Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

Post by Stewball »

Maaxwell wrote:
Stewball wrote:The Democrats are the real racists (the KKK being the military wing of the Democrat Party).

Really though? I'm not American and certainly no historian, but even I've heard of the Southern Strategy. I know I shouldn't take the bait here...[/quote}

What "Southern Strategy"? The Civil War south was Democrat. The pro-lynching, Jim Crow, segregated, anti-civil rights South was Demorat.

Regarding the Oscars, I've been under the impression for some time that most film enthusiasts consider them to be horseshit anyway. I considered them a huge deal as a kid and memorised all the winners but now I can't take them remotely seriously, especially since Sandra friggin' Bullock has one now *gag*


Absolutely. But until this year, I've always been interested in hopes that they might actually recognize good films and actin, which they did occasionally. But this year, the split was a canyon, especially with Moonlight. The problem with affirmative action has always been the it diminishes true accomplishment by members of a minority, and generates a backlash of resentment due to reverse discrimination.

I'm frankly bewildered as to how Emma Stone got one for [i]La La Land
Would it be worth talking about which performances people thought were worthy of Academy Awards too? I personally haven't seen many of the big Oscar-bait dramas this year, and thus I don't think I've seen a single acting role worthy of such recognition.


I actually thought Emma was good, but yeah. The last few years, the competition for best actress has been very high, but not so much this year; while actors were bringing the best to the screen, IMNTBHO. And no, I'm not thinking Ben Affleck should have been up there, because it's hard for me to distinguish between what's a not very demanding role, and what truly great actors do--make it look easy. Only on-scene insiders can answer that question.
I think Denzel Washinton was the biggest dis this year, for leading role--probably more PC retribution.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

Post by Stewball »

Maaxwell wrote:Really though? I'm not American and certainly no historian, but even I've heard of the Southern Strategy. I know I shouldn't take the bait here...


What "Southern Strategy"? The Civil War south was Democrat. The pro-lynching, Jim Crow, segregated, anti-civil rights South was Demorat.

Regarding the Oscars, I've been under the impression for some time that most film enthusiasts consider them to be horseshit anyway. I considered them a huge deal as a kid and memorised all the winners but now I can't take them remotely seriously, especially since Sandra friggin' Bullock has one now *gag*


Absolutely. But until this year, I've always been interested in hopes that they might actually recognize good films and actin, which they did occasionally. But this year, the split was a canyon, especially with Moonlight. The problem with affirmative action has always been the it diminishes true accomplishment by members of a minority, and generates a backlash of resentment due to reverse discrimination.

I'm frankly bewildered as to how Emma Stone got one for [i]La La Land
Would it be worth talking about which performances people thought were worthy of Academy Awards too? I personally haven't seen many of the big Oscar-bait dramas this year, and thus I don't think I've seen a single acting role worthy of such recognition.
[/quote]

I actually thought Emma was good, but yeah. The last few years, the competition for best actress has been very high, but not so much this year; while actors were bringing the best to the screen, IMNTBHO. And no, I'm not thinking Ben Affleck should have been up there, because it's hard for me to distinguish between what's a not very demanding role, and what truly great actors do--make it look easy. Only on-scene insiders can answer that question.
I think Denzel Washinton got the biggest dis this year, for leading role--probably more PC retribution.[/quote]

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

Post by Stewball »

CosmicMonkey wrote:You have to admit there is a real predictability and formulaic-ness to Stewball's posts.

Silence is consent. I'm only matching predictability with predictability.

mattorama12 wrote:LBJ quote incoming

Oh look, someone else who has noticed the same thing.


If you're thinking of the quote I'm thinking of, ask yourself why it sprang to mind? And do you have an explanation for it? No, which I'm sure is because you don't want to re-quote an embarrassment to your point of view.

Am I using this reference right? He was someone famous for being a great debater and statesman?


Why are you talking through your hat? If you're referring to LBJ, he was the worst President in our history. He was a former--come closet--racist. He replace the KKK by keeping blacks down on the plantation with the Great Society and War on Poverty welfare programs. The above not-quoted-quote is proof that's what he was doing.

Mentaculus
Posts: 215
3438 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:17 am

Re: Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

Post by Mentaculus »

mattorama12 wrote:Then shouldn't Moonlight be able to win Best Picture if it is the best picture, regardless of the race of the characters and filmmakers? What you said earlier is basically that because they are black, it shouldn't be able to win because it either is reverse discrimination or at least [/i]could be[/i] reverse discrimination, and therefore its win can never be legitimate. If we're striving for color-blind, then it should be able to win if it's the best movie plain and simple.


Hot damn. 8-)

I will chime in for a bit and say that regardless of where one falls on the spectrum of race and racial empathy at the moment, the acknowledgement of race as a component of a work's merit is currently a major shaper in our culture. Regardless of how you feel about it, people take this into consideration. It might be a good thing, it might be overkill, it might be negative in the long run - but it's prescient. Moonlight's win reflects our culture at the moment, (as well as being a well done character study) so IMO that has some merit.

MacSwell
Posts: 1721
2706 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:03 am

Re: Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

Post by MacSwell »

Stewball wrote:
Maaxwell wrote:Really though? I'm not American and certainly no historian, but even I've heard of the Southern Strategy. I know I shouldn't take the bait here...


What "Southern Strategy"? The Civil War south was Democrat. The pro-lynching, Jim Crow, segregated, anti-civil rights South was Demorat.

Indeed, but you're quite obtusely failing to mention the party switch of the 60s - the so-called "Southern Strategy". Look it up if you've (somehow) not heard of it.

VinegarBob
Posts: 775
4158 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:54 am

Re: Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

Post by VinegarBob »

I don't get all this PC stuff. I realise that some voters cast their vote to make a point, but people who do that aren't worth bothering about, and if that's why a particular film wins then it's probably not worth your time. I don't believe Moonlight falls into that category though, and if that's the case then why didn't Hidden Figures - which I believe does fall into that category - win instead?

Personally I don't find viewing films in terms of race/gender/politics very useful. Maybe overtly political films or films that are chronicling a specific racial/political/gender equality event in history, but more often than not those films aren't very good because they usually go about it in a ham-fisted way (I'm looking at you Hidden Figures).

In films set in the real world I primarily care about authenticity, dialogue/performances and the technical virtuosity of the various elements that go into the film, and I generally judge them on those merits. If a film feels authentic to me then I'll value that film more than if it feels contrived or fake. I don't care whether the main characters in films are black, white or green, male or female, transgender, hetero/homo or bisexual as long as those characters and the characters around them behave like authentic individuals with believable motives and goals and are interacting with each other and their surroundings in a realistic way. Moonlight ticks all those boxes. Hidden Figures does not. It's ironic that of the two films the one based on real events and people was more fake than the one based on fictional events.

Moonlight is a film with a fantastic script, solid direction and brilliant performances. It feels real. The issues it explores are interesting, and it explores them in an organic, subtle and believable way. That's why it's so good. It's not about race so much as about fitting in, finding your place in society and coping with the alienation that arises from being different from those around you. It's universal.

mattorama12
Posts: 887
3086 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:05 am

Re: Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

Post by mattorama12 »

Stewball wrote:And no, I'm not thinking Ben Affleck should have been up there, because it's hard for me to distinguish between what's a not very demanding role, and what truly great actors do--make it look easy. Only on-scene insiders can answer that question.


There's probably nobody in Hollywood I've done a bigger 180 on (though McConaughey comes close). I used to hate him so much, but he's really proven me wrong. His performance, while not Oscar-y, was damn fine in The Accountant and one of the best things about the movie.

hellboy76
Posts: 446
6339 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 1:53 am

Re: Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

Post by hellboy76 »

For some reason, I feel like I should see The Accountant.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

Post by Stewball »

HakkaMex wrote:I don't think thrillers get nominated very much to begin with traditionally though it's changed a bit in the past 5 years with the ones highlighted below from a list I found. It tends to be mostly dramas. Nightcrawler was the best one of the past few years imo and didn't get a nomination. Anyways, The Accountant didn't really have high enough reviews to get consideration. I thought Gone Baby Gone was Affleck's best film and even that didn't get a nomination.


Unfortunately thrillers equates to horror which are far too often horrorible. 8-) Yes, Nightcrawler was a most excellent thriller, and it didn't really fall in with the horror schulck. And yes, The Accountant didn't get good reviews because critics don't have or take the time to do the research and/or watch a movie 2 or 3 or 12 times when it's necessary. IOW, it when over their heads, mainly because they blew it off as an action movie before they even started watching it. I know this because I read minds, for those who were wondering. And the Academy SHOULD be above the milieu of pandering to crass commercial criticism--but of course it isn't. So given that and it's worshiping at the feet of the god of political correctness--and this years sub-par nominations, we should move on, which many appeared to have done this year. This was the first year I didn't watch it in since forever.

Thanks for mentioning Gone Baby Gone. That one slipped through the cracks here.

Stewball
Posts: 3009
2188 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Oscar nominations vs. Mine/Yours

Post by Stewball »

hellboy76 wrote:For some reason, I feel like I should see The Accountant.


Comes the dawn! 8-)

Post Reply