Oscar "Best Film" catagory.

[peter]

Just wondered - Does anyone else on the Watch make a point of seeing all the films nominated in the above catagory. There seems to be more than usual this year, with the list running as follows:-

The Black Swan, The Kings Speech, The Social Network, True Grit, Inception, Winters Bone, Toy Story 3, The Fighter, The Kids Are Alright, 127 Hours.

I've seen the first five on the above list and would be hard placed to pick a winner, though it wouldn't be The Social Network for me (I'm a bit too old to have much interest in the Facebook thing). I'm very much looking forward to seeing 127 Hours as I just loved Slumdog Millionaire and have liked most of Danny Boyle's films to date. Also Winter's Bone has it's appeal to me, but I can't say the others really grab me much. I'll definitely see them all however just in the manner of collecting a set of prints

ps. Can anyone explain how it is that the 'Best Director' need not make the 'Best Film'. I never qiute got that as it seems to me a logical step that the criterea for the judgement of a director has to be the quality of the film he makes. (Or could it be the one that the actors like best. ie Lets them skip off to the pub and stuff when they should be practicing their lines and whatnot. Naaaah......Surely not!)

[aliantha]

peter, I'm gonna move this to Flicks. Not that we couldn't use the post count here in GenDisc, but...

[peter]

peter, I'm gonna move this to Flicks. Not that we couldn't use the post count here in GenDisc, but...

No probs Aliantha - one of these days I'll get my head around what goes where on the Watch

[Vraith]

Just wondered - Does anyone else on the Watch make a point of seeing all the films nominated in the above catagory. There seems to be more than usual this year, with the list running as follows:-

The Black Swan, The Kings Speech, The Social Network, True Grit, Inception, Winters Bone, Toy Story 3, The Fighter, The Kids Are Alright, 127 Hours.

I've seen the first five on the above list and would be hard placed to pick a winner, though it wouldn't be The Social Network for me (I'm a bit too old to have much interest in the Facebook thing). I'm very much looking forward to seeing 127 Hours as I just loved Slumdog Millionaire and have liked most of Danny Boyle's films to date. Also Winter's Bone has it's appeal to me, but I can't say the others really grab me much. I'll definitely see them all however just in the manner of collecting a set of prints

ps. Can anyone explain how it is that the 'Best Director' need not make the 'Best Film'. I never qiute got that as it seems to me a logical step that the criterea for the judgement of a director has to be the quality of the film he makes. (Or could it be the one that the actors like best. ie Lets them skip off to the pub and stuff when they should be practicing their lines and whatnot. Naaaah......Surely not!)

There seem to be more nominees cuz there are: certain categories of Oscar have been extended to 10 choices, to increase the options/display a broader range of what is being done/made/offered in film.

As to the P.S.: The best film must have the best director is an artifact of "auter" theory of film criticism...basically saying [if we were talking Literature] that the best book must have had the best author. But I don't believe in that...film depends on too many people doing too many different jobs for this to always be the case [though sometimes it certainly is.] For instance, a great film [potentially] can be awful if one, some, or all the actors fall down on the job...and a mediocre film made great by inspired performances...and the same can happen due to sets, lights, costumes, camerapersons, editors, screenwriter...etc.
Some of the people voting always are taking into account not only what film the director produced, but how much did the director accomplish with the material he had? [for example, "with the right staff and script ANYONE could have made a good film out of it" will get beat out [sometimes] by "I can't believe how good that film is with all the crap she had to work with."]
[heh...happens with coach of the year in football, too].

[danlo]

I really want to see 127 Hours, True Grit (I've never seen the original), Inception and The Fighter. We almost saw The Fighter Friday, but decided to spend the $ on a great Valentine's dinner. When you have a 5 year old your movie going priorities change, I guess-after Tangled and the 40 dollars that somehow disappeared while watching Voyage of the Dawn Treader in not so hot 3-D-my movie budget was pretty well shot.

[aliantha]

I've seen "The King's Speech" and "True Grit" (both of 'em), which is two more Best Picture nominees than I see in a typical year. Both were really good. I thought "The King's Speech" was outstanding, and imho the Coen brothers improved on the original, John Wayne's absence notwithstanding.

Wanted to see "The Kids Are All Right" but never got there; I'll have to Netflix it. "Toy Story 3" is already in my queue -- maybe I'll try to move it up. No interest in "127 Hours" or "The Fighter".

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Apparentely the Coen Brothers followed the actual novel while the John Wayne version was simply a way for John Wayne to play another character--the movie was more about him that the story. Incidentally, his portayal of Cogburn in True Grit was his only Oscar nomination (if I recall the facts correctly).

[Cagliostro]

The Black Swan, The Kings Speech, The Social Network, True Grit, Inception, Winters Bone, Toy Story 3, The Fighter, The Kids Are Alright, 127 Hours.

I used to see them all each year, or nearly all if I was broke. Like Danlo said, priorities change when you have kids. We typically do not go out to the theater these days, so I try to watch what I can when I can.

I was able to get out to the theater to see True Grit, unfortunately, as if I had my pick, I would have rather seen Black Swan. I know it would have appealed to me more. I've also seen Inception thanks to the drive-in, Toy Story 3 thanks to Costco having it cheap, and The Kids Are Alright thanks to Netflix. While I haven't seen the bigger contenders (although The Kids Are Alright has done pretty well), I'd say the movie I enjoyed the most was Toy Story 3, which almost certainly has no chance at Best Picture.

[Cambo]

I've seen 4 of these: Inception, Winter's Bone, Toy Story 3, and True Grit.

My nomination out of those would probably be Winter's Bone, followed closely by Toy Story 3. Inception and True Grit are exellent films, but both WB and TS3 had that moments that achieved transcendence. Both are among the best movies I've ever seen.

[aliantha]

Apparentely the Coen Brothers followed the actual novel while the John Wayne version was simply a way for John Wayne to play another character--the movie was more about him that the story. Incidentally, his portayal of Cogburn in True Grit was his only Oscar nomination (if I recall the facts correctly).

It was also one of the last, if not *the* last, film he ever made. I think the nomination was as much for his body of work as for his performance in "True Grit".

Anybody remember who played LaBoeuf and Mattie in the original movie? Anyone? Buehler?














Time's up!

Glen Campbell, of all people, played the bounty hunter, and did a surprisingly credible job. Kim Darby played the girl. I think the Coen brothers did a *much* better job casting the roles in the new version, tho. Hailee Steinfeld was amazing as Mattie. And I didn't even recognize Matt Damon as LaBoeuf, so he must've done a good job.

[finn]

Apparentely the Coen Brothers followed the actual novel while the John Wayne version was simply a way for John Wayne to play another character--the movie was more about him that the story. Incidentally, his portayal of Cogburn in True Grit was his only Oscar nomination (if I recall the facts correctly).

He was nominated 3 times; once for Best Picture (The Alamo - producer ) and twice as best actor in The Sands of Iwo Jima and for True Grit, which he won.

I think the Coen Brothers version is getting a bit more credit than it deserves in that the variations minor and hardly plot changing, the basic screenplay and film structure is pretty much a copy and even some of the dialogues is the same as Wayne's. More telling for me tho' is tho' is that Bridges plays John Wayne playing Rooster Cogburn. Whilst I enjoyed watching the new version, it was really like trying to critique a copy rather than the original. As such I find it kinda odd that it would be considered for an award.

I also think its time the Oscars decided what they are supposed to be. They are given a global significance but all too often fall short globally by focussing on purely American or even just Hollywood concerns. In a much smaller world, where the movie-going audience of America is a small % of the buying public, should the Oscars not broaden its scope to consolidate its status as the premiere "global" award?

[aliantha]

Finn, I see your point. They are pretty much US-centric, which made sense when Hollywood was the dominant player in movie-making. To be sure, most Americans who bother to see movies at all are watching American-made films. Even British films don't get much circulation here beyond the art houses, unless "Harry Potter" is in the title. (And of course, the Harry Potter films are made by Warner Bros., which is a Hollywood studio.)

Re "True Grit", don't get me wrong, I don't think Jeff Bridges deserves an Oscar (I think it should go to Colin Firth). I've not read the book, but I have to think that the bits of dialogue that people are complaining about might be straight from the book. (Reminds me of the reviewers who complained about the film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Phantom", saying the actor who played the good guy was too much of a wuss. That particular criticism made Batty crazy. She'd read the book, you see, and so she knew that the guy was *supposed* to be a wuss. )

[dANdeLION]

The only one I saw (so far) is Toy Story 3.

[sgt.null]

Toy Story 3, True Grit, the Fighter.

we own Inception now and will watch it soon.

[finn]

Finn, I see your point. They are pretty much US-centric, which made sense when Hollywood was the dominant player in movie-making. To be sure, most Americans who bother to see movies at all are watching American-made films. Even British films don't get much circulation here beyond the art houses, unless "Harry Potter" is in the title. (And of course, the Harry Potter films are made by Warner Bros., which is a Hollywood studio.)

Re "True Grit", don't get me wrong, I don't think Jeff Bridges deserves an Oscar (I think it should go to Colin Firth). I've not read the book, but I have to think that the bits of dialogue that people are complaining about might be straight from the book. (Reminds me of the reviewers who complained about the film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Phantom", saying the actor who played the good guy was too much of a wuss. That particular criticism made Batty crazy. She'd read the book, you see, and so she knew that the guy was *supposed* to be a wuss. )

Don't get me wrong, I liked the new version of True Grit (or perhaps didn't dislike it), I just don't see a reason to remake it as "a cover" and certainly no justification to put "a cover" in the list iof credit-worthy movies.

Despite the obvious short-comings of what socio/political ingredients should be included in the selection criteria, I do think that the Academy have the pole position on the grid to embrace a wider scope of work and be the "World Academy". How that will play out with protectionist views of studios actors/writers guilds etc is another question, but already distribution is starting to become web based and when that is the main delivery conduit we will have a truly global film making industry and movie watching audience. It only makes sense to widen the competitive base and give awards accordingly.

If the Academy do not do this I can see them being left behind and it won't be for want of warnings!

[Rigel]

I've seen Black Swan, Inception, and Toy Story 3. Which puts me ahead of where I am most years at this time I do try to see all the movies eventually, but I usually miss most of them.

As far as the american-ness of the academy... the AMPAS is comprised of members worldwide, but most of the members are americans. I suspect as more members join internationally we'll see more international films recognized.

[Usivius]

ps. Can anyone explain how it is that the 'Best Director' need not make the 'Best Film'. I never qiute got that as it seems to me a logical step that the criterea for the judgement of a director has to be the quality of the film he makes. (Or could it be the one that the actors like best. ie Lets them skip off to the pub and stuff when they should be practicing their lines and whatnot. Naaaah......Surely not!)

I, for one, have always felt it was kinda silly that "picture" and "director" were seperate. I mean I know why: it's so the Producer and Director can claim awards. "Picture" is the producer's award ... "the money" ... "Director is for the director. BUT, it's (supposedly) the director who is in charge of what ends up on the screen. If he doesn't like what an actor did, he does another take; if he doesn't like the score or editing, he has it done again... it's the director who is responsible for the end product.
(However nowadays they don't always get 'final cut'... another topic...)

[Cagliostro]

Apparentely the Coen Brothers followed the actual novel while the John Wayne version was simply a way for John Wayne to play another character--the movie was more about him that the story. Incidentally, his portayal of Cogburn in True Grit was his only Oscar nomination (if I recall the facts correctly).

It was also one of the last, if not *the* last, film he ever made. I think the nomination was as much for his body of work as for his performance in "True Grit".

Actually, I think there was a movie after "True Grit" called "Rooster Cogburn" that may have been his last film, if memory serves.

Okay, just looked it up on imdb - "The Shootist" was his last film. "Rooster Cogburn" was the movie just before that. I remember seeing both in the theater with my dad.

[aliantha]

Apparentely the Coen Brothers followed the actual novel while the John Wayne version was simply a way for John Wayne to play another character--the movie was more about him that the story. Incidentally, his portayal of Cogburn in True Grit was his only Oscar nomination (if I recall the facts correctly).

It was also one of the last, if not *the* last, film he ever made. I think the nomination was as much for his body of work as for his performance in "True Grit".

Actually, I think there was a movie after "True Grit" called "Rooster Cogburn" that may have been his last film, if memory serves.

Okay, just looked it up on imdb - "The Shootist" was his last film. "Rooster Cogburn" was the movie just before that. I remember seeing both in the theater with my dad.

Oh yeah, I vaguely remember being not very interested in seeing either one of those when they came out.

I never thought John Wayne was that great of an actor, to be perfectly honest. But my dad loved war pictures and Westerns, so we saw a lot of John Wayne movies on TV.... Anyway, that's why I said I thought the "True Grit" Oscar was for his body of work, rather than that particular role. He'd been at it for a long time by that point.

Here is one thing that puzzles me about the Coen brothers' remake: The dialogue contains no contractions. It sounded funny to me -- it's certainly not the way people talk -- and I've wondered whether it was an attempt to be faithful to the book, or whether they're making some other point.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

People have spoken using contractions for centuries but I don't think the book used them--contractions were not "proper" in literature at times in the past.

Or maybe they were trying to say something. Try talking without contractions for a couple of days to see how other people react.