criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:26 am I knew this was going to be a shitshow so I leaned into my other brand and just watched French movies instead. Reading the winners afterwards provided me with about twenty seconds of disappointment versus 3+ hours, so I’m feeling okay about that decision

So, ultimately, the broadcast (separate from the awards given) was actually pretty good: relatively brisk, without many of the saggy host-driven moments that usually drag the show to a halt; my main criticism of the production would be the choices of clips for nominees, which were almost uniformly either unrepresentative of the performance or actively unflattering of the film or the actor.

As for the awards themselves, I love that Colman won out and Cuaron took the three statues he did; on the negative side, I've come around to the opinion that the most offensive win of the night was not Green Book for Best Picture (not that it doesn't leave the bad taste of a glass full of drain cleaner) but Green Book for Original Screenplay. Almost everything that's wrong with that movie is in its script, and given the competition from Roma, First Reformed, and The Favourite, recognition for that screenplay was substantially less deserved than even its bigger win.

I did watch a video of Colman’s acceptance speech. That win gave me a modicum of faith in the system, but I think the Oscars are still on awfully thin ice after this season

Colman's speech was undoubtedly the best thing about the ceremony, with Spike Lee starting by warning the Academy "do not start that motherfucking clock" a not-so-distant second.

colinr0380 wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:53 pm

cdnchris wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:51 pmMy wife was watching a morning show and they said 3hrs 18min.

Could have watched Bohemian Rhapsody in that time. But I suppose it would not have had a Lady Gaga song in it.

But it did have Radio Gaga.

Interesting commentary in IndieWire's behind-the-scenes coverage of last night's ceremony from Kino Lorber's CEO, among others, on the significance (or lack thereof) of Netflix's push for Roma in the foreign film market:

At Soho House, Kino Lorber CEO Richard Lorber took in the big picture, including Netflix’s estimated $25 million campaign for “Roma,” and whether any of its potential wins would indicate a broadening of the potential for foreign-language movies. “What would be a turning point would be if they spent 50 percent of their Oscar budget to buy 25 foreign films,” he said. “They could buy them from me. They aren’t. I have other films that are as good or maybe even better, but they’re not in the foreign-language business. They made a global crusade with ‘Roma.’”

He shrugged. “Look, I do business with Netflix, they’re great for me, and I respect what they’re about,” he said. “But the fact that they promoted this beautiful Mexican film on steroids distorts the reality of what audiences expect from Netflix, and what Netflix will do to actually support world cinema.”

Paul Schrader, meanwhile, had the best quote:

Schrader, who predicted his loss to “Green Book” weeks ago, wandered past. “You can’t compete with mediocrity,” he said, and chuckled.

What the fuck?

Green Book’s Best Picture Win Wasn’t the Most Embarrassing Oscar Victory. This Was.

Unsubtle yes, but it doesn’t sound so absurd or offensive... but neither does Green Book. Can liberals stop tripping over themselves to be crowned wokest?

The eight ball says no. Also I think their speech gives a bit of context to make coherent their choices.

FrauBlucher wrote:

domino harvey wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:26 am I knew this was going to be a shitshow so I leaned into my other brand and just watched French movies instead. Reading the winners afterwards provided me with about twenty seconds of disappointment versus 3+ hours, so I’m feeling okay about that decision

I did the same, which I always do. Haven't watched the Oscars in years. I watched My Dinner with Andre. I cracked open the bluray that I saved just for this night. Not sure why folks waste 3 hours plus to feel mostly disappointed afterwards.

Not a fan of watching the Super Bowl or American election night results, huh?

domino harvey wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:28 am Unsubtle yes, but it doesn’t sound so absurd or offensive... but neither does Green Book. Can liberals stop tripping over themselves to be crowned wokest?

Doesn't it? I feel like the article offers plenty of good reasons to think it is. I'm not interested in outwoking anyone, but when a film tries super-hard to seem progressive but ends up just being totally tin-eared and condescending – as this very much sounds – then it's a valid line of critique.

The Skin synopsis reminds me of the plot of the Vic Morrow sequence in Twilight Zone: The Movie...

domino harvey wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:28 am Unsubtle yes, but it doesn’t sound so absurd or offensive... but neither does Green Book. Can liberals stop tripping over themselves to be crowned wokest?

I haven’t seen this short, so I’m not judging Skin or the Slate article, but Green Book really is a textbook case of the racism faced by black characters being exploited as a plot device only to the extent necessary to move the white protagonist’s narrative arc along. The film ultimately isn’t bad because it fails to meet Film Twitter’s standards of wokeness — it’s bad because it chooses to tell an insipid story centered on its least interesting character — but that doesn’t change the fact that its view of racial politics is simplistic and naive, which is a problem when the filmmakers have chosen to tell a story fundamentally about racial politics. This isn’t beside-the-point criticism of a Noah Baumbach movie for having too many white characters, but a case of filmmakers being ill-equipped to address a topic central to the story they’ve chosen to tell.

I don’t like performative posturing that isn’t justified by the art in question either — whether it’s progressives criticizing Cuarón for making Roma while failing to be an indigenous woman or conservatives criticizing First Man because Neil Armstrong doesn’t recite the preamble to the Constitution while planting the flag in slow motion — but not all cultural criticism can be dismissed as being offered in bad faith, especially when you haven’t seen the film in question yet.

They need to make it two awards:

Best Picture About Racism
Best Other Picture

Problem solved (by which I mean the problem of racism)

DarkImbecile wrote: Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:33 pm I've come around to the opinion that the most offensive win of the night was not Green Book for Best Picture (not that it doesn't leave the bad taste of a glass full of drain cleaner) but Green Book for Original Screenplay. Almost everything that's wrong with that movie is in its script, and given the competition from Roma, First Reformed, and The Favourite, recognition for that screenplay was substantially less deserved than even its bigger win.

After reading this couldn't agree more.

swo17 wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 3:29 am They need to make it two awards:

Best Picture About Racism
Best Other Picture

Problem solved (by which I mean the problem of racism)

I think it should actually be "Best Picture About Racism Solved by White People." and then Best Other Picture.

Just read that Cuaron quoted by name Claude Chabrol in one of his acceptance speeches. How great is that?

domino harvey wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:36 am Just read that Cuaron quoted by name Claude Chabrol in one of his acceptance speeches. How great is that?

He also spoke about Billy Wilder, Ernst Lubitsch and a name I cannot for the life of me remember. Said individual was a Mexican Cinematographer I believe.

Even more than her normal state, Sasha Stone is frothing at the mouth on Twitter right now about Film Twitter being mean to Green Book.

Big Ben wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:53 am

domino harvey wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:36 am Just read that Cuaron quoted by name Claude Chabrol in one of his acceptance speeches. How great is that?

He also spoke about Billy Wilder, Ernst Lubitsch and a name I cannot for the life of me remember. Said individual was a Mexican Cinematographer I believe.

It was his normal DP the gassy goat. Also, yes, the Chabrol shoutout was a highlight.

domino harvey wrote: Tue Feb 26, 2019 12:28 am Unsubtle yes, but it doesn’t sound so absurd or offensive... but neither does Green Book. Can liberals stop tripping over themselves to be crowned wokest?

I'm not offended. I just think it sounds incredibly stupid and aloof. I am also shocked it got from an idea, to a screenplay, to production, to distribution, to an Oscar nomination, to an Oscar win without raising an eyebrow from the hundreds of people who occupy each of those steps.

How many in that auditorium had ever seen a Chabrol film or even know who he is.

My problem with Green Book is that they didn’t use an Italian American actor to play Tony.

Responding to LukeM, One is an athletic competition that’s decided by skill and not subjective voting and the other has a serious importance.

The older members probably have, his late 60s/early 70s movies were as well-distributed and popular in the states as Bergman and Fellini. David Kalat talks broadly about Chabrol’s consistent yet contradictorily ephemeral popularity in the states on his Le cri du hibou commentary track

I guess the question is how many of the younger members will take time to find out about Chabrol and perhaps Lubitsch. I'm always skeptical there is a percentage of the younger generation of hollywood that aren't interested in the older or obscure (to them) parts of film history. But I could be wrong.

Probably very few, but I guess any non-zero amount would be a good thing. I always love it when someone takes their limited spotlight on stage to highlight overlooked auteurs, and of course I’m biased because Chabrol is someone I’d mention if I were up there