PDA

View Full Version : Is there anyone here believe that Gosford Park will pull off a big upset in Oscar?


wongqks
Mar 12th, 2002, 05:08 PM
From the start when nominations has just announced, I already said that Gosford Park is in a great chance to win because of teh type of film it is and the fact that it is direct by Robert Altman, a very respectful director. Now Gosford Park won the SAG award, do you think Gosford Park can win? I mean Gosford Park definitely pass In the Bedrrom and Moulin Rouge already, but can it go further, anyone who watched the film and like it? I quite like it in weird way.

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 05:31 PM
Yes!

If "A Beautiful Mind" and "Lord of the Rings" split the vote, I think "Gosford Park" could sneak in. The SAG Award was a big boost (remember, again, the Academy is mostly actors) and it has definitely surpassed "Moulin Rouge" for the dark horse slot.

Even if it doesn't win Best Picture, Robert Altman could definitely win Best Director; he has been a stalwart for so long but never won. Ron Howard never was an Academy favorite to begin with.

But I still think "A Beautiful Mind" and Howard will win, and it will not be undeserved.

wongqks
Mar 12th, 2002, 05:41 PM
It is nice to see somebody agree, but I have to say that Robert Altman is probably one of the favourite to win the best director coz Gosford Park is so complex and involves so many people (guest to peasants) and he manage to piece them together so well it is amazing.

But I seriously doubt it will win Best Picture though, but I think this year race is so close and that most of awards has been split to so many films that we never knows until the end, this is getting even more close and exciting than last year when Traffic, Gladiator and Coruching tiger was dead lock in their race

sartrista7
Mar 12th, 2002, 05:42 PM
I really hope it does, it's by far the best of the nominated films I've seen (all but In The Bedroom). I'd predict that Altman's going to get Best Director anyway for lifetime achievement reasons (oh, these Oscars are so credible :rolleyes: ).

Question, though. Why, why, why is A Beautiful Mind a favourite, let alone nominated? I'm aware that there's a history of rewarding shite (Titanic, Braveheart, Gladiator) but it's REALLY bad. And Russell Crowe simply cannot act.

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 05:45 PM
Oh please, it's a fine film (for a Hollywood major, brilliant) and Russ can act. I mean, sometimes he acts sane in public. He should get an Oscar for that!

Yes, if any year is Altman's year, this is it. It was a very complicated piece to direct. I certainly hope he wins.

wongqks
Mar 12th, 2002, 05:45 PM
Finally someone agree with me that Russell Crowe is crap at acting LOL, I think he is a bit overrated, and that role in Gladiator shouldn't have got him an oscar at all.

sartrista7
Mar 12th, 2002, 05:50 PM
In Gladiator, he wasn't actually required to do anything except stand there and look rugged, and occasionally bellow something. And the thing with A Beautiful Mind is, if you're going to do a biopic of someone, it's not the best idea to cut out the interesting bits of their lives and fabricate yet more romantic drivel to replace it. Neither is it the best idea to cast someone who makes Keanu Reeves look like Ian McKellen in the lead role.

wongqks
Mar 12th, 2002, 05:54 PM
Oh well you said everything I wnt to say sartrista, but I would give a little more credit to Crowe, he is a good actor but certainly not one who deserve to had two oscar on his mantlepiece. I hope Denzel Washington can win this, and if Halle Berry pull another upset over Sissy, oh that would be a perfect oscar for me.

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 05:54 PM
Again...Hollywood major studio + "Happy Days"' Richie Cunningham = no homosexual dalliances in THIS movie.

You can't...you can't judge a film on what it SHOULD be, you can only judge it on what's on the screen. It's a fine piece of craftsmanship, and, for Hollywood, thoughtful enough.

"In the Bedroom" was far more daring, and I liked it better, but credit where credit is due.

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 05:58 PM
I should say though that last year's "Gladiator" wet dream was the Academy's lowest ebb since the back-to-back blows of "Forrest Gump" (POW) and "Braveheart" (BAM) in '94-'95.

Crowe should have won for "The Insider" (don't tell me he shouldn't have; I'll argue with you for the rest of my life and you wouldn't want that :)) and that was a compensatory Oscar. Now they find themselves in the position where they want to give him one for real, they REALLY REALLY DO, but do they want Russ Crowe to be in the exalted two-in-a-row category?

With one of those being for "GLADIATOR"????

sartrista7
Mar 12th, 2002, 06:04 PM
I haven't seen The Insider, so can't comment on that (though here's big scepticism that Crowe will ever turn in a performance worthy of any sort of non-Raspberry award). A Beautiful Mind wasn't even very good based on what it was: a wholly predictable, slushily sentimental man-saved-by-the-love-of-a-good-woman film. Iris was much better in its depiction of a genius' mental disorder (and even then it tended to reduce Iris Murdoch's life to 'sex, then Alzheimer's').

But the thing is, if a film is a biopic, you can't separate it from its subject. There *is* a higher benchmark, and that's the subject's own life, and you have to show reasonably fidelity to it. Imagine if A Beautiful Mind had cut out the schizophrenia element - it quite simply wouldn't have done justice to John Forbes Nash.

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 06:10 PM
No no no no no no NO.

"A movie should not be judged upon what it's about, but how it's about it."

As you can see, I vehemently disagree with you here. :)

Granted, if a film is selling itself on being the life story of John Nash or some other bozo, it should be fairly accurate.

But...it's Just A Movie. :)

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 06:15 PM
For someone that studies film like crazy, I don't really take them seriously. I mean, you put him in there fiddling with students while he's going all schizo...that's not going to make $100 million, NOR will it win an Oscar. So...why bother? That's what they want: money and little statues. :)

More importantly, Sartrista, I think you should run right to the thread labeled "Hurley and Seles." Thanks. :)

wongqks
Mar 12th, 2002, 06:15 PM
Well I haven't watched the Besutiful Mind yet which I cannot judge.

But I agree that a movie shouldn't be judged of what is missing from the film, but at the same time if you are promoting a movie as a true story a la 'The Besutiful Mind', the elements missing has to be given a consideration. If they are selling a movie purely from a love story point of view for example 'Titanic' then I have comment .

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 06:18 PM
Come on, they're making a two-hour movie. They have to cut out bits. You don't see him on the crapper, you don't see him sleeping, you don't see him getting it on with altar boys.

They wanted to deal with the schizophrenia. If it had been an indie, they probably would have dealt with the homosexuality even more than the schizophrenia, and then we'd hear a whole different group complaining about that.

I wouldn't want Jenn Connelly out of that movie, but is she Latina? No...but Alicia Nash sure was.

Just a movie!

sartrista7
Mar 12th, 2002, 06:19 PM
Hurley, I'd generally agree with you. But A Beautiful Mind purports to be a BIOPIC. Like biographies, the criteria a biopic must fulfil are different from those a work of fiction, or an action film, must fulfil. Biographies aren't just judged on the writing ability of the biographer, but also on how well they represent the subject's life. This is especially the case when you're portraying someone who isn't that well known such as Nash, or indeed Frida Kahlo (there'll be a biopic of her coming out soon) because the point is to introduce this person to people who probably would have been unaware of what they went through. And to cut out important chunks of this person's life, to sanitise this person's life, because you're worried about how much profit you'll make, is never going to be satisfactory.

And your 'just a movie' comment. Sounds a lot like people who tell me 'it's just music' when I get passionate about an album, or when I rant about shit music taking over the charts. No no no no no, it's NEVER 'just a movie' or 'just music', it should be art - the most important thing on this bloody planet.

wongqks
Mar 12th, 2002, 06:20 PM
I agree with most you are saying Hurley, but I think you are very niaved in thinking that Ron Howard cut out the homosexual because the movie is too long, don't you think?

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 06:26 PM
As much as I love my movies and my music, there are more important things than art. I'd give it all up to see the people I've lost.

It's all escapism. I was once the guy who wore my popular culture likes and dislikes like a brand on my ass, but, Jesus, it really doesn't matter when it comes right down to it. I have some friends with truly horrible taste, but I love them to death, even though they need some help.

And if you're looking to movies for biographical information...well, I'll just say you probably shouldn't be basing a thesis around "Mommie Dearest" or "The Hurricane."

Movies are great, I love seeing them, I love discussing them, I love trashing them...but...it's just a movie. They don't owe you the truth, or a message, or even enjoyment. They're made the way the people want to make them, and you can accept it at face value or you can trash it for being inaccurate or whatnot. I prefer to go into the theater, turn off my synpases and let them take me where they want me to go.

No matter how much I wanted to see Russ Crowe in a bordello.

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 06:29 PM
Wong, of course running time isn't the reason why he cut those parts out. But, again, if you're looking to movies for the true life story of someone, you're not going to get it. I'm just saying that there were other parts cut out as well...less dramatic parts. You can only deal with so much. Whether someone else wanted to focus more on his homosexual acts is up to them, but you can be damn sure no major studio wanted to do that.

sartrista7
Mar 12th, 2002, 06:35 PM
They don't owe you the truth, or a message, or even enjoyment. They're made the way the people want to make them, and you can accept it at face value or you can trash it for being inaccurate or whatnot

So what's the point of art then? You can't reduce it to mere entertainment - that's effectively what A Beautiful Mind does - there's nothing remotely important about making a film you think will go down well with the general public, solely for the purpose of profiteering. Art *does* have a duty to challenge people, to try and change the way people think about the issues it deals with, to put forward its point eloquently and beautifully and because it believes in it. If only films were made the way people want to make them. Ron Howard doesn't give a shit about the way A Beautiful Mind was made, or how artistic the end product is - all he wants is the money and the ludicrous awards.

wongqks
Mar 12th, 2002, 06:43 PM
I totally agree, if art is not here to express a message or an aim about the whole piece of work, then it will just be entertainment.

But anyway, since this thread is about Gosford Park ;), can someone give me more info about Robert Altman? I mean what films did he made? I knew that he had a lot of nominations before but never win, but what masterpiece has he direct before?

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 07:05 PM
Look, I mean, there are BETTER works of art and such, but, yes, what it comes down to is that art is made to engage the senses. Not *necessarily* to make you think, though if something can pull it off successfully, it's an added bonus.

Ron Howard is a hypocrite, and not a very engaging director either. But you have to separate the hypocrisy of the system from the final product.

Anyway. Robert Altman has made about...20 or so films? His best known ones are "M*A*S*H" (loved it), "Nashville" (overrated), and "The Player" (loved it). He has a reputation for juggling huge ensemble casts with an ear for improv. He is the first successful American director to pull off overlapping dialogue without being criticized by film critics or studio executives.

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 07:09 PM
Let me put it to you this way. I KNOW how much effort went into Radiohead's "Amnesiac." I KNOW how thoughtful Thom Yorke is and how (supposedly) innovative the band has been. I KNOW they have set up an untouchable reputation and everything they do has these extra layers of meaning and depth.

But "Amnesiac" is total sonic crap, and I'd much rather listen to Britney Spears' "Oops...I Did It Again," in which the poor dear sauntered into the studio at 2 PM after a long night of Midori sours and blowing Justin, was handed a piece of paper with crappy lyrics on it and hit all the notes (barely) in two takes.

So...which is better?

sartrista7
Mar 12th, 2002, 07:19 PM
'Oops...' is a better work of art than anything on Amnesiac. (There's a contentious statement for you.) I don't believe much thought DID go into Amnesiac. Thom Yorke's great, but Amnesiac is a lazy album. I'm all for the difficult listening experience, I'm a PJ Harvey fan for Christ's sake, but Amnesiac isn't so much difficult as dull. It tries ever so hard to be difficult, but ultimately it's failed sonic tinkering and failed political critique.

Britney's not so much an artist as a phenomenon - and yes, you can intellectualise both her and her songs (I've done it). 'Oops...' contains several elements which make it great: the killer chord sequence and the pouting vocal (much more engaging than anything on Amnesiac, where Thom Yorke decided he couldn't be arsed to sing properly) for two.

Hurley
Mar 12th, 2002, 07:25 PM
Okay, so let me change it up, then.

I'm a Polly Jean fan (not rabid), but I'd still rather listen to Britney's best than her best. I agree, melodically and structurally Britney ('s songwriters) does (do) fine work. I usually favor a strong melody over anything else.

But I know Ms. Harvey is a more intellectually and emotionally engaging artist (please tell me you agree with that). So, which is better?

I know PJ is better but I find Britney more enjoyable. So...uh...I don't really have a point, I guess. Do with that what you will. :D

I'm going to emotionally engage some lunch and coffee right now.

sartrista7
Mar 12th, 2002, 07:36 PM
Echoes of an argument I had with my best mate last year (a v.g. thing) - started off Destiny's Child vs the Strokes (me: DC, her: Strokes), ended with her declaring that she'd rather listen to Britney than Bjork because I'd argued so successfully that DC were more philosophically important than the Strokes. Um. Don't know how I got there, exactly.

Yes, Peej is a more intellectually and emotionally engaging artist than Britney, and which one I prefer to listen to depends largely on my mood. But sometimes, the best works of art aren't necessarily 'enjoyable' to listen to. (God knows some of Polly's work - 'Joy', 'Taut' - isn't.) Some of my favourite songs I'll actually skip when I listen to a CD - Tori Amos 'Hey Jupiter' for instance - because a) they stay special if I don't listen to them that much and b) they're *too* emotionally engaging. Not a criticism, but there's only so much heart-wrenching a boy wants to put himself through each day. A film example would be Dancer In The Dark: it's one of my favourite films, but if I want to watch a video of an evening, I'll choose something like Cruel Intentions or Bridget Jones' Diary. Each *can* be (over-)intellectualised, but the latter two don't leave you a quivering emotional wreck.
But it's because DITD leaves me a quivering emotional wreck that it's a better work of art. 'Better' doesn't necessarily equal 'more enjoyable' and vice versa.
Hmm, I think I need to intellectualise some dinner right now. And - oh dear god - find out why the fuck I have blood on my finger. Very disturbing.

wongqks
Mar 13th, 2002, 11:12 PM
Can we talk about the other actor/actress nominees other than Crowe ;)

For best actress, I have seen Moulin, In the Bedrrom and Bridget

I find Sissy performance very powerful, she came so natural to you and you really have feelings for her after the death in the movie, I haven't felt that strong for a movie for a while. For Renee, I find her perfromance really good and funny, but I never thought that would caught the attention of teh voters.

Kidman performance is great as well and she handle the whole film very well.

Have anyone seen Monster Ball or Iris, people said Halle Berry was superb, I love to see that film

Back to Gosford Park (as the title suggest ;) ) I find there are so many actors and actresses who was so good that I thought if there are 4 nominees for best supporting actresses in that film I wouldn't be too surprised (that would be a feet to beat wouldn't it)

rightous
Mar 14th, 2002, 02:34 PM
In answer to the question, its a massive YES. The movie was beutifully made, excellently acted and brillantly scripted, its waht all movies should be grounded on. The subtle interplay between the upper and lower quarters was delighful to watch.

I have only seen this and 'Moulin Rouge' of the movies nominated, MR was immensely innovative and so fast paced and visually stunning, whether its too creative and too good for its own shoes, is a matter for the voters, but I thought it was excellent and something different in an industry crying out for soemthin different.

wongqks
Mar 14th, 2002, 05:45 PM
Yeah, I have just seen Gosford Park again and it is really good to see it again coz you understand a bit more.

I hope Gosford Park or LOTR wins, coz I think The Beautiful Mind is so 'Oscar tailored-made film'

I will be happy if any of the women walk away with Oscar this year, which is not the case all the time :)

*Bubbles*
Mar 14th, 2002, 06:43 PM
I think Gosford Park has a good chance of winning best picture. Even though I loved Moulin Rouge I don't think it has a serious chance of winning. When I saw A Beautiful Mind I thought to my self, Russel deserves an Oscar BUT just as some people have already pointed out here, I don't want him to win for the second year in a row. I think Gladiator was a crap film and I really hated the academy for giving it the best picture and best actor award. I think Denzel has a good chance of winning because of that and right now I'd rather have even Will Smith (an actor I really really really dislike) winning the actor award than letting russel get away with two statuettes. The academy made a mistake last year by giving russel the oscar and well, now they have to pay for it.
When it comes to the other awards I hope Jennifer Connelly wins, she was great, and I hope Altman gets a well deserved directing oscar. When it comes to the best actress I can't really say. I haven't seen Monsters Ball or In The Bedroom so I don't know about Halle and Sissy but I do thing Nicole was wonderful in Moulin Rouge so I'll say Go Nicole!!
Best supporting actor - no idea... Ben Kingsley maybe??
And I hope Monster Inc. gets the animated award. That movie was hilarious!