Oscar Grumblings
Jan. 22nd, 2008 11:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Why do I give a shit about the Oscars? Why can't I just write them off as the bullshit they so obviously are? Because I like seeing things that I consider to be good celebrated in a way that validates their quality and, subsequently, my own taste? Or is it just ingrained in me, like so many others, that the Oscars are the highest of holy events for Hollywood?
I mean, the Best Picture category is an annual source of fear and frustration, and this year is no different.
ATONEMENT
MICHAEL CLAYTON
JUNO
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
Now, I haven't seen ATONEMENT, but I know one person who adores it (having read the book) and a handful of people who viciously hate it enough to start their own mafia specifically designed to glower at this film. Nor have I seen MICHAEL CLAYTON, which made three of CHUD.com's 2007 lists: one "Best of 2007," and two "Worst of 2007." Take that how you will.
And then there's JUNO. By the way, I finally figured out what bugs me about JUNO! It's JOSS-WHEDON-Y! Oh, it's perfect! All is clear now! But yes, yes, I do enjoy the film, mainly now thanks to an essay in The Hater, which I wish was online. It was titled, "Why It's Okay to Love This Phony Movie."
All that said, I feel comfortable enough to say that if any of those above films beat NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN or THERE WILL BE BLOOD for Best Picture, I will eat my hat. And I like my hat, ladies and gentlemen. I want it on my head, not in my head, on the way to my stomach.
But the fact is, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is fucking violent, and its anti-conventional-storytelling will likely turn many voters off. And THERE WILL BE BLOOD... well, it's unique. It's a true original, and originality has a way of not winning Oscars.
Ah well. Perhaps the WGA strike will derail this Academy Awards too, having already proven the Golden Globes to be an inglorious vanity event without a big ceremony to dress things up.
The only thing I'd miss about not having a whole award show is that ONCE's Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglová wouldn't get to perform live. Yes, they're nominated for best song, which I knew they would be (I told them so, and they seemed to honestly think it wasn't going to happen). They deserve it.
(Although apparently the Irish fucking hate Glen Hansard. What's up with that?)
In the meantime, I'm gonna re-watch THERE WILL BE BLOOD and frequent the most gloriously ridiculous fansite in the world, www.idrinkyourmilkshake.com. Seriously, "I drink your milkshake," should be the next "Say hello to my little friend!" and "pwned!"
I mean, the Best Picture category is an annual source of fear and frustration, and this year is no different.
ATONEMENT
MICHAEL CLAYTON
JUNO
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
Now, I haven't seen ATONEMENT, but I know one person who adores it (having read the book) and a handful of people who viciously hate it enough to start their own mafia specifically designed to glower at this film. Nor have I seen MICHAEL CLAYTON, which made three of CHUD.com's 2007 lists: one "Best of 2007," and two "Worst of 2007." Take that how you will.
And then there's JUNO. By the way, I finally figured out what bugs me about JUNO! It's JOSS-WHEDON-Y! Oh, it's perfect! All is clear now! But yes, yes, I do enjoy the film, mainly now thanks to an essay in The Hater, which I wish was online. It was titled, "Why It's Okay to Love This Phony Movie."
All that said, I feel comfortable enough to say that if any of those above films beat NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN or THERE WILL BE BLOOD for Best Picture, I will eat my hat. And I like my hat, ladies and gentlemen. I want it on my head, not in my head, on the way to my stomach.
But the fact is, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is fucking violent, and its anti-conventional-storytelling will likely turn many voters off. And THERE WILL BE BLOOD... well, it's unique. It's a true original, and originality has a way of not winning Oscars.
Ah well. Perhaps the WGA strike will derail this Academy Awards too, having already proven the Golden Globes to be an inglorious vanity event without a big ceremony to dress things up.
The only thing I'd miss about not having a whole award show is that ONCE's Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglová wouldn't get to perform live. Yes, they're nominated for best song, which I knew they would be (I told them so, and they seemed to honestly think it wasn't going to happen). They deserve it.
(Although apparently the Irish fucking hate Glen Hansard. What's up with that?)
In the meantime, I'm gonna re-watch THERE WILL BE BLOOD and frequent the most gloriously ridiculous fansite in the world, www.idrinkyourmilkshake.com. Seriously, "I drink your milkshake," should be the next "Say hello to my little friend!" and "pwned!"
no subject
Date: 2008-01-22 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-22 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-22 06:55 pm (UTC)If Atonement wins I'm going to have to smite Hollywood, I'm afraid. And that's with my deep and abiding love for James McAvoy factored into the equation.
Also, if Cate Blanchett wins Best Actress for the dire sequel to Elizabeth, there will be yet more smiting. She was good in the first film. In the second...not so much. I found myself more interested in her clothes than in her performance.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-22 06:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-22 10:31 pm (UTC)Plus, the director totally fucked up re: the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Which is, y'know, just one of Britains' most decisive and important naval battles. It's the sort of real life historical event that even a ten year old with a camcorder from the 1980's and a bathtub full of plastic boats could make a spectacular cinematic masterpiece out of.
I may have had issues with this film that no one outside the UK could understand (cf. my views on Braveheart)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-22 11:45 pm (UTC)I liked Elizabeth II better than most people. It was not as good as the first one, but it had its merits. It was different in tone and style than the first one, but I felt like that choice was supported by the different station in which the lead character was in. The tone of the movie sort of matched its heroine. Clyde Owens was a huge letdown as Raleigh. Blanchett I felt was bold and daring and exciting to watch.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-22 11:48 pm (UTC)Now that is sad that Clive was a letdown, because he's usually always solid. Blanchett usually is as well, and man oh man, how I wish she had been in CLOSER instead of Julia Roberts. She might well have made Anna sympathetic.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-22 09:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-22 10:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-22 10:47 pm (UTC)Hmm. I wonder why.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-22 10:57 pm (UTC)http://www.avclub.com/content/feature/glen_hansard
And if ye be strong of mind and pure of heart, beware the comments section, for there be a vicious hive of scum and fucktardery so foul, so cruel, so obnoxious, and few have survived with their souls intact.
Can you browncoat a phrase?
Date: 2008-01-23 05:18 am (UTC)I agree; and my evidence is that it is already bugging the hell out of me, just like those other phrases.
You sure as hell can
Date: 2008-01-23 05:24 am (UTC)