^I think that was the exact reason she had those names on the dress in the first place, dude.
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. Making broad appealing blockbuster is not the same as selling out. Interstellar is a not a sell out. He had to prove with color purple and empire of the sun just like nolan has to prove with dunkirk after the dark knight trilogy. James bond is the most sell out you can get after superhero movies especially one's that don't have a distinct vision and style. You can tell the same guy directed the prestige and the dark knight. So nolan is not a sell out even though he made batman movies. Because his vision is in every frame of those movies
.
Raiders and
Jurassic Park were attempts to recover from the prominent failures of
1941 and
Hook respectively (plus
Jurassic Park came after he made multiple attempts to do prestige films anyway). Besides, I think if you take Mendes' other films into account then you can spot enough aspects to distinguish his entries into the Bond franchise, whether it's tangible ones like bringing in Roger Deakins to lend
Skyfall an extremely distinctive look or by having both films touch upon themes of family and one's definition of oneself in relation to that that are present throughout every other film he's ever done. In any case, I would argue that Nolan's Batman trilogy is separate from the rest of his filmography because he doesn't do nearly as much dicking around with flashbacks or intersecting timelines or anything of a particularly temporal nature so I might actually question whether or not he did both
The Prestige and
The Dark Knight if I didn't already know he did both.
Narrative is different from competition. Innaritu didn't have competition for revenant. None of the other nominees were remotely a competition except maybe mad max fury road but even that was shot like a very well made action movie and not exactly an artistic piece.
Guess it depends on what you consider impressive directing and I could argue that the narrative surrounding
The Revenant was more to do with it being the movie that would finally win Leo the Oscar (but I guess spending a year in the snow is also supposed to be that kind of impressively Hard directing that the Academy apparently loves to reward), but it really does just read like they were still high off
Birdman.
No, that not what I said. When you become an auteur you develop a style. Sometimes that style is extremely original like Malick or chris Nolan or michael mann. Sometimes it is extremely derivative. Like Tarantino. That doesn't mean his style is bad. His style is an amalgamation of lot of things that are cool and commercially appealing. So if he thinks he want a bloodshed at the end of his movie he will do it and it falls into his style. BUT industry voters know that is played for commercial satisfaction of the audience and will be popular at box office.
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.
Which is why I thought
Gravity was the better point of reference for
1917 than
Birdman because it also involves technically impressive long takes but doesn't feel quite so committed to the (ultimately immersion-breaking) one-take illusion (and like I said,
Gravity sticks to its protagonist the whole way through while
Birdman veers between characters quite a bit). That and
1917 also transitions from daytime to nighttime via a single conventional cut to black so it's also not overly committed to the one-take approach either. In any case, I'd still contend that there's more to being an auteur than just having a tangible sense of style - you've got to have the substance to back it up (which even an overly stylish director like Tarantino manages to provide more often than not).
hate to break it to you but the "backlash" you are referring to is from people that ultimately dont matter. That's not the point. 1917 was just not able to justify its existence with one-shot. Revenant achievement even more of a surreal experience without being one-shot. When I mean forced, i mean forced from bloggers and journalist and awards websites. The ONLY movie that was forced into nomination among the bunch this year is little women. All other movies were nominated because enough people loved them.Period. You call them out-of-touch but I value their opinion more than a blogger whose entire livelihood depends on clicks to his awards website. Little women is forced. It is different from other movies. Ultimately it could get only so-far.
It's a Best Picture winner. Backlash usually comes with the territory (when was the last unanimously beloved Best Picture winner anyway?)
As for
Little Women, that's an awful lot of conjecture. Blaming some nebulous scapegoat of "bloggers and journalist [sic] and awards websites" for forcing a narrative by doing....what exactly? Saying they liked the movie and thought it was awards-worthy? Then following that up by saying that every other nominee deserved it because "enough people loved them", even when it comes to something as notoriously divisive as
Joker or
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but without specifying how much is "enough" in this scenario - never mind the possibility that people might actually like some of the other nominees as much as they liked
Little Women anyway. It's one thing to personally dislike the movie, but to act like other people liking it is some kind of conspiracy that couldn't possibly apply to a movie you like doesn't help your case. In fact, I actually like most of those movies I mentioned earlier (at least
...Hollywood and
Irishman, anyway) and was only speaking hypothetically in order to prove a larger point about the problem with being overly concerned about what did or didn't count as "forced".
what do you mean by "this"?
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.