The Big Picture: Oscars: The Grouse

[gorfias]

This (Extremely Loud) is the only film on the Best Film list I hadn't heard of this year, and thats a surprise for me as I like to keep up with film news. *runs and checks IMDB* Wow, a 9/11 story 10 years after. No wonder it got a nom. *watches trailer* I think I just got diabetes..

My wife is pretty easy to please. Give her bawling bait and she'll typically love it. I took her to the Descendents, we all enjoyed it, she asked me to go see Extremely Loud and having heard it stinks, declined. Next day she take the daughter (also not terribly hard to please) to see it. They both came home pretty pissed. Rotten movie can't even jerk tears right with softball material.

The Descendents tackles some material handled so much better in "Last Tango In Paris" but it does what it does pretty well, and the view of Hawaii are spectacular. National Review beat it up a bit because George Clooney does not make a very convincing schlub. I thought him OK.

 

[Bluecho]

So basically, the American film industry is altered for the arbitrary by an old awards show that has at best limited usefulness. As opposed to release schedules being dictated by market forces or just whenever a film gets completed. You know, a rational distribution.

I say the Oscars have a limited usefulness because in this day and age, anyone can put out their list of the best films of a given year, and expect to reach a large audience. Isn't it better to have the "best films" be determined by a number of different critics individually (with time for them to explain their justifications for the choices) than to have a bunch of people anonymously vote for one award show? I don't know, just seems unnecessary to me.

 

[TownTattle]

Not really. It's incredibly cliched, has almost every major Oscar motif/theme/plot device, and it's completely over the top in terms of melodrama. As if we haven't ever seen a film about a rich guy who ends up living a more enriched life by getting the help of someone of another class, or a film about some dude with a "loveable" impediment that he has to overcome in order to achieve something important, etc.

Stammer and stage fright are not "loveable" impediments. The reason why 'The King's Speech' won Oscars was because it was a good film. It was popular with audiences, if you strip away the stuff about class, monarchy and everything else it is about two people who become friends through overcoming difficulty. The film managed to convey that through a good script, most notably in the scene with the model airplane. George is no longer a royal, he is just a man talking to a friend about his problems.

Also, on a personal level I found the opening scene of that film incredibly well-made. As someone who has acted on-stage I am all too familiar with that awful wrack of nerves before performing. That scene masterfully recreated that feeling by increasing the tension through the image of the blinking light and the extended silence before the disastrous speech, close-up shots of the speaker making it seem large and domineering. Also, Colin Firth was totally convincing in his portrayal of utter fear. I've seen people backstage, nervous about their imminent performance and it was haunting how similar Colin Firth's face was to those people backstage.

Also, here's to hoping'The Artist' wins Best Picture. I must admit I was rather sad to hear it got 10 nominations because then it will get a load of undeserved hate.

 

[sarahvait]

Not really. It's incredibly cliched, has almost every major Oscar motif/theme/plot device, and it's completely over the top in terms of melodrama. As if we haven't ever seen a film about a rich guy who ends up living a more enriched life by getting the help of someone of another class, or a film about some dude with a "loveable" impediment that he has to overcome in order to achieve something important, etc.

Stammer and stage fright are not "loveable" impediments. The reason why 'The King's Speech' won Oscars was because it was a good film. It was popular with audiences, if you strip away the stuff about class, monarchy and everything else it is about two people who become friends through overcoming difficulty. The film managed to convey that through a good script, most notably in the scene with the model airplane. George is no longer a royal, he is just a man talking to a friend about his problems.

Also, on a personal level I found the opening scene of that film incredibly well-made. As someone who has acted on-stage I am all too familiar with that awful wrack of nerves before performing. That scene masterfully recreated that feeling by increasing the tension through the image of the blinking light and the extended silence before the disastrous speech, close-up shots of the speaker making it seem large and domineering. Also, Colin Firth was totally convincing in his portrayal of utter fear. I've seen people backstage, nervous about their imminent performance and it was haunting how similar Colin Firth's face was to those people backstage.

Also, here's to hoping'The Artist' wins Best Picture. I must admit I was rather sad to hear it got 10 nominations because then it will get a load of undeserved hate.

Ditto on that man. As someone heavily involved in voice acting, The King's Speech was fascinating on a personal level. I remember when I was really new how scary it was it get behind a professional mic. You'd think there'd be nothing to it, but I hear more and more stories of established stage/film actors who get behind a mic for the first time and are suddenly terrified. There's something about knowing that the mic is zeroing in on that specific part of you, picking up your every flub, word stumble, lip smack, popped P, etc. XD

And yeah, I hope The Artist gets a lot of awards. Maybe it's because I grew up with a Dad who would regularly sit me down and make me watch all sorts of old black and white movies, but I really did like it. Though I would complain that it drags a bit in places.

But did anyone else catch Bill Fagerbakke (Patrick Starr from Spongebob) as the window shopping cop near the end?

 

[SnakeoilSage]

It's kind of curious the way Bob - perhaps frustrated with opinionated movie fans (which is ironic considering his title) - is starting to get more defensive of Hollywood and its antics. If it gets to the point where he's telling the rest of us to shut up because us pointing out the obvious flaws of Hollywood that Hollywood refuses to fix is getting tedious, and the irony passes completely over his head, then I guess all we can do is smile and watch him fade into Dennis Miller obscurity as a man who once shouted to the world "Are any of you buying this shit?" now begins cutting out coupons for the fecal goods store.

 

[praetor_alpha]

I was expecting a "MOVIES ARE WIERD!" at 0:21 or so.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I wouldn't say Winter is only for Oscar movies.
Its also the season of more family block busters
Like with Avatar release, Tron, and upcoming The Hobbit.

Concerning The Hobbit, don't forget, unless you don't remember, The Lord of the Rings movies played during the winter season and all three also were nominated for and won multiple Oscars. The Return of the King itself won 11 Oscars, including: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Score.

I always wondered why the first two films only won a few, but then I realized when the third movie got to the show, they had been saving all the prizes for it as a signifier for the whole trilogy.

Considering that The Lord of the Rings was an old area of fantasy that was only read by the younger crowd if their parents had read it and told them about it, or if it was an assignment in some class, I thinking that the movies were first made with the Oscars in mind, but then became blockbusters.

I for one knew The Hobbit existed because I had watched the old Hobbit cartoon before I had read the book, and the first time I actually read The Hobbit was back in college when it was the final big reading assignment in my Children's Literature class. I still haven't been able to read through all of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

 

[Mangue Surfer]

Cool! Just the 11763873689398734634798634873463487963494639834527293489348783476348634 time that the subject is brought up in the internetz. Seriously, at this point would be better to discuss Helena Bonham Carter's hair.

Ps.: And Lord of the Rings is the Oscar bait of the ages. Think about, talking about world war without enter in the delicate subjects of the real war. Genius! Tolkien never admitted but...

 

[daxterx2005]

The *bleep*ing artist.

*golf clap*

You tell em bob

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I think that you're being somewhat unfair to Oscars.

I mean the descion to not nominate good films this year in favour of nomionating several bad ones is a couragous choice and they should get respect for that alone.

Wow. Just wow.

I always give props to understated sarcasm, but this has to take an award or two of its own. I skimmed it, missed the point completely, thought "wait a sec..." and went back to it, and ended up grinning from ear to ear. Well done indeed.

 

[Richard Norley]

-Annnnnnnd, I am posting here merely for the Marks Brothers' reference.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

What I find funny with this year's nominations is that the number of nominations was expanded to let in smaller films and popular films for best picture. But instead of allowing in a dark horse for people to pull for Hollywood just filled the extra nomination slots with more Oscar bait films.

Of course the best laugh is to come when they lament about how the ratings were down for the Oscar show even more this year and all the tears about how the common man doesn't watch the Oscars any more.

 

[Endocrom]

That one comment reminds me of this StrongBad Email [http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail203.html] on "independant" films.

I only got the Mark Summers referance, fun fact: he's doing a "how it's made" kind of show on the Food Network now.

 

[Axolotl]

I think that you're being somewhat unfair to Oscars.

I mean the descion to not nominate good films this year in favour of nomionating several bad ones is a couragous choice and they should get respect for that alone.

They're not all bad! I went to see Hugo 2 days ago and it was actually rather damn good once it got past the usual flashback exposition. All the actors play their roles brilliantly and it also provides an incredible journey through the early history of filmmaking. Plus the comic relief station conductor was actually funny in some scenes!

Okay yeah they aren't all bad but there's no way The Descendants, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, The Help, Moneyball and War Horse should be being nominated. Especially given some of the other films that came out last year. Even things like The Artist and Tree of Life shouldn't be big contenders, just compare it to even last years list that had Black Swan, Inception, 127 Hours and True Grit to round out the nominations it's just a much better selection. I mean the Oscars have made so pretty legendary mistakes (1976 and 2005 leap to mind) but expanding the number of potential nominees to 10 and then still just allowing the safest tripe that gets made? They really should be better than that.

 

[kingmob]

Firstly, please stop using The Kings Speech as an example of a film being "Oscar Bait" as it detracts from the fact its a fucking good film. *puts Union Flag away*

Oscar bait is a derogatory term that does not imply bad quality, just bad intentions (and boredom in my case). There is nothing 'bad' about the Kings Speech, but it is a very bland movie made along very strict lines to ensure Oscars. The fact that it uses these rules makes them creatively uninteresting.

 

[Plinglebob]

Firstly, please stop using The Kings Speech as an example of a film being "Oscar Bait" as it detracts from the fact its a fucking good film. *puts Union Flag away*

Oscar bait is a derogatory term that does not imply bad quality, just bad intentions (and boredom in my case). There is nothing 'bad' about the Kings Speech, but it is a very bland movie made along very strict lines to ensure Oscars. The fact that it uses these rules makes them creatively uninteresting.

But as I mentioned above, there's no distinction between a film that sets itself up using lots of Oscar Bait (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) and a film that just happens to have a lot in. The Kings Speech was based on a book which was based on a true story that the film maker want to do because he also struggled with a stamma. The fact it includes Oscar Bait (Royals, British Actors, stuggle with a disability) is really beside the point. Compare this with Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close which seems to have been adapted and released with the sole purpose of getting Oscars (9/11, little kid, dead parent, Tom Hanks).