April 26, 2024
Awards
Susu on: The Letters From Iwo Jima review
Krillian on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Kristopher Tapley on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Hallick on: 20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
Joe Parts on: Welcome To The Future
qbtqpidc on: Oscar Morning Coming Down
IOv3 on: 20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
20 Weeks Extra: Could There Be One More Turn?
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
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
Waiter! More conch!
“But yes, in the last seven years, every eventual Oscar winner has been on that AFI list of 10. Not exactly a challenge with 10 picks.”
Hm.. that’s not a good sign for The Departed and The Queen, but I still think they can get into the Top 5 based on the combination of great script, great direction and talented overall casts. (That’s three divisions of the Academy right there to push it forward.) It’s nice to see Letters get so much support so quickly, but I still don’t see it as an Oscar movie, even when compared to other foreign language films that made the cut (Il Postino and Life is Beautiful both had romance and weren’t nearly as grim as Letters).
But I do feel better about Letters than either Flags or World Trade Center. I’m still not sure what you were thinking with that last one, David.
I’m getting a Chicago vibe from Dreamgirls.
Quiet in the early ongoing, and a tour de force at the Globes and after.
The critics awards also seem to be giving life to Djimon Hounsou as Supporting Actor and Catherine O’Hara as Supporting Actress. The low grosses for their flicks may kill that, though, and O’Hara suffers from the problem that the film she’s in is not as good as one might hope.
I love it that Dave still is dissing An Inconvenient Truth. It will be amusing to hear him kvetch each time it wins another award. On Oscar night, his mournful howls will be unbearable. And — sorry, I can’t resist — irrelevant.
Glad to see the drums beating for United 93 and Michael Sheen. There is hope in Critic Land yet.
Would love to see some maniac, somewhere stand up for the screenplay to The Prestige though.
Yes, my howls will be irrelevant, especially on Oscar night (so there will be none).
But it does strike me as odd that critics, who have actual insight into the quality of film, are jumping on the bandwagon instead of looking to support a film that is more than a filmed slideshow presentation.
Give the book an award… that I would support happily!
I am a card carrying liberal, but An Inconvenient Truth is the most boring movie I have seen this year.
David, I’m not sure if it’s just critics jumping on board as much as it being one of the few docs this year that a lot of critics have seen. It’s certainly one of the only ones that has been sent out en masse via screeners. There are a lot of other great docs this year, but none really have the support of a studio like Paramount Vantage (which is already well ahead of its precursor in terms of quality of film and getting their films seen).
Could be, ED. I don’t think that is the case with LAFCA, but absolutely possible for many other groups.
I don’t get it. The Queen is THE most overrated movie all year. It’s about nothing. Helen Mirren might win, but she doesn’t deserve it. There is no arc to her character or the story (which was the point, I get it), but it doesn’t make the movie arty or good. It’s the emperor with no clothes of this Oscar season. Michael Sheen was great and deserves a nod, but he shouldn’t win. Hands down, Jack Earle Haley should get it for Little Children, absolutely the best American movie this year. Todd Field’s film was ambitious in its content, visually dazzling in a way it didn’t need to be, and brilliant in the way it played upon our knowledge of horror film conventions. It’s very sad to me that the movie has gotten such little support or love.
Brokeback Mountain!
Good to know. But you know, most people (including me, I believe) have the best winner in their top ten. Just the way it’s been lately. You really have to be off the grid not to pick it. I remain baffled by the AFI’s choice to leave Departed off – but so much so that I have no choice but to ignore it completely.
The Queen has an arc. She doesn’t want to go out in public, then she does.
I’m not sold on Mirren yet. The character is far, far from sympathetic, and despite impressing people for nailing the exterior (we really could never know what the Queen is REALLY like), I imagine it has the potential to still leave people (namely academy members) cold.
For a supposed lock, I think she’s vulnerable. The Academy loves to award a veteran, but compare it to the juicier roles from winners like Jessica Tandy, Morgan Freeman, Al Pacino, Paul Newman, Henry Fonda, etc.
One thing to consider is that Almodovar has Academy recognition, and Volver will play well on the small screens that many voters will watch it on. Cruz should be able to fend off Streep in the Comedy/Musical category at the Globes (due partly to the international makeup of the voters) and present a legit challenge for the Oscar, regardless of whether or not Mirren sweeps the critics’ polls.
Winslet would seem like another possibility because of her pedigree, but don’t you have to win SOMETHING to build traction?
Laz, Cruz is in Drama at the Globes. The only hope she has of winning there is if Globe voters decide to her her a Globe for playing a queen on television and not on film. But the way I see it is that Mirren wins two globes for playing Queen Elizabeth I and II. That’ll be a story.
“Quiet in the early ongoing, and a tour de force at the Globes and after.”
The reason for that was because Chicago and Dreamgirls aren’t the sort of movies that critics dole out prizes to. They can like them, but they’re musicals so they’re naturally inferior product (yawn). But, yeah, then the Globes kick in and the Guilds chime in and it’s good day sailor for it. But, still, we’ll see.
I’ve already commented on Darwin’s Nightmare in the other thread. But again, why should Darwin’s Nightmare be penalised because it wasn’t released in time to qualify last year. This is on the same vibe as the who/who isn’t relevant argument. Why should LA give an award to something like Deliver Us From Evil or Shut Up and Sing or whatever else, just because Darwin’s Nightmare has already been nominated for Best Documentary at this year’s Oscars? And it was a runner-up prize! Even less reason to care whether they cited it or not.
On the critics awards, I’m glad that they’re not all doing the same thing – Iwo Jima/Scorsese for the big two. So glad that United 93 is getting recognised (although, it seems sort of silly to name 93 Best Picture and then Scorsese as Best Director) and the here-and-there wins for stuff like Volver, Happy Feet, Pan’s Labyrinth, Children of Men, Marie Antoinette and so on.
Anyone see Roeper on TV this weekend attributing the film “As Good as it Gets” to Nancy Meyers? He was bashing her ouevre and, incredibly, singled out the Nicholson “you make me want to be a better man” speech from ASAIG as an example of how Meyers caters to female wish fulfillment. Except that, you know, that movie was written by Mark Andrus and directed by James L. Brooks. I can only think he got it confused with “Something’s Gotta Give” except it wasn’t just a title mess-up. Can’t believe no one caught that over there.
Unlike most of the foreign-language movies, Letters is financed by two US studios and directed by an US director, so I won’t be surprise if it win Best Picture award in Oscar.
To be fair to dumbass Roeper, SGTG and AGAIG are superficially pretty similar, and they have Bruce Block in common.
But for a critic to say that on national television is pretty damn ridiculous. Not only does it insult Meyers for something she didn’t even do, but it insults Andrus too. What would Roeper say if he found out AGAIG was written by a man?
I haven’t heard the entire context of Roeper’s review, but what’s so bad about Nancy Meyers making a movie with “female wish fulfillment” at it’s core? Nobody bats an eyelid when a male director makes a movie filled with sex and blood and action. Unless it’s Woody Allen or someone European. Cause they’re just doing their job.
Or if a female ever did make a movie like that they’d say she was pandering to teenage male tastes or some bull like that.
(Does anybody else have problems signing into typekey? let david know)
Anyway, about the awards. This is really befuddling. #1 – Letters; if it’s in Japanese isn’t that a foreign language film entry? What qualifies it for a US movie?
#2 – The movies mentioned as winners (United 93, the Queen), most of America didn’t see those movies on first run, maybe on DVD. So how will that shape up come Golden Globes and Oscar?
#3-Would Apocalypto also qualify as a foreign language film being made in Mexico and in a non-English language.
#4 – what the heck are these societies and boards looking for?
For the Departed to be totally overlooked in almost every category is a headscratcher. Equally, Dreamgirls has all the hype and isn’t getting anything? Wow!
Based on the movies I saw, I would have chosen DiCaprio as best actor award in Blood Diamond and supporting in the Departed; Scorcesee for the Departed; and Sasha Cohen as best actor – give me a break!
It will be interesting to see what the TV audience for the Oscars are, because if they follow the trend, it’s going to be a snoozy night.
(Does anybody else have problems signing into typekey? let david know)
Anyway, about the awards. This is really befuddling. #1 – Letters; if it’s in Japanese isn’t that a foreign language film entry? What qualifies it for a US movie?
#2 – The movies mentioned as winners (United 93, the Queen), most of America didn’t see those movies on first run, maybe on DVD. So how will that shape up come Golden Globes and Oscar?
#3-Would Apocalypto also qualify as a foreign language film being made in Mexico and in a non-English language.
#4 – what the heck are these societies and boards looking for?
For the Departed to be totally overlooked in almost every category is a headscratcher. Equally, Dreamgirls has all the hype and isn’t getting anything? Wow!
Based on the movies I saw, I would have chosen DiCaprio as best actor award in Blood Diamond and supporting in the Departed; Scorcesee for the Departed; and Sasha Cohen as best actor – give me a break!
It will be interesting to see what the TV audience for the Oscars are, because if they follow the trend, it’s going to be a snoozy night.
One thing to remember about the AFI – it’s the “American” Film Institute so The Queen wasn’t eligible. Their eligibility rules:
“Motion picture with significant creative and/or production elements from the United States. The motion picture need not be presented in the English language if it is incontrovertibly American.”
K-Camel:
Where are you getting that Cruz categorization from? According to D-Po’s Oscar charts, he has her listed as C/M.
And don’t the Globes ultimately determine that themselves? Like when Nicholson won for About Schmidt in Drama over Day-Lewis and said in his speech “And I thought we were making a comedy?”. Or Wonder Boys being considered a Drama while Almost Famous was slotted as a Comedy the same year?
They made a mistake leaving off DEPARTED.
It may not be the best but it is certainly one of the 10 best of the year.
I share DP’s and everyone’s Oscar Mania and all, but just to keep things in perspective re: the Oscars as some end-all designation of eternally last quality:
HELEN HUNT WON AN ACADEMY AWARD.
I rest my case.
I might be wrong on that, Laz… things keep changing with them (the GGs)…
“Motion picture with significant creative and/or production elements from the United States. The motion picture need not be presented in the English language if it is incontrovertibly American.”
So how did Borat get in there? It’s pretty obvious that it’s anti-American.
Laz, I read it at the Envelope. They had the HFPA’s official listings. Cruz was Drama, Breslan was Lead, DiCaprio and Damon were Lead and so on. I’d find the link but I can’t be buggared, to be honest.
Iwo Jima and Apocalypto were both financed by America, whereas The Queen was not (it’s a British film)
Chicago. The Queen is still in national release. It won’t effect anything. The Academy doesn’t allow American-financed foreign-language films into it’s Foreign Language category. People need to get over the fact that The Departed isn’t winning everything. These groups don’t have 5/6 nominees so it’s not like they can show up there and they must’ve just liked other stuff better for the win.