![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerOscar noms are in, and as with every year, I am largely indifferent. Bizarrely, BORAT is nominated for best adapted screenplay. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a huge lover and defender of BORAT as a work of true artistic comedy genius that should stand the test of time, damn the backlash. I've been too chicken to write a whole post defending the film from folks who dismiss it as anything from "cruel" to "dumb frat boy potty humor" (and I WILL write it at some point, or else Bloo will wallop me, and no one wants that... well, maybe she does).
But a largely improvised movie getting a best screenplay nod strikes me as the dumbest frickin' "Best Screenplay" nomination since LOST IN TRANSLATION. That movie was sold by the direction, the acting, and (more than many folks probably want to admit) the pop soundtrack. NOT the barebones screenplay!
This brings me to another rant. I just read on a friend's LJ people responding to a post parodying LOST IN TRANSLATION as an action movie, and, not for the first time, I read people saying how, "Urg, people who didn't like LOST IN TRANSLATION are ignorant/have short attention spans/prefer super-fast MTV style shoot-em-ups, and didn't understand the nuanced subtleties and wank wank wank." Me, I liked the movie fine, but I didn't love it. I thought it was a feather-weight light and kinda forgettable movie, Scarlett Johanssen's butt notwithstanding.
It brought to mind that pretty much every other review of THE PRESTIGE I've read says something along the lines of, "People who didn't like this movie didn't get it. The true magic of this movie slipped past them because they 'weren't watching closely.' Oooh, you see how clever we were just then?"
Nothing so gets my goat when there's something that I don't care for or don't get and all the fans get superior about it. Now, I absolutely am gonna rewatch THE PRESTIGE, and with other people who've never seen it, because I still want to know what the hell everybody saw in this film (especially when, say, a masterpiece like THE FOUNTAIN went largely unwatched... I called Hugh Jackman being snubbed, that man deserves a Best Actor nod desperately for his performance), but these movies have gotten seriously browncoated for me.
Ah well. At least the other greatest film I've seen all year, PAN'S LABYRINTH, is up for Best Foreign Language Film. I mean, it deserves Best Picture, but that'll do.
Seriously, though. Jackman was robbed.
In other movie news, Clive Owen has been cast as Raymond Chandler's private eye Phillip Marlowe, and I couldn't be happier. He's filling the badass shoes of Bogart and Bobby Mitchum (and, uh, Elliot Gould), as well as the best Marlowe ever, who-would-have-thought-the-musical-star-could-have-done-it Dick Powell in one of my all-time favorite noirs, MURDER, MY SWEET (a more tough title than the original book FAREWELL, MY LOVELY).
I gotta say, now I really am glad Owen didn't get the role of James Bond (no matter how much Daniel Craig's sunken chest disturbs me... you could drink punch out of that thing!) because we get to see him in more opportunities for badassery like this.
But a largely improvised movie getting a best screenplay nod strikes me as the dumbest frickin' "Best Screenplay" nomination since LOST IN TRANSLATION. That movie was sold by the direction, the acting, and (more than many folks probably want to admit) the pop soundtrack. NOT the barebones screenplay!
This brings me to another rant. I just read on a friend's LJ people responding to a post parodying LOST IN TRANSLATION as an action movie, and, not for the first time, I read people saying how, "Urg, people who didn't like LOST IN TRANSLATION are ignorant/have short attention spans/prefer super-fast MTV style shoot-em-ups, and didn't understand the nuanced subtleties and wank wank wank." Me, I liked the movie fine, but I didn't love it. I thought it was a feather-weight light and kinda forgettable movie, Scarlett Johanssen's butt notwithstanding.
It brought to mind that pretty much every other review of THE PRESTIGE I've read says something along the lines of, "People who didn't like this movie didn't get it. The true magic of this movie slipped past them because they 'weren't watching closely.' Oooh, you see how clever we were just then?"
Nothing so gets my goat when there's something that I don't care for or don't get and all the fans get superior about it. Now, I absolutely am gonna rewatch THE PRESTIGE, and with other people who've never seen it, because I still want to know what the hell everybody saw in this film (especially when, say, a masterpiece like THE FOUNTAIN went largely unwatched... I called Hugh Jackman being snubbed, that man deserves a Best Actor nod desperately for his performance), but these movies have gotten seriously browncoated for me.
Ah well. At least the other greatest film I've seen all year, PAN'S LABYRINTH, is up for Best Foreign Language Film. I mean, it deserves Best Picture, but that'll do.
Seriously, though. Jackman was robbed.
In other movie news, Clive Owen has been cast as Raymond Chandler's private eye Phillip Marlowe, and I couldn't be happier. He's filling the badass shoes of Bogart and Bobby Mitchum (and, uh, Elliot Gould), as well as the best Marlowe ever, who-would-have-thought-the-musical-star-could-have-done-it Dick Powell in one of my all-time favorite noirs, MURDER, MY SWEET (a more tough title than the original book FAREWELL, MY LOVELY).
I gotta say, now I really am glad Owen didn't get the role of James Bond (no matter how much Daniel Craig's sunken chest disturbs me... you could drink punch out of that thing!) because we get to see him in more opportunities for badassery like this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 04:46 pm (UTC)But speaking of Clive Owen, he and the rest of CHILDREN OF MEN got totally robbed with the Oscar nods. Where the fuck is best actor, actress, adapted screenplay, director, picture? I fucking loved that movie on so many levels and all it got was cinematography? (which was absolutely excellent) Gah! Sorry. Ending rant now. Clive Owen rules. Am so psyched for him as Marlowe. He'd be perfect.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 04:54 pm (UTC)Aye, he's gonna absolutely nail that role. Still, now I've GOT to rewatch MURDER, MY SWEET.
Way off topic.
Date: 2007-01-23 04:49 pm (UTC)shawfest.com, I think.
Re: Way off topic.
Date: 2007-01-23 04:55 pm (UTC)Re: Way off topic.
Date: 2007-01-23 05:06 pm (UTC)I immediately thought "Hef would LOVE something like this."
Re: Way off topic.
Date: 2007-01-23 05:12 pm (UTC)Re: Way off topic.
Date: 2007-01-23 06:03 pm (UTC)I keep wanting to hit up the local O'Neill tributes.
Homeboy ROCKED the mic.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 05:02 pm (UTC)I gotta say, now I really am glad Owen didn't get the role of James Bond (no matter how much Daniel Craig's sunken chest disturbs me... you could drink punch out of that thing!) because we get to see him in more opportunities for badassery like this.
Yep yep! Yay Clive!
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 06:00 pm (UTC)I can't imagine what they're thinking about its best screenplay. Best editing, maybe.
Re: why chicken?
Date: 2007-01-23 07:03 pm (UTC)http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005038.html
Best editing, yeah, that it could definitely deserve.
Re: why chicken?
Date: 2007-01-23 07:10 pm (UTC)He didn't call it "dumb frat boy potty humor", but he did call it "cruel", and as far as I can tell (in ignorance) that's accurate. Sure, some of the people earned their own cruelty, but I'm not sure what is gained by that.
Re: why chicken?
Date: 2007-01-23 07:18 pm (UTC)Part of what's driving me to want to write my reaction is the fact that I hate, hate, HATE cruel humor based on humiliation. I cannot stand to watch PUNK'D, and even though I love JACKASS, some of the practical joke stuff gets to me. I don't find it funny. I actually want to turn away.
And yet, for reasons I have yet to articulate, BORAT and Kaufman strike me as something new altogether. Something totally seperate. On one hand, I put myself in these people's shoes and wonder how I'd feel in their place. On the other hand, a large part of me is so tempted to just say, "Geez, grow a fucking sense of humor."
Re: why chicken?
Date: 2007-01-23 07:29 pm (UTC)http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mandykaufman.htm
which I just happened to be reading when I got your reply.
At this point, Borat is so vigorously browncoated that I have no idea how to produce an honest opinion. Which I guess is the key to all of this: you're not wrong about Lost in Translation, and David isn't wrong about Borat, except to the degree that anybody is telling anybody else that their likes and dislikes are invalid.
It is a useful exercise, however, to examine what it is one likes or dislikes about each project, and the harder it is to come up with that explanation, the more valuable it is. It doesn't mean I'm going to actually watch an Andy Kaufman video; explaining why I dislike it is too easy. But that there are those people to whom it appealed is undeniable, and figuring out why that should be is interesting.
Re: why chicken?
Date: 2007-01-23 07:20 pm (UTC)(also, please forgive typos, I'm writing this at work and rushing around)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 12:37 am (UTC)why chicken?
Date: 2007-01-23 06:11 pm (UTC)Wait, where does the chicken part come in? What are you afraid of, exactly? (apart from threats of walloping, which should really be an inducement to write the post, not put it off)
*is confused*
Re: why chicken?
Date: 2007-01-23 07:01 pm (UTC)http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/005038.html
Ok, it's chickenness and laziness, both of which add up to procrastination. But if/when I do write it up, I want it to be good. By which I mean, I want to actually make those people look at it differently, if I can.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 07:08 pm (UTC)And see, I don't have a problem with you not caring for THE FOUNTAIN, just because it's a very wide-open film in terms of what somebody can or cannot get from it. Ugh, eloquence is failing me completely today, but you hopefully know what I mean. In a way, it's kinda like CLOSER... it's a deeply personal film for some, but not everyone. Whoo lordy, no.
I shall light the fuse for both of us, rest assured.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 07:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 07:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 07:58 pm (UTC)THANK YOU!! I tried not to rant and rave on this point *much* in my oscar commentary largely b/c I'm known as a big fan of his and therefore must be biased. But I thank you for your comment!
(almost makes up for the negative emphasis you apply to the term "browncoat" as an adjective that you continue to use)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 08:23 pm (UTC)Also, good call on "Flushed Away," it too was so snubbed.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-23 11:12 pm (UTC)Now, I loved the Prestige to bits, but I understand that you didn't like it and why. Nothing gets my goat more than when fans play the "I didn't like it, therefore it sucked" game and the "you didn't like it, therefore there is something wrong with you/you just didn't understand it/you need to look at it more closely" game. Bah, sometimes people just don't like something. After all, nothing is worse than a fangelical. For what it's worth, I also found Lost in Translation very underwhelming (out of curiosity, did you see it for the first time on the big screen or at home?).
I wish Pan's Labyrinth had gotten a best picture or best director nom though, since it was probably one of the best movies this year. I guess the concept of a fairy tale that is also a grim war time movie is too much for the codgers at the academy. Bah, again. Hopefully it will win in the categories it is nominated in (even if it means beating The Prestiege in the few categories it was in, since I'm also rooting for that to take best Cinematography). I heard that this is the most nominations that a foreign film has gathered before, but I'm not sure if that's correct or not.
I read some people expressing surprise that Casino Royale didn't get any nominations. It was one of the most critically successful films of the year, so I suppose that should have earned it some nods in the more minor categories. I guess I wasn't expecting an action movie to get many oscar nods.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 05:42 pm (UTC)I saw LOST IN TRANSLATION on a big-ish screen at one of my college's weekly movie screenings. Much lesser quality of sound and screen than a regular theatre. So is that Option 3?
Well, even if I'm discontent about the reception PAN'S LABYRINTH has gotten by the Academy, the director is totally frickin' excited and ecstatic about these nominations. So there you go, I guess. I suppose it is pretty impressive, again considering the Academy's distaste for anything not downright down-to-earth "drama."
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 06:20 am (UTC)As for the rest of the news, I hopped on the sites long enough to find out Army of Shadows didn't get a foreign film nomination (probably because its original release in France was so long ago) and quickly lost interest. I haven't got any dogs in the fight this year. Oh, well.
Speaking of awesome movies, I'm a war movie kick now and just finished watching The Great Escape (yes, for the first time)(yes, I clearly need to be punished). A Bridge Too Far was great, too. "Have you ever been liberated?" "I've been divorced twice. Does that count?"
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 05:47 pm (UTC)That said, though, have you or will you see PAN'S LABYRINTH? I mean, it's Spanish (set in Spain, but technically Mexican, I suppose), so, uh... that's closer to France!
I need to see more war movies. My experience doesn't extend much further than two underappreciated gems, HART'S WAR (to hell with it being unrealistic, the characters are some of the rich I've ever seen in a movie) and FORCE TEN FROM NAVARONE.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 04:39 am (UTC)I think I gave up on war films early. I think I saw Hunt For Red October and thought, 'well, no use watching anymore - it's obviously all downhill after something this great.' Which is true, but thankfully it's a very tall hill.
Haven't seen Pan's Labyrinth yet. Thank's for getting continental for me, but I actually don't like French films that much. But see Army of Shadows if comes to Washington D.C. sometimes soon. Oh.... My..... Gosh. So excellent! (And on so many Best Of lists for last year!) My only problem is that, as a Resistance buff, I kept laughing at all the wrong places. But I made up for it after when I overheard someone asking aloud some questions about the Resistance. I only meant to helpfully answer *one* question but soon the whole lobby had turned to ask me stuff. Good times, good times...
Pwning Nazis. My anti-drug.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 04:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 05:34 am (UTC)I'm honestly not a fan of French movies myself (they're so damn... French! I just mean their mentiality toward filmmaking turns me off), although I absolutely *adore* films like DIABOLIQUE. And I will totally, totally keep and eye out for ARMY OF SHADOWS.
Yeah, HART'S WAR... this was pushed on me by a friend who's a real buff, who gets really annoying when things get unrealistic. And while much of the life in the POW camp in the movie is suspect, we agreed that the movie is fantastic watching purely for the characters. It has one of the best Nazis I've ever seen in a movie. And not in any way you might expect.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 06:30 am (UTC)I am so very with you on that! And I tried *hard!*
It's the theory. They went and invented (and fell in love with) so many dang cinema theories that as a lover of plain-old story telling I feel like I can't get a break. That's why I love it when they pull off a film like Amalie. Yeah, there's a lot of great experimenting with various techniques and such, but it's also just a great story.
Mind you, none of this changes the fact I love Renior and Truffaut. I will be a happy, happy person when they release Day for Night on dvd. (And the new Rules of the Game print? I'm so psyched! I bought a video of the old one when I was a kid and could never read the subtitles. D'oh!)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 04:09 pm (UTC)Still, I should see more. JULES ET JIM was interesting, if only because of how fast-paced it was, but I don't know how much I ultimately took away from it? EYES WITHOUT A FACE is a classic, but it's totally lost on me. And again, I adore DIABOLIQUE.
I'll happily take recommendations for Renoir and Truffaut, even if they're the standards that I already have on my Nexflix queue (already 490 DVDs long!)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 04:55 pm (UTC)its a SPOOF, for pete's sake.
just enjoy it and dont read into it too much.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 05:05 pm (UTC)btw, we had a blast last night. thank you very much, and thank your mom, as well. Holly really enjoyed meeting her, and you know i love your mom.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 05:11 pm (UTC)I'm serious, we should get together and watch the original Wicker Man, the lot of us, and Holly can help Mom with tiles and stuff.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 05:14 pm (UTC)and yes, i am going to drink you out of house/home. you are just getting really good at this, and i dont get to enjoy mixed drinks often because they are retarded expensive in restaurants.
i can bring some beer or something to help out, though.
we both really enjoyed Edd. how long is he here for?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 05:18 pm (UTC)And yeah, keep it up and I'll start asking for tips. Just slip 'em in my butt crack. Because they'll still be expensive for me, pally!
Beer good too, but I try to go easy because it's too many calories.
Edd'll be here for... two or three more weeks at least, and he'll be back in a month or two. He'll be back and forth over the year to work on this massive project.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 05:27 pm (UTC)but tossing you a few bucks (from afar, but i could try aiming for your ass) wouldnt be out of the question. beats paying bar prices.