criterionforum.org

The Curious Sofa wrote:the only major win I'm really behind is Amy Madigan, who has not only given us a horror icon for the ages, but has also been nothing but delightful throughout awards season.

This was the only win I was truly hoping for (I also wanted One Battle to win, but oddly wasn't too concerned about it). I've already seen dismissive comments about the performance as being a caricature, but I feel that really misses what she brought to it. The character puts on this show but when the mask is off (almost literally) the character is somehow both truly pathetic yet truly evil and menacing and I thought Madigan balanced it all brilliantly. I think I'm mixed on the film, but anyone else in that role is pretty unimaginable to me.

What's funny is I didnt even realize it was Madigan until much later after the character makes her first true appearance. I was actually quite blown away once I realized it was her.

I too think her performance was far more than just relying on a fright wig. The way she shifts from ingratiating to ice-cold is truly disconcerting. There is a matter-of-fact quality about her brand of evil. Madigan, usually such a naturalistic actor, gets it just right. Though as a Cindy Sherman fan, I also appreciated the look of Aunt Gladys.

mfunk9786 wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2026 3:44 pm You won't hear me arguing that the guy isn't annoying as hell, that's for sure.

I actually think Chalamet's poison pill in voting came from the Safdie bros controversy and this fucking guy being front and center in everything over the past 6 months. Tim's merely being in the film where everyone involved is causing controversy on their own made them a RICO case for Academy voters.

I actually like the early start time to the awards, but one thing is certain. As Richard Roeper suggested, leave the comedy to Conan or whatever host is there and get the presenters to just present the awards instead of doing stupid bits like the RDJ and Evans one. This precious minutes saved can certainly be given to the people winning the awards during their acceptance speeches instead of haphazardly being cut off every year.

FWIW, ABC's own YouTube page is filled with clips from the ceremony. I didn't see it this year because I had concert tickets and didn't realize the Oscars were on at the same time, but it took only 20 or 25 minutes to find and watch the best bits people were talking about on that YouTube page. (Monologue alone was 10 minutes, but the comic bits elsewhere were generally a minute or two.) "The Hitler one?" had me howling with laughter.

After the outrage surrounding Chalamet has died down a little, according to the news I'm bombarded with, the current kerfuffle is about Teyana Taylor's apparent overjoyed reaction to Amy Madigan's win. The charge is that she's been too happy and too excited throughout the ceremony. Someone explain the world we live in to me?

The Curious Sofa wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2026 9:56 am Someone explain the world we live in to me?

A racist one

I always found it weird that Harris/Madigan applauded Polanski's Oscar win but sat in their seats for Kazan's honorary Oscar.

It's even more strange because...The Pianist is a nothing film! One of Polanski's worst. Holocaust + nothing = Academy Award winner, apparently. There were seemingly a lot of awards and nominations for nothing that year, I don't know what the hell the Academy, and critics and perhaps audiences in general were thinking. I think they often choose the decidedly less essential choice, and also leave out a lot of brilliant work altogether, but awards for utter garbage (The Exorcist, On Golden Pond, Beasts of the Southern Wild) or for nothing aren't really that common. It could be worse, certainly.

thirtyframesasecond wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:05 pm I always found it weird that Harris/Madigan applauded Polanski's Oscar win but sat in their seats for Kazan's honorary Oscar.

The difference is that one assaulted a stranger while the other fucked over their peers - makes sense that some people would have a stronger reaction to an event that engages something closer to them, within their more intimate sphere. This doesn’t reflect my own attitudes on what’s right or wrong, just thinking of the psychology

Beloved Aunt wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:28 pm Holocaust + nothing = Academy Award winner, apparently.

Well you seem to forget that it’s based on Polanski’s own experiences as a Holocaust survivor that brings to life a Hell he personally had to suffer with a very good performance by Adrien Brody at the center of the film. I personally don’t think he should’ve won over Almodovar but I don’t think the Academy is wrong for giving it Best Actor and Director (especially if the latter was meant as a late career tribute to a undeniably iconic body of work). Best Adapted Screenplay though undoubtedly should’ve gone to Adaptation.

Haha I disagree with everything you said! I'd let The Pianist keep its nods, i.e. nominations for all its craft stuff, and definitely throw in a nod for the score, and keep its Adrien Brody nod, but I'd rather it didn't win anything. But no Best Picture, No Best Director for you, not even a nomination (well, Polanski's personal story maybe might persuade me to give him a chance for Director, but the movie is pretty marginal). To me Michael Caine its pretty f-in' gr8 in The Quiet American and he is the unquestionable winner for Best Actor, over a somewhat audience-pandering performance from Nicholson, a not really that interesting Nic Cage perf, and Daniel Day-Lewis providing some fun expert ham but nothing more, even if Philip Noyce's jazzy-TV-movie stylings sucked most of the fun out of the material.

and ermergerd, there was so much other gr8 stuff they didn't recognize that year! Far from Heaven would be my pick for PIcture and a bunch of other awards, assuming that foreign-language films are out of the mix. And there was 25th Hour, All or Nothing, Auto Focus, more recognition for Catch Me If You Can and Road to Perdition, yada, yada.

thirtyframesasecond wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:05 pm I always found it weird that Harris/Madigan applauded Polanski's Oscar win but sat in their seats for Kazan's honorary Oscar.

There's a big difference that likely existed at the time: Polanski's victim completely forgave him (a long time ago as of this writing, but I'm not 100% sure if it goes back before the 2003 Oscar ceremony). Kazan's victims did not and made that clear when contacted by the press in the days leading up to his award.

I thought The Pianist was a fine film - I'm reluctant to call it one of Polanski's masterworks, but it was good. Polanski would be my second choice as I would've voted for Scorsese, but to be brutally honest, I would've nominated five different directors if I could, including Todd Haynes, Spike Lee, and David Cronenberg. If their films qualified, I'd also would have nominated Jia Zhang-ke and Apichatpong Weerasethakul, unlikely nominees due to the Academy's bias against foreign language filmmakers, though tbf Pedro Almodóvar did score a nomination - he's one of the very few who have done it multiple times. I would love to nominate Michael Snow but because *Corpus Callosum isn't the kind of film that gets theatrical distribution, I don't think it would qualify.

therewillbeblus wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2026 11:10 pm

thirtyframesasecond wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:05 pm I always found it weird that Harris/Madigan applauded Polanski's Oscar win but sat in their seats for Kazan's honorary Oscar.

The difference is that one assaulted a stranger while the other fucked over their peers - makes sense that some people would have a stronger reaction to an event that engages something closer to them, within their more intimate sphere. This doesn’t reflect my own attitudes on what’s right or wrong, just thinking of the psychology

Right. Kazan’s actions were an affront/threat to the industry. The New York Times did a recent piece on Roger Moore’s infamous speech for Bowling for Columbine, and he was completely excoriated by many in the industry because they felt that it would lead to a backlash for Hollywood as a whole (which is ridiculous, but the country collectively lost its marbles and was gung ho for Iraq War II: The Deuce in 2003)

Beloved Aunt wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:28 pm It's even more strange because...The Pianist is a nothing film! One of Polanski's worst. Holocaust + nothing = Academy Award winner, apparently. There were seemingly a lot of awards and nominations for nothing that year, I don't know what the hell the Academy, and critics and perhaps audiences in general were thinking. I think they often choose the decidedly less essential choice, and also leave out a lot of brilliant work altogether, but awards for utter garbage (The Exorcist, On Golden Pond, Beasts of the Southern Wild) or for nothing aren't really that common. It could be worse, certainly.

There was definitely a period during the mid 90’s through the early 2000s where a ton of Holocaust-themed documentary features and short subjects got nominated while scores of innovative documentaries were fucked over. Weirdly, movies that focused on victims of the Shoah who weren’t Jewish, like Paragraph 175, did not get any recognition

thirtyframesasecond wrote: Wed Mar 18, 2026 10:05 pm I always found it weird that Harris/Madigan applauded Polanski's Oscar win but sat in their seats for Kazan's honorary Oscar.

Did any notable people sit when Polanski won? I recall a huge standing ovation

beamish14 wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2026 4:22 am Did any notable people sit when Polanski won? I recall a huge standing ovation

He wasn't there to accept the award of course, so the applause/ovation lasts about 20 seconds on the telecast, and there are only a few quick shots of the audience. Scorsese seems thrilled and is one of the first people to stand, but you can see many people in the audience not clapping and not standing. No one I can identify as "prominent" though. The lady behind Rob Marshall seems not too pleased, frowning and shaking her head.

My god the grip Harvey Weinstein (who's in the clip linked above) had on the Oscars then, elevating mediocrities like The Hours, Chicago, and (I'm sorry) Gangs of New York, while great films like About Schmidt, Y Tu Mama Tambien, and Catch Me If You Can (one of Spielberg's best, to me) go relatively unrecognized.

This is the year of Spike Lee's 25th Hour, Punch Drunk Love, and Soderbergh's Solaris, too.

Matt wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2026 4:31 am

beamish14 wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2026 4:22 am Did any notable people sit when Polanski won? I recall a huge standing ovation

He wasn't there to accept the award of course, so the applause/ovation lasts about 20 seconds on the telecast, and there are only a few quick shots of the audience. Scorsese seems thrilled and is one of the first people to stand, but you can see many people in the audience not clapping and not standing. No one I can identify as "prominent" though. The lady behind Rob Marshall seems not too pleased, frowning and shaking her head.

My god the grip Harvey Weinstein (who's in the clip linked above) had on the Oscars then, elevating mediocrities like The Hours, Chicago, and (I'm sorry) Gangs of New York, while great films like About Schmidt, Y Tu Mama Tambien, and Catch Me If You Can (one of Spielberg's best, to me) go relatively unrecognized.

This is the year of Spike Lee's 25th Hour, Punch Drunk Love, and Soderbergh's Solaris, too.

I remember the audible gasps when Whoopi Goldberg hosted and said that Monsters Inc. was a documentary on Weinstein. He was so untouchable for decades

beamish14 wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2026 6:07 am I remember the audible gasps when Whoopi Goldberg hosted and said that Monsters Inc. was a documentary on Weinstein. He was so untouchable for decades

Nathan Lane definitely said this. Heck they probably both said it!

Well, Lane had a notorious incident that played out in public over a year before that broadcast:

“This is my f–king show, we don't need you,” Weinstein reportedly said to Lane, tossing the actor against a wall...Lane recalled firing back, “You can't hurt me, I don't have a film career.”

When Lane made that crack at the Oscars, he also added something like "we kid the rich and powerful because we love them!" or some shit like that, but he got the point across.

Mr. Nobody Against Putin used an "archival still" from Muppets Most Wanted

Cannot stop laughing that the Russian-language film did not question a giant sign saying GULAG in English. Also Kermit being on the gurney.

beamish14 wrote: Thu Mar 19, 2026 4:16 am The New York Times did a recent piece on Roger Moore’s infamous speech for Bowling for Columbine

Michael Moore... unless Roger Moore made some speech I don't know about.

Never understood the boos against Michael Moore at that moment. I watched the Awards live and and the only thing I can think caused the boos was the sensitivity post 9/11 that the US was in. During the interview with the NYT, Moore mentions that TSA fucked up his Oscar trophy and at that point it was when the agency was more emboldened than ever to be asshole at the behest of the government in order "to protect us" and they got away with shit that we are still witnessing to this day. The audience and people who booed Moore were simply cowards. It would be the equivalent of having booed Bardem this year for his comments during the ceremony, which in contrast, everyone cheered.

Well, I wasn't surprised because I clearly remember what it was like living in a "purple" region of the state that pushed into the red once Bush got into office and believed the false pretenses he laid out for going to war. I was actually on the fence (albeit leaning away from going to war) and ended up hearing non-stop bullshit from one friend who bought into it big time: "We KNOW they have nuclear weapons! Do you just want to wait for them to use them? BLUH BLUH BLUH" and what was especially aggravating was hearing this same guy two years later contritely saying "yeah, unfortunately WE ALL bought into it." But that was the Republican party - they bullied and harangued people and questioned their patriotism/loyalty/fealty if they didn't go along with their bullshit, and unfortunately leading up to war, a majority of the country was on board: Gallup found that from August 2002 through early March 2003 the share of Americans favoring war hovered in a relatively narrow range between a low of 52 percent and a high of 59 percent. By contrast, the share of the public opposed to war fluctuated between 35 percent and 43 percent.