The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

An ongoing project to survey the best films of individual decades, genres, and filmmakers.
Message
Author
User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#526 Post by knives » Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:11 pm

That last sense is exactly what I meant so it gets an amen.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#527 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:26 pm

knives wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 2:48 pm
The simplest answer seems to me is that she's not an advocate or someone super knowledgeable about stuff. The film is a realistic rendering of what these characters would do and doesn't need to fulfill any proscribed ideology to be good. People make uninformed major decisions all the time.
Of course, but people are allowed to have problems with it if there is an insinuation that this was the "right" choice, which is obviously a subjective interpretation for anyone but aesthetic Hollywood dramatics can aid that influence. I'm not taking that side, and I agree with your comment - as well as domino's, but that "simplest answer" negates a macro-impact which is the whole reason for the problems those groups have in the first place. Personally I think people can take what they want out of art and make with it what they will, and don't side with the groups that twist it for their own agenda, but that doesn't invalidate their experience when taking a perspective of how this internal logic of the film can impact external opinions on the subject outside of lived experience. For example, there are certain things that I could say in this moment right now that without them I would not want to live, but there are things I've given up that I would have said the same thing about ten years ago and have a decent quality of life today. So there's something to that push and I'd like to believe beyond my own narrow scope at the moment that I would be able to adapt, but who knows, maybe I wouldn't and like you say that's okay too. But if I perceived that a film was diminishing the opportunity to attempt adaptation (I'm not saying it is, but I'm not in a position to relate to this issue - and just because the three of us can say that from our position we thought it was a fine portrayal doesn't speak for the population who don't) then I would be offended.

On the other hand, I have a huge problem with the attitudes of these groups or others that project their own experience onto others which also insinuates problematic positions of "pull yourself up by your emotional bootstraps because I could" so this issue is complex. It doesn't have to be for every viewer, and everyone is perfectly in their right to say it worked for them and they didn't see a problem with the film viewed in a vacuum; but I don't see anything simple about this issue we're talking about unless we want to judge the whole issue of clashing perspectives from only our own perspective, in which case why even engage in conversation on that issue on a forum if we aren't going to extend an ear.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#528 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:34 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
knives wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 1:17 pm
You should definitely take that shot as long as there's no stool nearby. I couldn't formulate it as ableist whatsoever.
I took a class on macro advocacy for people living with disabilities where my prof singled it out as the worst offender for
SpoilerShow
insinuating death as the best option for someone living with a disability, in a decision made by an able-bodied person.
Some of those examples in films she showed felt questionable to me, especially Sayles' Passion Fish, but it made it challenging to ignore that angle of muting the power of agency in rehabilitation once at a baseline state. However, I can't recall the specifics about the movie to defend that stance, and since many of the examples of that class were taken angrily out of context it's probable that one was too. I do remember being put-off by it, but it's also telling a story that forces such a feeling so I look forward to revisiting it with impartial eyes and a decade or so of maturity behind me that has helped not to judge films quite as harshly from skewed subjective space.
SpoilerShow
I’ve always found cheap the kind of argument that rests on treating the decisions of a single character in a specific context as a kind of general principle. Such arguments also end up denying the individuality of the characters, indeed their agency as individuals, and the nature of context in decision making, in order to advance an ideological point. I think we need to take care not to automatically treat representations as representative. What we need to know about Swank’s character is not that she represents the plight of the disabled, but that once she has set her mind on an outcome, she never wavers. The quality in her that spurred her achievements also spurs her end. It’s not an irony, tho’, since in both cases she fights single-mindedly everyone around her and their ideas for her life in order to assert her own private decision on the trajectory of her life. She is true to herself all through, truer than if the film had chosen a more sentimental route, having her overcome the limitations of her disability or some such. This is to say nothing of how Eastwood’s character would not work under such an ending. He has since nearly the beginning been dedicated to helping her get what she wants. His final choice is not isolated, it is part of a sequence.

Understanding the ending requires you do the hard work of understanding the characters, their motivations and self definitions, and the contexts created by their decisions and situations. It involves treating the parts not in isolation, but as crucially integrated into a whole. Criticizing the end as ableist requires a lot less: not only that you prejudge the thing from an ideological perspective, but that you treat the characters as categories and not individuals and the movie as some kind of essay rather than a drama.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#529 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:38 pm

I agree with that wholeheartedly, Sausage, well said. My devil's advocate point is in treating this argument itself as one of little merit outside of a simple answer. You basically summed up why I take the exit stairs in these situations when presented with an ideological movement (of which there are plenty of more recent examples) better than I tried to do above, and provided a framework in which to engage with the conversation. Thanks

This is also why I was furious in the class about the singling out a scene in Passion Fish, because focusing on whatever individual moment they did invalidated the changes in grief and emotional lability that is true to any crisis, and which de-values the individual too. It's been too long since I've seen the Eastwood as I said, but I obviously didn't like it or remember it enough to have the same reaction when that clip was shown and explained, and will give it the same lens when I see it again.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#530 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Apr 14, 2020 3:54 pm

2016

Arrival: Impeccable presentation from editing to sound design and a striking performance from Adams who should have at least been nominated. The sci fi aspects are secondary to the themes on communication and how we process information, with a lump-in-your-throat final gesture that is clever in execution and celebratory for suffering through the yin just the make the yang possible. The way memory is fragmented and filtered through pathos and joy intertwined rings true for nostalgia as a platform of loss, and finds the pleasure in the processing even when it seems so brutal, because its pain is only made possible by the reasons to live. Rarely has science fiction reflected humanity so deeply, often its intention, but this film finds new ways to dig and achieve complete surrender and surrogate alignment. Once again, films that get the concept of "loss" so right are magical because it's such a universal experience, and this does so in a creative way that earns its rewards. I think the film would be strong still with a different star, but it really is Adams that sells this to us with all her lived-in honesty.

Fences: Good play, good performances, and a thematic area of grey space between generational divides of competing yet overlapping social contexts that strike my interests and remain an experience so divorced from my own context that curiosity drives my investment all the way. All the actors are good, and Denzel did a fine job at the helm, though the Oscars for this one went as they should have.

Hacksaw Ridge: A film in two halves, the first embodying I don't know how many movies that have come before it, but it's a snoozer. The back half battle is jarring and though I didn't like the film much overall, I found a lot of merit in this juxtaposition. The jump off the cliff from Garfield's idealism and comfortable Hollywood Bio-Pic dramatic beats to sheer horror of war, sticking you in it for a whole hour, is one way to slap the first half of the movie and Doss' ethics in the face and take them for a ride so that when he emerges in tact holding onto them there is an admiration there that wouldn't have been earned otherwise. Regardless of this right choice, those effects don't last much longer than the credits roll.

Hell or High Water: I didn't think much of it the first time maybe because of all the hailing praise, but on a revisit t I actually really enjoyed it for what it was. There is a striking sense of the generational inheritance of poverty that creates systemic inequality regardless of zeitgeist signifiers and the attention to character and milieu are a lot stronger than most genre entries like this. Everyone does a great job here (including Pine..) though the other actors shine in relatively tempered performances. Bridges' subtle acting at the end is great.

Hidden Figures: Fine film that gives some attention to people who deserve it, but still whitewashed (Kostner ripping the sign down is one of the many debunked parts that gratify the audience in the shallowest way). The leading performances are good and I'm glad the film was made, but talk about systemic influence. At least I know the story now, as do many other people, but maybe there's a better way to tell it.

La La Land: The film loses some steam in it's middle section and Gosling, who I actually usually like, is hard to watch here, but Stone radiates the screen and the numbers and songs are popping so loud the film is begging to entrance you and it does so in spades. The homages to Demy in particular are welcome, and as a musical it hits all the beats that it needs to in becoming one of the best - if not the best - modern musical. The thin characters don't really matter in this context, but those looking outside the scope of the classical genre this is emulating for something Greater are looking for something different than what Chazelle is offering.

Lion: People loved this but I got next to nothing out of it. This is where a Hollywoodized version of a true story loses me, and though I admired the story itself I was never grabbed by the narrative framing towards a common goal with the main character.

Manchester By The Sea: Well this is a film I can relate to, and Affleck's internalized performance ranks as one of the best ever for me, along with Lonergan's script which is just so honest this practically breaks into reality. Moments like Affleck watching the pizza heat up in the microwave are some of the most powerful, showing a man who cannot live in his own head for one second without spiraling into unmanageable emotional dysregulation, breaking a window in one moment we see him not distracted. The self-flagellation is too relatable beyond Catholic guilt and the resilience found in taking absolute responsibility and refusing to participate in life is the authentic kind of contradiction life is made of. Words cannot describe how much I love every second of this movie aside from a weird jump cut featuring the director himself, which is the only flaw embedded in a masterpiece of pathos and a validation for all those bearing the weight of the past out there. Every Lonergan film is a masterpiece, and this is his masterpiece.

Moonlight: Very visually arresting film that struck me deeply on a first watch and has since lost its initial power, but I cannot deny its greatness nor that it deserved its statue. The three timelines work marvelously at showing a disjointed progression and the depiction of crack addiction and turn into external aggression due to a lack of supports hit buttons that I see as true despite having mostly observational direct experience in my exposure to these issues. It's hard to make a movie that's so beautiful and elated and tragic at the same time as infusing style and raw exhibition seamlessly, but Jenkins fits an assembly of emotions into this punch of a motion picture and it's terrific.

My pick: Manchester By The Sea

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#531 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Apr 14, 2020 4:54 pm

2017

Call Me By Your Name: Rarely have I been transported so effortlessly into a foreign milieu that is treated like life as a fairy tale yet with complete recognition to the emotional highs and lows. The grand speech at the end and the final shot solidify this to be as good a message movie about the yin-yang process of life through love as any, but the coming-of-age experience is what sells this as a novelistic exposition on art, in inanimate physical manifestations like architecture and sculpture, animate art of the body or two fusing together through touch or an energetic flirt, or simply the art of being in a space captured under the sun or in water in a grand picture that books, movies, and painting can capture. I've heard people struggling to engage with the characters as surrogates especially buying into their first sexual encounter, and my own barrier to this was in attempting to find that entry point in forced alignment instead of viewing it with more objectivity and curiosity as a filmed novel, which like the best of them strike you in the emotional chords when it's time and drew me into its story organically before long. This is a coming of age story that I found more moving and apt emotionally than I thought of it as sexually charged; rather it recognized sex as integral to the excitement of these experiences which was incredibly well drawn. I wish more movies took such a validating angle towards sex and emphasized the crevices of it aside from the surface-shallow dimension.

Darkest Hour: Oldman wins Oscar finally, and by telling only a piece of Churchill's story the film wins in finding a modest space to flaunt its bloated content. I enjoyed myself well enough, but a passive experience with a great perf and some great speeches likely not written by anyone working on this film.

Dunkirk: There are a lot of naysayers but this worked for me, time-playing and all. The tension mounted itself with extreme tampering that felt organic nonetheless, and Nolan's intrusive stylistic choices didn't bother me, but I also don't think this is the masterpiece others do. As far as modern war films go, it's one of the better.

Get Out: This is a fun scathing black comedy on microaggressions and white repressive jealousy that takes the "hell is other people" idea of social comparison and inserts it into a sci-fi horror where dominant groups confidently extract these social anxieties made tangible, as a form of Mad Scientist Imperialism. The ideas are smarter than the film is good, but it is very good, and funny, and compulsively digestable, which is difficult to pull off. Peele also stays pretty humble in not overdoing the obvious nudges, or going full-force into aggressive social critique, and earns points by the patience in which he traps his audiences and allows them (us) to laugh all together at ourselves. Although it's not my pick in hindsight, I wanted it to win its year because of how grand that statement would be in awarding a 'horror-comedy' the top prize' and as ironic as the all-white liberal crowd that cheered and clapped throughout my screening, most of whom were probably unaware that they were the targets of the statement, not the "real racists down south!"

Lady Bird: Gerwig's debut was a cute coming-of-age dramedy more in line with the indie 90s movies than the other coming of age film this year (also starring Timothée Chalamet, who is as hilarious here as he is serious there). Definitely a good film, but I didn't see the masterpiece everyone else did, though Laurie Metcalf is terrific as always and should get more work.

Phantom Thread: The best unapologetically true declaration of the inherent selfishness in people that comes with individuality and identity, and how the idea of relationships, while invaluable and necessary, is also insane because you're compromising your 'self' against the grain of that self's selfish drives. For me this is up there with Anderson's best films which are all mature works in their own ways, but this one is from that place of existential thoughtfulness that's personal and clearly came from an 'a-ha' moment Anderson had with experience and reflection. It feels like his most personal film in the moment it was made, like Punch-Drunk Love or Magnolia, and is one of the most honest films about relationships in general. The score is the best thing that Greenwood has ever done (and I'm a fan of Radiohead) and Vicky Krieps out-acts DDL by a mile, completely robbed of an Oscar nom. On some days this is my favorite PTA film, and I've come to believe that it is wisest work, take from that what you will.

The Post: I didn't mind this Spielberg entry, and like Bridge of Spies was happy to be taken on a breezy journey of dramatic content, but once the train arrived at the station I didn't need to remember my trip. It was a fun way to spend a few hours with good actors playing good people who were trying to do good things, and I'd do it again, but I'm not sure if I'd take anything more home with me if I did.

The Shape of Water: Del Toro is not my favorite but I liked this the first time quite a bit in its fantastical swiftness, though a quick rebound revisit crushed that magic. It's not bad, and I get why people like it for Del Toro has always been a lover of movies and it shows in very kind ways that make me admire his love. It's just not anywhere close to a best picture winner.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri: Martin McDonagh is a talented writer but here he stroked his ego too far while cramming every resentment he had into a screenplay and it comes off as empty self-gratifying mud. Very few aspects of this films worked and even the ones that I laughed at initially, like the speech to the priest using the allegory of the Crips/Bloods, feel manipulative and unfair in hindsight (his brother tackled this subject with much more sensitive ambiguity already). Also, for a film that tries to give us raw humanity on a platter, it gets so much wrong caught up in its contrived ideas that it's embarrassing and frankly disrespectful to audiences, the worst moment being Rockwell's heroic attempt to critically think and save documents (that have already been looked into and are dubbed value-less) in a moment of fight/flight when we don't access that part of our brain. There's a fire, and you're thinking, "Well maybe I should a) completely step out of character and care about somebody else, and b) maybe these documents will show something important if we look at them again"? It's not a baby, it's a file of papers, and nobody's biology works like that. Though everyone in this film behaves like an alien so through that lens, I guess it's fitting.

My pick: Phantom Thread

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#532 Post by knives » Tue Apr 14, 2020 4:58 pm

I wonder why people keep calling Ladybird her debut? It's her solo feature debut, but she had received directing credits before.

User avatar
Never Cursed
Such is life on board the Redoutable
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:22 am

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#533 Post by Never Cursed » Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:19 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 4:54 pm
(his brother tackled this subject with much more sensitive ambiguity already)
What film is this referring to?

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#534 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:23 pm

knives wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 4:58 pm
I wonder why people keep calling Ladybird her debut? It's her solo feature debut, but she had received directing credits before.
Honestly I blocked out the Swanberg collab Nights and Weekends, which was one of my most painful viewing experiences and the worst mumblecore film I've seen (of far too many), so that's why for me - but otherwise I can't find any other credits that you seem to be referring to with the plural. I suspect the answer to your question is whatever those other films are, they aren't listed on wikipedia or imdb, but I am curious now.
Never Cursed wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:19 pm
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Apr 14, 2020 4:54 pm
(his brother tackled this subject with much more sensitive ambiguity already)
What film is this referring to?
Calvary

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#535 Post by knives » Tue Apr 14, 2020 6:37 pm

I was taking the Swanberg collabs on the whole though your reasoning is probably everyone else's as well.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#536 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Apr 14, 2020 10:23 pm

2010

127 Hours: James Franco, one-man-show true story, survivalist drama. None of this should have worked for me, but I admittedly thought Franco was great, the survivalist claustrophobia was involving, and the experience was generally translated very well. Boyle's stylistic choices worked in exaggerating the intensity of being trapped without overextending his welcome, especially that use of sound in the climactic moment, and of course the montage of soda commercials to Bill Withers' Lovely Day when dehydrated which is one of my favorite inspired 'fantasy' ideas. Even the Sigur Ros finale had me tearing up the first watch. It was a shame Franco hosted the ceremony this year, as his performance was one of the year's best and I felt like by having him host his work was severely invalidated.

Black Swan: Strong psychological horror-thriller with a healthy dose of paranoia and visual aesthetic to make us cringe and doubt our surrogate's reality without insisting on setting markers for us, confidently declaring its own mysterious internal logic. I was more than happy to surrender to it the first time and still am though with slightly diminishing returns. The sexual repression and internal struggle for ignored drives to find their way out is handled audaciously rather than with tender care, and while I'm not an Aronofsky fan generally, this shows off his skills and desire to go big and loud in a film that's actually good because of its flaunts rather than having them overcook the batter.

The Fighter: Bale gives a performance that screams Oscar and he got it, and while there is a lot of welcome attention to wild dynamics giving color to this portrait of a family system, the pieces don't really get off the ground to achieve any sense of higher purpose other than watching character actors chew scenery. I like Russell in this mode, as it plays to his directing strengths, but I I also think that he's a fantastic writer who has a greater capacity for inventiveness when using his own script and the result of that missing piece is one of Russell's weakest films.

Inception: I know people get frustrated by this one, but here is Nolan using his talents in creative vision and "gimmicky" narrative/editing ideas to form an unapologetically filterless and fearless spilling of the imagination onto the screen. I enjoyed theorizing about the totem after seeing this at midnight ten years ago, and enjoyed giving up any cares on the subject and enjoying the exposition the other howevermany times I've seen it since. I get why people don't like it, and if you're sensitive to its irritations there's no stopping the squirming, but this is a capital-M "Movie," a blockbuster that has brains and heart, and most importantly is just incredibly fun and continuously surprising. If his next film is any kind of spiritual sequel to this rush of vision, it'll be the best blockbuster since.. this?

The Kids Are Alright: The attention to the kids are what make this movie tolerable and even interesting from an angle I wasn't expecting. Ruffalo's character is initially inserted in an interesting way where he walks a fine line that briefly steals some sympathy by transporting us into his position as a primary character suddenly given an opportunity to help him self-actualize, as if he's hijacking the film, only to then reveal the objective consequences and ego-vacation reality of his perspective in granting us access to so many more when the mic gets passed around more frequently like a game of hot potato. This narrative twisting creates a cheeky kind of 'a-ha' moment for the viewer that makes a kind of reflective statement about the surrogate experience of moviewatching and aligning with whoever we're told to, unveiling it as just another skewed perspective and perhaps even a problematic one with more information. Unfortunately the film as a whole makes some errors in development that aren't earned completely rooted into the plot, which felt like unnecessarily tagged-on dramatics. The film bites off more than it can chew, or that it should chew, and that is ultimately what is its demise, and reveals even the stronger aspects to be weaker than their potential.

The King's Speech: Enjoyable enough Oscar Bait pic with strong performances and a well-executed story that would have been a slog without the wise choice to take the context of unrelatable royalty and make us sympathize with more universal ideas like walking through fear to initiate change, grappling with ambiguous feelings on expectations both oppressive and full of opportunities, and coping with a disability. I don't think this earned the awards it got, except maybe Firth, but when this is near the bottom of an overall terrific year for BP, it's a pretty good year.

The Social Network: I could write a book on this masterpiece, which as I've said before is a more complex and poignant version of Citizen Kane. Is this a film about the rise of the intelligent repressed into positions of power in the dot com boom, or an ironic parable of the socially excluded gaining attention only to fall into the same fate as the individualists that came before. The price of our defense mechanisms in alienating others with superiority is alienation from others emotionally, and connecting the world on a macro-scale without having any micro-connections, well the irony just continues on and on, but it's not absurdism-it's reality. Life as full of ironic traps, defenses that serve us in our resilience and yet prevent the validation we could get through vulnerability from taking the risk at connecting. Maybe it's a film about how we're not conditioned to access such skills, or one that recognizes and empathizes with that hardship. Ultimately it's a beautiful, expertly directed, sharply written, entertaining, engaging, stylish ethical puzzle that reveals itself in the end to be about the emotions hidden beneath those cognitive protectors. And that ending becomes the most rewarding gut-punch of a magic trick, with a final image that affects me as much today as it did a decade ago, a Rosebud that I can identify with.

Toy Story 3: I revisited this again before the 4th and it wasn't as gobsmacking as when I saw it ten years ago, but it's still good. That first viewing knocked me down, an ending that tore my nostalgia and experience with development right out of my skin, only done better five years later in Inside Out, but that's Pixar's best work, so can't compete.

True Grit: I can appreciate that the Coens wanted to do a straight adaptation of the novel, and they did discover Hailee Steinfeld, but this didn't click as well with me as I had hoped. On revisits it's a good time, well crafted and intriguingly novelistic, but I continue to come away thinking it's prettier to look at than it is alluring on other terms of access which the Coens usually pierce for me. I'm sure it was fun to make though.

Winter's Bone: Sensational envelopment into milieu, where I continue to see actors pop up from this film in other works and think these petrifying cold criminals have infiltrated the acting world (Dale Dickey, anyone?) but here is Lawrence gutted of sexuality on a gritty neo-noir mission in a very specific atmosphere of anarchic law that most resembles how it would probably go, leading to a place of no large confrontation but a setpiece more powerfully harsh than any other could be. The resilience of Lawrence through it all is worth the price of admission alone. A star was born here, and she earned it.

My Pick: The Social Network

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#537 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Apr 15, 2020 1:02 am

And in a strange coincidence I was just sent this (I’ve said the title of the article enough times over the last ten years to make this pretty eerie):

The Social Network Should’ve Won Best Picture and I’m Still Mad About It”

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#538 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:59 am

2005

Brokeback Mountain: It took me awhile to finally catch this one a handful of years back, and it's a surprisingly restrained drama that succeeds by basking in the sheer confusion of enigmatic attraction, that takes casualties by coming to friction with expected social norms, like a 50s movie catapulted into the new millennium. Everyone is outstanding in the subtle ways that they demonstrate their reactions of coping, but Michelle Williams still sticks out and was robbed of her award.

Capote: Philip Seymour Hoffman makes a decent biopic better by oozing his complex aims of manipulation, compassion, and eccentric unreadability into each frame. Bennett Miller directs the hell out of it (and would continue to get better and better across his next two films- what a travesty that he hasn't made anything since Foxcatcher) but can't save the final product from being a more polished version of ordinary material.

Crash: I'm not sure I have the exact same problems that others do with this film, but I still hate it. I don't think the film "cures" racism, or that its proposition that everyone has a racist part of them is so deserving of aggressive rejection for initiating the conversation. It's that it doesn't say anything, and is ambiguous enough in the wrong way to discount its entire point. The world is grey, yes, but instead of making us sit in that truth, or acknowledging that 'predominantly-good people to a certain group' are flawed and can commit microaggressions while 'predominantly-harmful people to a certain group' can also help sometimes, the film tries to 'even things out' and apologize for the sexually-assaulting cop through an instance of luck and loyalty to his dad, and disrobe a moral man with murder. This film only offends those who feel uncomfortable with the supposition that everyone has ingrained racist ideas (which is normal, and is most of us western whites) because it doesn't ease anyone into that idea with fleeting thoughts, but bombasts us with fucking murder. There is a difference between saying that everyone has racist fragments in them, and that racism defines the person, as “a racist.” Haggis has an opportunity here, and instead of making the film he wants to make, sets back the agenda of the film by traumatizing its target audience. This isn’t even a problem in and of itself either, except it’s executed unfairly with a consequence of offending and sweeping under the rug, which seems so counter-intuitive and paradoxical that the film isn’t even good within its own bizarre logic. [I'm reminded of my Dynamics of Racism class professor in college who screamed at us all that we were racists, making me reject this idea completely until years later a grad school professor explained what that actually meant in a more comprehensible and validating manner and allowed me to 'get' the non-extremist theory. This film is that undergrad prof]

Good Night, and Good Luck: This film, like Capote, fits the blueprint of many that came before it, but tells a very important story about an important man with a strong cast and crew allowing the story to be told with controlled composure and humility.

Munich: Excellent film that does reinvent the biopic, doing something very different. Spielberg is making a political spy thriller out of history, imbuing action, drama, and never shying away from the moral grey area permeating the actions and consequences. The banal practices of the mission, most notably forcing the agents into positions that are hostages of time and space, away from their other lives, is always felt and operates as if taken from a John le Carré novel. I remember being incredibly disappointed by the last act when seeing this in theatres, but I think I may find the overblown narrative serving to drive home that point about dragging out time for us as it has for Bana, if and when I get around to revisiting it. Either way, it's easily the best film of the noms.

My pick: Munich

User avatar
dustybooks
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#539 Post by dustybooks » Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:36 pm

For me, 2005 is a particularly infuriating year for this because not only is the winner, in my opinion, the worst Best Picture winner of them all, it’s also the rare year in which I find all of the other nominees excellent and would have enjoyed seeing any of them win!

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#540 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Mar 26, 2021 6:10 pm

2020

The Father: My thoughts are more or less or par with Brian C’s writeup though I don’t think I liked this as much as he did. The first third is an impressive exercise in subliminal subjective alignment through desaturation of formalist technique. By eliminating all aesthetics, we unknowingly enter a realist horror film that manipulates time continuity without any signifiers for how we are supposed to feel, even music cues. I haven’t seen anything presented quite like it- the use of minimalism creating a deceptive state of calm security in one’s own home, which is shattered repetitively before our eyes in the painful silence of our isolation to process the experience. The film unfortunately transitions into a mixture of subjective and objective distancing from the material, and in the second act we are witness to a scene that operates in the reverse, Hopkins pulling one over on us instead of reality besting him. So I never felt like I got inside of his mental state, and switching between his and Colman’s respective, different tragedies wasn’t fluid and felt like a chore during this section. The projected resentment by the husband was straight-up irritating and unbelievable, concocting an argument in the presence of Hopkins solely because all action needed to happen orbiting his space. Fortunately the third act's enhanced melodrama returns us to the first's power fused with weakened humility, and won me back over to some degree, with Hopkin's peak expression of regression absolutely harrowing and overwhelmingly affecting at once. The short runtime is also integral to the film's success, a courtesy for the audience's capacity for perseverance through this vicarious trauma. Both principal actors are doing great work of course, and should be nominated, but that’s where the noms should have started and stopped.

Judas and the Black Messiah: Serviceable historical drama but little more, with Daniel Kaluuya giving an okay, but not Oscar-worthy performance, and Lakeith Stanfield continuing to demonstrate his effortless talents at adapting to whatever role the industry wants to give him. The film fails to rise to the challenge of becoming the courageously compelling picture the story deserves (and that would ideally and deservedly reflect the energy of Hampton’s life), and ultimately functions as yet another nudging reminder of the atrocities still committed today by racist institutions, as well as an all-too-familiar contrived narrative of greatest-hits that is the Hollywoodized biopic. Martin Sheen’s cartoon Hoover perf in ridiculous makeup (eerily reminiscent of Jim Carrey’s Grinch) is a symbolically ignorant exaggeration in step with these cinematic skeletal models, and his monologues are so thinly didactic I’m shamefully surprised a team of producers this passionate about the material would devolve the complex dynamics this drastically (yes, I'm aware that Hoover was basically a cartoon and probably engaged in conversations not too many stone-throws from these, but still). Stanfield’s character’s morality/self-preservation arc across individual and cultural concerns has so much potential for exploration, and while the film is technically solid, it loses points for diluting the drama into something so… black and white. The film lacks soul, and the final clip of the real Hampton made me realize, sadly, Kaluuya did too. I’m surprised that a history-making production team backing a longtime passion project churned out a film so trite and vapid and familiar- if I awoke from a coma and someone told me this was a Weinstein Oscar bait pic from the 90s, I’d believe them.

Mank: I’ve written enough about this film in its dedicated thread to devote a book chapter to it, but nevertheless this is Fincher’s densest, most esoteric work by a longshot (with self-reflexive jokes like the screwball writers pitching a movie in screwball fashion that seems to have whooshed right over even most cinephiles’ heads). The thematic resonance intellectually may make this Fincher’s most impressive work yet, though its delivery isn’t nearly as climatically rewarding, and so we’re stuck with a smart, profound film about dark existential themes that mirror for sobriety from alcoholic states, literal and metaphorical, that just can’t exhilarate its audience the way The Social Network, Fincher’s more transparently and digestible Kane-nod, continues to do. I have yet to meet anyone else who “gets” what I do from this film, but from what I’ve read, I’m reasonably confident if I had a sit-down with Fincher he’d validate my reading. David, are you reading this?

Minari: This is a fine movie about generational dissonance clashing with cultural assimilation in family dynamics, but it’s not doing anything unique or practicing the kind of restraint to allow for a more peripheral meditation. I enjoyed the moments that were a child-eyes’-view of events occurring, especially between the boy and his grandmother, and the film would have been a lot stronger if taken from one/this perspective. The performances are solid, especially Youn Yuh-jung (who should have this Oscar in the bag), and the score is strong. It seems reasonable for this one to walk away with those two golden statues on awards night.

Nomadland: Zhao and co’s hearts are in the right place (then again, so were those involved in Howard’s Hillbilly Elegy), but the placement of real life vagabonds next to planted professionals like McDormand lookin supa sad ruin any consistent involvement in this slice of life. I get that movies are manipulative machines of artifice working to elicit authentic emotions, but this one tries to have its cake and eat it too and winds up losing the gamble. Plus it’s just boring, and I often like meditative, humanistic movies like these!

Promising Young Woman: This is exactly the kind of movie the academy should be honoring: An original, risky, tonally-diverse satire that transcends the easy structure already established in thinner movies’ full-tilt cheeky critiques, in favor of stopping the ferocity to meditate on the quicksand of cynicism and raw powerlessness enveloping the American woman’s existence. I've already defended this film at lengths in its own thread, and likely will continue to once more see it and respond in what I imagine will not be universal praise, but for a film this provocative without being comfortably didactic, what else can one ask for?

Sound of Metal: One should expect this film to use sound design to forge empathy into the lead’s sensory perspective, and one should hope that a film with this many noms will also flesh out other dimensions of his personality and milieu with care to the authentic superfluous details along with the core drama. Thankfully the film respectfully forgoes from beating us over the head with the obvious sound alignment contrivance and opts to focus on the latter exploration with earnest curiosity. Riz Ahmed should probably win the Oscar, and in most years this would be the perf to beat, but I guess not this year. Despite some reservations about the rushed narrative and disengagement in the back half, this is at least partially by design, as the film imitates the bumpy road of an individual to find acceptance and engage in his recovery- which consists of progression and regression in a non-linear rhythm. I expect myself to warm to this one more over time, and it has one of the most powerful endings I've seen depicting the necessary yet devastating surrender to begin the road of recovery through full-measured acceptance.

The Trial of the Chicago 7: This was a pleasant surprise- I didn’t expect this film to grab me from the get-go with its smooth yet manic editing across various participants, in what is the most economical setup for a narrative in recent memory- thanks in part to Sorkin’s script (that, of course, didn’t surprise me) as well as the strong editing and directorial choices that demonstrate his developing competence in this new role. This film is very much emulating the Hollywood ‘historical’ crowdpleaser, but elevates itself just enough to feel original and worthy of a nom. It’s not high art, but it’s more creative in its filmmaking than Judas and the Black Messiah (the racial injustice thread about Bobby Seale, including Fred Hampton’s portrayal, is somehow more impactful as well) and thus becomes more interesting and commendable as both a well-constructed, engaging movie, and a presentation of history filtered through the lens of our current sociopolitical climate. Sorkin is admirably self-conscious of how he’s relying on a thick exploitation of hackneyed mechanics to serve his story, while I’m not convinced Judas is, and that acknowledgment woven into the fabric of the script supports it to stand proudly on those two legs- artificial as they may be. I suppose this could be read as an oxymoron, but Sorkin’s film felt like a humble use of exaggeration, unapologetically aware of what it is and stretching its power within those constraints to the limits of their capabilities- which isn’t groundbreaking, but is quite gratifying. We get all the big speeches, Fuck Yous to the establishment corruption, and exhilerating comfort of social justice communicated sharpy through the air of the courtroom. There are also scenes that break from these conventions and are very affecting- especially the mixed footage of the storming of the hill and other riots. This is the social justice pic of the year, after Promising Young Woman of course.

My pick: Promising Young Woman (no contest)

User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#541 Post by willoneill » Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:36 pm

2020

Despite the Pandemic, a few weeks ago I really thought I'd pull off seeing every 2020 Best Picture nominee in a theatre. But Nomadland wasn't due to be released in Canada until this month, and Ontario was on viral fire by that point, so 'twas not to be. Still, 7/8 ain't bad.

The Father
One strange feeling this film kept giving me through its run was that I felt like a twist was coming. I stayed in denial on this until near the end, strangely similar to the denial Hopkins is in. But the film accomplished its singular goal, to put the viewer in the "mind" of someone succumbing to dementia. It does so admirably, and I appreciate the film, but doubt I'll ever watch it again. Big kudos to the production design, and subtle costume/wardrobe choices.

Judas and the Black Messiah
I was struck just how classic this felt. I think, just from the people behind it, that I was expecting a different modern kind of biopic. The key performances are all very strong (I especially liked Kaluuya - I'd follow a political movement if he were giving the speeches). And yet despite that strength, and the fact that it's a subject matter that interests me greatly, I was quite frankly bored by the film.

Mank
I don't have a real dog in the Welles/Mank authorship debate; I quite frankly don't give a shit about that stuff. Mank has great dialogue, great production design, and I liked the look of the film. I felt the pacing was a bit off, most towards the end, but overall I quite liked this one.

Minari
I liked this one quite a bit too. I grew so attached to the young boy that I would have been ready to start a riot outside of A24's office had something terrible befallen his character. I don't really get the praise for the grandmother - I didn't feel much depth in her character, but I intend to rewatch it someday and I'll definitely give her more of my focus.

Nomadland
I'm really not comfortable with "actors mingling with real people" aspect of this film, especially in a handful of places where it's clear the real people didn't know what they were participating in (at first - obviously they signed releases after the fact, but it still feels manipulative). The cinematography is strong, as in the not-nominated score, but that's about it for me. Frances McDormand is one of the great living actors, but you wouldn't give Michael Jordan and MVP award for dunking on a high school JV team. Also, as a cruel bit of irony, I need to point out that I've been doing home renovations this year and sheetrock prices have never been higher.

Promising Young Woman
One of the side effects of the pandemic-film-slowdown of 2020-2021 is that I mostly saw old movies in theatre, and have spent far less time reading reviews and impressions of what new films there were. So I got to see PYW completely blind - didn't even see the trailer beforehand. And it was fantastic. Perversely, literally laugh-out-loud funny for me. I'm sure the other 5 people in the cinema were a bit annoyed. I'm anxious for a re-watch, to catch a couple of details I'm still confused about, and just to enjoy Carey Mulligan's complex performance. There's so much depth here.

Sound of Metal
Woah boy, well here goes: I thought this film was fantastic and beautiful through the first two thirds. Riz Ahmed has obviously been building up to this level or performance for a while, and the sound design is perfect. But in the last third, the film presents a certain perspective on the deaf community, and I actually find it morally and ethically reprehensible. I haven't been this bothered by the "message" of a film since Flight, and that is obviously a far slighter and forgettable film. I left the theatre disliking Sound of Metal, and that has only grown to hatred. I actually think this movie is irresponsible.

Trial of the Chicago 7
Yes it's very much the "Spielberg" version of the story, but I lapped it up. I'm a big, unapologetic Sorkin fan, and this hit all the right notes for me. It's not subtle in any way, and is stronger for that fact. I'm glad I got to see in a theatre, as I do wonder if it will be diminished at home. We'll see, eventually.

The Winner (for me): Promising Young Woman (a close victory over Chicago 7)

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#542 Post by knives » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:05 am

I’m curious what you specifically thought was irresponsible? As a member of the HoH community, in addition to working within it long before then, I felt the last act tackled an ongoing debate within the community quite well.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#543 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:06 am

I'd be interested to hear what is the source of your problem with Sound of Metal's depiction of this deaf community. As someone who has studied these groups extensively in academic circles and done quite a bit of consultation with folks from that world, I felt it was pretty accurate to certain circles I've been exposed to and heard about firsthand. Like AA, there are hardcore groups vs. some liberal others, but also like addiction communities there is an identity-first and occasionally old-timer tough love approach that practices a level of humility and affection that's pretty esoteric in its translation, including letting someone bottom out because they need to find acceptance alone. I can kinda see how someone could be perplexed by some of the community's practices and interventions, but it was incredibly realistic from my vantage point. It's worth noting that the response from the deaf community has been largely positive, with issues primarily stemming from hiring non-deaf actors, not fleshing out the community enough (I'd have liked to have seen more, but for a normal running time, they did a good job), and for making it a sound film catering to hearing audiences- which are all radical advocacy points that are worth discussing, but not accounting for certain critical factors necessary to make the film. I also had a hard time with the last third of the movie, but for entirely different reasons.

And for the record, Flight's ending is one of the best depictions of alcoholism's fatal hold on people ever, and I have no idea what the message is you're referring to- Denzel does a 5th step of unfiltered surrender, which felt less of a message than a disembowelment of every fiber of his being that was resisting entering recovery. It's a movie about alcoholism disguised as a morality tale, but of course this is widely discussed in recovery circles and rarely in outside analyses, so I think part of the problem might be the exclusivity of the content in both examples.

User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#544 Post by willoneill » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:27 am

Sorry, I should have been less vague. For Sound of Metal, I think the message of the film that deaf people who choose to get cochlear implants should be shunned, and are impure, is irresponsible. Originally, I thought maybe this was just an idea in my head alone (I don't know anyone deaf or HoH outside of old age, so I have no personal stake in the issue), but I did scan some thoughts online and I'm definitely not alone in my thinking. That doesn't make me "right" necessarily, but it does make my view valid.

Flight (which was definitely never going to get nominated for Best Picture) was a bit more complicated. I've only watched the film once, so forgive me if I get some small details incorrect: the point of the view of the film, is that Denzel saved the passengers of the plane not despite his addiction, but because of it. Essentially he was able to pull off the upside down maneuver because he was high, and that high gave him both a temporary laser focus, and unnatural confidence to pull off such a maneuver. It is also clear the the mechanical problems of the plane were caused by the plane manufacturer or airline maintenance crew (that part I don't remember exactly). And if Denzel had managed to keep hiding his addiction (which he did almost to the end), that would have come to light, he would have been exonerated, the wrongful party would have be punished, and the film would have actually portrayed a nuanced take on drug use. But that is of course unacceptable in a major Hollywood film. Instead, Denzel has to admit to his addiction (under the guise of setting himself free), take on blame that isn't his, so that typical U.S. drug morality can be maintained.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#545 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:52 am

Re: Sound of Metal, of course that's a pretty repelling idea at first glance, but I'd encourage you to do more research before declaring a stance irresponsible. Similarly to addiction, there is value seen in embracing circumstances and a psychospiritual side to these programs that necessitates full surrender to receive the gifts.

As for Flight, I don't even know where to begin in responding to your reading of that movie. You seem to really want a "nuanced take on drug use" but it's not unacceptable because it's a Hollywood film, it's unacceptable to Denzel's character because he's an active addict in pain, who has hit rock bottom spiritually (not in terms of the law), and feels compelled to surrender. Who cares about him getting away with it, having some third parties being held responsible so that he can return to his cave of sisyphean suicidal behavior, just so that some audience members can feel better about taking drugs and operating machinery? That would surely be what we need, a reason for the countless people who drink and drive and fail to acknowledge that behavior to affirmatively reinforce such subliminal processing. That wasn't the message of the movie- the message was that he was a great pilot who happened to have the stars align with his drug/alcohol use creating a grey issue, but that the systemic procedures of order necessitated a circumstance that forced him to examine that behavior, which he realized was unmanageable in spite of that successful moment. He was wrong for operating a plane of people under the influence, even if the mechanical problems were also to blame, the two are not mutually exclusive. I can't believe you or anyone would see Denzel hiding his addiction as the best move for his character, which wasn't a "guise" of setting himself free. Sure it was portrayed in a Hollywoodized fashion, but the man was full-on yielding to everything up to and including god because he couldn't take life the way he was living it anymore. You're right that the irony of his skills landing the plane make it interesting, but only so that when we realize he can win easily, he (and we) realize that none of that matters (percentile of blame, heroism, self-preservation) when he's spiritually bankrupt, because there is another kind of self-preservation of the soul that matters far more to addicts on the brink (and yes, some of us have made these bold self-destructive moves of admission that defy 'normal' instincts of self-preservation, because we felt a moment of clarity that needed to be held onto right then and there, which may just be a second type of self-preservation that only someone in that much pain and suffering from a self-delusory and deadly disease can understand). The scene where he enters the room and the minibar is open, and what he does from there when everything is on the line, should be enough to streamline that reading home.

User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#546 Post by willoneill » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:21 am

therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:52 am
Re: Sound of Metal, of course that's a pretty repelling idea at first glance, but I'd encourage you to do more research before declaring a stance irresponsible. Similarly to addiction, there is value seen in embracing circumstances and a psychospiritual side to these programs that necessitates full surrender to receive the gifts.
I don't need to do more research, because I never said there wasn't value in embracing circumstances yadda yadda yadda. Of course there's value, and that was part of the beauty of the first 2/3 of the film. But then the film demonizes the opposite path. That's the irresponsible part. I imagine the film will attract many young people suffering from hearing loss, and for them to have that view shown in the way it is, that I take issue with. I actually have no problem with Ahmed's character choosing to remove the earpiece; it's a pretty great ending to a film. It's the last scene with Paul Raci that pissed me off and repelled me from the film.
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:52 am
As for Flight, I don't even know where to begin in responding to your reading of that movie.
Sure you do, look how much you wrote.
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:52 am
Who cares about him getting away with it, having some third parties being held responsible so that he can return to his cave of sisyphean suicidal behavior, just so that some audience members can feel better about taking drugs and operating machinery?
Not what I said at all. My concern is not that Denzel should have gotten away with it, it's that the airline shouldn't have. Why should a not-responsible drug addict be held responsible for a large corporation's malfeasance, simply because he's a drug addict?
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:52 am
He was wrong for operating a plane of people under the influence, even if the mechanical problems were also to blame, the two are not mutually exclusive.
His actions, however morally (and legally, obviously) wrong they may be, did not cause the incident, and saved people's lives. So in this case, they actually mutually exclusive.
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:52 am
I can't believe you or anyone would see Denzel hiding his addiction as the best move for his character, which wasn't a "guise" of setting himself free.
I don't think it's best for his character at all. It would have been what's best for society, however. That's the nuanced take.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#547 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:45 am

willoneill wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:21 am
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:52 am
As for Flight, I don't even know where to begin in responding to your reading of that movie.
Sure you do, look how much you wrote.
Note the word "begin" (and apologies for defending a mature take on alcoholism in a detailed post against an evisceration of the work, but your response is offensive to me on a personal level in addition to being a thin argument, though the admission that you see no reason to indulge in the social context of the HoH community before making a declaration on the irresponsibility of that community's portrayal is perhaps reflective of your willingness to seek to understand in this example as well, and probably reason enough to just tap out after this)
willoneill wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:21 am
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:52 am
Who cares about him getting away with it, having some third parties being held responsible so that he can return to his cave of sisyphean suicidal behavior, just so that some audience members can feel better about taking drugs and operating machinery?
Not what I said at all. My concern is not that Denzel should have gotten away with it, it's that the airline shouldn't have. Why should a not-responsible drug addict be held responsible for a large corporation's malfeasance, simply because he's a drug addict?
Obviously not, but I feel like you're asking for a different movie and looking at the issue from a macro lens where, yes the corporation should be held responsible, and yes there would be a problematic lens if the film was taking a Moral Model approach towards addiction. But it's not framed that way for the sake of the story, and what the film pulls off is that in the subjective lonely space of an addiction hitting bottom, all of these logical macro concerns don't matter, only the emotional pain that needs to be purged does. I'm beginning to see where you're coming from, though I don't think the film is interested in that objective justice but rather justice for the self. I get how that could be triggering for the same reason as some people yell at the TV when the group in a horror movie splits up.
willoneill wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:21 am
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:52 am
He was wrong for operating a plane of people under the influence, even if the mechanical problems were also to blame, the two are not mutually exclusive.
His actions, however morally (and legally, obviously) wrong they may be, did not cause the incident, and saved people's lives. So in this case, they actually mutually exclusive.
You're right, I do this quite frequently actually, and say things are not mutually exclusive when I mean they are. My bad, though I think that by making them mutually exclusive it serves my point as well as yours. He may have saved lives but if this situation propels him into sobriety to his problem, his admission in the setting of the courtroom is divorced from the intention of the trial.
willoneill wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:21 am
therewillbeblus wrote:
Tue Apr 13, 2021 12:52 am
I can't believe you or anyone would see Denzel hiding his addiction as the best move for his character, which wasn't a "guise" of setting himself free.
I don't think it's best for his character at all. It would have been what's best for society, however. That's the nuanced take.
How would it be best for society's sake? Because this one-off situation happened when his inhibitions were lowered that's indicative of an alcohol-induced superman career? It's pretty clear that Denzel has fucked up a lot of people's lives before this plane incident and likely would continue to, and could easily crash and kill a bunch of people next time. There's a saying in the halls of recovery groups, that if you multiply everyone in the room by a handful of close people to us, that that high number of people are having a better night because we're sober today. So your measuring stick of a sample size of.. one incident -compared to a life of pain for him and countless others and a high probability of potential harm being caused for innocent bystanders in the future- as a predictor of being better for society is ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense within the insular evaluation of piloting as "better for society" and also ignores what that means outside of that narrow definition, like those who are traumatized (excusing physical trauma from a plane crash he may cause in the future), for example, or anything that isn't equated to numerical physical death as worse. Even further, since he already saved these people's lives, you're assuming that Denzel would certainly save more people as a drunk pilot starting from this moment of zero in order for his lies to be better for society, which is even more wild and baseless a claim than I initially thought you were making.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#548 Post by knives » Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:46 am

I don’t think it is a fair reading to say that the film views people with cochlear implants should be shunned. It instead is fairly accurately representing a mixture of opinions which do exist. He doesn’t get kicked for the implants per say, but for not following the rules. This is specifically a home for people to adjust to being deaf and it takes the point of view of differing ability rather than disability. Getting implants in that specific context is a bit like using a calculator at a mental math convention. There’s nothing wrong with using a calculator, but you’re not fitting in to the convention.

As to the depiction of implants. Well, that’s just fact. The brain has to adjust to the implants and there’s usually some therapy to go along with it as it is a hard transition. Hearing won’t return to you as before, but instead will return as a different interpretation of sound. Even to get there at the max level of hearing takes time as the brain learns to communicate with the implants. It will often sound like static or white noise for the first few days to weeks.

The point of view of the film doesn’t seem to me to be an objective one, but that doesn’t make its arguments false through bias either. There are many HoH people who take pride in that quality and do look down on people who view it is a disability. Implants, however valid a choice, do cost a lot of money and require time to work. I don’t take these as unfair punches.

Thematically I feel the film is more about community with deafness as a useful way to highlight an often invisible thing. After being part of the hegemonic community he finds himself tasked by others to join another community. That community offers many things he enjoys, but ultimately for a complexity of reasons he feels it would be better to be hegemonic rather than part of an intimate due to its scale community. That ‘Bowling Alone’ pathos is what I think the film is rejecting at the end.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#549 Post by DarkImbecile » Wed Feb 16, 2022 6:58 pm

2021
Belfast
Aside from the nomination for Ciarán Hinds — and the bafflingly absent Caitríona Balfe, who I can only assume had her nominating votes split between the supporting and lead categories — this really has no business being nominated for anything. Where Cuarón's Roma beautifully balanced the precise specificity of his memories of Mexico City with the more expressive emotional reality of his childhood, Branagh's film is so blandly general in its observations and clichéd in its depictions that it occasionally made me doubt whether he was actually depicting his own childhood experiences, which is deeply uncharitable skepticism but earned, I think.

CODA
Very excited to see another conversation about the representation of deafness in this thread! This is a cute and extremely Sundance movie with solid performances and enough amusing moments that it goes down very smoothly, but never quite has the ambition to really say anything significant about the community it's depicting or the tensions facing its teenaged protagonist. Some of the high school bullying and romance elements feel like generic filler, but Emilia Jones is charming and talented enough to make the dynamic with her mentor (Eugenio Derbez) and parents (Marlee Matlin and Troy Kotsur) work, even if her parents' obliviousness to her needs and interests feels a little overdone at times. The film looks more like a decently shot episode of streaming TV than a feature with any specific visual ideas, and the sound design does exactly what you'd expect a movie with this subject matter to do without any big surprises. Perfectly watchable, but not anything I'll feel compelled to revisit.

Don't Look Up
Even though from a subjective perspective I'm more actively irritated by Belfast, this is pretty clearly the worst film in this category: only very, very intermittently funny — far and away the best joke is Lawrence's recurring bafflement at getting hustled for a few bucks by a high-ranking staff officer — and more than willing to grind any satirical observations (worthwhile or otherwise) to a fine dust under the heavy thumb of Adam McKay. Also frustrating that the most successful element (the all-too-relatable sense of despair at the Kafka-lite refusal of anyone in any position of significant cultural or political influence to give half a shit about their own extinction) is undercut by a remarkable credulousness that misinformation-guzzling conservatives would believe the evidence of their own eyes over what they'd prefer to be true. Going to be really disappointed if this wins anything at all.

Drive My Car
The best kind of quiet and generous character-driven drama interwoven with worthwhile if not exactly groundshaking observations on the importance of art. If the Academy had a Best Ensemble Cast award, this would be a fantastic contender: pretty much everyone on screen is wonderful, but Hidetoshi Nishijima, Masaki Okada, and Reika Kirishima are particularly spectacular. There's basically zero chance of this pulling off a Parasite-style win, but I'm extremely happy that its nomination will encourage so many people to see it who otherwise might not have taken the time.

Dune
It won't surprise me in the least if this more or less sweeps the below-the-line nominations it received, as I think even many of those who were cool toward the narrative or Villeneuve's approach don't deny the technical skill that went into the world. It also won't surprise me in the least if Part Two is very much a contender to win this category in a couple of years, as the opportunities to expand upon the world(s) and ideas of the first film seem ripe for cathartic payoffs of all the setup work this film does. Disclaimer: I still haven't read the novel, so I might be spectacularly wrong about all that...

King Richard
The most classic old-school Oscar bait of the 2022 group, this sports biopic — much like CODA — tells you what it is on the poster and then floats amiably right down the middle of the path laid out by so many predecessors before it. Reinaldo Marcus Green paints by all the well-established numbers and doesn't get in the way of what's a pretty easy story to sell, while the script does just enough work to avoid being a complete hagiography and shade its characters in addition to allowing them to be charismatic and charming. I'm not vehemently opposed to Will Smith's performance winning the big acting prize as a career recognition award, but he's putting in nowhere near the work that Cumberbatch does in carrying Power of the Dog or in subverting his previous work/persona.

Licorice Pizza
I wish I could say I've seen the light on this one, but it's still lesser PTA to me — which still puts it firmly in the top half of these nominees. Also, while I still haven't seen Andrew Garfield in tick, tick...BOOM!, I'd rather have had Cooper Hoffman in for Best Actor ahead of any of the other non-Cumberbatch nominees.

Nightmare Alley
As glad as I am that The Shape of Water kept Three Billboards from winning this category half a decade ago, this is handily the most deserving film of del Toro's fifteen years since Pan's Labyrinth. Very excited for the day when twbb comes around to this one on his second or third viewing.

The Power of the Dog
As I mentioned the other day, I expected a much more unified response to this; I'm not a superfan of Campion's, but the overall quality on display from script to score just seem undeniable to me. Where others have found the narrative creaky and unconvincing, I saw a film telling a deceptively simple, straightforward story in a way that lets its characters breathe and the audience's sympathies drift from the expected to the surprising in a way that feels organic and unforced. A deserving winner, and one I really hope doesn't Green Booked by another film roughly as adept at handling sensitive historical topics as my five-year-old with a jackhammer.

West Side Story
The rare reimagining of a classic property that bears the marks of those expertly executing the reinterpretation — primarily Spielberg and Kushner, though a few of the actors also blow away the cinematic originators of their roles — so noticeably that it elevates what is frankly not great source material (sorry domino/soundchaser/etc.) to what is probably its ceiling. My favorite work by Janusz Kaminski in a long time, and highlighted by some really remarkable breakout performances by DeBose and Zegler; in a lesser year, I could see myself getting behind this to take the big prize, which I absolutely would not have predicted when it was announced.

My vote: The Power of the Dog

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Alternate Oscars: Best Picture (1969-Present)

#550 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Feb 25, 2022 11:53 am

2021

Belfast: This year’s Jojo Rabbit, a distasteful attempt at fusing grave self-importance with lightweight, oversaturated, nudging-and-winking comic bits. Branagh is operating in safe mode, afraid to take any chances that are necessary to service at least half of his film’s intentions, and so nothing is executed in full-measures- that is, except for the child performances which are dialed up to 11 with forced jokes and vacuums of chemistry between them. Plus this film has the ten (yes ten) most inappropriate uses of Van Morrison’s catalog ever committed to film. Usually you can’t lose with him, but Branagh can’t even catch the fly ball here.

CODA: A humdrum YA dramedy about a young unpopular girl who can sing but is afraid to sing in public or ask out the popular crush, who happens to also be her singing partner, except this one also deals with the Deaf/HoH community’s identity-first resilience and pride, so it’s nominated. That community is such an interesting and vital one to explore, as Sound of Metal (mostly) hit the mark with last year, but it’s a bit demeaning to use this signifier for the gains of the banal crowdpleaser without actually going in depth into the world the film wears as its reason for IMPORTANCE. It feels exploitative and the only thing it really says about that self-congratulatory badge is that, peripherally, deaf people can live normal lives like having crazy sex and not caring. Cool. Okay, maybe that's not entirely fair, but the film tacks on a hot topic to the back of its run-of-the-mill Disney TV movie from the aughts and sticks its nose in the air pretending like that's the film's focus, and that's pretty annoying.

Don't Look Up: This is a pretty bad movie, but I sorta admire the meta-directed way it owns how exhausted the filmmakers and actors are at trying to influence macro issues in a world of constantly-evolving attention spans and infinitely-empty yet alluring zeitgeists. McKay’s previous two “(semi-)serious” films irked me with agonizing friction by taking a concept and squeezing it dry with the most obnoxious condescending jabs, but this latest effort- while not exactly ‘humble’ in its ambitions- does acknowledge our limitations, restrains itself from lingering on any one point or joke for too long (admirably, though perhaps unintentionally, like our agile attention spans), and there is some humility in that, if you squint hard enough. Does it belong here? No, it’s a weird, uneven cocktail, but I thought it was an interesting failure, and that’s more than I can say for half of these nominees.

Drive My Car: This confidently composed, lyrical meditation on loss, gratitude, intimacy, and art is mature, engaging, and commendably does not necessitate or pander to the audience to ‘get’ its literary references, orbiting around universal topics of emotional resonance. The richness of the pitch’s texture is enough for a soft execution to carry volumes of weight without culminating in anything profound, though it’s that journey- like driving in a car, or having a conversation, and ruminating on all the thoughts and feelings you otherwise distract yourself from- that makes the film work. This is the second best- and only one of two ‘great’- films nominated this year, but if NEON had played their cards right, The Worst Person in the World would have garnered all the noms instead, and it would deserve them so much more.

Dune: I may be the only person who outright hated this film, but man, what a bloated, bombastic piece of trash. Villeneuve is trying to do a lot with a massive text, but the stressors of this task and the directed endurance towards the next setpiece erases all texture each one contains the capacity to emit. As much as I detest the source, there are scenes in the book that are heart-racing and nearly impossible to deflate the energy from, but Villeneuve manages to mechanically edit away all pockets of intensity and character development. I’ve rarely seen an epic that flashed such an illuminating neon sign that it was less interested in what was happening than what was going to happen next, and I’m sorry, but that’s not how I want to watch a movie- even if it self-reflexively mirrors the tiring experience making it.

King Richard: There is a moment in King Richard where Will Smith tells Serena Williams that, even though Venus is the best tennis player right now, Venus will be the best tennis player of all time. The hyperbolic assurance of attention is exactly what she needs in this moment, as the neglected child and character in the film, and it appropriately lifts her spirit. It’s the kind of thing any good dad would say to the child who has equal skills and feels forgotten.

At the end of King Richard, there is a title card that says that Serena is often considered the best tennis player of all time “... just like Richard predicted”(!!!!!) So the message of the movie is that Richard is a psychic. Or that he had an eye for talent for young girls and wasn’t just being a good dad. Or, wait, what does that mean? Oh, it’s supposed to warm our hearts and give Will Smith an Oscar. Erroneous moments in films that are inexplicably lazy attempts to connect a logic that doesn’t exist, solely pointed at evoking tears in the least earned manner are why I hate Oscar Bait. I’d rather Andrew Garfield win for his god-awful hipster perf than Smith take home the gold, but he will, and then maybe he’ll stop getting nominated for trash like this when Hollywood doesn’t feel like they owe him anything more. Go focus on your self-serious Fresh Prince reboot to milk the spirit of the current climate elsewhere, Will.

Licorice Pizza: Audiences remaining rigidly agasp at the age difference between Cooper and Alana are not only missing the point of the movie, but firmly aligning themselves with the problematic 'adults' this film exposes as warning signs away from life's gifts. This is a film about the externally and self-imposed problems clouding our focus, and offers the secret solution -in both the film’s grammar and narrative themes- to bypass this complex mass of overwhelming cognition through the simplicity of heart and spirit. This is a film that inspires me to get out of my own way and follow my gut to take risks towards great rewards. Since my second viewing, this film has directly influenced significant life decisions that is further proof that movies can change a life, but it would have been my pick for best film and picture of the year off my first viewing, simply for being the optimal externalization of the corporeal sublime ubiquitously occurring around us, if we only open our peripheries to access it. Who knows, maybe licorice can go on pizza- have you ever tried it? Maybe I will some day. I love this film.

Nightmare Alley: Rarely have I been so confused by the intention/execution dissonance behind a film’s construction. This is the kind of film that seems so disinterested in its own characters and narrative development, yet it was helmed by a filmmaker who is so clearly passionate about every crevice of his efforts. I continue to find del Toro a genuinely endearing person with admirable zeal for his projects, but merely a so-so artist. Here he botches the job completely- and has no decency to tone down the flair to focus on connective tissue between significant actions his characters take that have been established as significant by him! Del Toro and his editors should be issued a reprimand to go back to take a 101 film course before making another film, but instead the movie was nominated for Best Picture. Go figure. As a side note, I wonder what del Toro’s new wife’s hand was in the script. The female roles here are as big a joke as the male ones, though nothing holds a candle next to Cooper’s nonchalant choice to pick up a drink.

The Power of the Dog: I appreciated the ambiguity on display here, particularly Campion’s sly taunting toward validation/borderline-endorsement of Phil’s perspective on the ‘innocent’ characters’ devaluation, based on their existential failure at embracing life and defaulting into weakness and meekness. However, everything falls apart by the final reveal, which doesn’t only threaten to, but outright boldly destroys all the respectable balance of enigmatic nuance Campion had spent two hours crafting. What a disappointment- a slap in the face to an audience, and the more I think on it, the less it all makes sense based on what we’re supposed to assume about the narrator’s almighty mastermind planning skills. Lame.

West Side Story: An impressively well-directed reimagining that is in many ways an upgrade over the original film (inspired numbers, layered supporting parts, technical prowess unhinged), and the musical melodrama works incredibly well with Spielberg’s light touch. This is purely intended as entertainment, transparently artificial from the slick spurts of humor to the camera’s self-aware aloof dancing that refuses to ground us to the grit of the content like the original. Even if I prefer the Wise film for reasons already identified elsewhere, this is a solid movie, and I’m glad it was made the way it was- without an attempt to rekindle the spirit of the first. Spielberg deserves the director nod, and the film deserves its many noms. It’s definitely the third best film of the bunch, and I’d be fine with it taking home the BP Oscar over what’s actually on deck. Can’t wait for the surely-forthcoming Criterion deluxe edition with both films and tons of supplements explaining why this one is better.

My vote: Licorice Pizza

Post Reply