Jump to content

Oscars 2013 - winners in first post


Commander Jameson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Nice to see Amour get so many nominations but I am a little baffled by Jean-Louis Trintignant's snub (he wasn't nominated for a Bafta either) as he was just as brilliant as Riva.

I'm also very disappointed that Le Tableau didn't manage to get onto the shortlist for the animation nominations. Given what a relatively weak year it was for mainstream animation (both Pixar and Aardman delivering some of their weakest films to date) it was certainly deserving of recognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing for Cloud Atlas? It's not the greatest film but I was sure it would at least have some technical or adapted screenplay nods.

Has Matthew McConaughey been nominated for any major awards yet? Easily the performance of last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McConaughey has only been nominated for an Independent Spirits Award but I'm not surprised he hasn't been in the running for the supposedly more prestigious awards as Killer Joe isn't the sort of movie that gets recognition by the Academy. I'd be surprised if half of the ageing voters had even seen the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vux0i.jpg

Along that line, I'd read that Skyfall had been snubbed, but now I've looked at the list it's nominated for cinematography (as it definitely should be, for me). What on earth did The Press And World think it should be nominated for apart from that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vux0i.jpg

I think this is the first time I haven't wanted Pixar to win Best Animated Feature.

I know, how disappointing. What happened with Brave? I watched it last week and couldn't believe how poor it was. It simply didn't feel like a Pixar film. Was it some kind of cross collaboration with a Disney team or something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how this Weinsteins pushing their films for oscars thing works, but Silver Lining's Playbook being nominated for so many (or any) is inexplicable on the basis of the film's quality. Jacki Weaver herself was apparently surprised that she had been nominated - she barely registers in the film, it is not a performance of note, I'm more inclined to remember Nucky's brother is in it along with a chubby Chris Tucker, though not for their acting, or how Julia Stiles has aged into a different looking person. Jacki Weaver is actually probably too good for this film, i suppose she's the only character who isn't cartoonish.

Robert De Niro... he's awful. That bit in the trailer, the 'when life reaches out with a moment like this it's a sin if you don't reach back' is actually redundant in the film, it doesn't work. His attempt at crying is embarrassing. I thought De Niro was better in Limitless. The script is so awful Jennifer Lawrence wasn't always convincing with it, it's a laughably unrealistic film that's kind of entertaining because of it. It equates mental illness with being obnoxious, loud and high spirited. The camera dances around the actors the entire time so I guess giving it a nomination for film editing isn't a stretch. All the characters spend all their time either running or shouting. Two characters argue about what in any film would be a touchy subject then the one on the receiving end gives the other the gift of an ipod who then exclaims 'oooohhh for me' and the touchy subject is dropped entirely in favour of talking about listening to Metallica when angry. Of all the things in the film, somehow I found it most far fetched that Bradley Cooper's character knows of The Clash and presumably likes them.

The oscars look like they pick about 7 films to find nominations for all the categories even when they don't ft and makes little sense.

to sum up on the film's nominations, all actors nominated over act except for the one who doesn't and is just 'there', it's poorly written, and is the least challenging film to direct you could possibly think of, and maybe okay for editing if you're being amazingly kind. Best Picture win would actually challenge Crash as being the worst ever, and that in itself is remarkable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever the Oscar nominations are announced I always think back to this blog post from 2005 questioning why there are separate Best Picture and Best Director awards in the first place:

But here's the thing that always puzzles me around Oscar time: why is there a Best Director award at all? The arrangement by which the Best Picture award goes to the producer only is one that doesn't really make much sense. (In his interview with Hitchcock, Francois Truffaut assumes offhand that Hitchcock got a statuette when Rebecca won Best Picture; Hitchcock corrects him, pointing out that the award went only to the producer, David Selznick.) It was set up that way because the producer was considered the most important figure in the making of a film -- which, in late '20s and early '30s Hollywood, he usually was -- and because they couldn't figure out how to give a "Best Producer" award; after all, you can't separate the contributions of the producer from the finished film, because it's his job to supervise the making of the film.

Well, that's also the director's job. Even under the old studio-system arrangement, where the producer supervised most of the behind-the-scenes stuff (budget, script revisions, staffing the picture, editing the footage), the director was still in a supervising position, coordinating all the stuff that went on on the set, making sure all the elements worked together to translate the script to the screen in the best way possible. Some directors, particularly those who worked as their own producers or writers, did more than that. But whatever a particular director does, the obvious fact is that the director doesn't have a single, easily-definable contribution; his job, rather, is to supervise the contributions of all the other people and make sure they're as good as they can be.

That being the case, giving an award for best "direction," separate from the film itself, strikes me as pointless. Writers, actors, costume designers, composers; all these people can get an award for their work because it's only a part of the film. But the director, like the producer, is supposed to make sure that all these parts coalesce and add up to a good film. If the director didn't make the best movie, then how can he be the best director, when the director's job description is, basically, the job of making the best movie he can? The quality of "direction" is often defined as some visual flourish or cool camera angles, but that's hardly the most important part of what a film director does. If a director creates a lot of great camera angles, but the acting is weak, then I don't think you can say that he did a great directing job in spite of the bad acting; we need to ask, rather, why he didn't get better performances out of the actors (maybe he was too busy with the camera angles). The weak performances in, say, Hitchcock's The Birds are a failure of the director, not just of the actors, and that means that The Birds is not a particularly well-directed film no matter how many great shots Hitchcock pulls off.

I guess there are some cases where you can separate the director's contribution from the film -- like, say, when he was stuck with a bad script which the producer wouldn't let him change; the director might do good work as far as the script allows. But those kinds of movies, B movies mostly, don't get nominated for Oscars anyway, so the point isn't really relevant. When it comes to the kinds of movies that do get nominated, the quality of the script is usually part of the director's responsibility, just as it's the responsibility of a magazine editor to get the best possible articles out of his or her writers. It seems to me that it would make much more sense to just junk the Best Director award entirely and give the Best Picture award jointly to the two or more people who are supervising all the other people on the picture: the producer(s) and the director.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Ignore the fact this is a sports streaming website: http://www.wiziwig.t...744∂=sports

FYI, those are red carpet streams. There is a section for the ceremony on wiziwig also, but no streams posted yet.

Ceremony streams will appear here: http://www.wiziwig.t...745∂=sports

Also, Sky Living (HD 107, SD 235) has the red carpet from 11:30pm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.