"Does making a man a knight make him a better fighter?"
This is a quote from "Kingdom of Heaven" and the answer there was "Yes". It also describes in a nutshell what I feel about many past
Academy Award winners. In other words - how often do winners of Academy Awards (and other major awards) turn around and give us the
performance/movie/script/music/etc that should have won them the award a year after they were given the award? Do you feel the Academy Awards are "on the
money" (that is- get it right) or how often do you think other factors come into focus. Does winning the award then put pressure on these entertainers to
then prove that it was not a mistake and show what they can really do?
0 Kudos
Add Reply
New Topic
- Administration Office
- Members Section
- Archive
- One Year Anniversary
- James's 30th Birthday Forum
- The Details
- James General
- Films TV Theatre
- Atonement
- Becoming Jane
- Wanted
- The Last Station
- Three Days of Rain
- The Conspirator
- I'm With Cancer (working title)
- Pictures
- Fan Fiction / Fan Art
- General
- Games room
- Film Club
- Members Only
Jan-Feb discussion: Does making a man a knight make him a better fighter?
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Selivia |
Jan-Feb discussion: Does making a man a knight make him a better fighter? |
Lead | ||
|
The Help (Mod Squad)
Actually lives here
Posts: 1940 21/01/2009 15:28 If found, return
to Viggo
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
hannah kipje |
#1 | |||
|
Permanent Resident
Posts: 12197 05/10/2009 13:12 Master of the House (Owner)
|
Hey I never saw this thread before. Must have missed it. Remember having a bad flu in January, so that must have been
it. To answer your question: "how often do winners of Academy Awards (and other major awards) turn around and give us the
performance/movie/script/music/etc that should have won them the award a year after they were given the award?" my answer would be: More the other way
around. I think many professionals in the business were overseen for their best performance and then later in life when they have already established
themselves without the award, they are given one for a lesser product to make up for the oversight. Like Scorsese who should have been given an oscar for Taxi
Driver, Raging Bull or Goodfellas in but finally received one 20 or 30 years later for The Departed..
I think winning the Oscar can be bad for the career of a young actor, because everyone expects their asking price to go up dramatically and no one will even ask them for a film anymore. That is what you hear a lot. While being 'overseen' however creates a lot of buzz and may actually get you asked for films more, because they all think you may be the hidden talent that they want to get while the price is still low. I have no clue what winning an Oscar does for a writer or director though.. Never really thought about that. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Selivia |
#2 | |||
|
The Help (Mod Squad)
Actually lives here
Posts: 1940 06/10/2009 02:31 If found, return
to Viggo
|
Winning an Oscar for the production side such as director, writer, cinematographer, costumer, makeup etc. I think would give them more credit in the industry
and more sort after. Just look at the number of films that trade on the fact that the writer, director or producer were oscar winners, or involved in oscar
winning films. I think from their side of the lens, it is a huge boost to their career. For actors, however, yes, the expectations, not just financial, can be
crippling. It isn't many who can pull out two phenominal performances in a row. It usually takes more than the actor to make such a performance - the
director, script and other cast members make a lot of difference to individual performances. Plus, I really do feel that the acadamy judges would baulk at
giving someone the same award two years running. But then again, I often question their judgements anyway.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
hannah kipje |
#3 | |||
|
Permanent Resident
Posts: 12197 08/10/2009 21:50 Master of the House (Owner)
|
To be honest I think it's one of the most corrupt businesses in the US... but you may be right about the 'behind
the camera' jobs. For them it is good to have won an award. But the audience usually just remember the actors. Even a lot of my colleagues at the art house
only know film titles and actors names, but not the names of directors and writers.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Selivia |
#4 | |||
|
The Help (Mod Squad)
Actually lives here
Posts: 1940 09/10/2009 19:32 If found, return
to Viggo
|
True. General audiences are a fickle bunch. No doubt you had the same reaction that I still get when I mention Viggo's name - I mention several films
before I add "Lord of the Rings" but often that is the only one people recognise - quite a sorry comment on them when he has had over 30 movies and
the last dozen or so have been released here on the screen, on tv or on dvd so there is little excuse.
On the other hand, I do have favourite directors for whom I will watch anything with their name attached (and one that will put me off seeing a movie at all). I have also seen a few movies because I recognised and like the music composer. Just like 'm looking forward to seeing Shyamalin's next movie - The Last Airbender - the trailer looks intriguing. I do, however, have a terrible memorie for names so unless someone is one of my favoured people or the movie is one that impacted on me, I am hopeless connecting with names so I often fall into that habit of mostly only knowing which actors are in a movie if it involved one of my favourites.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
hannah kipje |
#5 | |||
|
Permanent Resident
Posts: 12197 11/10/2009 13:12 Master of the House (Owner)
|
I am the same Seli, I only know the really really famous actors names. I recognise the others, but in most cases have no
clue what film or even face belongs to them, even if it turns out later I have seen 10 films with them already. I will know them and I will know their names,
but be unaware of the one belonging to the other
I also have my fav directors, but these are mostly directors that do their own writing as well. Those films are the most recognisable. Shyamalan is a good example, so it Alexander Payne. But I also love most movies made by Ridley Scott, and he does not write his own films (he does produce them though, what also gives him a bigger control over the films, which may contribute to the 'recognisable' factor) I also have my directors/writers that I tend to steer clear of. The most important one is Bruno Dumont. He has only made three or so films, but after seeing 29 Palms, I knew this was one I had to avoid. It's one for the two films I have seen in my life that I am convinced my life would have been a touch less dark en depressed if I had not seen it. The Blair Witch is the other one. Both films took several days to weeks to get out of my system again. I also tend to steer clear of the Antichrist - I mean - Lars von Trier. He is not a bad writer/filmmaker (and neither is Dumont) but his films are just soooooo melodramatic, and he has this thing about rape, fierce injustice and humiliation that just HAS to be present in every film he does. Yuck |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Selivia |
#6 | |||
|
The Help (Mod Squad)
Actually lives here
Posts: 1940 12/10/2009 04:25 If found, return
to Viggo
|
After the abortion he made of "Troy" I won't watch Wolfgang Peterson unless I absolutley have to, and it would ahve to be a jolly strong reason.
Yes, favoured directors are both Scott brothers, Clint Eastwood, Ron Howard (if it isn't to maudlin or overly sentimental story), Shyamalan, Peter Weir, Baz Lurhman, John Woo, Studio Gibli. I am watching more and more Scorcese, Tarantino, Guy Ritchie, Cronenberg and a few others. There are an awful lot of new directors coming out with their first feature films. Unfortunately many of them have started on TV and have some "bad" habits that don't translate so well to big screen.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
hannah kipje |
#7 | |||
|
Permanent Resident
Posts: 12197 12/10/2009 12:28 Master of the House (Owner)
|
I didn't think Troy was an abortion (is that really the right word? We would say abomination), but I did think it
was a typical German style of filming. I don;t particularly like it, but I don't dislike it either. I saw Airforce One and Outbreak and they were both
reasonable thrillers. But it does make you wonder what someone like Riddley would have done with such a story.
I tend to go watch Eastwood and Howard films as well. They both have a good nose for the interesting stories and they both have a very recognisable style (maybe because they do more than just direct as well) but they both have something very.. I guess I would call it 'Hollywood' that comes out in their styles. I am not sure how to describe it. It's a certain slickness that creeps in there somehow. Like the scenes with the child murderer in Changeling or the mental turmoil the mathematician goes through close to the ending of a beautiful mind.. it's too smooth somehow. Those scenes should have been grittier, like Cronenberg would have filmed them. He tend to be too gritty for me sometimes though. The only really good Cronenberg I know is Spider. Guy Ritchie is not a bad director either, but style wise he tends to make the same film over and over. 
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Selivia |
#8 | |||
|
The Help (Mod Squad)
Actually lives here
Posts: 1940 13/10/2009 14:25 If found, return
to Viggo
|
Yes, "abortion" is the correct word, although "abomination" would suit equally well. After having read the script - I could not forgive him
for how "Troy" turned out - more so because of the 2-shot scenes and the constant swinging backwards and forwards from one speaker to the other - we
call it the Wimbeldon effect - like watching the ball bounce backwards and forwards at the tennis match. Most developed directors moved away from that style
many years ago. Admittedly - the massed fighting scenes viewed from a distance were good, but again, the closeup fighting shoots were hard to watch the
over-produced choreography. And what he did to the actors was unforgivable - none of the major characters were played to the bestabilities of that wonderful
international cast - again - they were over-thought and had very little real direction from the director - they just had to do the scene over and over and over
until there was no spontenaity left in their voices or actions.
"Airforce One" was so farcical that it broke the movie illusion and became more of a joke than an honest action movie. Sorry - all that ordinance littering the plane it should have ruptured the hull in the upper atmosphere and torn them all to shreds. It was very forced and too predictable. (Becoming the jaded movie-goer who has seen too much). I actually find Clint's movies quite raw and gritty - a very close, in-your-face and no-punches-pulled confrontation. Maybe not quite so much in "Changeling" but definitley in "Gran Torino". His last few movies (well, mostly from "Mystic River" onwards) have left audiences with some deep concepts to ponder and maybe change their lives. Howard does the more humanist stories and yes, there is a certain amount of Hollywood polish in there. Maybe it stems a little from both these directors having spent many years plying their craft in front of the camera first. Cronenberg is extremely raw - intentionally - not so much in-your-face as rubbing your nose in it. "The Fly" was very well done, but some of the other early movies were quite visually grizzly. I do like the latter movies, specially with Viggo. There is an experienced elegance to them.
|
|||
|
|
||||
Add Reply
- Administration Office
- Members Section
- Archive
- One Year Anniversary
- James's 30th Birthday Forum
- The Details
- James General
- Films TV Theatre
- Atonement
- Becoming Jane
- Wanted
- The Last Station
- Three Days of Rain
- The Conspirator
- I'm With Cancer (working title)
- Pictures
- Fan Fiction / Fan Art
- General
- Games room
- Film Club
- Members Only
