>wow great thread Guys and what movies are about.... as far as whos the best or impacted the most.. personally I view it as like a record collection.. each record has a different feel... and to say the beatles are the best, or that Stan Getz, or Bach would be absurd.. Imagine if they had classical Oscars?? Or what if we voted on the best Book of altime... ? well they say the Bible is the largest in print.. But then we break it into Genres.. and interest,, as LikeDavid sia I too likeLincoln material historically.. so I would probably hold interest as I have heard folklore and all and they researched stuff like his pitch of voice,, etc.. and in my case I recently sold a hand crank movie camera to the Abraham Lincoln museum and discused with the curator Lincoln in films as Speiberg was in Virgina shooting the movie with Lewis.. yet it sonds long.. and lots of dialog and im ADD so i may not have the patience as many may not
As far as ridley Scoot... I think of him more as visual then as a story teller,,, as there are storytellers and then Visual magicians... when they combine those abilities you get a Movie story.. what I like is when a movie takes me on a journey where the suspension of disbelief is raised,.... films like " Back to the future" allowed me to escape in a make beleif enviroment of fantasy.. which can be fun... so did Raiders of the lost ark... as they are things we wonder about but seldom do.. The war Films allowed me to visit reality of things that happened..and awoke me to history and many things saddened methey happened like WW2 and the holocost... etc...Comedys offer escape also and a way to laugh at our own blunders and others like FDumb and dumber.... action heros alow us to be superheros and overcome adversity... and romance allows us to consider Love and romance.. so they all serve a purpose.. and there are majectic films in all catagories... and to pinpoint one director as best or one actor,or really anything is out of my personal ability.. because like songs, artists and painters, sure i have some that I deeply admire like Richard Amsel and Drew Struzan, Peak, alvin, frazzetta, and many others and each has a signature style..Howevere its the diversity that makes films so neat.. and the varied techniques.. Remember when the noir low ligh ofBladerunner came in and the wet streets,, that was part because they made more sensitive low light film stocks.. the 70s had that UGLY high exposure yellow over exposed eastman stock that fades and needed lots of light... so the industry changed.. now they can shoot with no lights in dark,,,, and tweak in ost production... so beauty in in the eyes of the beholder,,,, as we saw with the new rage to make shaky shots and now they try to look oldshool with scratches on the film intentionally..LOL as far as Orson well Hitchcok and all the early directors and all... they each had a view a , idea ,light spiebergs uses of catching ambiant lights from flashlights,,, would probably have given 30s cinenatographers a stroke... anyways ... Spielberg is a great storyteller and allowsus to imagine what a Kids fantasy was,, also laltely what a adults questions are,, as we aged with Steven... will it sell Tickets??? well not if we are appealing to demographics of movie buyers.. But sometimes its just hitting a note that appeals to everyone.. that is shared..... like a virile Youtube video.. Or a Michael Jackson... I always have told my son that there are no rules for Phenonenon or everyone could creat ,, a new beatles, a new star wars.. I think some people just get lucky and have passion and the project works.. liek a Toy story... or Gone with the wind... Margret almost didnt pitch the book as she wasnt even a real author and look at what happened.. same with Steven King... sowith all that said... I hope Steven doesnt think that the academys lack of awarding him Oscars means anything as he has the publics vote by his salesof people seeing and buying the films...Just as most commercial artist learn... for those that dont sell volume.. they too do ok as they can get critical praise by peers and a select few... but neither the commercial artist or the critical artists are really any different in my book....:) we need all kinds to make the ADD people of the world... happy.. as they have the attention span of tiny nats,,:)thanks To the academy and to all the little people that make the film industry really work.....:) > > >---- Original Message ---- >From: jboh...@aol.com >To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 17:04:13 -0500 > >>I think David has come to his senses a little by mentioning Ridley >Scott who in my humble opinion has never made a bad film...he has >made some movies on odd subject matters but the films never have been >turkeys like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and AI to mention a few. >> >>But I would add that possibly the greatest "living director" at the >moment is arguably Francis Ford Coppola...OK he has not turned out >much lately but Godfather, Godfather 2 and Apocalypse Now stand >supreme and in my opinion Godfather far exceeds Citizen Kane. >> >>But we can go over this subject many times. Spielberg's best has to >be between Empire of the Sun and Schindlers List. But we can go on >picking and picking. >> >>Ultimately the beginning of this thread was about Oscars and why >Spielberg hasn't got it for Lincoln. I remain cynical. Oscars are >lobbied for by the studios and go to the films, directors etc that >don't necessarily deserve them. The reward surely has to come from >the audience and ticket sales. Lincoln maybe a tour de force in >directing and acting...but it hasn't got an Aston Martin DB5 with >machine guns or the Starship Enterprise...which way will ticket sales >go? >> >>One thing we have to admit to and admire is that the huge >blockbusters that Speilberg has made and produced and had a producer >title on have enabled him to make films that he wants to. >> >>As a footnote I would also add that Clint Eastwood has to be one of >the great living directors as well. Everything comes in on or under >budget, everything makes a profit and name a bad film Clint has >directed...like Ridley Scott, Clint has made a few odd subject films >but everything has been made with an eye for detail and quality. >> >> >>Ade >> >> >> >> >> >> This never happened to the other fella... >> >>Adrian Cowdry >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: David Kusumoto <davidmkusum...@hotmail.com> >>To: MoPo-L <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU> >>Sent: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 21:31 >>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >> >> >> >> >>* Wow! A lot of well-written posts on this thread. >> >>* I was talking to my wife about "Lincoln" last night and she >pointedly reminded me that some of her friends thought "Lincoln" was >dull-dull-dull - and I was forced to confess that my intense interest >in "Lincoln" was related to my background in intl. political science >and journalism. No, she insists, not everyone will like "Lincoln" >because it's a talky picture lacking a strong emotional pull for >general audiences. It has no action scenes except during its very >flawed beginning. Hence many viewers, she said, will strongly >disagree with my view that it's a "classic." Well, it was >emotionally engaging to me even though I concede that what you bring >to the table matters and I'm clearly biased. And Doug rightly says, >"to each his own." >> >>* Meanwhile, I think Phil's comment about "Shakespeare in Love" >winning Best Picture (1998) - as being equivalent to "Argo's" win >over "Lincoln" - is funny because I thought the same, but I wasn't >going to go "there" because since 1998, I have been defending >"Private Ryan" to a large group of mostly international movie fans >who continue to hate this film with a passion because of its >American-centric story-line and its "teary and manipulative" bookends >- despite "Ryan's" cinematic breakthroughs, i.e., the spectacular >staging of the brutal D-Day landing on Omaha Beach, the slower >shutter speeds of the battle scenes and the desaturated colors of the >entire picture. I don't think "Argo's" win was the same kind of >"robbery" nor will generate the hue and cry that "Shakespeare in >Love" did when Weinstein campaigned heavily to snare the Best Picture >award from "Ryan," the latter a film that critics in both the U.K. >and the U.S. asserted - at the time - represented a milestone in the >art of film. >> >>* As far as Spielberg himself - Adrian and I have had a friendly >debate going on about him for more than 12 years I think. We're >never going to change each other's minds and I agree Spielberg has a >tendency to over-sentimentalize his pictures and to manipulate his >audiences with his brand of storytelling. But while I concede that >he is not a perfect director and has turned out a large share of >duds, I will also argue that Spielberg has enough sterling >accomplishments on his resume, more than 1 or 2 films I would argue - >to earn a glorified place in the history of cinema. The fact that I >even have to defend the man after more than 40 years is a testament >to the polarizing figure he remains to movie fans - and to people >working in the industry. No, he is not Martin Scorsese (but have you >seen the quality of Scorsese's output lately?) - but Spielberg is >still, despite his faults, constitutionally incapable of turning out >a technically inept film. It was Orson Welles who told Peter >Bogdanovich that you don't need a lot of masterpieces to be canonized >in film history, that "you only need one." And yet "Citizen Kane" >clearly isn't for anyone nor does it tug at everyone's heart strings. > Spielberg's body of work, in my view, has surpassed a lot of other >directors by a country mile. >> >>* Finally, there's a third "still living" director who is an >all-time fave of mine - who I forgot to mention - who I feel has been >treated MORE EGREGIOUSLY than Spielberg. And that's Brit director >Ridley Scott. Yes, he's churned out a few duds, but so has every >legendary director like Billy Wilder. Ridley Scott has had a >wonderful career spanning multiple genres! He's the "old man" of >group and still Oscar eludes him. Any man, like Spielberg, who can >produce even 2-3 "greats" amid a long list of duds - can be forgiven, >in my book, for those duds. And Scott is a dynamic director who is >LONG OVERDUE. Yes, the Oscars are frivolous and "irrelevant," but if >you win one, it's always in the first line in EVERY obituary you read >about the passing of someone in the industry. -d. >> >> >> >>From: douglasbtay...@hotmail.com >>To: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com; MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>Subject: RE: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >>Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 00:55:34 -0500 >> >>David, >> >>I always enjoy your comments and posts. >> >>I dont think it was a great year for films, although it seems we >rarely have great years anymore, consequently our standards may have >dropped a bit. Having said that, the film quality this year may have >actually been above the recent average. >> >>Certainly it was a magnificent year for individual performances. >Wow, what choices! It was impossible to pick best actor or actress >because there were so many deserving nominees. >> >>For Director, I happen to think Ang Lee was the correct choice. >What a vision he had to have to make that film. >> >>Regarding Silver Linings, it reminded me of Goodbye Girl. Romantic >comedies will never really stand up against an amazing drama, but >Linings and Goodbye Girl both combined intelligent scripts with >outstanding performances that resulting in Best Picture nominations. >Neither won, or probably deserved to win, but both are at the highest >and most intelligent levels of the genre. >> >>Back to Lincoln, I left the film thinking it was very interesting to >get a view of what may have really been happening during that >important time in our history, but feeling the film was flat. >Interesting, spectacular cinematography, incredible performances by >DDL and Spader, but surprisingly little energy and little impact on >me. >> >>Interestingly, I was in Manila a few weeks ago for meetings. One of >our employees, Boris, had flown from his home in Hungary to attend >our meetings in Manila. He was born and raised behind the iron >curtain and was educated in the Soviet system. Boris is decidedly >socialist and skeptical of everything American. I had him attend >meetings with me in Orlando a year or so ago and I took all our group >to dinner at a Cuban/Spanish fusion restaurant called Colombia. It >was located at the idyllic, former Disney, community called >Celebration. Boris spent the entire evening asking to see the >ghettos. Ive read my whole life about the ghettos in the US and >I want to see them. Where are they? >> >>Anyway, in Manila I asked Boris how his flight was coming over and >he said I watched Lincoln. I asked what he thought of it and he >said he actually hadnt watched because when it began with the scene >of Lincoln talking to the two soldiers he found it so contrived that >he couldnt watch anymore. >> >>Of course, I did watch more but his comment resonated with me and >was actually something I had felt about the film but hadnt been able >to articulate. For me, there were several moments that made me feel >that way. >> >>To each his own, I guess. In the end, I feel fortunate to have so >many hours of enjoyment from movies at all good or great. >> >>Regards >> >>DBT >> >>Profile >> >> >> >>CC: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >>From: fly...@pacbell.net >>Subject: Re: [MOPO] OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In >Hollywood. >>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 21:32:42 -0800 >>To: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com >> >>I'm with you David. One person who got robbed during the award >season was Michael Pena for END OF WATCH. >>I was glad to see Matthew McConaughey (sp?!!!) win a Spirit Award >for best supporting actor in MAGIC MIKE. He was great!! >>Toochis >> >>Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >>Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:37:20 -0800 >>From: davidmkusum...@hotmail.com >>Subject: Re: OT - Why Steven Spielberg Is A Loser In Hollywood. >>To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU >> >> >> >>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 McDaniel >>www.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, nor 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 (1980), Mel >Gibson (1995), Kevin Costner (1990) and Clint Eastwood (1992 and >2004). Of the aforementioned winners, in my view, only Eastwood for >"Unforgiven" (1992) 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 >> >> >>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 Scorsese 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 Loser >>Once 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-ho >llywoods-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 its Lincoln, he said. Its like not voting for George >Washington. And you really feel like you get to know Lincoln. We >cant 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-Lewiss 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, its 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 Mens >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 wont 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 Hollywoods 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, Hollywoods 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-a >nd-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. >> >> >> >> 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 >. >> >> 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.
