on average therefore. |
Originally Posted by Iroquois (Post 2065278)
Isn't Spielberg the prime example of a sell-out director? Think about his career prior to his first Best Director win - his breakthrough film invented the modern blockbuster and most of his subsequent films were similarly successful (we're talking three Indiana Jones movies, E.T., and Jurassic Park - the latter even came out the same year as Schindler's List!) and even then he had to prove himself again and again with serious fare like The Color Purple or Empire of the Sun. Even after that win, he still turned out a Jurassic Park sequel, so it's not like he suddenly became too good for blockbusters after one win (and that didn't stop the Academy awarding him for Saving Private Ryan anyway). Likewise, Cuaron did smaller Mexican productions and only broke through to an international audience when he directed the third Harry Potter so he had to sell out a little to get to make his subsequent work (and he won his directing Oscars for films that also relied quite heavily on long takes). Hell, it was only two years ago that they gave it to the guy who made Blade II and a couple of Hellboy movies, so what I'm getting that is that maybe selling out isn't the issue here.
Isn't this the same as #5?
Wait, so Mendes isn't liable to win another Oscar because he's not enough of an auteur but Tarantino won't win one at all because he's too much of an auteur? I'm not sure how much difference the idea of a director's auteur status really makes to the Academy based on some of their recent choices, especially since a lot of the so-called auteurs moved between genres about as much as Mendes did in the past 20 years.
Anyway, I would actually argue that the closer point of comparison for 1917 would be Gravity and its primary focus on two people's journey through empty yet hostile territory being rendered through elaborate technical means. Like 1917, it also got criticised because of the slightness of its underlying plot and characterisation. That might be the reason why I think the Academy has gotten a bit wary in recent years over giving Best Picture and/or Director to the most technically impressive movie - sure, it takes a good director to pull it all together, but maybe that just makes the Academy look like they're easily impressed by a glossy surface with little underneath. One the contrary, sam mendes doesn't need to be an auteur to win an oscar BUT his style can't so closely resemble dunkirk and revenant and birdman. Birdman gimmick is not even just single take...even in birdman days and nights passby. So its single take is not even real time but its the experience of single take that makes that movie stand apart.
I mean, Birdman kind of undermined the "movie done in one take" narrative when a) it won, b) got backlash over it, and c) stopped anyone else from being able to use it. Still, arguing over which narratives count as "natural" or "forced" sounds like it's besides the point, especially when I could just as easily argue that films like Ford v Ferrari or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or The Irishman or 1917 are forced into the conversation by the old out-of-touch white guys who still make up a significant chunk of the awards voting bodies. That's not a judgment of the films themselves, more a judgment of the whole conversation about what's "forced" or not.
|
1917 is Raging Bull with trenches.
|
Re: The fate of 1917 at the oscars and how it was inevitable
Here is a thought. Not saying it's right or wrong, but just a 'what if'.
Last year the Academy chose to bestow the Best Picture award on Green Book, and by so doing overlooking the superior Roma. Hindsight being what it is, could part of Parasite's success this year be in part due to some members seeking to course correct; to actively demonstrate that no matter where a film is from it has not simply the potential to win as a hypothetical, but can actually win? If Roma had've walked away with the Best Picture Oscar last year, would we be sitting here now having witnessed back to back non-English language movies taking home the top prize? Or is it more likely that a more traditional Oscar friendly movie like 1917 would have got this year's Best Picture Oscar? Indeed, will Parasite's success this year mean that the Academy voters are more or less likely to vote in this manner again or will next year see a shift back to the traditional Oscar fare? Is this year a one off, that they can pat each other on the back for showing how inclusive they are but then it is back to what they've been doing, or a genuine shift in the Academy honouring the best film irrespective of where it was produced or what language it is in? Just food for thought. |
Originally Posted by aronisred (Post 2065524)
Spielberg wasn't exactly selling out when he made those movies. Indiana jones is his creation.ET is an original movie and jurassic park is a risky movie..
As for Parasite, after the Oscars, there are people saying that the Oscars picking Parasite for best picture is a game changer, in the sense that now American moviegoers are going to be more open to wanting to foreign films with subtitles. But do you think that's true though? Even though I love Parasite winning best picture, I don't think it'll make one bit of difference and it will not be a game changer to foreign films being more accepted by the US. Unless I am being pessimistic and I am wrong? |
Originally Posted by aronisred (Post 2065510)
in his own words, THIS was his magnum opus not pulp
|
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 09:22 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums