Oscar Nominations 2024
January 23, 2024 9:28 AM Subscribe
Oppenheimer 13, Poor Things 11, Killers of the Flower Moon 10 ... There were so many wonderful movies last year!
Some of them even appear to have been nominated for Oscars.
Some of them even appear to have been nominated for Oscars.
all awards are trash, i want to make clear that all awards would still be trash even if the dumb stuff above wasn't real
I personally know someone who was just nominated for Best Actor, you take that back because he has EARNED HIS FLOWERS, by God.
(I mean, he won't win because he's up against Cillian Murphy and Paul Giamatti, but YAY COLMAN)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:40 AM on January 23 [24 favorites]
I personally know someone who was just nominated for Best Actor, you take that back because he has EARNED HIS FLOWERS, by God.
(I mean, he won't win because he's up against Cillian Murphy and Paul Giamatti, but YAY COLMAN)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:40 AM on January 23 [24 favorites]
Movies were fun when you could sit in a loge seating area on one of those magnificent old movies houses. Smoking allowed. Popcorn, 10 cents.
posted by Czjewel at 9:46 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
posted by Czjewel at 9:46 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
I also try to catch all the Best Picture nominees as an "extra credit" tangent off my regular classic-film blog. And this year - most of them were films I was thinking I wanted to see anyway, with just one or two "that's probably not bad but I'll wait and see if it gets nominated" also-rans. Way better than the past few years' nominations including films I didn't want to see at all (last year I skipped one altogether in protest because no fucking way did I want to see an Avatar sequel).
This year, I've even already seen 3 of the 10, and was trying to see another one just this past month (how in the hell can I see Killers Of The Flower Moon?).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:51 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
This year, I've even already seen 3 of the 10, and was trying to see another one just this past month (how in the hell can I see Killers Of The Flower Moon?).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:51 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
We watched "For Your Consideration" last night on Amazon because apparently "Spinal Tap" isn't streaming there (despite no less than 3 short films featuring people gushing over how amazing Spinal Tap is?!!?) and now I'm wondering who was waiting at their kitchen table for a phone call at 5am Pacific today and never received one.
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:58 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 9:58 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
But also HELL YES to Sterling K. Brown nabbing a nom for American Fiction. That movie was shockingly good.
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:00 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:00 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
Your periodic reminder that this is an industry award, no more geared toward or relevant to the customers of said industry than any other industry award, the inexplicable popularity of the award ceremony notwithstanding.
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:04 AM on January 23 [15 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:04 AM on January 23 [15 favorites]
how in the hell can I see Killers Of The Flower Moon?
If that was intended as a "where is this available to watch?" question, it's on Apple TV right now.
posted by Dr. Twist at 10:07 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
If that was intended as a "where is this available to watch?" question, it's on Apple TV right now.
posted by Dr. Twist at 10:07 AM on January 23 [4 favorites]
the inexplicable popularity of the award ceremony notwithstanding.
The red carpet dresses themselves justify the cost of the ceremony.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:07 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
The red carpet dresses themselves justify the cost of the ceremony.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:07 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
After the travesty that was the Golden Globes Best Animated Feature nominations (seriously, how the hell did Wish wind up on their list), the Academy's nods are (mostly) sound - I guess they had to give Disney a nod to Elemental. While I want to see Nimona win both because it is very good and because the animation team had to fight like hell to make it, I think The Boy and the Heron is the frontrunner for the award because Ghibli and because Miyazaki (and if the man gets the Lifetime Achievement Oscar, I would not be surprised.)
Also I continue to maintain my personal and petty hate of the Academy Awards over being a) Very Bad Neighbors and b) bringing out the very odd fans that I had to deal with going to class.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:13 AM on January 23
Also I continue to maintain my personal and petty hate of the Academy Awards over being a) Very Bad Neighbors and b) bringing out the very odd fans that I had to deal with going to class.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:13 AM on January 23
Upon cursory review, this seems like one of the stronger crops of nominees. So far I'm not seeing too many outright glaring snubs, although I'm sure cases could be made. (I'm a little surprised The Iron Claw—which is great, by the way—got completely shut out in the acting categories, but for whatever reason that movie didn't seem get much traction in the cultural conversation, so I guess it's understandable.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:13 AM on January 23
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:13 AM on January 23
And this year - most of them were films I was thinking I wanted to see anyway
Agreed. I am not a film person and usually have to dig to the technical nominations to find any I've seen. The big lists usually include films I'd never touch with a ten-foot pole. This year I still haven't seen very many, but I'd rather watch this list of films--especially if you add the animated features--than any Oscars list in recent memory.
posted by lampoil at 10:15 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Agreed. I am not a film person and usually have to dig to the technical nominations to find any I've seen. The big lists usually include films I'd never touch with a ten-foot pole. This year I still haven't seen very many, but I'd rather watch this list of films--especially if you add the animated features--than any Oscars list in recent memory.
posted by lampoil at 10:15 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
There was a film on the International Feature shortlist, Godland by Hlynur Palmason, that I'm disappointed didn't make it to actual nomination; Palmason is an interesting, experimental filmmaker so while the narrative isn't very traditional, it's a thought provoking and beautiful film and deserves more attention. It's on the Criterion Channel streaming. (Note: it's framed as a true story, but it isn't really)
posted by AzraelBrown at 10:18 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by AzraelBrown at 10:18 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
I was very surprised that Still by Davis Guggenheim didn’t get a nomination in documentary.
posted by Ideefixe at 10:18 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 10:18 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Of the BP nominees this year I've only seen Barbie and Poor Things and didn't much care for either of them, but I wouldn't say either of them were bad, I just couldn't get on their wavelengths and/or I was too old and/or not the target audience.
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:18 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 10:18 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
As much as I feel like yes, it's wonderful and nearly a miracle that Barbie was even made, it's still infuriating to see it get snubbed by awards people.
posted by MiraK at 10:29 AM on January 23 [10 favorites]
posted by MiraK at 10:29 AM on January 23 [10 favorites]
I always want to see more films nominated rather than sweeps by a few biggies, but Ryan Gosling getting nominated when Margot Robbie did not for Barbie is a little on the nose. And, c'mon, you can nominate more than one woman for best director Oscars, geeze.
However, the award Barbie really deserves is production design, which is a nod it got, so fair enough.
Seeing American Fiction tomorrow night I think, and very excited about that one.
posted by the primroses were over at 10:34 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
However, the award Barbie really deserves is production design, which is a nod it got, so fair enough.
Seeing American Fiction tomorrow night I think, and very excited about that one.
posted by the primroses were over at 10:34 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
We should be mad that Gerwig and Robbie were snubbed on Barbie, but given the Academy's longstanding coolness to comedies and wariness of blockbusters, I don't know if we should be surprised.
Gerwig was also up against the voters' oft-noted tendency to "overlook" women. Although I don't like the word "overlook" there as this seems less like an oopsy! and more like dismissal.
I kinda hope the movie wins Best Picture so that Robbie (who produced it) gets an Oscar and a speech on stage anyway.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:36 AM on January 23 [14 favorites]
Gerwig was also up against the voters' oft-noted tendency to "overlook" women. Although I don't like the word "overlook" there as this seems less like an oopsy! and more like dismissal.
I kinda hope the movie wins Best Picture so that Robbie (who produced it) gets an Oscar and a speech on stage anyway.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:36 AM on January 23 [14 favorites]
The red carpet dresses themselves justify the cost of the ceremony.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:07 AM
Ortega’s Dior Haute Couture look, a strapless tulle dress featuring a hand-embroidered floral and trellis motif, paired with gold and diamond jewels by Dior Joaillerie, earned $5.6 million in media-impact value, far and away the top position among both women and men on the 2023 Emmy Awards red carpet.
By contrast, Pascal’s ensemble — custom-designed for the actor by Valentino creative director Pierpaolo Piccioli — resulted in an MIV of $1.2 million. Translation: Men may be increasingly adventurous about their red-carpet style, but women’s fashion still garners the lion’s share of conversation.
4. omg people think it's a surprise that america ferrera is up for supporting actress?
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:34 AM on January 23
I don't think it's so much a surprise but a relief.
It’s too soon to know. But you can be sure the Academy is thanking its lucky stars that Barbie’s America Ferrera got a supporting actress nom, because otherwise the only performer nominated for Barbie would have been … Ken (best supporting actor nominee Ryan Gosling).
posted by sardonyx at 10:37 AM on January 23
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:07 AM
Ortega’s Dior Haute Couture look, a strapless tulle dress featuring a hand-embroidered floral and trellis motif, paired with gold and diamond jewels by Dior Joaillerie, earned $5.6 million in media-impact value, far and away the top position among both women and men on the 2023 Emmy Awards red carpet.
By contrast, Pascal’s ensemble — custom-designed for the actor by Valentino creative director Pierpaolo Piccioli — resulted in an MIV of $1.2 million. Translation: Men may be increasingly adventurous about their red-carpet style, but women’s fashion still garners the lion’s share of conversation.
4. omg people think it's a surprise that america ferrera is up for supporting actress?
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:34 AM on January 23
I don't think it's so much a surprise but a relief.
It’s too soon to know. But you can be sure the Academy is thanking its lucky stars that Barbie’s America Ferrera got a supporting actress nom, because otherwise the only performer nominated for Barbie would have been … Ken (best supporting actor nominee Ryan Gosling).
posted by sardonyx at 10:37 AM on January 23
Really feels like Giamatti's gonna win Best Actor, as this is the classic setup where a beloved and acclaimed actor with zero Oscars belatedly gets his flowers as a de facto lifetime achievement award in a year without an obvious leading candidate.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:41 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:41 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
is this the awards ceremony with fisticuffs, or is that a different awards ceremony
posted by elkevelvet at 10:45 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
posted by elkevelvet at 10:45 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
I feel like Killers of the Flower Moon might be good (haven't seen it), but 3.5 HOURS feels like it's approaching cheating. When does a film start becoming more than what a film is supposed to be? That's too damn long.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:55 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:55 AM on January 23 [8 favorites]
When does a film start becoming more than what a film is supposed to be?
What in the world is this supposed to mean?
posted by rhymedirective at 11:18 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
What in the world is this supposed to mean?
posted by rhymedirective at 11:18 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
Sorry to flabbergast you. The expected norms of a film. Most films throughout history aren't 3.5 hours long. It starts to subvert the art form, imo.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:21 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:21 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Sorry to flabbergast you. The expected norms of a film. Most films throughout history aren't 3.5 hours long. It starts to subvert the art form, imo.
There are many, many films through the history of the medium that are 3.5 hours long (and longer!) A shorter length may be normative, but it’s also not definitional.
posted by rhymedirective at 11:28 AM on January 23 [12 favorites]
There are many, many films through the history of the medium that are 3.5 hours long (and longer!) A shorter length may be normative, but it’s also not definitional.
posted by rhymedirective at 11:28 AM on January 23 [12 favorites]
the classic setup where a beloved and acclaimed actor with zero Oscars belatedly gets his flowers as a de facto lifetime achievement
I feel like those usually come for a subpar effort, this year The Holdovers is a fantastic movie and Giamatti actually deserves it for this particular role.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 11:28 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
I feel like those usually come for a subpar effort, this year The Holdovers is a fantastic movie and Giamatti actually deserves it for this particular role.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 11:28 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
Bummer: all three lead actors from Todd Haynes's May-December (Julianne Moore, Natlie Portman, Charles Melton) could have been justifiably nominated, but they all got snubbed.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:30 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:30 AM on January 23 [2 favorites]
The expected norms of a film. Most films throughout history aren't 3.5 hours long. It starts to subvert the art form, imo.
Most films are made to run as many times a day in a theater as possible, but there are plenty of 'prestige" films that clock in over 3 hours -- Ghandi, Titanic, Schindler's List, Gone with the Wind, Ben Hur, The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, Avatar, ... Oppenheimer is also 3 hours. Its not that unusual.
posted by anastasiav at 11:31 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Most films are made to run as many times a day in a theater as possible, but there are plenty of 'prestige" films that clock in over 3 hours -- Ghandi, Titanic, Schindler's List, Gone with the Wind, Ben Hur, The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia, Avatar, ... Oppenheimer is also 3 hours. Its not that unusual.
posted by anastasiav at 11:31 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Godzilla Minus One had a nomination for VFX which is nice - that's the first Oscar nomination for the franchise.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:34 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:34 AM on January 23 [7 favorites]
Subversion of an art form is still a valid form of that art
posted by penduluum at 11:36 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
posted by penduluum at 11:36 AM on January 23 [6 favorites]
There are many, many films through the history of the medium that are 3.5 hours long (and longer!) A shorter length may be normative, but it’s also not definitional.
Ok? I am comfortable with my statement being correct. MOST are not 3.5 hours long. I didn't say it was hyper unusual. The length is being pushed more commonly though. It's a change to me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:37 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Ok? I am comfortable with my statement being correct. MOST are not 3.5 hours long. I didn't say it was hyper unusual. The length is being pushed more commonly though. It's a change to me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:37 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
The Godfather is 2 hours and 55 min, by the way, according to Googs.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:38 AM on January 23
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:38 AM on January 23
The Godfather is 2 hours and 55 min, by the way, according to Googs.
Sorry, I meant the second one
posted by anastasiav at 11:42 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Sorry, I meant the second one
posted by anastasiav at 11:42 AM on January 23 [1 favorite]
It's a bit of a derail, but an interesting one, so: "The 10 Longest Best Picture Winners of All Time, Ranked by Runtime" tells us that 3 Best Picture winners (Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and Ben-Hur) are longer than Flower Moon, while several others (Godfather 2, The Return of the King, Schindler's List, Titanic, and Gandhi) are within 5-10 mins of its runtime.
With that said, apparently Popular films are nearly 50% longer today than in the 1930s.
posted by gwint at 11:45 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
With that said, apparently Popular films are nearly 50% longer today than in the 1930s.
posted by gwint at 11:45 AM on January 23 [5 favorites]
Well, I am so wrongy wrong with a mild opinion, I'm done here for today. Wasn't looking for a fight.
(On preview, thanks gwint, my point that films are getting longer stands)
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:46 AM on January 23 [9 favorites]
(On preview, thanks gwint, my point that films are getting longer stands)
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:46 AM on January 23 [9 favorites]
With that said, apparently Popular films are nearly 50% longer today than in the 1930s.
It was also much more common to have commercially-released films be around an hour long in the 1930s, which is why statistical analysis of this kind absent context is kind of interesting but ultimately uninformative.
posted by rhymedirective at 11:48 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
It was also much more common to have commercially-released films be around an hour long in the 1930s, which is why statistical analysis of this kind absent context is kind of interesting but ultimately uninformative.
posted by rhymedirective at 11:48 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
ah, stick around tfp
we all have our "AK-SHA-LLY" moments, I'm sure rhymedirective meant nothing by it. this is literally the thread where we get to pull up with our popcorn and enjoy talking movies
posted by elkevelvet at 11:49 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
we all have our "AK-SHA-LLY" moments, I'm sure rhymedirective meant nothing by it. this is literally the thread where we get to pull up with our popcorn and enjoy talking movies
posted by elkevelvet at 11:49 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
(On preview, thanks gwint, my point that films are getting longer stands)
tiny frying pan
But that undermines your point. You seem to have been saying that Killers of the Flower Moon is unusually long to the point that "[i]t starts to subvert the art form", but it's apparently of a piece with an ongoing general trend across all films.
posted by star gentle uterus at 11:54 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
tiny frying pan
But that undermines your point. You seem to have been saying that Killers of the Flower Moon is unusually long to the point that "[i]t starts to subvert the art form", but it's apparently of a piece with an ongoing general trend across all films.
posted by star gentle uterus at 11:54 AM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Long films need a proper intermission.
posted by pracowity at 11:57 AM on January 23 [24 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 11:57 AM on January 23 [24 favorites]
> Ghandi
Obligatory reminder that "ghand" literally means ASS in Gandhi's native language, except more crude than ass sounds to us.
That h is properly placed elsewhere in the man's name. Come on. If you can learn to spell Schindler and Oppenheimer, you can learn to spell Gandhi.
posted by MiraK at 11:58 AM on January 23 [17 favorites]
Obligatory reminder that "ghand" literally means ASS in Gandhi's native language, except more crude than ass sounds to us.
That h is properly placed elsewhere in the man's name. Come on. If you can learn to spell Schindler and Oppenheimer, you can learn to spell Gandhi.
posted by MiraK at 11:58 AM on January 23 [17 favorites]
I remember seeing Gandhi in the theater as a kid and there was an intermission. I can't recall seeing a first run film after that that had one, but there probably were a few. Seems like a good practice.
posted by gwint at 12:00 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by gwint at 12:00 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
While Flower Moon and Oppenheimer are good movies and important movies, i think what matters most to the awards is that they are "serious" movies. I'd argue that that Poor Things and Barbie are better in terms of innovative movie-making but because their serious points are primarily subtext, they don't get the same credit.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:00 PM on January 23 [5 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:00 PM on January 23 [5 favorites]
We just saw American Fiction and basically everyone associated with it deserves a pile of awards. Just a pile apiece. So many awards. It’s a good, good movie.
posted by Suedeltica at 12:03 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
posted by Suedeltica at 12:03 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
anyone advocating for any movie other than barbie or anyone other than someone from barbie in any category is a wrecker and a revisionist and a kulak and, hell, probably a black hundredist too, and frankly i've heard quite kenough of that kind of talk
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 12:04 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 12:04 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Doing well on my spreadsheet up this year, just three moves I need to watch (including Ozne of Interest, which I am semi dreading)
Only just looking at the non-best picture awards and…
1) wow Barbie really did get fucked.
2) Poor Things, which I would have expected to have gotten fucked as well, went spectacularly in the opposite direction and that’s kind of curious.
Also awards are trash, I only do the spreadsheet as an excuse to watch a bunch of movies, etc etc…
posted by Artw at 12:04 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Only just looking at the non-best picture awards and…
1) wow Barbie really did get fucked.
2) Poor Things, which I would have expected to have gotten fucked as well, went spectacularly in the opposite direction and that’s kind of curious.
Also awards are trash, I only do the spreadsheet as an excuse to watch a bunch of movies, etc etc…
posted by Artw at 12:04 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
I saw Poor Things last night and I have mixed feelings about it, but the fact that Mark Ruffalo got a nom for his performance is… surprising. I know that there’s more to acting than being able to do an accent, but come on.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 12:05 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 12:05 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
That h is properly placed elsewhere in the man's name.
Everyone misspells it that way. My advice is to remember that "Gandhi says hi."
posted by pracowity at 12:06 PM on January 23 [8 favorites]
Everyone misspells it that way. My advice is to remember that "Gandhi says hi."
posted by pracowity at 12:06 PM on January 23 [8 favorites]
Hmm. I think Ruffalo’s kind of great in that.
I am very fond of Poor Things as I have subclassed it as a variety of Murderbot story.
posted by Artw at 12:08 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
I am very fond of Poor Things as I have subclassed it as a variety of Murderbot story.
posted by Artw at 12:08 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Ruffalo was SO MUCH FUN in that movie I thought he did great.
Zone of Interest is very tough but very good, I saw it had some bad reviews so I was happy to see it on this list.
posted by macrael at 12:10 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Zone of Interest is very tough but very good, I saw it had some bad reviews so I was happy to see it on this list.
posted by macrael at 12:10 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Interesting that no one's even mentioning Anatomy Of A Fall - an exceptional piece of filmmaking.
posted by thecincinnatikid at 12:12 PM on January 23
posted by thecincinnatikid at 12:12 PM on January 23
(I thought Mark Ruffalo was hilarious in Poor Things, but if you want to see an actually bad Ruffalo performance where he struggles to do an accent, watch All the Light We Cannot See.)
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:13 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:13 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
I was really disappointed with the Nimona movie because I thought it kind of flanderized the book. And it was kind of a mess. Still great to see it get made at all (and be nominated for an Oscar no less!) but like, the movie made some choices about how to adapt the source material that didn't do it any favors.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:14 PM on January 23
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:14 PM on January 23
Was Poor Things good? I saw it, felt like it was alright. Emma Stone’s character really started to grate, I expected her mannerisms to develop more throughout the movie. As it was she just felt like a Sheldon-type non-neurotypical character. Stale and kind of pandering.
May December should have at least a few noms, all three leads were so good, especially Melton.
posted by TurnKey at 12:16 PM on January 23
May December should have at least a few noms, all three leads were so good, especially Melton.
posted by TurnKey at 12:16 PM on January 23
if you want to see an actually bad Ruffalo performance where he struggles to do an accent, watch All the Light We Cannot See
I do not know who told him what he was doing was an accent there, much less that it was the assigned accent for the role.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:39 PM on January 23
I do not know who told him what he was doing was an accent there, much less that it was the assigned accent for the role.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:39 PM on January 23
Variety's "Oscars Snubs and Surprises" list snubs... Ava DuVernay & “Origin." Possibly related: Budgets for ‘prestige’ films dried up. So Ava DuVernay found a new way. (Washington Post Dec. 4, 2023 / archived) The filmmaker couldn’t get traditional financing to film “Origin” — but the Ford Foundation, Melinda Gates and other philanthropists were willing to help. It might be cinema’s new business model.
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:48 PM on January 23
posted by Iris Gambol at 12:48 PM on January 23
On Barbie getting shafted:
So, the Golden Globes has its issues (just ask Brendan Fraser about one), but one thing I think they do that's wise is to separate the dramas from the comedies. Barbie did better at the Golden Globes in terms of nominations - I think that some in the movie biz still have this weird blind spot when it comes to taking comedic or genre performances seriously.
...Also, this is not the first time the Academy has overlooked some seriously deserving candidates, and it won't be the last.
On movie lengths -
Honestly, the "typical" length of movies has waxed and waned so many times over the past hundred-plus years, that I don't think you can say there is such a thing as a "typical" length. The first silent films were about 20 minutes, then in their big classic silent-era heyday you had some that were several hours (Erich von Stroheim's GREED was nine hours in its original cut). Then talkies came in when things were shorter again. Then came the big classic Hollywood Golden Era epics that were 3-4 hours. Then things got shorter again in the 50s. Then they started to creep up again in the 60s and 70s. Then things got shorter again in the 80s and 90s.
There is no such thing as a "typical" length - there's only what the studios think is typical and what an audience will sit through, balanced again the story being told. And every producer has a different opinion about "is this going to cost us money because people will be scared by this length, or is it worth keeping it this long?" based on the star, director, effects, and any one of a host of factors. And every audience member also has their own threshhold based not only on their personal comfort, but of who's in it (I'd watch anything for 4 hours if Emma Thompson was in it), or their home circumstances, or whether they're watching it at home where they can pause it if necessary, or...
So I would gently suggest that the statement "3.5 hours feels like this isn't just a single movie any more" is probably missing the words "TO ME". And I'd wager that there's a couple actors that would even get anyone to say "okay, now I'd watch that no matter how long it is". And it's fine if you personally can't deal with a 3.5 hour movie. It's just not as hard-and-fast a standard as one might think, is all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:58 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
So, the Golden Globes has its issues (just ask Brendan Fraser about one), but one thing I think they do that's wise is to separate the dramas from the comedies. Barbie did better at the Golden Globes in terms of nominations - I think that some in the movie biz still have this weird blind spot when it comes to taking comedic or genre performances seriously.
...Also, this is not the first time the Academy has overlooked some seriously deserving candidates, and it won't be the last.
On movie lengths -
Honestly, the "typical" length of movies has waxed and waned so many times over the past hundred-plus years, that I don't think you can say there is such a thing as a "typical" length. The first silent films were about 20 minutes, then in their big classic silent-era heyday you had some that were several hours (Erich von Stroheim's GREED was nine hours in its original cut). Then talkies came in when things were shorter again. Then came the big classic Hollywood Golden Era epics that were 3-4 hours. Then things got shorter again in the 50s. Then they started to creep up again in the 60s and 70s. Then things got shorter again in the 80s and 90s.
There is no such thing as a "typical" length - there's only what the studios think is typical and what an audience will sit through, balanced again the story being told. And every producer has a different opinion about "is this going to cost us money because people will be scared by this length, or is it worth keeping it this long?" based on the star, director, effects, and any one of a host of factors. And every audience member also has their own threshhold based not only on their personal comfort, but of who's in it (I'd watch anything for 4 hours if Emma Thompson was in it), or their home circumstances, or whether they're watching it at home where they can pause it if necessary, or...
So I would gently suggest that the statement "3.5 hours feels like this isn't just a single movie any more" is probably missing the words "TO ME". And I'd wager that there's a couple actors that would even get anyone to say "okay, now I'd watch that no matter how long it is". And it's fine if you personally can't deal with a 3.5 hour movie. It's just not as hard-and-fast a standard as one might think, is all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:58 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
counterpoint: I think it's safe to say that most people expect a movie to be up to 2 hours
if you take cinephiles out of the equation, most people are experiencing "a movie" as a 1.5 to 2.0 hour engagement
posted by elkevelvet at 1:04 PM on January 23
if you take cinephiles out of the equation, most people are experiencing "a movie" as a 1.5 to 2.0 hour engagement
posted by elkevelvet at 1:04 PM on January 23
if you take cinephiles out of the equation, most people are experiencing "a movie" as a 1.5 to 2.0 hour engagement
ah, but: most non-cinephile people of the 1920s expected a movie as a 1 hour engagement. And most people of the 1940s expected a movie as a 3 hour engagement.
I never said I was talking only about cinephiles, either.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:08 PM on January 23
ah, but: most non-cinephile people of the 1920s expected a movie as a 1 hour engagement. And most people of the 1940s expected a movie as a 3 hour engagement.
I never said I was talking only about cinephiles, either.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:08 PM on January 23
I haven’t even seen cloud atlas because it’s so dauntingly long. The proper length of a movie is one can of cider and one pot of jasmine tea and one full but not painful bladder. You got more story turn it into a miniseries.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:09 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:09 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Interesting that no one's even mentioning Anatomy Of A Fall - an exceptional piece of filmmaking.
Real happy to see that one get through, hope more people see it as result.
It should be a lock for funniest spoilerific comments on a random YouTube video [spoilers, obvs]
posted by Artw at 1:10 PM on January 23
Real happy to see that one get through, hope more people see it as result.
It should be a lock for funniest spoilerific comments on a random YouTube video [spoilers, obvs]
posted by Artw at 1:10 PM on January 23
But anyway - let's pick something new to crab about: the music nominees.
I'll give you a hot take: Diane Warren (Best original song, for The Fire Inside from the movie Flamin' Hot) and John Williams (Best Original Score, for Indiana Jones And The Dial of Destiny) were nominated more on their rep than on the quality of their work. Discuss.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:11 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
I'll give you a hot take: Diane Warren (Best original song, for The Fire Inside from the movie Flamin' Hot) and John Williams (Best Original Score, for Indiana Jones And The Dial of Destiny) were nominated more on their rep than on the quality of their work. Discuss.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:11 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
ah, but: most non-cinephile people of the 1920s expected a movie as a 1 hour engagement. And most people of the 1940s expected a movie as a 3 hour engagement.
perhaps, like I assume tiny frying pan, I am assuming we are talking about most people alive today and regularly viewing movies? someone viewing movies in the 1940s is not likely alive today (etc.). film over the past few decades, up to 2020, were pretty close to 120 min on average
posted by elkevelvet at 1:12 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
perhaps, like I assume tiny frying pan, I am assuming we are talking about most people alive today and regularly viewing movies? someone viewing movies in the 1940s is not likely alive today (etc.). film over the past few decades, up to 2020, were pretty close to 120 min on average
posted by elkevelvet at 1:12 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
May December is also fantastic and you should see if even if it didn’t nab noms.
posted by Artw at 1:13 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 1:13 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Every time, I’m surprised that John Williams isn’t decomposing by now.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:13 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:13 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Based on previous long ass Scorcese films I bet the 4 hours zooms by and it’s less of a slog than other objectively shorter movies, it’s just a lot to commit to going in.
posted by Artw at 1:16 PM on January 23
posted by Artw at 1:16 PM on January 23
let's pick something new to crab about: the music nominees
We were hoping that Megan Thee Stallion would get a nod for "Dicks: The Musical" so that feels like a snub.
posted by fedward at 1:16 PM on January 23
We were hoping that Megan Thee Stallion would get a nod for "Dicks: The Musical" so that feels like a snub.
posted by fedward at 1:16 PM on January 23
perhaps, like I assume tiny frying pan, I am assuming we are talking about most people alive today and regularly viewing movies? someone viewing movies in the 1940s is not likely alive today (etc.). film over the past few decades, up to 2020, were pretty close to 120 min on average
But that just proves that "what length a film 'should' be" is a changeable metric based on so many unrelated and extraneous factors that maybe there is no such thing as "should" when it comes to the length of a film. Especially if your only defense is "let's not count what the typical lengths of a film were in the past because the people who watched them in the theaters are dead by now".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:19 PM on January 23
But that just proves that "what length a film 'should' be" is a changeable metric based on so many unrelated and extraneous factors that maybe there is no such thing as "should" when it comes to the length of a film. Especially if your only defense is "let's not count what the typical lengths of a film were in the past because the people who watched them in the theaters are dead by now".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:19 PM on January 23
Also, to clarify that I'm absolutely not saying that a person would be an uncultured boob for not wanting to sit through a 3-1/2 hour movie, in the slightest. My mother has to get up and move around periodically or her Lyme disease gives her grief. A dear friend would have to pee before then or face serious health issues. Hell, I'm even having a hard time figuring out when to schedule the thing.
My point is simply that "I'd personally rather not see a movie that long" is a different statement from "movies didn't use to be that long" or "movies shouldn't be that long". That's all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:23 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
My point is simply that "I'd personally rather not see a movie that long" is a different statement from "movies didn't use to be that long" or "movies shouldn't be that long". That's all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:23 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
But that just proves that "what length a film 'should' be" is a changeable metric
I'll be honest. I miss when the economics of film distribution placed downward pressure on runtimes. My wife and I have lamented the end of "a tight hundred minutes" as a consistent thing. A lot of movies would be well served by the sort of trimming that used to happen simply so they didn't have to ship another reel.
posted by fedward at 1:24 PM on January 23 [6 favorites]
I'll be honest. I miss when the economics of film distribution placed downward pressure on runtimes. My wife and I have lamented the end of "a tight hundred minutes" as a consistent thing. A lot of movies would be well served by the sort of trimming that used to happen simply so they didn't have to ship another reel.
posted by fedward at 1:24 PM on January 23 [6 favorites]
Variety's "Oscars Snubs and Surprises" list snubs... Ava DuVernay & “Origin."
Okay, I've seen like 6 trailers for it, and I'm still not clear - what IS Origin? Meaning - is it a documentary or a drama? Is it like an Adaptation-type docudrama adaptation like what happened withThe Orchid Thief? Something else? What actually is it?
(I mean, I wanna see it, it's just that the trailers have been pretty opaque and I'm wondering if maybe that's hindering things.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:26 PM on January 23
Okay, I've seen like 6 trailers for it, and I'm still not clear - what IS Origin? Meaning - is it a documentary or a drama? Is it like an Adaptation-type docudrama adaptation like what happened withThe Orchid Thief? Something else? What actually is it?
(I mean, I wanna see it, it's just that the trailers have been pretty opaque and I'm wondering if maybe that's hindering things.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:26 PM on January 23
I kinda hope the movie wins Best Picture so that Robbie (who produced it) gets an Oscar and a speech on stage anyway.
If not, she should spend the evening bathing in the thousand-dollar bills that will represent only the tiniest fraction of the money her company has earned and will earn on it.
This is definitely a year where the best film list has a real apples and oranges problem.
posted by praemunire at 1:28 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
If not, she should spend the evening bathing in the thousand-dollar bills that will represent only the tiniest fraction of the money her company has earned and will earn on it.
This is definitely a year where the best film list has a real apples and oranges problem.
posted by praemunire at 1:28 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
As to film length, I’ve been told that it is the theaters that try to dictate film length. They can sell more tickets showing a 90 minute film over and over rather than a 3 hour film. Audience turnover is important. Though theaters really don’t make money from ticket sales, it’s the studios who do. So maybe they are the ones dictating it. More showings mean more snack sales per day. I don’t really remember long films from the forties. Back in the good old days, theaters showed double features, two films, plus newsreel, cartoon making up about three hours of time. I have three seven hour plus films on DVD.
posted by njohnson23 at 1:28 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by njohnson23 at 1:28 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Origin is about Isabel Wilkerson's coming up with the thesis for and writing of Caste.
posted by praemunire at 1:29 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 1:29 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
I don’t really remember long films from the forties.
Children of Paradise (1945) is 190 minutes, and it was filmed in occupied France!
posted by praemunire at 1:31 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Children of Paradise (1945) is 190 minutes, and it was filmed in occupied France!
posted by praemunire at 1:31 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Long films need a proper intermission.
Amen. Even just five minutes would be fine. I made it about two hours into Avatar: The Way of Water and had to run to the bathroom. Missed some important stuff about the space whales! Fun movie experience but it did not need to be three and a half hours long.
posted by zardoz at 1:32 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Amen. Even just five minutes would be fine. I made it about two hours into Avatar: The Way of Water and had to run to the bathroom. Missed some important stuff about the space whales! Fun movie experience but it did not need to be three and a half hours long.
posted by zardoz at 1:32 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
I’m surprised that John Williams isn’t decomposing by now.
This is either a mildly insensitive or quite clever comment.
posted by gwint at 1:33 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
This is either a mildly insensitive or quite clever comment.
posted by gwint at 1:33 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
I'd like to see Giamatti win, but not "The Holdovers."
I despise "heartwarming."
posted by BostonTerrier at 1:34 PM on January 23
I despise "heartwarming."
posted by BostonTerrier at 1:34 PM on January 23
Origin is about Isabel Wilkerson's coming up with the thesis for and writing of Caste.
Okay - are there subplots set in the past, like Cloud Atlas did? The trailer seems to suggest that. (At least I thought so.)
....Back to the Oscars -
I'm kind of suspecting - and fearful - that the Best Actress race is really going to be a neck-and-neck race between Lily Gladstone and Emma Stone. Both of which seem deserving...
For Best Actor I'm just trying to figure out how obvious a choice Cillian Murphy is going to be. I reserve judgement until after I've seen The Holdovers.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:35 PM on January 23
Okay - are there subplots set in the past, like Cloud Atlas did? The trailer seems to suggest that. (At least I thought so.)
....Back to the Oscars -
I'm kind of suspecting - and fearful - that the Best Actress race is really going to be a neck-and-neck race between Lily Gladstone and Emma Stone. Both of which seem deserving...
For Best Actor I'm just trying to figure out how obvious a choice Cillian Murphy is going to be. I reserve judgement until after I've seen The Holdovers.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:35 PM on January 23
I dunno. In much the same way that a short story is defined as prose that can be read in single sitting, I kind of want to say that movies should be a certain length otherwise they're something else--epic maybe? We used to have short features and other descriptive names for films of varying length.
I do think any movie longer than 2 hours should be automatically presumed to be pretentious and needs to prove itself otherwise by being good.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:38 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
I do think any movie longer than 2 hours should be automatically presumed to be pretentious and needs to prove itself otherwise by being good.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:38 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
It visits (in her imagination) various historical times and places where caste has been most forcefully enacted.
"They're decomposing composers, there's nothing anyone can do, you can still hear Beethoven, but Beethoven cannot hear you..."
posted by praemunire at 1:43 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
"They're decomposing composers, there's nothing anyone can do, you can still hear Beethoven, but Beethoven cannot hear you..."
posted by praemunire at 1:43 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
I do think any movie longer than 2 hours should be automatically presumed to be pretentious and needs to prove itself otherwise by being good.
Well, I think presuming any work of art to be pretentious based merely on its length should automatically be presumed to be silly. Now where are we?
(Not that I don't have the same practical reasons to be wary of an extended runtime as many, but there's no reason to make ourselves artificially stupider.)
posted by praemunire at 1:46 PM on January 23 [7 favorites]
Well, I think presuming any work of art to be pretentious based merely on its length should automatically be presumed to be silly. Now where are we?
(Not that I don't have the same practical reasons to be wary of an extended runtime as many, but there's no reason to make ourselves artificially stupider.)
posted by praemunire at 1:46 PM on January 23 [7 favorites]
At the risk of continuing a derail...remember that for a long time one didn't simply go to 'see a film' but to view a program of cinema, including newsreels, short subjects and a feature. So total time spent at the theater might have been three hours, start to finish, even if the feature itself were less than two hours. And there were also double features, something that would be inconceivable today excepting repertoire film an art house.
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 1:46 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 1:46 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
Don't let Killers of the Flower Moon's length intimidate you. It flies by, because it's so informationally dense and expertly edited. It also switches genres at will. It starts out a kind of Western, then goes into a sickly sweet romance, then then a Scorsese gangster picture set in the country instead of the city, then a police procedural, then a courtroom drama, and then the ending goes someplace that you're not prepared for. It's like a bunch of small movies stuck together. I'm not some slavering Marty Is God fanboy*, but I think it's the best picture of the decade so far.
Still coulda used an intermission, though.
*The Aviator, After Hours, and The Last Temptation of Christ are my favorite Scorsese films.
posted by vibrotronica at 1:57 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Still coulda used an intermission, though.
*The Aviator, After Hours, and The Last Temptation of Christ are my favorite Scorsese films.
posted by vibrotronica at 1:57 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
On the movie length thing - I'm always pleasantly surprised when a movie lands into that 90-100 minute mark. (Prey was absolutely perfect at 97 minutes long and I'm sure they could have filled it out more, but it was great.) Long movies - 2.5 hours+ - take commitment and I tend to get restless or watch in multiple sittings. On the Scorsese front - since he inspired this convo - I'm perfectly happy to tool along with Casino at 2:58, but the Irishman is never coming back on my screeen at 3:29 and I zone out while my wife re-watches Gangs of New York (2:47). I love the LotR movies and I still watch them parsed out over evenings.
And Barbie got shafted - I cannot fathom the loops needed to get to "nominate this really visually appealing and creative film with a fearless performance that could have fallen really, really flat, but nevermind the director or the lead."
posted by drewbage1847 at 1:57 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
And Barbie got shafted - I cannot fathom the loops needed to get to "nominate this really visually appealing and creative film with a fearless performance that could have fallen really, really flat, but nevermind the director or the lead."
posted by drewbage1847 at 1:57 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
I just don't think it's an extraordinary claim: most of the movies people in general, and people posting here, watch are about 2 hours in length
to respond with history lessons and outliers is interesting, but I don't think that refutes the claim
posted by elkevelvet at 2:02 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
to respond with history lessons and outliers is interesting, but I don't think that refutes the claim
posted by elkevelvet at 2:02 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
The ideal movie is a tight 90. There are exceptions.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 2:06 PM on January 23 [5 favorites]
posted by lefty lucky cat at 2:06 PM on January 23 [5 favorites]
Somewhat hilariously, one of the most common things I hear from my fellow horror nerds, when they are explaining why they like horror films is that the movies are mostly less than 100 minutes. I mean: film-making gusto; transgressive ideas; release for anxiety; all of that. But also, in virtually any of their top five reasons: the movies tend to be short.
Of course when we like a movie, then we go out and buy the extended version, such that it isn't short anymore.
But I guess we contain multitudes.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:09 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Of course when we like a movie, then we go out and buy the extended version, such that it isn't short anymore.
But I guess we contain multitudes.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:09 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
I have no real opinion about proper movie length, but this derail has certainly gone on way too long.
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:09 PM on January 23 [19 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:09 PM on January 23 [19 favorites]
Atom Eyes: "gth, but this derail has certainly gone on way too long."
Yeah, the movie length derail is a Lawrence of Arabia-length derail now. Shoulda topped out at like Caddyshack, tops.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:11 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Yeah, the movie length derail is a Lawrence of Arabia-length derail now. Shoulda topped out at like Caddyshack, tops.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:11 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
to respond with history lessons and outliers is interesting, but I don't think that refutes the claim
Do you consider Avengers: Endgame to be "history"? Because that was 3 hours. And it was pretty damn popular.
Oppenheimer was also 3 hours. So was last year's RRR. And so was Avatar: Way Of Water. Popular films all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:16 PM on January 23
Do you consider Avengers: Endgame to be "history"? Because that was 3 hours. And it was pretty damn popular.
Oppenheimer was also 3 hours. So was last year's RRR. And so was Avatar: Way Of Water. Popular films all.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:16 PM on January 23
Hey guys, guess what? The movie length derail has been picked up by Apple TV and it's going to be an eight episode prestige series with an option. I can't wait!
posted by The Bellman at 2:17 PM on January 23 [18 favorites]
posted by The Bellman at 2:17 PM on January 23 [18 favorites]
Right then....
> I kinda hope the BARBIE wins Best Picture so that Robbie (who produced it) gets an Oscar and a speech on stage anyway.
If not, she should spend the evening bathing in the thousand-dollar bills that will represent only the tiniest fraction of the money her company has earned and will earn on it.
So you think the only reason she made the movie was to make money and she had no artistic motive?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:23 PM on January 23
> I kinda hope the BARBIE wins Best Picture so that Robbie (who produced it) gets an Oscar and a speech on stage anyway.
If not, she should spend the evening bathing in the thousand-dollar bills that will represent only the tiniest fraction of the money her company has earned and will earn on it.
So you think the only reason she made the movie was to make money and she had no artistic motive?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:23 PM on January 23
When I mentioned to Shepherd the omission of Greta Gerwig for Best Director and Margo Robbie for Best Actress, he shrugged and agreed, but added, "I would prefer the categories to not be gendered. I can't believe they still are."
posted by Kitteh at 2:31 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by Kitteh at 2:31 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
I think she made it so people watch the thing. Awards can be orthogonal to that.
posted by Artw at 2:31 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 2:31 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Nope, but it certainly brings to mind the Woody Harrelson wiping tears with money meme
posted by drewbage1847 at 2:32 PM on January 23
posted by drewbage1847 at 2:32 PM on January 23
When I mentioned to Shepherd the omission of Greta Gerwig for Best Director and Margo Robbie for Best Actress, he shrugged and agreed, but added, "I would prefer the categories to not be gendered...
Best Director isn't gendered. ...just weirdly slow to nominate women. ....but, then, I think other directors in the Academy do the voting on who gets nominated, which probably is telling...
I think she made it so people watch the thing. Awards can be orthogonal to that.
I think I just found the whole "she made a lot of money so she should shut up and be happy about that" tone to be mean spirited I suppose.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:37 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Best Director isn't gendered. ...just weirdly slow to nominate women. ....but, then, I think other directors in the Academy do the voting on who gets nominated, which probably is telling...
I think she made it so people watch the thing. Awards can be orthogonal to that.
I think I just found the whole "she made a lot of money so she should shut up and be happy about that" tone to be mean spirited I suppose.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 2:37 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Ok, it's cold out, my brain is fried from online work, and there is Kung Pao chicken.
NOW is the perfect time to watch Oppenheimer!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:53 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
NOW is the perfect time to watch Oppenheimer!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:53 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Subversion of an art form is still a valid form of that art
definitely this. feature not bug
posted by philip-random at 2:59 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
definitely this. feature not bug
posted by philip-random at 2:59 PM on January 23 [2 favorites]
All other things being equal, I prefer long movies. If the ticket price costs as much as a novel that would keep me happily occupied for six hours or so, then I want the film to entertain me for, like, longer than it takes to cook a stew.
That's all other things being equal, though, including quality. There are films that are too long. Also films that are too short, however. DEVELOP YOUR CHARACTERS AND IDEAS, DAMMIT.
posted by kyrademon at 3:14 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
That's all other things being equal, though, including quality. There are films that are too long. Also films that are too short, however. DEVELOP YOUR CHARACTERS AND IDEAS, DAMMIT.
posted by kyrademon at 3:14 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
I believe movies should be exactly as long as they need to be. I also believe that sitting for 210 minutes is torturous for many people. So I find it confounding that Scorcese, the cinema world's most prominent advocate of seeing movies in the theater, should also refuse to permit theaters to run such movies with an intermission. I didn't see the movie in the hot minute it was at my local theater because I can't sit that long. I will watch it at home, where I have a pause button and real butter for my popcorn.
I was a theater reviewer for around ten years. A play with a 3.5-hour runtime would usually have two intermissions. ("Ninety minutes, no intermission" remain my favorite words.)
Last night I watched Best Picture-winner Return of the King, which certainly would have benefited from losing half an hour of vacantly gazing elves.
Regarding this year's nominees: does anyone know the reasoning behind Barbie being considered an adapted screenplay? I get that the dolls are existing IP, but it doesn't strike me as any more of an adaptation than Maestro.
I think Renfield got snubbed for makeup.
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 3:18 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
I was a theater reviewer for around ten years. A play with a 3.5-hour runtime would usually have two intermissions. ("Ninety minutes, no intermission" remain my favorite words.)
Last night I watched Best Picture-winner Return of the King, which certainly would have benefited from losing half an hour of vacantly gazing elves.
Regarding this year's nominees: does anyone know the reasoning behind Barbie being considered an adapted screenplay? I get that the dolls are existing IP, but it doesn't strike me as any more of an adaptation than Maestro.
I think Renfield got snubbed for makeup.
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 3:18 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
you know what though there are significantly easier ways to get rich than to become a director and as a rule people who make good movies rather than shit ones are motivated by some combination of self-expression and desire to shift the general discourse and tl;dr the money thing is a red herring and moreover a red herring that reifies/reinforces capitalist ideology vis a vis artistic production in particular and human motivations in general
also barbie is a work of genius and in a just world every comment on this thread would end with an acknowledgement of that cold hard fact, like, it's a carthago delenda est kinda thing.
gerwig ingenio est, basically. help i'm v. bad at latin i think that's right but if i screwed it up plz someone fix
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:18 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
also barbie is a work of genius and in a just world every comment on this thread would end with an acknowledgement of that cold hard fact, like, it's a carthago delenda est kinda thing.
gerwig ingenio est, basically. help i'm v. bad at latin i think that's right but if i screwed it up plz someone fix
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:18 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
And most people of the 1940s expected a movie as a 3 hour engagement.
That would probably not have been for one movie, though. Back then, there would have been either a short-subject or a b-movie before the feature. Casablanca, for the instance, runs just a bit over an hour and forty minutes. A 3-hour engagement would have been for a full program, probably including a cartoon and newsreel.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:18 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
That would probably not have been for one movie, though. Back then, there would have been either a short-subject or a b-movie before the feature. Casablanca, for the instance, runs just a bit over an hour and forty minutes. A 3-hour engagement would have been for a full program, probably including a cartoon and newsreel.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:18 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Alfred Hitchcock was quoted as saying "The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder."
gerwig ingenio est
posted by tspae at 3:27 PM on January 23 [7 favorites]
gerwig ingenio est
posted by tspae at 3:27 PM on January 23 [7 favorites]
also note that the dominant format for visual entertainment here in the 21st century is the television serial, television serials can run like 20 hours or more per season, and marathoning a billion episodes of tv serials is a thing that most of us have done more than once.
prestige tv seasons are shortish novels, movies are novellas, sometimes stories best told in the novella format nevertheless have to push against that format's upper limit for page count.
on edit: gerwig ingenio est
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:27 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
prestige tv seasons are shortish novels, movies are novellas, sometimes stories best told in the novella format nevertheless have to push against that format's upper limit for page count.
on edit: gerwig ingenio est
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 3:27 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
Really feels like Giamatti's gonna win Best Actor, as this is the classic setup where a beloved and acclaimed actor with zero Oscars belatedly gets his flowers as a de facto lifetime achievement award in a year without an obvious leading candidate.
Even though I love Paul Giamatti I have no desire to see his movie because it's an obvious Serious Oscar Movie. I hate it when people win for their past work. The best actor each year should always win for their work that year.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:19 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Even though I love Paul Giamatti I have no desire to see his movie because it's an obvious Serious Oscar Movie. I hate it when people win for their past work. The best actor each year should always win for their work that year.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:19 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
As a general rule, most comedies should be about 90 minutes or less and most dramas should be around two hours. It's difficult to sustain comedy for more than that long, and most dramas don't have enough story to be longer than two hours so they drag and feel slow. (I know there are plenty of counterexamples, and I love lots of dramas that are three hours long or more.)
posted by kirkaracha at 4:21 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 4:21 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
‘Barbie’ Star Ryan Gosling ‘Disappointed’ in Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig Oscar Snub: ‘There Is No Barbie Movie’ Without Them.
“There is no Ken without Barbie, and there is no Barbie movie without Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie, the two people most responsible for this history-making, globally-celebrated film,” his statement read.posted by Nelson at 4:27 PM on January 23 [20 favorites]
He continued, “No recognition would be possible for anyone on the film without their talent, grit and genius. To say that I’m disappointed that they are not nominated in their respective categories would be an understatement.”
So you think the only reason she made the movie was to make money and she had no artistic motive?
No, but I think if the industry's going to be childish about it, she can take comfort in still having poured her house a foundation of gold.
posted by praemunire at 4:31 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
No, but I think if the industry's going to be childish about it, she can take comfort in still having poured her house a foundation of gold.
posted by praemunire at 4:31 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Is anyone else genuinely underwhelmed by Oppenheimer? Op felt like a lot of sound and fury, wonderfully crafted but signifying nothing. A lot like Inception, or (to use an example from a different director) Crash. It acts like it's ~so deep~ but [Thor face] is it though? No. It's all surface flashy, I tell you.
I have so many random grudges I'm nursing against Op that it's possible I have lost all my objectivity - but in a well deserved way. Like the other day I saw the Bhagavad Gita quote "Now I am become death..." attributed to *Cillian Murphy's character in the movie Oppenheimer*. If that isn't grounds to hate on a movie...
In a total brain-fart, I kept waiting to see if Banshees of Inishirin would be nominated, totally forgetting that it was a 2022 movie, it already got like 10 (I think?) nominations last year but it didn't win anything. Now I'm pissed off about THAT again. How criminal was that!
posted by MiraK at 4:57 PM on January 23 [14 favorites]
I have so many random grudges I'm nursing against Op that it's possible I have lost all my objectivity - but in a well deserved way. Like the other day I saw the Bhagavad Gita quote "Now I am become death..." attributed to *Cillian Murphy's character in the movie Oppenheimer*. If that isn't grounds to hate on a movie...
In a total brain-fart, I kept waiting to see if Banshees of Inishirin would be nominated, totally forgetting that it was a 2022 movie, it already got like 10 (I think?) nominations last year but it didn't win anything. Now I'm pissed off about THAT again. How criminal was that!
posted by MiraK at 4:57 PM on January 23 [14 favorites]
I don't understand why Ryan Gosling got a nomination. His Ken was very cute and funny. But I'm afraid it boils down to something like a perception that for Gosling, being so self-effacing in a role is
very hard - and isn't he so great for supporting women and isn't he so humble! - and for a women, acting a like an idealized woman is as easy as it gets.
posted by kitcat at 5:01 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
very hard - and isn't he so great for supporting women and isn't he so humble! - and for a women, acting a like an idealized woman is as easy as it gets.
posted by kitcat at 5:01 PM on January 23 [3 favorites]
I also was disappointed by Oppenheimer. The back half had no stakes and the first half was frequently quite cringe. "Now I am become death" being read mid orgasm was particularly silly.
My favorite part of the whole movie was the two of them sitting naked in arm chairs chatting post coitus. It's rare to see that kind of real life intimacy on the screen.
I will say I was impressed that Nolan was willing to make Oppenheimer so weak and loathsome in the end. I imagine that is what has made it so popular, usually we hagiograph our villains . But I also didn't care for Tár, I think for similar reasons.
posted by macrael at 5:07 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
My favorite part of the whole movie was the two of them sitting naked in arm chairs chatting post coitus. It's rare to see that kind of real life intimacy on the screen.
I will say I was impressed that Nolan was willing to make Oppenheimer so weak and loathsome in the end. I imagine that is what has made it so popular, usually we hagiograph our villains . But I also didn't care for Tár, I think for similar reasons.
posted by macrael at 5:07 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
I think there is *something* to the notion that it takes an actor of a certain caliber to laugh at themselves so skillfully. Ken was quite possibly the most "unique" and innovative character in that movie. We've seen female characters like Barbie before (stereotypical women who get reality checked by sexism and eventually find their power/their path in various ways) but I can't recall ever seeing a character like Ken on screen (a man who lives in a world where he is a second class citizen going on a journey to discover and accept his true masculine identity). The writers and director are incredible for creating this character, but so is the actor.
So I'm not mad he got the nom. I'm just mad that others didn't.
Wait wait Barbie ingenio est!
posted by MiraK at 5:10 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
So I'm not mad he got the nom. I'm just mad that others didn't.
Wait wait Barbie ingenio est!
posted by MiraK at 5:10 PM on January 23 [1 favorite]
Honestly, I'm not as upset about Robbie being omitted - its a stacked category and all the nominees are great, and also having her get the nom for being the producer of the film is in some ways a more important acknowledgement of her work than her being nominated for her acting.
The Gerwig thing, though ... that's a lot stranger. Sure, its a "light" movie and sure it made a billion dollars (things The Academy typically hate), but the film is so very clearly infused with her vision and her work with the design team. She is nominated for the DGA award and voting is still open for that for a few days -- it'll be very interesting (and telling) if she wins that.
posted by anastasiav at 5:56 PM on January 23 [8 favorites]
The Gerwig thing, though ... that's a lot stranger. Sure, its a "light" movie and sure it made a billion dollars (things The Academy typically hate), but the film is so very clearly infused with her vision and her work with the design team. She is nominated for the DGA award and voting is still open for that for a few days -- it'll be very interesting (and telling) if she wins that.
posted by anastasiav at 5:56 PM on January 23 [8 favorites]
I'm just here to say that I'm bummed about Greta Gerwig, but "American Fiction" is the absolute best and I loved it so much.
posted by thivaia at 8:09 PM on January 23
posted by thivaia at 8:09 PM on January 23
Even though I love Paul Giamatti I have no desire to see his movie because it's an obvious Serious Oscar Movie. I hate it when people win for their past work. The best actor each year should always win for their work that year
Its release was timed for Oscar potential but it’s actually just a really good movie and Giamatti is really good in it. We saw it in the theater and when my wife (who teaches acting) saw it available on Peacock she almost watched it again, on the spot. We’re trying to figure out when we can see “American Fiction” and it would be premature for us to pick a best actor winner, but I can honestly say neither of us would feel the award would be undeserved if Giamatti got it. He’s really that good in it.
posted by fedward at 9:42 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Its release was timed for Oscar potential but it’s actually just a really good movie and Giamatti is really good in it. We saw it in the theater and when my wife (who teaches acting) saw it available on Peacock she almost watched it again, on the spot. We’re trying to figure out when we can see “American Fiction” and it would be premature for us to pick a best actor winner, but I can honestly say neither of us would feel the award would be undeserved if Giamatti got it. He’s really that good in it.
posted by fedward at 9:42 PM on January 23 [4 favorites]
Da'Vine Joy Randolph (also from The Holdovers) is also getting a lot of Supporting Actor wins in other awards ceremonies, which is a good indicator that that's how the Oscars are also going to roll.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:49 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:49 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
I was charmed by The Holdovers and there's solid physical effort to Giamatti's performance of his role. However, the 35mm film grain and 1970s setting were nostalgia I didn't care for, to the extent that's it's a forgettable movie for me.
As a K3n, I stand with Gosling's statement: the Barbie movie is about Barbie, would be nothing without Barbie, and achieved things that deserve awards. I'm glad that America Ferrara is recognized for her role but not impressed that production and direction were not.
posted by k3ninho at 5:04 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
As a K3n, I stand with Gosling's statement: the Barbie movie is about Barbie, would be nothing without Barbie, and achieved things that deserve awards. I'm glad that America Ferrara is recognized for her role but not impressed that production and direction were not.
posted by k3ninho at 5:04 AM on January 24 [2 favorites]
for the oscar voters metamodern filmmakers are not ready to dominate the postmodern but the metamodern are filling up the field.
posted by MonsieurPEB at 5:20 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
posted by MonsieurPEB at 5:20 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I didn't expect much from The Holdovers but it's a great film and I was absolutely charmed by it. It's not Oscar bait at all. Some Youtuber said something like "after I finished watching it I realized I'd be watching it every Christmas for the rest of my life". It's that kind of movie.
posted by rhymedirective at 5:59 AM on January 24 [7 favorites]
posted by rhymedirective at 5:59 AM on January 24 [7 favorites]
Nth-ing all The Holdovers praise. It's an unsentimental movie presented in a sentimental style, which gives it a nice emotional kick. It's not what you might expect––which, without giving too much away, is kind of the story's point.
posted by reclusive_thousandaire at 6:12 AM on January 24 [5 favorites]
posted by reclusive_thousandaire at 6:12 AM on January 24 [5 favorites]
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
hypothetically,
if I was going to nominate a film about a badger,
starring a badger,
called "Badger,"
for best picture...
I would also nominate the badger, right?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:16 AM on January 24 [8 favorites]
hypothetically,
if I was going to nominate a film about a badger,
starring a badger,
called "Badger,"
for best picture...
I would also nominate the badger, right?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:16 AM on January 24 [8 favorites]
I hope Gosling wins, I really hope he does. Because he did a great job. It's not his fault the system is extremely fucked up. And he could abs use his time at the mic to say A Few Words.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:22 AM on January 24 [4 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:22 AM on January 24 [4 favorites]
There's a wonderful one of those "group interviews" they do nowadays, where they round up a bunch of people with a similar role in filmmaking - actors, directors, writers - and have them do an hour-long group discussion. This one came out a couple weeks ago, before the Oscars but after the awards season started. So every one of the men in this video had been nominated for something somewhere; and of the six men featured (Paul Giamatti, Colman Domingo, Mark Ruffalo, RDJ, Adam Scott, and Jeffrey Wright), five now have Oscar nominations.
Paul Giamatti says some wonderfully insightful things about The Holdovers and how Alexander Payne tells stories; Giamatti says at one point that he loves stories where people who've assembled these protective facades of "schtick" start to drop them - but only a little. You get a glimpse, but then the main character runs back to hide; but maybe not as well as they'd done before. There's a sense that there's some hope that the character will continue growing after the film ends.
...I also gotta say it is BIZARRE to watch this kind of interview and think that "there's Mark Ruffalo, there's Robert Downey Jr.....oh, and there's that guy I saw in his underwear in a theater basement in 2004."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:22 AM on January 24 [3 favorites]
Paul Giamatti says some wonderfully insightful things about The Holdovers and how Alexander Payne tells stories; Giamatti says at one point that he loves stories where people who've assembled these protective facades of "schtick" start to drop them - but only a little. You get a glimpse, but then the main character runs back to hide; but maybe not as well as they'd done before. There's a sense that there's some hope that the character will continue growing after the film ends.
...I also gotta say it is BIZARRE to watch this kind of interview and think that "there's Mark Ruffalo, there's Robert Downey Jr.....oh, and there's that guy I saw in his underwear in a theater basement in 2004."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:22 AM on January 24 [3 favorites]
"And he could abs use his time at the mic to say A Few Words."
It doesn't matter to me one iota if this was unintended. STANDING OVATION.
posted by joelhunt at 6:27 AM on January 24 [8 favorites]
It doesn't matter to me one iota if this was unintended. STANDING OVATION.
posted by joelhunt at 6:27 AM on January 24 [8 favorites]
Even though I love Paul Giamatti I have no desire to see his movie because it's an obvious Serious Oscar Movie.
Others have noted how wrong the above perception is, so I'll just add that The Holdovers is also often very funny, and has a lightness to it that feels like the opposite of Oscar Bait. And I say this as someone who got bored with predictable prep school outcast movies long ago.* This one's sappier moments (which I enjoyed sniffling along to, don't get me wrong) were saved by the great acting and also by Da'Vine Joy Randolph's character, who is a real person and not just the typical sassy working class presence.
*I've since come to terms with them as necessary inspiration for a certain kind of 12-year-old budding filmmaker on their way to prep school; every generation needs its Harold and Maude, I suppose.
posted by mediareport at 6:31 AM on January 24 [6 favorites]
Others have noted how wrong the above perception is, so I'll just add that The Holdovers is also often very funny, and has a lightness to it that feels like the opposite of Oscar Bait. And I say this as someone who got bored with predictable prep school outcast movies long ago.* This one's sappier moments (which I enjoyed sniffling along to, don't get me wrong) were saved by the great acting and also by Da'Vine Joy Randolph's character, who is a real person and not just the typical sassy working class presence.
*I've since come to terms with them as necessary inspiration for a certain kind of 12-year-old budding filmmaker on their way to prep school; every generation needs its Harold and Maude, I suppose.
posted by mediareport at 6:31 AM on January 24 [6 favorites]
I'm rooting for The Holdovers if only so that Alexander Payne could make a Big Star biopic. He'd find the weirdly farcical moments in that story, and Dominic Sessa would be great as Chris Bell.
posted by pxe2000 at 6:33 AM on January 24 [3 favorites]
posted by pxe2000 at 6:33 AM on January 24 [3 favorites]
My Oscars hot take: There should be a stunt work Oscar. There are already plenty of popcorn movies that win Academy Awards for Visual Effects and Sound Editing etc, and Oscars for other forms of craftsmanship - Makeup & Hair, Costuming, Production Design - are well established, and the effort that goes specifically into stunt work should be recognized outside of Visual Effects.
And if it's not a big stunt year? No big deal. There have been years with just a few nominees for Visual Effects as well.
posted by phong3d at 6:39 AM on January 24 [8 favorites]
And if it's not a big stunt year? No big deal. There have been years with just a few nominees for Visual Effects as well.
posted by phong3d at 6:39 AM on January 24 [8 favorites]
Colman Domingo, though! While Rustin is a bit too obvious at times, it's still very good and at times quite moving, and Domingo's performance is fabulous. Plus, he seems like such a sweet and gracious person (and his win would be a queer milestone, but that's secondary to his performance, honest).
Jeffrey Wright was also fab in American Fiction, an excellent family drama with a side order of broad but kinda shallow publishing industry satire (similar to Erasure, the book it came from, in that way). It's an incredibly well-made film, with great writing and acting, and even when I disagreed with some of the changes to the book, they were all understandable decisions (softening the death of one character early on, for instance). It should win Best Picture.
Margot Robbie is amazing, and should have won Best Actress when she was nominated for I, Tonya, but her work in Barbie didn't strike me as particularly deep or noteworthy acting. I'll admit my utter disappointment with the whole idea of making Barbie 50% about Ken, instead of exploring the other Barbies more fully, probably soured me on other parts of the film, too. Should've saved that Ken nonsense for the sequel.
posted by mediareport at 7:00 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Jeffrey Wright was also fab in American Fiction, an excellent family drama with a side order of broad but kinda shallow publishing industry satire (similar to Erasure, the book it came from, in that way). It's an incredibly well-made film, with great writing and acting, and even when I disagreed with some of the changes to the book, they were all understandable decisions (softening the death of one character early on, for instance). It should win Best Picture.
Margot Robbie is amazing, and should have won Best Actress when she was nominated for I, Tonya, but her work in Barbie didn't strike me as particularly deep or noteworthy acting. I'll admit my utter disappointment with the whole idea of making Barbie 50% about Ken, instead of exploring the other Barbies more fully, probably soured me on other parts of the film, too. Should've saved that Ken nonsense for the sequel.
posted by mediareport at 7:00 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
There should be a stunt work Oscar.
Absolutely this. Stunt workers have been waiting for a looong time. All of the excuses are bullshit and a Best Stunt Team award is way overdue.
posted by mediareport at 7:04 AM on January 24 [5 favorites]
Absolutely this. Stunt workers have been waiting for a looong time. All of the excuses are bullshit and a Best Stunt Team award is way overdue.
posted by mediareport at 7:04 AM on January 24 [5 favorites]
Last night I watched Best Picture-winner Return of the King, which certainly would have benefited from losing half an hour of vacantly gazing elves.
I said there were exceptions.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 8:24 AM on January 24
I said there were exceptions.
posted by lefty lucky cat at 8:24 AM on January 24
It should be a lock for funniest spoilerific comments on a random YouTube video [spoilers, obvs]
Hysterical - thanks for pointing me to that.
posted by thecincinnatikid at 8:54 AM on January 24
Hysterical - thanks for pointing me to that.
posted by thecincinnatikid at 8:54 AM on January 24
I'm rooting for The Holdovers if only so that Alexander Payne could make a Big Star biopic. He'd find the weirdly farcical moments in that story, and Dominic Sessa would be great as Chris Bell.
Oh, there are a LOT of farcical moments in the Big Star story, as well as triumph, tragedy, love gone wrong, and love gone right. Payne would do a good job on it.
I once pitched the idea of a Big Star narrative feature to Jodi Stephens, Big Star's drummer and sole surviving member. He said "Nah, I saw The Doors movie, and I don't want something like that."
(Also, if you tried to do an honest version of the story, Chris Bell's family will fight you every step of the way.)
posted by vibrotronica at 9:46 AM on January 24
Oh, there are a LOT of farcical moments in the Big Star story, as well as triumph, tragedy, love gone wrong, and love gone right. Payne would do a good job on it.
I once pitched the idea of a Big Star narrative feature to Jodi Stephens, Big Star's drummer and sole surviving member. He said "Nah, I saw The Doors movie, and I don't want something like that."
(Also, if you tried to do an honest version of the story, Chris Bell's family will fight you every step of the way.)
posted by vibrotronica at 9:46 AM on January 24
My favorite part of the whole movie was the two of them sitting naked in arm chairs chatting post coitus. It's rare to see that kind of real life intimacy on the screen.
Sure, but for the love of god put down a doily.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:53 AM on January 24 [4 favorites]
Sure, but for the love of god put down a doily.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:53 AM on January 24 [4 favorites]
I want them to bring back serials in the cinema/theater. Instead of a series going straight to Netflix or whatever, have a new installment in cinemas every week. Start with a cartoon. Then the latest installment. Then a good intermission. Then another cartoon. And then a new installment of a different serial. And if each episode ends with someone actually hanging from a cliff, so much the better. And then, when the whole series is done, stream it.
posted by pracowity at 10:08 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
posted by pracowity at 10:08 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
phong3d, I hope you've seen the Second Annual Stunt Awards over at Vulture, pretty great!
posted by macrael at 10:26 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
posted by macrael at 10:26 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
I liked Barbie and Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie lot - but for me, it wasn't Oscar material - more like a girly alternative to a Marvel flick. And there was a little too much telling instead of showing.
Adored The Holdovers and I do hope Paul Giamatti wins Best Actor. The best film I saw all year, though, was The Quiet Girl.
posted by Jess the Mess at 10:31 AM on January 24 [3 favorites]
Adored The Holdovers and I do hope Paul Giamatti wins Best Actor. The best film I saw all year, though, was The Quiet Girl.
posted by Jess the Mess at 10:31 AM on January 24 [3 favorites]
for the love of god put down a doily
Or at least an anti-macassar!
posted by praemunire at 10:36 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Or at least an anti-macassar!
posted by praemunire at 10:36 AM on January 24 [1 favorite]
I liked Barbie and Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie lot - but for me, it wasn't Oscar material - more like a girly alternative to a Marvel flick.
I'm on the same page. Some of the enthusiasm I'm seeing for "Barbie" reminds me of how some people viewed "Braveheart" at the time.. they were convinced it was the absolute most epic and meaningful film put to screen basically ever, and deserved every award for every category. I'm sure your world is every bit as valid as my world, is all I can say.
posted by elkevelvet at 10:43 AM on January 24 [3 favorites]
I'm on the same page. Some of the enthusiasm I'm seeing for "Barbie" reminds me of how some people viewed "Braveheart" at the time.. they were convinced it was the absolute most epic and meaningful film put to screen basically ever, and deserved every award for every category. I'm sure your world is every bit as valid as my world, is all I can say.
posted by elkevelvet at 10:43 AM on January 24 [3 favorites]
Godzilla Minus One team pretty excited about their nomination
posted by gwint at 11:20 AM on January 24 [6 favorites]
posted by gwint at 11:20 AM on January 24 [6 favorites]
Awwww, bless 'em!
posted by praemunire at 11:28 AM on January 24
posted by praemunire at 11:28 AM on January 24
I'm on the same page. Some of the enthusiasm I'm seeing for "Barbie" reminds me of how some people viewed "Braveheart" at the time.. they were convinced it was the absolute most epic and meaningful film put to screen basically ever, and deserved every award for every category. I'm sure your world is every bit as valid as my world, is all I can say.
I get the world where it gets no major nominations (or maybe just a sympathy nod for BP in the expanded list), but not the one where Ryan Gosling gets one and Greta Gerwig doesn't.
posted by praemunire at 11:30 AM on January 24 [4 favorites]
I get the world where it gets no major nominations (or maybe just a sympathy nod for BP in the expanded list), but not the one where Ryan Gosling gets one and Greta Gerwig doesn't.
posted by praemunire at 11:30 AM on January 24 [4 favorites]
If only the Academy hadn't abandoned the Best Directress category.
posted by pracowity at 11:59 AM on January 24 [5 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 11:59 AM on January 24 [5 favorites]
I realised I had no idea how the nominations were selected, so I looked it up, and it explains a lot:
That said, twice in recent years my own favourite film of the previous year won Best Picture (Parasite and Everything, Everywhere...) and I've no idea how that happened. I don't think it will happen this year - either they'll go for Killers of the Flower Moon or Oppenheimer, but I couldn't say which.
Previously I did actually think it was a shadowy committee, but now I know how it's done I am curious to see the result, but I think it says more about the psychology of the industry than any of the films in contention.
posted by Grangousier at 12:25 PM on January 24 [4 favorites]
- All categories except Best Picture are nominated by a vote of people who work in that field - actors nominate actors; costume designers nominate costume designers, etc
- Best Picture is nominated by all academicians.
- Once the nominations are in, everybody votes for one favourite in each category based on the nominations except...
- Best picture is voted for using ranked-choice - each voter puts the entire list in order of preference.
That said, twice in recent years my own favourite film of the previous year won Best Picture (Parasite and Everything, Everywhere...) and I've no idea how that happened. I don't think it will happen this year - either they'll go for Killers of the Flower Moon or Oppenheimer, but I couldn't say which.
Previously I did actually think it was a shadowy committee, but now I know how it's done I am curious to see the result, but I think it says more about the psychology of the industry than any of the films in contention.
posted by Grangousier at 12:25 PM on January 24 [4 favorites]
That said, twice in recent years my own favourite film of the previous year won Best Picture (Parasite and Everything, Everywhere...) and I've no idea how that happened.
I think there's been a shake-up in Academy membership and voter eligibility in recent years, prompted in part by the exact kind of "worthy-but-dull" movies taking the prize. I think when a lot of us grumbled about Crash beating Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture in the early aughts, and then Green Book winning in 2018 when BlacKkKlansman was right there, the Academy was listening and realized "Hang on, let's look at who is and isn't voting on this stuff." They started tweaking the rules in 2016 - before then, once you were inducted into the Academy you could vote in the Oscars for the rest of your life, and in 2016 they introduced a rule that you had to re-qualify every ten years (unless you'd actually been nominated for an Oscar, then you had lifetime approval).
The Academy started looking at the members' ages and involvement way back in the 90s, when the documentary Hoop Dreams never got a nomination and the public outcry was massively intense. The Academy actually looked into "yeah, that's weird, how'd that happen" and found that a lot of the people voting in some categories hadn't worked in the industry in years, and weren't even seeing some of the movies. So they started figuring out ways to shake things up and get more active participants in the voting process.
I don't think it will happen this year - either they'll go for Killers of the Flower Moon or Oppenheimer, but I couldn't say which.
The awards-season predictions are actually going with Oppenheimer or The Holdovers. I personally would be fine with Oppenheimer - I know that the second half has left some cold, but I was more intrigued by how that picked up the plot thread about the other tragic character in the story: Lewis Strauss. Oppenheimer's tragic flaw was getting so caught up in the Science! that he got carried away and couldn't stop things any more - while Strauss' tragic flaw was being so utterly insecure that he thought Oppenheimer was sabotaging him on a couple of random occasions and used his political power to destroy the man (a move that lead to his own downfall at the end of the film).
Pretty damn sure that RDJ is going to get the Best Supporting Actor statue, though. Ryan Gosling is his closest competition, but a) getting The Academy to take something comedic seriously is a hard sell, and b) people have probably been looking for an excuse to give RDJ an Oscar since Chaplin.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:47 PM on January 24
I think there's been a shake-up in Academy membership and voter eligibility in recent years, prompted in part by the exact kind of "worthy-but-dull" movies taking the prize. I think when a lot of us grumbled about Crash beating Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture in the early aughts, and then Green Book winning in 2018 when BlacKkKlansman was right there, the Academy was listening and realized "Hang on, let's look at who is and isn't voting on this stuff." They started tweaking the rules in 2016 - before then, once you were inducted into the Academy you could vote in the Oscars for the rest of your life, and in 2016 they introduced a rule that you had to re-qualify every ten years (unless you'd actually been nominated for an Oscar, then you had lifetime approval).
The Academy started looking at the members' ages and involvement way back in the 90s, when the documentary Hoop Dreams never got a nomination and the public outcry was massively intense. The Academy actually looked into "yeah, that's weird, how'd that happen" and found that a lot of the people voting in some categories hadn't worked in the industry in years, and weren't even seeing some of the movies. So they started figuring out ways to shake things up and get more active participants in the voting process.
I don't think it will happen this year - either they'll go for Killers of the Flower Moon or Oppenheimer, but I couldn't say which.
The awards-season predictions are actually going with Oppenheimer or The Holdovers. I personally would be fine with Oppenheimer - I know that the second half has left some cold, but I was more intrigued by how that picked up the plot thread about the other tragic character in the story: Lewis Strauss. Oppenheimer's tragic flaw was getting so caught up in the Science! that he got carried away and couldn't stop things any more - while Strauss' tragic flaw was being so utterly insecure that he thought Oppenheimer was sabotaging him on a couple of random occasions and used his political power to destroy the man (a move that lead to his own downfall at the end of the film).
Pretty damn sure that RDJ is going to get the Best Supporting Actor statue, though. Ryan Gosling is his closest competition, but a) getting The Academy to take something comedic seriously is a hard sell, and b) people have probably been looking for an excuse to give RDJ an Oscar since Chaplin.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:47 PM on January 24
Oh, and:
Colman Domingo, though! While Rustin is a bit too obvious at times, it's still very good and at times quite moving, and Domingo's performance is fabulous. Plus, he seems like such a sweet and gracious person (and his win would be a queer milestone, but that's secondary to his performance, honest).
He's already getting a whole hell of a lot of attention for his red carpet fashion sense. There was a great moment during the Emmys, when he and Hannah Waddingham were co-presenters of something - they walked out together, both looking fabulous, and instead of cracking awkward pre-scripted jokes, they just struck dramatic "look how fabulous we are" poses for a couple seconds and then told the audience, "You're welcome."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:23 PM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Colman Domingo, though! While Rustin is a bit too obvious at times, it's still very good and at times quite moving, and Domingo's performance is fabulous. Plus, he seems like such a sweet and gracious person (and his win would be a queer milestone, but that's secondary to his performance, honest).
He's already getting a whole hell of a lot of attention for his red carpet fashion sense. There was a great moment during the Emmys, when he and Hannah Waddingham were co-presenters of something - they walked out together, both looking fabulous, and instead of cracking awkward pre-scripted jokes, they just struck dramatic "look how fabulous we are" poses for a couple seconds and then told the audience, "You're welcome."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:23 PM on January 24 [1 favorite]
My hot take was that I have absolutely zero desire to see Oppenheimer, between its subject matter and its runtime. That said, while I enjoyed Barbie I thought it was way, way overhyped and the fact that I ended up more invested in Ken's journey was indication that the script's focus was off (maybe I would have been more interested in Barbie if she hadn't been Stereotypical Barbie and the halfhearted nods to diversity were... more wholehearted).
Basically, it's got no chance but I'm rooting for Past Lives as the only one I saw and completely enjoyed.
posted by TwoStride at 1:56 PM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Basically, it's got no chance but I'm rooting for Past Lives as the only one I saw and completely enjoyed.
posted by TwoStride at 1:56 PM on January 24 [1 favorite]
The Academy actually looked into "yeah, that's weird, how'd that happen" and found that a lot of the people voting in some categories hadn't worked in the industry in years, and weren't even seeing some of the movies.
This continues to be the reason Best Animated Feature is basically a joke. The nominations do tend to be decent at least, since it's working animators who vote on those. But the award itself pretty much winds up being an utter shitshow because the entire Academy votes on it, and a lot of those voters wind up voting for The One Animated Feature They Saw With Their Kids.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:05 PM on January 24 [3 favorites]
This continues to be the reason Best Animated Feature is basically a joke. The nominations do tend to be decent at least, since it's working animators who vote on those. But the award itself pretty much winds up being an utter shitshow because the entire Academy votes on it, and a lot of those voters wind up voting for The One Animated Feature They Saw With Their Kids.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:05 PM on January 24 [3 favorites]
But the award itself pretty much winds up being an utter shitshow because the entire Academy votes on it, and a lot of those voters wind up voting for The One Animated Feature They Saw With Their Kids.
Counterargument or exception to the rule - last year's win for Guillermo del Toro's PINOCCHIO.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:50 PM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Counterargument or exception to the rule - last year's win for Guillermo del Toro's PINOCCHIO.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:50 PM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Counterargument or exception to the rule - last year's win for Guillermo del Toro's PINOCCHIO.
Very much an exception, mainly due to the Disney/Pixar nom (Turning Red) not doing as well with the Oscar set for sadly obvious reasons, and the other major release (Puss in Boots: The Last Wish) coming late in the season. Not to mention that Del Toro is well liked in the Academy set.
That's why I think The Boy and the Heron will be the frontrunner - for all his work, Miyazaki only has one Oscar (for Spirited Away), and his previous film (The Wind Rises) was going to be controversial in the US because of the subject matter. So I think there will be a sense of awarding Miyazaki before he passes on with the voters.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:07 PM on January 24 [1 favorite]
Very much an exception, mainly due to the Disney/Pixar nom (Turning Red) not doing as well with the Oscar set for sadly obvious reasons, and the other major release (Puss in Boots: The Last Wish) coming late in the season. Not to mention that Del Toro is well liked in the Academy set.
That's why I think The Boy and the Heron will be the frontrunner - for all his work, Miyazaki only has one Oscar (for Spirited Away), and his previous film (The Wind Rises) was going to be controversial in the US because of the subject matter. So I think there will be a sense of awarding Miyazaki before he passes on with the voters.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:07 PM on January 24 [1 favorite]
I didn't like Barbie overall but I think it deserves the nominations it got (except for maybe America Ferrera but I understand why she got it). I would also have been happy to see it get nominations for Lead Actress and Directing. I think Margot had a job that was deceptively simple on the surface but was actually very difficult, a bit like the old joke about ballet dancers. Her Actors on Actors interview with Cillian Murphy had some good insight into that. I'm happy that she and Greta are being honored in their roles as producer and writer.
However, the discourse the last couple of days around Barbie and the Oscars has really bothered me and this piece explains why better than I can:
The Barbie Snub Outrage Proves That When It Comes To Diversity, We’re Only Thinking Of White Women
posted by notheotherone at 8:02 PM on January 24 [2 favorites]
However, the discourse the last couple of days around Barbie and the Oscars has really bothered me and this piece explains why better than I can:
The Barbie Snub Outrage Proves That When It Comes To Diversity, We’re Only Thinking Of White Women
posted by notheotherone at 8:02 PM on January 24 [2 favorites]
I forgot to mention that in addition to the issues covered in that piece, it's unfortunate that Barbie is being talked about as if it's the only movie made by women or with feminist themes this year. It wasn't. It's fine to be upset if your favorite movie didn't get nominations, this is a time honored Oscars tradition! But don't erase or ignore other films, nominations and snubs to do that or it starts to feel like only certain types of movies and people matter, presumably the exact same argument trying to be made in the first place.
posted by notheotherone at 8:09 PM on January 24 [3 favorites]
posted by notheotherone at 8:09 PM on January 24 [3 favorites]
Two things can be true at the same time:
- Women of color got overlooked again this year at the movies and that deserves more outrage than we are currently seeing
- Greta Gerwig getting snubbed at the Oscars is outrageous and deserves all the outrage it's getting
The attention being given to Barbie isn't stolen from the quota of attention that was, or should have been, set aside for overlooked WoC in the movies. Barbie is a box office phenomenon, and the level of attention it's getting is a consequence of its immense and utterly unlikely, extremely hard-won success.
I'm not going to say that its success had *nothing* to do with the fact that it's a movie that centers mostly white people, but nevertheless, acting like the attention rained on Barbie - as opposed to, say, the attention rained on Oppenheimer? or literally any other movie that got buzz this year - is what takes away from the attention due to WoC is .. kind of messed up. At least make a show of equally naming the other attention getters in your screeds too, instead of singling out the *only* feminist, female-centric movie which made its way into attention-getters club.
posted by MiraK at 7:49 AM on January 25 [5 favorites]
- Women of color got overlooked again this year at the movies and that deserves more outrage than we are currently seeing
- Greta Gerwig getting snubbed at the Oscars is outrageous and deserves all the outrage it's getting
The attention being given to Barbie isn't stolen from the quota of attention that was, or should have been, set aside for overlooked WoC in the movies. Barbie is a box office phenomenon, and the level of attention it's getting is a consequence of its immense and utterly unlikely, extremely hard-won success.
I'm not going to say that its success had *nothing* to do with the fact that it's a movie that centers mostly white people, but nevertheless, acting like the attention rained on Barbie - as opposed to, say, the attention rained on Oppenheimer? or literally any other movie that got buzz this year - is what takes away from the attention due to WoC is .. kind of messed up. At least make a show of equally naming the other attention getters in your screeds too, instead of singling out the *only* feminist, female-centric movie which made its way into attention-getters club.
posted by MiraK at 7:49 AM on January 25 [5 favorites]
Also, Robbie and Gerwig are both nominated as producers, yeah? And Gerwig is nominated for Adapted Screenplay.
And honestly, when you put Margot Robbie's performance in the film up against the performances of the five Best Actress nominees....she was just kinda "there", you know? She was good, don't get me wrong, but not "better than Emma Stone in Poor Things" level good.
As for Greta Gerwig losing the Best Director nomination - the Best Director category has been a boys' club for decades now. But I genuinely would not be surprised if this is going to trigger a Board of Governors investigation into seeing what's going on there, like what happened in the 90s when Hoop Dreams didn't get a nomination for Best Documentary or when the Academy changed its membership rules in part because of the OscarsSoWhite campaign.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:17 AM on January 25
And honestly, when you put Margot Robbie's performance in the film up against the performances of the five Best Actress nominees....she was just kinda "there", you know? She was good, don't get me wrong, but not "better than Emma Stone in Poor Things" level good.
As for Greta Gerwig losing the Best Director nomination - the Best Director category has been a boys' club for decades now. But I genuinely would not be surprised if this is going to trigger a Board of Governors investigation into seeing what's going on there, like what happened in the 90s when Hoop Dreams didn't get a nomination for Best Documentary or when the Academy changed its membership rules in part because of the OscarsSoWhite campaign.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:17 AM on January 25
Oh, a belated response to this:
The red carpet dresses themselves justify the cost of the ceremony.
There's a great quote from a past ceremony I remember, from a Best Short winner's acceptance speech. She said something like: "You know you're in new territory when the cost of your dress is bigger than the budget of your last movie."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:24 AM on January 25 [1 favorite]
The red carpet dresses themselves justify the cost of the ceremony.
There's a great quote from a past ceremony I remember, from a Best Short winner's acceptance speech. She said something like: "You know you're in new territory when the cost of your dress is bigger than the budget of your last movie."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:24 AM on January 25 [1 favorite]
I think it's also how you know the quote is from a "Best Short" winner -- big-category nominees don't mention costs; they're loaned designer dresses. In some instances the celebrities are paid by the designers, to advertise the brand. (Christian Siriano meets the needs of many non-sample-sized celebs: inclusive red-carpet wear.)
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:35 AM on January 26
posted by Iris Gambol at 9:35 AM on January 26
big-category nominees don't mention costs; they're loaned designer dresses. In some instances the celebrities are paid by the designers, to advertise the brand.
I was about to give a shout-out to Sharon Stone for wearing one of her own Gap t-shirts to the Oscars in 1996; but it turns out it wasn't a sort of convention-flouting rebellion after all. Turns out that she was supposed to have worn a designer gown on loan, but the Fedex delivery guy dropped it out the back of his truck and ran over the package, and destroyed it. So it was a last-minute emergency fix.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:23 AM on January 26
I was about to give a shout-out to Sharon Stone for wearing one of her own Gap t-shirts to the Oscars in 1996; but it turns out it wasn't a sort of convention-flouting rebellion after all. Turns out that she was supposed to have worn a designer gown on loan, but the Fedex delivery guy dropped it out the back of his truck and ran over the package, and destroyed it. So it was a last-minute emergency fix.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:23 AM on January 26
Every time the red carpet gets brought up, I remember an interview with an Oscar superfan that had earrings made out of scraps of prior red carpets.
The streets around my college apartment became a tent city the week before the Academy Awards.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:36 PM on January 26
The streets around my college apartment became a tent city the week before the Academy Awards.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:36 PM on January 26
« Older accounts and accountability... | The Next Last Airbender Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
- at least barbie is up for best picture
- but also omg wtf greta gerwig's not up for best director
- but also wtf omg margot robbie's not up for best actress
- omg people think it's a surprise that america ferrera is up for supporting actress?
also all awards are trash, i want to make clear that all awards would still be trash even if the dumb stuff above wasn't real.posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 9:34 AM on January 23 [34 favorites]