April 18, 2024
20 Weeks
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?
PastePotPete on: 12 Weeks To Oscar: The Battle Of Black Swan
David Poland on: 15 Weeks To Oscar: Donât You Forget About Me
cadavra on: 15 Weeks To Oscar: Donât You Forget About Me
Brian on: 15 Weeks To Oscar: Donât You Forget About Me
johnbritt on: 15 Weeks To Oscar: Donât You Forget About Me
20 Weeks To Oscar: Rush To Poor Judgment?
12 Weeks To Oscar: The Battle Of Black Swan
15 Weeks To Oscar: Donât You Forget About Me
26 Weeks To Oscar: The Year Of⌠Patience
20 Weeks To Oscar – 16 Days To Go.
20 Weeks To Oscar – 11 Weeks To Go
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” â 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 â 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 â he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” â and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging â I was with her at that moment â 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 namedâ” “Yeah, sure â 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 Iâm on the phone with you now, after all thatâs 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 didnât seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. Thereâs not a case of that. He wasnât using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had â if that were what the accusation involved â 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. Iâm not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, âYou know, itâs not this, itâs thatâ? Because â let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, thatâs what it lacked. Thatâs 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
Personally I’m quite excited about most of the films set to come out this fall! There seem to be plenty of interesting projects in the hands of inspiring directors and with awards-worthy casts and crew!
I kind of like it that there’s no one “in the lead” for awards this year, perhaps this time we’ll get some more diversity! It will definitely make things more interesting! ;o)
ps: can’t believe am the first to comment, hasn’t happened in a long while! :p
As for the docs, Jimmy Carter Man from Plains seems like it could quickly become a doc favorite. And I haven’t heard anything about it getting picked up, but I think Body of War could be a hit (for a documentary) and an Oscar contender if it were released.
You know, the Diablo Cody thing is just irritating to me for some reason, like it’s all been a great big setup for this moment. I dunno.
Anyway, I’m liking this year too. But I’d call Into the Wild the first real bp contender of the year thus far. 3:10 to Yuma probably won’t last, though I would love to see the actors recognized at least. Actually, though, DP, nobody knew Dreamgirls was SO TOTALLY OUT until the morning of nominations. Even before that, those of us in the know knew it was Departed’s to lose. It was so obvious. It towered over the competition.
“The Savages” is so for sure not one of the 7 most possible Best Picture nominations. You’ve been relentlessly pushing this movie even before you saw it, and while I liked it, it is a downer movie and people are not going to want to pop in the screener.
Also, your description of “Things We Lost in the Fire”: “tough, tough, tough, sad story”…have you actually seen this movie? It is about as tough as taffy. Good performances, but the story is so anxious to smother its blows that it might as well be Hallmark Hall of Fame. Your description would fit “The Savages” more.
And the fact that you left “Once” off your list is indicative that you will again let your personal preferences get in the way of your prognosticating. Not only was “Once” beloved by many in the industry, but it was also the very first film sent out as a screener during this Oscar season. They’re going to push this film hard.
As in, a prepackaged Cinderella story? I just want to know what the hell kind of name Diablo Cody is. It sounds like it should be a professional wrestler.
“Diablo Cody” is a fake name. Her real name is the less marketable Brook Busey-Hunt.
Yeah, I know it’s fake. My point is, fake names are lame. Er, unless they’re based on totally awesome Tobey Maguire characters.
Re: the chart. DP still has frickin’ Hairspray on the list as a Best Picture contender. Second verse, same as the first, as they might say.
The Diablo Cody story is pissing me off too. I’m sure it is a really good movie but I’m sick of all the comeback/cinderella stories. It seems like every Oscar season has to have one.
Diablo Cody is smart enough to know that creating this persona is one way to be separated from the pack. It’s actually a genius marketing move. It reminds of that writer who supposedly quit her day job to become a cab driver but in reality it was just a way to get her foot in the door as a writer. I dunno. It is a very smart move but one that bugs me because people are buying exactly what is being sold to them without question.
Not only is Hairspray in the “in the scrum” heading but Zodiac doesn’t even warrant an “and the rest” mention. Song remains the same.
Remember all the buzz around that teenage girl who wrote THIRTEEN? And whatever happened to her?
Neither does “Jesse James,” which I think is going to produce a supporting nomination for Casey Affleck. But DP didn’t like that film or “Zodiac,” and he found “Once” overrated, so he won’t put them on the chart.
JESSE JAMES is at 59% at Rotten Tomatoes, was dissed by both The New York Times AND the LA Times, had mixed reviews from the trades, has opened with a whimper at the box-office and has all the buzz of a dead bee. Just like its eponymous antihero, it’s dead and buried.
Zodiac is not now nor has it ever been a contender for the Oscars. Sorry fellas. Once though has a good shot at screenplay, director maybe. And yeah, I suppose Casey Affleck, cinematography for Jesse James. I’m also thinking Brad Pitt.
I’m not saying that “Zodiac” or “Jesse James” has a shot at Best Pic, but the former will get some tech noms and is in the running for Adapted, while the latter has Affleck and cinematography. “Once,” though, I could see sneaking into the Best Pic race. It’s just strange to not include these films at all on the chart. “In the Valley of Elah” tanked and that’s still up there.
Sasha, when are you going to take “Ripley’s Believe It or Not” off of your upcoming movies sidebar? Trust me, it ain’t coming out on December 14 — not when a frame of film hasn’t even been shot on it.
How has Elah tanked since it only came out yesterday?
Thanks James. đ
In fairness to Sasha, the title did say “believe it or not”.
Apparently not.
My mistake, Elah was released a week ago. Still doesn’t seem like enough time to properly gauge its fate.
Bipedalist:
I’m going to go out on a limb and say Zodiac stands a better chance of making the top 5, then say… Evening Or A Mighty Heart. Or The Brave One. Etc…
Look I’m a pragmatist and I know the film stands almost no chance of getting nominated, but realistically you could say that about *most* of the films on this chart. Zodiac’s supporters are pretty vocal and it will probably be well represented on more year end critic lists than, as an example, Hairspray. Essentially Poland was so annoyed with the film (Zodiac) that to even group it into the also-rans is giving it a glimpse of hope that he won’t dignify. No real surprise, just pointing out a little discrepancy is all.
I don’t even really understand it or any list that would have Hairspray still in play. Realistically, you’re looking at, so far: Into the Wild. 3:10 is the only other film worth considering. No Country for Old Men has been seen but not yet released; Elizabeth had some weird reactions in Toronto but still looks like a mighty contender to me.
Zodiac, Brave One, Mighty Heart – can’t see any of them remembered beyond acting for Jodie and Angelina and maybe a tech nod or two for Zodiac.
Hairspray, uh…not even in play. It just wasn’t the breakout hit it was supposed to be. It came, it went. It’s done. It could be remembered here or there but probably not.
The strongest BP contender right now is Into the Wild, which has a real shot at a nominations across the board, including screenplay, director, actor, maybe supporting actress, maybe song and picture. Maybe cinematography. The rest of them, at this point, are wishful thinking. Eastern Promises probably has a Viggo, MAYBE Cronenberg. Once could upset in the best director category – with the right campaign and if enough people loved it it could make the fifth indie slot for best pic, will probably get a screenplay nod. It certainly has a better shot than either Hairspray or Zodiac.
The Big Oscar Movies will have to utterly tank before the ones released early in the year are remembered and re-evaluated. That means, American Gangster, Charlie Wilson’s War, Sweeney Todd, No Country, Elizabeth, Atonement. From what everyone says, Atonement is as good as gold for a BP slot. I will believe it when I see it. Best pic could very easily see it being:
Into the Wild (widely praised, exciting, star power in Penn)
Atonement (seen and widely praised)
Charlie Wilson’s War (not seen yet)
American Gangster (still a big question mark)
Elizabeth (that’s the one everyone is divided on)
Where’s your winner in that group? Can’t see one, really. Into the Wild is way too small to win. Atonement is too British. Charlie Wilson’s, maybe…American Gangster, not sure, Elizabeth, too foreign.
Where is our Best Pic WINNER this year? I don’t know. Gun to my head, sight unseen, balls-out predict, it would be Charlie Wilson’s. I trust all of the people involved but who ever knows, right?
That’s a pretty good rundown of likely nominees. I always try to picture the name of the Best Picture Winner permanently displayed on the wall outside the Kodak Theatre. Personally, “Charlie Wilson’s War” just isn’t doing it for me as the BP winner.
American Gangster you can forget. Is there any precedent for the Academy essentially awarding the exact same “type” of film 2 years in a row, at least in recent memory? Look at the list for the last 10 years:
1997 Titanic
1998 Shakespeare in Love
1999 American Beauty
2000 Gladiator
2001 A Beautiful Mind
2002 Chicago
2003 Return of the King
2004 Million Dollar Baby
2005 Crash
2006 The Departed
None of these have much in common with what came before or after, save for Russell Crowe and Paul Haggis.
What about the thought that after 3 years of more modest, contemporary American films winning BP, the Academy will be more inclined to go epic, period and/or exotic this year? It bodes well for Atonement, and Elizabeth, though I don’t see the latter seriously contending for Picture or Director.
“British” is not exactly a turn-off to the Academy.
After seeing the five-minute trailer for ELIZABETH it’s hard to see it stopped for Best Picture. And BiP is right – the only place HAIRSPRAY serves on that list is to make Cate Blanchett’s locks look look nice when she picks up the Best Actress Oscar.
Well, James, of course it is. Atonement is British, British, British, like The Queen last year. And Lazarus, your pattern thing means nothing, really, as they don’t look at the last ten years and go, “hm, let’s see, gangster pic last year so…” It doesn’t work that way. Not in the least. Like one told me last year, they vote for what they think is the best picture. What you could be picking up on is the idea that something not so fresh doesn’t appeal two years in a row. I don’t see a best pic winner right now at all. That’s why I said “gun to my head.” As in, if I had to pick something right now…
I think the biggest reason why Zodiac won’t get a nomination is that everyone seems to accept the fact that it won’t get nominated. It seems to be as good as fact now, even though not a single ballot has been mailed. Ever since the film came out, everyone has agreed Zodiac will not get a nomination. Perhaps if more people talked about it as a potential nominee simply because it’s a GREAT MOVIE, it would have a chance.
I think Charlie Wilson’s War is the frontrunner right now, but so is anything else that hasn’t been seen yet. All December movies should wait as long as possible to screen because then if they turn out to be actually good, they can ride the momentum to Oscar gold.
Ian, why don’t you wait until you’ve seen Elizabeth before you start making predictions about it being a lock for Best Picture?
Noah, all of the pleading and begging by critics and bloggers would not be enough for Zodiac. It would have to be the kind of film your grandfather would really love. When considering The Departed people must remember that, though it was a great film, the reason it WON was because Martin Scorsese had lost so many times before. That film cannot be applied across the board for Academy’s tastes.
Silence of the Lambs had Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster starring it in; people were quoting the film, it was a huge hit, etc. Zodiac was appreciated by critics. And that’s where it stopped. It didn’t become a cultural phenom; it wasn’t being buzzed about or talked about even when it came out except for by fanboys and critics. It doesn’t have universal appeal as far as I can tell, it didn’t make people cry, it didn’t inspire people or make them applaud. All of that matters a lot more than whether people had a negative view of its chances.
At best, you have a film like Capote which dazzled the critics, seemed “too small” to make the cut but managed to stay relevant through to the end of the year mainly because Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance forced people to watch the movie. There is no pressing need for anyone to see Zodiac – the subject matter alone will be a turn off for many people.
I have a friend who still has the screener sitting on his desk and hasn’t felt the urge to watch it in weeks. What does that tell you.
It tells me that your friend probably doesn’t like David Fincher. I don’t know, Sasha, it seems like one person is an awfully small sample size from which to draw larger conclusions.
My point is that it is hard for Zodiac to gain any buzz when fire it has stoked is immediately quelled by the expectation that it won’t get any awards. It seemed like when it came out, all the pundits said “I love it! But the Academy won’t go for it.” And that kind of qualification and defeatist attitude has made it impossible for Zodiac to get any kind of traction.
And I think it’s unfair to say that The Departed won for any reason other than the fact that it’s the film that people liked the most. We always try to use history to guide who is going to win the award and when it doesn’t apply, then we have to create some sort of precedent that doesn’t exist. I don’t think it’s necessarily because they wanted to give Marty a Best Picture trophy, I think it’s because they thought it was the best film nominated. So I don’t think Zodiac needs to fit into any of these boxes either. When The Departed was nominated, it wasn’t going to win because the women wouldn’t vote for it. When Return of the King came out, it was that the older folks wouldn’t go for a fantasy film.
That isn’t to say that you’re not right. You may very well be correct. But if more people who ran sites like yours and Dave’s would put Zodiac under the Best Picture possibility list, it might get people talking and maybe it would cause a buzz and other bloggers might follow suit and put it on their lists and then people would see it and perhaps feel the same. The truth of the matter is that sites like yours and Dave’s have an influence. But since it’s been decided from the get-go that Zodiac doesn’t have a chance by people like you guys, then it WON’T have a chance.
Look, I didn’t mean to write all this and you know I love your site dearly and everything. But we all have our favorites and it’s disappointing when your favorite can’t get any buzz.
You know, I saw Zodiac. I remember thinking that it was a decent film and worth the money. But all I can really remember about it now is Robert Downey Jr. coughing a lot, the scene where a couple were attacked at a lake, Jake Gyllenhall’s weak performance and the fact that it was a box-office flop. Hardly a picture to slot into a sensible Oscar predition list.
Sasha, in what way is “British” a turn-off to the Academy? If anything, the Academy venerates British actors and films — don’t forget that “The Queen,” which you compare “Atonement” to, got many nominations last year. Are you seriously arguing that it didn’t win Best Picture because it was British? That hasn’t seemed to hurt Best Pic winners like “The English Patient” and “Shakespeare in Love.”
James, they are Angophiles, absolutely. They tend to award British actors and nominate them, etc. The English Patient and Shakes in Love aside –I would argue that those were not so much “British” films, ie British themes, but were more universal – crikey, Shakes in Love is one of my all time favorite films and though it is set in England and about Shakespeare it doesn’t strike me as British the way, say, The Queen was.
Atonement has a great shot at many nominations, absolutely; I never would say it wouldn’t because it was British. But can it win? Sight unseen it strikes me as too British. And anyway, both Shakespeare in Love and English Patient had Miramax and Harvey Weinstein pushing them.
Noah, sorry but you’re wrong my friend. Zodiac has no buzz – it had no buzz when it came out and it continues to have no buzz. Bloggers can write about it until they’re fingers go numb and that wouldn’t change the vibe of the film. It HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether or not Jeff Wells puts it in his Oscar balloon or not. The movie itself lacks any sort of heat. He loved the movie, right? Even he doesn’t have Zodiac in his best pic lineup. He doesn’t even care about being right – he just wants to influence the race and Zodiac is still out…that should tell you a lot.
These blogs cannot push or rescue films – look at what happened with Dreamgirls. Or Children of Men last year. Or Flags of Our Fathers. If I had a hundred bucks for every time “the web” pushed a movie that the Academy rejected…
But doesn’t what we consider “buzz” basically just amount to whether or not people are writing about a movie or talking about a movie? I think the buzz that these blogs can generate eventually seeps its way into the masses. That’s the thing, it seems like you’re trying to put your finger on the pulse of what everyone is thinking, but these sites are that pulse that everyone else is looking at to see what everyone else is thinking. That was kind of a convoluted sentence, but a correct one I think.
I think, though, what aggravates me is this idea of trying to figure out what the Academy will think or why a certain movie will fail with the Academy because of such and such a reason. This is what led absolutely everyone to agree that Dreamgirls would get nominated, but it didn’t. The same blogs that are saying that Zodiac won’t get nominated are the same ones that were saying Dreamgirls definitely would, so as it says on your website “nobody knows anything.”
All I’m saying is that Zodiac never had a chance to build buzz because the number one place to create that sort of buzz (the blogs) has stated universally that the film doesn’t have a chance. I’m just saying it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Look at how much traction Once is gaining because of the attention from the blogs. It might not lead to an Oscar nomination, but it doesn’t hurt right?
Blogs don’t create buzz. People coming out of a picture raving about it to everyone they know creates buzz. And that means everyone: your friends, the people at the water cooler, your wife or partner, your mum and dad. They go and see it and so it geos on. The Departed had that buzz. Crash did, if only in LA. The Return of the King did. Shakespeare in Love did. The only picture that has happened to so far this year is Ratatouille. I am saying ELIZABETH is favourite because the reaction to the five-minute trailer that is playing in from of ATONEMENT in the UK is having the sort of phenomenal reaction, the “shiver up the spine,” of an authentic genuine Best Picture contender. It may fail with audiences, but right now there is no picture with anything likes its buzz.
Forgot to add that a hot internet trailer also cerates buzz.
But, Ian, blogs are the watercoolers of today, with moderators. Here in New York, everyone I talk to seems to think that Zodiac is the best picture of the year so far, along with the Assassination of Jesse James. So that’s the only buzz that I know and I don’t see that represented on my favorite websites and I don’t understand the disconnect.
Blog buzz means jack. Water cooler talk in NY (or anywhere else) means jack. Critics’ awards mean jack. The Academy is nothing more (or less) than a trade organization. The Academy of Tile Cleaners will vote EZ Duz-It as Best Mildew Remover of 2007, and that title will carry some prestige because, hey, the award was voted by experts in the field. It doesn’t matter if other folks prefer to buy Takes-It-Off mildew remover instead, especially if their neighborhood Grocery Megaplex store is running a triple-coupon special.
Noah, I am in New York, and nobody I know who has ventured an opinion thinks that Zodiac is the best picture of the year. As for Jesse James, I went to a party after a screening of it this week and nobody I spoke to was the slightest bit interested in seeing it “A three-hour indifferently reviewed arthouse western starring Brad Pitt? No thanks, darling.” However, my circle is probably older in age than than yours is, not to mention far more wealthy, evil and corrupt. We are all eagerly looking forward to ELIZABETH, AMERICAN GANGSTER and continued world domination.
Joe, this is exactly why I don’t really care about whether or not Zodiac wins a damn thing. I don’t need anyone else to tell me it’s a good movie, but some folks do and often they come to blogs to see what they should like.
Ian, I suppose we just hang out in different crowds of people because I don’t know a single person who wants to see Elizabeth. I’ve spoken to people of many different ages and that’s the consensus that I’ve come up with on Jesse James and Zodiac, but again we probably just know different groups of people and we’ll both secretly think that we’re smarter than the other one đ Maybe I’ll see you at Per Se for dinner one night…
Perhaps you shall Noah, but if you bother me while I am dining at Two If By Sea, I shall have no alternative but to shoot you.
The Assassination of Noah Forrest by the Commenter Ian Sinclair…it’s funny, TiBS is right in my neighborhood. Small world…
Best Supporting Actor: Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton.
The thing that most of you don’t seem to care about is studio intent… and it is absolutely key.
Paramount has no intention of pushing Zodiac. Nor does WB really believe in Jesse James. On the other hand, sorry folks, but New Line is working hard on its Hairspray push and their major movie star is committed to working the season.
The bullshit about my personal preferences driving my prognistication remains… bullshit.
If there are two films close to locks at this point, they are Into The Wild and Atonement… but for all of them, it is a long way from start to the finish line. I’m a fan of one and think the other misses, even though I love the material. That’s how it goes. People who want to make it all about me really can’t pay attention to the entirity of my work, only the easy shots that weak players take. And frankly, the only rationale one can use to push the notion of Zodiac being in Best Picture play is personal taste and the taste of critics. It may well be in the Top Five on the critics Top Tens.
Hairspray is the only pre-Sept movie that is going to be seriously chasing Oscar. I haven’t called it a lock or anything like it. The chance it has is to be the light film amongst a lot of darkness. There will almost surely be one and if it is Lars, it probably won’t be Hairspray. If Sweeney turns out to be for real, because its am opera, it probably won’t be Hairspray. But if both of those fall, it very well may be Hairspray. So take a chill pill, you boring bashers. (P.S. If you are stupid enough to think it is top of the chart because you think I think it is a lock or most likely – I don’t – try looking at how things are ordered… by date) If you want to argue that there is another $120 million grosser in serious play that isn’t Charlie Wilson’s War, bring it on. Again, money is not all there is, but to piss on it is just dumb sport.
Once? Leer… you are kidding, right? Is it possible for a $9 million grosser with no pedigree attached to make it? Well, you could argue it happened with Secrets & Lies… but Mike Leigh is not a nobody. And Searchlight has a full plate of other films to push. Not happening.
I won’t bother making a full defense of The Savages, but let’s just say, a tiny love story about a busker in Dublin or a movie with an Oscar winner, an Oscar nominee, a well respected Broadway vet telling a story about aging gracelessly in America? Hmmm… which has a shot at connecting with an older bi-coastal audience?
I can assure you, BiP, that your five will not be the five. But that’s not your fault. You are prematurely calling a five. Silly. As silly as you “knowing” The Departed was winning just because you wet your drawers over all things Scorsese. I love him too… probably as much or more than you… but the idea that this is about what we like is false. Always has been.
There is no “everyone” who matters on Elizabeth or anything else at this point. When it opens in 20 days, a week later, we will have a real feel for how it E2 going to play. But I have to say… They know. It will surely be BAFTA nominated and maybe it will win. And it has nothing to do with “too British,” anymore than Atonement does. (Can possibly be nominated, unlikely to win) It’s the movie, stupid. (see: Clinton Campaign… if you are going to take that personally)
Also, the wave against Dreamgirls on the web and off was far more significant than the wave for last year. David Carr apologizing for backing the film was the beginning of the end. And that was strongly influenced by web people, unfortunately. But let’s not get all self-loathing about the web. There is no saving… there is no killing… but media – on and off the web – has the effect of legitimizing perceptions. The momentum of the seven films in the top list on my chart is completely dependent on what comes next. No locks. Not close. Not yet.
Yes, Joe… completely deserving.
And anyone claiming they know a front runner to win Best Picture at this point… idiot. You can guess and guess and guess and someone will turn out to be right. But it would be nothing but luck at this point. I like to think I actually learn from my past mistakes. Assuming Charlie Wilson’s War gets nominated, much less wins, at this point is a mistake… even if it turns out to be true. And this year, of all years, we are miles and miles from really knowing anything for sure.
I’m really glad I don’t live in NYC anymore.
Jeff, why is that?
Dave, you bring up a number of excellent points and it reminds me why the Oscar game has ceased to be fun for me. I’ll still check out what everyone is saying just to keep myself informed, but at a certain point it stops being about the quality of the film and starts being about filling niches. As you said, there needs to be room for the one “light” movie and it’s a shame because what if there were five more worthy “dark” movies?
The point about studios pushing their films is a valid one that I managed to overlook and that’s another problem with this Oscar race; it makes it so that the studio has to ultimately back a handful of films when it might have a number that are worthy and then it has to put all of its support by one movie that they want to win the Oscar for whatever motivation. It all just makes me long for a day that has never existed: when movies were judged for their merits.
Are they still re-releasing Zodiac in cinemas in Dec/Jan?
Noah, I would be afraid of accidentally running into Ian Sinclair on the street and having the sheer force of his magnetic personality make every atom in my body implode. Also, the weather’s nicer here in LA.
“Once? Leer… you are kidding, right? Is it possible for a $9 million grosser with no pedigree attached to make it? Well, you could argue it happened with Secrets & Lies… but Mike Leigh is not a nobody. And Searchlight has a full plate of other films to push. Not happening.”
Yes, Searchlight is also pushing “The Savages.” So there you go, right? Except we know “Darjeeling” won’t go to the distance and “Juno” ain’t worth its weight in festival air except for those besotted with Diablo Cody’s fuckability. I am actually arguing something that might make the prognosticators quake…I am arguing that since “once” was beloved, it doesn’t necessarily need an exact replica to succeed! As Sasha says, it comes down to the film people loved the most. And as no less an authority than Steven Spielberg says, there’s no film more beloved so far this year than “Once.”
But go for it, DP. Keep “Reservation Road” there.
Also, Ian Sinclair has been against “Jesse James” since the first trailer (he cries “pretension,” a term reserved expressly for him) so let’s not take his opinion as gospel.
Then again, Ian is the new Nicol D, a contrarian who loves to see his opinions challenged. Should you not wish to contribute to his masturbation, don’t acknowledge him past this post.
Looking at its pathetic PSA and divisive reviews I was right to make the call for Jesse way back when, as I can smell bullshit from a great distance and am therefore delighted it is now dead as an Oscar hopeful.
As for being a “contrarian” – hah! I am just skillfull enough to win any argument I care to engage in, either pro or con. I am sorry that you prefer to jerk off to a picture that a lot of people, myself included, think is a piece of garbage, but that’s the way it goes. If I were you, I would listen to my early word before you start to unzip your fly.
OMG Noah, Joe and Ian are dead on right. Blogs *DO NOT CREATE BUZZ* – but trying telling that to a blogger, lol. Especially CERTAIN bloggers. At best, someone like me or Poland or whatever can nail buzz appropriately. When Capote came out Dave Poland was in the thick of it, talking to people “out there” – that is how he knew it was doing well as a contender. I on the other hand was paying attention only to so-called web buzz. And so I naturally assumed Capote was too small to make the cut. When Crash won best pic (not to beat this poor dead horse) David Carr (speaking of) was “out there” talking to people, voters, industry types and they were buzzing about Crash, not Brokeback. The so-called “buzz” on the net was all about Brokeback.
Buzz cannot be created, no matter how much people wish it could – it is organic: they really liked the movie. Other than a handful of internet fanboys I haven’t heard anything about Zodiac. On the other hand, I bumped into a WGA member the other day and he told people keep telling him to go see 3:10 to Yuma and what a great movie it was. That is buzz. People, real people, talking. One or two or three people loving a film means squat. Academy voters are big in numbers – and thus, the film must appeal across gender, sex, ethnicity, age, etc. It just so happens that the demo of the Academy tends to be mostly straight white old men (who occasionally give their ballots to their sons or daughters). The Departed WAS the best picture. It was helped along by those who loved Marty and wanted to see him win. It towered over the competition in almost every way possible which is why it was so funny that people were doubtful.
The point is, if you think that you can generate or manufacture buzz by faking a film’s importance you as a writer will be rendered a “film advocate” rather than someone who is really sussing out the buzz. IMO. It’s a struggle for me personally as well, especially with readers doing just what you’re doing: advocating for their favorite film. To be right about the race you have to be honest about it and not let your heart get involved. When I love a movie (3:10 to Yuma) it is *so hard* to be honest or tough about it but the second that film disappears and becomes irrelevant I will have to drop it off the list. My site would be completely corrupt otherwise. Like I said, it’s a constant struggle to stay honest about it and sometimes I suck at it, truth be told.
Look, I agree with you Sasha. I never thought Zodiac had a chance, just like everybody else. I defer to both you and DP when it comes to knowing where to find the buzz since you guys do that for a living. My point was only that having a defeatist attitude from the start when it came to Zodiac didn’t HELP the movie have a chance. And blogging about a movie’s chances at a nomination is kind of like praying, isn’t it? Sure, it might not make a lick of difference, but it couldn’t hurt.
Anyone remember Xmas ’94? There were two westerns released back-to-back: the highly-anticipated WYATT EARP, which tured out to be a bloated, arty mess, and TOMBSTONE, dismissed as just another shoot-em-up. And TOMBSTONE cleaned WYATT’s clock. I’m beginning to wonder if history is going to repeat itself with YUMA and JESSE.
The weather is nicer in LA? If you call living on the holodeck “nice”, day in day out the SAME weather, then I guess it is. Something about seasons and having different weather every so often is good for the soul. The weather out here, like everything else, seems fake and manufactured (yesterday and today notwithstanding…)
BiP, HAIRSPRAY is obviously DP’s 2007 version of PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. He has such a boner for musicals that he won’t let go of its chances till they are torn from his cold, dead jazz hands.
Cadavra, that’s a great comparison. TOMBSTONE was a terrific, adult, highly entertaining picture (I screen it all the time), just like YUMA, whereas WYATT was an arty mess, just like JESSE JAMES is; the difference being that Jesse doesn’t have enough material to be bloated: it’s like a sliver of rancid butter being spread over a too large and stale a loaf, which is being swallowed whole by starving arthouse nerds.
Aris P, LA is a great place to live if you are an orange.*
* (c) Peter Cook
“I won’t bother making a full defense of The Savages, but let’s just say, a tiny love story about a busker in Dublin or a movie with an Oscar winner, an Oscar nominee, a well respected Broadway vet telling a story about aging gracelessly in America? Hmmm… which has a shot at connecting with an older bi-coastal audience?” It has great music attached to a love story that is not cookie-cutter in anyway what so ever. Yet… you dismiss it so easily? Piker talk, Heat. Absolute PIKER TALK.
I did wonder where many of you folks up and went to this weekend. I should have known that many of you were embroiled in OSCAR TALK in FREAKIN SEPTEMBER. Crikey.
Ian, can we take your 11:57 post as proof that you have, indeed, finally seen Jesse James and are reviewing it based on first-hand information?
Jeff… seems likely.
Maybe, maybe not. I think actually seeing movies would eat into the time he’d prefer to spend on goading people.
Leer – Being on the “Bowed & Bloodied (Awards-Wise) In Toronto” is not a good thing. It is acknowledgement that it happened.
Dave Carr was not a leader on Crash. Pete Hammond was the first, six weeks before David “heard about it.” And by the time Carr got on it, I had been on it for weeks, Ebert was aggressively on it, etc, etc, etc. And that is how things go weird. If it’s in the NYT or EW, it matters to some people, even if it’s last out of the box. That’s giving them too much credit for being Old Media. And other things give “web writers,” not all equal, too little credit… or too much.
If Yuma or Jesse was as fresh as Tombstone was when it landed, it could happen. They are not. Can’t be, really. Moreover, Tombstone was 2 hours 10 minutes and Wyatt was a deadly 3:10. There is an even more extreme reversal on this year’s duo.
Or maybe you mean it the other way around… which would already be the case. 3:10 looks like it will get to $50 million and Jesse James will be lucky to close on $20m. But then, someone other than geeks and critics would have to be anticipating Jesse James, a movie that the studio has seen as unreleasable.
Ian, just keep repeating the idiocy that seems to so excite you… all you seem to have is tricks. Make a case like a grown-up if you want to swim in the big pool.
IO – I think Once is good, but overrated. But that is irrelevant. Oscar has never, ever been about the very best films. Never. The criteria are different. And thus, Once has been dead for montsh already, whether it has clamor from the web or not… just as Zodiac (which could make a run at some craft award noms) is…
Jeff; I would hope a brother visiting a blog –dedicated to the discussion of film and film related topics — could find the time to actually see a movie or two. He does mention all these parties that he attends. Maybe he’s too busy with the socializin to actually hit a theatre? If that’s not the answer. We can easily go with yours, Jeff :).
“Dave Carr was not a leader on Crash. Pete Hammond was the first, six weeks before David “heard about it.” And by the time Carr got on it, I had been on it for weeks, Ebert was aggressively on it, etc, etc, etc. And that is how things go weird.” Of course it’s going to get weird with 5 guys on it. You bloggers and your use of words. Geez. Nevertheless Heat; Once has good music attached to it. Are you willing to wager that the folks that made MEMPHIS’ OWN THREE SIX MAFIA OSCAR WINNAHS BEFORE MARTY… will not throw this film a music nom? Are you willing to put some skin in the game with that one? DAMN IT! Now I am as bad you. Geez to me, but I never intimated Best Picture, did I?
Actually, as I recall, Tombstone opened something like six months before Wyatt Earp. And while Tombstone has developed a large and loyal following over the 14 years since its release, wasn’t it considered something of a box-office under-achiever back in the day? (Unlike Wyat Earp, an outright flop.)
To add to what David said about what the studios will be pushing, Lionsgate’s entire focus will be on Away From Her, and I would expect more than just Julie Christie out of that film.
Atonement, American Gangster, and No Country for Old Men all seem very solid from my perspective, but I’ve only seen Atonement, I’ve seen Elizabeth and I’ll be extremely stunned if it gets more than two nominations: Costumes and Art Direction/Production Design (Scowling for two hours doesn’t equal a nomination when you did a lot more with the same role in the past–the film is more Godfather III than Godfather II, in other words, almost a self-parody)
I am sort of surprised DP didn’t go more strongly for Atonement, on the other hand it is a difficult film, both a directors showcase, with a love story that could have popular appeal but is also intellectually dense. so I think the academy response will mirror general american audience response, but slightly more positive. it’ll be interesting to see how Atonement opens and performs over the holidays. In terms of acting I think that branch of the academy will love it. It has a European style performance you might expect to find in a Bergman film (Romola Garai), a classic American melodrama style performance you might expect from a WB Bette Davis vehicle (Saoirse Ronan), and a Romance you might find in a Powell and Pressburger or David Lean film (but shockingly modern, bordering on vulgar but incredibly hot).
I sort of understand where he’s coming from on Hairspray, I just don’t think it’s in the best picture race. The film can seriously hope for four nominations, Travolta, song, Makeup and Costumes, anything else is a sort of pie in the sky crazy dream–but it could happen, maybe, when pigs fly. It helps to be a marvelously entertaining and beloved little film, just ask Little Miss Sunshine.
Once is dreary, feels kinda amateur, and has dull leads who aren’t very appealing (unless you go for the wounded puppy look). It helps it has incredible music, but it doesn’t have the polish and excitement of Hustle and Flow, for example, a film that earned a lot more academy support than Once will probably manage.
Zodiac just comes off as an experimental art film that failed. If it was a good movie, if it had been taken away from Fincher and cut properly it might have a better chance for some awards, but it’s more of a sort of embarassing auteur’s folly at this point.
This board’s equivalent of John Locke stated; “Zodiac just comes off as an experimental art film that failed. If it was a good movie, if it had been taken away from Fincher and cut properly it might have a better chance for some awards, but it’s more of a sort of embarassing auteur’s folly at this point.” Apparently quality acting, directing, cinematography, and everything else about that movie being top-notch, leads to this sort of criticism. Yeah… right. I actually think the lack of director’s cut on the part of Fincher hurt this film. BRING ON THE BIG ASS DVD ALREADY! BRING IT ON!
I was predicting a Crash BP nod in July I believe. Was that before or after these people jumped on the bangwagon?
I’d disagree that Buzz cannot be created, or that it’s necessarily about liking a film. Certainly word of mouth from liking a film can create buzz, but there is a lot more to it. And alot of buzz doesn’t necessarily equate to alot of people seeing a film or liking a film and especially not that it’s a good film or the best film. And when voters say they voted on what they thought was the best picture/actor, etc. – hundreds of films/performances that they never saw were eliminated from contention by buzz, or lack of it.
Not all buzz is created equal. Awards season buzz is about what and who is Worthy. (versus 300 buzz or POC buzz or Snakes on a Plane buzz). And Indie Spirit Worthiness is not Golden Globes Worthiness is not BAFTA Worthiness is not Oscar Worthiness. Oscar is a damn blue-blood Worthiness Pedigree.
And because they don’t want to be embarrassed 3 or 10 or 20 years hence, and they do have posterity in mind, and they don’t live in a vacuum, they listen to the general zeitgeist buzz of what’s worthy, influenced by many factors, including who the studios push as worthy of consideration and how they push them, trade talk, the media (including critics/bloggers they deem worthy – and studios place oscar ads on their sites), spouses, friends, etc. And the tiers of what’s worthy begin before butt one has sat down and seen the film.
What’s Worth Viewing Buzz – in a very crowded marketplace, what movies are worth setting aside an evening and driving to a theater, or setting aside 2+ hours to watch that one DVD in a pile of screeners. Look at the vast list of movies that go out to the voters – they won’t see half of them – and what narrows it down to realistic proportions is Buzz on Worthiness.
What’s Worth Awarding Buzz – includes who is personally popular/chic or not, who’s been neglected by Oscar in the past and so is past due for credit, who had a tasteful or rude marketing campaign, who is the underdog, who is a Winner/has Momentum, who is persona non grata due to unseemly social behavior, what the film made at the box office, the subject & gravitas of the film, the oeuvre of the artist, what the spouse/kids think is worthy, etc. The buzz may be that it’s a terrific (worthy) film/director/actor, etc, but it won’t make it to the top five and it sure won’t win if the buzz on the other worthiness factors takes away points.
On very rare occasions, buzz can build about a purely terrific/worthy film or performance – like the then unknown Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves. While fulfilling basic worthiness requirements, these lack the usual pedigree, and are usually put in a “small film” or “surprise performance” category along with mom and apple pie.
And while I think Scorsese pretty much walks on water, and I honor anyone’s opinion that Departed was the best movie of 2006, and I wish to heck Oscar voting were that simple and that pure – in the end, it’s not. It’s not about what movie/actor/writer/cinematographer, etc was the most outstanding in that year. (Looking at past winners can be cringe-inducing.) It’s about a hundred other things that go into the perception of an Oscar Worthiness Pedigree. At best, a Prince can bring Emily Watson home to meet the King and Queen. At worst, it can be an incestuous, self-fulfilling prophecy – pretentious, archaic, frustrating, rigid, boring and pointless.
coming late to the conversation, prior weekend commitments.
i like seenmyverite?’s take on the awards. another consideration is that people want to be on the right side of the voting. to be “in the know.” it’s group think that allows voters to be on the winning side. and that’s a powerful draw in an industry that is 90% about perception.
“tombstone” opened in december and “wyatt earp” opened early summer the following year.
as another los angeleno, i ask what is this thing you call “weather?”
and finally, i have a hard time with “the departed” as the best picture of the year. maybe it’s just a sad commentary on the competition because nothing else is springing to mind. But there are HUGE plot holes that make for an entertaining film, not a quality flim.
Hendhogan, you must have a different definition of ‘quality film’ than I do. I can think of a couple of minor plot contrivances but always in the service of making the story richer and more complex.
this isn’t minor.
the premise of the film is that jack’s character is so good at not getting caught they set up a specialized squad in the fbi to catch him. then he does one stupid thing after another. he shows up at not one but two buys, and this is after he knows there is a mole and his gang has been infiltrated. he talks on cellphones, not the throwaway kinds, but his personal cell. hell, all the fbi really needed to do was sit outside his place with a cellphone intercepter. you might not be able to use the info in court, but you would know who was the inside man in the fbi.
If you think about it. Eastern Promises is sort of like The Departed. If The Departed were a better movie, with better performances, and a much more logical and coherent story. Yeah; I like the Departed, but it still has one of the worst endings ever. Especially if you saw the Infernal Affairs ending, that would have fit the Departed as well.
Hendhogan, none of those points bothered me in the movie because they aren’t central to what the film is really about.
The Departed has a great ending. Especially the last shot.
Seenmy is pretty dead on.
I adore The Departed… but it won – actually even got nominated for – the Oscar as a matter of circumstance even more than quality. The same is true for Crash.
This also speaks to the crazy notion that the season is too short. If Academy members just nominated on Jan 10 and the awards were Jan 31, the whole business of awards season – profitable as it is for me and mu business – would be simplified and I imagine there would be some more straight results… albeit still reflective of the taste of a very select group that does not define “best” except by reputation.
Brokeback and Sunshine and Queen fatigue were important to the wins of the other films.
As far as “deserved”… they run the race and they get a result and deserved means nothing in terms of that race.
don’t get me wrong, i enjoyed the picture. i just think the flaws are too many to qualify for best picture. in my mind, if it wasn’t scorcese directing, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
but i’m curious, jeff. what do you think the movie is really about?
Identity, ambition, and self-deception.
But I don’t think it was the best film of last year either. I’d put it in third place.
well, hell, jeff. you cut a film down to those three things, you could just as easily be talking about “daddy day camp.”
Maybe I could, I never saw Daddy Day Camp.
and now that i think about it, i can see ambition, but who struggled with identity? or self-deception? i saw deception of others. the main leads don’t waiver from who they are though. neither damon or dicaprio waiver in their chosen roles
I think a pretty big chunk of the movie is given over to Leo anguishing over his chosen role, and Matt Damon’s character seems pretty clearly to be striving for upward mobility to get out of his working-class background and into the upper echelons of power. Plus, as far as self-deception goes, he’s a closeted homosexual.
Jeff is right about The Departed even down to where he ranks it last year.
I bet your #s 1 and 2 are different from mine, though.
anguish, yes. but his sense of self never waivers. he never thinks of walking away or embracing “the dark side” if you will. it’s a pretty straightforward character. the ambition i agree with you with (twice now). and wha…? i did not see that. where was that?
There are scattered, subtle references to it throughout the movie. The most notable one is when he moves into his new apartment and his landlady asks if he is going to be living with, er, a ‘roommate’ and he’s quick to say no.
see, now my take was she was inquiring about how a cop could afford a place like this. his response leaves him open to being found out, trying to up the jeopardy.
jeffmcm also sees pornographic images in clouds in Disney cartoons.
hendhogan – i agree re people being on the right side of voting, which is what i was driving at when i mentioned who is a Winner/has Momentum, and was thinking your group think seems like a good Orwellian term for buzz?
agree with DP on the length of the awards season – unfortunately it only serves to put into high relief how much it can be manipulated, how other factors rule – like marketing, timing, momentum, group think/buzz and wanting to vote for a Winner. And when you want it to be about the movie, that’s discouraging.
noah – wanted to say I think your passion for Zodiac is great – if you don’t have passion, you’ve got nada. champion that puppy.
(i haven’t seen it – i’m a wuss for scary movies!)
Ian, I would appreciate it if you would keep me out of your sexual fantasies. Or at least keep them to yourself. It’s really inappropriate.
Jeff; Damon’s character was living a double-life. His lack of being able to perform may have had more to do with stress then him being a closted-homosexual. Nice fucking epic leap there, jeff.
IOI, I don’t mind if you want to see a different interpretation but keep the language and the insults to yourself. I’m open to being persuaded but you have to have a stronger case than that.
Seenmy, thanks but I think you should definitely check out Zodiac. It’s not really a “scary” movie, more of an unnerving one.
I have to see, I’m with Jeff on the Damon character in The Departed. I think the clues are there for a reason. It seems like more of an epic leap to think of it as “he can’t perform because of stress obviously” because yes, that is obvious and we’re talking about a master filmmaker here, so perhaps we should look underneath the surface; especially in a film that is all about wearing a mask of fake identity.
I happen to agree with Jeff’s interpretation, but that doesn’t mean it is correct. I am correct and you are correct and we don’t have to always view films the same way, but respect each other for having different points of view. It would be hard to find two people who have the same opinion about what happens in 2001, for instance, but they both might love it equally and neither one is wrong.
so, i asked around about the brokeback departed thing. just wanted to make sure i wasn’t crazy (at least about this). i went to as top as i can get and asked graham king. he said there was never any intention of damon being a closeted homosexual. to the best of his knowledge it isn’t marty’s take either.
I would politely suggest that Graham King is wrong.
To be fair, filmmakers are usually bad people to ask about the contents of their own film.
jeff, you are starting to sound like the director in the original “goodbye girl” who while making his announcement about how he was going to direct “richard iii” said, “and as everyone knows, richard was gay.”
i would suggest you are projecting, my friend
Hendhogan, first of all, I’ve never seen The Goodbye Girl.
Second, the clues are present in the movie, plenty of other critics saw them, and they’re perfectly in keeping with the themes and interests of the film. It makes the movie richer and more interesting if Damon’s character can’t perform because he’s gay than it does if he’s just stressed out and tired.
Third, it’s a basic premise of literary analysis that you don’t trust the artist of a piece of art, you trust the art itself. And movie producers, specifically, are generally clueless about the contents of their own films.
Going to Graham King kind of takes the fun out of interpreting the movie, doesn’t it?
I think that once a film is projected in front of an audience, it longer belongs to the director; it belongs to us. And if I can find evidence that supports that Damon’s character is a homosexual, then I am entitled to do that because the movie is now mine. It is also yours, though, and if you want to interpret the film differently, then that’s your prerogative.
There are plenty of movies that tell you what to feel and what to think. This is a movie that exists in a grey area and I think because of that, we can both have our differing points of view about the characters and what is bubbling under the surface.
It’s still a great film either way, but if we can take some clues and make the film even richer in our minds, then that’s even better and we don’t need Graham King’s permission to interpret the film how we want to.
Jeff; are you detached? Nice fucking epic leap is not a personal insult. I think it’s a fucking daft leap to take. Not as daft as this; “It makes the movie richer and more interesting if Damon’s character can’t perform because he’s gay than it does if he’s just stressed out and tired.” No; if he’s stressed out and tired. It plays into Sullivan being as stressed out and tired as Costigan. Making Damon’s character GAY adds absolutely nothing to a movie that has “EVERYBODY GETS WHACKED IN 2 MINUTES” ending. Especially in comparison to the TRULY SUPERIOUR INFERNAL AFFAIRS 2 ENDING!
If you truly need Sullivan to be “gay” in order to make the film better for you, then that’s on you. It has nothing to do with art criticism or anything else. It only has to do with you finding this possible angle… cool. How 1998 of you.
What does 1998 have to do with anything? As is so often the case, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Which is fine if you’re just here to post your musings, but difficult if you intend to have a conversation.
Like I said, you can see the movie any way that you want, just like if I think that saying ‘nice fucking epic leap’ is intended to be derogatory and insulting, I can do so.
IO, do you NEED Sullivan to be “straight” in order to make the film better for you? I don’t think it would make me like the movie more or less if my theory were correct, but it is something to think about. I think it makes a lot of sense and adds another layer to his character, another mask that he wears. It would explain how he could be so comfortable wearing that mask while Costigan is obviously struggling to wear his. Sullivan is really a criminal pretending to be a cop and a dishonest person pretending to be an honest one; would it really be that much of a surprise to you if he were a gay man pretending to be a straight one?
I’m not saying that my view is the correct one, I’m just presenting it as an alternative. This is the way I see the story and I see evidence there to support it. You don’t have to agree with it, but you are definitely being derogatory when you say things such as “If you need…” so and so.
I see your point in saying, “oh he’s just stressed out,” but I think that is something that can be conveyed in myriad ways that don’t have to do with sex. The fact that his “stress” affects him in the bedroom must mean something…at least TO ME. Maybe you’re right and a cigar is just a cigar, but I think there is something fishy going on.
i have been weighing my response to this carefully (and maybe should ponder it more).
first: jeff, you should see “the goodbye girl.” it’s a good movie, one of the best adaptations of a neal simon play. dreyfuss is very good in it.
second: i’m not sure i buy into this whole once it’s out there we can make it into anything we want meme. by this sense, i could argue that humphrey bogart is gay in “casablanca.” he runs away from a country that he feels would repress him. he pushes the girl away. and, of course, the classic last line.
but, i’m not willing to dismiss the idea either.
third: if this is individual interpretation, can it be used as a tentpole to hold the film up as best of the year? and while noah has already answered this question for himself, does matt damon’s character not being gay lessen it in your eyes, jeff?
Noah; please do not shake the homophobic stick at me. You best retract it because it has nothing to do with me having a problem with Sullivan being gay. It has more to do with this whole angle seeming rather trite to me. Sullivan is nothing more then what Costigan would have been. If Costigan did not have a father who kept him from entering that life at an early age. Sullivan’s true nature is that of a thug. Yet he has to mascurade as an upright citizen in order to further his own desires to be something more of a thug… a POLITICIAN!
So… you can go with the homosexual thing… but I will go with two men being the ying and yang of one another, and the ying being unable to perform due to stress of being something he is not.
I never said that you were homophobic at all and I certainly did not mean to imply so. But you asked if Sullivan being gay was integral to my enjoyment of the movie, so I simply restated it back to you by asking if him being straight was integral to you. I said it just to point out that this is a minor issue that had little to do with how much I enjoyed the film.
I think your interpretation is certainly valid, but I think there is more bubbling beneath the surface. We can agree to disagree and I think you are entitled to your opinion. I would just say, though, that if that scene was meant only to show that Sullivan is “stressed out,” then why did it have to be in the bedroom? It didn’t need to be a sexual thing, there could have just been a scene where he loses his cool for no reason or any other type of scene in that vein. But to have it arise specifically in a sexual manner certainly raises my eyebrows.
Once again, IO and Hendhogan, I think your opinions are just as correct as my own. I think this discussion is a lot of fun when we refrain from name-calling and just present our cases.
i still think you are seeing zebras where there are horses. i’m going to throw something out there (which may need correction, as my memory of the movie is not as strong as it once was). isn’t the first time damon sees vera farmiga in the elevator? he doesn’t know who she is, but he hits on her. my question to you is why is that? he knows he’s already leading a double life in the workplace. why would he create a situation that would force him to lead a double life at home? why add that pressure to himself? it’s not like people were looking at him funny, wondering why he was single.
I don’t think Damon’s character is gay. I agreed with jeff’s opinion of the movie but that is not something that I took away from the movie.
Hendhogan, a gay subtext would never be enough for me to think a movie was best of the year, and it doesn’t in this case either since I think Departed was the third best movie of last year. Damon’s character not being gay wouldn’t make me like the movie less, but his being gay makes me like it more, in terms of being richer/more complex etc, if that makes sense.
A gay subtext in Casablanca would only make sense if it felt resonant with what the rest of the movie is about. In that case, since the movie is about giving up something you love in order to pursue a higher calling, it wouldn’t make sense. But in another movie from the same era, like, say, Bride of Frankenstein, it might.
IOIOI: let me ask you, what does the movie gain by having a scene where someone is really tired because they’re stressed out? And shouldn’t Costigan be unable to perform for the same reason?
Hendhogan, to answer your most recent post: because he’s lying to himself as much as to the outside world. He covets everything that he sees as being a part of an upscale lifestyle, and a girlfriend is part of that package.
howabout it’s a contrast to the scene dicaprio has with the same woman. these guys are opposite and alike in many ways. you take the scene out of context if you don’t include the second one with dicaprio (also in the bedroom, noah)
I don’t understand the contrast gained by showing that Sullivan is stressed out but Costigan is virile except that it makes one more ‘manly’ than the other.
yes, it’s indicative of how the same stress affects them differently.
i could equally say that damon is a black man that passes for being white. we never see both of this parents. his failings in the bedroom are stress from realizing that he can never have a successful relationship with a white woman. i can shoehorn that in more. doesn’t mean it’s there.
And how does that connect with the rest of the movie? What is it about those two different reactions that made Scorsese need to include both scenes in the movie?
Hendhogan, if you could find five moments in the movie’s dialogue and visual structure that pointed to Matt Damon being a black man, and if it made sense within the thematic structure of the movie, I would be willing to agree with you.
I think it’s interesting that this is such a big deal.
YOU said the whole movie is about identity, ambition and self-deception. i don’t understand how separate & opposite reactions to the same stimuli doesn’t resonate with their identities. matt damon folds under pressure and dicaprio does not. follows all the way to the end of the movie, where damon cuts bait and kills nicholson while damon follows his path to the bitter end.
i would also argue there is as much evidence of my black man theory as your homosexual one. also, in the context of identity, how does a suppression of his ethnic heritage equal a suppression of his sexual being?
i find it interesting that you won’t let go of a very thinly held contention
I don’t agree that they have opposite reactions to the same stimuli. Damon’s character is based on ruthlessness and self-centeredness, which is why he (SPOILERS) kills Nicholson and Costigan and is left abandoned at the end of the movie. He never ‘folds’.
I can provide five moments of dialogue and visuals that tell me that Damon’s character is gay. As I just said above: if you can do the same telling you he’s black, then I will concede the point. I can’t right now because I don’t have the DVD in front of me. And I would be happy to let go of it, if it were a thinly held contention.
The fact is, there’s something I see in the movie and you see something else. And that seems to be the end of the discussion since nobody’s being persuaded either way.
Hendhogan, you believe what you believe and I (and Jeff) apparently see a little more to it. I think it all comes down to the fact that Sullivan is unable to perform with his girlfriend while Costigan can. Perhaps it is more of a manifestation of Costigan being “more of a man” or something along those lines, but I think there is definitely a seed that is planted there. Sullivan was taken in as a very young man and taught to be a criminal and I think that he yearned for a “normal” life while pretending since that first day that he met Costello that he was tougher than he is. Again, perhaps a cigar is just a cigar, but I think there is enough evidence there to suggest something more than that.
The comparison of homosexuality of Damon’s character to skin color is laughable. Sullivan is unable to perform in the bedroom with his girlfriend, if you say it’s stress and that satisfies you, then great. I think there’s more to it and that makes it a richer film for me and I see no evidence to support the “black man” theory while there are at least two or three clues that COULD potentially mean that Sullivan is a homosexual.
I get that the onus is on me to convince you, but I don’t WANT to convince you. I think it’s enough that film was good enough to provoke this discussion.
i didn’t say costigan folds. i said sullivan folds.
your interpretation, so far, is limited to his quickly answering no to the woman showing him a condo on whether he has someone else living with him. and his sexually disfunction with his fiance. i would be curious to hear of the other three instances, as those are less than compelling.
i think i’m doing a good job of proving a negative, btw.
but let’s for the sake of argument say i grant you your wild assertions. a film that has a weak plot, at best (going back to my original assertion on the story), no real theme, but complex characters makes it a top three over the hundreds released that year?
p.s. i’m not suggesting he was a black man posing as a white one. i’m saying if you look hard enough you can find justification for whatever you want to believe. doesn’t mean it’s there
This guy from Denver — who now lives in LA — stated; “IOIOI: let me ask you, what does the movie gain by having a scene where someone is really tired because they’re stressed out? And shouldn’t Costigan be unable to perform for the same reason?” 1) You — luckily Noah has wildly different reasons in all of this — demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the human condition by stating the above. You come across as detached. Again… Sullivan is portrayed as being enamoured by the criminal lifestyle as a child. While we are told that Costigan’s father kept him out of it. They are pretty much the same guy… in the same situation… and they are handling it to different ways. Sullivan internalizes it. While Costigan gets angry about it. Please Jeff: Point out to the me the character in this senario that would have no problem screwin?
2) You are wrong. You opinion is your opinion. Yet… the scene where Sullivan goes after a woman, gets with her, and starts living with her. Pretty much blows up your entire argument. The argument has at least been good for some discussion on this dusty ol’hot blog.
(A) Yes, I know. Sullivan never folds.
(B) When I get a chance I’ll look at the DVD and give you the other examples. Those two alone are sufficient as far as I’m concerned.
(C) Congratulations.
(D) I think the film has a strong plot and several rich themes, not to mention good performances, fun music, and Scorsese’s usual visual mastery. Was that where this discussion started in the first place? What’s your choice for the top three movies of last year?
The above post was for Hendhogan’s last points. And sure, you can find justification for whatever you want to believe, but I would not be arguing this point if I didn’t have good reason to.
IOIOI: What does my being from Denver have to do with anything, or are you just tossing out random pieces of information? Beyond that point I don’t see that there’s anything to discuss that hasn’t already been said.
yes, i stated i didn’t think “the departed” deserved to be up for, let alone win best picture. not because it’s a bad movie, but a deeply flawed one. i’m not proposing better because that’s not the issue. i don’t necessarily think some other movie was robbed. i’m judging this movie on it’s own merits as opposed to comparative merits
Well that’s no fun. If you could provide some idea of the criteria you use to determine what makes a movie awards-worthy we could take it from there.
a solid plot (or at least one where you can reasonably suspend disbelief), preferably one with a good story.
compelling characters and along with that great acting. (yes, it’s possible to have one without the other)
a unique take on an old subject or a revolutionary new one is preferable.
Yeah, I have different criteria. Theme is most important to me, followed by visuals.
theme is too subjective. how can you place merit on something that effects each member of the audience differently?
and as a longtime comic book collector, i take good writing with bad art any day over good art and bad writing.
I definitely agree with you there, Hendhogan. Most of my favorite pictures are ones like 400 Blows or (more recently) Before Sunrise/Sunset that have an emphasis on crisp dialogue and great characters rather than bold visuals (although there are definitely some in Truffaut’s work).
The best movies, though, are the ones that have both, which is why Kubrick will always be number one for me. But that’s a whole other discussion…
Because I’m only one person. I place merit on something depending on how it affects me, not how I think it’s going to affect everyone else. Movies are inherently subjective.
I agree with you about good writing vs. bad art. That’s why I’d prefer a cheap, intelligent movie over something slick and expensive. I should probably add, when I say ‘visuals’ I think of that as something completely different from ‘high production values’.
ah, i took visuals to mean visuals. ala a julie taymor movie which looks pretty but is kinda empty.
and i would agree that your basis of preferences for your own personal favorite is fine. but you asked my criteria for award nominated films. to me, there has to be some communal basis for the distinction.
Well, I mean good visuals, not bad or mediocre visuals or even expensive visuals. Julie Taymor crafts good visuals – on their own, out of context – but they aren’t properly connected to her narrative or (here it is again) to her themes.
I wasn’t thinking of a distinction between a year’s best films and award-nominated films, which you make a good point about. I would never expect some of my favorite movies to ever contend for most awards.
This just in: Jack Bauer is gay. Think about it–he has all these “girl friends,” but he always manages to be too busy to have sex with them!
No wonder he has to torture people. He’s about to explode!
that cracks me up, cadavra! i just picture jack starting to get it on with the clock ticking, we go to commercial break and he’s done.
For now on — whenever you feel a movie needs ADDED SUBTEXT — use the Jeff Mac Method!
RANDOM MOVIEGOER #1: “I really dont get this movie. What’s this monsters motivation? He seems a bit repressed, doesnt he?”
RANDOM MOVIEGOER #2: “Yeah. I think he’s gay. The evidence is there… this sea monster is gay!”
RANDOM MOVIEGOER #1: “Okay… that seems like a stretch, but I like it anyway! THAT SEA MONSTER IS QUEER!”
That’s right. The Jeff Mac Method gives every movie an extra sprinkle of RAINBOW! Never again will you have to worry about the motivations of characters… when all you have to do is conclude… they are secretly gay.
IOIOI, I can’t think of anything to say except that that’s lame. I’m happy to argue the point within The Departed, but mocking me for always trying to dredge gay subtexts is just cheap and lazy, not to mention inaccurate. Have I ever done that with any other movie?
brokeback mountain? đ
At least we all agree that there are dozens of Scarface references, right? And I mean the old one, not the DePalma one.
Jeff; no that’s me being silly in order to deal with your whackiness. Please do not come at me with your shenanigans and chicanery, and expect me to take it seriously. Your whole subtext thing is wonky, hokey, and bordering on ponderous.
Once again Jeff; you need to realize that we are two different people. So try not to assume anything about me… will you?
All I know is, trying to have a discussion with you is like talking with somebody with bipolar disorder who speaks English as their second or third language. It’s a little frustrating.
Jeff; that’s an asshole response and belittles a psychological disorder. Your response to me, is why I pretty much try to avoid having ANY SORT OF CONVERSATION WITH YOU, because you come across as being way too detached to have a discussion with. You are so disconnected that a reference — a simple reference — completely bugs you out. Who can have a conversation with someone, that limited as a POSTER ONLINE? Seriously; I have had a better conversation with crazed shippers then any discussion with you over the last 3 years. So the feeling is mutual, chuckles. They at least had a reason for their detachment. What’s yours?
Let me point out that Jeff believes, that lack the ability to communicate due to bi-polar disorder. While I believe he has a detached personality. Yep; we are a fucking sitcom waiting to happen.
Please direct all further comments about my alleged personality disorders to my own blog so that David’s other readers don’t have to be bored by them.
Dude; I dont care about you or your blog. I would only hope that you would act with some civility towards me in the freakin future because you really have no clue how much I am restrained towards you. So… be cool… and we will be cool.
Ever notice how desperate jeffmcm is to direct people, even people with obvious contempt for him, to his blog? Pretty pathetic. Of course, if you post the sort of juvenile bunk he does — THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is better than THE VIRGIN SPRING? Jesus! — you have to go out begging for readers, methinks.
TPatrick, I _only_ want to direct people with contempt for me to my blog in order, like I said, to prevent them from cluttering this blog.
And who the hell are you?
Jeff, it’s not contempt. I am simply not exactly a fan of the way you respond to me. You come at me with absolute repulsive bullshit, that has no place in a discussion. So keep your thoughts about me to yourself. If you would not mind.
I’m sorry you feel that way, and I didn’t use the word contempt, that dude who came out of nowhere did. I think I’m incredibly civil to you and if I’m not, it’s because there’s a huge communications gap between us (namely, I don’t understand what on earth you’re talking about 62% of the time).
62%? what an odd number to use
Jeff; if the above is what you believe to be civility. You apparently need to get your shit in check because it reads like a dick… being a dick… online.
IOIOI, if you want to communicate with me, please send it to me privately. Otherwise I don’t see how this discussion is going anywhere productive, plus I thought you were done with it.
Who am I? Christ, you really are an arrogant little twerp, aren’t you? (No, wait, let me use you prissy little punctuation: You really _are_ an arrogant little twerp.) Who the hell do I have to be to take part in this discussion? Since when did Mr. Poland employ you as hall monitor?
Hey, digest this: I am Terry Patrick from the United States of Kiss My Ass. That civil enough for you?
Obviously my 1:12 post applies to you as well.
OK, I get it: TPatrick is an alias for David Mamet, right?
The United States of Kiss My Ass? Is that located in Alabama? That seems like some shenanigans Alabama would have a hand in.