 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Industry awards posted by Bulkington on March 01, 2004 at 08:13:37:
Or could it be that the "connoiseurs" are such in their minds only. Film making excellence is not exclusive to the art houses, and in many cases said art houses run abominable offerings, which I suppose ultimately serve only to bolster the ego driven "connoiseur" palate.
Follow Ups:
Or could it be that the "connoiseurs" are such in their minds only. Film making excellence is not exclusive to the art houses, and in many cases said art houses run abominable offerings, which I suppose ultimately serve only to bolster the ego driven "connoiseur" palate.Point taken, but it doesn't affect mine. The Oscars are about promoting and rewarding the industry and its consumers, not the craft. There are happy moments when craft does get rewarded, and no doubt a good number of self-styled connoiseurs believe the success of the Return of the King to be one of them, but to think that the films' storied creation (unknown director, huge studio gamble made all the more daring for shooting the trilogy all at once, the long-term commitment and it seems now life-long "fellowship" of its cast, etc.) and its astonishing success beyond the expectations even of many of its most die-hard fans didn't play into the film's Oscar success I think is naive. If the film I thought to be the most artful of the year took Best Picture honors, I doubt I would feel my tastes confirmed or vindicated because I doubt the reasons for its selection would coincide with my own.
It would be interesting to know how many films have won best director and/or best actor honors while not receiving a single nomination for best actor/actress or best supporting actor/actress.
But I don't get your last statement. If you mean that LOTR garnered no acting nominees, then that is an oversight by the Academy, for Sir Ian McKellen put in a marvelous performance as Gandalf and has received no noteriety whatever. Still, he didn't sulk like a little boy, he was at the Awards in total support of the film and Jackson.I feel that many times the popularity of a film can work against it also, but I haven't taken the time to search for examples, though I'm sure they exist.
Which film would you have nominated for best film?
While I think McKellen is among the best living actors and therefore among the most underrecognized, he was working with a lot of foils in LoTR, or at least with a lot of actors foiled by stilted dialogue. He's turned out much better performances elsewhere for which he should have been recognized. As I recall he got a nomination for Gods and Monsters. Who beat him out that year?As for my nomination, I saw no clear standouts this year and have yet to see all the nominees ( 21 Grams and Monster , for example) and anyway have given up investing myself in the process. I will say, though, that I thought Kill Bill 's not even getting a nomination for Best Editing was criminal. That was one of the best edited films I've seen (and much to my surprise).
I thought Penn's performance in Mistic River was overstated (friends who've seen 21 Grams say he should have been nominated for that performance instead, but you honor Eastwood by honoring him for his performance in the former, and we know how desperate the Accademy is to honor unhonored favorites). I wonder if Philip Seymour Hoffman will ever get the recognition he deserves.
He was fantastic in " Gods and Monster ". A brillant performance.
then they'll all be happy.Chris
nt
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 ]
