Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Ronald Epstein, Jan 22, 2019.
Can I post the results under spoiler tags?
Why not just wait until the show broadcasts?
I’m not a moderator so obviously you can do what you want. It was just a suggestion.
For those who want to know the BAFTA winners without watching the ceremony, here's a link. Don't click it if you don't want to know. Per Tino's request, I'm not actually going to discuss the winners in this post at all since it hasn't aired yet.
Also, I saw Capernaum this afternoon, which only opened here this weekend. It is Lebanon's nominee for Best Foreign Language Film. It was really good and very much worth seeing. If it had been submitted in another year, where foreign films aren't in competition in other categories, it might have won. This year, against Roma, it won't have a chance, but it's a really engrossing film, well-put-together by the director and featuring an incredibly nuanced performance from the kid at the center of it. It's incredibly sad and often extremely hard to watch, and I gasped multiple times throughout at what was happening not because the film is graphic but because what happens to the characters is often devastating. But if you've got the stomach for a very sad and eye-opening story and it's playing near you, I'd highly recommend it.
I figure that "Incredibles 2" will win the Animated film Oscar, even though the real winner should be either "Isle of Dogs" or "Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse". I haven't seen "Mirai" so I cannot guess at whether it had any chance of being a contender. A "reviewer" at RogerEbert.com gave it two stars, but I really cannot take a review seriously when the "reviewer" specifies that they are biased against the film right in the review, due to it not being to "their taste".
The BAFTAS was interesting. Roma and The Favourite did very well.
Olivia Coleman winning over Glenn Close was a surprise. She was tremendous in The Favourite.
Here are the winners.
Alfonso Cuarón, Gabriela Rodríguez
OUTSTANDING BRITISH FILM
Yorgos Lanthimos, Ceci Dempsey, Ed Guiney, Lee Magiday, Deborah Davis, Tony McNamara
OUTSTANDING DEBUT BY A BRITISH WRITER, DIRECTOR OR PRODUCER
Michael Pearce (Writer/Director), Lauren Dark (Producer)
FILM NOT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Alfonso Cuarón, Gabriela Rodríguez
Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi, Jimmy Chin
SPIDER-MAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE
Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, Rodney Rothman, Phil Lord
Deborah Davis, Tony McNamara
Spike Lee, David Rabinowitz, Charlie Wachtel, Kevin Willmott
A STAR IS BORN
Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga, Lukas Nelson
Fiona Crombie, Alice Felton
MAKE UP & HAIR
John Casali, Tim Cavagin, Nina Hartstone, Paul Massey, John Warhurst
SPECIAL VISUAL EFFECTS
Geoffrey Baumann, Jesse James Chisholm, Craig Hammack, Dan Sudick
BRITISH SHORT ANIMATION
Jonathan Hodgson, Richard Van Den Boom
BRITISH SHORT FILM
EE RISING STAR
OUTSTANDING BRITISH CONTRIBUTION TO CINEMA
Stephen Woolley and Elizabeth Karlsen
How do you figure this? Most other groups have gone with Spider-Verse. I think the Academy will fall in line with that. Although you would normally get some voters checking the Pixar box automatically, I think the response to Spider-Verse has been so strong that they won't be able to ignore it.
I like anime, as you know, and I thought Mirai was awful. A film distributed by Gkids has never won, but this one doesn't deserve to.
(The asterisk to that, of course, is that Gkids is now the new distributor for Spirited Away, which did win, but when it won it was being distributed by Disney, and Gkids simply acquired it later when Disney's rights to the Gibli catalog expired. So that's not exactly the same thing.)
(I really don't often want to swear on here, but this is one of those cases.
Cinematography, Film Editing, Makeup and Hairstyling and Live-Action Short are officially NOT being presented on-air in an attempt to cut the show down to three hours. They will be presented during commercials and then only a short clip disclosing the winner will be shown.
I don't see the problem with that option. Those awards aren't really considered as highly anticipated or that important to the average viewer.
Movies are not about cinematography. There are no visuals at all. No need for a DP. Why should the most important element about movies be recognized?
Cinematography?? Editing?? Not highly anticipated??
That the problem. The Oscars are about honoring the winners in those categories.
NOT pandering to the “average viewer. “
I hope it all somehow backfires in ABC’s and the Academy’s face!
I've said this before and I'll say it again: no need for the short categories--documentaries, live-action, animated--at all.
They were only there because once upon a time the studios regularly produced documentaries and short subjects, both live and animated. Check the nominees in the 1930s, '40s and '50s, if you don't believe me. They're all there. And these shorts often gave directors valuable experience before graduating to features. Jacques Tourneur, Fred Zinnemann, Don Siegel, and Joseph Losey were among the notable directors who got their start on studio shorts. (Siegel's only Academy Award was for one of his shorts.)
Once the studios stopped producing them, the categories were filled with indie docu's and shorts, which were all still being shown in theaters in the '60s. I saw the animated short that won for 1963, "The Critic," preceding the showing of DR. STRANGELOVE--and it was advertised in the papers. And a lot of prestigious filmmakers made films for this market, many of which wound up getting nominated.
But once they stopped showing these things in theaters, they should have dropped the categories. Instead, sometime in the late '70s or early '80s, a certain nontheatrical film distributor, whom I won't name, somehow managed to insinuate himself into the nominating process and, lo and behold, many of the films he was distributing got nominated, few of which ever got real theatrical bookings. He had a lock on this process until the 21st century. I worked in the nontheatrical film field during this time and it was fun seeing people we knew getting awards and showing up at the ceremonies, but I can't imagine that regular moviegoers even cared. And ever since I left the field, I don't care either.
Caring has nothing to do with it. If it’s an official category, it should be televised live. That’s what we’re discussing. Not whether certain categories should be eliminated all together.
Here’s the bullshit letter the Academy president sent out today. A former cinematographer no less. How disgraceful.
Here is Bailey’s letter:
Dear Fellow Academy Members,
After months of anticipation and much talk, I’d like to address a topic that’s close to me.
Viewing patterns for the Academy Awards are changing quickly in our current multi-media world, and our show must also evolve to successfully continue promoting motion pictures to a worldwide audience. This has been our core mission since we were established 91 years ago—and it is the same today.
As you may remember, last summer the Academy’s Board of Governors committed to airing a three-hour show. I want to reiterate however, that all 24 Academy Award-winning presentations will be included in the broadcast. We believe we have come up with a great way to do this, and keep the show to three hours.
While still honoring the achievements of all 24 awards on the Oscars, four categories—Cinematography, Film Editing, Live Action Short, and Makeup and Hairstyling – will be presented during commercial breaks, with their winning speeches aired later in the broadcast.
And, with the help of our partners at ABC, we also will stream these four award presentations online for our global fans to enjoy, live, along with our audience. Fans will be able to watch on Oscar.com and on the Academy’s social channels. The live stream is a first for our show, and will help further awareness and promotion of these award categories.
The executive committees of six branches generously opted-in to have their awards presented in this slightly edited timeframe for this year’s show, and we selected four. In future years, four to six different categories may be selected for rotation, in collaboration with the show producers. (This year’s categories will be exempted in 2020.)
The Academy Awards honors the year’s best films and filmmakers. It is an international show, filled with great emotion, and (we hope) stirring acceptance speeches. This year, in addition to performances of all five nominated songs, the show will feature Gustavo Dudamel and the Los Angeles Philharmonic playing during In Memoriam, as part of their own centennial celebration.
So, buckle up! We are committed to presenting a show which we all will be proud of.
So...they want us to turn away from our televisions during the commercials to come online and watch the live stream of the omitted categories?
I mean, I'll do it, but this is ridiculous. And advertisers who are paying millions of dollars to have their ads shown during the telecast are going to love that the Academy is encouraging us to divert our attention from the wads.
I just got back from a screening of all 5 nominees for best live action short. The academy picked some very very dark films this year. Most years they pick at least one that is either comedy or uplifting. None of that this year. My ranking in order of enjoyment from them are:
I will watch all the animated shorts on Wednesday where at the very least there is a Disney entry that shouldn't be depressing.
Umm.... guess again.
The Disney entry is Bao, which you've probably already seen with Incredibles 2.
As for the live-action shots, Detainment has been the subject of some controversy:
Considering it's the BAFTAs, Coleman makes sense to me. She's British, and she was in a very British movie which they obviously liked. Close is neither British nor in a movie about Britain, and while those things aren't prerequisites to win, they probably helped Coleman. I still think the Academy will go with Close, though, who has my vote.
On another but related note: I agree Coleman is great in The Favourite -- I've liked her for a long time and am very pleased to see her getting recognition -- but I think Fox Searchlight pulled category fraud in submitting her for the lead. She is clearly a supporting actress in that film. Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz are actually co-leads of it, but they were submitted in supporting. Just because she's the queen and they are her subordinates in the film does not make her a leading performance. The film is much more about them competing for her favoritism, but they are the focal points, not her; she is seen through their eyes, not vice-versa. This doesn't mean it's not a great performance worthy of awarding -- it is -- but it's just in the wrong category in my opinion.
The Cinematography category is usually the one I watch most closely. Seriously considering bailing on the show. Like that Times article that someone linked her earlier said, this show should be celebration of the art form of movies, but the Academy seems embarassed of their own industry. I can happily worship the movies on my own.
I've felt similarly for years Josh. In fact, I lost interest in the Awards show back in the early 2000's and find that I'm perfectly fine with looking at the winner's list the next day. In the end I'm more interested in the films themselves than in what the industry thinks of those films. The show has become mostly superfluous IMO.
I think The Last Jedi DP Steve Yedlin said it best:
"TV show whose sole purpose is to package for public consumption the celebration of cinema craft announces that celebration of cinema craft is too boring for public consumption."
Or, as Guillermo del Toro noted:
"If I may: I would not presume to suggest what categories to cut during the Oscars show but - Cinematography and Editing are at the very heart of our craft. They are not inherited from a theatrical tradition or a literary tradition: they are cinema itself."