It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Also interesting: All three major NYT critics predict Thomas Haden Church WON’T win (though Dargis says he SHOULD win) the Best Supporting Actor award. And while all three predict Martin Scorsese WILL win Best Director, none of the three thinks he SHOULD win. Hmmmmm.
With due love to Stephen, Tony & The Man… they are about as into the Oscar thing as they are into the next film from the makers of Saw.
Can you blame them? Their job is to discuss the merits of the films they see. They really shouldn’t be shackled to a discussion of the small enclave of “Oscar films,” the selection of which seems to grow a little more arbitrary each year.
There’s too much out there of quality, and not enough of it in the Oscar race, to merit more than an article or two out of the NYT’s critics. Oscar talk these days is less a province of the critic than of the industry watcher/insider.
Well, it’s all over but the shouting. Expect “The Aviator” to cop the Oscar gold after getting the BAFTA. Right?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=9&u=/ap/20050212/ap_on_en_mo/britain_film_awards
While I wouldn’t take the “BAFTA irrelevant” position that Dave does, I don’t think the BAFTA’s lock anything up for “Aviator” for two reasons:
1. The lack of “MDB” or (I believe) “Sideways” nominations for best picture.
2. “Aviator” not getting a directing or screenwriting award.
I’m surprised no one mentioned A.O. Scott’s at least moderately insane projection of “Ray” as the Best Pic winner.
Maybe Scott knows something we don’t about a core of RAY lovers who might triumph if there’s a three way split between SIDEWAYS, MDB, and AVIATOR. Isn’t that sort of what happened with ANNIE HALL winning in what was considered a tight race between JULILA, THE TURNING POINT, and STAR WARS? I tend to think people make wierd predictions like this knowing that there’s little penalty for being wrong about such things, and if you make a long shot guess and you’re right, you go down as “the only person to have forseen the major upset of the year.”
It’s interesting that SIDEWAYS, considered “snubbed” by BAFTA for only getting the one nod, ended up winning it.
It also strikes me as odd that THE AVIATOR has won two major Best Picture awards (The Globes and BAFTA) without getting director. You’d think it would be the opposite considering Scorsese is the sentimental favorite and that if anything, THE AVIATOR is generally considered a brilliantly DIRECTED film that might be lacking in other things (script, having an “important theme”, etc.)
Another upset that might be worth remembering: “Reds” (controversial, allegedly pro-Commie) and “On Golden Pond” (sentimental, let’s finally give Henry Fonda an Oscar)are the big heavyweights, duking it out… and “Chariots of Fire” sneaks in while they split the vote.
hummmmm Interesting, Joe. If that pattern is repeated, it would be little old SIDEWAYS that wins Picture while Scorsese gets director and MDB gets one or more Acting awards.
Could be, Gombro. Or…. if enough Academy members are impressed by the extended cut of “Ray” on DVD…..
(You know, I think I’ve been reading way too much William Goldman. I gotta quit using punctuation…. to indicate — you know…
Pregnant pauses.)
Couple things to tackle here, in reverse order: Reds was NEVER going to win Best Picture. While it is one of my all-time favorite films–without a doubt in my top 10–a three hour film about American communists was not going to win Best Picture. Not in Reagan’s 1982, not in any other year. The craft in the picture was acknowledged rightfully; in a weak year it wasn’t hard to do so (when the other competition was On Golden Pond you KNOW it’s a weak year). You could award Storaro’s cinematography and Beatty’s suprisingly adept direction (it’s obvious he’d be good with actors, but who knew he could compose shots that well even after Heaven Can Wait’s success?), but there’s ALWAYS something political about a Best Picture award.
I’d also have to disagree with the explanation of Annie Hall’s success in 1977. Star Wars was in NO position to break through genre prejudice, regardless of how refreshing it seemed at the time. It’s also easy to see how Julia and The Turning Point, two strong women-driven films, split the vote. Not that either would have won anyway. It was impossible not to be charmed in 1977 by Woody Allen, and the entire country fell in love with Diane Keaton. Annie Hall was pretty ambitious for a comedy, employing a wide range of visual gags to go with its phenomenal script. But it’s not so suprising that a COMEDY won Best Picture, as people love to point out, but that a such a ROMANTIC film won. How often does that happen?
Lastly, the BAFTA effect: I don’t know that the absence of nominations for M$B and Sideways mean much. People are either going to pay attention to the Best Picture win for The Aviator or not. We’re assuming people think about it that much. No one who WOULD be swayed by the BAFTA win is likely to look deeper and say “Hey, but Million Dollar Baby wasn’t even eligible!” It’s just one more accolade on the pile. It builds consensus. Or it doesn’t. People want to be comfortable with their votes. The bigger argument is whether or not it’s too late. David already suggested that the die has been cast and he may be right. Don’t most Academy members finish their ballots in the first week? It’s not like most of them actually WATCH all the nominees anyway, especially in categories like foreign film. The notion that the Writer’s Guild, Editor’s Guild, Cinematographer’s Guild, etc. are going to have any effect that late in the game isn’t even worth thinking about.
I guess if it’s in any way logical to conclude that “The Aviator”‘s BAFTA Best Picture win makes it the Oscar frontrunner for BP, then by the same logic Mike Leigh is now the Oscar frontrunner for Best Director.
Anybody?
I didn’t think so.
With all due respect, Laz, I think you’re engaging in a little 20/20 hindsight here. Before the Oscars in early 78 and 82 the front runners as predicted in the press were, as Joe and I said: JULIA, TURNING POINT with a lot of the tech geeks and more populist types throwing their votes at STAR WARS, and then REDS and GOLDEN POND four years later. The ONLY non-British Best Pic award CHARIOTS won before Oscar was when it tied with REDS for the little old National Board of Review trophy. ANNIE HALL, for its part, won some east coast critics awards before Oscar but nothing else. It didn’t even win the Globe for Best Comedy where it lacked JULIA and TURNING as competition. The comedy to beat that year was GOODBYE GIRL.
Chester, the Leigh award at BAFTA falls under the “home team” doing well rule. “The Aviator” won its award on “on the road,” which makes it seem more legit.
That’s funny, because Woody won a little award given out by the DGA; I think that made Annie Hall the film to beat. It was clearly the frontrunner for original screenplay, so what other qualifications do you need to make you the favorite? The only doubt it would win was due to it being a comedy–but it was a pretty bittersweet one, which probably helped it win. It also made more money than Julia or the Turning Point, and was having a bigger effect on the culture than either. More importantly, what other film did people appear to feel that strongly about? Nothing else except Star Wars, which was immediately disqualified for being a Sci-Fi/Fantasy. It’s not hindsight to dissect why people voted the way they did, or to see how Julia and The Turning Point would cancel out each other’s votes.
As for Reds, the film TANKED at the box office. Oscar rarely, if ever, awards box office failure with its highest honor. While Chariots of Fire’s win is definitely one of the bigger surprises in Oscar history, I think the film it really upset was On Golden Pond, the type of schmaltz that usually appeals to voters. It’s very hard for me to watch Reds and imagine those voters selecting it for the top prize.
Don’t be surprised if the same thing happens this year, with The Aviator winning a handful of technical awards, including director, only to be left haning when M$B takes Best Picture. While Reds had a bit more heart as half the film was centered on the Reed/Bryant romance, I could see how it would leave many people a little cold. The arguments the couple had in the film were more ideological than emotional.
y’all are reminding me why I have never liked Best pic nominations and most of the winners (in my lifetime anyway) too!
Gombro, I think the key qualifier in what you just wrote to me is “seem.” Any analysis of BAFTA’s significance or influence as far as this year’s Oscars are concerned is nothing more than illusory conjecture.
Lazarus, I don’t think the box-office tally killed “Reds”‘s Oscar chances. Remember, audiences then, including members of the Academy, were not as receipts-conscious as they are today. My personal theory is that sometimes it only takes one glaring flaw to kill an entire movie’s chance at awards recognition. In “Reds,” I remember it was the outlandish scene where Diane Keaton trekked through the snows of Siberia by herself to find Warren Beatty. I recall sitting in the theatre watching that, and the audience was just howling with a kind of disgusted laughter. Everyone I spoke to afterward thought the film was great, but that one scene was pretty much all that anyone wanted to talk about.
I believe those sorts of myopic memories can be deadly for films at awards time. I think the denouement was the main reason “Collateral” fared so poorly this year as far as nominations are concerned. Another current example: A number of people (including me) have suggested that Paul Giamatti may have gotten snubbed for “Sideways” because of the “unlikeable” scene where he steals money from his mother.
That type of demand for superficial perfection may ultimately be what might give the crown to “The Aviator.” A lot of people seem to be having difficulty zeroing in on its specific flaws—even if they, like I, consider it a very generic film.
You’re right, Chester, about the Academy being more less concerned with revenues back then. But I can’t think of a Best Picture winner that fared as poorly as Reds did, especially in relation to its budget. If you’re aware of one, let me know.
People admired Beatty for raising the money to make that unorthodox project, but they weren’t going to crown a dud. Even if the thought is only subconscious, it wouldn’t be good for the industry.
OFF-TOPIC:
MCM finally gets around to posting the BAFTA winners, and the headline is “Graham King’s The Aviator and Mike Leigh’s Vera Drake Dominate BAFTAS As Expected”
No, there’s no anti-Scorsese bias.
Since when does a film website attatch ownership of a film to the producer? And if we’re talking producers, Mike Leigh isn’t even listed as one in the credits for Vera Drake, executive or otherwise.
I know, The Aviator won for Picture and Leigh for director. But from what we’ve already seen, this thing reeks of bias. That and the “as expected” remark, which is clearly backhanded.
Getting REALLY sick of this.
Now you’re being funny, Laz. You use the DGA award, which is an award for direction and not Best Picture, to suggest that Woody Allen’s DGA made ANNIE HALL the front runner for Best Picture in 77. By that logic, your OWN logic, the fact that Warren Beatty won the DGA for REDS means that REDS must have been the front runner in 82. Well, you might say, the fact that CHARIOTS won so many other awards complicated things. What other awards, outside of BRITISH awards, did CHARIOTS win though. Just that TIE with REDS? Big money maker or not, REDS was the front runner that year and POND was the sentimental possible spoiler. And to suggest that REDS was somehow toxic as choice for the acadamy in the early Regan years is also utterly false, or don’t you remember the White House screening Ronald Regan had, and the photos in the newspapers of Beatty and Reagan being all chummy and all smiles at the White House at that event. I think Reagan even went on the record saying he liked the film, which can hardly be considered pro-Communist if you watch it to the end.
I’m aware of the contradiction in the DGA example. The difference is that Annie Hall had more going for it in terms of public opinion. It was a film that was admired AND loved, by critics, the audience, and Academy voters. You can’t argue that people had a lot of LOVE for Reds (save for film geeks like myself). Perhaps Reagan was supportive of the film, but that doesn’t change the fact that the public’s attitude was part of the Cold War as well. Commies were still the boogeymen back then, and it’s not a subject people were sympathetic to. Academy members, while perhaps left-leaning on the whole, aren’t excluded from that feeling.
Ultimately, you can’t tell me that Reds had the same kind of mass appeal that The English Patient did. The only other comparison I can make is Doctor Zhivago (a MUCH more romantic film), and that didn’t win Best Picture either. Believe me, there’s nothing I’d want more than a film like Reds to be something that could win the big one. But it wouldn’t happen now, and it wasn’t ever going to happen then. The proof is right in front of us–look what film has the most nominees THIS year, yet very few people seem to consider it the frontrunner.
And speaking of contradictions, you said Annie Hall wasn’t the frontrunner for ’77 because it couldn’t win the comedy category at the Golden Globes. Well Reds was beat out by The Freaking French Lieutenant’s Woman for ’81! If there was critical consensus around any film it was Atlantic City more than anything else. This was a year where the riches were spread around very loosely, aside from Beatty winning every directorial award. That Chariots of Fire arose from this mess to take Best Picture isn’t really as much of a shocker as you’d think. And as you pointed out, it shared the National Board of Review award with Reds as well.
“I guess if it’s in any way logical to conclude that “The Aviator”‘s BAFTA Best Picture win makes it the Oscar frontrunner for BP, then by the same logic Mike Leigh is now the Oscar frontrunner for Best Director.
Anybody?
I didn’t think so.”
But what’s the bet that if The Aviator had LOST next to everyone would be saying “THE AVIATOR IS DONE FOR, NOBODY LIKES IT, IT’S D.O.A.!!! GIVE THE PRIZE TO MILLION DOLLAR BABY, THIS ONE’S FINISHED”…or some variation on that theme.
And while the WGA and Cinematographers guild don’t affect the voting they can very well point to a film. If A Very Long Engagement happens to win the ACS award then I’d be reconsidering my pick. If Ray wins, i would reconsider. etc.
And, there’s an extended version of “Ray” out there now? my god, not more. NOT MORE!!!
Warners is going to lose this.
According to Damien Bona’s and Mason Wiley’s Inside Oscar (still the best source in this matters) Star Wars was still seem a the favorite awards night, but Allen DGA win (which was a major surprise) had put Annie Hall on the running (The Turning Point was dead, Julia still had some hopes as the serious film). It was more like Shakespeare in Love win, than a real major upset.
Now, Chariots of Race win was a real major upset.
Filipe’s right about STAR WARS’ popularity. Lets not forget Oscar’s history of awarding shallow crowd-pleasers. You don’t have to go all the way back to GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH, either, even thought that’s the example everyone uses. THE STING won just a couple of years prior to STAR WARS, and it was, if anything, even more of a one-dimentional genre piece than STAR WARS. People thought ANNIE HALL didn’t have a chance due to the Acadamy’s anti-New York bias.
Let’s not forget that many people in LA were truly offended by the last fourth of ANNIE HALL and its depiction of the West Coast show business scene. Allen even ridicules Award shows. “All they do here is give out awards!” There were people who took it in stride, but others who did not. I knew a guy at the time in Hollywood, an Academy voter, who said ANNIE HALL didn’t “have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.” It was, at least to some people, a real upset when it did win.
It’s also important to think about Star Wars in a early 1978 context: no sequels, SW industry still in it’s early stages, Lucas still seem as a promising yiunf filmmaker, stories about how he really have to fight to make the film and mostly pretty good reviews. A SW win over genre prejudices at time would be not much different from Return of the King last year. Today, SW win does look a little silly but who knows if in 2031 thanks to shamefully explotation of it’s popularity and bad career choices by filmmaker and cast, Retun of the King may looks silly too.
Sorry to upset you, Lazarus.
The reason Graham King and Mike Leigh were acknowledged in that headline is that they are both from England… BAFTA…
If the “Annie Hall” Oscar win was a surprise — and trust me, it was — the “Chariots of Fire” win was a shock. I still have somewhere among my effects a note from my Dallas Morning News arts & entertainment editor, which I received in response to my suggestion that I write my interview with “Chariots” director Hugh Hudson to run in the Sunday A&E section one day before the Oscarcast. Her response: “Don’t bother. There’s no way on earth that movie’s going to win anything.” D’Uh. In her defense, though, I wonder how many similar notes were passed to how many other writers in how many other newsrooms.
Incidentally, there was another shock among the winners that year: “Mephisto” upset the highly-favored, then-politically-resonant “Man of Iron.” Everybody thought the Wajda film would get the nod as a show of solidarity with… well, with Solidarity. Especially after the Polish government tried to withdraw “Man of Iron” from competition.
NY Post headline of it’s post-oscar coverage: HOLLYWOOD FUMING OVER WIN BY CHARIOTS OF FIRE
It’s not only that Reds lost Best Picture, even had it won, it’s awards performance would still be seem as little disapointment. It lost in other categories whereit had been predict as frontrunner (Keaton was actually the favorite in Best Actress).
From the Drudge Report (no kidding):
HOST CHRIS ROCK SHOCK: ONLY GAYS WATCH OSCARS
ACADEMY MEMBERS ALARMED OVER CHOICE OF COMIC
**Exclusive**
Veteran members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have grown concerned over the choice of Chris Rock as host of this month’s awards show, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Concern deepened after Rock claimed only gays watch the Oscars!
“I never watched the Oscars. Come on, it’s a fashion show,” Rock recently declared.
“What straight black man sits there and watches the Oscars? Show me one!”
Rock added: “Awards for art are f—ing idiotic.”
MORE
Academy members have privately called for Chris Rock to be removed as host, sources claim, fearing Rock may “tarnish” the reputation of the Academy.
“Simply put, this is a disgrace,” one veteran Hollywood mogul, who asked not to be identified, said from Los Angeles.
“This guy is out there saying ‘awards for art are f—ing idiotic’ and he is hosting the show produced by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? I guess the joke is on us!”
One nominated actress questions whether producer Gil Cates was even aware that Rock has “never watched the Oscars.”
Other unpublicized comments made by Rock threaten to throw the scheduled Feb. 27 broadcast into complete chaos.
During a recent hate-filled rant, Rock imitated a White House press briefing:
“Mr. President, what about gay marriage? ‘F**k them faggots,'” Rock said of Bush.
What will Rock be wearing to the show?
“Nothing against people who aren’t straight, but what straight guy that you know cares? Who gives a f—?” Rock explained.
Anyone have any idea who he said this to and when? Just out of curiosity. Certainly can’t believe everything you read from Drudge.
It’s from his EW interview…
So why the hell is her hosting the bloody thing?
I really don’t like Chris Rock as the host. First all that stuff about Jamie Foxx (he’ll steal an oscar from those UNWORTHY and UNIMPORTANT sound and lighting guys!) and then the stuff about The Aviator (About how it’s not much of a movie – ya, and Ray is better?) and now this.
It’s strange that there hasn’t been much said about it at all.
Oh, well, this awards telecast will go down as one of the all-time worst. All this crap about all 5 nominees being on stage, some winners not even being allowed to go on stage to collect their awards and give a speech, Chris Rock, Hilary Swank winning her SECOND Best Actress…
crazy.
rock tells it like it is
So bob, unless you’re directly part of the film industry (a producer, studio head, writer), then that means
a) you don’t watch the Oscars, or
b) you’re a fag.
Which is it, bob?
i don’t know why ur so curious about me but i don’t watch the thing like its the world series. rocks right. no self respecting man sits thru the pre show and the actual show. theres five awards worth catching. the rest is made of filler
I’m curious about you cuz you sound HOT. So that means you only tune in for the last hour, or that you’re not a man, or you’re not self-respecting, do I have that right?
By the way, as a committed right-winger, I’m sure you’ve read Bush’s budget, just so you can argue knowledgeably on these blogs. So I’m wondering, as a veteran, what do you think about him proposing a $250 per-year surcharge for ANY veteran who wants to be able to veteran benefits? That will cost all you vets $250 per year, but hey, at least his rich friends get their permanent tax cut!
That should have been “$20 per year surcharge for ANY veteran who wants to be able to USE HIS veteran benefits.” I was getting so hot and bothered talking to bob that I forgot myself….
D’oh, d’oh, d’oh!!!! I mean “$250” per year!!! Sort of eats up your $175 per year tax CUT doesn’t it bob? And in case you’re not good at math, bob, that means you have to pay $75 more under Bush than us NON-vets do now. How’s that for Bush looking after the men who he sends to war…
is there a need for 4 posts in a row ty? u have nothing to say for one let alone four. i know ur obsessed with me but i’m not really into u. especially since ur a know it all lefty who should really start reading more.
Ty, maybe you should actually read and understand the budget before you go off on a rant about it. I think you can put in for the “Idiot Deduction” this year though. You got that going for you.
The fact that you guys, who I’d be willing to bet aren’t in the over-$200,000 a year class, support a president who has done nothing but screw you over makes you the idiots, boys.
And bob, why don’t you just answer my question (and yes, I have read the budget and I do understand it, Mark, a lot more than you dittoheads do, who just get the Rush Lie-baugh version of it).
So bob, here you are, one more time: How do you feel having Bush charge you $250 a year just to use the veteran’s benifits you have coming to you? Are you going to answer me this time or ignore the question again?
Ty: Don’t get caught in the briar patch. Remember: You’re trying to match wits with people who don’t know how to capitalize and/or are too chicken to sign their real, full names.
Joe, I think you and I have come to the same realization at the same time. =)
So it’s “nothing” to you bob to have to write a $250 check every year just so Bush’s Enron buddies can get another tax break? Or did you lie about being a vet?
Matching wits with a Liberal? Thats like an oxymoron to the tenth degree. As you can tell from any Liberal program or radio show, they have no listeners. They’re not exactly witty or entertaining or right. It all adds up.
This past weekend, I finally saw The Aviator and I thought it was fantastic. How this film has been dismissed as a “safe” costume epic I cannot understand. The film ends up having more balls and follow-through with its main character than Sideways did. Is it as good as Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Last Temptation? Probably not. But a mainstream Scorcese picture is still more interesting and suprising than any character study, without actual character development, that Alexander Payne could concoct.
I know, this is devolving into a rant against Sideways. Why all this vitriol that has developed towards this movie? I think a big part of it, from film fans like myself, is resentment. For the past several years, there have been so many notable indie romantic comedies, like Swingers, Flirting With Disaster, Chasing Amy, etc. that just got no plaudits at all. And yet Sideways is getting such high praise from critics for how “different” and “fresh” it is? I know that some critics have almost apologized for their praise of the film, because of how it just created a unique, rare of experience of finally being able to see a character-driven comedy.
Have these critics been asleep the past several years? Wonder Boys, High Fidelity, Lost in Translation, Go, About a Boy, Roger Dodger, Ghost World, the list goes on and on. There are notable films like this every year. What makes Sideways so special I have no idea.
What makes The Aviator so special is that Scorcese finds interesting ways to tell the story about a truly unique individual and his life experiences. Did I always buy DiCaprio, as a 40 year old, from a physical standpoint? Not all the time. But the actor give it his all. The dialogue crackles, the visuals dazzle, and the story almost never sags.
You’ll find a few notable Sideways almost every year, but I can think of few films like The Aviator. In most Oscar races, I usually side with the smaller indie film, like The Crying Game and Pulp Fiction, but this year the best films were Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Touching the Void. This year, The Aviator should win.
I agree. Eternal and Touching the Void were the two best films of the year. I think its going to be a toss up among the three for best pic. The no nod to Paul G really hurts Sideways in best pic but I think it’ll pull out the two supporting awards and best screenplay.
This just in: Another awards show, The Grammys, also pulled in lower-than-expected ratings. Was it because of competition from “Desperate Housewives”? That’s probably part of the reason. (Heaven knows, the show hurt the Golden Globes.) But maybe, just maybe, it’s another sign of general awards burn-out? The good news: The Oscars are on ABC, so it won’t be competing with “Housewives.” But if the Oscarcast still posts lower numbers than last year… Well, who knows? Maybe they’ll hire Teri Hatcher to host next year?
first of all listening to left wingers who never served try to talk about veteran military pay is beyond funny. if u guys had a clue about what ur talking about u would have served. secondly, teri hatcher would make a fabulous host.
And once again, bob has failed to answer a direct question. What a shocker. Has happened too many times to count. You didn’t serve anywhere bob. I already told you that playing army in your mom’s backyard does not count.
stella u wouldnt know the first thing about serving. we laugh at guys like u. who are too busy in there moms basement looking at sears catalogs to help people. when u grow a pair, call me
The only thing a Lefty pacifist like Stella could serve is the donuts.
Ignore it all you want, guys but the fact remains. You vets supported Bush, and as soon as he was back in he hit you with a $250 a year bill so his buddies can keep their tax breaks. You guys have just been fucked without a kiss and you don’t even have the balls to be mad about it. Pathetic.
All this pseudo-macho crap on the Internet is hysterically funny. bi-bob, all you do around here is evade questions and go on the attack. People repeat things numerous times and you still say nothing. Either you have nothing substantive to say or you are quite slow. I never said I knew anything about serving. But I am quite confident that I know as much as you, because you haven’t served either. Same for you, Mark. You’re both chicken hawks, and frankly there is nothing worse than a flag-waving, war loving moron who’s never seen combat and doesn’t know the first thing about the realities of war. Hey, I don’t either, but then I’m not the one raving about how great war is.
I like to think bob IS a vet, Stella, just because it would be poetic justice for him to have to write out a $250 check every year to pay for his gulf war syndrome medication, knowing at the back of his mind that his boy Georgie, who was AWOL in the guard, who used his daddy to avoid combat, has contempt for the soldiers.
Kinda like when Rumsfeld told the poor soldier in Iraq that it was just too damn bad they didn’t have armor for their vehicles. Nice Commander in chief you voted in, guys.
ty u need to switch to decaf. if ur not a vet u have no idea about our benefits. u really don’t. so stop with the liberal talking points like u support the soldiers. cause u don’t. which is sad in itself.
I know what’s going on cuz I read a newspaper. You might want to try it sometime. If Bush gets the budget he’s just proposed, that $250 surcharge goes into effect next year. Start putting the extra money aside now…
u read the paper? is it the nation or the new republic? like i said. ur a peacenik who would disparage any military person. u wish we all didn’t get paid. ur anti american. deep down u wish the soviets had won, don’t u ty?
Once again you avoid the issue with the old lie that all Democrats are communists. Get ready to cough up the $250 a year for Bush starting next year. I’m sure the Dems will try to fight it. Maybe we’ll succeed. If we do, I hope you remember who’s looking out for you. Hint: It’s not Bush.
if u knew what u were talking about in regards to vets pay, i would respond. when u post lies it just gets funny. no liberal has ever looked out for a veteran. they take for granted what we do. they don’t even want us around. they’d rather us be #5 in the world super powers instead of #1. they want to please the world.
You’re not respoinding because you don’t follow the news, you don’t know what’s happening in Washingtion, and you have no way to respond except to put your hands over your eyes and call us lyers.
You’re whole political belief system is at the primitive level of: “Liberals bad. Them hate America. Conservatives good. Them love America.”
bi-bob is a very simple-minded fellow. Serious thought hurts his brain. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about because a) he is not a veteran and b) he has no knowledge of Bush’s budget. It’s as simple as that.
Ty, you have a lot of rage. Much of its directed at Bush. Much at the right (they’re called the right for a reason by the way). Liberals hate America. They hate the fact that this administration is doing all the things they say they want to do. They’re freed over 60 million people. Given democracy and freedom to them. What does the Left do? Continually try to undermine that. We are at war with terrorists worldwide. Whats the Left do? Continually speak out against our troops, the war effort, the fact that we have to pay for it. The Left is just pissed that this administration actually does what it says and doesn’t cater to special interests and wacko fringe lefty groups. Good luck with that tactic. I’m sure you guys will get the whole “values” thing soon.
Give me a break. Speaking out against Bush’s policy is not speaking out against the troops. Saying we’re aganst the war in Iraq is not saying we’re against the war on Al Qida. You folks have a little problem with conflation, you know that.
All you have are your Rush Limbaugh bullet points and a whole bunch of ignorance. Yes we’re angry at the direction of this country. It’s being run by a bunch of immoral hucksters who have counted on the fact that at least 50.0001% or more of the voting US population can be brainwashed into beleaving anything as long as it’s repeated to them long enough.
“Liberals hate America.”
“Liberals hate America.”
“Liberals hate America.”
“Liberals hate America.”
“Liberals hate America.”
…..AAAAAANNNND….. you’re brainwashed. We LOVE America, Mark. We just hate what Bush is doing to this country, and to the lower classes who have to fight his war for him.
I promised I wasn’t going to get poltical on this blog anymore, but I have to jump in to agree with Ty here.
What’s next Mark, invading Iran? Then North Korea? Then Syria? You want a world war, Mark? At some point they’re going to have to draft all of us to free these millions of poeple, you know.
Think of all the wonderful things that we could have done with that money and manpower in this country? And why we didn’t spend our efforts on getting Bin Laden instead of forgetting about him to go after Saddam is something NO Republican can adiquately answer.
Mark, I shouldn’t even have to defend my love of America to you. I have lived abroad. I know how great we have it here. I love this country just as much as you do, if not more. Since when did Republicans have a monopoly on patriotism? Do you believe everything Rush Limbaugh says? Do you honestly believe that only the right loves America and that everyone else hates it here? Who has this administration freed? And are you honestly saying with a straight face that this administration does not cater to special interest groups and wacko fringe groups?! You’re joking, right Mark? Just making a funny? Otherwise, how do you explain all of the pandering to conservative Christians and fundamentalists? It’s been four years of catering to them, among others.
It seems the left in this country is in a tizzy. Can they even congratulate the Iraqi’s and the Afghani’s on a job well done? These people were being tortured and slaughtered two years ago. Women were not allowed to speak. They were dying by the hundreds. There was no freedom. And now they’re having free elections where more people voted than in the United States. I think we are doing something right. Unless that is if you don’t care about peace in the world and our own protection.
Lots of people all over the world are being tortured and slaughtered. Where is the outcry for them? Should we invade all of those countries too? Do the elections justify the war, or is it just a step in the right direction?
So what are you saying gombro? We shouldn’t protect ourselves now? We should sit back and pray these other countries play nice? Sorry. The world doesn’t work that way. These people won’t stop. They only believe in force. If it comes to it, you have to step up. War is what built our country and every free nation in the world. Its not pretty. Stella is the kind of guy who in 1942 would have been preaching that its not worth it. That Germany can have Poland and France. That they can kill Jews and Catholics and anyone else. All because we were losing too many young men and whats the point anyway?
“A job well done”?? That just proves how ignorant you are, Mark. Bin Laden’s still at large; the reason we went into Afghanistan was to get him, or don’t you remember? Iraq?? That was a disaster. When Clinton had his TRULY humanitarian war in Bosnia, not a single US soldier died and just a few civilians. In Iraq it’s way over 100,000 dead total. By any reasonable military assessment, that has been a botched war at best. Okay, Saddam didn’t WIN the war, but we won it in the most incompetent and disasterous way possible. Now Iraq is swarming with terrorists where there were none before, and the buck stops with Bush.
As for your strange claim that the Dems have an irrational hatred for Bush, maybe you don’t remember how the right went after Clinton month after month/year after year about Whitewater, Paula Jones, and “Travelgate” each of which turned out to be nothing. In the end they impeached him for the pathetic little crime of lying about a consensual affair. Talk about irrational hatred and not being able to deal with the fact that your side lost the election.
Bush on the other hand is truly and dangerously incompetent.
“War is what built our country and every free nation in the world.”
Okay, you posted that while I was writing my other post. Now it’s clear. You’re just some sort of war monger/gun nut who gets hard-ons looking at footage of mushroom clouds going up. You really need therapy buddy. You sound just like Buck Turgeson in DR. STRANGELOVE.
I rhetorically asked Mark if he wanted us to start World War III, and shockingly enough… Is it just me or has he basically just said yes?
So, Mark, what do you propose? Should the U.S. invade every single country it perceives as a potential threat? Should we invade Syria, North Korea and Iran? Anywhere else? Does it ever stop? Our troops are already spread thin. What do we do about that? Would you suggest a draft? You do realize that eradicating terrorism is impossible. It can never be done. Just as ridding the world of crime is impossible. I am not saying that means you just give up, so don’t misinterpret my words. I’m just wondering where you personally draw the line. I would seriously like to know, so please try to stop yourself from going on the attack and calling me names. See if maybe you can give a thoughtful, reasonable response for a change. I’d really like to know what you think.
Let me give you my point of view as a mexican. I love americans (you´re so much fun), but I, and probably all of the mexicans, hate Bush.
You, your fellow Mexicans, most everyone else in the free and unfree world, and a ton of Americans hate Bush for very good reason. It’s really tragic. The only people in the whole world who actually like Bush are Tony Blair and barely 51% of the US voters. Our good friends the Candadians are so mad at him that last time he went there, there was actually some talk of arresting him as a war criminal and sending him to the Hague!
In his last post, Mark wrote, “So what are you saying gombro? We shouldn’t protect ourselves now? We should sit back and pray these other countries play nice? Sorry. The world doesn’t work that way. These people won’t stop. They only believe in force.”
Then by your own sick logic, Mark, you ought to be dead right now.
I haven’t posted on this site in something like a month. Most of the regulars here know that prior to my departure I was in the identical kinds of protracted, heated fights with Mark and bicycle bob that almost every regular contributor here gets sucked into. The difference is, I think I’m the only one who Mark and bicycle bob harass by e-mail. And, despite my very reluctant choice to completely disappear from this site out of security concerns for my family, I HAVE CONTINUED TO RECEIVE HATE MAIL FROM THESE TWO MALIGNANT BASTARDS EVERY SINGLE DAY. I have not responded to a single one of their e-mails, so it cannot be said that I have in any way continued to provoke them.
Obviously, I can no longer count on these two scumbags to learn to play nice. And, obviously, they won’t stop. What are my choices? Well, I can continue to ignore them and pray for the best. Or, by Mark’s own analysis, I should track him down and resort to physical force, because conventional peaceful tactics have completely failed.
Well, I will continue to nervously go with the former because I won’t stoop to their subhuman level, despite the vicious pleasure my plight continues to give them.
The irony is that these two right-wing wackos operate exactly like terrorists. Actually, they may be worse: at least terrorists have an objective. These sick shits are just psychotic.
By the way, what happened to Dave Poland’s plan to require registration on this site? When are you going to step up as promised, boss?
Poor Peps! I’m telling you, you need to put the block feature on your aol you can block everyone except people you specfically want to have emailing you.
And yes, Dave? What’s going on with that “idiot filter”, or should we say fascist/terrorist filter?
Sounds like Mark and Bicycle Bob are more than just rabid Scorsese fans. They apparently consider DeNiro’s Max Dembo character in “Cape Fear” their role model.
I feel for you, Peppers. When I first came on here I saw what those cowardly bullies were doing to you, so I’ve used an e-mail address that can’t be emailed to from outside my personal email directory. Guess what? Mark the moron and bob the blubbering boob aren’t in my directory; they can fire emails at me till doomsday–which might be any day now considering the way Bush and Rumsfeld have stirred up the terrorists–and they will just get bounced back at them. Take Jon’s advice and lock out any “strangers” from being able to e-mail you. I hope that’s possible, that you don’t need to use your current email for business or anything. Then you can come back here and talk movies with the rest of us. I for one am getting sick of even talking to those sick bastards.
So, When is Dave going to put a thread up where we can all list our Oscar winner predictions??
Ty: Why wait? Let’s just hijack THIS thread.
My predictions (not necessarily my CHOICES):
Best Picture: The Aviator
Best Director: Clint Eastwood
Best Actor: Jamie Foxx
Best Actress: Hillary Swank
Supporting Actor: Thomas Haden Church
Supporting Actress: Virginia Madsen
i agree that those are likely choices, but don’t you think there is such a love-in this year for CLint in his dotage? I bet M$B gets Picture, Actress, Director and Supporting awards. Too bad for Marty S, but I can’t see it happening this year. I think Jamie Foxx was more impressive in COllateral than in Ray which was such a ho-hum movie in many ways, but the positive wave of press Jamie F is riding is hard to beat. He’s everywhere and even singing on the Grammys.
The only person I’m really hoping wins is Virginia M.
I’m going to think about it a day or two more…. I just have a hard time believeing they won’t give it to Scorsese, at least for director if not picture. Maybe that’s wishful thinking on my part. Poor guy, he gets no respect. It would be the second time, after Raging Bull, that he lost it to a middle-brow, visually undistinguished tear-jerker. It’ll just be so wrong.
Surprise, surprise—I think “The Aviator” is going to win Best Picture. Anyone who follows this Web site knows that I don’t think it deserves it, but I just can’t deny the film’s current momentum. Also, I tend to think “Sideways” and “Million Dollar Baby” share common supportive audiences who will divide each film’s votes, thereby putting “The Aviator” over the top.
I agree with all of Joe Leydon’s picks except for Best Supporting Actor. I think Haden-Church has lost a lot of Oscar momentum (as has “Sideways”) and a lot of Academy members are going to want to see more work out of him before giving him their vote. My pick to win in that category is Morgan Freeman. I know a lot of people (wrongly) think this was a stock performance, but keep in mind that Freeman’s stock has never been awarded. This is his year.
BTW, I finally got around to seeing “Maria Full of Grace” a couple of nights ago. She doesn’t have a prayer of winning, but the effortlessly natural, affectless performance by Catalina Sandino Moreno would get my vote. Anyone agree?
Moreno is outstanding in Maria Full of Grace, and those of us who feel that Freeman’s performance is stock are certainly not wrong, no more than you are right. It’s an opinion Chester, not a fact.
million dollar baby will win best pic
foxx swank haden church and madsen
eastwood best director. take it to the bank
peppa i’m glad ur back. it hasn’t been the same without ur racist rants. its good to have u back, son.
Take it to the bank, huh, bob? You’ve shown yourself to be such a brilliant thinker, that I suppose if you say it, I will bet some money. Thanks for the tip.
I will put my money on Dirty Harry to win. I don’t think sentimental visions will play with the best director slot.
Eastwood needs to be rewarded for this. It is a great directing job. Marty Scorsese wasn’t at his most outstanding. We just can’t give awards because of great careers or prior snubs. At least I hope not.
Clint is in solid position right now. I can’t see Marty S taking it for The Aviator especially if Baby wins best pic.
Stella’s Boy, I put “wrongly” in parentheses. The otherwise-unnecessary parentheses clearly indicated in their context that I was injecting my own opinion, not a fact. It’s a fairly common stylistic flourish, and not one that is hard to figure out.
Terence, can you give me one example of Eastwood’s directorial excellence in MDB? Creating a good working environment for the admittedly brilliant actors and filming the first draft of the script (written by someone else) without changing anything can’t really be called a directorial achievement.
…and I didn’t mean that to sound like a snotty challenge. I’m really curious. If you were to teach a class at UCLA on film directing, what can you point to in that film, again besides what’s in the script and what’s in the acting, that strikes you as an example of artistic greatness?
Ah, nothing like being a condescending jerk hey Chester? You do seem to enjoy it quite a bit. Excuse me for not immediately picking up on your oh-so-clever “stylistic flourish.” Condescending and pretentious. Quite a wicked combination. I will be more careful next time. Lesson learned.
Ty, no offense (I know its going to be hard for you) but what do you have against Clint? He is not Johnny Flash behind the camera. Well all know hes not a PT Anderson with showing off shots. But he gets great performances out of his actors. He knows how to let them create a role. He gives them room. Thats half the battle. He knows how to tell a story. He makes a 2 1/2 hour film fly by. Is he Marty S? Hell no. But who is?
I don’t have anything against Clint. I think he’s a class act. In fact Unforgiven is one of my favorite films of all time. I also really like White Hunter Black Heart and a couple others, but as good as MDB is, it’s NOT what anyone would call a “director’s film”. It’s an actor’s film, a literary film. Saying Clint gets good performances out of his actors is kind of insulting to those actors, isn’t it? Swank got an Oscar before Clint and she’ll do more great work after Clint. Same with Freeman. And the actors who played the red neck family, their lawyer, the retarded kid didn’t give good supporting performances AT ALL. If Eastwood was so great with the actors in that film, why were they so mediocre? Face it: Clint was on auto-pilot with that movie.
If you want to say it’s the best film so it should get best director, well, then they should throw out the best director Oscar and give the director a trophy along with the producers when the film wins best picture.
Everyone is saying if Scorsese wins it will be for sentimental reasons and as a catch up award. That’s ludicrous. Just because The Aviator isn’t as good as Raging Bull doesn’t automatically mean it’s not as good as MDB, a strange twist of logic everyone here seems to make. If Eastwood wins it will be for sentimental reasons. Scorsese deserves this award, just like Eastwood deserved it for Unforgiven. Again, show me an example of DIRECTORIAL GENIUS in this film besides just saying, “he’s so good with actors.”
Stella’s Boy, that was uncalled for, as was your prior comment. For someone whose positions I usually agree with, it’s always been an unpleasant wake-up call to watch you turn around and demonstrate what a hollow, nasty SOB you genuinely are. “Condescending and pretentious”? Grow up. If anything, in my last posting I was just trying to avoid calling you out as the bristling, hypersensitive toddler you repeatedly prove yourself to be, always lashing out blindly at comments you disagree with that aren’t even remotely directed at you. Other than being a liberal, stylistically you’re no different than your name-calling foes Bicycle Bob and Mark. Lesson learned, you fucking crybaby. Happier now?
Ty, with all due respect, I couldn’t disagree with you more about both “Million Dollar Baby” and “The Aviator.” I suspect that what a lot of Eastwood’s current detractors fail to appreciate is that the film, contrary to all expectations, turned out to be structured as a classic tragedy in the Greek and Arthur Miller modes (with Morgan Freeman acting as the drama’s chorus). Like all great tragedies, it’s tragic hero is brought down by hubris. In both tone and structure, I think the film is a rare, magnificently cathartic experience.
That is quite different from what is, in my opinion, the dramatically uninteresting Howard Hughes portrayed in “The Aviator.” If anything, what traditionally ought to be Hughes’ hubris—his arrogant determination to proceed and succeed, no matter the cost—is in fact the source of his greatest successes. What ultimately brings him down is mental illness, which, while factually true, is the very epitome of dramatic dullness. Is “The Aviator” historically accurate? Probably. Is it visually dazzling? Several times. Does it have any dramatic depth or complexity beneath its slick veneer? IMHO, none whatsoever.
aaaaaaand the animosity continues!
I’ll add my 2 cents about Eastwood as an actor’s director. When Eastwood hires great actors, he gets great performances. Period. Give his casting director an award, but how can we really credit him for all the great acting Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Morgan Freeman, Hillary Swank, Gene Hackman, and Laura Linney have accomplished?
When, for whatever reason, Eastwood has worked with less-spectacular actors, we get predictably mediocre results: Charlie Sheen in THE ROOKIE, Jeff Fahey in WHITE HUNTER, Sondra Locke in BRONCO BILLY. Should I go on?
The sign of a great actor’s director is one who gets good work from less-than-reliable actors: Steven Soderberg from Andie MacDowell, Jennifer Lopez, and George Clooney; David Cronenberg getting best-of-career performances out of virtually every star with whom he works; Michael Mann with virtually every actor in his movies right down to the bit players…. oh, and Scorsese getting great work out of Sharon Stone, Winona Ryder, Ray Liotta, Kris Kristofferson….
Eastwood never does more than avoid f***ing up a good thing when he’s got it, or would you Eastwood fanatics all like to be stuck on an island with nothing to watch but BLOODWORK, FIREFOX, and HEARTBREAK RIDGE? Even Scorsese’s worst films BRINGING OUT THE DEAD; CAPE FEAR; NEW YORK, NEW YORK are better than those.
Chester, you posted your last post as I was writing mine, so I’ll just add that most of what you’re talking about is, as Ty suggests, all from the script. And the tone is the same old tone Eastwood always uses when he gets “serious”: BIRD, BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, what’s the diff?
Eastwood is an unassuming professional, in the Howard Hawks tradition. And yes, like Hawks, he has made a few clinkers. But his very best films will stand the test of time. He has his recurring themes and obsessions — note how often his “loners” wind up, reluctantly, as father figures in surrogate families — and his more recent work indicates he is one of the last classicists working in Hollywood. (He’s also, ironically, turned in to a critic of themes and attitudes that typified his earlier films: The man who directed “True Crime” is a lot wiser than the actor who played “Dirty Hary.”)
Now, saying all of that takes nothing away from Scorsese. In fact, I strongly suspect, based on several years of observation and my admittedly limited contact with both men in interview situations, that each greatly respects the other. I’m at a loss to understand why so many people posting on this site feel the need to tear down one while building up the other. It’s almost as though, if you want to praise Abbas Kiaostami, you have to knock Steven Soderbergh. Or vice versa. The fact is, both men have made movies that didn’t work — sorry, “Cape Fear” is nothing more than a lurid exploitation film — and both men have made movies that will be watched and rewatched for as long as movies exist. In terms of each man’s career, it’s more than likely that “Million Dollar Baby” will be remembered as one of Eastwood’s best, and “The Aviator” will rank in Scorsese’s mid range — better than “After Hours” and “Age of Innocence,” not quite as good as “GoodFellas” or “Taxi Driver,” roughly on the same level as “Gangs of New York.” You want to argue that middling Scorsese is better than Eastwood’s best? Hey, go ahead. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.
P.S. The great James Wolcott makes an eloquent case for “M$M” on his http://www.JamesWolcott.com blog. Look under — no, I’m not joking — “Michael Medved is an Idiot.”
I wouldn’t call MDB Eastwood’s best. I’d say it’s mid-range Eastwood and that mid-range Scorsese is better than mid-range Eastwood. I’m really shocked at all the praise it’s getting. Really. Once your hankies dry there’s not much there. Mark’s suggested that I only like eye-popping film-school savant type directors like P.T. Anderson (who I actually think Is VERY overrated), and that don’t like subtle directors. Not true. I love subtle directors like Renoir, DeSica, S. Ray, and this year’s great subtle director on the docket, Alexander Payne. Eastwood’s not at their ususal level with this film. Sorry. Maybe with UNFORGIVEN and a couple of others. And Joe, saying a director has recurring themes and obsessions may make him an “auteur” in Andrew Sarris’s “pantheon,” but it doesn’t necessarily make him a GOOD one. Right?
I’m still waiting for someone to point out a great directorial moment from MDB. Anyone? I can name some from PATHER PANCHALI, SIDEWAYS, BLACK ROBE, TURTLE DIARY (anyone remember that film?), and many other subtle films. But I can’t think of a single one that’s stayed with me from MDB.
I remember “Black Robe” as a numbingly pretentious faux epic with lots of pretty cinematography and a blank spot where a compelling lead actor was supposed to be. (Sorry, Lothaire Bluteau gave his one great performance in “Jesus of Montreal,” and it’s been all downhill ever since. Last I saw of him, he was doing a guest shot on “Law & Order: Criminal Intent,” and looked so obviously guilty from the get-go that the ending was, shall we say, less than surprising.) “Turtle Diary”? A sweetly inconsequential dramedy with some nice performances by Ben Kingsley and Glenda Jackson. Sorry, can’t see what Bruce Beresford (conspicuously unnominated for directing the Oscar-winning “Driving Miss Daisy”) or John Irvin (whose last two movies went direct to video in this country) brought to either of these films. But, like I said, it’s in the eye of the beholder.
Roger Ebert was just on Conan O’Brian. He understands the distinction between BEST (overall) PICTURE and BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTION. He said that, in his opinion, MILLION DOLLAR BABY should win PICTURE but that Scorsese should win best director.
And Joe, instead of going on a tangent about Beresford and Irvin, why didn’t you just offer an example of great artistry in the direction from M$B? I’m used to bob and Mark dodging direct questions but not you. =)
Er, Gombro, I was directly addressing Ty’s use of “Black Robe” and “Turtle” as examples of films with great directorial flourishes. How does that constitute avoiding anything? And why does everything have to be a confrontation with you?
As for great “great directorial moments,” I’m not altogether sure having a moment that obvious in your movie is such a good thing. “M$M” is all about overall mood and tone, not show-offy arias. It’s the work of someone who doesn’t feel the need to show off, because he doesn’t feel he has anything more to prove. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I’m not saying this is necessarily better than Scorsese’s approach, just different. Different apporaches for different movies. Put it another way: Could Eastwood have directed “The Aviator”? Sure. It would have been a different film – perhaps not so reliant on CGI efects, and more focused on Hughes’ madness — but very likely just as good in its own way. Could Scorsese have directed “Million Dollar Baby”? Again, sure. Might have been even darker, and more overlaid with Catholic guilt, but probably just as good in a different way. To paraphrase Chris Rock: The only way to have a definitive answer to who’s the “better” director is to have both men direct the same script. That’s not going to happen, of course, so anything you and I say is nothing more (or less) than speculation and opinion. Who knows? Fifty years from now, film buffs of the time will be scratching their heads and wondering how the hell Oscar voters in 2005 were blind to the great directing of unnominated Quentin Tarantino and Jean-Pierre Jeunet. I can’t understand why, nearly 50 years ago, “Pillow Talk” best “The 400 Blows” and “Wild Strawberries” for Best Screenplay.
Gombro, regarding your 8:39 comments: Are you serious? Most of the Eastwood movies and performances you listed are at least 15 years old. You are actually denigrating his current accomplishments and abilities because of stuff he did two decades ago. (How would you like it if your job performance was evaluated like that?)
As I’ve said previously on this Web site, I am not in any way an Eastwood fanatic, and I have argued that the highly acclaimed “Mystic River” was overrated. But in my opinion Eastwood did an outstanding job with “Million Dollar Baby,” bringing out nuances in the story, performances and overall tone that a lesser director could not have achieved. And, sorry, but for you to criticize the film’s tone because it resembles prior work he’s done is about as lazy an argument as I’ve ever seen here. I mean, d’uh: ARTISTS HAVE A CONSISTENT TONE. Scorsese has a pretty consistent tone in most of his films. So did Hitchcock. So did Kubrick. So did Picasso and Dali in their artwork. So did Beethoven in his music. Do I need to go on?
As for your claim that the sign of a good actor’s director is whether he can pull a great performance out of negligible actors, OK, sure, that’s a pretty strong indicator. But that doesn’t mean Eastwood’s work with the revered actors you listed should be discounted. It’s not like these great actors don’t need subtle direction anymore. (Take a look at Meryl Streep’s disengaged cameo in “Stuck on You” for one example. And what about all the crappy underdirected performances DeNiro has been phoning in?) The thing is, it seems like every top actor in Hollywood today cites Eastwood as the director they’d most like to work with now. And it also seems like every actor Eastwood has directed recently says his direction was the best they’ve experienced. Honestly, the only person I’ve heard criticize his work with actors is you.
I think Eastwood may be at the top of his game and the peak of his skills right now. I totally respect that you and others here may feel differently. But if we are going to use this forum to actually debate his current merits, I don’t see how citing films and performances he directed 25 years ago proves me wrong.
nah chester ur right. we can look at films people directed 25 yrs ago and say they’re great or find faults but its the recent yrs that tells the now story. and right now eastwood is on a nice little roll. scorsese is great but eastwood is going to win the award for these two pics. ty guy, what makes a great director in ur book? i’d stack up clints work the past 15 yrs against anyone. unforgiven, perfect world, space cowboys, mystic river and now baby. eastwood keeps getting better.
Joe, it’s called a debate, not a confrontation. And if you still took offense after my =), what can I do?
First, Charlie Sheen in THE ROOKIE is from 2000. The fact that many of the supporting people are bad in Eastwoods most recent films has been pointed out: Tom McCleister and Ricki Lindhom in BABY, if you want names. Again: you don’t get any weak work, even from the bit players, in Michael Mann films. HEAT had something like 200 speaking parts and eveyone was pitch perfect.
The reason most major actors want to work with Eastwood is that he leaves them alone and shoot fast: Nothing annoys actors more than take after take after take. We’ve all heard them say that. That doesn’t make Eastwood a great actor’s director like Cronenberg or Mann. Again, “consistant tone”? Ed Wood had a consistant tone. Well, a consistantly unconsistant tone. Take a look at Pauline Kael’s great essay “Circles and Squares” before giving me warmed over auturism circa 1961. And Joe, while Ty said he liked TURTLE DIARY and BLACK ROBE, he never called Irvin or Beresford consistantly good directors (he did mention DeSica and Renoir), yet you make the complely gratuitous comment that “Irvin’s last two films went straight to video.” So? Again, it seems like that old auteur saw that great auteurs are always great (if sometimes sadly misunderstood).
Never thought I’d agree with that old hack William Goldman, but come on first-generation, Andrew Sarris level AUTEURISM? In 2005? =) =)
Good Morning, Blog! Some examples of what I’m after:
There’s a moment in La Strada where Gelsomina suddenly realizes that Zampano is having sex with another woman and her face collapses. At the same moment, she sticks her fork into a macaroni on her plate, which squishes into the exact same shape as her frown. It’s very subtle—you might miss it at a conscious level–but it’s beautiful. It shows how that “holy fool” character is “one with the universe” around her. In Pather Panchali there’s the moment after the grandmother’s been banished from her family, and she leaves. Ray keeps the camera focused on the dog in the foreground eating something as one sees her out of focus walking away in the back. It’s heartbreaking to see her so diminished and that the dog seems to be more important to the family; it’s all conveyed subtly in two seconds with some strategic shallow depth of field. Then there’s the shot in Sideways where, after Miles and Maya go into the latter’s apt. to make love, the camera pans left and tilts slightly. Instead of the usual pan to the sea, or the sunset, or the beautiful city lights, it’s a pan to the roof of some ugly buildings with, as I recall, air conditioners on the roofs. It’s very touching in the way that it points out that the romances of ordinary folk are much less prosaic than Hollywood usually makes them out to be, if still no less romantic for that.
Has anyone come up with anything in BABY yet? Anyone?
The way the whole movie is shot is fabulous in Million Dollar Baby. If you are really going to get into this debate maybe you shouldn’t bring up Sideways as your comparison. It is not even on par visually with Million Dollar Baby. Payne is not in Eastwoods class just yet. Lets not start comparing the body of works. That would be embarrassing.
Gombro:
I once had a student turn in an essay on several movies she claimed to have watched. In the course of her essay, she referred to one movie as being released in 1915. I told her she could not have watched that movie. She bristled, took offense, blah, blah, blah. I pointed out that, in the course of her essay, she referred to dialogue from the film, and the cinematographer’s use of color. Problem is, there were very few color films in 1915 — and those had to be hand-tinted. And there were no sound films at all. And if she couldn’t get something so simple as the date of a movie correct, how could I trust her about any other claim she made? She was quiet after that.
I think you need to take a deep breath, then click over to imdb.com, and see when Clint Eastwood’s “The Rookie” really was released. Like, a full decade before you claim. (And by the way: I don’t think Eastwood himself would make any great claims for “Rookie” as among his best work.) If you’re going to get something so basic to your argument wrong, how I can trust anything else you say?
Oh, and by the way: If you want to call Al Pacino’s hambone scenery chewing in “Heat” a “great performance,” I think we’re not in full agreement on the meaning of that term.
examples? how about the training scenes with maggie? how about the cross cuts between morgan freeman at the gym and maggie in the ring? how he cuts back and forth between two fighters doing what they do best. if ur looking for flashy and over the top, maybe u should be a fan of video directors and mcg. thats not eastwoods style. the guy tells a story. which is the directors job. a visual story. ur telling us u can’t find one good shot in all of his movies?? nuts
eastwood went from the rookie to unforgiven in 2 yrs. not a bad leap. and that was 15 yrs ago. what scene hasn’t pacino chewed since scarface? thats what he does.
Come on Joe. That’s really a lazy way to avoid a debate you’re totally losing: Find the one mistake he’s made, and on a release date no less, and use that as an escape hatch to be able to say “how can I take anything else you say seriously?” Using the fact that he was ten years off on The Rookie, not a huge amount of time in a 50 year career, to avoid the fact that the supporting performances in Eastwood’s newest films SUCK, is almost at the level of a bicycle bob tactic. Why don’t you just admit that you’re all mushy in the head for Eastwood, in the same way that all those McMahonists were for John Sturges, Anthony Mann, and Budd Boetticher, and leave it at that?
And did someone actually mention the shot/counter-shot editing of the fight scenes as an example of directorial talent, or am I hallucinating?
Oh… And Marcia Gay Harden’s “Carlotta Valdez” imitation at the very end of Mystic River may be the most embarrassing moment in that Oscar-winning actresses career. But, hey, if you call it a “wrap” after two takes you’re not always going to get good stuff…
Whew,
I’d be the last person to defend the directorial efforts of Clint since I am not a big fan of his movies (i hated Mystic River), except Play Misty for Me, but since Touching the Void and Eternal Sunshine and Bad Education and Motorcycle diaries anbd Sea Inside aren’t nom for direction one has to pick from what’s actually there and I think M$B would be my pick in that list as much as that makes me sorry since i like Martin Scorsese so much, and I think Alexander Payne did a great job with an annoying book.
I think what I liked in the direction of M$B without realizing until afterwards was the subtlety. I worked with people like Maggie who after years of drudgery and a dysfunctional family (who didn’t want anyone to break out and draw attention to their deficiencies by succeeding) every day to be ‘sunny’ was a near-death experience, that optimism that’s necessary to try to succeed in sports, writing, higher ed, whatever. Many don’t make it like Maggie ultimately didn’t, through no fault of their own. I didn’t think it was cloying and some of the extreme cases of poverty I’ve seen in the inner city and rural towns & indian reservations this story isn’t cloying, it’s too real for comfort for those of us who have worked with NBA prospectives and others who expected to fail and die (and many do, often by suicide).
I didn’t like everything about the movie, and I think five other directors IMHO should be in those spots, but with who is actually there, for This year, I think I was most impressed by Clint after mulling it over a couple weeks now that I’ve seen all the Dir nominated pictures. As much as I was impressed by Alexander Payne, I might give Clint the slight edge since I think it was harder to present that kind of material in a way that would resonate with people. I don’t think the stupidity of Rush Limbaugh ever flapping mouth(I wish he’d go back on painkillers, maybe that would shut him up) will put voters off–the fact that CLint got nominated as an actor speaks volumes how he is thought of in H-wood.
As far as the other directors named who have done magnificent pictures and comparing it to Clint’s picture this year…well the ‘Pather Panchali’ of this year didn’t get nominated, and neither did the ‘Accattone’ of this year– but Guess What…those pictures didn’t get nom for Oscar either in Their Years (but they did get nom for BAFTAs didn’t they, maybe an example of the BAFTAs looking more worlwide when the US was gazing inward), so comparing Clint to those pictures is very much Hindsight that isn’t relevant. Compare it to what is nominated.
Every year I don’t like most of the Dir or Best Picture nominations, and often the nominations are based on past ‘passed overs’ by the academy.
The Best Dir award for this year is supposed to be for this year, not a retrospective on the Nom-ed director’s career and not a retrospective on all movies ever made since Der Student von Prag.
I brought up Pather Panchali to contrast true subtle direction with bare-bones hack-work direction, a distinction a lot of people here are having trouble with. And to my credit, you should at least acknowledge that I also had an example from Sideways.
Mr Ty
“at least acknowledge” …are we writing a publication on this? You’d be an author not an acknowledgement.
Look, you can use a long list of movies for Hack-work reference but most don’t anywhere near nominations, thankfully. I don’t like Clint’s movies, period, except for what I named, but never would I call him a hack, becasue he isn’t. He always does his own thing. I just don’t like his styles in general. He surprised me this time, and maybe he surprised alot of people. the only bad thing about his movie is that in the Real boxing world, the Sucker Puncher would have been banned and charged and much of the brutality of boxing has had to move more subtle and underground because of all the bad press and the efforts to clean it up. One of my brothers had Last Rites, I know what the real boxing world is like.
C’mon–alot of great perfs and Best Pictures didn’t get nominated, but for what’s there, Clint’s stuff is pretty good.
Wait til you see Cinderella Man. You will revise your opinion to think M$B is the best damn underdog movie you ever saw..or at least you will think more of Clint’s handling of the subject material. I bet CM will get 8 nominations and it will be the worst f*cking movie ever made with any reference to boxing (Joe Louis isn’t even in the cast list i.e. it already sucks). Ron Howard will win best director, you heard it here first.
Wow, Joe! If you think my tiny “brain fart” of typing 2000 instead of 1990 is the same league as thinking sound and color films were being made in 1915, then I just don’t know. I knew that ROOKIE was 1990 which was, as bob points out, only TWO YEARS before unforgiven. I guess your post just proves that some people get nasty when backed up against a wall. I expected better from you.
Excuse me, Ty, but if somebody is trying to make a point that Eastwood made a crappy film not so long ago (with a dull performance by an actor who has admitted to being a substance abuser at the time), only it turns out that it really was a longer time ago — like, 10 years earlier than you claim — I’m sorry, that’s just sloppy arguing. (Or, worse, it’s willfully twisting facts to support a dubious point, like Bill O’Reilly.) I’d expect to get called on a factual mistake like that, and I certainly will call someone else on a mistake like that.
Now, to address you directly: The supporting performances in Eastwood’s newest films suck? Hmmmmmmmm. Let me think about that one for a monent. Yeah, let me think…
OK, time’s up: That’s ridiculous. I could play the Oscar card, and point out that two different actors — Gene Hackman and Tim Robbins — have won Best Supporting Actor awards for their work in Eastwood movies. And that Morgan Freeman could very well make it a trifecta this year. Or I could point to those supporting players — like Isaiah Washington in “True Crime”(or, for that matter, Dennis Leary in the same movie, more restrained than he’s ever been for any other filmmaker)and Laura Liney in “Absolute Power” — who have been stand-outs in small but key roles. And I could go back a bit — hey, if Gombro can go back to 1990, I should be able to go back to 1988 — and point out that Eastwood got a hell of a lot more out of Diane Venora in “Bird” than Michael Mann got out of her in “Heat.”
But you know what? This is geting silly. Your contempt for Eastwood as a director — and, I’m sorry, say what you will otherwise, but making a blanket statement like the “supporting performances in Eastwood’s newest films SUCK” reeks of contempt — is something that makes further discussion pointless. I’m reminded of what happened at the New York Film Festival more than 20 yeras ago, when Godard and Truffaut each premiered new films. Godard spent a huge hunk of his press conference dissing Truffaut. Truffaut was asked about this at HIS press conference, and said: “I know that Godard has said he hates all my films. I want to say that I like all of his films.” And that was that. I admire Eastwood’s work. I also admire Scorsese’s. Each filmmaker has much to recommend. If you disagree, well, we’ll agree to disagree.
Oh, and by the way: I’m not too sure anyone who writes something like “you’re all mushy in the head for Eastwood” should go around accusing other people of using Bi-Bob’s debating tactics. And as for Anthony Mann, I know one filmmaker who thinks Mann was a great artist: Martin Scorsese. He told me so (well, OK, me and the two dozen or so other journalists in the room)when he “presented” the restored version of Mann’s “El Cid.” Scorsese also had this to say about Budd Boetticher, another director he admires: “His style was as simple as his impassive heroes — deceptively simple.” Gee, that sounds like Eastwood, too.
Lota:
Hey, at least they have Max Baer and Primo Carnera listed as characters in “Cinderella Man.” That should count for something, shouldn’t it?
I’m supposed to be impressed with Eastwood that he hired an Oscar-winning actor like Hackman and wound up with another Oscar-winning performance from him? When I said the supporting performances suck, I meant at the level of the guy who played the retarded kid in MDB, Frankie’s mother and the like. When those performances suck its not even an artist failure on Eastwood’s part, its a failure at the simple level of craftsmanship, and that does put him in hack territory.
And to suggest that the fact that I think Eastwood is a bad director makes me, what?, a mean person, as your Godard/Truffaut example suggests, is just more personal lashing out on your part.
No, Ty, that’s not a personal attack. And if you are so thin-skinned as to think so… Hey, look, as I said, we’ll agree to disagree. All I ask is that (a) you don’t get sloppy with your facts (deliberately or otherwise)in a debate, and (b) you don’t keep going back to say, “What I really meant to say when I rashly made that blanket claim in my previous post…” when someone calls you out for making a ridiculous statement.
i hate boxing and even I know the fight with Max Baer was a non-event. A cardboard cutout or my gramma with a wooden spoon would have put up a better fight.
Russell Crowe just has to speak to “Max Baer”, like try to explain one of his great thought-provoking philosophies on life, and “Max Baer” will fall over dead.
Richie Cunningham will make a boxing movie about a non-boxing legend just like the Fonz was a real Rad Hard Man to be feared.
**EMMA PEEL ALERT!!!**
If you can get BBC America on your digital cable or dish hook-up, look out for tonight’s (Friday’s) episode of “The Avengers.” It’s the one in which a deranged director tries to film “The Destruction of Emma Peel” with Emma herself in the lead role. There are lots of movie-savvy jokes and allusions, including, if memory serves me correctly, a climax that involves Emma’s being tied to a railroad track. Name of the episode: “Epic.”
Rocky and Hoosiers are the two best underdog movies of all time. Lets be fair here.
I am an admirer of Eastwood as a director, even if I don’t like everything he’s directed. I did not care for the performances of the supporting characters in M$B. I hated that little punk kid and his entire sub-plot. Swank’s mother is just ridiculous. And as I have said before, Freeman can do this in his sleep. Just my opinion.
This Godard/Truffaut comment that Joe has now made at least a couple of times needs to be contextualized. It’s not that Godard is some sort of rude ass and that Truffaut was a sweetheart.
As a radical Marxist, it would have gone against everything Godard stood for in the late 60s to say he liked the kind of bourgeois filmmaking Truffaut was producing. Truffaut, on the other hand, was merely exemplifying what Godard (and Pasolini and Rocha) called the “false tolerance of the bourgeoisie” by saying he liked Godard’s radical films (remember this is the WEEKEND/WIND FROM THE EAST period). “Oh, yes how ‘interesting’ these radical films are. How creative.” Godard was just sticking up for his principles and Truffaut was just being characteristic of his class identification.
By the way, after all this sound and fury, the only person to answer the original question about Eastwood’s direction of MDB was bob. A round of applause to bob for giving it a shot. Still, pointing out traditional shot/countershot editing in the ring, and shot/cutaway shot editing (of Freeman looking at Frankie in the ring), is to point out the kind of four-square direction any HBO director would have used with the same script. That’s totally by the book filmmaking. Nothing more.
if anyone can explain to me the danger character subplot in baby it would be helpful. i wanted to beat him myself. don’t blame that guy
Geez, Gomby, you must have trouble with dates or something. Truffaut made his remark about liking Godard’s films at the NYFF in freakin’ 1980, when G. was there with “Every Man for Himself” and T. was there with “The Last Metro.” I was there, I heard both of them.
As for this tired, dated crap about who’s the better Marxist — yeah, like THAT is going to mean much these days — go back to your “Bluffer’s Guide to Cinema” and see who helped shut down Cannes in ’68 in support of the student strikes.
And by the way: Godard IS a rude ass. It’s part of his enfant terrible image. (He actually has said far worse things about other directors — just get him started on Spielberg and “Schindler’s List.”) Of course, it’s kinda sad to see a guy in his 70s still trying to be an enfant, but there you go. It still takes nothing away from the fact that “Breathless” (which Truffaut helped get made) was a breakthrough, and many of Godard’s ’60s films still continue to inlfuence directrors as diverse of Hal Hartley and Quentin Tarantino. As for his more recent stuf… well, I must admit, I haven’t wanted to see any of it since being dismayed by “Helas pour moi” (1993) and embarrassed by “King Lear” (1987). I almost went to see “In Praise of Love,” but was talked out of it BY A GODARD FAN, no less.
Hey Stella, I think the worst thing about the white trash family in Million Dollar involved the outfits Eastwood put on them for the hospital scene: all those Disneyland shirts. Maybe there are people like that, maybe they would be that insensitive, but it was about as subtle as a villan twirling the end of a black mustache in an old silent film. Then there was the shot of earlier of Frankie, having gotten up at 5;30 or something, jogging along the beach to show how hard she trained. That shot became an eye-rolling cliche somewhere between Rocky II and Rocky III. I’d give Scorsese the Oscar, then Payne, then Hackford, THEN Leigh. If Eastwood wins it will be the first time since Pollick won for Out of Africa, aganist Kurosawa, Huston, Wier, and Hector Babenco, that the least deserving of the five candidates won.
jon s, my thoughts exactly. It’s about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Yes, people like that surely exist somewhere. But does that make it acceptable in what many feel is the best movie of the year? I am not satisfied with such one-dimensional stereotypes. I expected a lot more and couldn’t help but be disappointed.
Joe, Godard and Truffaut were in fact doing that dance, Godard criticizing Truffaut and Truffaut acting all nicey-nicey back, way back in the 60s, too. Just cuz you heard it in 1980 doesn’t make Gombro wrong. And can you go half a day on this board without bragging about how you’ve heard all these things from all these people “in person”? Who cares. I had dinner with Morgan Freeman once, should I try to work it into the conversation?
Paging Mr. Poland!
I understand from reading your column today that you’re already bored with this year’s Oscar race — which shouldn’t be surprising, since you’ve been writing about it since a day or so after last year’s Oscar race — but I would like to make a suggestion: Since some of us will be watching the Oscarcast somewhere in the general vicinity of our computers, could you set up a thread on the day of the Oscarcast, so we can share our general impressions during the actual show, on an award by award basis? Puh-leeeeeeze?
Truffaut’s nice remarks about Godard were more or less a public facade only. According to the recent Truffaut biography, Truffaut stopped speaking to Godard (at least for a significant period of time) after Godard wrote a negitive review of DAY FOR NIGHT.
how didn’t clint have himself beat up the redneck with the minny mouse shirt on in the hospital i’ll never know. tell me we all weren’t begging for that. after all we put up with the last 30 min, i think we deserved that scene.
Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. After all of Gombro’s talk about Bob’s not responding directly to questions or arguments, we get old gossip instead of responses to observations about his historical inaccuracies and twisted facts. And, by the way, just because T. stopped talking to G. doesn’t mean he stopped admiring his films. Indeed, given his background as a critic, I would be very surprised if he let his emotions cloud his judgment. I would never put myself on T’s level as a critic, but I learned very early in the game to separate my personal feelings about a filmmaker (or his/her politics) and his/her artistic ability. An example: Last year at SXSW, I reviewed for Variety a film by a director I truly beleive should be behind bars, a morally repugnant ass who I’ve gone out of my way to not stand near during several years of festivalgoing. (I’ve always feared that I might try to smash him in the mouth, just on general principle.) Did I give a fair and impartial review? Let’s put it this way: The review is quoted, accurately, on packaging for the film’s DVD.
leydon please stay on topic and on the proper thread. come on captain
Hey, Bob, I expected you to leap on the Marxist references like a hungry lion on a wounded zebra. I’m disappointed. Could it be you’re learning…. tolerance?
tolerance? its an over used word. we should we tolerate anything that annoys us or offends us? why should we be “pc”? i’m not in the tolerate business. i enjoy listening to differing opinions on movies and politics and sports etc even if they sometimes make me laugh or steam or go nuts. thats what america is. everyone has a point of view and debating it back and forth part of the charm of freedom. cue the music…now.
Geez, Bob. I’m geting all misty-eyed. I’ve badly misjudged you. You’re a true American. Hey, I love you, man. (In a platonic, non-sexual and innuendo-free way, you understand.)
I found the Danger character to be quality comic relief. Every movie needs something light like that. Also gave Morgan Freemans character a chance to show even more of a heart. Same with Clint’s.
leydon, i just wanna hug u right about now. totally platonic. not spongebob worthy. just a nice big hug. like clints gonna give hillary after they both walk away with awards on oscar night.
I strongly disagree that every movie needs comic relief. Some definitely do not, and I for one welcome that. Not every movie needs cheap laughs to lighten the mood. I didn’t like it in M$B.
Yeah, Bob, but that hug better not last too long. Have you ever seen Clint’s current wife? She looks like she could drop-kick even Hillary’s buff ass if she thought Hil was messing with her man.
Hey, anyone else interested in sharing a thread on Oscar night?
Count me interested. My friends don’t care much for my Oscar night rants. This would be a great place to vent and discuss.
Joe, you really have too much time on your hands. This is a work day for me. I don’t have time to proof-read everything I write to make sure I’m exactly correct in every nuance. My last comment about the Godard/Truffaut feud wasn’t meant to be a rebuttal to your post, but a casual aside on the subject. By the way, the Truffaut bio published in 2000 by the University of California Press hardly constitutes gossip, though your teasing comments about a director you want to hit and the like certainly does. Now I’ve got to go back to work. I’ve got a job.
You know, Gombro, you’re right: I shouldn’t expect anyone who isn’t a professional writer to be careful about what he writes, or to even make a token attempt at accuracy. Indeed, the fact that you choose to hide behind an alias indicates how much pride you take in your opinions and observations. But I can’t help suspecting that if I were to make similar historical gaffes, you would use the errors to score points against me. And you know what? You’d be entirely justified in doing so. Because I have to answer for everything I say. And that’s OK by me.
Now go back to work. And remember: After the lunch rush, you need to take the McNuggets out of the deep freeze, and clean up the men’s room
Gombro, do you drive a Dodge Stratus? Are you a division manager?
SPOILER ALERT!
Sorry Terence, but I disagree that the ongoing presence of the Danger character in “Million Dollar Baby” is merely a narrative ploy for light comic relief. It seems to me his story serves as an important part of the film’s deconstructionist take on the standard boxing film and as a counterpoint to Swank’s initially triumphant rise.
In the standard boxing tale, the irksomely delusional Danger would turn out to be a misunderstood soul, eventually winning everyone over, finding his eye of the tiger, becoming a man, maybe getting laid, and probably winning a major bout (or at least getting to land one good punch). Instead, Danger is little more than a talentless annoyance who continues to get berated, and he ultimately gets the bloody shit kicked out of him. True, he is saved by Freeman to fight another day, but he will probably never do much more than mop up the spit and blood on the gym floor. Unlike Swank’s character, his delusional aspirations may be dashed, but those dashed aspirations enable him to survive. And issues of survival are very much at the tragic, moral heart of “Million Dollar Baby.”
I see that Imelda Staunton is a featured star in “National Lampoon’s Blackball,” which was released on DVD just three days — no, that’s not a typo — after it opened a “limited” theatrical run last Friday. Query: Will this help or hinder her Oscar chances?
It would hurt, if she had a chance to begin with.
You don’t think this would demonstrate her versatility (a sure sign of a great actress)?
I suppose that’s possible, but if it means having to watch this movie, count me out.
Chicken!
Let me know how it is if you decide to check it out. I actually haven’t even seen a trailer for it. Maybe it’s hilarious.
Seriously: I am going to check it out, sooner or later, if only because I’m always curious when a movie with name actors (Vince Vaughn and James Cromwell also have featured roles)goes directly to video (or, in this case, almost directly to video). I mean, you have to ask yourself: Considering the garbage with no-namers that gets theatrical release, JUST HOW BAD CAN THIS BE? Could it be that it’ll short out my DVD player?
If Staunton stinks in it, does it prove that Clint Eastwood is overrated as a director?
[That’s not far afield from the strained rationalizations already made on this page.]
Joe, any idea when it was made?
Jesus Christ, Joe. You get two or three people here who actually know what they’re talking about who have the audacity to disagree with you about M$B, and you go ballistic on them for picayune little mistakes. Shit. When I was in grad school a few years ago, one of my profs said the sign of a true professional writer is one who knows that his time is too valuable to spend writing without getting paid. So it is kind of pathetic that you’re always refering to yourself as this big-time professional writer, and yet the only place I’ve ever seen your name is on this blog. Gombro, or was it Stella–I’m franky too lazy to scroll up and see–was right. You’re taking this board way too seriously. If you are getting paid as a writer, why aren’t you working on some of that? I’m here because, while I work in the film industry, my job doesn’t involve writing, one of my favorite things, and this is a nice outlet. But you? What’s your excuse? Did they cut your column in the Penny Saver? Do you use this blog as your “writing job” to get credentials for festivals? The way you’re going at it, it going to be you in all your anal-retentive glory and bob and his ilk. Well, at least you’ll feel important, huh?
By the way, David, count me out of the Oscar-night real-time blog. I’ve actually got some friends with whom I plan to watch the show. It is “with whom,” isn’t it Joe? I’d hate to end a sentence with a preposition.
Yes, Chester: It’s all Clint’s fault if Staunton stinks up the joint in “Blackball.” In fact, everything is Clint’s fault. The newly redesigned Loony Tunes characters? Clint’s fault. The new rules for awards presentation during the Oscarcast? Clint’s fault. The Vietnam War? Clint’s fault. The disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa? Clint’s fault.
Joe S and Gombro, the errors and misstatements that Joe Leydon and I have pointed out on this page are not trivial. They are substantive, and they cannot be written off as minor oversights, grammatical flubs, or typos. I worked for many years as a professional editor, so I hope you trust me that the one rule that trips writers up more than any other is: If you can’t get it right, don’t turn it in—especially not if you ever want anyone to take you seriously again.
Dammit, Joe S., I am a big-time professional writer. In fact, this afternoon, I’ve been trying to track down the credits info for “Candy Land: The Great Lollipop Adventure” so I can complete my review for Variety. (Er, you have heard of Variety, haven’t you?) Then I’ve got to rush out to Blockbuster to see if they’ve got “National Lampoon’s Blackball” in stock. And THEN I have to check Amazon.com to see how many more lousy reviews have been posted for my new book. I’ll tell you, I’m busy, busy, busy. But never too busy for my dear friends and fellow buffs on this fun site.
P.S. I think what your grad school teacher may have said was “No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money.” He was quoting Samuel Johnson.
Chester. For Christ’s sake. This is a BLOG. A BLOG. It’s the internet equivient of a verbal conversation. Do you verbally abuse your friends and say you’ll never take anything they say seriously again if they get the date of a movie wrong in a conversation? The fact that you point out the role of professional editor only proves my point. One has to be in a situation where one can show his/her writing to a professional editor before you can hold them accountable at that level. There is no professional edior on this blog, and yet you anal-retentive jerks get all prickly when someone refers to a Godard/Truffaut feud from the late 60s when the other writer had been talking about their disagreement from 1980. Clearly, Joe is lashing into Ty, Gomby, and me because he’s angry that we aren’t all orgasmic over M$B, and we actually have good arguments to make about it. So pick out some errors in dates and go wild. You guys really need to get a life. Get a fucking life.
Yes, Joe S., it’s a blog. On the Internet. And on the Internet, even in a blog, if you make a mistake, you’re going to get flamed. You can whine and piss and stomp your foot and yell “Get a life!” (an only slightly more sophisticated version of “I know you are, but what am I?”) or you can make sure you get your facts straight. BTW: I have this afternoon off, which is why I can take part in this discussion. If you have this film-industry job… well, I guess you’re not doing much today, huh? Or do you wait unitl later in the afternoon to empty the honey wagons?
Joe, for those of us that might be around for the awards (although my guess is that only gloaters are going to show up), it doesn’t sound like a bad idea. However, if you think Poland is still reading this thread a week later you’re crazy. Hell, I didn’t realize this decaying equus was still being bludgeoned this whole time. It appears that the M$B arguments haven’t improved on either side.
Anyway, if you want DP to put that blog up, I’d email him.
Good idea, Laz. And I promise: I’ll try to remain sober and civil during my Oscar night postings. Well, OK, civil, at least.
Whoa, baby! Look what I’ve been missing.
Ridiculing minimum wage employees at McDonalds, Joe? And under your real name! What a class act you are. Maybe that will wind up on the back of a DVD at some point and you can tell us all about it. And let’s see, you’re spending the next couple of days reviewing: “Candy Land: The Great Lollipop Adventure” and “National Lampoon’s Blackball.” Glad to see you aren’t wasting your life.
Speaking of “Variety”, wasn’t that the only publication in the country to give Costner’s “The Postman” a positive review? Was that you Joe? It would make sense. It’s about on the level of “Million Dollar Baby”.
Joe S, was that venomous tirade really necessary? First, I don’t see Joe Leydon being the angry one here—if anything, his tone has been pretty consistently wry. The only ones who are visibly pissed off and hostile on this page are the “Million Dollar Baby” detractors like you, Gombro, Ty and Stella’s Boy.
And yes, this is an Internet blog. (Or as you call it, A BLOG.) Pardon me for having to be the one to point this out to you, but the fact that it’s A BLOG means you have a potential worldwide audience reading your words. Given all of the current media attention to BLOGS (including numerous articles I’ve seen about the influence of BLOGS on the film industry), it is not insane to think an opinion expressed on David Poland’s BLOG could easily be lifted and placed in major publications. (Hell, would anyone be surprised if Drudge used a BLOG quote as “an unnamed source”?)
Besides, aren’t you one of the people who consistently rips Mark and Bicycle Bob for getting their facts wrong? Does that make you anal-retentive? Does that mean YOU have to “get a fucking life”?
If someone pointed a TV camera at you, would you choose your words carefully or would you blithely mouth off? Think about that. And if you still think it takes someone who is anal-retentive (or, in Stella’s Boy’s words, “a pretentious jerk”) to suggest some basic, common-sense standards here … well, EXCUUUUUUSE ME!
Oh wait! Stop the presses. I just noticed that you’ve ALREADY written the review for “Candy Land”, Joe, and you just have to add the credits at this point. I stand corrected. Please forgive me. The last thing I would want is to get flamed by a guy who spent his entire day off arguing with McDonalds employees on a blog.
Ty, do you have a better gig than writing reviews for Variety? Because I think most of us opinionated movie lovers here would fucking kill for that job. I think a little more respect for Joe Leydon’s status is appropriate here. Otherwise, you’re just a bellicose coward hiding behind a pseudonym.
Gombro, BTW, you stated high above, “Roger Ebert was just on Conan O’Brian. He understands the distinction between BEST (overall) PICTURE and BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTION. He said that, in his opinion, MILLION DOLLAR BABY should win PICTURE but that Scorsese should win best director.”
I finally got around to seeing the Conan interview with Ebert you cited. Once again, you completely misrepresented the facts to suit your own position. Ebert never said Scorsese deserves to win based on his direction of “The Aviator.” Instead, he pushed the disreputably familiar “it’s about time the Academy gave Scorsese an award” stance. The one thing you got right is that Ebert made it unmistakably clear, as he has elsewhere, that he thinks “Million Dollar Baby” is the best film of the year.
I feel like this page entered Bizarro World sometime today. The usually sensible contributors on this site are acting like snarling attack dogs, while a freakish number of people here suddenly seem eager to throw warm hugs around Bicycle Bob. Somebody pinch me. Or at least lose the Red Kryptonite.
Gee look what i missed on this Blog. I should have turned down that dinner at the 4-star restaurant.
An Oscar thread would be really fun except I am already booked to watch it with a bunch of petty vodka-swilling Queens & TVs who want to rip on every woman’s dress and every man’s tux that happens to get on camera. It will take the sting out of the boring predictable winners.
And for folks saying the supporting characters sucked in M$B, I thought they were true and insensitve as only dysfunctional family members can be. I have worked with loads of people “like that”. They do exist and are common, inner city and rural. Dysfunctional people are caricatures in a way because they don’t have any sensitivities to how they are behaving and how they damage the most sane person in the family who has a chance of escaping their fate in Brooklyn or the Indian Res or tiny F-ed up Anytown USA. Welcome to Bad-Parenting America.
I had an easier time accepting the F*cked up people in M$B, than the celebrities-within-celebrities in The Aviator. I had thoughts of sticking myself with a sharp objects just so I could take my mind off the awful Jude Law and Kate Beckinsale playing mere shadows of Errol and Ava. The Aviator was a pretty good, but the Hollywood element in the movie was distracting/annoying IMHO. Not Cate Blanchett’s best, but then maybe this will be her “Elizabeth” oscar.
I will be happy if Marty S or CLint E win either way since none of my top 5 actually got nom for director.
If you’re pulling for Martin Scorsese and “The Aviator” — or, hell, even if you’re not — you owe yourself the treat of buying or renting the new DVD edition of “The Public Enemy.” Not only is the digital restoration spanking clear and sharp (much better-looking than a 35mm print I introduced at a local museum a few months back). The DVD also features a featurette, “Blood and Beer: Enemies of the Public,” in which Martin Scorsese frequently appears to offer on-camera commentary. In addition to his many other talents, Scorsese is an impressively astute and engagingly enthusiastic film historian, so what he says about “Public Enemy” is alone worth the price of the disk. But he also describes a screening of the movie he arranged for the cast of “The Aviator,” to give them some idea of the moods and mores of the period they’d be re-creating. According to Scorsese, one actor summed up James Cagney’s performance thusly: “This is where modern screen acting began!”
I didn’t want to say anything to offend you, Joe, but since you bring it up, you should know that nobody in the critical community I know (in film archives, the festival circuit, the press, the culture world, the academic film community) takes VARIETY’s reviews seriously. They do the business news, but not the reviews. You’re below the NEW YORK POST. I, personally, haven’t taken it seriously, in terms of the criticism, since Peter Bart (or whoever) started hiring William Goldman to write those idiotic columns every year. The guy who wrote DREAMCATCHER calling GANGS OF NEW YORK a mess. I know you don’t have to be able to make a good meal yourself to be a restaurant critic but STILL! (Didn’t Goldman actually write that there was some cadre of critics trying too shove THE AVIATOR down the Academy’s throat this year even after it failed to place #1 on virtually any critics’ lists, and after Scorsese had lost all the critics circles awards for director? Or is that me just “making stuff up” again?)
Your tirade of contempt for me seems to involve me getting the dates wrong on THE ROOKIE and the Godard/Truffaut animosity. This after dozens of factual errors by all sorts of people have come and gone without so much as a peep on your part. Could it be that you’re trying to discredit me (and Ty, Joe, and Stella)—” how I can trust anything else you say,” as you put it—precisely because we’ve essentially beaten the pants of you and your allies in this debate about Eastwood’s achievement AS A DIRECTOR with MILLION DOLLAR BABY. You (and I mean that collectively since I’m not going to go back and see what you wrote vs. what Randal or Mark wrote) keep arguing that Eastwood deserves best director because: a) actors love him (which may be because he’s a nice guy), b) the film’s a classical tragedy (which is just a genre distinction), c) it’s so moving (again, largely due to the actors and the screenwriter), and d) he has a consistent vision (which just means… he’s consistent.) We’ve pointed out your utter lack of logic and you can’t handle it. (Shout out to Chester: Yes, as I, myself, admitted, Ebert did say M$B should win best picture, that it was the best film of the year, but he did NOT say it showed the “best achievement in direction.” When are you guys going to get it through your heads that they are TWO separate awards!!)
When pressed to pry directorial skill apart from acting, producing, and screenwriting, the great VARIETY critic (and Chester, etc.) descends to ridiculing people for professions he imagines they must have (wrong about me, bucko. I’m doing FINE), shrilly trying to claim we can’t be trusted due to a couple of date errors, and the like. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your kind of like Limbaugh and his ilk finding a few stray straws to grasp at from FAHRENHEIT 9/11 as a way to discredit the ultimately very solid thesis behind that film. Your hysteria is actually starting to make me think that your in Warners back pocket. (Did you enjoy your chocolates from them on Valentines Day?) And that you’re worried we might somehow sway the vote! Amazing! Maybe you’re just mad that we’ve poked so many holes in your critical thinking.
And by the way, I’m not coming back, so if you have any answers, address them to the others. As much as it embarrasses me to admit it, I DO get angry by being attacked, even when I know your being utterly unjust, and I’ve got better things to do than continue to bitch-slap a VARIETY critic out of anger, even if I tend to make the best points. Goodnight, Gracie.
correction from my copy editor: “you’re in Warners back pocket,” not “your in Warners back pocket.”
bye!
Joe Leydon wrote: “Could Eastwood have directed “The Aviator”? Sure. It would have been a different film – perhaps not so reliant on CGI efects, and more focused on Hughes’ madness — but very likely just as good in its own way.”
How exactly would Clint be able to film the following scenes without the aid of visual effects?
The Hell’s Angels dogfight
The H-1 Racer speed test
The XF-11 test flight and crash
The flight of the Hercules
If you’re implying that he wouldn’t have included them at all, then it wouldn’t be his take on Hughes the aviator, but another story entirely.
Um, Gombro, um … wow. It’s genuinely sad and kind of hard to comprehend why you or anyone else would waste time posting such an unwieldy bunch of flagrant, baseless, self-denying horseshit. Nothing posted anywhere on this page supports what you’ve said and done here.
I’m not going to even try to address the points you directed at me because, frankly, I truthfully find them senseless and pretty incomprehensible. But to accuse Joe Leydon of being some kind of whore for Clint Eastwood when he has stated god-knows-how-many-times here that he LIKED “The Aviator” is a manipulative, false exercise in the kind of right-wing “advocacy by way of hysteria” you used to despise. I honestly don’t recall Joe ever expressing a preference in the Best Director category, only stating that both directors produced films of merit. It can therefore be gleaned here that unless Joe buys into your camp’s position that Eastwood is a hack, he deserves to get bombarded all day long with the rankest of personal and professional insults. I’m sure Joe is too much of a gentleman to respond this way, but my answer is that you should spend all the free time you now have available fucking yourself.
I used to enjoy reading your postings here, Gombro. I can’t imagine what drove you into the abyss. Maybe someone ought to write a horror movie based on this blog (or perhaps it’s “The Aviator”) because it seems to drive people truly insane.
BTW, Gombro, I do realize that your final posting said not to address responses to you personally because you aren’t ever coming back. Yeah, right …
I realize Gombro has said he’s long gone, but I feel compelled to point out that it was David Poland, not I, who talked about receiving chocolates from Warners. In fact, Poland posted pictures for the chocolates, didn’t he? And yet Gombro, compelled to make his point by any means necessary, either conveniently forgets or willfully twists the facts. How sad.
You know, I hate to say it, but I think I hit a very sore spot when I pointed out Gombro’s errors. You can usually tell a lot about a person by the way they respond to criticism. And if you’re that thin-skinned, maybe a blog isn’t the best place to hang around. And, by the way, if we’re going to deal in political analogies here, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk are the ones who really bristle whenever they’re called on a factual error. They claim they’re being assaulted by nitpickers, the other people are (insert Rightie shorthand for pinko-commie-weasel), etc. Try to imagine how O’Reilly would respond if someone told him he made a factual error — hey, tried to remember how he HAS responded — and you’ll see what I mean.
OK, enough of that crap, back to movies…
Look, as Chester points out, I don’t really have a horse in this race. If Scorsese wins, I’ll be pleased. (“Aviator” is on my Top Ten list for 2004, for cryin’ out loud.) If Eastwood wins, I’ll be pleased. If Alexander Payne wins, I’ll be pleased (and, frankly, amazed). I just don’t buy into all this “Eastwood is a hack” business. As I’ve said before, Orson Welles was praising Eastwood as a director as far back as “Josey Wales.” I would humbly suggest that Mr. Welles forgot more about directing than any of us here will ever know.
Now to address A’s posting: You raise a valid point. When I made the CGI remark, I was trying to address a criticism (an unfounded criticism, I think, but a criticism nonetheless) made by several critics about “rankly phony CG images that violate any sense of organic, first-hand reality” (Jeffrey Wells). I happen to think the CG work in “Aviator” was first-rate, and served the story, but others obviously disagree. Judging from Eastwood’s past work (including even “Space Cowboys”), he tends to shy away from or at least minimalize major camera trickery. (He also tends to shy away from big budgets, which might also put a crimp on his f/x use.) Presumably, he would NOT have jettisoned those portions of the script. But he may have chosen another way to depict that material (newsreel footage, movie clips, etc.) For example — and, once again, I have no way of knowing for certain, I’m just making an educated guess here — the XF-11 crash could have been conveyed by showing someone at Hughes’ plant getting a phone call, followed by a quick cut to wreckage after the fact. (I strongly suspect Eastwood would have done it a bit more imaginatively than that, but there you go.) There are ways to indicate and suggest without actually showing things in movies, as the people who make low-buget, direct-to-video titles prove all the time. And remeber: Back in the days of the original “Flight of the Phoenix,” when they had to crash a plane, they went ahead and crashed a damn plane.
And one more time: I’m not saying Eastwood’s approach would have been “better” or “worse” than Scorsese’s. I’m just saying it might have been equally valid.
I can understand gombro’s frustration. It isn’t enjoyable to be misrepresented. Attack my arguments all you want. I came here to discuss and debate movies. But when people make statements that are not accurate, that is difficult to brush off and ignore. I am not angry or hostile about M$B. That is simply not true in any way, shape or form. I do not hate the picture. I have not gone on any verbal tirades against it. I am not bashing it every chance I get. I have done nothing but make reasonable points about my problems with it. I don’t think Freeman deserves an Oscar for his performance, and I think it’s a very flawed movie that doesn’t deserve Best Picture. That is all I have ever said. To state otherwise is flat-out lying. I am more than willing to discuss my feelings about the movie with people, but it would be really nice if everyone could refrain from posting things that are not true. I hope that isn’t too much to ask.
Eastwood is not a hack. He is an excellent director whose approach is refreshing in these days of music video turned film directors. The man who directed Unforgiven, A Perfect World and Mystic River (I realize some hate that movie, so they can insert M$B), among others, is no hack. I have never tried to make the claim that Eastwood is a hack in stating my problems with M$B.
Well, Stella’s Boy, I can’t speak for Chester, but I certainly don’t recall ever accusing you specifically of saying Eastwood was a hack. And if I did directly or even indirectly accuse you, or if anything I wrote or implied made you assume I was accusing you, I apologize. No joke, no punchline.
You didn’t Joe, and that was not directed at you. Sorry for any confusion.
I’ll chime in here again to say that I also don’t think Clint is a hack. I don’t think Ron Howard is a hack either, but I don’t think he’s vital to the industry. If Clint wasn’t in his 70’s would this work still be so admired?
I’m going to take issue with Joe’s claim that Eastwood’s version of “The Aviator” would be valid. What film in his oevure would lead you to believe that he’s capable of tackling a film of that size? No way in hell. Clint is very adept at making intimate films, there’s no doubt about it. But to assume he would fashion an epic more successfully than Marty is pretty insulting. For better or for worse, epics require set pieces or big moments that put coal back into the engine and keep the train going. I don’t think that’s something Eastwood is good at. You can say he’s a good director but it would be hard to claim he has as many tricks up his sleeve, as many levels of talent as Marty does.
For all this hyperbole about M$B, how many times have you heard the word genius thrown Clint’s way? I haven’t seen it once. Welles may have been a fan but that doesn’t mean he thought he was brilliant. And we all know how many times the word has been used to describe Scorsese. That’s a big difference.
Laz: Fair enough. You’re right, unless you count “Heartbreak Bridge” (a war film, but a relatively small-scale one, at least compared to the likes of “Saving Private Ryan”) or “Josey Wales,” there’s nothing in Eastwood’s oeuvre that qualifies as an epic. Of course, the more outspoken critics of “Gangs of NY” and “Aviator,” including many Scorsese admirers, would reply that Scorsese isn’t very good at epic-size filmmaking either, and that he should stick to intimate, gritty, streetwise movies, ala “Taxi Driver” and “Mean Streets.” (I’m obviously among the minority here, but I think “Gangs” was a great movie. And it certainly deserved the Oscar for Best Picture one hell of a lot more than “Chicago.”) Eastwood will get his shot at an epic next year, with his “Flags of Our Fathers” movie about the Battle of Iwo Jima. But I admit, I’m curious to see how Eastwood would have handled Hughes’ descent into madness.
It sorta like this: During pre-production on “Taxi Driver,” Columbia reportedly pushed for Jeff Bridges to be cast as Travis Bickle. (This according to Paul Schrader, quoted in a Scorsese biography.) The first time I read this, I was dumbstruck: How could ANYBODY think ANYONE other than Robert De Niro could have played that part? The more I thought about it, though, it made sense. At the time of “Taxi Driver” (1976), the two actors were not all that different age-wise (De Niro was born in 1943; Bridges, in 1949), so each could have played a Vietnam vet. Yeah, I know – there’s more to Travis than his military record, but the first hurdle to overcome is to at least LOOK PLAUSIBLE in a role. (Al Pacino is a great actor, but would you ever buy him on a horse in a Western?) Once you make that leap – well, once again, I don’t know if Bridges would have given a BETTER performance than De Niro (in fact, I strongly suspect otherwise), but the fact is: We’ll never know for sure. I mean, by 1976, Bridges already had “Fat City,” “Last Picture Show,” “The Last American Hero” and Eugene O’Neill’s “The Iceman Cometh” under his belt. And he’d already had TWO Oscar nominations for Best Supporting Actor (including one for the darkly dramatic “Last Picture Show” and another for a more comic performance opposite Clint Eastwood, no less, in Michael Cimino’s “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot”). So who can say with absolute certainty that he couldn’t have handled “Taxi Driver”?
It’s funny you should mention Gangs, Joe, because it seems to me that everyone defending The Aviator seems only able to do so by claiming how it’s a return to form after the mess of GONY. I’d rather watch Gangs any day of the week over The Aviator, even if I think the latter still deserves the win (over the other nominees) this year. It would be quite sad if Marty’s dream project is shut out of the Oscars, only to find him winning for a hand-me-down, however well done, two years later.
There is so much blood and sweat in Gangs, that I’m amazed Scorsese fans fail to acknowledge it for the great work of art that it is. I guess the same thing was said about Apocalypse Now; that it was a mess, that it ran out of steam in the latter part of the film, whatever. I’m not saying GONY is quite on the level of Apocalypse, which in my opinion is one of the top films ever, but it has more artistic merit in it than the entire filmographies of most directors. And yeah, it certainly deserved to win over Chicago.
I love Jeff Bridges, but his style of “rebellious” is very West Coast to me. I can’t picture him pulling off the New York street guy thing, which seems more instinctive, animalistic. Now he did some great work in American Heart, one of the most against-type things he’s tried, but that still doesn’t approach the darkness of a character like Bickle. Interesting thought though.
Laz: I have to rush out and do something really glamorous… get a tail light replaced… but two quick comments. First, the “Apocalypse Now” comparison is dead on. I was disappointed with it when it was first released, but the reissue forced me to re-evaluate my original opinion. More to the point, it reminded me that very, very few filmmakers are attempting anything on a similar scale today. I just hope it doesn’t take 20 years for “Gangs” to get its due.
Second, you’re right, Bridges was excellent in “American Heart.” He was also terrific in the “Vanishing” remake, where he also revealed a pitch-black heart of darkness. In fact… I wonder if you could argue that, speaking strictly in terms of performance range, risk-taking and quality, Bridges isn’t doing more impressive stuff these days than De Niro? (Yeah, I know, that has nothing to do with what they were capabale of doing in ’76, but still…)
Apparently, Scorsese “doesn’t believe” in doing directors’ cuts. I heard this from one of the people who works for him in NY, so take it for what you will; Sorry, but I can’t footnote it back to Scorsese himself in a published interview. (And if you think I’m offering unjustifiable “gossip”, well, sue me.)
If true, perhaps he feels that what is done is done and one should move on, something George Lucas obviously doesn’t agree with in terms of his films. When I heard that about Scorsese, I have to say I was very sad, considering how much it seems to me that GONY main problem is that it was just cut too far to the quick. Coppola gave us a redux for Apocalypse (Mary Shelly even significantly revised “Frankenstein” for its second edition), but unless Scorsese changes his mind, it looks like we’ll never see any other version of “Gangs” but the one that’s already out there. And I agree that time should be pretty kind to it even in its finished form.
By the way, I do know that that there was an extended version of “New York, New York” released after its premiere. So I don’t know what to say about that, except that I do trust my source in NY. Does anyone know anything more about this?
Back from the garage, I find… Joe S., I think you’re batting two for two here. Yeah, there was an extended version of “NY, NY” released about four years after the fact (by UA Classics), with, among other things, a big musical production number restored. (I’ve never seen it.) And yes, unfortunately, I believe you’re also right about Scorsese saying he’ll never release a “director’s cut” of “Gangs.” Actually — and maybe you’ve heard the same thing — I think Scorsese has always insisted that the cut of “Gangs” released in theaters was indeed his cut, with no concessions to Harvey Weinstein. (At last, that’s his story, and he’s sticking to it.) Of course, it could be that he’s simply washed his hands of the movie. Billy Bob Thornton dashed all hopes for a “director’s cut” of “All the Pretty Horses” when he stated that the musical score he’d originally commissioned for the uncut version wound up being used in another film, and he wouldn’t want to do a director’s cut without it.
Without a DOUBT Bridges is a more interesting actor, for a long time too. Going over DeNiro’s filmography, the last film where he did anything truly interesting or challenging (which would not include passable perfs in The Score or City By the Sea) was Flawless, which I quite enjoyed. I thought he was overshadowed by Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s drag queen, but he turned the speech-challenged cop into much more than a cliche. I’m hoping his directorial follow up The Good Shepherd will give him something better to chew on as it’s a personal project. Shame DiCaprio won’t be in it anymore.
As for Bridges, I won’t even get into all his great work in the last decade, as there are too many things to mention. The guy’s phenomenal. I’d argue he easily has more great performances in his career than DeNiro, who has a handful of superlative turns in big films, but usually does middling work. In any other year Bridges would be WINNING for Door in the Floor, this year he wasn’t even nominated. For shame. The people who are all weepy about Paul Giamatti’s omission are failing to realize that Bridges, Bardem, and probably Jim Carrey all deserved to be there over him.
All the Pretty Horses is a sore subject for me. I truly believed this film was going to be a classic. Thornton has an overflow of talent. And anyone who saw the film could testify that the man knows how to frame a shot as well as anyone, gets great work from his performers, and can create drama or comedy out of a scene like a pro. I didn’t feel there was anything IN Horses that was bad, but it was clear that MUCH was missing. And it looks like we may never know how good the film could have been.
I was under the impression Daniel Lanois (who did the music) pulled his score because he was upset with Weinstein’s cuts. I don’t know what other film that music showed up in, as the only two films he scored after Horses (in the same year, to be exact) are a documentary on William Gibson and Wim Wenders’ Million Dollar Hotel, neither of which I would think of as compatible with a “western”-type picture’s music.
Stella’s Boy, first, you really need to do something about your antagonistic paranoia.
Second, for you to claim you haven’t got a vendetta against “Million Dollar Baby” is either a laughably bald lie or solid evidence that you’re delusional (you wouldn’t be the first one on this Web site, as we’ve seen above). I don’t think you’ve missed a single opportunity to repeatedly jump in and voice your disdain for the film, for the portrayal of Swank’s family, or to belittle Freeman’s performance. You and I wouldn’t be at odds here if you would just show a bit of adult restraint and stop reacting like some wounded animal every time I’ve presented anything here in support of the movie.
Finally, for you to state that Gombro was ever misrepresented here means either you can’t read or that you are as narrow-mindedly partisan as your political opponents on this Web site. Thin-skinned Gombro fled because he was too damn lazy to get his facts straight (and actually lied about Ebert’s statements on Conan’s show), and Joe Leydon and I called him on the carpet for that. I dare you to review this page and find a single instance where Gombro’s statements were misrepresented. After that, you are more than welcome to join him wherever he is presently situated.
Now wait a minute. I saw that O’Brian interview, and you’re the one lying, Chester, and yes “misrepresenting” Ebert and Gomby. It may be a matter of interpretation but Ebert never said “give Scorsese an Oscar because of past work”. He said “Million Dollar Baby” deserved best picture and Scorsese deserved best director. He did say something like it was “shameful that a great American artist” like Scorsese doesn’t have an Oscar.” But you are the one lying by inserting a “because” into Ebert’s mouth, as in “I think Scorsese should win best director BECAUSE he’s a great American artist.” Take the “because” out of Ebert’s mouth that you shoved in there, and you have more or less what Ebert actually said. You’re making an interpretation that he doesn’t think Scorsese deserves an Oscar based on The Aviator’s merits, but he didn’t say that.
Also, I looked back. I don’t know why I’m wasting my time, but I did. This thread went to hell, just the way I remembered, at the moment when Joe compared Gomby to a lying, cheating undergrad who was too ill-educated to know that they weren’t making sound, full-color movies in 1915. Joe said one could never take anything Gomby said seriously again. A very extreme attack. All this because he’d written 1990 instead of 2000 on a post. I don’t know about you, but there have been times, as a bit of an old timer, when I’ve been causally talking aobut somethin that happened two years ago and have said “1993” instead of 2003. That happens when you get older. Later, when Joe was berating G for only posting a couple of brief anecdotal remarks Friday afternoon and not coming back with fact-checked full responses to every post Joe was making, G said something about “I have a job, you know”.
That’s when Joe started in on his “go check the McNuggets. When you’re done with that, don’t forget to sweep up around the dining area” or words to that effect. And you keep saying “Joe’s too much of a gentleman to sling mud.” Right. The fact that this thread went to hell is pretty much Joe’s doing. Maybe someone should send this thread to Peter Bart and see what he thinks. Does he know one of his writers is being a nasty bully in cyberspace and then claiming his credentials as a VARIETY critic to show he has “authority” here? You know, it’s not just Gomby. I’m getting pretty sick of arguing with you bozos too.
Chester, I am really perplexed by both your animosity towards me and your complete misrepresentation of what I have been saying here. You’re acting like Bill O’Reilly or any one of those talk show bullies. I do not have it in for M$B. I never have and I’m not sure why you are so quick to state otherwise. Either you have misunderstood something I’ve said or you’re just choosing to twist my words. Whatever the case, I do not have a vendetta against the movie. Understand? You’re right, I don’t care for the portrayal of Swank’s family or the Danger sub-plot, and I think Freeman has done much better work. But there is a lot I like about the movie, as I have said here before. I think Swank’s performance is outstanding. I love Eastwood’s music. Tom Stern’s cinematography is beautiful. And there are some powerful moments. I have mixed feelings about the movie. I do not hate it. I have already said all this. I’m really not sure why you are insisting that I loathe it and never waste an opportunity to say so. That is just not true. Have we cleared that up now? Do you see where I’m coming from? Again, I think somewhere along the way something was misinterpreted. I really don’t want to keep bickering with you. I hope that you see where I’m coming from now so we can move forward.
Ok, for Ty’s benefit, let’s go over some definitions.
This is an intelligent response to a debate: The items you are presenting as facts are indisputably wrong. If you’re that sloppy about forming your arguments, why should we trust what else you have to say? What makes you different from O’Reilly or Limbaugh?
This is a personal attack: “Your hysteria is actually starting to make me think that you’re in Warners’ back pocket. (Did you enjoy your chocolates from them on Valentines Day?)”
This is another personal attack: “What’s your excuse? Did they cut your column in the Penny Saver? Do you use this blog as your “writing job” to get credentials for festivals? The way you’re going at it, it’s going to be you in all your anal-retentive glory and bob and his ilk. Well, at least you’ll feel important, huh?”
This is a silly frat-house type of joke: “After the lunch rush, you need to take the McNuggets out of the deep freeze, and clean up the men’s room.”
This is another silly frat-house type of joke: “And let’s see, you’re spending the next couple of days reviewing: “Candy Land: The Great Lollipop Adventure” and “National Lampoon’s Blackball.” Glad to see you aren’t wasting your life.”
This is someone making an intelligent and informed comment: “I brought up Pather Panchali to contrast true subtle direction with bare-bones hack-work direction, a distinction a lot of people here are having trouble with. And to my credit, you should at least acknowledge that I also had an example from Sideways.”
This is the same someone making another intelligent and informed comment: “There’s a moment in La Strada where Gelsomina suddenly realizes that Zampano is having sex with another woman and her face collapses. At the same moment, she sticks her fork into a macaroni on her plate, which squishes into the exact same shape as her frown. It’s very subtle—you might miss it at a conscious level–but it’s beautiful. It shows how that “holy fool” character is “one with the universe” around her.”
This is my personal credo: I work on the assumption that when I enter this arena, I’m going to be dealing with intelligent and informed people who will nail me for every factual error I make. And I deserve to be nailed every time, because if I’m sloppy and slapdash, even when it comes to something as simple as dates, it’s nothing short of a personal insult to people like Ty, Lota, Chester, Joe S. and, yes, even Bicycle Bob, because then I’m in effect saying, “Hey, you know what? I can just pull anything out of the air, and not bother to check its veracity, and you’ll believe it because you’re dumb. I don’t owe you the respect of a cogent argument.” And I will nail anyone in return who’s sloppy and slapdash. And if that makes me a big, bad bully, then I cop to that.
Any questions?
No questions; just a comment. I’m not saying I haven’t said things here I regret. Nor am I saying that Jon and Gomby haven’t said things that seem a bit unfortunate. What I am saying is that YOU, Joe, are the one who dragged this debate into the mud first. It goes directly back to you and your “Gomby’s like my cheating undergrad and shouldn’t every be taken seriously again” remark. Gomby, Stella, Jon and I were making very interesting and valid comment, and once you overreacted and started slinging mud, then so did everyone else. (By the way, “any questions?” to me and “I think you’re batting two for two here” to Jon after you approved of two things he said in a row… Do you know how condescending that sounds?)
Jon S.: I certainly did not mean to be condescending when I made my remark regarding the accuracy of your statements about “New York, New York” and “Gangs of New York.” (Random thought: Do you suppose that, 40 or 50 years from now, people will confuse the two titles?)If I sounded that way to you, then I apologize. No joke, no punchline.
God. Here I came to make another comment about Scorsese’s “Gangs of New York”, and the shit throwing is still going on. Get the shovel Polland. The well is poisoned.
OK, I promise: I’ll go back to movie discussions. I’ve just noticed something intriguing about the weekend box-ofice estimates on boxofficemojo.com: Of the five Best Picture nominees, four are already in profit based on their domestic gross: “Finding Neverland”($25 million budget/$45.3 million gross), “Sideways” ($16/$58), “Million Dollar Baby” ($30/$54.6) and “Ray” ($40/$74). Could this have any conceivable effect on last-minute Oscar voting? (Ballots are due Tuesday, right?) And I mean an effect in favor of “Aviator” — like, some voters may feel it “needs” the Oscar more than the others?
Also: I keep remembering how some industry observers “explained” the “Gandhi” win over “E.T.” — “Voters prefer big epic-sized movies because big epic-sized movies employ more Oscar voters.” I know, sounds simplistic. But any grain of truth in that?
I don’t think profitability is taken into account so much as the actual take. Everyone knows a 3 hour period epic with The Aviator’s subject matter isn’t going to make $200 million. If it looks like it’s on the way to $100 mil, which it certainly is, it will be considered a success (and will be, as it will make the rest back on foreign B.O. and home video).
On the flip side, a film like Closer (and I know there are better examples, but I don’t feel like doing research right now) cost much less, but barely made more than its budget. With 2 very big stars, one pretty big star, a breakout actor, and a veteran director, this one should have made more money. Had it done better at the box office, it certainly would have received more nominations (with the crowded field Julia was never going to happen, but the screenplay should have been in there).
The epic thing is a tough call. They still have to like it a lot. I don’t think it’s because epics provide more jobs, but theoretically an epic is going to have more elements that will impress technicians in the Academy than a smaller film. So there may be a slight advantage. But we know epics don’t win every year, and I’ll bet a look at the list of Best Picutre winners won’t show a majority percentage.
Speaking of box office…one of the bigger box office draws of 1958-1963 has died today.
RIP SAndra Dee
Beyond the Sea was not a very good movie and hasn’t made any money since Kevin Spacey insisted in playing Bobby Darin, and too bad. Loved Bobby Darin and Sandra Dee together in their cheesy movies.
Iota: Amen. Saw Sandra Dee and Bobby Darin together just a few weeks ago when TCM aired “Come September.” Sweet, frothy movie, and they were young and charming. That’s the great thing about film: They’re both gone now, but they’ll remain forever young and charming.
Interesting question Joe. Is there any precedent for that? How much did, say, The English Patient make after it won Best Picture?
According to BoxOfficeMojo, “English Patient” scored a $78.6 million domestic gross. (BTW: It made more than twice that much overseas.)It opened in limited release Nov. 15, 1996, and broke wide Dec. 6. “English Patient” got its Oscar on March 24, 1997. According to Variety, it had made $61.1 million by March 20. By that same date, “Jerry Maguire” had already cleared $141 million. But the other three Best Picture nominees — “Fargo,” “Secrets and Lies” and “Shine” — had not made nearly so much. On the other hand, this may have been an odd year because (a) so many of the nominees were considered indies (in fact, “Jerry Maguire” was the only major studio release in the mix), and (b) “English Patinet” was, if I remember correctly, the first Miramax movie to really get the infamopus Miramax push. (Or at least the first to be SUCCESSFULLY pushed.)
I know people love to rag on The English Patient because they felt Fargo was shafted (it’s one of my least favorite Coen Bros. efforts, so it doesn’t bother me), but I think $78 million is pretty impressive considering there were NO stars in the cast, and like it or not, it’s a pretty artsy film. You can’t just passively watch the thing and know what’s going on. The language is pretty highbrow as well.
It’s the type of film that totally would have scored in the 1980’s amongst the other Brit or European epics (or Out of Africa), but the fact that it won in the mid 1990’s still surprises me. I guess looking at those other nominees, there really wasn’t anything else that was going to win. Fargo was a crowd pleaser but not much there emotionally for people to take home with them. Anyway, I think the credit for its financial success should go to Saul Zaentz as well as Weinstein.
I could be wrong, but I can’t imagine that Miramax ever expected The English Patient to make $78 million domestically and win Best Picture when they decided to make it. I would think that they were pretty nervous about Minghella’s abilities to pull it off and just as nervous about its box office prospects. Initially was it something they could pat themselves on the back about and use as proof that they cared about making prestige projects? That seems so long ago now.
Jesus Christ, they’re dropping like flies today. Now I see that John Raitt has cashed it in.
Son of a bitch! Another one bites the dust. I just saw the bulletin reporting that Hunter S. Thompson committed suicide!
Leydon, please tell me you’re joking. If its true we lost a great, great writer.
Trust me, Mark, I wish I were joking.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050221/ap_on_re_us/obit_thompson