2018-2019 Awards Season

All non-Nolan related entertainment discussion. Join the fun!
Posts: 383
Joined: May 2013
Location: Hong Kong
ArmandFancypants wrote:
February 4th, 2019, 7:49 pm
anarchy wrote:
February 4th, 2019, 7:35 pm
ArmandFancypants wrote:
February 3rd, 2019, 7:41 am
The fact that it's not well made! The fact!

More comical (and an actual thing) is the aversion to the technical proficiency of Green Book's script which should be used to teach screenwriting.
Not sure if sarcasm(?) or not, would like to hear more about this. One criticism I don't hear enough about Green Book is how
it's basically character goes from Point A to B, shit happens, from B to C, shit happens, from C to D... so formulaic, so lacking in drive, and so arbitrary. It's almost like the screenwriter decided something needs to happen here, so let's raise the stakes by throwing in a conflict with no foreshadowing or cause-and-effect!
It's not plot driven because there is no "plot" to speak of just a rather straightforward premise and then from that the characters are going to be changed by their experience. The characters do literally go from point A to B because it's a road trip/tour. This is unimportant beyond the fact that A) the region is hostile and B) Tony would like to be back for Christmas.

What is important is that character is revealed through action, and action is sourced from character. Everything is motivated by character and informed by where the characters are at emotionally, and we have an organic progression from the protagonists interaction being forced by proximity and isolation to being about active choices and genuine friendship. The conflicts are not the literal ones of the environment but the more meaningful, for the purpose of the film, conflicts of expectation, culture and stereotype. That the (quite believable and largely organic) incidents inform, accelerate and support the change is necessary because we are watching a 2 hour film, not watching this play out in real time. But it's not as simple as them learning some sort of facile lesson from each incident, it is often about character reveal and self-examination more than anything. And that's why the film has connected with an audience - it offers spiritual enrichment and reward for embracing your fellow man. It's carrot over stick storytelling, and if it was that easy more people would do it and have similar success.
1. "Tony wants to go home" feels so tacked on to me, something the writers pulled out from time to time whenever the movie needed more stakes. And of course there was no doubt he would make it back at all. So the suspense serves no true purpose.
2. I agree character is revealed through action, but the characters in this movie are so trite or unexplored. Tony is such an overblown stereotype and Viggo's performance doesn't help (line readings from Farrelly explain something). Shirley is obviously an extremely interesting character at the intersection of multiple identities but the film leaves him mostly unexplored. I don't think it does a good job at 'character reveal' at all when his queerness is so lightly revealed and quickly swept aside.
3. I don't think either character does any meaningful or deep self-examination. Sure, they change and those changes are expressed through action, but the self-examination feels superficial and sudden. Does Tony ever confront the origin of his racism? Not that I recall, he just gradually becomes non-racist after spending time with Shirley. I'm not saying everything has to written out aloud, but the movie didn't do a good job making me believe that the characters did the self-examination necessary to truly solve their problems.
4. Sure the incidents might be believable, but I didn't find them organic. Again the timing of their appearances just feels forced. They feel like they were placed there by screenwriters whenever the movie needed conflict. And of course they get increasingly severe as the movie goes along, because screenwriting calls for rising tension. The incidents feel disjointed; it doesn't feel like one incident leads to another, which is crucial for this snowballing to work.

Posts: 26062
Joined: February 2010
Location: Tejas
Oscars 2019: problems mount as Academy aims to reboot TV show
The broadcast is now to be kept to three hours of running time, with the handout of less popular categories’ awards confined to commercial breaks (though as yet it’s unclear which ones will be relegated).
what in the cinematic fuck

some of the most genuine moments have been from people accepting awards that are considered "less popular"

case in point for our purposes, all the people who won tech awards for Inception and thanked Nolan

Posts: 25233
Joined: June 2011
Phantom Thread's costume designer was a highlight last year.

Posts: 2408
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
How is this news now again? I thought it was announced months ago.

Posts: 9724
Joined: October 2011
Location: Foot of Mt. Belzoni
anarchy wrote:
February 5th, 2019, 1:32 am
ArmandFancypants wrote:
February 4th, 2019, 7:49 pm
anarchy wrote:
February 4th, 2019, 7:35 pm


Not sure if sarcasm(?) or not, would like to hear more about this. One criticism I don't hear enough about Green Book is how
it's basically character goes from Point A to B, shit happens, from B to C, shit happens, from C to D... so formulaic, so lacking in drive, and so arbitrary. It's almost like the screenwriter decided something needs to happen here, so let's raise the stakes by throwing in a conflict with no foreshadowing or cause-and-effect!
It's not plot driven because there is no "plot" to speak of just a rather straightforward premise and then from that the characters are going to be changed by their experience. The characters do literally go from point A to B because it's a road trip/tour. This is unimportant beyond the fact that A) the region is hostile and B) Tony would like to be back for Christmas.

What is important is that character is revealed through action, and action is sourced from character. Everything is motivated by character and informed by where the characters are at emotionally, and we have an organic progression from the protagonists interaction being forced by proximity and isolation to being about active choices and genuine friendship. The conflicts are not the literal ones of the environment but the more meaningful, for the purpose of the film, conflicts of expectation, culture and stereotype. That the (quite believable and largely organic) incidents inform, accelerate and support the change is necessary because we are watching a 2 hour film, not watching this play out in real time. But it's not as simple as them learning some sort of facile lesson from each incident, it is often about character reveal and self-examination more than anything. And that's why the film has connected with an audience - it offers spiritual enrichment and reward for embracing your fellow man. It's carrot over stick storytelling, and if it was that easy more people would do it and have similar success.
1. "Tony wants to go home" feels so tacked on to me, something the writers pulled out from time to time whenever the movie needed more stakes. And of course there was no doubt he would make it back at all. So the suspense serves no true purpose.
2. I agree character is revealed through action, but the characters in this movie are so trite or unexplored. Tony is such an overblown stereotype and Viggo's performance doesn't help (line readings from Farrelly explain something). Shirley is obviously an extremely interesting character at the intersection of multiple identities but the film leaves him mostly unexplored. I don't think it does a good job at 'character reveal' at all when his queerness is so lightly revealed and quickly swept aside.
3. I don't think either character does any meaningful or deep self-examination. Sure, they change and those changes are expressed through action, but the self-examination feels superficial and sudden. Does Tony ever confront the origin of his racism? Not that I recall, he just gradually becomes non-racist after spending time with Shirley. I'm not saying everything has to written out aloud, but the movie didn't do a good job making me believe that the characters did the self-examination necessary to truly solve their problems.
4. Sure the incidents might be believable, but I didn't find them organic. Again the timing of their appearances just feels forced. They feel like they were placed there by screenwriters whenever the movie needed conflict. And of course they get increasingly severe as the movie goes along, because screenwriting calls for rising tension. The incidents feel disjointed; it doesn't feel like one incident leads to another, which is crucial for this snowballing to work.
Its not a question of suspense but rather a bracket and a question of where the characters are going to be emotionally at that time. But the stakes are organic to the premise of the film - Tony is partially hired to act as a bodyguard because of the hostile territory Shirley is going into. The characters themselves are aware that there will be incident given the nature of the trip. This is like being frustrated by murder occurring in "Homicide" - It's literally why we're here.

Mortensen plays broad but this belies the humanity in the character. Just as Tony makes assumptions about Shirley, he makes assumptions about Tony. If Tony isn't played to the hilt, Shirley seems like a dick instead of just being prickly. But because Mortensen is so good, he can deploy moments of depth and sincerity within that, and it is surprising and effective because we think we know him.

So when the film moves on from Shirley's queerness, it is because our perspective character is surprisingly unfazed by it. The point is that Tony is perhaps more accepting than even he realises, and this in part warms him to Shirley, that the prejudices are complicated. This is also why it is not the function of the film to explore the origins of Tony's racism. Not everything has a responsibility to be SELMA or BELOVED or BLACKKLANSMAN. In those films the racism is monstrous but a white audience will reject it because those characters are truly villainous. This film is about casual or passive racism, where it is culturally accepted but not a part of the characters active agenda. Tony is a dreadful racist at the start, but he does not have an active agenda. This is what the film is trying to explore, something which is also rife in society and is an important subject.

Posts: 1074
Joined: September 2014

Posts: 696
Joined: February 2012

Posts: 41840
Joined: May 2010
Rami Malek has now won Globe, SAG and Bafta. I wonder when Dodd will accept reality Cooper is not winning the Oscar and he has to pay me 100 dollars? :think:

Posts: 54041
Joined: May 2010
Location: House of X
Black Panther won BAFTA for visual effects.

Me: That is plain and simply (and yes, factually) wrong
Emperor’s New Clothes deniers: Maybe they simply liked the effects?

Image

Movie’s immense cultural impact and global success aside (meaning, yes, of course it’s loved by many), we’re talking BEST here, in any category. Best, like, out of all the others in 2018. Hell, I’d vote Thanos if you don’t appreciate the more nuanced fashion in which First Man was made.

Posts: 114
Joined: May 2014
Location: London/Italy
Maybe voting at these major award shows should be weighted in favour of members of the catergory being voted on. e.g. all academy members get to vote for 'Best Editing' but the votes from registered editors carry a weighting to increase the chances that the winner is being rewarded on technical merit and not just because the voter liked the film so they vote for it in every category.

I can't help but think that many of the votes at these show are made in ingorance of what technically makes the score, costume design, directing the best. Some of it will be emotional but is must also be rewarded on technical merit.

Post Reply