2017 Oscar Nomination Discussion

[Cellmold]

 

[chickpea]

the movie i was rooting against being forced to give up their award to the movie i was rooting for was such a beautiful moment

also just that they managed to pull a steve harvey for the best picture award st the iscars. made up for an otherwise incredibly boring show.

 

[FemMecha]

Yeah, if the process is as I saw when I read about it, then that is how I proceed. (I do process and tech troubleshooting for a living, and you need to quickly get a sense of where the weak elements of a process are in order to quickly pinpoint a problem.)

A big issue in assuming that malfeasance was done is simply, well, motive. Opportunity is another. If there was no opportunity, then motive doesn't matter. I'm sure there are folks out there who hated La La Land, but when a process breaks down, my first assumption is to look at the stuff that is easy to examine: The system and the opportunity. In the investigation, then maybe motive would become a factor. But I see stuff break daily and it's usually just human beings who screw something up.

Even here in a case where someone maybe had the extra card out, and another person took it and offered it purposefully to the announcers to confuse them - well, it's clearly obvious who took the card and who did what with it. They are nailed immediately. And if they manage to sneak the card away or swap them somehow without folks knowing, then it was the person who was in charge of the cards who is left holding the bag because they weren't protecting the cards.

I don't have any qualms or misgivings about the darkness that can lurk within the human heart, but in my experience usually as I've said when there is an issue, it's usually because someone did something dumb or a process was poorly designed. It's typically the best thing to examine first, rather than assuming the captain of the Titanic pushed the ship in order to make the engines blow up and aimed the ship straight at an iceberg to murder the entire crew and passenger list + embarrass the ocean liner company.

Also, there is a reward/punishment payoff. Anyone in the entertainment industry who did this and got caught are basically ruining their career and will never work again in the field, so that is a huge deterrent to folks who are in that boat especially if their ego is that large.

I guess someone could make a joke like that, but it seems highly inappropriate especially for someone in authority to say. (A parent of a SO isn't really an authority in reality but socially dominant and then if you are in their house.) Especially when it comes to a man saying it to a woman, because there are many horrible connotations to that. IOW, who the heck are these people?

I think in those cases you have pinpointed people who seriously seem to have some issue, and their nasty behavior is tangible and observable, and you can cross-check your understanding of their motives, so it makes sense to wonder what in the world is wrong with them and what they are up to.

Your process is the right one, even when people are behaving irrationally. I suppose I get a bit triggered when feeling such a dense conglomeration of status, competition, and ego as when watching award ceremonies. I could tell a lot of weird stories about performers behaving in insane egotistical ways that are more provable from actual experience, so I guess my sense of trust is pretty shot.

 

[Totenkindly]

I try to judge each film by its merits versus being for or against it based on the PR campaign/undercurrent. The reality is that "La La Land" won the Oscars it earned and didn't win the one it didn't earn. I think a lot of folks were in love with the idea of "La La Land" versus actually scrutinizing its execution and the movie we got.

Kind of annoyed by all the bitching I've seen online (like on news forums and comments sections) about Moonlight winning, though, just because it had black and gay experience in it, where I think many of the complainers didn't actually see it. (In fact, they seem to be representative of their own stale niche). it actually was well made. But unfortunately it has been politicized on both sides, versus just being a quality movie. I think movies like this regardless of what they show would be useful in opening dialogues today or learning about experiences outside oneself, versus just bitching at the sheer indignity of something outside oneself being of quality.

(Besides, I had to suffer through Titanic winning Best Picture, and Forrest Gump. Hooray for populism. )

the movie i was rooting against being forced to give up their award to the movie i was rooting for was such a beautiful moment

also just that they managed to pull a steve harvey for the best picture award st the iscars. made up for an otherwise incredibly boring show.

I still think the parachuting grenades concept (when they were expecting goodies a la Hunger Games ) would have been a real winner.


------------------


Edit: Welp, there it is:

“PwC takes full responsibility for the series of mistakes and breaches of established protocols during last night’s Oscars,” the new statement says. “PwC partner Brian Cullinan mistakenly handed the back-up envelope for Actress in a Leading Role instead of the envelope for Best Picture to presenters Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway. Once the error occurred, protocols for correcting it were not followed through quickly enough by Mr. Cullinan or his partner.”

Cullinan was one of two PwC partners charged with bringing the envelopes to the Dolby Theatre and then handing the appropriate envelope to each presenter as the various categories were called. In the wake of mix-up, it’s since been learned that Cullinan also was tweeting during the event and had tweeted a picture of best actress winner Emma Stone just minutes before he handed the wrong envelope to Warren Beatty.

- So yeah, the person with the backup for best Actress accidentally handed it out instead of the correct envelope for Best Picture.
- The two announcers did not read the outside of the envelope and had no procedure to follow if something didn't seem right.
- One of the people expected to monitor and dole out the winning envelopes was doing Twitter duty as well (was that his personal feed or the official feed?)
- The procedure followed by the two reps to remedy the situation did not correct the problem in adequate time.

Our culture seems more concerned about OscarGate than RussiaGate. lol.

 

[FemMecha]

I try to judge each film by its merits versus being for or against it based on the PR campaign/undercurrent. The reality is that "La La Land" won the Oscars it earned and didn't win the one it didn't earn. I think a lot of folks were in love with the idea of "La La Land" versus actually scrutinizing its execution and the movie we got.

Kind of annoyed by all the bitching I've seen online (like on news forums and comments sections) about Moonlight winning, though, just because it had black and gay experience in it, where I think many of the complainers didn't actually see it. (In fact, they seem to be representative of their own stale niche). it actually was well made. But unfortunately it has been politicized on both sides, versus just being a quality movie. I think movies like this regardless of what they show would be useful in opening dialogues today or learning about experiences outside oneself, versus just bitching at the sheer indignity of something outside oneself being of quality.

I'm looking forward to seeing "Moonlight" and it sounds like it took on much deeper topics than "La La Land", which was feelingful, bittersweet, and made a point about self-actualization, but I still wouldn't say it was extremely deep.

Edit: Welp, there it is:

- So yeah, the person with the backup for best Actress accidentally handed it out instead of the correct envelope for Best Picture.
- The two announcers did not read the outside of the envelope and had no procedure to follow if something didn't seem right.
- One of the people expected to monitor and dole out the winning envelopes was doing Twitter duty as well (was that his personal feed or the official feed?)
- The procedure followed by the two reps to remedy the situation did not correct the problem in adequate time.

Our culture seems more concerned about OscarGate than RussiaGate. lol.

I read the Tweeting scenario backstage, and it does explain what was different in the process to enable a mistake - the distraction of texting/tweeting and such on phones nowadays. My conspiracy response had absolutely nothing to do with wanting "La La Land" to win - it was more my deeply entrenched social skepticism combined with hanging around conspiracy theorists nowadays.

 

[violet_crown]

I have a hard time believing that with all the control, planning, money, high-stakes, that they could make a genuine mistake like this. It feels like funny business, but I don't have an idea about the purpose of the funny business. "La La Land" was both a celebration and at times an implicit criticism of Hollywood, so I wondered if it was some funny political thing to insult that team? I'm not sure, but it did seem really bizarre.

The whole thing kind of set my spidey senses off after some thought as well. It was a bit too much of a "moment" for me.

Didn't see any of the contestants. I am interested In Scorsese's Film silence tho.

The book is remarkable. I'm interested to see what he did with the material.

the movie i was rooting against being forced to give up their award to the movie i was rooting for was such a beautiful moment

also just that they managed to pull a steve harvey for the best picture award st the iscars. made up for an otherwise incredibly boring show.

I had one more Damien Chazelle joke I was going to make, but then he lost, so I didn't care anymore. For any petty and or interested parties, it was something about him looking like the Depp twin that didn't get enough nutrients in utero.

(I enjoyed Whiplash.)

Unrelated, but chana, I've been meaning to touch base with you about Nicki Minaj. I genuinely hope someone has checked on that child. Bless.

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm looking forward to seeing "Moonlight" and it sounds like it took on much deeper topics than "La La Land", which was feelingful, bittersweet, and made a point about self-actualization, but I still wouldn't say it was extremely deep.

Yeah, it really didn't say a lot (albeit conveying a story), its most powerful moments were in at least sticking a landing regarding "the road less traveled" and about how dreams always have a price. Basically it was like an ice skating routine with super-great costumes and lightings but only average choreography/thrills occasionally punctuated by a showy twist, capped by an unexpected quad axle that didn't result in a spill.




EDIT: It makes me think about the creative process, and what I am thinking here is that he had a sense of the mood he wanted for the film (and that comes out), and he had the idea of the END of the movie and a few of the scenes (like when they meet the first time, etc), but fleshed in the rest last and didn't really have a sense of what he wanted to do in terms of specifics. Which is why maybe a lot of the middle of the movie feels kind of aimless/eeehhh.

 

[Totenkindly]

The whole thing kind of set my spidey senses off after some thought as well. It was a bit too much of a "moment" for me.

The way it is hyped by the press annoys me. Sure, it's nice to know what happened. But it's like there was no other story and it's become a big drama, I'm even seeing stories about how "PriceWaterhouse Cooper's reputation is now tarnished"... but isn't it getting tarnished because the press is running stories on how it's tarnished?

It's kind of a nothing. Someone gave someone the wrong card. The announcers didn't read the outside. The problem was fixed quickly. Shit happens. It's just an awards ceremony, with little/no relevance after the show ends. End of story. it's funny how the press is running with this.

I really want to see "Silence."

I had one more Damien Chazelle joke I was going to make, but then he lost, so I didn't care anymore. For any petty and or interested parties, it was something about him looking like the Depp twin that didn't get enough nutrients in utero.

I felt a slight pang of sadness for the guy when I saw one image (not sure where) of him up on stage after it was announced his film did not win, where he just looks flat, small, lost, and alone, a hint of despondence. From my understanding, this was his dream movie, but he ended up making Whiplash first to prove he could actually direct a bigger budget movie and get the funding/talent.

I guess it's apropos. Hey, you're the youngest director to win this award; you can take pride in that.

But I bet it's a bitch to start climbing that mountain all over, until you do it enough. I mean, to go almost all the distance on one project and then fall short. Now you start back at scratch with everyone else and have to do it all again.

(I enjoyed Whiplash.)

Aside from the argument over whether abuse provides the best output as a teaching method, I think it was a better movie altogether than La La Land.

 

[violet_crown]

The way it is hyped by the press annoys me. Sure, it's nice to know what happened. But it's like there was no other story and it's become a big drama, I'm even seeing stories about how "PriceWaterhouse Cooper's reputation is now tarnished"... but isn't it getting tarnished because the press is running stories on how it's tarnished?

It's kind of a nothing. Someone gave someone the wrong card. The announcers didn't read the outside. The problem was fixed quickly. Shit happens. It's just an awards ceremony, with little/no relevance after the show ends. End of story. it's funny how the press is running with this.

I really want to see "Silence."

MSM is just desperate to have something to talk about that isn't Trump.

I felt a slight pang of sadness for the guy when I saw one image (not sure where) of him up on stage after it was announced his film did not win, where he just looks flat, small, lost, and alone, a hint of despondence. From my understanding, this was his dream movie, but he ended up making Whiplash first to prove he could actually direct a bigger budget movie and get the funding/talent.

I guess it's apropos. Hey, you're the youngest director to win this award; you can take pride in that.

He didn't win.

Aside from the argument over whether abuse provides the best output as a teaching method, I think it was a better movie altogether than La La Land.

Actually, that wasn't my take on that movie at all. I remember thinking of it at the time as kind of a spiritual companion piece to Black Swan. Whiplash is about the sacrifice required for great art. Teller and JK Simmons' characters choose each other because they're more alike than they are different.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

[MENTION=7]Totenkindly[/MENTION]

Aside from the argument over whether abuse provides the best output as a teaching method, I think it was a better movie altogether than La La Land.

[MENTION=7254]Wind Up Rex[/MENTION]

Actually, that wasn't my take on that movie at all. I remember thinking of it at the time as kind of a spiritual companion piece to Black Swan. Whiplash is about the sacrifice required for great art. Teller and JK Simmons' characters choose each other because they're more alike than they are differ

So cool there are many ways to view film. I lean more toward Totenkindly's sentiments but only because the methods of showing sacrifice necessary for great art (the point you made, which I agree with was the theme from Tellers perspective) was so far eggagerated into mental, emotional abuse.

Mainly due to JK character sinking to insanely low levels of competition and pettiness. JK's action (at the end) betrayed any good will toward his "pushing" of Tellers character or excused the harshness of his demands.

(i.e. It was evident that JK did not want to better his pupils but to destroy the threat of competition by utilizing his postion of authority/teacher to do so).

In this respect, it's just as much a cautionary tale as much as inspirational.

 

[Totenkindly]

He didn't win.

He won Best Director, which is what I was referring to.

Which makes sense. He had a vision, and he showed he could manage a highly diverse team to put together a film with strong components, etc. These are all directing skills. But the end result wasn't Best Picture material. Note they didn't win in the screenplay category either, while still nabbing "tonal" stuff -- Cinematography, Score + Song, and Production Design.

Actually, that wasn't my take on that movie at all. I remember thinking of it at the time as kind of a spiritual companion piece to Black Swan. Whiplash is about the sacrifice required for great art. Teller and JK Simmons' characters choose each other because they're more alike than they are different.

I think both angles are in play and can't really be separated in the movie, they both exist. Question is, Can you push someone to sacrifice without being abusive? This is what I've heard TEACHERS watching the movie comment on... that they have had more success with positive reinforcement (and I'm willing to consider the opinion of actual teachers). My dad died before this movie came out, but he had one student who went on to be principle bassoonist of the NY Met for her entire career; he did it through positive reinforcement and letting her push herself, and making sure he was in her corner even when her family was not. He wasn't an easy teacher in general-group band, but he wasn't JK Simmons either.

As a side note, I got his files/binders after he died and he had saved a bunch of correspondence from parents and students -- happy notes and irate notes. It was really insightful for me to read through it all, to see how others saw him. Some people extolled his virtues for being challenging, others just really hated him. Kind of the plight of the "tough teacher" who had sharp standards.

Anyway, yeah, I think both of these characters are willing to suffer for their art and are never satisfied or willing to let up. They make no excuses. They are willing to give up EVERYTHING else in life to perfect their craft. The quality of the final product is what mattered. And they are willing to endure any amount of pain.

I really like the last few minutes when their powerplay pattern finally becomes a synergy of working together.


.... so anyway, Whiplash is almost a microcosm of La La Land. Both movies suggest that to achieve your dreams, you have to sacrifice things.

Mainly due to JK character sinking to insanely low levels of competition and pettiness. JK's action (at the end) betrayed any good will toward his "pushing" of Tellers character or excused the harshness of his demands. (i.e. It was evident that JK did not want to better his pupils but to destroy the threat of competition by utilizing his postion of authority/teacher to do so).

I actually read that as "revenge" pure and simple. Teller destroyed him; now he is destroying him back.
Secondary motive: Protecting his "philosophy" of how to craft musical visionaries.

I guess one could say JK had a bunch of ego in there (you have to, to do what he did); but to me it's not much different than a religious zealot protecting those who would undermine / tear down their faith. He destroyed Teller for attacking his ideals/plans; and he was like the "black knight gatekeeper" whose standards are SO severe that all who face him die.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The viewer ship of the oscars was down several million viewers.

I think the increasing distance between movies that the academy wishes the public liked and what movies the public actually likes as well as increasing politicization is responsible.

Movies like Forrest Gump used to win. You know, movies that the public actually wanted to see. These days its art house fair like The Artist that wins, and increasingly the public is tuning out.

 

[Totenkindly]

I guess the question is, "Are we evaluating the artmanship of the movie, or its public acclaim?" Usually the Box Office judges the latter. But this is for the industry awards, not popularity.

I don't see the point in even trying to make the Oscars a big public affair because of this. The public has already determined what is popular by whether they went to see the movie, and this is to evaluate craftsmanship and performance. You don't sell tickets for corporate awards presentations or run them live on TV. Also, aren't most of the other awards given out (and there are a ton of them, by small and large groups -- SAG, DG, etc) either in writing or in private ceremony?

The problem comes with the Oscars wanting to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to do industry awards and "put on a big show" while somehow popularizing the ceremony to generate revenue and sales off the public. Naw. No wonder it comes off as pretentious in that light.





As far as Forrest Gump, it actually beat "Pulp Fiction" and "The Shawshank Redemption." you can see that as a triumph for the little guy, I guess, but Shawshank is the number 1 movie (by popular vote) on IMDB and has been for some time. FG still rates high, but I think in a hundred years both of the "losers" will have more staying power.

 

[ceecee]

The viewer ship of the oscars was down several million viewers.

I think the increasing distance between movies that the academy wishes the public liked and what movies the public actually likes as well as increasing politicization is responsible.

Movies like Forrest Gump used to win. You know, movies that the public actually wanted to see. These days its art house fair like The Artist that wins, and increasingly the public is tuning out.

It's painfully obvious that you didn't see La La Land, which was easily the most popular nominated films this year due to it's wide appeal. You know, white, black, brown, straight, gay, old, young.... and it shows in all the awards it's won. Of course, your post is massively condescending in your belief that "the public" thinks and likes exactly the same films you do.

 

[violet_crown]

He won Best Director, which is what I was referring to.

Ah yeah.

I think both angles are in play and can't really be separated in the movie, they both exist. Question is, Can you push someone to sacrifice without being abusive? This is what I've heard TEACHERS watching the movie comment on... that they have had more success with positive reinforcement (and I'm willing to consider the opinion of actual teachers). My dad died before this movie came out, but he had one student who went on to be principle bassoonist of the NY Met for her entire career; he did it through positive reinforcement and letting her push herself, and making sure he was in her corner even when her family was not. He wasn't an easy teacher in general-group band, but he wasn't JK Simmons either.

I agree with the bolded. I think as someone who has been in the arts since I was quite young the movie hit a bit differently. I think it's almost a cliche about the arts that the same drive to create to "lose yourself in your work" is inextricable from other forms of self-destruction that artistic types are prone to.

I think that's what this film (and Black Swan) capture so beautifully. That in the normal course of your work, you have to push yourself so far beyond your limits to create just...moments, that it makes distinguishing the less "productive" forms of self-destructiveness more difficult. It's all brutality. It's all damage. When I say that Teller's character chose Simmons', what I'm saying is that he was sort of a tool of something that was already in born.

I feel like this is being interpreted as me shrugging their relationship off as the cost of good art, and that's not really my point. I don't think it's normative; it's a story of a kind of impulse. When I watched the film, I honestly approached their relationship in a very neutral way, and was more interested in this larger conflict Teller's character was experiencing with himself.

The viewer ship of the oscars was down several million viewers.

I think the increasing distance between movies that the academy wishes the public liked and what movies the public actually likes as well as increasing politicization is responsible.

Movies like Forrest Gump used to win. You know, movies that the public actually wanted to see. These days its art house fair like The Artist that wins, and increasingly the public is tuning out.

This isn't really what the thread is about. I had included you with the mention because you had commented on Oscar stuff with us a little while back and it was fun. We're discussing the ceremony and the films around it. Please don't make this into something political.

 

[FemMecha]

I think both angles are in play and can't really be separated in the movie, they both exist. Question is, Can you push someone to sacrifice without being abusive? This is what I've heard TEACHERS watching the movie comment on... that they have had more success with positive reinforcement (and I'm willing to consider the opinion of actual teachers). My dad died before this movie came out, but he had one student who went on to be principle bassoonist of the NY Met for her entire career; he did it through positive reinforcement and letting her push herself, and making sure he was in her corner even when her family was not. He wasn't an easy teacher in general-group band, but he wasn't JK Simmons either.

I don't know if you want to get me started on "Whiplash". It was a great movie and I think provided a criticism on absurd dynamics that can happen in the arts.I speak as someone who went through many years of musical training and have spent just as many teaching others. It is my entire life.

The idea that a truly great artist needs an asshole to yell at them to motivate them is one of the most extreme insults I can imagine. What do people like that think? That Mozart was sitting on the couch eating Cheetos and playing Pong all slack jawed because he just needed some stern motivation? The entire foundation of being an artist is to have ownership over your creativity, to speak with your deepest and truest voice, and for someone to behave in those emotionally abusive ways is to intrude into that ownership, it is as absurd as trying to make someone learn an instrument while sirens are blowing, during a tornado, while shooting bee-bee guns at them. How does distraction of that magnitude help focus 100% every mental resource on your expression. The premise is completely absurd and is showing a man who is investing his ego into trying to dominant and control the artistic expression of others because he can't find ownership and creativity within his own fucking self.

 

[Jaguar]

The premise is completely absurd and is showing a man who is investing his ego into trying to dominate and control the artistic expression of others because he can't find ownership and creativity within his own fucking self.

My conclusion, exactly.

 

[Totenkindly]

the heads have (expectedly) rolled.
Academy Fires Oscar Accountants Behind Best Picture Mix-Up

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Cushing was an impressive achievement but only for a small part of the movie. The rest of the effects were good but only on a professional level and not like Jungle Book. Kubo had better overall effects than RO (considering they used tangible figures and props for much of their work, and had to invent consistent ways to generate real-life phenomena like water movement, etc).

I'll have to give the Jungle Book a watch, then, and see what I think, but I usually tend to think creating whole new world out of scratch is much more interesting than just tweaking the existing one.

Maybe this doesn't fall under visual effects per se, but the series hasn't had a space battle that good since Return of the Jedi.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

No way I was going to pass up Walking Dead for the Oscars. Politics had nothing to do with it for me, though I can see why many people might've been turned off by certain events at the the Golden Globes and therefore determined not to watch the Oscars, fearful similar grandstanding and moral posturing might occur. I'm all for a discussion on hypocrisy of Hollywood elites, but I realize this isn't the thread to open that can of worms.