Yes, I agree, Doug. In my first public post about "Lincoln" in late December -
I noted the picture does have a few "self consciously noble moments," and that
scene you mention is the most obvious. But after that, I really got into the
dialogue, the horse-trading, the political shrewdness of Lincoln trying
desperately to get the 13th Amendment passed before the end of the Civil War.
Lincoln the man (vs. the legend) - truly "came alive" in DDL's perf, and I
forgot about DDL after awhile. "Silver Linings Playbook"
was easily the most "crowd pleasing" of the nominees, as gales of
laughter could be heard from start-to-finish at the screening I
attended. I would not have been too disappointed if "Playbook" had won, but I
really felt the "Ben Affleck-George Clooney" factor, combined with Affleck
being snubbed as best director - were heavily responsible for "Argo's" win at
the expense of all of the other nominees for Best Picture. -d.
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 22:07:09 -0500
From: douglasbtay...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
I thought Silver Linings was Best Picture, followed by Argo. Lincoln would
have been 3-5 on my ballot.
DDL and Spader were great, but I found the film uninspired and a bit
manipulative from the opening scene of the conversation between Lincoln and the
two soldiers.
Regards
DBT
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:57:29 -0600
From: ki...@movieart.net
Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
I
responded to David K., but I'll go ahead a post to the entire list. I
agree with David and Franc on this one entirely. I'm not what anyone
would characterize as a huge Spielberg fan, although I recognize
his enormous accomplishments in purveying popular films. In my book he
has had several particularly satisfying films - SCHINDLER'S LIST, E.T.,
and a few others. But LINCOLN is an extraordinary film driven by an
extraordinary script adapted from an extraordinary book with
extraordinary performances. Is that enough "extraordinaries" fer ya? I
enjoyed ARGO; it was entertaining. But clearly Spielberg and company
were robbed. I think the sorry decision to have 9 best picture
nominations is going to produce what I'll bet are (regrettably)
"plurality" decisions like this one.
I thank
Steven Spielberg for bringing together this great pool of talent and
leaving us with a picture that generations will enjoy again and again.
Kirby McDanielwww.movieart.net
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:10:27 -0800
From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Franc, I'm not only with you all the way with "Lincoln," but I have already
"declared" that in my mind, it is a towering achievement, an historical event,
a classic. As I posted on FB, I saw 8 of the 9 best picture nominees - and I
thought "Lincoln" was Spielberg's best and most accomplished film since
"Schindler's List." I have the "Lincoln" one-sheet hanging on the wall behind
my computer as I write this. I also thought Tony Kushner was robbed. "Argo"
is OK, but not eloquent, not ground breaking, not special in any way memorable.
For "Argo" to win Best Picture AND Best Screenplay over the likes of "Lincoln"
was criminal - and reminded me of the "vote for us" syndrome of the acting
branch, e.g., see Robert Redford, Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner and Clint Eastwood.
Of the aforementioned winners, in my view, only Eastwood for "Unforgiven"
(2002) was truly deserving. Gene Seymour of CNN said the "Argo" win was an
example of Hollywood kissing itself, e.g., Academy members voting for a
movie... "whose success will benefit as many people in the industry as possible
(Go Ben!) - and/or a movie that reflects Hollywood's best image of itself."
Well history will prove the Academy wrong, just like how it got it wrong
picking "Crash" as the Best Picture of 2005. "Lincoln" was not just good, it
was great, a masterpiece of writing and acting. The only thing that would have
made me madder Sunday night was if Daniel Day Lewis had LOST. -d.
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 20:09:53 -0500
From: fdav...@verizon.net
Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Message
Very
interesting reading, David. Thanks for sharing them. Somehow after
Ben Affleck got the DGA award, I knew Steven Spielberg and Lincoln were going
to
be shunned by the Oscars. It's a shame because in my opinion while Argo was
clearly a good film, Lincoln was a monumental film that is destined to become a
classic.
FRANC
-----Original Message-----
From: MoPo List
[mailto:mopo-l@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU] On Behalf Of David
Kusumoto
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:55 PM
To:
MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven
Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood.
A pair of
interesting stories evaluating why Steven Spielberg - who, along with
pre-1996 Martin Scorcese are
my favorite
"still-living" directors of all
time - is a big loser when it comes to winning awards. "Argo" was fine, but
I thought "Lincoln" and the
"Silver Linings Playbook" were better. Meanwhile, this year's Oscars
telecast with Seth MacFarlane made me vomit in my mouth a
little. The first article is from Buzz Feed, the
second is from the NY Times. - d.
“Argo” Win Makes Steven Spielberg Hollywood's
Biggest LoserOnce again, the
Best Picture prize slips from his hands. What does Hollywood have against its
most
successful resident?
by Richard Rushfield - BuzzFeed Staff
Writer, February 24, 2013
Image by Mario
Anzuoni / Reuters
Tonight,
Hollywood officially turned its back on its king. Again. The triumph of
Argo in the Best Picture race, snatching victory
from the jaws of Lincoln brings
Steven Spielberg's win-loss record to a dismal one victory in seven at bats
for entertainment's biggest prize.
And tonight, not only did he lose
out on the Best Picture prize that once seemed his, but the consolation prize
of Best Director, the category in which Argo's Affleck was
not even nominated, was also snatched away and handed to Life of Pi's Ang Lee.
For a man who is
widely considered Hollywood's godfather — who is in his unbelievable fifth
decade at the top of the heap, who has reigned untouchable since before many
of today's young directors were born — facing up to yet another defeat at the
hands of his people starts to look like a clear and consistent rebuff.
Worse still, Spielberg's films are not just
distant also rans. Most of his seven nominated films were at some point in
their campaigns considered favorites to win the whole thing, making Spielberg
the Academy's Charlie Brown, forever having the football pulled away.
This year in particular. for a brief moment between the Oscar
nominations being announced and the Golden Globes, Spielberg's Lincoln looked
like a shoo-in to win the prize. Only
to see Argo stage a last minute surge and steal its
thunder again.
So to what do we attribute this ongoing
snub? Chalk it up to Hollywood's love/hate relationship with its greats. The
number one thing Hollywood hates is failure. The sad fates of those who have
fallen beneath the C list demonstrate every day how little empathy the town
has for those who can't soar with the eagles.
But the number two thing
Hollywood hates is success. Praying for the downfall of its mighty is
practically the industry's official religion.
Spielberg these days is such a venerable figure that one can easily
forget his historically troubled history with the Academy. After receiving
one
for a Best Picture nominations for his first outing — Jaws, but then being
denied for nearly a decade that followed, Oscar
finally broken down and ponied up nods for E.T. — when it became the day's
highest grossing of all time — and
Color Purple.
But both those films still lost out on
the grand prizes, and to add insult, he was shut out in Best Director
category
throughout the 70s and 80s as well.
After the
Color Purple loss, Academy officials were so alarmed by the
serial snubbing of Hollywood's most successful director that they took the
unheard of step of bestowing upon Spielberg at age 40 the Thalberg Lifetime
achievement award, until then reserved for septuagenarians at the end of
their
careers.
It wasn't until seven years later, when he made a three hour
holocaust film that Oscar finally couldn't deny giving him their grand prize
for Schindler's
List. But since then, it has
been a 20 year sea of also-rans.
Of course, he
hasn't gone completely unrecognized. Eight Best Picture nominations is
something most directors will never even dream of. Add to that, two Best
Directing awards making him the most awarded director since William Wyler in
the 1950's.
But still, somehow the Best Picture prize
keeps sliding from his grasp, and for a man at the top of Hollywood, to be
the
town's perpetual also-ran in its biggest contest has to be
galling.
In a town with — despite the disruptive
presence of the internet — a fixed number of studios and a shrinking number
of
major releases, entertainment remains a zero-sum game. Celebrating the
achievement of the man with a permanent position on top is never entirely in
one's best interest (unless you're doing it to his face).
And in a
place where, as William Goldman famously put it, "no one knows anything" and
everyone knows that they don't know anything, seeing the mighty stumble does
even the chaotic playing field a bit.
But even more to
the point, as big a business as entertainment is, even as it stands as
America's #1 export, the residents of Hollywood still need to think of
themselves as scrappy outsiders, the oppressed souls who fled the closed
minds
back in their small towns and came to a place where at last they could
breathe
the air of artistic freedom.
The fact that this is the story of almost
no one in modern Hollywood, dampens its power not a bit. Even as they drive
their $50,000 hybrids paid for by CGI-explosion fests, Hollywood's need to
think of itself as The Oppressed Outsiders holds an undying power.
In choosing their Best Picture each year, the members of the
Academy choose what story they want to tell the world about Hollywood. First
there is the story the film tells on the screen; and in recent years these
have become trended heavily towards the edgier, hipper end of the dead center
of middlebrow filmmaking; Oscar has ceased awarding the schmaltzy
Braveheart's and Driving Miss Daisy's
that paint the industry as a place of uptight squares in favor of Slumdog
Millionaire's and Hurt Locker's.
Even a thriller like Argo is animated by
a minimalist aesthetic that speaks to restrained, hipster sensibilities far
more than the genre winners of a decade or two ago.
But more than the story on the screen, Oscar likes to tell a good
story off the screen about the making of a film. And however contorted and
difficult the journey of a Spielberg film to get to the multi-plex (and
Lincoln did take thirteen years) in the end,
"Billionaire Hollywood Titan Makes Good Movie", is not a tale to inspire the
unwashed masses.
On the awards trail this year, Ben Affleck
ran circles around Spielberg playing up the gracious,
just-happy-to-be-allowed-back comeback story. He showed up at all the events,
was warm and self-deprecating. People who remembered how far he fell
post-Gigli could not help but be touched by his
redemption story. And when the empire seemed to be rubbing it in by shutting
him out of the Best Director nominations, they rallied to his side.
In
contrast, Spielberg, as he always is when he gets into an Oscar race, went
into a heavily managed bunker posture, limiting his appearances, keeping his
interviews to few, appearing handled and protected at every turn.
The fact of the matter is that a heavily guarded, insulated oligarch is
much closer to the true face of Hollywood than a vanquished actor giving one
more chance to redeem himself, as an artist. But its not about what story is
true, it's about what story projects the way Hollywood would like to think of
itself.
The shame of it is, the real Spielberg on
the rare moments when he emerges from behind the palace gates is a wonderful
story and a wonderful story teller. He has had a career like no other of his
generation, has in his time taken enormous risks both as an artist and
producer that have led to be triumphs and disappointments. He is responsible
for a busload of films high and low destined to stand the test of time.
And when he submits to interviews, he is warm, gracious, avuncular,
undefensive and endlessly fascinating with five decades of filmmaking stories
under his belt.
However, he is also, as this race shows
again, all too willing to play the mighty mogul on high. And in the end, the
fear that position inspires might keep him at the top of the industry, but as
he has discovered once more, it doesn't make Hollywood see him as its
ambassador to the world.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/richardrushfield/argo-win-makes-spielberg-hollywoods-biggest-loser
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oscar-Winning Lessons in History and Hard
Sell
By MELENA RYZIK for the NEW YORK TIMES
February 27, 2013
LOS ANGELES — A few months into
awards season, at a party celebrating another movie, a veteran
actor-writer-director-producer, who takes his Academy Awards duties very
seriously, whispered to me that he was sure “Lincoln” would win big on Oscar
night.
“Because it’s Lincoln,” he said. “It’s like not voting for
George Washington. And you really feel like you get to know Lincoln. We can’t
not vote for our favorite president.”
The more than 6,000 members of the Academy of
Motion Picture Arts and Sciences apparently did not see it as their patriotic
duty to vote for “Lincoln” or its director, Steven Spielberg.
Daniel
Day-Lewis’s win for his performance demystifying the 16th president was not
compensation.
Mr. Spielberg, one studio boss said, looked stricken
when he lost the best director award to Ang Lee.
In the days after
“Argo” won best picture at the ceremony on Sunday, it’s been a parlor game
among Hollywood types to figure out why “Lincoln” lost. After all, it had all
the hallmarks of an Academy Award-dominating film: a venerated director; a
celebrated, erudite scriptwriter in the Pulitzer Prize-winning Tony Kushner;
a
landmark role for Mr. Day-Lewis; good reviews and even better box office;
and,
not least, millions to spend on campaigning.
Lobbying voters is
frowned on by the Academy and yet a necessity of the monthslong award cycle.
This season, insiders said, the team behind “Lincoln” — executives at
DreamWorks and Disney — overcampaigned, leaving voters with the unpleasant
feeling that they were being force-fed a highly burnished history lesson. “It
was a good movie, not sliced bread,” one veteran awards watcher
said.
Overreaching was perhaps a failure of the broadcast itself too. The
host, Seth MacFarlane, and the producers, Neil Meron and Craig Zadan, tried
to
marry old-school showbiz panache with “provocative” humor and the result was
an entertainment grab bag: the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles; a
foul-mouthed
talking teddy bear; splashy song-and-dance numbers for every conceivable
demographic (save anybody who likes hip-hop); Captain Kirk; sock puppets
(sock
puppets!); racist, sexist punch lines that seemed lifted from the
insult-comic
era; and the first lady of the United States. About the only things missing
were kitten videos and the Harlem Shake (but in blackface).
But since the ratings
were up slightly, especially in the coveted 18-to-49 age bracket, and despite
some high-level protests — the reviews were not entirely scathing, the
production could ultimately be considered a success. (Mr. MacFarlane, though,
has already said he won’t be back as host.)
In a
three-and-a-half-hour spectacle of glossy celebration for a roomful of
superstars dripping with jewels and self-regard, the question of how much is
too much may seem moot. But with the right tone and perspective, even that
ego
parade can seem fun to watch. In choosing Mr. MacFarlane in its quest for a
younger, more male viewership, the Academy sacrificed its central
constituency
— women make up the majority of the Oscar audience — and fomented cultural
battles in an awards season already full of them.
Then again, it was the
political posturing that made this one of the most interesting Oscar races in
recent memory. As the vibrant discussion of just how much truth bending is
acceptable in fact-based movies shows, authenticity — or at least the
perception of authenticity — still counts.
Though it took liberties
with its story, “Argo” squeaked by on truthiness. It also triumphed as a
consensus choice in a field of high-quality candidates, each with its own
passionate faction of defenders. As Mr. Spielberg himself said, when he lost
the Directors Guild Award to Ben Affleck and “Argo,” “There have been moments
when I wish it was a slightly less incredible year for movies.”
There may have been
other reasons “Lincoln” fell by the wayside. Dimly illuminated, to replicate
the lighting of the period, and stuffed with long passages of speechifying by
waistcoated, bearded men, the film did not play well on DVD screeners (nor,
perhaps, did another historically based competitor, “Zero Dark Thirty”).
Cynics also say that Mr. Spielberg, as Hollywood’s reigning titan, was
primed for a takedown — envy being as motivating a force as greed in this
industry — and that voters were enthralled by the comeback story that Mr.
Affleck represented.
Somehow Mr. Affleck could not overcampaign, or
at least, his combination of movie-star charm and tabloid comeuppance won
people over. Also, he talked film references like an expert. Which, having
won
an Oscar at 25 (for writing “Good Will Hunting” with Matt Damon) after a
career as a child actor, this college dropout turned director pretty much
is.
Casual viewers often wonder if Oscar victory comes down to something
simpler: who makes the best movie. It does not. Nor does the funniest person
make the best Oscar host. There is a narrative to both endeavors, a
combination of self-effacement and artistry (voilà, Mr. Lee), being of the
moment and timeless, that is hard to pull off. Mr. Spielberg will no doubt
try
again, and in the meantime he and the other also-rans can console themselves
with another prize, Hollywood’s ultimate popularity contest: record-breaking
ticket sales.
And next year, may we suggest to the Academy, hire Jennifer Lawrence to
host.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/movies/awardsseason/lincoln-argo-and-oscar-winners-and-losers.html?nl=movies&emc=edit_fm_20130301&_r=0
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
