 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Or an indication of the "bravery" and "progressiveness" of the Academy, giving awards to controversial people.Neither. IMO, all three of these awardees deserved the Oscars based on the Quality of their work. Ditto for Miyazaki's "Spirited Away". And Pedro Almodovar was his usual delightful self; he should emcee next year's show.
I still don't understand the Best Picture award, or nomination, for "Chicago". Well-crafted, but utterly forgettable. I can barely remember seeing the film, or what it was about.
Follow Ups:
It's amazing they make such a good return on their investments with these flicks.:o)
mp
Z
I saw the subbed R2 disk and thought it was an excellent film, and no I don't consider it a chick flick. The thing grossed more than Titanic did in Japan and I first learned about it when a friend of mine, who is a 42 year old Japanese businessman, wrote a few weeks after it first came out and told me how much he loved "Sen to Chihiro no Kami Kakushi", which is its Japanese title.
One of best animated films ever, IMO.Along with Talk To Her, The Two Towers and Atanarjuat The Fast Runner, Spirited Away was a film I liked so much I saw it twice in theaters.
"Girly?" Just what, pray tell, is that?
Don't suppose you've ever heard the phrase "chick flick" either.Maybe you should go to more movies...
clark
...even with tongue in cheek. I *do* like *good* flicks...along with the occassional cheese whiz.Don't be testy, Clark.
It's a mistake IMO to dismiss Spirited Away as a "girlie" or "children's" movie, although older children will certainly enjoy it. Childlike is, in fact, is fine with me. There's a big difference between child like and childish.
Personally, I find SA an enchanting and original film, imaginative in its use of dream and mythic imagery, and which included some subtle but well placed barbs directed at Japanese society/corporate culture (and the critical tide is with me on this). Even if one doesn't care to go beyond its surface pleasures, SA is a visually fascinating film.
My question, in fact, was sincere. I'm fine with the fact that you didn't find SA as appealing as I did. But...other than the protagonist being a young girl, I don't truly don't know what is particularly girlie or chick like, in the derrogatory sense, about this film. (In fact, the audience for it is predominently male, going by the demographics at the showings I caught.) Since you are apparently a thoughtful film goer, I was curious what specifically you thought was "girly" about Spirited Away. It's a comment that I have not seen leveled by any reviewer/critic at this film. SA is a LONG way from Britney Spears...
Or do you generally dismiss the fantasy genre as a matter of course?
I find it's the quality of watching, not the quantity, that enhances film appreciation. However, if you think I should, I will definitely go to more movies.
Seen in (in theaters) March:
Talk To Her
The Quiet American
Rabbit Proof Fence
Russian Ark
Oscar Shorts
The Guru
LOTR/TTTDarn, not a chick flick in there, unless you count the Almodovar...but March isn't over yet.
In fact, the audience for it is predominently male, going by the demographics at the showings I caught.)
----Not a chick flick or even 'girly fluff' by any sense of the imagination.
Derick
My reply was in response to the sarcastic, "'Girly?' Just what, pray tell, is that?" You knew perfectly well what I meant, as shown by this remark: "Darn, not a chick flick in there."Visual "surface pleasures" I find objectionable, especially when coupled to a scatter-headed, mysticism-lite plot and executed in faux-primitive cartooning style.
A woman/girl can be the protagonist in a picture and yet it needn't be "girly". There are films where the protagonist is a guy and it's still "girly". And by the way, Britney Sears is not girly. As for that being "a comment that I have not seen leveled by any reviewer/critic at this film", well, no one would dare! Look what happened to me...
clark
Oh: Rabbit Proof Fence. Girls, but not girly. However, a pack of lies. Can't be perfect!
Talk to Her: Half-girly I'd say. Note I also commanded everyone to see it.
BTW, why isn't it a surprise that you'ld use a misogynistically perjoritive word like "girly" to denigrate a film which failed to satisfy your own pretensious expectations?> > > "Look what happened to me..." < < <
I've gotta hand it to ya Clark, it takes a great deal of chutzpah to dismiss a film in such a spiteful manner, then turn around a couple of posts later and pretend to fall on your own (rubber?) sword like some misunderstood martyr. Perhaps the introduction of a new Oscar category for Best Acting on an Internet Chat Board will result in your being invited to the AMPAS Awards ceremony next year! ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
"...a misogynistically perjoritive word like 'girly' to denigrate a film which failed to satisfy your own pretensious expectations?"Boy you PC types slay me! You know perfectly well what a "girly film" or "chick flick" is, and recognize that they are made, but you forbid the use of those terms.
But no matter: Whatever term you may elevate now to proper use, will doubtless be found by your PC descendents of the future to be similarly objectionable. LOL!
As for my alleged pretensions, well, it is true that unlike yourself, who went to see Return to Planet of the Apes *twice*, I never bothered with the thing. Just a bunch of boy fluff.
clark
Return to the Planet of the Uninformed Opinionated Reviewers would probably have a better shot of making a killing at the box office, especially if folks like you and Mr. Shepherd were the basis for the screenplay. ;^)Cheers,
AuPh
Have you seen the original Japanese version (english subs) of Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind? Sadly, the U.S. version released on video in the mid-80's ws hacked up by the distributor w/out the premission of Miyazaki. Disney (!) is gonna release the full 2 hour version on DVD this year.Although the manga is clearly superior, the film holds its own, and is one of his best... A lot of heart and substance compared to too much colour in animation these days.
Try to check out Miyazaki's past works. You might have a different opinion of Spirited Away in context of it. His films are almost always based on female heroines ever since.Quoted from a site:
"His 'manga' (graphic novel) is on the other hand, explores the darker side of human nature: violence, hatred, anger, greed, stupidity, war, and so forth. Still, his manga is optimistic in the sense that it shows his strong belief in human spirit and strong will to live."
http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/nausicaa/
http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/manga/nausicaacharacters.html
http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/manga/nausicaasamples.html
http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/miyazaki/impact.html
http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/nausicaa/article_ao_foundation.txt
Miyazaki Short Interview:
http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/interviews/vogue.html
...about giving an award to a criminal on the run.Face it - perhaps the majority of nominations are for some "socially significant" works - all those Brokovitches, Moores, Philadelphias, etc, etc, etc, so it is not really about art anymore.
Taken from that perspective giving an award to a rapist can't be considered right. I am not for prohibiting his works, but celebrating the man seems wrong.
Kind of gives a nice overview to Hollywood politics. The audience that cheers and awards a rapist/pedophile would impeach the President who is trying to dethrone Hussein if they could.Rather pathetic
Steve
...but I would impeach dubuyah if I could. And I would've given the Oscar to Martin Scorsese, or Peter Jackson (who was not even nominated).But back to Polanski: isn't it possible to separate the man from his art? Does his committing a criminal act render his work invalid? I think many people do make that separation.
My impression is that the major Oscars are about film business and not film art. What is your take????
I've been chastized for making any political statement regarding the film industry here in the film forum, but what the heck it's only AuPH.> > > But back to Polanski: isn't it possible to separate the man from his art? Does his committing a criminal act render his work invalid? I think many people do make that separation. < < <
Ask Pete Rose. Shouldn't we be able to seperate a gambling problem from his great achievements so he can get into baseball again ?
Film "artists" would certainly have you believe that personel behavior and politics shouldn't affect awards or box office receipts. I like Polanski for the most part, his work will stand as art or not over the long haul. Pete Rose will probably make it into the Hall of Fame, posthumously. I don't believe that giving awards in the US to an "artist" who is a fugitive from US law is appropriate.
Academy members apparently don't object to sex with under age girls, at least as long as it's somebody else's daughter.Steve
Well, I guess one could always say "it's only SR" but I'd rather not follow suit with such trivial invective.I wasn't trying to make this *personal*; besides, YOU brought up politics in an apolitical forum and then tried to denigrate the art of a Director on grounds other than the quality of his artistry! I have no particular opinion on Pete Rose, but perhaps he should be forgiven; some sports enthusiasts feel that it's way past time for him too! Nevertheless, your sports/Hollywood analogy is rather strained from my perspective because gambling on pictures isn't illegal and wagering on the success of a film doesn't jeopardize the credibility of the production. As a matter of fact, "fixing a picture" can make it better while "fixing a game" can ruin competition in a sport! So, there is a distinct difference, IMO.
My point is that the gambling addiction of Pete Rose, arguably, can be demonstrated to have potentially endangered his sport, but nothing about Roman Polanski's personal life can be demonstrated to have had a negative impact on his value as a creative artist; no offense, but IMHO, it seems ridiculous and petty to contemplate otherwise!
FTR, many artists have been mistreated by the Legislative & Judicial systems in this country from the blacklisted artists of the McCarthy era who wouldn't name names, prefering to serve jail sentences and forfeit their careers rather than ruining their colleagues lives, to Charlie Chaplin, who couldn't get back into the country on a temporary visa after leaving on vacation because small minded folks in Washington disliked his Liberal politics.
Please excuse the digression; we were discusiing Roman Polanski. Perhaps you, as an industry insider, have forgotten how much Mr. Polanski suffered even as he reached the pinnacle of success (i.e., losing his pregnant wife & future child to Manson's evil cult). Why not cut him a little slack or at least benefit of the doubt for his purported indiscretion 20 odd years ago with a girl he may not have been aware was under the age of consent? But before you get carried away accusing me of pandering to the evils of pedophilia please read the rest of this post.
It's interesting how we've reached a point where someone who poses as being of legal age and looks the part can permanently scar anyone of legal age, causing them to be labeled a pedophile and a pervert. Because there is such a B&W line that shall not be crossed it creates an opportunity for blackmail and other abuses, especially since there are obvious gray areas which no one wants to acknowledge. I am in no way saying theat pedophilia should be ignored or even tolerated, but common sense has a role to play in balancing the scales of justice, in my estimation. It seems to me that an overzealous prosecution may have been at work in Polanski's case, being that he was a high profile Hollywood success story who was never accepted or fully understood because of his foreign extraction.
Anyway, that's how I see it; YMMV. BTW, you DESERVED the chastisement, IMO! ;^)
Regards,
AuPh
As for what is or is not pathetic, with all due respect, if you're going to wear your politics on your sleave Steve, then you should be washing your shirts over in the Outside Forum where they could be hung out to dry and dressed down properly.Respectfully,
AuPh
The former is more than an allegation, he fled while awaiting sentencing. That indicates a guilty verdict. The latter is as you say speculation, but it is speculation from an industry insider, me. What do you do for a living ? Third, you well know I do visit outside, but that does not preclude occasional remarkes of a political nature elsewhere, christ you make them regularly.Regards
Steve
If he had been convicted he would've been extradicted. Obviously, your knowledge as an industry insider has no more weight than mine does as an artist; neither of us are lawyers, but we each have our opinions. Which brings me to my chastisement of your political critique of those members of the Academy who expressed their anti-Bush sentiments. Alluding to a hypocritical position on my part, you claim that I make political remarks elsewhere on a regular basis on other Audio Asylum boards beside the Outside Asylum; I do not! I'll gladly call your bluff if you wish to pursue this line of reasoning. It is EXTREMELY rare for me to make a political comment, even a humorous aside, on one of the regular Asylum boards; if you have a list of examples, please post them. The Moderators usually council against such posts strongly, but they seem to have made an exception in this instance, perhaps because of the Awards connection you drew, even though it is tenuous at best. In any event, if you are going to post your political opinions here, then it is fair game for others to counter it, would you not agree?Respectfully,
AuPh
> > you claim that I make political remarks elsewhere on a regular basis on other Audio Asylum boards beside the Outside Asylum; I do not! I'll gladly call your bluff if you wish to pursue this line of reasoning. It is EXTREMELY rare for me to make a political comment, even a humorous aside, on one of the regular Asylum boards; if you have a list of examples, please post them < < < < < <
I have better things to do than search through your posts to prove a point about political posting on your part, so I will for now withdraw the accusation. I think you are just unaware of the degree to which your extreme left wing slant enters so many topics. You can bet I'll notice and call you on it if the mood strikes me and I see evidence in the future. ;^)
Polanski was convicted, and fled while waiting sentencing. That is not speculation, that is fact. Why he was not returned is beyond me.I find your ability to excuse any left wing politician or artist to be extrodinary. Is there any act any "artist" could undertake that would upset you ? The girl was 13 and he drugged her with qualudes. Somehow I think your propensity to see crime by an artist as just a misunderstanding or Faux Pax would change if it was your daughter.
Just a bit more on Pete Rose...
He did plead guilty, though not to betting on baseball games he was involved in. He did the time that was part of his plea bargin. He underwent counseling and has performed community service, yet he is still shut out of baseball. This for placing a wager on the outcome of a sporting event. Certainly not something he should have done in his position. He plead guilty and did the time. His crime did not, could damage the psyche of anyone, let alone a child, yet you do consider his crime to be worse than Polanski's rape (stautory) Polanski was convicted yet did not apologize nor do the time
I said in my post I liked Polanski's work, and I do pity him for the murder of his pregnant wife. Yet you seem to feel that that balances the equation. "Lose a wife, get a teen"I can not santion the giving of Academy Awards to fugitives from US justice.
Regards
Steve
... read the attached URL. Polanski, who can fairly be faulted for poor judgment and should have been aware of how statuatory sexual misconduct with a minor was frowned upon in the United States, wasn't "convicted" by a jury, but rather a Grand Jury who pressed for indictment. There was a plea bargain, but the judge appeared to renig on the deal which would've meant prison. If you read the entire enclosure, you'll see that he felt that he was justified in fleeing and extradition back to the US was denied by France; later, his fugitive status whittled down to a civil case and the underage girl, now an adult, negotiated for a settlement and requested NO prison time for Polanski.As for fugitives from US justice, there are lots of folks who have been abused by the justice system in this country as I stated earlier when mentioning the cases of Chaplin and those who were blacklisted under McCarthy. The bottom line is that art should not be constrained by the narrow perspectives of judges and legislators who would impose their biases on our lives. ART, in my informed opinion, exists for art's sake and should be appreciated without the imposition of any unrelated bias based on prejudice against the person or persons who created it.
nt
How can a film (The Pianist) have the "best" adapted screenplay (Adaptation should have won), "best" director and "best" actor (Daniel Day Lewis should have won) but not be the "best picture?"
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." — Benito Mussolini.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the American flag." - Huey Long
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
