 
|
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 |
207.238.190.31
but didn't nominate The Constant Gardener!Oh well, the Oscars were never about rewarding excellence.
Follow Ups:
Capote however should have been replaced by The Constant Gardener.Capote has a GREAT lead performance but the film? It is tiring to see character studies get nominated for best picture -- it just isn;t grand enough to warrant a best picture nomination. I would also have Crash in there. Muncih is the best film this year for me out of what I have seen.
I have not seen "Brokeback Mountain" or "Good Night and Good Luck" So I can't comment.
Cinderella Man is the best film Howard as ever made and his least Hollywood so I found it rather amusing that it got passed over or a nomination for best film when the likes of "A Beautiful Mind" WON and Apollo 13 got a nomination in previous years. Cinderlla Man is MUCH better than Capote IMO.
...but I'll repeat myself anyway...The Oscars aren't about cinema art, they are about the commercial movie business.
AMPAS does honor some excellent films in the process, but it usually misses as many worthy films and performances as it recognizes. (The methodology for documnetary and foreign film selection is flawed at best. But neither of these categorties imapcts box office in the way feature films do, so little gets changed for these films very quickly.)
You have to realize what the Academy Awards are: an industry popularity contest, a TV show, a horse race and a box office promotion all rolled into one.
What's the best film of the year anyway???? Some of the greatest films of all time didn't win any Oscars, much less Best Picture. It takes the perspective and distance of hindsight to determine film classics, which Hollywood isn't particularly interested in.
I kinda enjoy handicapping the Oscar "races" and discussing the varius merits and flaws of nominated (and non-nomiinated) films...but really, the Oscars are just a big party for movie people promoting their product.
I liked the Constant Gardener very much, and thought Fiennes performance remarkable. I thought Munich much more flawed.
But then, I'm a notorious non-fan of Mr. Spielberg.
x
AFAIC, The Constant Gardner rambled far too much for my tastes; it's script needed serious pruning and resodding. That said, I can't fault the actor's performances which were sincere, understated and entirely believeable. It was just that the creaky pacing and it's shakey cam slice-of-life direction failed to impress me. In this regard TCG reminded me a little of Traffic, another film which I never fully appreciated even though it was widely acclaimed by critics and received numerous nominations by the Academy, SAG, foreign press, etc. I won't go so far as to say that these aren't good films, but they just don't work that well for me.AuPh
...perhaps it easier for women to discern that the "story" of TCG (as opposed to the "plot") is about love, identity and discovery.It appears some fellas get hung up on the plot points and context.
The pacing and shakey-cam stuff were annoying, distracting to the point of drawing far too much attention to themselves. The same is true of the grainy suffocating feel of a film which was shot, for the most part, out-of-doors (perhaps the claustrophobic feel was the fault of too many close-ups and off center rapid-cut action shots).I still feel that The Constant Gardner needed pruning (which could be considered plot releated, I guess, but I was actually thinking about the editing and choice of quick cuts, not the plot points in general). IMHO, it's a few sod squares shy of a full lawn, but I guess it's all just a matter of tastes and preferences.
Usually my wife and I agree on the success or failure of a given film regardless of genre (whether the story is about love, identity and discovery, retired spys being targeted for assassination by the CIA, animated corpses or giant CGI gorillas). Here was a RARE exception that almost defies my understanding. FTR, I do appreciate the acting, but The Constant Gardner's direction and cinematography left me unmoved, except perhaps for an eye strain headache.
AuPh
.
I mean that seriously. You love sci-fi films many of which hugely are popular with adolescents.
Syriana, Traffic, and The Constant Gardener tacke LARGE subjects which demand much from a director AND an audience. They're not simplistic, which may be what you're after?
Complex plots, characters which fit no stereotype and act in unexpected ways, and far from perfect endings... quite the anathema from most digestible pablum served up these days.
;^)> > > "You love sci-fi films many of which hugely are popular with adolescents." < < <
So, what did you think about "Brokeback Mountain" or do you think that because it has a gay theme that it must only be popular among folks who are gay?
Food for thought:
Science fiction done well is far more than simple action-based entertainment. SF & Fantasy films are loved by all age groups, but some are unsuitable for a youth market (examples: Brazil, Blade Runner & Clockwork Orange). They run the gamut from simple action-based entertainment to provacative thinking man's cinema.
Nice try, but obfuscating honest criticisms with personal innuendo only offends everyone who appreciates the SF/fantasy genre which happens to cover a much broader spectrum than adolescent film fare.
> > > "Syriana, Traffic, and The Constant Gardener tacke LARGE subjects which demand much from a director AND an audience." < < <
My comments were directed toward a film that I've seen, considered at length and formed an opinion about without any personal invective directed toward you or the author of the post (C.B.). Your personal assumptions about my film preferences aren't pertainent to this discussion.
FYI, these films demand the audience's patience to indulge pretencious film-making by self-indulgent directors, as well. If I want to see a film about a serious subject done well and shot with documentary style shakey-cam footage, I'll watch a documentary.
IMHO, a well crafted film doesn't have to be a pretencious soap opera sandwich thinly dressed in grey poupon, garnished with current events swiss cheeze and spread on a milque toastie audience a'la Canne's or Sundance. However, if your prefered film cuisine leans more towards style than substance as do your responses at times, then far be it from me to criticize your tastes.Respectfully (your humble server),
AuPh (no further tip required)
He hit you in the right spot, so don't whine, just hope for better luck next time.Maybe some day you will even grow up.
z
> > > "Trying to answer every post that mentions you is a sign of immaturity" < < <This sounds suspiciously like the kind of BS proffered by someone who has had an alergic reaction to the food for thought he's been served.
One might just as easily conclude that your unsolicited insults and denigration of certain film tastes are immature, but as you have a history of sticking your 2 cents into threads when it isn't required or desired I guess we can just chalk it up to obnoxious behavior.
So, take care my blustery friend, and please, don't bother responding or I may have to drop the "H" (Hypocrisy) bomb on ya! :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
couldn't have said it better myself.
(nt)
For someone always eager to dish out you are mightily delicate on receiving end.
> > > "For someone always eager to dish out you are mightily delicate on receiving end." < < <LOL! Eager? Yeah, right. I suspected that either you or patrick would jump in with an unsolicited comment; talk about EAGER! The only thing more predictable is a GOP talking point. ;^)
FYI, I only "dish it out" when I think that it's called for, and likewise it should only be dished back when appropriate (when inflammatory comments invite it, as your's have here). BTW, it isn't my fault when you or one of your grey poupon confederates chooses to troll. FTR, tinear's remark was WAAaaay out of line and he deserved a strong rebuttal. My original comment and response to C.B. was cordial.
Now then, while I sincerely appreciate your "clever" bon mots, I'd rather not waste any more time concentrating on an off-topic troll. So allow me to proffer this suggestion: Why don't you waltz back Outside before you say something regretable and end up "on the receiving end" of more criticism yourself?
AuPh
I just thought his description of that particular genre of films very appropriate.
Although it's off topic, tinears's negative remarks about the SF & fantasy genre, which includes both novels and films, have to be addressed.Some of the most intellectually stimulating, visionary novels and short stories ever written belong to the SF/fantasy genre; this is some of the most contemplative, provocative, anticipatory literature around. That isn't to say that ALL SF/fantasy films/literature is of a high quality any more than one can generalize about any other genre of film or literary work; in fact, there's probably more badly made, poorly written films and books in other genres if taken on the whole.
As for SF, for every radioactive bug movie, for every Mars invasion flick, every Plan 9 from Outer Space, Independence Day, Flash Gorden, Mars Needs Women, etc., etc., there's a Metropolis, Things to Come, Day the Earth Stood Still, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Charly, First Contact, Brazil, A.I., Clockwork Orange, and so on.
> > > "Nothing personal... I just thought his description of that particular genre of films very appropriate." < < <
No, that's pretty much all on tinear with whom you agreed, at least in part. I'm not taking it personally nor taking you to task for it, but just pointing out how encouraging his unsolicited insults will not improve his manners or prevent this thread from turning into a potential trainwreak. Of course I expect as much from Victor, so his nonsense was expected. He trolls nastiness just to elicit long threads of angry responses, usually supported by his buddy patrick, but most folks don't take his blustery comments too seriously. Victor's insults get rebuffed around here so often that I'm surprised he's not known as the rebuffoon! ;^)
C.B., for the record, I never insulted your intelligence or tastes with my criticism of The Constant Gardner. My criticisms were just directed to the film itself, which I found lacking for the reasons I've described. It's just my opinion; you certainly don't have to share it. However, I would hope that you'll reconsider your misguided criticisms and biased generalizations about the SF/fantasy genre.
One final thought: If I appear biased in my own thinking about the SF/fantasy genre being unfairly attacked by apparent know-it-alls like Victor & tinear, it's because I'm very close to the SF/fantasy writing community and happen to know how seriously authors like Harlan Ellison, Larry Niven, Joe Lansdale, C. J. Cherryh take their craft and in the case of many deceased authors I've known (such as the late Roger Zelazny & Isaac Asimov) took their craft. In fact, my wife is a well regarded fantasy author in her own rite (Top 10 Barnes & Noble last month); I'll wager that her research and dedication to sophisticated storytelling can match any other genre of fiction (your choice).
Respectfully,
AuPh
...AuPh, do you know of Isaac Asimov's NON-sci-fi writings? He wrote the intros to "Psychology Today's" textbook chapters and those vignettes are superb.Respect,
Guy* Making No Compromise with the Public Taste *
In his later years, when invited to speak at conventions, he refused to travel unless by train. As I recall, he never drove anywhere and didn't like to fly.> > > "AuPh, do you know of Isaac Asimov's NON-sci-fi writings? He wrote the intros to "Psychology Today's" textbook chapters and those vignettes are superb." < < <
Yes, he did a lot of non-fiction writing (he was quite a prolific writer), but I guess he'll always be more known more for his speculative science fiction, especially the Foundation Series and Rules of Robotics.
I did not know Isaac well at all, but I had an opportunity to chat with him on a couple of occasions when he was a convention guest; he was a very likeable fellow and an absolute genius.
Here's a trivia question: Do you recall the name of the short lived TV series from the late 80's he worked co-created?
Cheers,
AuPhPS: [Historical note] - Tragically, Isaac Asimov contracted AIDS from a blood transfusion received when he had triple bypass surgery in the early-80's and died from heart and liver failure in the early 90's, a result of AIDS related complications. He kept this a secret at the request of his doctors who at the time were concerned about a nationwide panic over tainted blood supplies as routine testing was in it's infancy. This only came to light fairly recently in a biography about his life written by Janet Jeppson Asimov.
You're right, of couse--tin didn't need to put you down in order to make his point. And yes, he has a history of issuing gratuitous ad hominems on this forum (of which I've been the target more than once), so perhaps I shouldn't have encouraged him. Had there been more time last night, I might have added some conciliatory thoughts of my own on the subject.I'll grant you that there is much worthy sci-fi literature out there, everything from Ray Bradbury and Jules Verne on down. I've read and enjoyed a lot of it myself. Obviously that's not I was taking issue with, nor I suspect the Tinman. Mostly, I concur with his remarks concerning sci-fi movies (if I understand him correctly), since I've had to sit through too many sci-fi flicks in recent years that are heavy on the effects and devoid of plot and character developement. Tin's comparison of these with movies such as Constant Gardener which are more closely grounded in reality (although, of course, it's a Hollywood-style "reality"), was apt and overdue, IMO. That's not to say that there haven't been a few worthy sci-fi movies in recent times--you named several that I've enjoyed. But the issue was not yours or anybody's personal taste and preference in movies, sci-fi or otherwise, so he needn't have turned the discussion into a personal dig, since, as you point out, you were more than fair and objective in your criticism of Constant Garderner.
I certainly wasn't bummed out by what you said. I simply enjoyed watching the flick, but I'll admit that it's not a great one. And, I still think it's a much better movie in the long run than Munich.
(Not to exclude anyone...)clark
I don't have a wife!
I noticed and experienced the same thing... & my wife loved it too.
but I found it to be lot more entertaining than most I've seen lately. The ending was especially powerful and unexpected.
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 ]
