 |
Flipside Movie Emporium
Discussion Forums Locked & Archived for Browsing
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Michael Scrutchin
Studio President
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 832
Location: Pearland, TX
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
 Posted: 01.27.2004 5:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm happy with them on the whole, but WHERE IS SCARLETT!? They couldn't decide between which role, I suppose.
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt header
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 623
Location: Milwaukee, WI
|
| Posted: 01.27.2004 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Holy cow. I'm really impressed with the nominees this year. Three of the five best picture nominees were on my best movies of the year list, and the other two were runners-up. Cool.
I would've liked to see "Elephant" on there somewhere, but oh well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 01.27.2004 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who thinks The Return of the King is a shoe-in for Best Picture? It seems a sure win to me, and the Oscar it takes, of course, will be meant to honor all three films in the trilogy. I expected something like this to happen back when Fellowship was a hit among audiences and critics, provided that the remaining two movies weren't absolute disasters.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: 01.28.2004 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the night watchman wrote: | | Who thinks The Return of the King is a shoe-in for Best Picture? It seems a sure win to me, and the Oscar it takes, of course, will be meant to honor all three films in the trilogy. I expected something like this to happen back when Fellowship was a hit among audiences and critics, provided that the remaining two movies weren't absolute disasters. |
I sure hope it's a shoe-in. To go without recognizing the films in the category would be a crime.
_________________
Danny Baldwin
View My Reviews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 01.28.2004 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Danny Baldwin wrote: | | I sure hope it's a shoe-in. To go without recognizing the films in the category would be a crime. |
The only shock will be if the trilogy isn't honored, although calling a possible loss a "crime" seems highly subjective. If I thought the Oscars meant anything, I'd describe a Rings win as larceny--I much prefer Lost in Translation, Mystic River and Master and Commander, and it's a crime their towering achievements have been overshadowed by Tolkien's towers. Of course, to me the real crime is how the Academy routinely ignores masterpieces--such as Rushmore, The Circle, Requiem for a Dream, Lone Star, La Promesse, Show Me Love, Three Kings, Ghost World, Far from Heaven, You Can Count on Me, Amores Perros, Quiz Show, In the Mood for Love, Auto Focus, The Son, One Day in September, The Ice Storm, Atanarjuat, etc. etc.--in order to honor their own bloated commercial product. Still, it would be churlish to complain about the status quo; the Oscars have never been about true artistic merit. All we can do is hope the Academy has a wave of good taste from time to time. To that end, I'll be rooting for Sofia and Lost in Translation, Charlize, Capturing the Friedmans, and American Splendor's screenplay. They may not have been my top votes, but they'll do.
Hey Wisconsinites--did City of God ever play around here? I think it may have screened at the Madison festival, but I don't think it ever made it to Milwaukee. I was keeping my eye open all year; hope I didn't miss it. I need to see that, Brother Bear, Barbarian Invasions, and Triplets of Belleville. Then I'll have seen all the nominees, except those in the documentary, foreign, and short categories. (Access to those simply doesn't exist.) I'm seeing Triplets Saturday night at the Oriental--will you be there, Matt Header?
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Danny Baldwin
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 1354
Location: San Diego, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt header
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 623
Location: Milwaukee, WI
|
| Posted: 01.28.2004 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[beltmann wrote]Hey Wisconsinites--did City of God ever play around here? I think it may have screened at the Madison festival, but I don't think it ever made it to Milwaukee. I was keeping my eye open all year; hope I didn't miss it. I need to see that, Brother Bear, Barbarian Invasions, and Triplets of Belleville. Then I'll have seen all the nominees, except those in the documentary, foreign, and short categories. (Access to those simply doesn't exist.) I'm seeing Triplets Saturday night at the Oriental--will you be there, Matt Header?
[/quote]
I don't recall "City of God" ever playing in Milwaukee, unfortunately; I was searching desperately for that one when it first came out. "Barbarian Invasions" should be coming to either the Oriental or the Downer in February; I'm looking forward to that one as well, although I'm not a huge fan of Denys Arcand's work.
And yes indeed, I will be working all Saturday night! I'll see you there. (I hope you enjoy "Triplets"; it's pretty wild.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt header
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 623
Location: Milwaukee, WI
|
| Posted: 01.28.2004 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Man, I don't know how to do those crazy quote things.
By the way - you're seeing "Triplets" on Saturday night? I believe the release date at the Oriental got pushed back to Feb 6, although we have a free screening of it tonight (Wednesday). I hope this doesn't put a damper on your plans, and I'm not positive about that info - but I don't think we'll have it this weekend.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 01.28.2004 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| matt header wrote: | | By the way - you're seeing "Triplets" on Saturday night? I believe the release date at the Oriental got pushed back to Feb 6, although we have a free screening of it tonight (Wednesday). I hope this doesn't put a damper on your plans, and I'm not positive about that info - but I don't think we'll have it this weekend. |
Grrr. I had been planning to go with 5 other people. I guess we'll just have to wait another week. Thanks for the tip, though--it's good to know in advance.
EDIT: Just checked the Landmark website, and indeed the date has been pushed back. I also saw that FOG OF WAR and TOUCHING THE VOID are scheduled for the same date, which is exciting. I'm dying to see both, especially the Errol Morris one. He's one of my favorite filmmakers.
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matt header
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 623
Location: Milwaukee, WI
|
| Posted: 01.29.2004 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Man - the 6th will be a busy night over at the Oriental. I'm dying to see "Touching the Void" and "The Fog of War," and wouldn't mind seeing "The Triplets of Belleville" again (or five or six more times). Even so, sorry about the inconvenience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 01.29.2004 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| beltmann wrote: | | If I thought the Oscars meant anything, I'd describe a Rings win as larceny--I much prefer Lost in Translation, Mystic River and Master and Commander, and it's a crime their towering achievements have been overshadowed by Tolkien's towers. |
While I agree with your opinion of the Oscars, and while I haven't seen most of the movies nominated for Best Picture this year (although Lost in Translation is hitting home video Feb 2 -- can't wait!), I think that dismissing LOTR as a lesser work because it's fantasy, a special effects/spectacle movie, less intellectually sophisticated or challenging, what have you, is unfair. The fact that Jackson made a good, possibly even great movie -- at least a significant one -- using the subject matter and techniques normally written off (although not by me) as the stuff of hack work is something to be lauded. What Jackson did with the fantasy/special effects movie is at least as impressive as what Hitchcock routinely did with the mystery/thriller. Were there "better" movies of 2003? Probably. But I think LOTR is probably the greatest achievement.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 01.29.2004 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the night watchman wrote: | | While I agree with your opinion of the Oscars, and while I haven't seen most of the movies nominated for Best Picture this year (although Lost in Translation is hitting home video Feb 2 -- can't wait!), I think that dismissing LOTR as a lesser work because it's fantasy, a special effects/spectacle movie, less intellectually sophisticated or challenging, what have you, is unfair. |
I agree that dismissing LOTR for those reasons is unfair, but I think there's equal prejudice in assuming non-fans are guilty of genre bias--as if there's no other possible explanation for why we don't love it as much as everyone else.
| the night watchman wrote: | | The fact that Jackson made a good, possibly even great movie -- at least a significant one -- using the subject matter and techniques normally written off (although not by me) as the stuff of hack work is something to be lauded. |
Agreed. No question the trilogy ranks as impressive, quality entertainment. But I was enthralled far more profoundly by many other pictures last year, including Kill Bill, which is rooted in genre far more than Jackson's work, or Master and Commander, which truly achieves the humanity that is routinely, inexplicably attributed to LOTR. And while I was astonished by the visuals in LOTR, no more so than by the visuals in any number of 2003 releases.
| the night watchman wrote: | | Were there "better" movies of 2003? Probably. But I think LOTR is probably the greatest achievement. |
In my equation, a production's size and difficulty level don't carry much weight. I wouldn't quibble with a directing award for Jackson; certainly great skill and vision accounts for his ability to harness such a massive production, and haul a very good film out of the morass. Yet I don't think that logic applies to the best picture category, which ought to reward achievements in art rather than logistics. To use an analogy: Climbing Mount Everest might be a more "impressive" achievement than, say, inventing the microwave, but as a "spectator," which act has more relevance to the way you live your life? Which one means more to your daily existence? Which one would you miss if it suddenly vanished? This helps explain why I found a modest picture like The Son infinitely more moving, important, and, crucially, entertaining than LOTR. Which one deserves awards? Some might reasonably argue for the "impressive" achievement, but I'd choose the one that means something to me, the one I want to watch again and again, and the one that resonates with me on the most--and deepest--levels. I'd choose the one I'd miss the most.
On a related note, I'd argue there's a disturbing anti-intellectual bias in this country that accounts, at least partially, for why titles like The Circle and Ararat are widely dismissed. Perhaps they don't have enough effects or spectacle?
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the night watchman
Studio Exec
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Dark, run-down shack by the graveyard.
|
| Posted: 01.30.2004 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beltmann wrote: |
I agree that dismissing LOTR for those reasons is unfair, but I think there's equal prejudice in assuming non-fans are guilty of genre bias--as if there's no other possible explanation for why we don't love it as much as everyone else. |
But fantastic films are routinely dismissed for just those reasons. Every complaint I've heard regarding LOTR, including from you, Eric, is centered on the scope of the SFX and the broad characterization, both of which are charged with distracting and emotionally-distancing the viewer, but are nonetheless integral parts of the genre. Forgive me if I misunderstood your criticisms, but I wasn't assuming anything; I was forming an opinion based on your posts, and on negative reviews, or at least negative portions in generally positive reviews of the films.
| beltmann wrote: |
No question the trilogy ranks as impressive, quality entertainment. But I was enthralled far more profoundly by many other pictures last year, including Kill Bill, which is rooted in genre far more than Jackson's work, or Master and Commander, which truly achieves the humanity that is routinely, inexplicably attributed to LOTR. And while I was astonished by the visuals in LOTR, no more so than by the visuals in any number of 2003 releases. |
I like Kill Bill more than LOTR, too, but I think LOTR is a grander achievement, taking into consideration all the plot threads and characters that had to be introduced, sometimes completely out of the blue, without loosing lucidity. Also, I'm not sure I can agree with the assessment that KB is rooted in genre more than LOTR, especially since KB is a self-conscious, nearly postmodern reflection on its genre of choice, while LOTR is a movie based on a work that is, arguably, the stepping stone of modern fantasy -- at least fantasy of the "mystical" or "swords and sorcery" caliber.
As far as Master and Commander goes, I can't comment on its virtues since I haven't seen it yet (have I mentioned that I live in a dipshit little podunk town?), and from what I've heard about it I imagine it offers more nuanced characterization, but I'd suggest that LOTR holds its humanity in its positive outlook, and in the importance it places on friendship. If it fashions its characters on the notions of what we'd like to be rather than what is, I don't find it any less human.
| beltmann wrote: | | In my equation, a production's size and difficulty level don't carry much weight. I wouldn't quibble with a directing award for Jackson; certainly great skill and vision accounts for his ability to harness such a massive production, and haul a very good film out of the morass. Yet I don't think that logic applies to the best picture category, which ought to reward achievements in art rather than logistics. |
Well, I guess we just have to disagree there. I think the ability to surmount production difficulties are part of a movie's artistic merit. Really, when you get right down to it, everything that gets an artist?s vision on film or paper or canvass is technical. To paraphrase Faulkner, art is one-percent inspiration and ninety-nine-percent perspiration.
| beltmann wrote: | | To use an analogy: Climbing Mount Everest might be a more "impressive" achievement than, say, inventing the microwave, but as a "spectator," which act has more relevance to the way you live your life? Which one means more to your daily existence? Which one would you miss if it suddenly vanished? This helps explain why I found a modest picture like The Son infinitely more moving, important, and, crucially, entertaining than LOTR. Which one deserves awards? Some might reasonably argue for the "impressive" achievement, but I'd choose the one that means something to me, the one I want to watch again and again, and the one that resonates with me on the most--and deepest--levels. I'd choose the one I'd miss the most. |
I understand where you're coming from, and since neither one of us puts much credence in the Oscars I have to wonder why we've spent so much time debating over which movie is more deserving of its accolades. That said, one of the things the Oscars takes into consideration is popularity -- popularity of the movie, the star, the director, what have you. The Oscars is Hollywood patting itself on the back. LOTR isn?t just a movie, it?s big business, and that?s the kind of thing Oscar likes.
| beltmann wrote: | | On a related note, I'd argue there's a disturbing anti-intellectual bias in this country that accounts, at least partially, for why titles like The Circle and Ararat are widely dismissed. Perhaps they don't have enough effects or spectacle? |
I'd say that's probably the exact reason such movies are often dismissed. I've noticed most people would rather be spoon-fed than involve themselves in a movie, especially if that movie has the audacity to expect the viewer to input some thought or imagination.
_________________
"If you're talking about censorship, and what things should be shown and what things shouldn't be shown, I've said that as an artist you have no social responsibility whatsoever."
-David Cronenberg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beltmann
Studio Exec
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 2341
Location: West Bend, WI
|
| Posted: 01.30.2004 3:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the night watchman wrote: | | But fantastic films are routinely dismissed for just those reasons. |
Indeed, but not by me. I enjoy genre conventions--which can be, by turns, comfortable, useful, and illuminating--and I think my regular attention to horror and Western pictures convey that. If I hold genre pictures to the same standards as other pictures, well, I hope that reveals not a genre bias but instead my regard for the art form in general. I'm unwilling to lower the bar simply because a director chooses to work within a specific genre.
| the night watchman wrote: | | Every complaint I've heard regarding LOTR, including from you, Eric, is centered on the scope of the SFX and the broad characterization, both of which are charged with distracting and emotionally-distancing the viewer, but are nonetheless integral parts of the genre. |
I'm rather baffled by this... most of my writings about the trilogy have praised how the CGI is perhaps better integrated than in any other film so far. I do find the films emotionally distant, but not as a result of the effects. In fact, I've often said that the real appeal of the trilogy, for me, is visual, rooted in its Pre-Raphaelite colors and expansive landscapes.
| the night watchman wrote: | | I'd suggest that LOTR holds its humanity in its positive outlook, and in the importance it places on friendship. |
I admire some of the film's values in theory, but not necessarily in execution. I mean, The Lizzie Maguire Movie places deep importance on friendship, too, but that doesn't mean there's anything new, valuable, or interesting going on. I don't mean to say LOTR fails in this regard; I just mean that I don't find it particularly special in terms of that theme.
| the night watchman wrote: | | I think the ability to surmount production difficulties are part of a movie's artistic merit. Really, when you get right down to it, everything that gets an artist?s vision on film or paper or canvass is technical. To paraphrase Faulkner, art is one-percent inspiration and ninety-nine-percent perspiration. |
Certainly. Yet for me the base artistic vision frequently outweighs technical prowess; I think the vision exists, to some degree, on an abstract plane separate from the tangible plane of technique. This is why I can overlook the technical deficiencies of something like Kandahar and find real value in its vision. Additionally, if I need to know how difficult a production was in order to enjoy a picture, then I'm unconvinced the artist has done his job. Still, I think you're right that the artistic vision and technical process are often inextricable.
| the night watchman wrote: | | Since neither one of us puts much credence in the Oscars I have to wonder why we've spent so much time debating over which movie is more deserving of its accolades. |
It's not really about the awards, is it? Neither one of us gives a rip who wins. We're talking about underlying issues of why we believe some movies matter more than others, exploring our own views as well as the other's. The nominations are just the springboard, a catalyst for refining/revising our own convictions. Too bad the Academy doesn't bother to think about this stuff!
Eric |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2007 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
