Amph The Oscar Race: Now Disc. Ranking the Oscar hosts of the past 20 years

Discussion in 'Community' started by Zaz, Nov 13, 2005.

  1. Zaz Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 1998
    star 9
    Ran (1985)

    "The Award: Best Costume Design 1985

    The Movie: Celebrated for its beautiful visuals, this Japanese period drama (a jidaigeki in native tongue) combines Shakespeare?s King Lear with the legends of Mori Motonari to weave the tale of an old Sengoku warlord who surrenders his throne to his three sons.

    It was directed by the late Akira Kurosawa, who (a pre-prequels) George Lucas counted as an influence.

    Why You Haven?t Seen It: It flew mostly under the radar, apart from its well-deserved Academy nod. Stateside, it earned just $2-3m, while a re-release in 2000 grabbed it a further $300,000."
  2. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    Ran, like all of Kurosawa's takes on Shakespeare, is fantastic, and I highly recommend it.
  3. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
  4. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    'True Grit' to 'Social Network': 4 Oscar Trial Balloons ... Popped
    By Steve Pond
    Published: October 11, 2010 @ 12:29 pm

    "It?s never too early in Oscar season.

    Most of the real contenders have yet to hit the big screen, but that hasn't kept a spate of trial balloons and unlikely scenarios that are being entertained to swirl around town.

    The big ones right now?

    That "True Grit," sight unseen, is a strong candidate to win Best Picture.

    That ?The Social Network? could be competing as an Original Screenplay rather than an adapted one.

    That Mel Gibson might be a Best Actor candidate.

    That Ben Affleck?s ?The Town? is a bona fide Best Picture contender.

    * TheWrap Announces Its 2010 Awards Screening Series

    Let?s try to figure out just how likely these are to actually happen.

    "TRUE GRIT" IS A GENUINE BEST PICTURE THREAT

    True GritA small number of key films have yet to screen for Oscar-watchers, foremost among them David O. Russell?s ?The Fighter? and the Coen Brothers? ?True Grit.? These days, the attention is all on the latter film, a Jeff Bridges/Matt Damon remake of the 1969 Henry Hathaway film ? or, perhaps more accurately, the Coens' version of the Charles Portis novel on which Hathaway?s film was based.

    Its teaser trailer, released last week, won immediate raves: Brad Brevet said it was reason enough to stop talking about Best Picture being a race between ?The Social Network? and ?The King?s Speech.?

    And now the full-length trailer, longer and darker and set to the doomy strains of Johnny Cash?s ?God?s Gonna Cut You Down,? has prompted more pundits to label the film a possible Oscar juggernaut on the level of the Coen?s Best Picture winner ?No Country for Old Men.?

    ?If the movie lives up to the promise of this preview,? asked Dave Karger, ?could we have another ?No Country for Old Men? on our hands??

    I would never rule the film out sight unseen, but it?s worth pointing out that the Coens have made three films that were nominated for Best Picture, and 12 that weren?t.

    More than that, let's remember that "True Grit" is a remake. Maybe it?s a reimagining, maybe it?s closer to the book, and maybe it?s more stylish and dramatic and substantial. But it also has shots that are extremely close to those in the original (check out Jeff Bridges, reins in his mouth, riding across the field to face down the bad guys). And as far as I can determine, remakes simply don?t win Best Picture. Ever.

    I won?t count the Coens out. I?m just saying that the ?True Grit? trailers aren?t enough to make me think that the usual rules won?t apply."



    I notice that the staging is almost exactly the same from the trailer.
  5. The_Four_Dot_Elipsis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2005
    star 5
    Thing is... this "remake" has superior talent to the original on hand in every category. That alone doesn't spell instant success, but after No Country I'm more than willing to anticipate anything the Coens put out. Especially when they're coming off something as accomplished as A Serious Man.

    This'll have to crash and burn hard to not be a real Oscar player. The pedigree is superb.
  6. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    It's curious that you can say that without actually *seeing* it. And then there's the case of "The Ladykillers", their previous remake, which thoroughly sucked. Not such a superb pedigree there, hein?



  7. The_Four_Dot_Elipsis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2005
    star 5
    How can I say that one film with certain people fulfilling certain roles have better track records than another film with other people in those same certain roles, both above and below the line, without seeing one or the other?

    Pretty easily. It involves being aware of their other work.

    I'm also aware of The Ladykillers. And the fact that it, a bad film, is an anomaly in an otherwise very solid CV is something else that I'm aware of. I can also take into consideration that The Ladykillers is a fundamentally British film, and so an American remake of it is fundamentally flawed. That is not the case with True Grit.

    I don't begrudge you the ability to write off a film you decried as soon as it announced... without having seen it. So I think it's only fair enough that I get to look forward to it, if I so choose. The Coens are better filmmakers than Henry Hathaway. They're better writers than Marguerite Roberts. Bridges is a better actor than Wayne. Damon is a better actor than Campbell. Deakins is a better DP than Ballard.

    And the original True Grit is OK at best. If the Coen version ends up sucking, so be it, the joke's on me. But everything I've read, heard, and seen so far puts me in a position where I'm inclined to anticipate it.
  8. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    Actually Henry Hathaway was a damn good director, and the cast of the original was fine, except for Campbell. And Marguerite Roberts was a very good writer, which is pretty obvious from the fact that they followed her original script.

    Do you seriously think Barry Pepper will be better than Robert Duvall as Lucky Ned? I admire your optimism, then.
  9. solojones Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 9
    What I don't understand is this constant, insipid insistence that a remake - especially a separate adaptation of the same book - should be judged according to an earlier version. I mean, I don't think film adaptations should be judged based on the source material at all. They are their own unique entities. Likewise, different adaptations of a book or play to the screen are their own distinct versions.

    Just because the other creative crew happens to have been born earlier and thus capable of making their film earlier does not automatically give that adaptation any special place of honor over the Coens adaptation. What, so we automatically discount their vision just because they were born later and couldn't have possibly made their film version of True Grit earlier? Shame on them.

    I don't give a crap about the other film version one way or another. Fortunately it's been forever since I've seen it so I don't really remember it. But you know, the vast majority of people who see this new film will have never read the book or seen the first film. The only thing that matters is how this film holds up as a film on its own. And there are positive signs enough to make me tentatively excited about it.

    -sj loves kevin spacey
  10. The_Four_Dot_Elipsis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2005
    star 5
    No. I neglected to mention that. Duvall is indeed a better actor than Barry Pepper (although Pepper is no slouch).

    What I also neglected to mention was that the last time the Coens adapted a novel, the end result was No Country for Old Men. Which turned out kinda OK.

    I'm not saying that the Hathaway film is bad. I found it to be quite entertaining. The "fill your hand" sequence is terrific. But it's not a sacred cow by any means.

    At any rate, this is an Oscar discussion, and the Oscar pedigree of those involved is considerable. The three main male roles are played by an Oscar winner and two nominees (no, I don't consider Damon an Oscar-winning actor... because he isn't one.) The original won a major Oscar in 69. The Coens have won for directing once and writing twice. They're coming off Best Picture and Best Screenplay noms. The DP is an 8-time nominee. It's coming out in December. Naturally, Oscar is going to come into the discussion. And across the board, prognosticators are figuring that it'll be a player in the race - and that's just common sense at this stage, this far out from the actual awards.
  11. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    Well, solojones, did you see Gus Van Sant's version of "Psycho", then? Very good director, excellent cast. Stillborn. And there's Peter Jackson's version of "King Kong"...

    In fact, making remakes is a tricky business, and that's why unless you can add something to the party, it ought to be avoided. Because the audience *will* compare it not just the other films out at the time, but to the film remade. That's a given. When you are risking all that money, why take the chance, especially when the original film is good?

    I'm not saying this isn't a good film; I don't really know. Damon is obviously better than Campbell, from what I see in the longer trailer. However, I think Mattie and Rooster aren't--Bridges in particular seems to lack an iconic voice to say these particular lines, and perhaps enough weight for the role--I don't mean physically--and I admire him as an actor. I don't think he's the right casting--perhaps Tommy Lee Jones? (Eastwood is probably too old.)

    There are remakes that fantastic, but they generally involve bad or mediocre original films, and making a change that makes them work. "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" comes to mind.
  12. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    THE SOCIAL NETWORK" IS AN ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

    "OK, I get the thinking behind this one: Ben Mezrich?s book ?The Accidental Billionaires? has been attacked as being a one-sided distortion of the founding of Facebook. Mezrich?s admitted use of fictional techniques has left the author open to charges that his true story might not be all that true. (?Obviously dramatized? and ?clearly unreliable,? said the New York Times.)

    If David Fincher?s movie can avoid being tied too closely to the book, maybe it can escape some of that criticism. So the narrative now being floated is that screenwriter Aaron Sorkin and Mezrich actually wrote the screenplay and book simultaneously, doing independent research. Kris Tapley advanced this theory three weeks ago, positing that it could lead to an Original Screenplay nomination rather than the expected Adapted Screenplay nod.

    But it won't be easy to make that theory stick, for a couple of reasons. For one thing, the project began when Scott Rudin bought the film rights to Mezrich?s book -- even if at that point the book was more a proposal than a manuscript. And when Mezrich talked to the Los Angeles Times about the process, he said that Sorkin was ?my first reader? ? that as soon as he finished a chapter, he gave it to the screenwriter to peruse. In other words, Sorkin was adapting Mezrich.

    (This differs from the story Sorkin told to Mark Harris for New York magazine, where he says he doesn?t remember ever getting pages.)

    The biggest obstacle to selling the original screenplay story, though, is the first few minutes of the film itself: the opening credits flatly say that Sorkin?s screenplay is based on Mezrich?s book. The writers branch of the Academy may make odd choices sometimes ? classifying ?Bright Star? as an adapted screenplay rather than an original last year ? and it's not completely unprecedented for them to take a script widely considered adapted and classify it as original. They did just that with "Syriana" in 2005.

    Still, I can?t imagine them disregarding the opening credits in this case. So unless Rudin, Fincher and Sony make a last-minute change to those titles, I?d say this one isn?t going to happen. "
  13. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    MEL GIBSON FOR BEST ACTOR

    "The theory: He?s really, really good as a depressed CEO communicating via a hand puppet in Jodie Foster?s dark comedy ?The Beaver? ? and if Summit gives the film a 2010 release, Academy members will be so blown away by his work that they?ll have no choice but to consider him.

    Pete Hammond, inflator of Oscar trial balloons par excellence, floated this one, basing it on Foster?s comments about how wonderful Gibson?s performance is, and on three conversations with people who?d seen the movie (and ?have a connection to it?).

    I wouldn?t really trust the director when she tells you how great her embattled star (and good friend) is, and I?m certainly skeptical of people with ties to the movie. No, I?ll side with Patrick Goldstein, who called it ?wild Oscar hype,? and Anne Thompson, who called the idea of a Gibson Oscar campaign ?absurd.?

    ?Gibson could get the best reviews on the planet and ? the Academy would still give him the cold shoulder,? Thompson wrote. ?Believe me, he really is persona non grata in Hollywood ? This is about racism and anti-semitism?two things that the Liberal Academy cannot forgive.?

    And I can?t help but remember a moment I witnessed at Oscar rehearsals back in 2004, when Steven Spielberg dropped by the Kodak Theater. At the time, the biggest movie in theaters was Gibson?s ?The Passion of the Christ,? which worried Spielberg.

    At one point, Spielberg quietly took Oscar show producer Joe Roth aside. ?Is there going to be anything on ?The Passion of the Christ??? he asked.

    ?Billy might do a couple of jokes,? Roth assured him. ?But not much.?

    Spielberg nodded. ?Good,? he said. ?That?s good.?

    And that was several serious Gibson transgressions, and a whole lot of taped telephone rants, ago.

    If Spielberg wanted to keep Mel at arm?s length back then, he and his pals are going to run the other way these days, no matter how fabulous the guy?s acting may be."


    OTOH, Roman Polanski won an Oscar. Of course, it was for a old crime, and one more acceptable in Hollywood.:p
  14. The_Four_Dot_Elipsis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2005
    star 5
    I've never been terribly impressed with Gibson's acting. And he's already got one Oscar he didn't deserve. Maybe The Beaver does indeed feature the performance of a career, I don't know. But nothing leads me to believe that it genuinely is, thus far. All the buzz seems to be from people attached to the film.
  15. corran2 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 16, 2006
    star 4
    Gibson was great in Signs, which is sorely underrated and my pick for M. Night's best. The rest are serviceable vehicles for him, such as the Mad Max's and Lethal Weapon's. As a director, I've only seen Passion, which I think is impressive film making and a movie that while hard to watch, should be watched.

  16. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    'THE TOWN" FOR BEST PICTURE

    "Well ? maybe.

    I thought Affleck?s Boston crime drama was solid and appealing, but a cut below his ?Gone Baby Gone,? and several cuts below the last Boston crime drama that the Academy went for, Martin Scorsese?s ?The Departed.?The Town

    It's lost steam since it's release -- but you never can tell. Pete Hammond wrote that a well-received screening at the Academy?s Samuel Goldwyn Theater argued positively for its chances. And Gregg Kilday followed in the Hollywood Reporter with a story headlined ?How ?The Town? Became an Oscar Contender."

    Patrick Goldstein objected and said he really liked the movie but that it ?isn?t a contender at all.?

    A lot of recent Best Picture nominees ? and even a couple of winners, including ?The Departed? ? are films that seemed unlikely at the beginning of the season. So, yeah, it?s certainly possible that something similar will happen this year, that ?The Town? will slip in and get a nomination.

    I doubt it, but it could happen."
  17. The_Four_Dot_Elipsis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2005
    star 5
    Might get The Blind Side slot. It's not all that remarkable, though.
  18. emporergerner Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 6, 2005
    star 4
    Yes, it indeed might get The Blind Side slot. It's only been a year and I'm already sick of ten best picture nominations. I much rather sit here and complain about a film that didn't get nominated but should have, instead of three to four pictures that have no right in the discussion.
  19. The_Four_Dot_Elipsis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2005
    star 5
    Thing is, there are usually at 10 films a year that would be worthy. It's just that the Academy don't look outside their comfort zone.
  20. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
  21. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
  22. Champion of the Force Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 27, 1999
    star 4
    Surprised they're going with the two-host idea again after the last ceremony's disappointing effort.

    Love the joke they made about going for a younger generation of actors though ("Franco and Hathaway?s combined age (61) is less than Steve Martin?s"). :D
  23. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
  24. Champion of the Force Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 27, 1999
    star 4
    I was always wary of the increase to 10 films and the article makes some good arguments, but I think the Academy just needs to leave it be for a few years to let the idea settle and see what comes of it.
  25. The_Four_Dot_Elipsis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 3, 2005
    star 5
    I don't mind the 10 nominees thing. It looks like they might actually have a good crop this year (unlike last year, which was a pretty appalling year to return to 10 nominees).

    It worked back in the 30s and 40s, I don't see why it shouldn't work now. People arguing that it soils the chastity of the Oscars are taking the Oscars too seriously.

    And since the director's branch has become more and more boring in recent years, you can pretty much pick out what films would have been the five nominees if you just look at the directing category.