Explananda :: Tomorrow’s Oscar Commentary Today

{ 2008 02 25 }

Tomorrow’s Oscar Commentary Today–The DAY OF Edition!!

Posted by Paul in: Movies

Apparently, the Academy is doing this because it snubbed this.

{ 9 }

Comments

Chris | 25-Feb-08 at 8:45 am | Permalink

I watched the Oscars last night for what must have been the first time since high school. The thing that really struck me was how badly the presenters were reading their lines. They’re actors – they’re supposed to be professionals – and they can’t read 20 seconds of text off a teleprompter properly.
Paul | 25-Feb-08 at 9:12 am | Permalink

Yeah, I mean it’s not as if it’s the Golden Globes, where they can invoke the fact that they’re drunk.
upyernoz | 25-Feb-08 at 10:45 am | Permalink

the oscars always suck really really badly. the ceremony is horrible, the speeches are hard to tolerate, the music is awful, and they often give a bunch of awards to movies that really really suck.

but damn, “no country for old men” totally deserved it. i don’t think it’s a make-up call at all.

the big controversies this year were the disqualification of “the band’s visit” from the best foreign film category (because too much of the script was in english), the black hole that “the diving bell and the butterfly” fell into between best foreign film and best picture which effectively excluded it from both categories, the disqualification of “lust caution” from the foreign film category because it wasn’t foreign enough, and the fact that the academy didn’t even nominate the foreign film widely expected to win that category (“4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days”) probably because the film is about abortion.

but still, this year’s controversies have got nothing on a couple of years ago, when the academy disqualified “divine intervention” from the foreign film category because it was listed as being from “palestine” and the academy ruled that wasn’t a real country.
Paul | 25-Feb-08 at 11:06 am | Permalink

This post had basically two purposes. First, to express, once again, my love for the Big L (I haven’t even seen “No Country for Old Men), and, second, to bring noz into the comments section with his knowledge of all things moving-picture.

Done and done.
Paul | 25-Feb-08 at 11:34 am | Permalink

Say, noz, here’s a question for you…Why was
Javier Bardem up for best supporting, rather than best actor?
upyernoz | 25-Feb-08 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

(1) because no one ever is sure where the line between “actor” and “supporting actor” is, especially in a movie like no country for old men which has three main characters with roughly equal screen time.

(2) because he’s the villain and the villain is never the “actor” even if he has more screen time than the hero.
Paul | 25-Feb-08 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

Using those guidelines, should Forest Whitaker have been up for Best Actor?
upyernoz | 25-Feb-08 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

good point.

but he was awesome as idi amin. so maybe there’s an awesomeness exception to the general rule.

or just see #1 from my above comment.
Paul | 25-Feb-08 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

He was awesome, that’s for sure.

I think Anthony Hopkins and Denzel Washington also put #2 into question, but a few exceptions don’t undermine the clear trend you note.

Tomorrow’s Oscar Commentary Today–The DAY OF Edition!!

{ 9 }

Comments

Post a Comment

Home

Link Candy

We get comments

Cast of Characters

Contact

Search

Statistics

Categories

Archives

Links

Meta