http://oscar.go.com/nominees/
In the link above, you will find the movies up for awards. However, have we ever stopped to think about who wins? Or the more important question, why? A little over five thousand "Academy Members" vote via secret ballot on their OPINION of what makes one movie better than all the rest or what makes one actor better than all the rest. Isn't this subject to bias? Even if it were just the general public, bias would flood the awards regardless.
http://www.indiewire.com/article/2012_oscar_predictions
Above is an independant site run by fans, for fans. It is predictions of winners based on what solely movie lovers think. Those who criticize, review, and actively watch movies are within this site. To get a better grasp on what movies are considered by the cinematic public, view above.
Mark, I have to agree. Regardless of how thy cast the ballots, there is going to be bias. It's inevitable. I mean look at our class. We all like certain movies over other ones that may be someone's favorite.
ReplyDeleteI'm just going to put it out there that The Artist is my favorite so far. I know that there are a lot of similarities shot/scene wise; however, I think that the overall film was better than the other ones. Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo did a phenomenal job acting. To go from a time period where emotion is shown by words and actions to a film completely speechless (with the exception of the awesome ending) is mind blowing. The plot was light and fun, but also very clever. The cinematography was really good. I'm not going to lie---I was kind of bummed when I saw the similar shots in Citizen Kane. However, Michel Hazanavicius didn't try to cover it up. He was honest about it; he thought that that was the best way to portray certain scenes. Isn't imitation the best form of flattery? I think so. Overall, The Artist was just something new. Audiences haven't seen something this different in a really long time. I'm not saying that different is always good, but in this case it's really good.
Mark, Indiewire is saying the same thing every other trade pub is. The Oscars are seldom surprising...so when they are...people get really hyped.
ReplyDeleteThere will never be absolutes in art.
I'm just trying to provide a different perspective (although the different perspective is the same...) and start a conversation among film-lovers about film, as Mary so graciously responded to.
ReplyDeleteWith "The Artist", I was actually a little disappointed by the ending. I think that if they advertise a silent movie, it should be completely silent. I was waiting the whole time for them to just start talking ever since the diagetics were added in the dream sequence.
After hearing about how good "The Descendents" was via ConsigliAaron and The Toro, I am a little bummed that we probably won't be watching it. If it turns out that it beats "The Artist" and "Tree of Life", I will be very disappointed that we never got to watch it.
I thought "Hugo" looked like Peter Pan meets Kingdom Hearts(solely from the cover art).
"The Artist" is new and well acted and well directed for something that under normal circumstances would fail.
"The Help" was a decent picture. I enjoyed it, but not to the extent which I could make a viable argument for why it would win.
"Tree of Life" interested me more than any other movie we have seen thus far. The cinematography was phenominal. The acting was well-directed. The concept was on the cusp of mind-boggling. I will admit that I probably loved it because I am a fan of philosophy and "Tree of Life" has a lot to do with existentialism. It has basic ideas intermitten with concepts beyond human comprehension, like time, space, distance, life, etc. The reason I believe that it won't win is solely the ending and the "ink-art time lapse".
1. The ending was absurd. It was near close to un-interpretable. For a guy who thinks he can do well to comprehend complicated, philosophical ideals, I was at a loss. I had a few possible ideas for the interpretation of it, but all of them were shot down by a separate detail. The ending was too inimaginably difficult to understand, but it was memorable.
2. The "ink-art time lapse" (which I mean the part about the Big Bang and the lapse from the beginning of "time" to the present), was too drawn out. It is like in "Family Guy" when Peter falls down and grabs his knee for at least 2 mins. It seems too much like a filler and is overdone. At first, the audience is in awe and their jaws hit the floor, but as their jaws retract to normal human functionability, it becomes way overdone.
I can't speak on the behalf of experimental films, or the artistry of cinema and feel free to disagree with me, but that's why I think I need to see "The Descendents" before I can make my trivial prediction.
And The Toro, what did you mean by "There will never be absolutes in art"? I thought I had an idea but it seemed like there was some deeper meaning to it.
ReplyDelete