Early Awards Predictions

Tools    





Shakespeare, Don Quixote, The Iliad vis a vis Paradise Lost, Dante, Virgil
Sorry, I mean, examples of both "sides" of this, so I can understand what qualifies some works and not others.

I'm also pretty confused about the fame/profit distinction you made, since the implication was that the "intellectual" works were made for fame, implying that the artistic works are made for profit, which I personally don't have a problem with but isn't how much people think about great art (they often believe it's mutually exclusive with the profit motive).

All talk tends to. Yes an artist has something to say, but he's not sermon-writing. The idea that the first importance of him is his 'message' is what's untenable. E.g. the poets only concerned with reconciling certain impressions of life as they occur to him and presenting them in the msot effective way possible, without reference to their education value. R Graves said 'the more definitely propagandist the poet, the less of a poet is the propagandist.'
I agree with that, with the caveat that the posture here is way more applicable to literal poetry than to film. Since we're quoting to supplement our views, I like this one, paraphrased from memory: "The essence of mathematics is to make the complicated simple, but in poetry, it's the opposite." It's delightful to read a dense and obfuscated description, in poetry, before pulling back and realizing "oh, it's just about a flower." But even then, of course, the implicit idea is "this simple thing actually contains great depth."

Anyway, I'm not sure we're too far apart here, so I'll simply state what I believe and we'll see if there's any disagreement: if we analyze any great aesthetic work, I think we'll invariably find it is, at its core, trying to convey an idea, it's simply doing it with feeling as an entry point, rather than, say, argument. So the distinction is not that film has to be about feelings and not ideas, but merely that it has to work backwards to an idea from the feeling it produces.
__________________



Sorry, I mean, examples of both "sides" of this, so I can understand what qualifies some works and not others.

I'm also pretty confused about the fame/profit distinction you made, since the implication was that the "intellectual" works were made for fame, implying that the artistic works are made for profit, which I personally don't have a problem with but isn't how much people think about great art (they often believe it's mutually exclusive with the profit motive).
The latter don't qualify. I think even if you haven't read all those you get my general thrust.

Well, you know, Homer had to earn his slices of fat roast mutton and his cup of honey-sweet wine; he provided good popular entertainment. The same with Shakespeare. Welles wanted his films to be moderately succesful. Though I'm not saying all art is made for profit, but no real artist had serious designs on their fame/posterity.

I agree with that, with the caveat that the posture here is way more applicable to literal poetry than to film. Since we're quoting to supplement our views, I like this one, paraphrased from memory: "The essence of mathematics is to make the complicated simple, but in poetry, it's the opposite." It's delightful to read a dense and obfuscated description, in poetry, before pulling back and realizing "oh, it's just about a flower." But even then, of course, the implicit idea is "this simple thing actually contains great depth."
That quotes not my cup of tea. A particular aspect of the flower may fire some emotional tinder and suggest a poem. But the flower is no more the subject of the poem than the murder of an Archduke was the cause of WWI.

Anyway, I'm not sure we're too far apart here, so I'll simply state what I believe and we'll see if there's any disagreement: if we analyze any great aesthetic work, I think we'll invariably find it is, at its core, trying to convey an idea, it's simply doing it with feeling as an entry point, rather than, say, argument. So the distinction is not that film has to be about feelings and not ideas, but merely that it has to work backwards to an idea from the feeling it produces.
I disagree



Well, you know, Homer had to earn his slices of fat roast mutton and his cup of honey-sweet wine; he provided good popular entertainment. The same with Shakespeare. Welles wanted his films to be moderately succesful. Though I'm not saying all art is made for profit, but no real artist had serious designs on their fame/posterity.
Well, you certainly don't have to persuade me; I think the tension between art and commerce is wildly overblown, if not entirely backwards.

That quotes not my cup of tea. A particular aspect of the flower may fire some emotional tinder and suggest a poem. But the flower is no more the subject of the poem than the murder of an Archduke was the cause of WWI.
How do you figure? Also, for our purposes, does it matter if the flower is the subject? The relevant point is that whatever inspires the poem, the purpose of it is never just "here are words with meter." They almost invariably are trying to convey an idea, albeit in a way that uses aesthetics and feelings to underscore its profundity (or, in some cases, to make a challenging idea more palpable).

With which part, and why?



How do you figure? Also, for our purposes, does it matter if the flower is the subject? The relevant point is that whatever inspires the poem, the purpose of it is never just "here are words with meter." They almost invariably are trying to convey an idea, albeit in a way that uses aesthetics and feelings to underscore its profundity (or, in some cases, to make a challenging idea more palpable).
It's not words & meter, but it's also something more than an idea. Poetry as the Greeks knew it is a form of psycho-therapy. Being the transformation into dream symbolism of some disturbing emotional crisis in the poet’s mind (whether dominated by delight or pain) poetry has the power of healing other men’s minds similarly troubled, by presenting them under the spell of hypnosis (through using rhythm) with an allegorical solution of the trouble.

I.e. a schoolteacher might say the whole importance of Wordsworth's poem lies in his simple perception of the beauty of daffodils, but it's an important poem only because Wordsworth has written spontaneously and recorded to his own satisfaction an emotional state which we all can recognize. The daffodils have interrupted the thoughts of an unhappy, lonely man and, reminding him of his childhood, become at once emblems of a golden age of disinterested human companionship; he uses their memory later as a charm to banish the spectres of trouble and loneliness.

Do you see how that goes against the i d e a that poems are conveying an idea. It's the same for films in a roundabout way.



It's not words & meter, but it's also something more than an idea.
Agreed, but I haven't suggested that poems/art/whatever are only ideas. Obviously the way in which art is expressed is an inextricable part of it. The only thing I've taken issue with is the suggestion that art isn't really about ideas or suffers in some fundamental way by having a point of view. The above seems to flip the burden of proof, by asking me to defend the idea that it is only ideas, when my actual position is that it is not only feeling.

Poetry as the Greeks knew it is a form of psycho-therapy. The transformation into dream symbolism of some disturbing emotional crisis in the poet’s mind (whether dominated by delight or pain) poetry has the power of healing other men’s minds similarly troubled, by presenting them under the spell of hypnosis (through using rhythm) with an allegorical solution of the trouble.
I think the phrase "allegorical solution" is a perfect example of what I mean. I think the process being described fits what I said earlier about "working backwards to the idea from the feeling." Creative work can establish a bond with those "similarly troubled," as you say, and once established, use that bond to transmit an idea that enriches or comforts them, even if that idea is simply some kind of perspective from their pain. I don't see the idea and the aesthetics as mutually exclusive, or even at tension with one another, but rather as two irreducible components of a single thing.

I'll grant this is all a little muddied by the fact that our emotions sometimes allow us to understand something on an intuitive level before we can articulate that understanding intellectually. I think that makes it difficult to know which part of creative expression is the cart, and which is the horse, but I'm not sure it matters, anyway. What matters is that you need them both if you're going to be transported anywhere.

I.e. a schoolteacher might say the whole importance of Wordsworth's poem lies in his simple perception of the beauty of daffodils, but it's an important poem only because Wordsworth has written spontaneously and recorded to his own satisfaction an emotional state which we all can recognize. The daffodils have interrupted the thoughts of an unhappy, lonely man and, reminding him of his childhood, become at once emblems of a golden age of disinterested human companionship; he uses their memory later as a charm to banish the spectres of trouble and loneliness.
This is all true (and lovely), but it also seems perfectly in step with what I'm saying. If that poem had stopped a few lines earlier it would seem like a purely aesthetic description of flowers, but it doesn't: it concludes with the idea that these memories can be invoked in a sullen mood to brighten the spirit. The description of pretty flowers stops and gives way to, put crudely, a set of instructions for its use!

Do you see how that goes against the i d e a that poems are conveying an idea. It's the same for films in a roundabout way.
The emphasis on "an" is throwing me a bit. Is the disagreement here based on the belief that I'm saying they have to contain one? Because I'm definitely not saying that. If I've ever used the singular "idea" in any contention it's just a general reference to the concept, and not a suggestion that every work of art has to have some kind of singular thrust to it.



You have two British elderly actors in the mix Jonathan Pryce and Ian McKellen which don't forget Christian Bale so that's the UK voting block and that's pretty powerful.



Welcome to the human race...
Yeah, obviously it's an actual thing that happens in reality. But like every self-exculpatory meme it gets used increasingly thoughtlessly; you're now liable to see it in any tweet thread where anyone suggests any new idea is a bad one.

I think we can all agree, at minimum, that human understanding is a constant push-pull between keeping the hard-earned wisdom of past generations while being open to letting it evolve and grow, both in general and at the margins to account for differing circumstances.

The reason I'm agitating more for the former is because it makes up more time (and thus, more minds) and deserves more relative deference, and because it seems to need the help. Because while it's a well-known and well-understood trope/meme that haha old people fear change, slightly less appreciated is the very obvious and equally undeniable counterpart of young people are way too open to new and dramatic ideas. Probably because, duh, the kids are the ones using tropes and memes the most in the first place. So of course there's memes about how right they are, and of course your great aunt in the MAGA hat doesn't have a pixelated GIF to respond to you with.

Re: Green Book. Yeah, it being a relatively ho-hum movie (in all but the acting, of course) probably didn't help. Rationally, there's no reason that should matter to those types of criticisms, but in practice that's the kind of thing that tends to lead people (critics, editorialists masquerading as critics, whatever) to feel a lot safer levying those kinds of criticisms, relative to what they might be willing to say if the film were truly exceptional.

I don't think Green Book was ever really the kind of thing people would complain about the way people complain about wokeness now, though. I think that (in this case, the idea that racists in the 60s would've reacted to Green Book the same way people do to some overtly woke artistic work now) is revisionism, though. A big part of the problem is the (often explicitly stated!) belief that every one of these struggles is just like all the others, all cultural vanguard ideas are the Right Side of History, and in time they'll all look equally as valid and obvious as the Civil Rights movement (hence the Skinner meme). I think that's borne out of survivorship bias (a constant and unavoidable issue with progressive notions of history, by its very nature) and half a dozen other things.
Yeah, even I understand that the "silence, boomer" mentality too frequently fails to account for certain nuances - it's not like there aren't a whole lot of young people with bad politics, after all.

Whoops started a firestorm. I use to love the Oscars, now I can barely stomach watching them. I feel like if you are a white straight male you almost have to get up there and apologize for winning an Oscar now. Every person that gets up there has a righteous cause to support like they are on some morally superior mountain top the rest of us can only see through binoculars. It nauseating. Meanwhile they are sucking at the teat of China where most of these issues, Gay rights, Women's rights, racism, christian/Muslim re-education camps, concentration camps, freedom of speech, climate concerns etc....are all much more severe there then here by miles. Hell I even heard Once Upon A Time In Hollywood reshot the Bruce Lee scenes to appease China. It's all just too much hypocriticism to stomach anymore.

As far as the movies themselves, it's fine to have an agenda but most of these movies slap you upside the head with a rock with their message. Subtlety is all but gone, but these movies get rewarded now. You guys are much more articulate then me on this, but it's just taken a turn for the worse and I think the quality of movies have suffered.

I think 2 years ago was my breaking point when the best picture of the year Blade Runner 2049 didn't even get a nom for obvious reasons and Nolan didn't stand a chance to win Best Director. Both films trying to push the median forward to me.

Having said all that, I still enjoy hearing all the winners and I've said my peace on it, don't want to distract from the topic anymore.

I think probably Phoenix and the Joker probably deserve some kind of Oscar (haven't seen it yet) but I don't think he or it will stand a chance with the politics around the movie. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood probably doesn't have a chance either. If Bombshell is anywhere near good expect for that to win acting noms for obvious reasons. I usually known better the closer December comes and I can watch most of the Oscar bait movies.
Last I heard, Tarantino himself refused to recut it so at this rate it's not happening.

Lack of subtlety doesn't strike me as a particularly recent problem when it comes to the films that the Academy rewards, though.

As much as I liked Blade Runner 2049 (arguably more than any of that year's Best Picture nominees), I also understand that it's still got a relatively niche appeal so I already knew not to expect too much for it. I am glad that it did win for its cinematography and effects so it definitely got rewarded for the right things. I would contest Nolan deserving a win, though - especially for Dunkirk (but then again I guess it has the same technique-above-all approach that so many other recent Best Director winners seem to love - definitely makes GDT's more understated win a bit of an anomaly).

Regarding Phoenix, I think he stands a good chance of a nomination/win anyway. You could argue it's the cynical move by the Academy to increase viewership, but he's a respected actor who already has multiple nominations and damn near everyone who's seen the movie still cites his performance as the highlight even if they hated the movie. I don't think the Academy cares quite as much about a movie's bad politics (inside or out) as you may think - Three Billboards took home two acting Oscars, after all.
__________________
Way too much stupid talk on the forum. Iroquois, I’m thinking about you.



This is all true (and lovely), but it also seems perfectly in step with what I'm saying. If that poem had stopped a few lines earlier it would seem like a purely aesthetic description of flowers, but it doesn't: it concludes with the idea that these memories can be invoked in a sullen mood to brighten the spirit. The description of pretty flowers stops and gives way to, put crudely, a set of instructions for its use!


The emphasis on "an" is throwing me a bit. Is the disagreement here based on the belief that I'm saying they have to contain one? Because I'm definitely not saying that. If I've ever used the singular "idea" in any contention it's just a general reference to the concept, and not a suggestion that every work of art has to have some kind of singular thrust to it.
Oh right, we do agree after all. The cumulative effect of his work is to suggest a great number of personal obsessions the sum of which compose if you like the "idea". I think it's an instinctive thing, don't you Yoda, not brought about by feeling a responsibility, if you want to make a picture because it would be a message, Yoda, it'd be a bad picture, no? A poem is something that happens to a poet (& that poet then saying what he means honestly, convincingly and with passion), basically, if you make a film because you feel like it, that's better. I believe in instinct more than intelligence.

RE something you said re Wordsworth, it only exists on an intuitive level, doesn't it? I think so. For someone who's early memories of flower picking were blighted by brutal companionship and forced labour for the flower market, it wouldn't seem a masterpiece, unless he wrote a poem of the exact opposite sense (and schoolteachers would point out that the importance of the poem lay in Wordsworth's 'perception of the dreadfulness of spring flowers').



maaaaate mate
the boomer meme is so embarrassing mate
nah IM NOT KIDDING MATE

it does almost look as if we shall have to judge all this stuff on its merits - just like literature and painting and that type of thing



Oh right, we do agree after all. The cumulative effect of his work is to suggest a great number of personal obsessions the sum of which compose if you like the "idea". I think it's an instinctive thing, don't you Yoda, not brought about by feeling a responsibility, if you want to make a picture because it would be a message, Yoda, it'd be a bad picture, no? A poem is something that happens to a poet (& that poet then saying what he means honestly, convincingly and with passion), basically, if you make a film because you feel like it, that's better. I believe in instinct more than intelligence.
Yeah, that's fair. Maybe the key distinction here is that that usually leads to better art, even if it doesn't necessarily. You'll have to forgive me, I'm a little pedantic and often find myself responding to things I mostly agree with just to sand the edges off the extremes. I definitely agree with the general sentiment here.

Where it gets interesting, for me, are those situations where a feeling and an idea are highly entwined, which is the case for me with a whole lot of things. If I were ever to express myself creatively about something on that level I don't think there'd be much meaningful distinction between the two. But maybe I'm weird in that regard.

RE something you said re Wordsworth, it only exists on an intuitive level, doesn't it? I think so. For someone who's early memories of flower picking were blighted by brutal companionship and forced labour for the flower market, it wouldn't seem a masterpiece, unless he wrote a poem of the exact opposite sense (and schoolteachers would point out that the importance of the poem lay in Wordsworth's 'perception of the dreadfulness of spring flowers').
I'm...not sure? I mean, if it invoked such a strong reaction in someone, even a negative one, it's hard not to see that as a testament to its power, whether that specific reaction was intended or not.

That said, if we strip down the "point" of the poem (the scare quotes are just there because I recognize it's slightly silly to pretend the poem can have a point completely separate from the way it's expressed), it would seem to simply say that the memory of beautiful things can be stored and recalled in harder times to help us through them, that truth is something anybody could take from it regardless of their associations with flowers in particular.

But maybe (probably?) I'm not understanding the question, so please feel free to elaborate/clarify/whatever.



I'm...not sure? I mean, if it invoked such a strong reaction in someone, even a negative one, it's hard not to see that as a testament to its power, whether that specific reaction was intended or not.
But is the function of poetry to overpower? To be overpowered is to accept spiritual defeat. Shakespeare never overpowers: he raises up.

That said, if we strip down the "point" of the poem (the scare quotes are just there because I recognize it's slightly silly to pretend the poem can have a point completely separate from the way it's expressed), it would seem to simply say that the memory of beautiful things can be stored and recalled in harder times to help us through them, that truth is something anybody could take from it regardless of their associations with flowers in particular.

But maybe (probably?) I'm not understanding the question, so please feel free to elaborate/clarify/whatever.
Yeah you do get it - I recognize it's slightly silly to pretend the poem can have a point completely separate from the way it's expressed.
I guess it's kind of hard to express though.



Ok, I'm adding a new name to the mix.

Shia LeBeouf.

You heard that right.

His new movie Honey Boy is getting rave reviews and most critics are praising his acting and writing (he penned the film, which is loosely based on his own life, himself).

I suppose the Best Actor category is overflooded with lock-ins, but I can definitely see Shia nab a Best Original Screenplay nomination.



Now if this is not the biggest comeback of the year, I don't know what is.
__________________
“Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!” ~ Rocky Balboa



These are my predictions,not necessarily who i want to win
Picture - Jojo rabbit (Dark-horse Bombshell)
Director - Bong Joon-ho( Darkhorse Mendes)
Actor - Adam Driver (Darkhorse Banderas)
Actress - Zellweger (Darkhorse Theron)
Supp actor - Al Pacino (Darkhorse Hopkins)
Supp actress - Laura Dern (Darkhorse Shuzhen)



These are my predictions,not necessarily who i want to win
Picture - Jojo rabbit (Dark-horse Bombshell)
Director - Bong Joon-ho( Darkhorse Mendes)
Actor - Adam Driver (Darkhorse Banderas)
Actress - Zellweger (Darkhorse Theron)
Supp actor - Al Pacino (Darkhorse Hopkins)
Supp actress - Laura Dern (Darkhorse Shuzhen)

The Irishman should win Best Picture. Scorsese should win Best Director. That's how I see it.



The Irishman should win Best Picture. Scorsese should win Best Director. That's how I see it.
The Irishman or Parasite should win but the academy don't always give the awards to the most deserving



Thread Killer (Let's kill the threads tonight)
If I had to bet money early, then Parasite would most definitely be my pick to win. That or Marriage Story. It comes down between those two, and I'm willing to bet The Academy isn't keen on giving yet another best picture to a heavy drama about "whiteness", or maybe they will considering it's more independent and it's about artists. I'm just thinking they might have intention on fixing their supposed mistake in not giving a foreign film best picture, especially one that seems more "auteur"-ish than the usual Oscar fare. One thing's for certain, whatever wins has to at least get a director or screenplay win (whether it be adapted or original). So keep that in mind before the big night.

Laura Dern (Marriage Story) and Brad Pitt (which would absolutely make my night if he were to win an Oscar for playing Cliff Booth) both seem like strong possibilities to win the supporting awards, and Renee Zellweger as Judy Garland is pretty much a lock by this point due to how much of a default consensus vote she would be. Which brings me to probably the hardest category to predict in terms of outcome... You see, back in October, I was dead set on Phoenix taking it (if I were an Academy voter, he would have my vote in a heartbeat). He just seemed so right and the movie was so big and his face was literally everywhere, especially with those gastly visuals of him trying to force a smile while crying, not to mention that it's R-rated and reached about a billion dollars making it one of the biggest films ever. But after giving it some thought very recently, I think I'm more than a little torn between him and Adam Driver for Marriage Story. He seems to take every box and all film journalist or awards experts have been vouching for him, but his performance is said to be nowhere near “flashy” or “big” or “obvious.” That’s the direction the Academy tends to trend when it comes to best actor (remember good ole Winston Churchill, or maybe Rami Malek’s fake teeth?) I dunno, it's only December. I think we'll all have a better understanding of who the winner will be when the Golden Globes come around.

This season is absolutely packed, which means it's going to be harder to predict, those participating in prediction contests are going to be super tense (especially if precursors split). There have been so many awesome movies this year and thus award season is going to be more huge than it has been in years. Expect a plethora of snubs.
__________________
212 555 6342
Pierce & Pierce: Mergers and Acquisitions
Patrick Bateman
Vice President
358 Exchange Place New York, N.Y. 10099 FAX 212 555 6390 TELEX : () 4534



National Board of Review awardees have been announced:

The Irishman is Best Picture
Quentin Tarantino is Best Director
Adam Sandler is Best Actor
Renee Zellweger is Best Actress
Brad Pitt is Best Supporting Actor
Kathy Bates is Best Supporting Actress
The Safdie Brothers and Ronald Bronstein (Uncut Gems) are Best Original Screenplay
Steven Zaillian (The Irishman) is Best Adapted Screenplay
Parasite is Best Foreign Language Film
Maiden is Best Documentary
How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World is Best Animated Feature
Knives Out is Best Ensemble
Paul Walter Hauser is Best Breakthough Actor
Melina Matsoukas (Queen & Slim) is Best Directorial Debut


https://ew.com/awards/2019/12/03/201...ers-announced/



Adam Sandler is Best Actor


Obviously I've not seen the movie as it hasn't come out yet, but if he takes home a Golden Globe or an Oscar any hope I have of restoring my respect for either ceremony is going to be gone.





Obviously I've not seen the movie as it hasn't come out yet, but if he takes home a Golden Globe or an Oscar any hope I have of restoring my respect for either ceremony is going to be gone.

It's the Safdie's so Uncut Gems was basically a hometown film for New York the bigger news is the great showing for Richard Jewel and shutout of Little Women





Obviously I've not seen the movie as it hasn't come out yet, but if he takes home a Golden Globe or an Oscar any hope I have of restoring my respect for either ceremony is going to be gone.
Adam’s getting a lot of buzz. I think he will get an Oscar nomination but will not win it. Joaquin Phoenix is still the worthy winner in my book.