*** Official 2002 Academy Awards Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Dana Fillhart]

For those who were wondering what Colin Farrell said in Irish (Gaelic)...

I recognized the saying right off the bat but couldn't remember the exact translation. I'm pretty sure this is what he said and what it translates to:

Go mbeire muid beo ar an am seo aris!
"May we be alive at this time next year."

It's a flowery way of saying goodbye, if my memory serves me right, in the same way that Cead mile failte ("A hundred thousand welcomes") is a flowery greeting. However, given the political nature of so many speeches that night, I find his use of the phrase to have a double-meaning.

 

[Vickie_M]

For those who were wondering what Colin Farrell said in Irish (Gaelic)...

I recognized the saying right off the bat but couldn't remember the exact translation. I'm pretty sure this is what he said and what it translates to:

Go mbeire muid beo ar an am seo aris!
"May we be alive at this time next year."

Wow, that's greatly at odds with what people.com (yeah, I know) says:

When Colin Farrell introduced Best Song nominees U2, what was it that he said in Gaelic?

Irish actor Farrell gave a tip of the hat to his countrymen by saying, "Go raibh mile maith agat. Agus anois U2!" Translated: "A thousand thank-yous. And now U2!"

Both translations are nice though.

(I'm still laughing at someone, somewhere, saying that they thought Colin Farrell's accent was pretty fakey.)

 

[Dana Fillhart]

I've heard that saying, too (as well as the simple "Go maith agat", a slightly more plain "thank you"). It very well could've been that, if he said "U2" at the end of it (which was very hard to make out).

Actually, now that I think about it, the one you quoted makes more sense in the context of what he was up there for.

 

[Seth Paxton]

GONY

I think films can age for better or worse, though I'm not sure that GONY will change much either way in my perception. I did have an improving fondness for the film on successive viewings, but that mostly came from me focusing on the positive aspects and learning to overlook the flaws.

That doesn't mean that I think the flaws are acceptable in terms of the film's greatness or place in history. I don't think GONY was one of the 5 best films of the year and I think a big part of the problem was in how MS tried to tell the story, ie his direction.

But his vision does come through in segments, in the art direction, in the dialog, and most of all, in the acting of DDLewis. So now when I see it I take note of those items more than the flaws. As an overall film I would be hard pressed to view the film as a better told story than even Bringing Out the Dead (which I think was unfairly maligned to be honest).

The structure of the film did not lend itself to an overall cohesiveness that allows an audience to anticipate future scenes (including subconsciously) nor does it allow them to feel the building of an overall moral theme.

For example, after the first hour if you were asked what the major theme of the film is, the most likely response would be the danger of getting too close to the enemy or the faults in seeking revenge. The film itself explicitly states such a theme with the "heat of the dragon" line that, IIRC, appears just after the boxing match on the barge.

However, in the end the theme is again explicitly stated in the film's dialog, only now it's that the city was born in the boiling pot of turmoil and violence, and the "hands that built America" were mostly those of forgotten men or men that were never even known.

And of course either of these themes is strongly muddled by the "forget violence and let romance save you" theme that pops up in the middle and returns out of nowhere in the end.

The conflicting themes are also echoed by the film's conflicting narrative style, such as the sudden awkward presence of the voice-over reading of telegraph messages during the city riot.

Such confusion, to me, indicated that MS was either too close to the material, or that the scale and scope of the film was a little too big and got out of hand for him. Generally his films are less epics and most intimate portraits of personal turmoil. And to be honest that feels like where the film was going with DeCaprio's story until DDL turns on him. It's at that point the film takes a drastic turn in focus. Considering such problems should also give us greater appreciation for what Peter Jackson has been able to do with LOTR.


To me GONY is a perfect example of a film being better than the direction effort. Most of the other aspects brought to the film were top notch and still come through, making the film very watchable even if the telling of it is inconsistant.

I'm not sold on the idea that Polanski was the best effort, but it was better than MS's effort, IMO.

I have no doubt though, that in 10 years at least some people will refer back to this year as just another example of how MS got robbed, when the reality is that he had everything going for him and failed to deliver, in contrast to someone like Rob Marshall who had everything going against him (except a Miramax connection) and pulled it off beautifully, surprising just about everyone.

For me it was further proof that the Academy is not all about lifetime achievements and "last year's make-up call". People have said Kidman's award was, but honestly her performance was one of the top efforts of the year. I don't think any "best actress discussion" would be valid if it didn't include her. And Brody, Cooper, and Jones didn't "have one due to them" either.

 

[DaveGR]

VICKI M DO YOU EVEN READ ANYTHING BEFORE YOU START shooting off at the mouth? after LEW asked if I could . I then said YES,,What dont you understand about YES?

Yet you then remark on the same thing. Is that Intelligent?
Why dont you read things thru before you comment.

And Frankly If I did choose to keep typing the same way,I could. I chose to change because Lew asked,and wasnt being a jerk.I understood that it does seem to tight.

I did so as a courtesy to readers.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Vickie and Dave stop with the heated exchanges about Dave's postings. Also, Dave please help others read your posts easier by properly spacing your words and commas, otherwise, the gist of what you're trying to say gets lost by those trying to understand your viewpoint. Thank you.




Crawdaddy

 

[Vickie_M]

Robert, you read my post as being heated? Mildly snippy, maybe, but I never intended to come off as heated. I won't be saying another word about his posts. I'd certainly rather ignore him than be in dutch with a mod. Sorry. :frowning:


Getting back on topic, I was thinking that Adrien Brody is in the same situation that Marisa Tomei was in: unknown actor from a little-seen film, winning over 4 well-known heavy hitters. Sure, there are differences. Adrien was in a critically respected drama and his co-nominees were movie stars, while Marisa was in a slight comedy and her co-nominees were British non-movie stars, but still...it's all very familiar.

Yet, Adrien will never face the barrage of jokes and eyerolls that Marisa has had to face. That's a good thing (believe me, I am a HUGE Adrien Brody fan and screamed when he won), but it makes me feel even worse for Marisa. She didn't have her Internet supporters willing to jump in and say "hey, wait, MCV is a pretty funny little movie, and she's brilliant in it" and giving cases for splitting votes and whatnot. She became an immediate joke, and still has to fight that (I heard a reference to the reading-the-wrong-name urban legend just the other day). I wonder if Marisa is feeling just a tinge of...regret, bitterness, I don't know, something tingyv. I would.

 

[Cees Alons]

Vickie,

Well, you could safely be in Dutch with this mod... .

Cees

 

[Stevan Lay]

Well as this thread and oscar discussions is coming to its last curtain for this year I just wanna say how personally pleased I am with Chicago's Best Picture award and IMO it was a fitting finale to the always enjoyable hoopla that the oscars generates each and every year.

With all the best categories mud-slinging, studio back-lashings, box-office ass-grabbing, and all the political spit-balling, there's only one thing that can be left to be said and that is...
"That's the Oscars for you, baby!" - Billy Flynn

 

[DaveGR]

If you didnt mean anything Vicki,sorry. I may have just taken it wrong. And I did change the way I was writing.

Moving on. I am at least happy Chris Cooper got what he deserved. And Im happy with how Best Actress turned out.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Many thanks Dave. Your posts are much easier to read.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I think Gangs will age well. I don't believe it will ever be seen as a "should have won" BP film, but I think it will stay in the public consciousness long after most of 2002's films have faded away. I agree that the direction did NOT deserve a BD or a BP. Having not seen The Pianist or Talk to Her, I felt that Marshall did tremendous work. Not my favorite of the year (Spielberg did a double doozy in such disparate genres that will, in time, be seen as absolutely incredible...though neither film was THE best), but the best of what I had seen.

I am glad for Brody. We'll see what he does from here. You can't go much higher than beating Jack and DDL for an Oscar, in what was considering among the finest both actors ever did. This was the one award I really cared about. On the surface, Bill the Butcher was fire and in-your-face (and we loved it), but a bit deeper were several layers of a fascinating character. No doubt Adrien's job was a bit more physical and introverted. I look forward to seeing it.

As for "payback" Oscars, they still exist. I told my wife that Renee was on the "list". All that means is that enough of the voters want her to have one. She merely needs to deliver at the appropriate time. Which should be easy for her. Whoever helps her with scripts deserves a raise. She has picked GREAT roles left and right.

And with that...who cares what I think?

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Debbie E]

I didn't watch them (forgot to set the TiVo) and was looking now through part of the Nicole Kidman interview. I've always liked her but always thought of her as this serious, hard-nosed woman. After seeing the video now I REALLY like her. She seems so easygoing and (in her own words) giddy. She's like a 6-year-old in a candy store. I like her all the more for it. This Oscar hasn't affected her at all.

 

[Seth Paxton]

The thing is, I sort of thought Renee was already on the payback list this year.

I mean Kidman didn't get any more screwed last year than Renee did I don't think. Was her performance in MR more deserving than Renee in BJD? Maybe a little, but not some large amount and probably not more than Berry/Spacek.

So I don't agree that Kidman's win was one she "finally had coming" over Renee. I thought Renee had as much Oscar loss bagage, money maker status going for her.

Besides the BJD nomination, she was also in Best Pix nom Jerry McGuire which earned plenty of money, Me, Myself and Irene that pulled in 90m, and won the GG for Nurse Betty and was promptly snubbed for an Oscar nom when Binoche got the nom after losing to her in the GG.

Before MR and The Others, what other work had Kidman done of the Oscar/GG caliber? To Die For. Yes, she did Eyes Wide Shut, but the film didn't earn big and honestly her acting didn't blow anyone away.

She had yet to prove herself to be much more of an "earner" than Renee before the last 2 years, when Renee also become the big star of her films (BJD, Chicago).

Kidman had almost been more famous as Tom's wife than as an actress herself and lingered on the edge of not quite making it over the top to the big time until 2001.

This is not to slight her abilities or previous films. I enjoy many things she did, but then I also like Empire Records and I didn't throw that in for Renee's cause.

The point is that both actresses hit it big the last 2 years, both in musicals, both in smaller films that they carried (Others, BJD). The big difference is that Kidman just did the very serious and prestigious role.

Why expect Renee to get the Oscar for something that they weren't willing to give Nicole an Oscar for? That was probably the biggest factor hurting her this year, more than a make-up vote for Kidman. Had Renee been in an equally serious film I think she could have won this year.


My point is that sometimes the "make-up" vote makes just as much sense without that logic (meaning it wasn't really a make-up call after all). And to be honest I haven't even brought in the nose factor (which I do think impressed people - "it doesn't look like her"). Kidman was very strong, though I didn't think she was the best even in her own film (I would have gone with Streep).

She merely needs to deliver at the appropriate time.

There's quite a long list of people that merely need to do this. We just saw a lifer given to one of them, while another sat and watched his go to a guy not allowed in the country.

I'm not saying I haven't supported the list theory, but it's clearly just one of a myriad parameters that factor into winning the big one. Right place, right time, right film, AND be on the list, AND hope you aren't up against someone else on the list.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Well, duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



You know my point. And time is a factor in payback...Renee is a 1996 freshman...Kidman is several years earlier.

Take care,
Chuck

 

[Patrick Sun]

And both of them have Tom Cruise to thank.

 

[Seth Paxton]

And Jim Broadbent (MR, BJD)

 

[Brian W.]

One last post before this thread completely dies. I was looking over the Oscar noms vs. picture wins stats, and my God, it really is true that the movie with the most noms ALMOST ALWAYS wins Best Picture. Only five times since 1970 has the movie with the most noms not won Best Picture: 1977, 1980, 1981, 1991, 2001. That's 85% of the time -- even better than the odds of picture and director matching up.

Most people were surprised when "Shakespeare in Love" won BP. They shouldn't have been. It had the most nominations. "Driving Miss Daisy" was a surprise winner over "Born on the Fourth of July," which won Best Director. Again, it had more noms. Frequently films are tied with another picture for the most noms, but if that happens you can generally assume one of two will win.

But things change. In the sixties, the picture with the most noms only won half the time.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yeah, most noms says one very important thing, the film has support as a good film from many different voters. I think the average person fails to realize that nominations are limited to peer groups.

And of course, the best films are considered "best" because they succeed in multiple aspects of filmmaking at once. It doesn't mean a film has to have something of everything, but certainly the best films are more than one note hits.