Holocaust Trumps All
February 23, 2005 7:13 PM   Subscribe

The 10 unwritten rules of Oscar "For the Academy, whatever stands out the most is best – even though, in terms of quality of work, it’s usually exactly the opposite: the less you notice something, the more accomplished it actaully is. But when it comes to second-guessing Oscar voters, it never hurts to ask yourself: Who did the “most” acting? Most editing? Most noticeable cinematography or music? Most conspicuous costumes or makeup or production design or screenwriting or directing?"
posted by Turtles all the way down (16 comments total)
Holocaust Trumps All

Wow...me think Ebert need to put on the asbestos underwear...
posted by sexymofo at 7:30 PM on February 23, 2005

I'm sorry, but someone with an impeccable reputation (or as close as one gets in lala land) within the industry needed to say precisely this for at least the past 25 years if not more. Kudos to him.

I mean, In other cases, an Oscar for a particular film can be seen as a kind of career achievement award – as could be the case if Martin Scorsese won for directing "The Aviator" this year. Nobody’s going to say that "The Aviator" is Scorsese’s best movie, but if he didn’t win for "Taxi Driver" or "Raging Bull" or "GoodFellas," you can’t say he doesn’t deserve a little bald guy for his mantelpiece.

yeah. you're damn right.

Maybe my faith in the academy can be renewed one day, if he isn't universally lombasted for writing this.
posted by shmegegge at 7:40 PM on February 23, 2005

and you know what else? I wonder how many of the fat man's predictions for this year from this article will come true?
posted by shmegegge at 7:44 PM on February 23, 2005

Despite Ebert's visage looming over the article, it was actually written by Jim Emerson.
posted by Bezbozhnik at 7:47 PM on February 23, 2005

well, then, I'm an idiot. But I still think the article is amazing.
posted by shmegegge at 8:04 PM on February 23, 2005

Actaully the article is a little less than amazing.
posted by underer at 8:08 PM on February 23, 2005

shmgegge: I don't think you're an idiot for clicking to an article on rogerebert.com with, as Besbozhnik points out, his (newly svelte, post salivary gland cancer mug) at the top, and assuming it's the work of the Great Man. And, further, I must assume that it reflects his opinion whether it's written by him or not. I go to the site frequently and was surprised at one point that there was someone else's byline over what I assumed to be his critique.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 8:14 PM on February 23, 2005

Actually, that's wrong: the reviews are still, as far as I know, written by Ebert. The extra editorial content is sometimes penned by Jim Emerson and possibly others. And it's actaully been been pretty good. ;-P
posted by Turtles all the way down at 8:17 PM on February 23, 2005

My thoughts.

Best Actor - Jamie Foxx. Pain, Period, Most Acting, semi-As I Lay Acting

Best Actress - Hilary Swank. no comment.

Best Director - Scorcese. Period, Karma, Most Directing, Pretty

Best Picture - Million Dollar Baby. no comment or,
Aviator. Period, Most Picture, Pretty, Karma, Pain
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:33 PM on February 23, 2005

Hey, that's exactly how someone I know voted. But he wasn't allowed to tell me. So I had to use some coercion tactics...
posted by kika at 8:39 PM on February 23, 2005

UM, is it just me, or does anyone else think that it will be a major travesty if Uma Thurman doesn't win an Oscar for Kill Bill?
posted by berek at 10:05 PM on February 23, 2005

As she's not nominated, berek, that may prove a bit difficult for her... Unless AMPAS allows write-ins or something, which isn't likely.
posted by incomple at 11:59 PM on February 23, 2005

now wait just a minute, here...

I'm not an idiot? I need to make sure, because my mom's on the line and swears she heard differently.

posted by shmegegge at 12:53 AM on February 24, 2005

Sorry, my mistake (she *is* your mom) ;-)
posted by Turtles all the way down at 3:40 AM on February 24, 2005

the only Best Picture winners in the last 20 years to be set in contemporary times (real or fantasy) were "Rain Man," "The Silence of the Lambs," and "American Beauty"

That really is astounding, and if I'd read it anywhere else, I'd have thought it were BS. Bizarre.
posted by stinkycheese at 11:38 AM on February 24, 2005

And now the link doesn't work any more...
posted by tozturk at 4:02 PM on March 2, 2005

« Older The truth behind the first cheesy special effects   |   blazoned arrangements Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments