| Author |
Message |
    
Julie Dwyer's ex-boyfriend (mackey3000)
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 10:13 pm: | 
|
I thought Halle's speech was very moving. Though her crying makes the Oscars seem much more important than they actually are. Still, although I was rooting for Nicole or Renee, Halle did a very good job in MB. I was SO HAPPY that Jennifer Connelly, a wonderful actress and the most beautiful women in Hollywood since Marilyn Monroe, won for her very moving ABM work. Maggie Smith was better, but she already has two, and she said the Oscars don't mean shit to her, so Jen deserved to win.
Highpoint: My all-time favorite director, Woody Allen, FINALLY appearing at the Oscars to honor my all-time favorite city, New York.
Lowpoint: Whoopi's cringe-fest hosting. Bring Steve Martin back!
Sincerely,
AIM |
bigO (guynoir)
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 10:28 pm: |
|
Watchorn--I'm glad to hear you're familiar w/ Newman's other music. I agree w/ you about the Monsters, Inc. song; it IS a great deal like his recent movie tunes (especially "You've Got a Friend in Me" from the first Toy Story). I probably would've voted for the Sting song if I were an Academy member. It's closer to being memorable than any of the others are.
As much as I bitch about the other Oscar categories, Best Song is the one where they seem to get it wrong EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Other than Springsteen winning 8 yrs. ago, I can't think of one recent Best Song winner that I actually even like.
BTW, that tune from Toy Story 2 was called "When She Loved Me." It lost out to that horrendous Phil Collins song from Tarzan, if I remember correctly. What an embarassment. |
AdamL (adaml)
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 08:23 am: |
|
Quote:Washington was simply amazing, and I think you may be allowing your opinion of the script to color your judgement.
Well you are correct so far as I thought Training Day was pretty awful but I really didn't think his performance was award-worthy either, not least when compared to Tom Wilkinson et al. Even those people that defend his performance as award-worthy surely cannot explain why he was nominated in the lead category for what was obviously a supporting performance (made even more baffling since the real lead was nominated in the supporting category!) |
Alex Dr_evil (drevil)
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 04:54 pm: |
|
Well I don't think "When She Loved Me" deserved to win either (though it did more than Phil Collins' crap), because that was the year "Save Me" was nominated.
I think the Academy nominated Denzel in the top category because he's the pivotal character; you could have a great movie without Ethan Hawke's Hoyt, but ask yourself if Training Day would have been as successful as it is (even if you didn't find it to be all that successful) without Denzel's Alonzo. Heck, I'd pay to see a spin-off/prologue involving Alonzo. He was phenomenal; I haven't seen any of the other nominees, but I'm not complaining (though if Haley Joel Osment was nominated he probably would've gotten my vote...by a hair). Hawke wasn't onscreen THAT much longer than Washington---15 minutes at most (and by the way, I would've given Hawke my vote before Ian McKellen---but I haven't seen any of the other noms). And maybe they nominated them in the categories they did because they wanted him to be a Black Actor Winning The Best Actor Award. Obviously they were trying to shoo away racism complaints this year, because I haven't heard much about Halle Berry's performance that indicates she deserved the award. |
Steve Badgley (docscribe)
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 05:23 pm: |
|
Speaking strictly in terms of narrative structure and character development, Ethan Hawke's Hoyt was the main character in Training Day. Not the biggest star. Not the flashiest role. But this was definitely Hoyt's story--he was the protagonist/hero struggling against Washington's antagonist/villain.
Ironically, at the time of the movie's release I recall noting that I was more impressed by Hawke's subtle, quietly assured work than Washington's "look-at-me-go" showiness. So although it was certainly refreshing to have a Best Actor win for playing something other than a geek or freak, I'll be more impressed the day someone does it for work that is intense, controlled, and consistently riveting without damaging the furniture...or your eardrums. |
Alex Dr_evil (drevil)
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 05:27 pm: |
|
Well, I thought Hawke was just as good as Washington, but Washington was showier, and thus is what had me glued to the screen. He thoroughly deserved the win. |
Steve Badgley (docscribe)
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 05:33 pm: |
|
Yes Alex, but what we're saying is, Alonzo wasn't the story's main character. Technically, Washington should have been nominated in the Supporting Actor category. |
Carlo (spiro_t_agnew)
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 06:50 pm: |
|
I think they were both leads. Putting Hawke down as supporting is the biggest stretch we've seen of that kind yet. |
Dana Knowles (dana)
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 08:15 pm: |
|
Nah... try Al Pacino as the Supporting Actor and Marlon Brando as the Lead Actor in The Godfather. Not only does Brando have about half the screen time at most, the story arc is Michael's, not Vito's. In any case, I agree with Carlo that Hawke & Washington are co-leads. |
Alex Dr_evil (drevil)
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 09:05 pm: |
|
Yeah, that's what I meant. For the time Washington spends offscreen, he more than makes up for in significance. |
Steve Badgley (docscribe)
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 10:22 pm: |
|
I still say Washington was considered a lead/co-lead in Training Day only because he's a bigger star. This was actually Hoyt's story, and Dana's Godfather example was very much apropos to how Hollywood's pecking order often affects which Oscar category a performer lands in.
The corollary to all this was what happened to Jennifer Connelly this year. She was unquestionably the Female Lead in A Beautiful Mind, yet got downgraded to Supporting to up her chances of a win.
I tell ya, these Oscars are a damn cynical game... |
Frances (midge_wood)
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2002 - 10:25 pm: |
|
I have to say it was Hawke more who had me glued to the screen. I do believe his was the main character and I do believe his was the better performance. Washington was a little too showy for me (and this is coming from someone who loved Russel Crowe in A Beautiful Mind so take my words with a grain of salt). I liked his work better in The Hurricane (a movie which I loathed) and Malcom X than I did here. I still believe that most were "amazed" by Washington's performance because they were amazed at the fact that he was playing a villain for once. And as I said over and over again, if they're going to reward him for that then where the heck was Ben Kingsley's Oscar for Sexy Beast?
Though I do love Russel Crowe's performance in ABM I think that Tom Wilkinson should've gotten the Oscar. It's much harder to do a performance like his than to twitch and yell. Ah well, at least he got the AFFA :) |
Steve Badgley (docscribe)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 02:39 am: |
|
Weird shit. |
AdamL (adaml)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 08:03 am: |
|
Quote:Nah... try Al Pacino as the Supporting Actor and Marlon Brando as the Lead Actor in The Godfather. Not only does Brando have about half the screen time at most, the story arc is Michael's, not Vito's.
Absolutely. I couldn't believe this when I saw it, knowing that they'd not only nominated Brando as lead but given him the damn Oscar when Pacino didn't even win for supporting in what was the best performance in the film. My view is that with The Godfather and Training Day (plus Pollock, A Beautiful Mind amongst others...), they nominate based on an actor's pedigree with little regard to their role in the film.
Quote:And as I said over and over again, if they're going to reward him for that then where the heck was Ben Kingsley's Oscar for Sexy Beast?
Exactly. Can anyone honestly say they thought Washington gave a better performance than Kingsley? He was absolutely astonishing and for me gave the best performance of the year in any category. |
Carlo (spiro_t_agnew)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Are you serious? Kingsley gave a one-note performance, I don't care how good it was. Washington has to combine seductiveness with evil, which is a hard thing to do.
I'll say it again, and I hope not to offend anybody: I think the majority of the negative reaction to Washington's win has more to do with what people thought of the film as a whole than the performance itself. |
Frances (midge_wood)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 01:26 pm: |
|
And I still think the majority of the postive reaction to Washington's performance has more to do with the role than the actual performance. |
xavier (xavier)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 01:30 pm: |
|
Now that I got the serious stuff off my chest, I can afford to be catty:
• Was there a giant fan outside blowing everybody's hair into a mess? I mean, Cameron Diaz looked like she had been in a fight-- practically all the women. Except Jennifer Lopez who looked like she was smuggling an illegal immigrant under her hair-- it's the first time I think the word "horsey" can be applied to hair!
• What was with Renee Zellwegger's makeup? Whoever did it for her must have stock in Vaseline-- is extreme oily skin back in style? Wait, I got some leftover KY Jelly from the seventies.... but that's another story.
• What's up with Whoopi's feet? She did that same bare feet joke the last time she hosted the show! Is she not used to wearing shoes? Men's feet are sometimes funny depending on the circumstance. Women's feet are sometimes sexy-- hardly ever funny. And, ladies-- never EVER take your shoes off in public unless you're an Italian sex goddess about to take dip in a Roman fountain.
• Halle, dear-- I have news for you: Lena Horne was one of the most beautiful and talented women who ever lived... but not exactly an example of a great actress.
• You want to talk about sincerity-- anybody see Judi Dench's reaction to Berry's win? What a shame thoughts can't be broadcast out loud.
• Will someone who has better knowledge than me of film history please tell me which Busby Berkeley film featured in the tribute to films made in New York was actually made in NYC?
• Catherine Deneuve paying tribute to Marilyn Monroe is like eating a Maple-glaze Krispy-Kreme donut and following it up with Haggen-Dasz Dulce de Leche Ice Cream, then finding out that it all makes you leaner, smarter and sexier. |
C.J. (thief)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 03:26 pm: |
|
Quote:Are you serious? Kingsley gave a one-note performance, I don't care how good it was. Washington has to combine seductiveness with evil, which is a hard thing to do.
Interesting comment. I thought both performances were excellent. There are things that surround both, though. For example, even though most of us know that Denzel's character is mean, it wasn't something that was conveyed as so in the movie from the get-go. We are in Hoyt's shoes, slowly discovering the nature of his partner. And feelings of disbelief, disappointment, amazement and whatnot are mixed. This man is a normal man, sucked into a life of corruption, just like Hoyt might be in the future.
Logan, on the other hand, we know he is an evil man from the moment they mention his name at the dinner table. The reaction of everybody says a lot about who his character is. And to see him so subtle and quiet after that, sitting at Gal's living room was so opposite to what one would expect. However, as he sprang to evilness with his "No, no, no" rant or with his morning wake-up call to Gal, he also manages to convey a certain troubled self. He is a frustrated man, unable to be happy. The fact that the script asks for something of him, doesn't make it a one-note performance. I do believe he added more depth to the character than there was on paper.
I can't dismiss any of those performances as lesser, nor can I compare them easily. In my opinion, one is clearly meant to be repulsive and hated by the audience, while the other is meant to be seductive (as you say) and tempting. The only comparison I can clearly make is that each of the actors were best known for playing noble, do-goodie roles. Other than that, I was fascinated by both performances. |
Carlo (spiro_t_agnew)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 05:30 pm: |
|
Okay, a two-note performance. But it benefitted from the star setup, like Orson Welles in The Third Man. Characters talk about someone repeatedly before he appears for the first time, which helps set up the performance and render it more effective. |
droogleader (john)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2002 - 05:34 pm: |
|
A performance of genius is what it is, and precisely because it's two notes! Dialectical constructions have always made for the most effective drama. |
xavier (xavier)
| | Posted on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Has anyone considered Kingsley's size? (This is the guy who played Gandhi on a hunger strike!) Especially juxtaposed to the other actors who were supposed to tremble in his presence.
A masterful performance by any means. But who cares? I would only really really care if I had a son or daughter who was studying acting and chose to follow the Halle Berry school of acting rather than the Ben Kingsley school. Then I'd really be worried. |
Julie Dwyer's ex-boyfriend (mackey3000)
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 10:28 am: |
|
One-note? Two-note? Half a note? Who the fuck cares?! Kingsley gave a remarkable career-high performance in SEXY BEAST, regardless of how many notes he had. He definitely should have won.
As for the Denzel Washington issue. I thought TD was a terrible movie with an obnoxious, over-the-top performance by Washington. Hawke was the lead, I agree. And I also agree that he gave the really amazing performance in the film, because he had the tougher job. I have always preferred understated acting to overacting, and, to me, Hawke's quiet fear was more powerful than Washington's hamfisted yelling. I think Washington is an incredible actor who should have won, WITHOUT A DOUBT, for MALCOLM X and should have been nominated for PHILADELPHIA. Why doesn't the academy ever reward great actors for their best work?
You don't believe me? Think Crowe winning for GLADIATOR and not winning for THE INSIDER and ABM. Think Al Pacino winning for SCENT OF A WOMAN and not winning for THE GODFATHER and DOG DAY AFTERNOON (It boggles my mind that I can't refer to his work as Sonny as an Oscar-winning performance). Think Nicholson winning for TERMS OF ENDEARMENT and CUCKOO'S NEST and not winning for FIVE EASY PIECES and CHINATOWN. I rest my case
Sincerely,
AIM |
Carlo (spiro_t_agnew)
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Career high? No, that was Ghandhi, regardless of what anyone may think of the movie itself. Sexy Beast is a supporting performance in a decent yet minor film that broadens our view of Kingsley, but I would hardly call it a "career-high." Quite frankly, I thought it was a bit of a gimmick, and the movie vastly overrated.
I, too, prefer understated work, but sometimes over-the-top is what's required. After all, the cinema doesn't exactly give us normal, understated characters in many cases. Travis Bickle? Ratso Russo? Tommy DeVito? Franko Begbie? Derek Vinyard? These are NOT understated people. Playing them requires going over the top. Of course, it must be done in a controlled, paced fashion, otherwise it's overacting. But it must be done.
I don't fault you for hating Training Day, as I can see how someone might. For me, it was outstanding until it fell apart in the last half hour, and any problems with Washington's performance came from the script.
I do agree about not rewarding actors for their best work. Your examples are all very good, and I would also note that Nicholson won another for As Good As It Gets, a film I detested. Also because of that miserable film, Judi Dench got her Oscar for something other than Mrs. Brown. Ian McKellen will win an Oscar someday for something other than Gods and Monsters, Edward Norton will win one for something other than Primal Fear, and the pattern will continue. |
Alex Dr_Evil (drevil)
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 01:11 pm: |
|
Mackey, you think Dog Day Afternoon is understated and Scent of a Woman is over-the-top? Is that what I'm hearing? Watch the "ATTICAAAAA!" scene again to remind yourself that while Pacino's performance was great, it was anything but subtle.
And I'll argue for his performance in Scent of a Woman until the day I die. His best performance? Probably not, but I was fully convinced of his blindness and continuously intrigued by his character.
I have yet to see Sexy Beast. Really, really want to though. |
Glenda Glamazon (alison_aboutfilm)
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 03, 2002 - 11:46 pm: |
|
Quote:Also because of that miserable film, Judi Dench got her Oscar for something other than Mrs. Brown. Ian McKellen will win an Oscar someday for something other than Gods and Monsters, Edward Norton will win one for something other than Primal Fear, and the pattern will continue.
I think you mean Norton will win one for something other than American History X (unless you are really ticked about Cuba Gooding, Jr. winning the Supporting Award for which Edward was also nominated in 1996?), though you're off on the year. Nicholson won the 1997 Oscar for As Good As It Gets, beating Peter Fonda, Matt Damon, Robert Duvall, and Dustin Hoffman. McKellen and Norton were nominated for 1998 performances. The travesty that year was that Roberto Begnini won over what should have rightly been shared by Ian and Edward. |
Carlo (spiro_t_agnew)
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 01:17 am: |
|
Quote:(unless you are really ticked about Cuba Gooding, Jr. winning the Supporting Award for which Edward was also nominated in 1996?
Yes, I am. The year Norton was up for American History X was the year McKellen should have won, with Norton a close second.
I cited several examples. I was just saying Nicholson won for a crap movie, without saying someone else should have won. That crap movie also cost Dench her Oscar, which led to her winning for SIL, which cost someone else their Oscar in turn. McKellen was a separate example. |
xavier (xavier)
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 08:04 am: |
|
Talk about Nicholson-- ever see HOFFA? Now there's a tremendous performance that should have gotten recognition but hardly anyone noticed. People tend to like crap like AS GOOD AS IT GETS, which, ironically, wasn't.
Is someone saying that Nicholson in AGAIG was better than Dustin Hoffman in WAG THE DOG? Is that what I'm hearing? |
Alex Dr_Evil (drevil)
| | Posted on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:26 am: |
|
I thought he was very good in As Good As It Gets, but I'm not ready yet to say he deserved the Oscar. I haven't seen Wag the Dog or The Apostle. |
Julie Dwyer's ex-boyfriend (mackey3000)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 05:35 pm: |
|
SPIRO:
Well, let's agree to disagree about SEXY BEAST.
Oh, and I forgot about AGAIG. I HATED HATED HATED HATED that movie. His performance was OK, but it was still without a doubt the worst of the five nominated that year. Him winning over Fonda and Duvall was especially unforgivable. And why the fuck did he win for TERMS OF ENDEARMENT? I'll admit I didn't like the film, but even if I had he was still just the COMIC RELIEF, and you don't win the Oscar for just being the comic relief. The same goes for Whoopi Goldberg's work in GHOST, which stole the Oscar that belonged to Lorraine Bracco for her still-dazzling GOODFELLAS work, and Cuba Gooding Jr.'s work in JERRY MAGUIRE, which stole the Oscar that belonged to Bill Macy for his career-galvanizing work in FARGO.
what do you guys think? |
Alex Dr_Evil (drevil)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 05:42 pm: |
|
Much as I loved loved loved Macy in Fargo, Edward Norton in Primal Fear was better. I didn't hate Cuba, but either of those two would have been better. |
xavier (xavier)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 07:39 pm: |
|
mackey, I totally agree with you on AGAIG and Nicholson in TOE. Jack needs to stop playing "pain-in-the-neck-but-lovable" characters. He could take a few lessons from the work that Dustin did with his character in WAG THE DOG-- that was pure, inventive genius-- and very funny.
But I thought Whoopi was hilarious in GHOST-- she made that movie work, and real comedy is not that easy, actually. |
Julie Dwyer's ex-boyfriend (mackey3000)
| | Posted on Saturday, April 06, 2002 - 11:03 pm: |
|
DR.EVIL:
I never said that Pacino's DDA work was understated. I was talking about the academy not honoring great actors for their best work, not about how I prefer understated acting, when I mentioned Pacino's DDA performance.
SPARCO:
I hate to return to SEXY BEAST, but I really don't think Kinglsey was a gimmick at all. I thought he created the most chillingly villainous by nature character in any movie since Tony Hopkins in TSOTL. Also, I thought SEXY BEAST was a great film in itself too. It also had a helluva performance by Ray Winstone that NOBODY seems to have noticed. And though it was impossible not to hate the despicable Logan, his feelings for Jackie helped make him human in a way that Alonzo having a kid in TD didn't do it for me at all. I still respect your opinion, of course.
XAVIER:
Hoffman was brilliant in WTD. Definitely better than Jack in AGAIG. But the Oscar that year should have gone to Peter Fonda instead of either one of them. I too thought Whoopi was hilarious in GHOST, but it was NOT a great performance. It was a fun one, but, like I said before, you shouldn't win an Oscar for just being the "comic relief." Also, I didn't like GHOST. Though Whoopi was a hoot, and WITHOUT A DOUBT the best thing in the movie, she wasn't enough to make the film work. Did you see Lorraine Bracco in GOODFELLAS? If you did, I think you would agree that her performance was really robbed of the Oscar that year. And I know that real comedy's not easy AT ALL. I think Kevin Kline deserved his Oscar for A FISH CALLED WANDA, in which he did great comedic work in a truly great comedic movie. But Whoopi's work in GHOST I don't think was on Kline's level. It was hilarious, but it wasn't neither a great performance nor a great comedic performance. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Sincerely,
AIM |
I'd rather not... (bluebull)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 05:29 am: |
|
Briefly going back to this year's Oscars...No one even talked about what I thought were the two most interesting/entertaining aspects of the telecast:
1. Tom's staredown of Nicole to begin the telecast! The evil part of me wanted to see Nicole's reaction to this! Then again, if you listened to Cruise during the BW Special beforehad, they are perfectly good friends (ha!), so I'm sure she could not have been happier seeing him there! As my respect for him artistically has gone up recently, so too has my respect for him personally gone way down.
2. McKellean with that 20(?) year-old hunky looking boy? Maybe he didn't have to do that much acting in Gods and Monsters, after all! What a great Hollywood moment - the old man with his young beauty (and this time its a gay relationship!). |
Carlo (spiro_t_agnew)
| | Posted on Sunday, April 07, 2002 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Everybody keeps saying that guy was twenty. I'm at least allowing for the possibility that he was 30 (though, admittedly, not more), which would make a huge difference. Anyway, it was a great moment for Hollywood indeed. |
AdamL (adaml)
| | Posted on Thursday, April 11, 2002 - 07:53 am: |
|
Quote:It also had a helluva performance by Ray Winstone that NOBODY seems to have noticed.
Absolutely. They played off each other brilliantly and I think Winstone's performance helped highlight Kingsley's and vice versa. Winstone deserved a best actor nom but didn't have the pedigree to pull it off.
I'm glad to see someone who is as enthusiastic about Sexy Beast as I am. I loved it and Kingsley's fantastic performance is indeed the best villain since Hopkin's Lector. The beauty of each is that to look at them, they couldn't look less like a villain if they tried, yet the quality of the performance from each actor leaves you utterly convinced that both are pure evil.
(And BTW McKellen's toyboy looked much older than 20!) |
|
Discussion Archives 
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page