This movie reminded me of why Phoenix is my favourite working actor today. He is able to confront that dark corner of all our emotions, grabs hold of it without fear, and wields it like a weapon. The way he plays vulnerable yet dangerous astounds me every single time.

Really liked how this was basically anti-Taken/anti-Hollywood mentality. Less is more. Joaquin masterful, as always.

Thanks m4. Now I want to watch this again.

Baffling how Ramsay is not in the discussions for the best director.£

Master Virgo wrote: ↑

January 21st, 2019, 3:11 am

Baffling how Ramsay is not in the discussions for the best director.£

Ramsay's direction is awe-inspiring, of course. But Joaquin's work is not only career-best, but clearly superior to all his peers' in the game. This leading performance is like best of the decade material, and so many leagues better than the stuff that wins or gets nominated all the time (first example in my head is DiCaprio in Revenant).

Master Virgo wrote: ↑

January 21st, 2019, 3:11 am

Baffling how Ramsay is not in the discussions for the best director.£

Not well exposed enough, potentially still hasn't got great capital after the Portman film, and it's a brutal experience. You have to have more career momentum, and momentum for the film at large to get in for something like this.

Master Virgo wrote: ↑

January 21st, 2019, 3:11 am

Baffling how Ramsay is not in the discussions for the best director.£

Same, perhaps she should make something that has higher chances of becoming a financial hit as well, for more exposure. Ramsay is very talented.

This is only further proof, that nominating someone like Gerwig for instance from last year is simply a temporary gimmick, mostly due to the fact that it was 2017 and they knew, they couldn't get away with ignoring her in that particular period of time. Academy and these Guilds things are still pretty much sexist to the core.

Snubbing Bigelow (Don't say this was all about the torture controversy, when it didn't affect the film getting nods in other categories) and DuVernay being left out in favour of Miller or Tyldum, who had barely been nominated anywhere. And now this year Ramsay, seemingly a favourite during the critics circle awards phase, suddenly disappears from the lists, after televised awards set in.

You bring up obscurity issues, but that certainly didn't stop Zeitlin from taking Bigelow's place. You say it has to be Oscar material, surely Selma is way more of an Oscar bait than Foxcatcher.

It doesn't add up tbh. Hard to believe, that this is all random and coincidental.£

Master Virgo wrote: ↑

January 21st, 2019, 8:32 am

This is only further proof, that nominating someone like Gerwig for instance from last year is simply a temporary gimmick, mostly due to the fact that it was 2017 and they knew, they couldn't get away with ignoring her in that particular period of time. Academy and these Guilds things are still pretty much sexist to the core.

Snubbing Bigelow (Don't say this was all about the torture controversy, when it didn't affect the film getting nods in other categories) and DuVernay being left out in favour of Miller or Tyldum, who had barely been nominated anywhere. And now this year Ramsay, seemingly a favourite during the critics circle awards phase, suddenly disappears from the lists, after televised awards set in.

You bring up obscurity issues, but that certainly didn't stop Zeitlin from taking Bigelow's place. You say it has to be Oscar material, surely Selma is way more of an Oscar bait than Foxcatcher.

It doesn't add up tbh. Hard to believe, that this is all random and coincidental.£

Lady Bird is vastly more accessible.

Selma didn't engender much passion from the Academy overall (Oyelowo missed out too as did, well, everyone else apart from the song).

2012 is a truly bizarre year, given that Affleck missed out as well. Zeitlin is one of the most perplexing Best Director nods this side of 1997.

It's always a mixture of factors. It's not just about being Oscar material, and it's not just about it being good or bad. Other prejudicial factors do come into play, I don't deny that. But this film would have been a long shot for Oscar recognition with a bloke at the helm.

The fact of it is, that a good portion of society subconsciously reject the idea of a woman being in charge, and that is more evident the further you go back to older generations with antiquated mindsets.

If there was a singing or popularity contest, they might vote for a female over a male, but a female director, a woman who's giving orders and has a vision and creative ideas, is a bit too much. (And maybe that wasn't the most important one, but it was definitely a factor in Trump winning over Clinton. Arguably race was still a biger issue.)

That is also the case among these mostly old, mostly male awards voters. And among these circles, Globes is by far the worst. They surprisingly voted for Cameron over Bigelow, (well also has to do with them being more populist), and didn't nominate the heavy favourite, Gerwig.

The thing is, I wouldn't be here whining about all of this, if these awards were left field weird shit, where movies like Mother, Raw or Fallout could suddenly snatch a prize, and nobody could predict anything. But when 95% of the time, they are in line with a certain pattern, but suddenly decide not to be, then clearly it becomes suspicious.£