criterionforum.org

Grand Illusion wrote:I don't think the Academy has ever awarded Best Picture to the film that I actually thought was the best picture that year (let alone best American picture.)

Just to focus on the recent, I was actually quite pleased with No Country for Old Men winning, even though I think There Will Be Blood might have been better. I was terrified that the two of them would split the vote and Atonement would win though, which while nowhere near the caliber of shittiness that is Crash, is still an awful amateur film.

Of course, this was also the year that the chorus was the loudest screaming that the Academy had really lost touch... so what do I know?

I guess I hope Avatar wins, so they can get back IN TOUCH.

aox wrote:[Just to focus on the recent, I was actually quite pleased with No Country for Old Men winning, even though I think There Will Be Blood might have been better.

My favorite that year was The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, but NCfOM is hardly an offensive choice.

Re: the Foreign Film category, I saw Ajami this week, and I honestly kind of hated it. It was compared upthread to Crash, and I think that's a pretty fair assessment in that it's primary message is basically, "Wow, all these people live together but they're like different and stuff." It's also similar in that the filmmakers seem to know that this insight is not particularly noteworthy, so they ramp up the narrative tricks in an effort to make the material seem more profound than it really is.

It starts off fairly promising, and I really liked an early scene with a judge mediating a blood dispute between two families. Shortly after that, however, the hijinks start, and the film starts jumbling timelines for no discernible reason other than a desperate attempt to shape uninteresting material into something more interesting. The last half of the movie seems calibrated to leave the audience wondering exactly what's going on, just so that at the end we can be impressed when they pull it all together. I think this sort of thing is terribly annoying, especially when the underlying material is as weak as it is here, but I suppose opinions may differ.

Meanwhile, I don't think the filmmakers have a lot to say about the experience of living in a divided community, other than an annoying complacency that comes with the filmmakers' imagining themselves as being somehow above all these petty sectarian struggles. I didn't realize until afterwards that it's co-directed by an Arab and a Jew, and while that's great and all, the movie ultimately has the sort of self-congratulatory feel that one would expect from the press notes accompanying such a collaboration.

I would be angry if it beats The White Ribbon, which I thought was wonderful. I haven't seen A Prophet or the other nominees yet.

Expect The Secrets in Their Eyes to win FL Film.

Brian C wrote:I would be angry if (Ajami )beats The White Ribbon, which I thought was wonderful. I haven't seen A Prophet or the other nominees yet.

xavier110 wrote:Expect The Secrets in Their Eyes to win FL Film.

After last year when Departures beat Waltz with Bashhir, Revanche and The Class expect anything.

lacritfan wrote:

Brian C wrote:I would be angry if (Ajami )beats The White Ribbon, which I thought was wonderful. I haven't seen A Prophet or the other nominees yet.

xavier110 wrote:Expect The Secrets in Their Eyes to win FL Film.

After last year when Departures beat Waltz with Bashhir, Revanche and The Class expect anything.

Smart money would have been on Departures.

Only 200 or so people vote on this award, and they tend to be retired seniors with conservative/conventional taste -- they are the ones who pushed the Bulgarian film into the top nine shortlist, picked Departures over Waltz, ignored 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days, would never have nominated The Class had the committee system been instituted, etc. They do not like "shaky cam." They do not like ambiguity. They like bombastic, sweeping scores and sentimentality.

Secrets is the frontrunner -- at least from the people I've contacted who have gone to screenings. A Prophet has its fans, but it's too violent/way unlike anything they have awarded in the past decade or two. I'd be surprised if Haneke triumphed, even if most in the press will guess The White Ribbon.

Matt wrote:

reno dakota wrote:. . . or to see the other one lose to something fluffy and cheerful.

That was going to be my response to perkizitore's question, too: neither. Remember how Waltz with Bashir and The Class (not to mention Revanche and The Baader Meinhof Complex lost to Departures last year?

That still pisses me off...especially Baader Meinhof losing - that movie just straight up kicks ass.

Documentary (Feature)

“Burma VJ” Anders Østergaard and Lise Lense-Møller
“The Cove” Nominees to be determined
“Food, Inc.” Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein
“The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers” Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith
“Which Way Home” Rebecca Cammisa


I must confess to being very happy to see Burma VJ nominated...I had the honor to see this last summer with one of the Burmese Guerilla reporters on hand to answer questions - it's a truly frightening situation there and he was incredibly humble about his insanely brave efforts to get the images to the outside world. Of course it will lose to the Dolphin one, but I think its nomination is worth celebrating.

Otherwise I concur that the entire crop of major nominees is complete shit this year. I don't care that Avatar won't win...the fact that it's even nominated is a travesty...as is the Blind Side and Precious. talk about Oscar Bait....blech. Apparently all the unknowns out there have to do is "fearlessly" play a incestuous pedophile...instant oscar! Why is it that they can't figure out how fucking easy it is to play bad guys? Anyone can scream and act like an asshole!

Only Vincent Price could do it with style though.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Mo'nique's character while many things under the bad list isn't a pedophile. Did the father even have an actor?

It was my understanding that the mom also sexually abused the daughter...but I may be wrong since I've only seen the clips on various shows.

But again, they simply show to me a woman playing a despicable character - which I've read a thousand times is the easiest thing to do for an actor...I'm not impressed by ugly, and I tire of "fearless" being tossed around, such as the praise Mariah fucking Carey got because she didn't *gasp* WEAR MAKE UP!??!?!? I'm surprised she didn't get a nomination too. That film is pissing me off more and more...the responses are all so predictable and the Academy is proving again and again to be far more receptive to the lowest common denominator rather than excellence.

Daniel Day-Lewis got widespread critical acclaim for playing a "bad guy" not too long ago. Playing something loud will always conquer subtlety come awards time. It's the award for "most." Most Editing. Most Sound Mixing. Most Acting.

That said, who wants to fill out my Oscar ballot? I have to pretend that I'm smart at the party I'm going to.

I found Food Inc. incredibly bland. I'm sure it's a useful primer for those who never thought about such things, but I don't recall learning one thing I didn't know already. Well, okay, I didn't know how long chickens are allowed to live before being grocery-stored. But the film was frustrating in not going into detail or providing info at many points. I also found all of the sinister language and innuendo, primarily in the intro, to be rather silly and dubious. My favorite part was the opening credits utilizing ordinary grocery store writing -- price tags, aisle labels, special stickers, etc. It was a slickly put together film without anything new to say.

Then again I'm a vegetarian and pretty well-versed in such issues.
I also found it interesting that the film ends with a whole shopping list of eating recs, but never advocates or even mentions vegetarianism.

The best doc I saw this year was easily Facing Ali, two fistfuls of aging pugs (that'd be a 10 count, for those scoring at home) taking stock of their lives, with period clips and music mixed in masterfully. I think it went straight to vid, so probably wasn't even eligible. Of the noms, I've only seen Food and Cove.

According to the wiki page for the film, Facing Ali was on the shortlist for nominees.

Thanks for that. I get a kick out of the awkward writing and inaccuracies in most wiki entries.
Facing Ali is not about "all the opponents he faced in his career." 10 of them are interviewed. Others such as Jerry Quarry*, who lost to Ali twice, have already passed away.

*Footnote: Quarry and two of his boxing brothers all fell victim to Parkinson-like brain atrophy, almost certainly from blows to the head, much like Ali has suffered.

Here's a brief review I wrote on Facing Ali.
Maybe I can find a better thread to put it in, but it would get my Best Doc vote. Actually just one of the best films of 2009 imo.

Facing Ali is a terrific doc, which just had its Dvd premiere on Christmas Day. Ten Ali opponents are interviewed, and it's interesting to see where their thoughts and lives are, as these older ex-pugilists reflect back on their careers and themselves. George Chuvalo and Ron Lyle are the most interesting and informative about boxing. Chuvalo talks of mob influence; while I wasn't aware that Lyle, a trainer now, served 7+ years in his 20's for 2nd degree murder, which afforded him substantial training time.

Frazier, Spinks and Norton sadly are deemed to require fixed subtitles, though I thought they were all pretty intelligible.

Clips of Ali and the fights are mixed in well and the soundtrack is impressive. Some stunning moments include Larry Holmes' self-appraisal, Chuvalo's mob indictment, and Ernie Terrell singing a ditty about beating Ali on the The Jack Parr Show(?) to the tune of Won't You Come Home Bill Bailey, two days prior to their fight.

There are sad moments, including the void of Ali unable to be interviewed, which the documentary spars and dances around, along with the unfortunate Ali-Frazier rift which still hasn't fully healed.
A wonderful film. If you liked the Tyson doc, this is like having ten Tyson's, each older and with their own perspective, their own story. The 3 other fighters are Sir Henry Cooper, Earnie Shavers and Foreman. The film really does a nice job of capturing an era while also showing us the passage of time. I watched it twice already and could go another round.

A interesting BBC report on foreign language nominee The Milk of Sorrows and its Peruvian reception.

and in Spain all Claudia's friends are counting down too.
She writes a sjhort blog for the biggest Spanish newspaper with her impresions in Los Angeles: where she talks at UCLA, eats with the consul of Perú, but she complains it's impossibkle to say tit on tv and to find a microwave for her 3 month baby biberón.

Charming Claudia's mother and sisters did meet Dusstin Hoffman on Rodeo Drive

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/ ... ucul_5/Tes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.elpais.com/fotografia/cultur ... cul_1/Ies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Way better than an a normal Oscar pool: Guess the Oscars Wrong

colinr0380 wrote:A interesting BBC report on foreign language nominee The Milk of Sorrows and its Peruvian reception.

I think I want to see this one out of all the nominees...anyone know who has distribution rights? How long before it will be available in the US?

The Milk of Sorrow was on at the London Film Festival last year. It's very good. Shame that it's competing against two superb, better known films. Wouldn't begrudge it an unlikely Academy award though.

domino harvey wrote:Oh Christ me

WOW...

That is just... ergh...

That's truly up there as one of the worst four or five serious articles I've ever read.

Kim Elsesser is a research scholar at the Center for Study of Women at the University of California, Los Angeles

She's a segregationist herself, yet she decries the Oscars for having separate Best Actor and Best Actress awards. Are we sure this wasn't supposed to run in The Onion?

Kim Elsesser wrote:But separate is not equal. While it is certainly acceptable for sports competitions like the Olympics to have separate events for male and female athletes, the biological differences do not affect acting performances. The divided Oscar categories merely insult women, because they suggest that women would not be victorious if the categories were combined.

Surely I'm not the only one to notice the gap in causation here. Just who exactly is suggesting it's the females that would come up short on victories if the categories were combined? The exact same evidence proves equally well that it's the males who would suffer and that the segregation panders to them. If your evidence is so equivocal that it equally proves the exact opposite of your argument, you've embarressed yourself.

The burden of proof is this: in order to claim sexism against women in this case, you must prove that the academy is protecting the women from the men and not the other way around. Without that you have nothing beyond vaguely suspicious feelings, and you can't base an argument on nothing more than gut reaction (which is just begging for an accusation of bias). If you're going to claim sexism you have to prove it, and if you can't do that, be quiet, no one needs you debasing the standards of discourse on important issues.

Kim Elsesser wrote:For next year's Oscars, the academy should modify its ballots so that men and women are finally treated as full equals, able to compete together in every category, for every nomination.

Indeed. That way when a female nominee wins, you can write an article about how you helped the cause of progress. When a male nominee wins, no matter, your next article just gets to call the academy sexist all over again. Win-win for you...

...brain death for your readers.