Nominees just been announced......
Neither Willem Dafoe or Robert Pattinson nominated for leading or supporting actor.
Jeez.
Neither Willem Dafoe or Robert Pattinson nominated for leading or supporting actor.
Jeez.
Film Oscars 2020
- Thread starter Hoof the ball
- Start date
That's a joker
first of all, what the feck? second, are you okay?
I hope Dafoe shows up at the Oscars as The Goblin.
I think it's gonna be QT's year, with him nearing 'retirement'.
Films about Hollywood tend to be popular with the Academy.
Films about Hollywood tend to be popular with the Academy.
As long as Robert Jr. and his pal America are nominated, all is well.
To be completely honest, Parasite should win.
It shouldn't, but it has a better chance than being reported.
Two of its main competitors haven't been nominated for best editing.*
One movie in the past forty-two (three?) years has won best picture without being nominated for best editing.
*Edit: although tbf for one of them, it's kind of the point
Double edit: forgot Birdman. Oh, teh irony.
Last edited:
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
The Irishman
Parasite
1917
Marriage Story
Jojo Rabbit
Joker
Little Women
Ford v Ferrari
More interesting list then last year's at least. *Shudders at memory of Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody*
Needs more Uncut Gems though. Also, if you're a female director you better not get your hopes up beyond a best screenplay nod or something.
The Irishman
Parasite
1917
Marriage Story
Jojo Rabbit
Joker
Little Women
Ford v Ferrari
More interesting list then last year's at least. *Shudders at memory of Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody*
Needs more Uncut Gems though. Also, if you're a female director you better not get your hopes up beyond a best screenplay nod or something.
I've yet to see Parasite, 1917 or Marriage Story, so my opinion on this might change, but right now I'd be leaning towards The Irishman. I've enjoyed all the ones I've seen though.
Now getting the expected clamour about lack of diversity which will probably gain more momentum as the ceremony approaches. We just need the obligatory scandal to hit beforehand as well now.
It's funny watching previous Golden Globes and Oscar ceremonies with now shamed celebs like Weinstein mingling with the actors/actresses. Gervais called them all out with his Bird Box joke.
All the nominations are here:
https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2020
Some of these nominations are just so undeserved. The whole voting process really needs a good shakeup.
It's funny watching previous Golden Globes and Oscar ceremonies with now shamed celebs like Weinstein mingling with the actors/actresses. Gervais called them all out with his Bird Box joke.
All the nominations are here:
https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/2020
Some of these nominations are just so undeserved. The whole voting process really needs a good shakeup.
The recent 'these are such weird/poor nominations' thing of the last three years just might be a result of the 'good shakeup'.
They started inviting 'popular' people and 'minorities', with a heavy emphasis on the former.
One could perhaps argue they haven't shaken things up enough.
Might as well have put Endgame in there.
That Best Supporting Actor nominee pool is the stuff of legends.
Also I hope at some point they get Tarantino and Scorsese to sit down and talk about film. Two super film nerds who make the best films and say the most fascinating stuff about the medium.
Also I hope at some point they get Tarantino and Scorsese to sit down and talk about film. Two super film nerds who make the best films and say the most fascinating stuff about the medium.
More like the Old Boy's Network! It's a bit like the managerial merry-go-round where the same old names just keep getting recycled amongst the same old positions. It becomes completely predictable.
I've seen at least three films in the last few days alone that were excellent and worthy of recognition but none of them got a sniff at the Oscars when they came out.
It’s a more impressive film than Joker.
Why do you think it shouldnt ?
It was definitely the best of the year I've seen and superior to Joker and 1917(the two favorites it sounds like).
Well...........the best compliment that I can give Endgame is that it's fan-service done well.
I thought Adam Sandler deserved a nomination
It's good but it's a lot like what happened with Crash a while back. (It's obviously way better than Crash) Much like what happened with Crash, its broad-base theme (in this case coupled with its 'foreign-ness') is resulting in runaway inflated critical praise. Tl;dr, it's well-crafted, but it is nowhere near a 'masterpiece' and absolutely nowhere near as 'deep' as it's being made out to be.
The main problem with the praise it's getting is that it's ludicrously narrower in scope than it needs to be to properly address the themes it's tackling, (primarily, it never addresses one of the two main sources of inequality in any society - genetic - and from there, it's a steep downhill slide towards not being able to do much else but pander using the other - social birth circumstance), with the result that the entirety of the praise it receives is quite a bit frighteningly/worryingly misguided, due to a large part of that praise driven by the elements of masturbatory violence/fantasized retribution packaged as inevitability (which drives self-pity) in the latter half of the structure.
Basically it examines one very idiosyncratic aspect of hypercapitalism, never comes even close to fully exploring its theme, and in the end devolves into a cartoonish 'everyone's all the same anyways'-centric depiction of class-warfare. Technically it illustrates that resentment and its ideas regarding class mobility very well, but on the strictest level there's nothing outstanding/original about those ideas at all; heck, in the very same year, Us did the exact same thing using the exact same motif (stairs/underground). (One could write a thesis comparing those two films against the backdrop of hypercapitalism and social circumstance.)
It's like a hyper-realistic painting of a flower perfectly cut in half. It's really well done, but it's just half of a flower; meanwhile, an awful lot of people are falling over themselves about how it's a wonderful full flower. Or like writing a good paragraph on one aspect of inequality and having people fill in the rest of the book with their own self-pity and grievances until there's no room for a full and proper discussion. All art is like that to varying extents, but in this case it's a bit extreme.
For about a half-second I actually considered whether the film was intentionally designed to try and achieve this response - i.e. rabid mass approval from the 'lower' classes who don't realize they've been fed a 'lesser-than-advertised' product; a meta-commentary like Thomas Harris' Hannibal. Still wonder, but occam's razor and all that.
To be completely fair, you'd have to ask the director to explain his intentions.
Last edited:
I'd give it to Parasite, there's a few good films in there but nothing special
I found it quite a refreshing take on class divide with the climate change message running through it
Pretty damn powerful, and original.. especially when compared to the competition
I found it quite a refreshing take on class divide with the climate change message running through it
Pretty damn powerful, and original.. especially when compared to the competition
Willem Dafoe snubbed. After that monologue. Wow. Hark.
Was a bit disappointed to see Joker and The Irishman leading the number of nominations.
Defo. So does Dafoe.
Baffled by all the Joker love. It's just ok. OUATIH and The Irishman likewise.
It's been a staked year to be fair.
Could argue Roman Griffin Davis, William Defoe, Robert Patterson, and Adam Sandler were all snubbed in actor categories. Even Taron Egerton who imho gave a better performance as Elton John than Malek did last year as Freddy Mercury imho. I actually would have picked Roman Griffin Davis as my winner.
Lupita Nyong'o, Awkwafina not getting best actress nods
Greta Gerwig and Taika Waititi missing out on the director nods as well.
Uncut Gems and The Lighthouse all but missing completely.
Could argue Roman Griffin Davis, William Defoe, Robert Patterson, and Adam Sandler were all snubbed in actor categories. Even Taron Egerton who imho gave a better performance as Elton John than Malek did last year as Freddy Mercury imho. I actually would have picked Roman Griffin Davis as my winner.
Lupita Nyong'o, Awkwafina not getting best actress nods
Greta Gerwig and Taika Waititi missing out on the director nods as well.
Uncut Gems and The Lighthouse all but missing completely.
No Lighthouse? Oscars continue to be a joke.
What's even more puzzling is that Dafoe's performance wasn't even going up against the lead actor category (Pattinson was lead), but rather as supporting actor. I refuse to believe there was five better supporting performances.
i haven't seen all the films but on paper at least the best supporting actor segment is stacked with hall of famers who all have at least one oscar to their name.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Seen Pitt and Pesci/Pacino. And they were great too. But not better than Dafoe. Not seen Hopkins and Hanks.
Like GBBQ said, at least the category is absolutely stacked with fantastic actors.
If Once Upon a Time in Hollywood or QT wins anything its a travesty, what a self suck of a film that was and QT is lost somewhere up his own ass.
Odd critique to me. For completeness there is simply no film that "fully explores" its theme because the medium is too limited. I read 53 novels last year and every single one "fully explored" its themes more than any single movie I have ever seen. A movie is simply too short to fully explore a theme. There was no movie released in 2019 that "fully explored" its themes as much as the TV show Watchmen explored its themes.
"Nothing original" could describe every single movie they nominated for best picture. Little Women is an incomplete adaptation of a novel that is outdated and much less deserving than Booksmart. Joker copies Taxi Driver in theme and concept and doesn't come close to "fully exploring" mental illness. 1917 is yet another schmalzy war movie that does nothing new and would receive appropriate criticism from Virginia Woolf on glorifying a certain type of masculinity. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is cheap actor fan service that does nothing new. The Irishmen is yet another Scorcese gangster flick with the same recycled cast giving predictable performances. Ford v Ferrari has great racing scenes but invents a villain (Beebe) just to make yet another argument of purity vs. marketing/PR. Marriage Story is a somewhat fresh take on divorce although it also doesn't come close to 'fully exploring' its theme.
For originality the only film you could say might top Parasite would be Jojo Rabbit, a far superior war movie to 1917's extravagant but shallow spectacle.
Even a non-nominated film like The Lighthouse could accurately be called The Shining of the Sea although William Defoe deserved a nomination more than any of the nominated actors IMO. A lot of people around Los Angeles feel Uncut Gems and Hustlers deserved more love and as usual A24 movies don't get the love they deserve.
I am just happy America is finally seeing some more international releases. Shoplifters (Japan 2018) was better than any Hollywood movie in that year and it would be great to see Parasite win a well deserved Best Picture and hopefully get more imported gems to the US instead of the same old Hollywood crap like Once Upon a Time and 1917 and Little Women (the three least deserving films on that Best Picture list for me).
Plenty of films do just that. Most commercial films, for example. Obviously 'fully explores' doesn't mean 'covers every last pore'. Just cover the main branches that come off your themes. The two main branches of 'inequality' were mentioned earlier so no need to repeat that.
Here's a pretty intelligent bloke/blokette (OatmealPowerSalad) who picks up on it, if only tangentially:
Any film purporting to seriously tackle this particular subject* - which Para's praisers clearly want to think it's doing - needs to at the very least touch on the two aforementioned bases. Para only touches on one. As a result, it remains much too narrow in scope, but is post facto being post-rationalized into more than it is.
*As mentioned earlier, whether or not the director intended this, only he knows.
On that note, odd that it was read as a critique when it's pretty clearly stated that the problem is that it's being overpraised and only the director knows if he meant to leave certain things out to achieve that particular response (overpraise from people who don't know what they're looking at)
Good stuff. Obviously all that goes without saying; the earlier post never says otherwise, simply omits since it wasn't a necessary part of any response to the earlier poster. The mention of 'not as original as is being made out' was clearly included as a part of how Para is being overpraised as such, not a critique in and of itself. Quick note, MS does 'fully explore' its themes.
Whoever wins this year will be like last year: best of a bad bunch.
To be fair, a lot of people around LA also feel Hustlers was mediocre and Uncut (and Good Times) are one-trick-pony frenetic style-over-substance and A24 is eventually going to go the way of Annapurna.
Agree re Shoplifters. Parasite may win, and it could be argued that it's the best of a bad bunch, but it'd also be a Crash level fiasco caused by the aforementioned factors.
Last edited:
Re: Marriage Story. I suppose it depends on how you define its theme. If its theme is divorce then as a divorced father, I would say no, it doesn't come close to fully exploring that theme. If its theme is more narrowly defined as 'divorce between two bi-coastal creative elites that win MacArthur "Genius Grants" and come from families in Holmby Hills' then its closer but the focus is clearly so narrow its unrelatable to a lot of people.
Not sure what you mean about Crash, the only Crash I know is the 1996 David Cronenberg cult classic.
And on Parasite, I prefer this analysis:
https://shootthedancingbear.libsyn.com/underneath-and-inside-parasite-and-biopolitics
I found Parasite's application of theme to be the least of the film's merits, and theme can be used discretely and remain relevant. I didn't get a "everyones the same" message from the film. It felt like it was saying that circumstances make people decidely different. For example the upper class family's passive niceness comes as an extension of their success, contrasting with the infiltraters necessarily wily natures. I actually thought it a pretty fresh depiction of an upstairs-downstairs scenario. I don't think it wants to be a complete Brechtian deconstruction of social ills. Instead the themes are in service to creating the darkly absurd Kafkaesque world. If the point is that it's not didactic, or not an exploration of the causatory, then that seems fair but I don't think that is the point of the film. If the criticism is that others are reading too much into it then I don't know what anyone can do about that - stop reading reviews maybe. I don't see the Crach comparisons really. Crash is a tone-deaf faux-exploration of race relations, preachy, badly cobbled together with little humanity or insight.
I see The Servant as doing something quite different, the focus is not so much financial disparity. It speaks more to employment status as (negative) self-definement, in the same vein as The Last Laugh or Remains of the day. I found Marriage Story a hugely enjoyable comedy, but also incredibly contrived and its scenarios so broadly drawn that any thematic exploration is muted.
Horses of courses.
I see The Servant as doing something quite different, the focus is not so much financial disparity. It speaks more to employment status as (negative) self-definement, in the same vein as The Last Laugh or Remains of the day. I found Marriage Story a hugely enjoyable comedy, but also incredibly contrived and its scenarios so broadly drawn that any thematic exploration is muted.
Horses of courses.
Last edited:
Only movie I've seen from that group was Joker and didn't think it was all that great. Read mixed reviews on here about Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and The Irishman. I'll prolly watch them and think they were amazing
Very interested in seeing Parasite as well after all the buzz about it.If you get a chance, could you post a few of what you feel are the more egregious omissions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_(2004_film)
It was about 'racism' and everyone was scared of calling it out for not being as good as it was being made out to be. Around eight months after it won Best Picture, its vocal support started to realize it wasn't, and now it's infamous (semi-infamous?). To get a sense, check the youtube comments here.
To be clear, it's decent/good* but it isn't omg-amazeballs-masterpiece-it's-totally-perfect-you-just-don't-get-it-it's-so-deep. The overpraising is very similar to what's going on with Parasite.
*depending on who you talk to, it's mind-numbingly condescending trash
It's kiiiind of hard to take them seriously when a) they're erm-ahing while trying to express some vague perceived sense that 'Bong's films are 'genre' films', or when they say 'I haven't really seen it, but-' about this and various other projects, only to then proceed to attach their musings to said projects. And b) pretty much all of what they're pointing out regarding the film is very basic stuff, if not several levels below. As far as its relevance to the film, their discussion is a pretty severe case of post-rationalilzation. But they do cover some distally (ha) relevant ground. Some good stuff for people who haven't heard of the ideas they're discussing.
They also do go out of their way to unanimously agree that 'all this (parasite) is the best film of the year is overstated' and 'Lighthouse is better than Parasite by a lot'. (yes, after they've called their own opinion into question)
I kind of feel like mentioning that there are much 'better' and more comprehensive analyses out there - particularly for all the visual cues - and you might get a kick out of them. If you saw all those and still prefer this one, then more power to you.
You're my favourite poster on here
This sounds like a cheesy videogame title from the 90's
The entire premise is completely unrelatable to the vast majority of divorced Americans. Hiring expensive divorce attorneys to conduct protracted legal battles is a privilege only the wealthiest 10-20% of Americans can afford.
Issues of bicoastal families are even less relevant. Relocating more than a hour travel time is relevant to maybe 1/4 or 1/5 of divorced families at most and those are completely different than the whole bicoastal theme the movie over focuses on. Working and middle class families don't deal with relocation the way the movie deals with it simply because they cant afford to.
Additionally the Adam Driver character changing relationship with his son is not believable to me. His change to a father that yells at his son for no reason is not akin to anything I have seen in friends and family and certainly not a condition related to divorce. I've seen more father's like that still in marriage. Typically divorce has the opposite effect of both parents spoiling the children rather then yelling at them for no reason.
All the characters come off as caricatures of stereotypes rather than realistic people.
The film never really delves into the actual experience of divorce for most families in the USA. When 80% of families struggle to come up with $400 for an emergency it doesn't deal with the reality that only a tiny portion go through these protracted legal battles with lawyers during a divorce.
so again it might be accurate exploration for the tiny percent of creative elites that win MacArthur Fellowships or come from wealthy Hollywood Hills families but its not how divorce plays out with the bottom 80%.