Jump to content

95th Academy Awards (OSCAR NIGHT): You're all feckin' boring!


Mladen
 Share

Recommended Posts

EEAAO is certainly an original movie, but I think some people may be exaggerating this. You have Guillermo del Toro's "The Shape of Water" introducing quirky fantasy to Academy members, you have "Parasite" starting what seems to be an Asian wave of influence (just to be clear, nothing bad with that, Asian cinema is glorious and original and we need more of it) plus multiverse is sort of MCU thing these days. 

There is a lot of disappointment because we have 8 Best Picture nominated movies who won in total  3 Oscars, two below the line. You have 5 Best Picture nominated movies going home empty-handed. And when you think that movies like "TAR", "Banshees of Inisherin" or "Aftersun" are all snubbed, one movie getting 7 Oscars, 6 above the line seems too much. 

There is no one in this world who can convince me that JLC deserves an Oscar. To put things in perspective, we now live in the world where JLC has an Oscar, but Glenn Close doesn't. I have talked about this, and I am honestly glad Angela Bassett didn't join the applause for JLC when she won. I mean, the cast and crew of EEAAO talk incessently about representation and then one of their wins is completely undeserving for white nepo baby over 3 POC actresses, not to mention an entire dozen actresses who have not been nominated in this category. Hypocrisy at its best.

Someone mentioned this today and I had to check it now. Michelle Yeoh didn't even do the complementary "my fellow nominees" mention. I honestly can't remember when a Best Actress winner didn't do this. I mean, Olivia Colman apologized to Glenn Close, Frances McDormand made nominated women stand up and celebrate, Cate Blanchett mentioned each nominated woman by name praising their work... I understand it is historical moment, but still. Hunger was real, we were not hiding, publishing an article how "history has to be made, Cate Blanchett already has two..." was a poor taste. I am so glad this season is over because it really was nasty. 

I am sincerely sad that Martin McDonagh didn't win Screenplay and Todd Field didn't win Directing. As for Cate, I think only Meryl can now match her "losing filmography" that includes the roles like "Elizabeth", "Carol" and "TAR". Lastly, as someone mentioned Daniels now have as many Oscars as Steven Spielberg.

Will EEAAO stand the test of time? IDK... People try to convince me that it is the best thing since sliced bread. On the other hand I know the memory of modern consumer and I have seen these obsessions going as fast as they were created. We'll see in a year or two. And we'll also see whether this will bring any change to Hollywood or are we destined for another 2015. in 2024? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mladen said:

I am honestly glad Angela Bassett didn't join the applause for JLC when she won.

It's rude behavior and smacks of being a sore loser. It was beneath her.

2 minutes ago, Mladen said:

I mean, the cast and crew of EEAAO talk incessently about representation and then one of their wins is completely undeserving for white nepo baby over 3 POC actresses, not to mention an entire dozen actresses who have not been nominated in this category. Hypocrisy at its best.

This is nonsense. The cast of EEAaO did not hold the Academy hostage and force them to vote for Curtis. How is this hypocrisy? It's absurd.

It's hard to say that Curtis deserved it less than Bassett, when everyone seems to have openly acknowledged that a Bassett win was a lifetime achievement award and not based purely on merit.  

Like, it's never purely based on merit. There's always other things going in. But what's definitely not the case is that anyone involved in Everything should feel blamed for Curtis winning. They had no say in it. The Academy did, and because of the love affair with Everything Everywhere All at Once, Curtis's number came in and those of the other nominees didn't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. You can argue whether Curtis deserved the Oscar...personally I would have put her behind Bassett and her own co-star, bit we're talking a 1a, 1B, 1C scenario here...the Supporting Actress category seemed overly stacked this year over all.

That being said, can we get past the idea that Jamie Lee Curtis is some kind of, "nepo baby" within the industry. I think more than 40 years of doing things in her way and in her own right can get us past the idea that her mom and dad's shades are helping her land roles...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ran said:

 

Like, it's never purely based on merit. There's always other things going in. But what's definitely not the case is that anyone involved in Everything should feel blamed for Curtis winning. They had no say in it. The Academy did, and because of the love affair with Everything Everywhere All at Once, Curtis's number came in and those of the other nominees didn't.

 

Everything from the shortlist to the nominees and winners; Isn't the whole thing based on popular vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ran said:

It's rude behavior and smacks of being a sore loser. It was beneath her.

Honestly, I don't blame her. This season we have seen much of this behavior and people found excuses. Now, it seems like Bassett did something unspeakable. Well, she has right to be disappointed. If we have normalized certain behavior, we can't exactly judge her.

39 minutes ago, Ran said:

This is nonsense. The cast of EEAaO did not hold the Academy hostage and force them to vote for Curtis. How is this hypocrisy? It's absurd.

It's hard to say that Curtis deserved it less than Bassett, when everyone seems to have openly acknowledged that a Bassett win was a lifetime achievement award and not based purely on merit.  

Like, it's never purely based on merit. There's always other things going in. But what's definitely not the case is that anyone involved in Everything should feel blamed for Curtis winning. They had no say in it. The Academy did, and because of the love affair with Everything Everywhere All at Once, Curtis's number came in and those of the other nominees didn't.

I am not saying it is hypocrisy on the part of EEAAO, but Academy and pundits. We speak about history and narratives and then we have the most egregious win against 3 POC actresses. One can argue that she was not even the best Supporting actress in her own movie. 

I understand it is never about merit, at least we only pretend it is about merit. And JLC certainly deserved it because, as any pundit will testify, JLC cheered for this movie and made many, many of her friends watch it, exposing it to the right people. So even though she her performance is not the best, the fact that she pushed for this movie is indeed an achievement and there are those who will argue that deserves a win. Not in small part, this movie owns its success to JLC. So, perhaps there lies the key of awarding JLC. 

12 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

That being said, can we get past the idea that Jamie Lee Curtis is some kind of, "nepo baby" within the industry. I think more than 40 years of doing things in her way and in her own right can get us past the idea that her mom and dad's shades are helping her land roles...

Unfortunately, we can't. Because she was campaigning hard and most of these Oscar journalists will tell you that JLC did incredible work behind-the-scene during screenings, inviting people to watch movies, using her address book to promote the movie. Let me be clear, nothing bad about it. They all do it. Cate, Viola, Michelle... It is just that her privileged position and connections within the industry resulted in this victory. 

***

I won't lie... I really hate JLC winning. It is one of the worst victories in this category since probably Laura Dern who also got hers on the ground on legacy and career. I am not sure how EEAAO will age, but I am sure JLC victory will age like milk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Jamie Lee Curtis probably didn't deserve her Oscar. But Angela Bassett shouldn't even have been nominated, imo. I thought she overacted the hell out of role in Black Panther.

For real. There were 2 other better female supporting actress performances in the same film. She was fucking dreadful, like Brad Pitt in Troy bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who is not really a movie buff and has not seen a single one of this year's nominated movies yet, it's very interesting reading this thread.

It would be interesting research to see how much different reactions to a film like EEAAO are based on basic personality trait differences vs. idiosyncratic past experiences vs. recent transitory mood states. :)  And I think humor probably gets more idiosyncratic disagreement than pure drama.

I didn't even watch the Oscars show. What I did was watch YouTube clips of acceptance speeches afterwards. I think seeing these out of the context of the show with all its distractions and ads gives one a different experience. I saw the four acting awards, the best director, the best adapted screenplay, and best song acceptance speeches, and somehow found them as a whole much more emotional and touching than I have in the past. It is a tad unfortunate that Yeoh didn't give some traditional mentions, but as Jamie Lee Curtis said, they were supposed to try to limit themselves to 45 seconds, so I can forgive her for that.  

I always find it a bit funny when people criticize the choices of the Oscars by complaining they don't match the taste of the general public, or their own taste when they are just film fans not involved in actually making movies.  These are the opinions of people who have been successful enough in traditional Hollywood careers to make it into the Academy. They aren't supposed to simply reflect the taste of the general public (we have box office numbers to figure that out), and shouldn't be expected to be the same as those of critics or fans outside the industry. Though like any group of people Academy voters are going to be influenced by transitory fashions, since the original nominations are just done by the subset of the Academy who have actually been active in the particular field of the nominations, I can't imagine there has ever been any Oscar winning performance (as actor, editor, director, or anything else) which wasn't a least "very good" by the standards of the profession in the year they were awarded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I love EEAAO even without considering the other movies on the list I personally would have voted for Stephanie Hsu for Best Supporting Actress in that movie over JLC - it's kinda funny tho that Angela Bassett wasn't the best of the supporting actresses in her movie either though in my opinion, given the stink she made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

I always find it a bit funny when people criticize the choices of the Oscars by complaining they don't match the taste of the general public, or their own taste when they are just film fans not involved in actually making movies.  These are the opinions of people who have been successful enough in traditional Hollywood careers to make it into the Academy. They aren't supposed to simply reflect the taste of the general public (we have box office numbers to figure that out), and shouldn't be expected to be the same as those of critics or fans outside the industry. Though like any group of people Academy voters are going to be influenced by transitory fashions, since the original nominations are just done by the subset of the Academy who have actually been active in the particular field of the nominations, I can't imagine there has ever been any Oscar winning performance (as actor, editor, director, or anything else) which wasn't a least "very good" by the standards of the profession in the year they were awarded. 

I don't think any of us who comment regularly claim that Academy has ever awarded plainly bad performance. I may not like JLC winning, but she has not given a bad performance, more like good, but not deserving of victory. We are working with truly great performances. There are 800-900 movies being shot in States per year, so we talk about 5-10 deserving performers per category. Our subjectivity may call this or that bad, but no one, or rare are those who actually believe that those undeserving victories or nominations are "Razzie-type". 

 

2 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Jamie Lee Curtis probably didn't deserve her Oscar. But Angela Bassett shouldn't even have been nominated, imo. I thought she overacted the hell out of role in Black Panther.

For me, neither one was the best this year. The debate should have been between Condon and Hsu. But Carry and Stephanie are newcomers and the field somehow remained without some serious performances (Claire Foy, Jessie Buckley, Nina Hoss, Dolly De Leon). So, we had to choose whose legacy Oscar makes more sense. My choice in that case was Bassett because she has that one scene that truly resonated with me (and the rest of the public). I like how emotionally uninhibited it is. I like how Bassett changed some words and dynamic of the script in that scene (for the record, I am talking about "Have you not given everything" scene).

But, when a movie is sweeping, there is always one or two categories that are being caught by surprise. That is what happened at SAG and eventually Oscars. EEAAO was taking all the major prizes and that goodwill benefited her, pushing her ahead of Bassett and Condon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown actors win Oscars all the time- just look at last year's supporting winners, who were less well known than either Condon or HSU.  Mind you, Bassett didn't win the industry awards and probably got less votes than both of them.                                                                   Also, Kerry Condon was probably affected by the Better Call Saul curse- if you appear on that show, you get nothing, ever, even if you deserve it, because we can't have nice things 

Edited by Winterfell is Burning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mladen said:

 

Unfortunately, we can't. Because she was campaigning hard and most of these Oscar journalists will tell you that JLC did incredible work behind-the-scene during screenings, inviting people to watch movies, using her address book to promote the movie. Let me be clear, nothing bad about it. They all do it. Cate, Viola, Michelle... It is just that her privileged position and connections within the industry resulted in this victory. 

***

I won't lie... I really hate JLC winning. It is one of the worst victories in this category since probably Laura Dern who also got hers on the ground on legacy and career. I am not sure how EEAAO will age, but I am sure JLC victory will age like milk.

What does campaigning behind the scenes for her movie have to do with who her parents are? Jamie Lee Curtis has been in the business for over 40 years, and if she's using her little black book to call up friends and old co-stars to screen the movie, that little black book was filled with the people and relationships she's garnered over those 40+ years and has nothing to do with anything else. Hell, virtually anyone associated with her parents is long dead at this point, but if she wants to call up Arnold, or Eddie, or John, or Kevin, or any number of others, so be it.

And, yes, it is very possible her award is as much about legacy as anything else, and I wouldn't have made her my own first choice, but EEAAO is, based on a lot of articles I've been reading, likely not to fade away as soon as you seem to want it to.

Edited by Jaxom 1974
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Of course it has the highest critical backing, it won BP, but that wasn't my point. I don't think many fans of the franchise would tell you it's their favorite.

I am a fan of the franchise and Rocky is IMO the best by far. It introduces us to the characters, shows us their flaws and builds them up. The fact that (spoiler alert) Rocky loses the fight IMO is what makes it a great movie. The hero lost and succeeded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

What does campaigning behind the scenes for her movie have to do with who her parents are? Jamie Lee Curtis has been in the business for over 40 years, and if she's using her little black book to call up friends and old co-stars to screen the movie, that little black book was filled with the people and relationships she's garnered over those 40+ years and has nothing to do with anything else. Hell, virtually anyone associated with her parents is long dead at this point, but if she wants to call up Arnold, or Eddie, or John, or Kevin, or any number of others, so be it.

And, yes, it is very possible her award is as much about legacy as anything else, and I wouldn't have made her my own first choice, but EEAAO is, based on a lot of articles I've been reading, likely not to fade away as soon as you seem to want it to.

100% agree with you. To call her a Nepo baby is just lazy. At first I thought the comment was about someone else, I was like JLC has been in movies forever. Her parents who were last relevant in the 60's somehow got her this award 50+ years later??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

What does campaigning behind the scenes for her movie have to do with who her parents are? Jamie Lee Curtis has been in the business for over 40 years, and if she's using her little black book to call up friends and old co-stars to screen the movie, that little black book was filled with the people and relationships she's garnered over those 40+ years and has nothing to do with anything else. Hell, virtually anyone associated with her parents is long dead at this point, but if she wants to call up Arnold, or Eddie, or John, or Kevin, or any number of others, so be it.

And, yes, it is very possible her award is as much about legacy as anything else, and I wouldn't have made her my own first choice, but EEAAO is, based on a lot of articles I've been reading, likely not to fade away as soon as you seem to want it to.

I feel we are saying the same thing here. I may just be coming off as too harsh against her, but I am honestly not. I didn't like that performance, I don't find it deserving, but given how this game is rigged, I find it natural for all of them to use all the connections they have. JLC is in the industry for 40+ years, true, she is a beloved figure. Did it start with her parents? Yes. That doesn't negate the fact she succeeded on her own, coming to position to win an Oscar. I was being descriptive in perceptions that people have and how mindsets work in terms that nothing matters if it is about your favorite. Case in point: We won't care about white actress winning over 3 more deserving POC actresses, if we all love her enough. That is the reality of Hollywood. 

I never said EEAAO is fading. I have my doubts, but I think that the effect it will have on industry is significant. When a movie like this wins 7 Oscars, people start thinking outside the box what they consider is "Oscar-winning movie". I was talking particularly about this win, but EEAAO as a whole does have a potential to change what is being awarded at the Oscar. We have two "by the book" movies - The Fabelmans and Elvis going empty-handed, so I think that is also telling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...