Acting Oscars in an alternate universe:
I'm just sort of reimagining the Oscars here dating back to 1989. I tried to keep myself to a certain number of rules in limiting what I wanted and what was realistic. One rule was that the number of Oscar winners in the alternate version must equal the number of Oscar winners in history. For example, if I penciled in Russell Crowe for a second Oscar, that would make it one less Oscar winner total. It was a matter of balancing multiple Oscar winners with single Oscar winners.
Secondary rules were to balance dues, be realistic in who would win, and make sure that as many of the deserving actors, if I deprived them an award somewhere, I'd give it back to them later.
By dues, I mean the dues that go into whether an actor wins an Oscar is dependent on whether they've won one before and if so, how recently that would be.
Without further ado, let's start:
89:
Best Actor: Tom Cruise, Born on the Fourth of July*
Best Supporting Actor: Martin Landau, Crimes and Misdemeanors*
Best Actress: Jessica Tandy, Driving Miss Daisy
Best Supporting Actress: Brenda Fricker, My Left Foot
I was originally planning to just do the 20-year period of the 90's and 00's but I needed to strip Denzel Washington of his 89 supporting Oscar to even things out so I went back a year.
In this year, I decided to give the Oscar to Tom Cruise becasue as I wrote in a seperate post, Cruise really needs an Oscar somewhere for the good of Hollywood. I picked Cruise to get the Oscar for 4th of July because I realized when I replaced Day-Lewis for Brody in 2002, I deprived history of its first and only Best Actor winner under 30-years old. To take his place, I thought, I could either give it to Tom Cruise for Born on the 4th or snub Ryan Gosling for Lars and the Real Girl and I chose the former being that the latter wasn't particularly likely.
90:Best Actor: Jeremy Irons, Reversal of Fortune
Best Supporting Actor: Joe Pesci, Goodfellas
Best Actress: Kathy Bates, Misery
Best Supporting Actress: Anjelica Huston, Grifters*
Everything here is kept as is. Kathy Bates performance in Misery was iconic and Joe Pesci gave one of the best supporting roles ever so there's no need to change either of them. Jeremy Irons is a well-respected theater veteran who deserves nothing less than an Oscar. I was considering keeping Whoopi Goldberg because she couldn't guest-star on 30 Rock as an INGOT winner without this award.
91:
Best Actor: Anthony Hopkins, Silence of the Lambs
Supporting Actor: Harvey Keitel, Bugsy*
Actress: Laura Dern, Rambling Rose*
Supporting Actress: Amanda Plummer, Fisher King**
In 1991, I wanted to take the opportunity to reward either Bugsy and JFK with an acting Oscar and I ended up going with Harvey Keitel. Tommy Lee Jones and Ben Kingsley both deserve Oscars elsewhere and being that I found room for that, I thought I'd reward Harvey Keitel for his fairly distinguished career as mobster Mickey Cohen in Bugsy.
I decree Jodie Foster needn't have two Oscars so I took her Silence of the Lambs win away. This prevents Silence of the Lambs from being just the third film to win actor, actress, director, screenplay, and picture, but it's just a horror film anyway. Laura Dern is also Hollywood royalty and has had a relatively respectable career. Shy paramour Amanda Plummer stuck out more in The Fisher King than nagging girlfriend Mercedes Ruehl in my opinion.
92:
Best Actor: Al Pacino, Scent of a Woman
Supporting Actor: Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven
Best Actress: Susan Sarandan, Lorenzo's Oil*
Best Supporting Actress: Greta Sacchi, Player**
I initially had thoughts of rewarding "The Player"'s Tim Robbins for his role as a creepy Hollywood executive a little too willing to get away with cold-blooded manslaughter. It would have compensated for my not awarding Robbins in 2003 and I still wanted to give him an Oscar (his acting wins me over, his politics don't). I was considering bumping Pacino down to supporting for Glengarry Glenn Ross but after 7 failed noms, Pacino deserves better than supporting actor. I could have even awarded Pacino a second supporting nom and a 9th nomination with the Insider in 1999 but I decided that Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman is one of my favorite performances and one that I needed to defend against the detractors and I feel equally highly of Eastwood in Unforgiven. I wanted to give Susan Sorandon something.
A chance to void Marissa Thomei's controversial win, fortunately, gave me the opportunity to award Altman's film with a win for unnominated Greta Scacchi, who played the "Ice Queen"-Robbins' equally dark lover whom he meets in the most immoral of circumstances.
93:
Best Actor: Tom Hanks, Philadelphia
Supporting Actor: Ralph Feinnes, Schindler's List*
Best Actress: Holly Hunter, Piano
Best Supporting Actress: Anna Paquin, Piano
As a fan of Anna Paquin and Holly Hunter, I didn't want to mess with their Oscar wins and the back-to-back wins that defined Hanks career (as well as cinema in the 90's) didn't need tampering either. Tommy Lee Jones gets his own down the road, and Ralph Feinnes one of the UK's finest, gets his for Schindler's List.
94:
Best Actor: Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump
Best Supporting Actor: Martin Landau, Ed Wood
Best Actress: Jessica Lange, Blue Sky
Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Tilly, Bullets over Broadway*
94 was such a great cinematic year and I didn't really want to mess with anything here. I like that also-rans Ed Wood and Bullets Over Broadway got love in the acting categories and I think Jessica Lange (in a bizarre win) deserves a second Oscar. I switched Dianne Weist for Jennifer Tilly, however. This avoided a double win for Weist, who's career has been unremarkable.
95:
Best Actor: Sean Penn, Dead Man Walking
Best Supporting Actor: Ed Harris, Apollo 13*
Best Actress: Elizabeth Shue, Leaving Las Vegas
Best Supporting Actress: Mira Sorvino, Mighty Aphrodite
Apollo 13 is my favorite film of the 90's and wanted to award Ed Harris for it, who conveys all the tension and drama of the space race with his frenetic pacing as mission director Gene Kranz. Presidential portraits seem award-worthy enough and giving Hopkins a second Oscar ensures that he won't be remembered just for his performance as a serial killer. Let's switch up Dead
96:
Best Actor: Ralph Feinnes, English Patient
Best Supporting Actor: Armin Muehler-Stahl, Shine*
Best Actress: Frances McDormand, Fargo
Best Supporting Actress Juliette Binoche, The English Patient
James Woods for Ghosts of Mississippi and Tom Cruise were under consideration here. I wasn't particularly impressed with Rush in Shine but I felt Rush deserved an Oscar and couldn't give it to him in 2000 or 1998. Gooding Jr. who has single-handedly diminished the value of the award with poor post-Oscar career choices, gets to be erased and a man with a mesmerizing performances gets in instead.
97:
Best Actor: Rob Duvall, The Apostle*
Best Supporting Actor: Robin Williams, Good Will Hunting
Best Actress: Helena Bohman Carter, Wings of the Dove*
Best Supporting Actress: Kim Bassinger, LA Confidential
98:
Best Actor: Joseph Feinnes, Shakespeare in Love**
Best Supporting Actor: James Coburn, Affliction
Best Actress: Fernando Montonegro, Central Station*
Best Supporting Actress: Rachel Griffith, Hillary and Jackie*
99:
Best Actor: Matt Damon, Talented Mr. Ripley**
Best Supporting Actor: Michael Clarke Duncan, Green Mie*
Best Actress: Annette Benning, American Beauty*
Best Supporting Actress: Chloe Seveigny, Boys Don't Cry*
00:
Best Actor: Russell Crowe, Gladiator
Best Supporting Actor: Benicio del Toro, Traffic
Best Actress: Julia Roberts, Erin Brockovitch
Best Supporting Actress: Kate Hudson, Almost Famous*
01:
Best Actor: Russell Crowe, Beautiful Mind*
Best Supporting Actor:Jon Voight,Ali*
Best Actress: Halle Berry, Monster's Ball
Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Connelly, Beautiful Mind
02:
Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, Gangs of New York
Best Supporting Actor: Dennis Quaid, Far From Heaven**
Best Actress: Rene Zellweger, Chicago*
Best Supporting Actress: Meryl Streep, Adaptation*
03:
Best Actor: Ben Kinglsey, House of Sand and Fog*
Best Supporting Actor: Jonny Depp, Pirates of the Carribean**
Best Actress: Charlize Theron, Monster
Best Supporting Actress: Scarlett Johannsen, Lost in Translation**
04:
Best Actor: Jamie Foxx, Ray
Best Supporting Actor: Alec Baldwin, Aviator**
Best Actress: Hillary Swank,, Million Dollar Baby
Best Supporting Actress: Virginia Madsen, Sideways*
05:
Best Actor: Joaquin Pheonix, Walk the Line*
Best Supporting Actor: George Clooney, Syriana
Best Actress: Reese Whitherspoon, Walk the Line
Best Supporting Actress: Rachel Weicz, Constant Gardener
06:
Best Actor: Ken Wattanabe, Letters from Iwo Jima**
Best Supporting Actor: Alan Arkin, Little Miss Sunshine
Best Actress: Judi Dench, Notes on a Scandal*
Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls
07:
Best Actor: Virgo Mortgensen, Eastern Promises*
Best Supporting Actor: Tommy Lee Jones, No Country for Old Men**
Best Actress: Julie Christie, Away from Her*
Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There*
08:
Best Actor: Sean Penn, Milk
Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, Dark Knight
Best Actress: Kate Winselt, Reader
Best Supporting Actress: Penelope Cruz, Milk
09:
Best Actor: Morgan Freeman, Invictus*
Best Supporting Actor: Christophe Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
Best Actress: Helen Mirren, Last Station*
Best Supporting Actress: Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air*
Stats:
Existing multiple oscar winners who have lost Oscars (unless otherwise noted, they've gone from 2 oscars to 1 oscar) in my multiple reality: Jodie Foster, Michael Caine, Jack Nicholson (3 Oscars to 2 Oscars), Hillary Swank, Kevin Spacey (2 to 0), Denzel Washington
Existing Oscar-winners who have gained an Oscar in this alternate timeline: People who have gone from 1 oscar to 2 oscars (or 2 to 3): Meryl Streep, Rob Duvall, Ben Kingsley, Martin Landau, Julie Christie, Russell Crowe, Anjelica Huston, Jon Voight
People who no longer have Oscars: Mo'nique, Jeff Bridges, Jim Broadbent, Gwenyth Paltrow, Cuba Gooding Jr., Maria Thomei, Chris Cooper, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Nicole Kidman, Adrian Brody, Roberto Begnini, Whoopi Goldberg, Sandra Bullock, Helen Hunt, Marion Cotillard
People who are now suddenly very much due an Oscar: Nicole Kidman, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Kevin Spacey
Long due people who now finally have an Oscar in this alternate timeline: Ed Harris, Annette Benning, Ralph Feinnes, Tom Cruise, Lynn Redgrave, Harvey Keitel
.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Film #28: Blind Side: A Post-Racial Movie?
Again, to give me revenue, pleeease click here: www.examiner.com/x-3877-dc-film-industry-examiner.
Still have watched zero films in 2010 in hopes of keeping up my films in 2009:
The Blind Side:
The Blind Side is one of the beneficiaries of the expanded field having rode sedimental appeal, a star performance, and a respectable box office draw to an Oscar nomination for best picture.
The film tells the true story of Michael Oher, a homeless teenager who became an NFL player and college graduate with the help of a loving family (played by Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw).
The story runs into the same problem as Invictus in the sense that by being true to the events as they happened, there is a lack of conflict. In Invictus, Morgan Freeman says, "hey everyone, I want to cheer for the rugby team" and Matt Damon says "sure" and everyone else says "ok, let's all cheer for the rugby team." That's what actually happened in history and there's no shortage of heartwarming moments but there's definitely a lack of dramatic tension.
Similarly, in the Blind Side, I might have expected, due to the fact that the story takes place in Central Tennessee and a white family is taking in a black teenager that it would be story largely about racism. In real life, however, Leigh Ann Tuohy was remarkably colorblind and so was her husband and the movie doesn't dare contradict that. A couple confused relatives and a suspicious NCAA infractions investigator is about all we get for a reminder of racial tension in the deep south, but hey, it's the post-racial era, what can we expect?
Unlike Invictus, however, this is a picture that works. The drama is authentic but it also engages because it's centered around a struggle that takes many forms and stages: the central figure has to learn to open himself up, to trust, to succeed on the field and in the classroom, etc.
As for the acting:
Sandra Bullock has a strong consistency to the way she approaches the character. The real-life woman is somewhat of an enigma in her motivations and Bullock makes it believable. Bullock won an Oscar for this role but I would have just given her a nom. Streep gave a better performance in my opinion.
Quinton Aaron is amazing and had as much of a role in carrying the movie as Bullock. He has such presence (partially because of his size) but appears so uncomfortable with that presence at first and gradually transform into it.
And wow, Tim McGraw. I once dated a girl who had a humongous crush on Tim McGraw and I was not only jealous of him because of the way she'd talk about him, but I also didn't think much of him: it seemed like he was trying too hard to create this cowboy image. I now see he has the ability to shed that and reinvent himself.
Kathy Bates shouldn't be so heavily advertised because her role basically amounts to a cameo.
Still have watched zero films in 2010 in hopes of keeping up my films in 2009:
The Blind Side:
The Blind Side is one of the beneficiaries of the expanded field having rode sedimental appeal, a star performance, and a respectable box office draw to an Oscar nomination for best picture.
The film tells the true story of Michael Oher, a homeless teenager who became an NFL player and college graduate with the help of a loving family (played by Sandra Bullock and Tim McGraw).
The story runs into the same problem as Invictus in the sense that by being true to the events as they happened, there is a lack of conflict. In Invictus, Morgan Freeman says, "hey everyone, I want to cheer for the rugby team" and Matt Damon says "sure" and everyone else says "ok, let's all cheer for the rugby team." That's what actually happened in history and there's no shortage of heartwarming moments but there's definitely a lack of dramatic tension.
Similarly, in the Blind Side, I might have expected, due to the fact that the story takes place in Central Tennessee and a white family is taking in a black teenager that it would be story largely about racism. In real life, however, Leigh Ann Tuohy was remarkably colorblind and so was her husband and the movie doesn't dare contradict that. A couple confused relatives and a suspicious NCAA infractions investigator is about all we get for a reminder of racial tension in the deep south, but hey, it's the post-racial era, what can we expect?
Unlike Invictus, however, this is a picture that works. The drama is authentic but it also engages because it's centered around a struggle that takes many forms and stages: the central figure has to learn to open himself up, to trust, to succeed on the field and in the classroom, etc.
As for the acting:
Sandra Bullock has a strong consistency to the way she approaches the character. The real-life woman is somewhat of an enigma in her motivations and Bullock makes it believable. Bullock won an Oscar for this role but I would have just given her a nom. Streep gave a better performance in my opinion.
Quinton Aaron is amazing and had as much of a role in carrying the movie as Bullock. He has such presence (partially because of his size) but appears so uncomfortable with that presence at first and gradually transform into it.
And wow, Tim McGraw. I once dated a girl who had a humongous crush on Tim McGraw and I was not only jealous of him because of the way she'd talk about him, but I also didn't think much of him: it seemed like he was trying too hard to create this cowboy image. I now see he has the ability to shed that and reinvent himself.
Kathy Bates shouldn't be so heavily advertised because her role basically amounts to a cameo.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Film 27: Food Inc.
Food Inc.:
I think I still struggle with the nonfiction genre. Whether I'm qualified to judge anything is variable, because I'm just blogging, but if I were to draw the line somewhere as what I know and don't know, it would be documentaries. By and large, I'm not even a fan of the documentary as the ideal medium.
Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock make great documentaries because Spurlock makes it into a story arc and Moore is just plain entertaining and inflammatory.
The film makes a few sharp points filmically. The juxtaposition of the wholesome rural image on food products in supermarkets against the very unpleasant image of real life farm life is poignant. There's also one scene in which the top of the roof is shown with text that tells us the animals never receive sunlight.
It's a difficult call to make as to whether this is suited to film but it did empassion me to the issue. Far more than Supersize Me, in fact.
I think I still struggle with the nonfiction genre. Whether I'm qualified to judge anything is variable, because I'm just blogging, but if I were to draw the line somewhere as what I know and don't know, it would be documentaries. By and large, I'm not even a fan of the documentary as the ideal medium.
Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock make great documentaries because Spurlock makes it into a story arc and Moore is just plain entertaining and inflammatory.
The film makes a few sharp points filmically. The juxtaposition of the wholesome rural image on food products in supermarkets against the very unpleasant image of real life farm life is poignant. There's also one scene in which the top of the roof is shown with text that tells us the animals never receive sunlight.
It's a difficult call to make as to whether this is suited to film but it did empassion me to the issue. Far more than Supersize Me, in fact.
Film 26: The Informant!
The Informant! and Food Inc.
"The Informant!" is an adaptation of Kurt Eichenwald's expose on a most curious price-fixing scandal on account of the fact that the whistle blower was an unideal candidate for the FBI to work with because he was pretty much nuts.
Everything is pretty much up in the air here. Mark Whitacre (played by Matt Damon), a top executive at a food enrichment products company, might be tipping off the CIA to an enormous price-fixing scandal to cover up for a smaller lie he made up, because his wife is nagging him to, because amid all the racing thoughts in his head (this is one of the main motifs of the film as that internal monologue is done by Matt Damon in voice over) he just hasn't thought it through, or because he sees it as some convoluted master plan to get a big raise and take over management. Stephen Soderbergh, one of the premiere directors of the decade, is a master of experimentation and here he is experimenting with story to a great degree: The story is constantly in flux because the plot is driven by what's going on in the protagonist's head, and the the viewer is never entirely sure what is going on there.
That being said, sometimes the movie comes off as cleverer than it thinks it is, expecting the viewer to jump on board every twist that comes aboard every 3 minutes. The score comes off as a little desperate. It reminds me of how hard the film is trying to market itself as a comedy when it's really nothing of the sort.
The cast is also the most curious thing I've ever seen in my life. I would imagine that the kind of supporting roles needed for this movie would have gone to character actors like Alec Baldwin, Tom Wilkinson, Brian Cox, and Chris Cooper.
Never in a million years if I were to make a movie about a price fixing scandal at an industrial company would I have thought: Joel McHale from the Soup (he hadn't yet done Community) or Scott Bakula from Quantum Leap/Star Trek with more minor roles going to Arrested Development's Tony Hale, 30 Rock's Scott Adsit, Best Week Ever's Paul Thompkins, and Back to the Future's Thomas Wilson.
I don't think I mind because these guys are all just as serviceable as the serious choices. I mean, it makes sense, Scott Bakula is a trained actor and probably needs a job, I'm just surprised.
More power to Stephen Soderbergh, I guess, he probably saved a lot of money.
"The Informant!" is an adaptation of Kurt Eichenwald's expose on a most curious price-fixing scandal on account of the fact that the whistle blower was an unideal candidate for the FBI to work with because he was pretty much nuts.
Everything is pretty much up in the air here. Mark Whitacre (played by Matt Damon), a top executive at a food enrichment products company, might be tipping off the CIA to an enormous price-fixing scandal to cover up for a smaller lie he made up, because his wife is nagging him to, because amid all the racing thoughts in his head (this is one of the main motifs of the film as that internal monologue is done by Matt Damon in voice over) he just hasn't thought it through, or because he sees it as some convoluted master plan to get a big raise and take over management. Stephen Soderbergh, one of the premiere directors of the decade, is a master of experimentation and here he is experimenting with story to a great degree: The story is constantly in flux because the plot is driven by what's going on in the protagonist's head, and the the viewer is never entirely sure what is going on there.
That being said, sometimes the movie comes off as cleverer than it thinks it is, expecting the viewer to jump on board every twist that comes aboard every 3 minutes. The score comes off as a little desperate. It reminds me of how hard the film is trying to market itself as a comedy when it's really nothing of the sort.
The cast is also the most curious thing I've ever seen in my life. I would imagine that the kind of supporting roles needed for this movie would have gone to character actors like Alec Baldwin, Tom Wilkinson, Brian Cox, and Chris Cooper.
Never in a million years if I were to make a movie about a price fixing scandal at an industrial company would I have thought: Joel McHale from the Soup (he hadn't yet done Community) or Scott Bakula from Quantum Leap/Star Trek with more minor roles going to Arrested Development's Tony Hale, 30 Rock's Scott Adsit, Best Week Ever's Paul Thompkins, and Back to the Future's Thomas Wilson.
I don't think I mind because these guys are all just as serviceable as the serious choices. I mean, it makes sense, Scott Bakula is a trained actor and probably needs a job, I'm just surprised.
More power to Stephen Soderbergh, I guess, he probably saved a lot of money.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
New/Popularized Words of the 00's
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Pet Peeve of mine with the Oscars
I wish the Oscars wouldn't waste their precious best picture nominations (although admittedly it's expanding) with films that are solely based around the basis of one performance.
I would put Erin Brockovitch, Ray, Capote and arguably The Queen in this category as well as My Left Foot, Shine and Tender Mercies.
Just as we decide the basketball MVP by taking into account the effect of one team without that player vs. the team with the player a strong film is one that I would define as engaging outside of the performance of one actor. That's what acting categories are for. Giving a film a best picture nomination as a way to secure it a place in history and ensure that many movie buffs will check out that film because it's been recommended as one of the five films of the year. The above-mentioned films already get their place in film history because people want to check out the best actor performances in these films. So if these films are not up to par, it's just a waste.
Examples:
Ray would still be a strong movie if Ray Charles weren't in it: The film certainly does a good job at positioning Ray's life within the context of history and the ups and downs of the story had a certain emotional resonance. However, if you replace Jamie Foxx with a slightly less capable actor, the film would have probably dropped to 7th or 8th in the best picture voting behind "Hotel Rwanda" or "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind".
Erin Brockovitch was an especially unnecessary choice with Soderbergh already getting a nom for Traffic that year. Ask yourself if the film's very existence is even justified without Julia Robert's performance. That was probably the pitch to the studio: Julia Roberts as a skanky, poor and plucky legal assistant, it's Oscar Gold. I would have recommended Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Contender, 13 Days or Almost Famous in its place.
Capote is what I consider to be the worst best picture nomination of the decade. The premise itself of exploring a fish-out-of-water flamboyant urban gay writer in the heartland of America finding himself in the middle of a murder case is gold. But Capote never capitalized on this nearly enough. In fact, a better film with the exact same story came out the year after and it had better performances and lead films. Constant Gardener, History of Violence, New World, Match Point, Walk the Line (which boasted not one but two great lead performances) and Syrianna would have all been better choices.
The Queen is arguable since it's an astute look at politics behind the scenes but would it have lost enough stature to Dreamgirls or Pan's Labyrinth had Mirren not been such a revelation in the film?
I would put Erin Brockovitch, Ray, Capote and arguably The Queen in this category as well as My Left Foot, Shine and Tender Mercies.
Just as we decide the basketball MVP by taking into account the effect of one team without that player vs. the team with the player a strong film is one that I would define as engaging outside of the performance of one actor. That's what acting categories are for. Giving a film a best picture nomination as a way to secure it a place in history and ensure that many movie buffs will check out that film because it's been recommended as one of the five films of the year. The above-mentioned films already get their place in film history because people want to check out the best actor performances in these films. So if these films are not up to par, it's just a waste.
Examples:
Ray would still be a strong movie if Ray Charles weren't in it: The film certainly does a good job at positioning Ray's life within the context of history and the ups and downs of the story had a certain emotional resonance. However, if you replace Jamie Foxx with a slightly less capable actor, the film would have probably dropped to 7th or 8th in the best picture voting behind "Hotel Rwanda" or "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind".
Erin Brockovitch was an especially unnecessary choice with Soderbergh already getting a nom for Traffic that year. Ask yourself if the film's very existence is even justified without Julia Robert's performance. That was probably the pitch to the studio: Julia Roberts as a skanky, poor and plucky legal assistant, it's Oscar Gold. I would have recommended Oh Brother Where Art Thou, Contender, 13 Days or Almost Famous in its place.
Capote is what I consider to be the worst best picture nomination of the decade. The premise itself of exploring a fish-out-of-water flamboyant urban gay writer in the heartland of America finding himself in the middle of a murder case is gold. But Capote never capitalized on this nearly enough. In fact, a better film with the exact same story came out the year after and it had better performances and lead films. Constant Gardener, History of Violence, New World, Match Point, Walk the Line (which boasted not one but two great lead performances) and Syrianna would have all been better choices.
The Queen is arguable since it's an astute look at politics behind the scenes but would it have lost enough stature to Dreamgirls or Pan's Labyrinth had Mirren not been such a revelation in the film?
Are actors or actresses more crucial to best picture noms?
Right now, I'm just enjoying that a decade has concluded and it's sort of ripe for analysis. It's kind of like a statistician in a room full of data.
For instance, I had this theory as I was making a best actors list that they're much more important than best actresses because they fuel a best picture nomination much more often.
I took the top 15 actresses of the last decade according to my last list. These actresses are Kidman, Blanchett, Streep, Winslet, Zellweger, Whitherspoon, Dench, Scarlett Johannson, Julia Roberts, Juliane Moore, Naiomi Watts, Helen Mirren, Jennifer Connelly, Kiera Knightly, and Charlize Theron. I made that list objectively without
I am working on a list of top actors and I was planning on excluding Daniel Day-Lewis because he hasn't appeared in a minimum # of pictures for comparison, but nonetheless, I have something along the lines of DiCaprio, Crowe, Depp, Penn, Damon, Pitt, Clooney, Denzel, Cruise, Hanks, PS Hoffman, Jamie Foxx, Heath Ledger, Daniel Day-Lewis and Joaquin Pheonix.
Let's look at how each group of 15 actors has appeared in all 55 nominated films of the last decade:
Guys:
1. Chocolat-Depp, 2. Gladiator-Crowe/Pheonix 3. A Beautiful Mind-Crowe 4. Gangs of New York-DiCaprio/Day-Lewis 5. Mystic River-Penn 6. Master and Commander-Crowe 7. Ray-Foxx 8. Finding Neverland-Depp 9. Aviator-DiCaprio 10. Capote-Hoffman 11. Brokeback Mountain-Ledger 12. Good Night and Good Luck-Clooney 13. Babel-Pitt 14. Departed-Damon/DiCaprio 15. There Will be Blood-Day-Lewis 16. Michael Clayton-Clooney 17. Benjamin Buttons-Pitt 18. Milk-Penn 19. Inglorious Basterds-Pitt 20. Up in the Air-Clooney
Gals:
1. Erin Brockovitch-Roberts 2. Chocolat-Dench 3. Beautiful Mind-Connelly 4. Moulan Rouge-Kidman 5. Chicago-Zellweger 6. The Hours-Kidman/Moore/Streep 7. LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring-Blanchett 8. LOTR: Two Towers-Blanchett 9. LOTR: Return of the King-Blanchett 10. Lost in Translation-Johannsen 11. Aviator-Blanchett 12. Finding Neverland-Winslet 13. Babel-Blanchett 14. The Queen-Mirren 15. Atonement-Knightly 16. Reader-Winslet 17. Buttons-Blanchett
In the end, it's not that far of a difference.
For instance, I had this theory as I was making a best actors list that they're much more important than best actresses because they fuel a best picture nomination much more often.
I took the top 15 actresses of the last decade according to my last list. These actresses are Kidman, Blanchett, Streep, Winslet, Zellweger, Whitherspoon, Dench, Scarlett Johannson, Julia Roberts, Juliane Moore, Naiomi Watts, Helen Mirren, Jennifer Connelly, Kiera Knightly, and Charlize Theron. I made that list objectively without
I am working on a list of top actors and I was planning on excluding Daniel Day-Lewis because he hasn't appeared in a minimum # of pictures for comparison, but nonetheless, I have something along the lines of DiCaprio, Crowe, Depp, Penn, Damon, Pitt, Clooney, Denzel, Cruise, Hanks, PS Hoffman, Jamie Foxx, Heath Ledger, Daniel Day-Lewis and Joaquin Pheonix.
Let's look at how each group of 15 actors has appeared in all 55 nominated films of the last decade:
Guys:
1. Chocolat-Depp, 2. Gladiator-Crowe/Pheonix 3. A Beautiful Mind-Crowe 4. Gangs of New York-DiCaprio/Day-Lewis 5. Mystic River-Penn 6. Master and Commander-Crowe 7. Ray-Foxx 8. Finding Neverland-Depp 9. Aviator-DiCaprio 10. Capote-Hoffman 11. Brokeback Mountain-Ledger 12. Good Night and Good Luck-Clooney 13. Babel-Pitt 14. Departed-Damon/DiCaprio 15. There Will be Blood-Day-Lewis 16. Michael Clayton-Clooney 17. Benjamin Buttons-Pitt 18. Milk-Penn 19. Inglorious Basterds-Pitt 20. Up in the Air-Clooney
Gals:
1. Erin Brockovitch-Roberts 2. Chocolat-Dench 3. Beautiful Mind-Connelly 4. Moulan Rouge-Kidman 5. Chicago-Zellweger 6. The Hours-Kidman/Moore/Streep 7. LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring-Blanchett 8. LOTR: Two Towers-Blanchett 9. LOTR: Return of the King-Blanchett 10. Lost in Translation-Johannsen 11. Aviator-Blanchett 12. Finding Neverland-Winslet 13. Babel-Blanchett 14. The Queen-Mirren 15. Atonement-Knightly 16. Reader-Winslet 17. Buttons-Blanchett
In the end, it's not that far of a difference.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Movie #25: Humpday
I've now seen 25 2009 films, so here's a new ranking:
Adding to 1 Up in the Air, 2 Inglroius Basterds, 3 Soloist, 4 Star Trek, 5 In the Loop, 6 Up, 7 District 9, 8 Funny People, 9 Hangover, 10 Extract, 11 Angels and Demons 12 Invention of Lying 13 Night at the Miseum 2 14 Julie and Julia 15 Whip It 16 Invictus 17 Humpday 18 2012 19 Sunshine Cleaning 20 Brothers Bloom 21 Proposal 22 Wolverine 23 Julia 24 Land of the Lost 25 Bruno:
My review/thoughts on humpday.
Humpday is a film about two straight guys who get caught up in a dare to have sex with each other on tape for an amutuer porn competition. Intrigued yet? The will they/won't they angle on this is certainly amplified quite a bit from the typical straight couple romantic film.
The film had its weaknesses. At times, the dialogue wasn't that strong and it meandered a bit too much en route to the climactic finale. Perhaps, that's a defining trait of indie films: with no studio pushing them to be ecnomical, there's no urgent need to make the movie minute-by-minute interesting. I think the audience just suffers here.
The film, though, really passed the main test that I generally use to determine what I thought of a film right as the end credits are rolling by. After I think about it a while, I might have a fully formed opinion but my initial reaction over whether I was satisfied with how I spent the past two hours is based on two things:
1. Right before the film's ending, If I was invested enough in the characters to want to know how the film would end and how anxious I was for that ending
2. What I thought of the ending.
A very good film, of course, is one that has me anticipating an ending that would be plain wrong outside of the movie-going experience.
One really good example of this was my experience watching the 1915 film Birth of a Nation: This film, is pretty much the first full-length movie epic and introduced many innovations into the art of making movies. The one catch about this film (it's noted for its technical achievements but certainly not its misguided sense of history) is that it glorifies the KKK. The film is so effective, even with the technology available in 1915, that I actually found myself rooting for the KKK before doing a double-take and thinking about how messed up that was.
In this film, what I wanted to happen for the characters (to have sex with each other) and what the protagonists wanted to happen themselves was completely devoid of reason ordinarily but it made complete sense within the context of the film. Because you see: This wasn't a film about having sex, it was a film about searching for something we don't know how to define but we know how to define it against. One character is newly married and uncomfortable with the new impositions of his life. In wanting to produce a sex tape with his male friend, he is acting out of a desperation to retain some part of his identity that doesn't have to do with being married. Both characters also want to establish themselves as people with artistic credibility: Neither of them are artists or define themselves as artists but they enter into a world of bohemian free-living people and want to feel like they belong in that community. These two friends are reuniting and want to show that they still have some of their wild youth in them.
So off they go on this truly misguided journey before it hits them (I won't reveal exactly how far they go, how much they get away with) that this very thing they want that will satisfy their identities might be a very unpleasant thing after all. Not the best film I've seen this year but one of the most memorable
Adding to 1 Up in the Air, 2 Inglroius Basterds, 3 Soloist, 4 Star Trek, 5 In the Loop, 6 Up, 7 District 9, 8 Funny People, 9 Hangover, 10 Extract, 11 Angels and Demons 12 Invention of Lying 13 Night at the Miseum 2 14 Julie and Julia 15 Whip It 16 Invictus 17 Humpday 18 2012 19 Sunshine Cleaning 20 Brothers Bloom 21 Proposal 22 Wolverine 23 Julia 24 Land of the Lost 25 Bruno:
My review/thoughts on humpday.
Humpday is a film about two straight guys who get caught up in a dare to have sex with each other on tape for an amutuer porn competition. Intrigued yet? The will they/won't they angle on this is certainly amplified quite a bit from the typical straight couple romantic film.
The film had its weaknesses. At times, the dialogue wasn't that strong and it meandered a bit too much en route to the climactic finale. Perhaps, that's a defining trait of indie films: with no studio pushing them to be ecnomical, there's no urgent need to make the movie minute-by-minute interesting. I think the audience just suffers here.
The film, though, really passed the main test that I generally use to determine what I thought of a film right as the end credits are rolling by. After I think about it a while, I might have a fully formed opinion but my initial reaction over whether I was satisfied with how I spent the past two hours is based on two things:
1. Right before the film's ending, If I was invested enough in the characters to want to know how the film would end and how anxious I was for that ending
2. What I thought of the ending.
A very good film, of course, is one that has me anticipating an ending that would be plain wrong outside of the movie-going experience.
One really good example of this was my experience watching the 1915 film Birth of a Nation: This film, is pretty much the first full-length movie epic and introduced many innovations into the art of making movies. The one catch about this film (it's noted for its technical achievements but certainly not its misguided sense of history) is that it glorifies the KKK. The film is so effective, even with the technology available in 1915, that I actually found myself rooting for the KKK before doing a double-take and thinking about how messed up that was.
In this film, what I wanted to happen for the characters (to have sex with each other) and what the protagonists wanted to happen themselves was completely devoid of reason ordinarily but it made complete sense within the context of the film. Because you see: This wasn't a film about having sex, it was a film about searching for something we don't know how to define but we know how to define it against. One character is newly married and uncomfortable with the new impositions of his life. In wanting to produce a sex tape with his male friend, he is acting out of a desperation to retain some part of his identity that doesn't have to do with being married. Both characters also want to establish themselves as people with artistic credibility: Neither of them are artists or define themselves as artists but they enter into a world of bohemian free-living people and want to feel like they belong in that community. These two friends are reuniting and want to show that they still have some of their wild youth in them.
So off they go on this truly misguided journey before it hits them (I won't reveal exactly how far they go, how much they get away with) that this very thing they want that will satisfy their identities might be a very unpleasant thing after all. Not the best film I've seen this year but one of the most memorable
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
So on the whole, the film educated me and by the end of the film I was passionate about something that was wrong in society and needed fixing. The film accomplished it's goal by that end. As for whether the film was entertaining, to some degree yes, but I might have gotten more entertainment in a different format.