And the winner is . . .
The Pre-Oscar Blog
As I have said a few times before, 2005 was an outstanding year for film. All five Best Picture Nominees are great films, and I could put at least four or five others in the category and still be happy with it. So I am quite eager to see what happens on Sunday night. (Of course, I'll be hosting an Oscars party, so I also have that to look forward to.)
So, in the overdone tradition of every film writer, I offer my Should Win/Will Win list (now with notes!):
2005 Academy Awards
Should Win/Will Win
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams, Junebug
Catherine Keener, Capote
Frances McDormand, North Country
Rachel Weisz, The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams,
- Should win: Amy Adams
- Will win: Rachel Weisz
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
George Clooney, Syriana
Matt Dillon, Crash
Paul Giamatti, Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal,
William Hurt, A History of Violence
- Should win: George Clooney
- Will win: George Clooney
BEST ACTRESS
Judi Dench, Mrs. Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman, Transamerica
Keira Knightley, Pride & Prejudice
Charlize Theron,
Reese Witherspoon, Walk the Line
- Will Win: Reese Witherspoon
Note: I have only seen two of these movies, so I cannot make a “should win” judgment. From the clips I have seen, Felicity Huffman seems to work wonders, but I cannot base it on clips. But nevertheless, I think Reese will win.
BEST ACTOR
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Capote
Terrence Howard, Hustle & Flow
Heath Ledger,
Joaquin Phoenix, Walk the Line
David Strathairn, Good Night, and Good Luck
- Will win: Philip Seymour Hoffman
I didn't see Hustle & Flow, but my second choice here would be Heath Ledger. His performance was strong, challenging, and groudbreaking. But Philip Seymour Hoffman was on another plane altogether.
CINEMATOGRAPHY
Batman Begins - Wally Pfister
Good Night, and Good Luck - Robert Elswit
Memoirs of a Geisha - Dion Beebe
The
- Should Win: Brokeback Mountain
- Will Win: Brokeback Mountain
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco, Crash
George Clooney and Grant Heslov, Good Night, and Good Luck
Woody Allen, Match Point
Noah Baumbach, The Squid and the Whale
Steven Gaghan, Syriana
- Should win: Syriana
- Will win: Crash
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana,
Dan Futterman, Capote
Jeffrey Caine, The Constant Gardener
Josh Olson, A History of Violence
Tony Kushner and Eric Roth,
- Should win: Either
- Will win:
BEST DIRECTOR
Ang Lee,
Bennett Miller, Capote
Paul Haggis, Crash
George Clooney, Good Night, and Good Luck
Steven Spielberg,
- Will win: Ang Lee
Capote
Crash
Good Night, and Good Luck
- Should win: Capote
- Will win:
If the Best Picture is based solely on the "best movie" of the year, I would give it to Capote. As I have written before, Capote is a masterpiece and a powerhouse, and was my favorite film of 2005. But I think an argument can be made that Best Picture can and should often consider the film's importance. I think that Brokeback Mountain is the most important film of 2005, and it is the film that will have the longest life as a classic. Many times, the Academy Award goes to a film that does not stand the test of time. For example, in 1997 The English Patient won Best Picture. Who thinks about that movie now? What "best of" lists does it ever make? Fargo was clearly the best film that year. Now, don't get me wrong: Capote is not The English Patient, thank God. But I believe that the actual cinematic merits of Brokeback, combined with its groundbreaking social importance, give it an edge. Some critics have suggested that Crash is the only film that has a chance to upset Brokeback, but I hope that doesn't happen.
offered up to the world by CoachDub @ 1:41 PM
42 comments
42 Comments:
I thought that Keira Knightley was wonderful in Brokeback Mountain.
Ahh yes. Excellent point. Thanks for stopping by.
for me, it's a tough call on Best Actress...I nearly sobbed with Felicity Huffman (the drool! it was really remarkable!), but my eyes welled up with tears the first time Reese Witherspoon showed up on the screen.
What I liked best about Transamerica, though, was that Felicity's character doesn't die at the end. I'm so sick of the gay characters always having some sort of tragic demise, as if that's the only way America could stand to have watched the story for 2 hours. (sorry...soapbox...my point is: it deserves to be recognized.)
John,
I can't comment intelligently on Capote (haven't seen it yet) but I can't let you diss The English Patient without comment! The cinematography in that movie was incredible, and I often think about that wonderful opening sequence drifting over the desert. It's not the greatest movie ever made, but it is MUCH better than dozens of other forgettable oscar winners -- Forrest Gump anyone? I am certainly a huge Cohen brothers fan, but for me, Fargo just isn't their best work.
Kathy -- Amen to that. I plan on seeing Transamerica as soon as I can.
Trevor -- I'm with you on the cinematography on The English Patient. Good stuff. I just fel tthe story was not as strong as others apparently thought. I'm glad it won for cinematography, but Best Picture? Nope. But you know how I feel about Fargo, so I think there was no contest. As for Forrest Gump -- yeah, when Gump wins against Pulp Fiction, something is wrong.
ok wanninger, you know i love you but i have to put you down on this one. i have seen both pulp fiction and forrest gump and i have to say that by far the latter is the better movie. don't get me wrong, i thought pulp fiction was incredible. but forrest gump just pulled you. tom hanks was incredible and... well it was just better. period.
Forrest Gump is amazing, but I haven't seen The English Patient or Pulp Fiction.
I'm pretty sheltered, I know.
YEAH NO SHIT MAN!! i completely agree. forrest gump was fucking amazing in every sense of the word. quinten tarintino just jacks off japanese films and then steals their ideas. fucking tarantino...
Hey, I never said I didn't like Forrest Gump. I think it is hilarious and entertaining. Pulp Fiction, however, changed the landscape of the cinema. That is not an opinion. Anyone who knows anything about the history of film in the last 15 years knows that Pulp Fiction is one of the most influential and groundbreaking movies. Forrest Gump is good, but Pulp Fiction will forever be counted in the pantheon of important films.
Pulp Fiction > Forrest Gump.
It's simple. I do like Forrest Gump a lot though too.
forrest gump > pulp fiction.
i don't even. i. i'm itching so hard. i can't even grasp half of the thinking on this topic. it's so beyond me.
seriously. tarintino? tarintino. tarintino.
giving up swearing for lent is hard in times like this.
capote was badass and i couldn't finish crash because it was so lame and couldn't hold my attention. then i read in cold blood which made me enjoy it posthumously even more.
Sorry, Josh. I had not heard that you had died.
But nevertheless, I am glad you liked Capote so much.
Hannah, you said, "i don't even. i. i'm itching so hard. i can't even grasp half of the thinking on this topic. it's so beyond me."
The feeling is mutual.
But it is all meaningless, because both movies will no doubt pale in comparison to the upcoming remake of The Shaggy Dog. I just gape in awe at the previews.
Tim Allen. Give him two Oscars at least.
I feel like I should've dragged myself over to the movie theater for one of the approximately 8 Brainerd showings of Capote.
i know that wasn't the right word but sometimes you just have to go for it,
Yeah, sorry Josh. I shouldn't make fun. I applaud your courage in taking the leap.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't allow anonymous posts on my blog.
Let me know if you want it reposted.
dude wann, that my friend nick that posted that. he just doesn't understand the blogging community and doens't have an account and has never posted anything on a blog before. but yeah, i'm thinking he would like it if you re-posted it. he just drove to seattle right about now, and won't be back for a couple days. otherwise he would of posted "re-post it."
I'll repost it. I'm glad you wrote back, Kali, since I thought it was from you, and it made me a little sad, since it clearly has some personal attacks against me. (With stst-tracking, I knew where the post came from, you see.)
But tell him for future reference, he can click "other" under identity and write his name when he comments.
I just think that if someone is going to write something that quite clearly includes personal attacks, he should not be all Vox Pop about it.
First of all: ‘the history of cinema in the past 15 years,’ What the hell does that matter?! Cinema has been around since 1896, not 1986! Secondly you can always tell how much a person knows about film by mentioning Tarantino’s name... and by that I mean you can always tell how LITTLE people know about cinematic history when they like/respect him/worship his lame ass. There is a stereotype in the film world today and it fits the shoes of millions. This stereotype is the young, (usually male) arrogant, psuedo-film buffs whose favorite films include the following movies: Memento, Fight Club, Seven, Donnie Darko, Requiem for a Dream, Quentin Tarantino’s movies, American Beauty, Pi etc. (They’re usually getting film degrees as well :)... The trendiest degree in the world right now is a film degree. Any guy who has a video camera and imovie thinks he’s the next Orson Welles, meanwhile they all worship Quentin Tarantino.) * Note to readers: if you find yourself saying ‘Hey those are all my favorite movies!,’ - You are NOT a film buff and quit trying to be. These movies were all made in the past 15 fucking years, you’re merely being a part of your generation. Another important side note is that most of those movies listed above are direct rip-offs of previous movies. Examples: Fight club is Partner by Bertolluci made in 1965 (yes it’s a book by Chuck Palahniuk, that doesn’t mean anything.) Seven is taking all the best parts of The Element of Crime by Lars Von Trier, a true cinematic visonary. Memento is thought of as the first movie to use that flashback style of editing by a lot of people, but if you want a really awesome movie to watch that uses the same technique, watch the Italian verison of The Vanishing. Anyway, I’m getting off topic.
Tarantino rips off plenty of things from other movies AND HE ADMITS IT, so there’s no use denying that fact, its just a matter of how that affects your thoughts on him and his movies. I would say that anyone interested in cinema should go watch the shit that he ripped off, go watch the films by film-makers that inspired him, why settle for this second hand regurgitation? The reason why he gets away with it so much is because people don’t watch foreign films, especially old ones, so they don’t pick up on the obscure shit that he plagiarizes. People watch Amelie and Run Lola Run and then they think they’re the bee’s-knees because they’ve seen a French film. The next time somebody is talking about Run Lola Run, ask them who their favorite German New Wave director is... that’ll separate the boys from the men here, because they won’t know what the German New Wave was, or any of the films in it, or more specifically any of its’ kick- ass directors. (Hint: Run Lola Run is not German New Wave.) As most people already know, Tarantino ripped off Reservoir Dogs from City on Fire a Chow Yung- Fat movie directed by Ringo Lam in 1987. Still, there are other issues here. Saying that Pulp Fiction changed the cinematic landscape is nonsense. There is not one shot in that film that is innovative (meaning not done before). There is not one camera technique, not one original thing that QT did in that film that has not been done before. It is absolutely ignorant to think that after over 90 years of film-making, that Pulp Fiction, a movie offering no new cinematic techniques, no new way to write scripts, no new film stock/format, no new way of showing characters, no new way of editing, no new way of ANYTHING, could somehow ‘absolutely change the landscape of cinema.’ To change the landscape of cinema you need to do something new, like figure out a new aspect ratio or develop a new milimeter of film stock, or shoot a whole movie using only security cameras, or shoot a movie with the camera upside down the whole time, or something like that....
Another reason why QT sucks my ass is that he buys the rights to old kung-fu movies and distributes them under the banner, ‘Quentin Tarantino Presents.’ First of all this is a bitch move because HE’s the one who profits from these films, not the broke- ass Hong Kong people who don’t get royalties on their films they made. Secondly, he distributes shitty movies! There are literally thousands of good movies out there, so why does he throw around these ones?, because he can buy their copyright laws for very cheap and fool a bunch of devote teenage fans into buying them, because he stuck his name on them. That’a boy!, the true spirit of Indie film making huh?
Another thing people haven’t seemed to realize... he makes ACTION films. That’s like finger painting to the art world! When this dude makes some movies that make people cry, or wanna go out and save the world from poverty and hunger, let me know. Because last time I checked... action films were mere entertainment with no moral or artistic value. Kill Bill is in the same section that 14 year old jocks go to rent Steven Seagal movies from. True, you’re probably cooler if you’re renting Reservoir dogs than if you’re renting Predator Vs. Alien, but that doesn’t mean that you’re a cinephile worthy of making grand remarks about the landscape of cinema.
I like analogies. Here's a brief skit:
Person A: "I think that the Iraq War is an important part of history."
Person B: "Are you fucking stupid? Clearly there have been other wars! Wars have been around forever! What about the Civil War? Or World War II? Moron!"
Person A: "I didn't say it was the only important war. I said it was important."
Person B: "Shut the fuck up."
I believe that Pulp Fiction is an important work because:
a) it sparked an indie-film revolution, and made it possible for many small movies that followed to get made. I don't care if Tarantino's current work is no longer indie -- that does not change the fact that Pulp Fiction made a mark and helped change the film industry.
b) it took the idea of cinematic pastiche to a new level. Of course he is taking ideas from other people, but he is doing it in a way that is artistic. (That is my opinion, and contrary to what you may think, I am entitled to it.) He is a postmodern and post-structural artist. I can appreciate the source material AND the result. They are not mutually exclusive.
I can like Wenders and Herzog, and still like Run Lola Run. Just because you appreciate and admire what came first, does not mean the second one has no worth.
You don't know me. You don't know what I have studied. Don't presume to know what statements I am "worthy" of making.
Anonymous or not, I'm thinking that post should have stayed deleted.
And Partner by Bertolluci was made in '68, not '65. For being such a tight-ass set out to proclaim his superiority -certainly Kali's friend Nick has proven himself to be a "cinephile worthy of making grand remarks about the landscape of cinema!"- he managed to botch quite a simple (and easily researchable) fact.
John, you shouldn't feel the need to grant participation in open forum to those bent on forwarding a tired diatribe probably rehashed for years (or at least since his film theory class).
really quick like though. i don't think he meant them as personal attacks against you, just people in general. you see there are tons of film kids here that are super annoying that don't know anything about film and he gets mad about stuff like that because it cheapens the term "film major" which is what he is also. but yeah tha'ts just what iwanted to say QUICKLY
and for this to make the most sense nick lives in vancouver as of now for national student exchange. i told him to read your blog yesterday, and he said he wanted to reply and he sent me an email this morning that said that stuff that he said. he then told me to post it for him (because i like i said he seriously has no idea how blogs work and etc), and i asked him if he wanted him name attached to it or if he wanted it to say anonymous and he goes "sure yeah whatever." (meaning he really didn't care) so i just pushed the anonymous button. i know this all sounds like some elbaorate lie, but i assure you, it is not. hannah can assest to this. she knows how nick is. the moral of the story is, i don't want to be part of a fight/ a fight to start or anything but it's just a different opinion. the end.
stayed deleted? censorship? a BIASED blog?
hey ap, is your name mussolini?? because you SURE ARE ACTING LIKE A FACIST!
... yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.
okay i'm done.
Kali, he may have a problem with "film majors" at other schools, but his comments were on my blog in direct reference to what I had written. So yes, they were meant against me. He might think that I am just like "people in general," and so he lumped me in with them, but you cannot read what he wrote and say that he was not directing his comments at me.
My two cents amounts to simply this.
Forrest Gump was a great movie, and I enjoy watching it occasionally still, if it's on TBS or something. It's like a scaled down version of Shawshank for me. (I will watch Shawshank no matter what each and every time I find it on TNT).
That said.
Pulp Fiction changed my movie watching life. (Kudos to my father here, who sat me down and said 'you should watch this').
---
ps. Dub you should post on Mark's Oscar Game, um, contest. Although you don't win anything if you get the most categories correct.
First off, that big long anonymous comment was the biggest load of empty rhetoric I have read in a while.
I guess it is stupid for me to like L.A. Confidential because it rips off every old noir crime movie ever made, right? And obviously liking old noir films is cliche too, so I better not say I like them either.
And as he pointed out, I am only a pseudo-film buff because I actually like Donnie Darko. How dare me? And Amelie? Just another notch in my stereotypical film buff belt.
Someone must get us a list of the films it is okay to like without being cliche. God forbid we judge films on their own merits.
Jimaal-
It isn't facist in the least to moderate comments and delete those that include personal attacks. I mean, if someone craps on my doorstep I am in no way obligated to just let is continue to sit on my doorstep.
#1: i'm pretty sure he's not saying that if you like these films you're a pseudo film buff. i'm pretty sure it's the other way around, actually, as in "most pseudo film buffs like the following".
#2: as far as the cliche comment goes, i don't think that liking a certain movie makes you a cliche. but yes, if you sit around making big outrageous statements without doing your research and without opening your mind to hear what others have to say... it's a little bit of a pseudo film geek cliche. personally, i don't feel anyone is lumped into this category. anybody who has made a claim seems to be able to back it up fairly well.
#3: regarding anonymous comments, they can be taken off. i don't feel it was a personal attack, but if it was it wasn't targeted towards me anyway, so i guess i'm not one to judge. but when you place yourself out there, i also feel you open yourself up to such criticism and have to be willing to accept it. i don't feel like crap on your doorstep and the tarintino rant is really a fair comparison.
my two cents, regardless.
I'm just glad I'm not a film buff. You people sound angry.
it should say "kali's pretentious cock friend nick"
ahaha. "kali's pretentious cock"
And I'm a "facist?" Can someone explain what that is, and why I would be one for suggesting personal attacks be deleted?
Or was the original post (by kali's pretentious cock friend nick) a preemptive strike?
I think a facist is maybe a person that hates faces?
As far as a fascist, that's a different story.
Good work, Parker.
A+.
do you ever get the feeling that some people learn a whole lot about something just so that they can feel smart and be arrogant? and then when they find what, in their mind, is the perfect opportunity to flaunt their supreme knowledge, it all comes out like some kind of ejaculation of self-importance? i mean, i dont know this nick guy, and i really hate to be among everyone here tearing him apart cuz he like, came on our turf and ripped on our prophet, or whatever, but shit like that just comes off really sophomoric, even if the guy clearly has some knowledge... it really is a terrible waste of a good education...
Thanks, Tom. I appreciate that.
"it all comes out like some kind of ejaculation of self-importance? "
Perfect.
See, I said tired diatribe probably rehashed for years, but I wish I would have thought to call it "some kind of ejaculation of self-importance." Agreed, perfect.
And also, more to the topic (sadly, not the original from John, but KPCFN's), I'd like to add, "there are two different kinds of creativity: theft, and then there's inadvertent theft."
From what I understand, because I like the movie Seven, I'm a big, fat, ignorant, greasy, American hamburger. By that I'm a wannabe film buff.
Shit, I'm found out.
first off -
"Someone must get us a list of the films it is okay to like without being cliche. God forbid we judge films on their own merits."
touché, nicely done.
ok, all i said is i like forrest gump better than pulp fiction. when i see pulp fiction i say: "wow that is a nicely done movie." but when i see forrest gump, i relate to and empathize with the character. while i understand it is really important to set a good stage, if that stage is sorta distant and remote and all i can say is "the stage looks very pretty" i don't think it is better than a stage that comes alive and actually sucks you in. to me that is the difference between pulp fiction and forrest gump. while forrest gump may not have been all "indie" and innovative with its shots, it managed to connect on a level that pulp fiction just can't. that isn't to say that a movie can't have a very artistic stage and still manage to come face to face with the problems of the characters. this year it is a lot like the difference between syriana and munich for me. both movies are very well done. syriana uses a very complicated script and interesting plot line to set a very artistic stage. munich is a bit more traditional (although innovative in its own right) but in the end you can physically feel the strain on eric bana's character. to me (and i hope i'm entitled to my opinion even though i am not a film major, just a snot-nosed high school senior) that is what makes a movie incredible.
may the wrath of nick and/or everyone else beset me.
based on the enlightenment I received from reading kfn's post, I have decided that anyone who enjoys Shakespeare is really a pseudo-literary hack that doesn't know their asshole from a hole in the ground. I mean come on, every one of his plotlines were stolen from traditional literature that came before him.
and, as to Person A in the brief skit: Hello! the Iraq war is Vietnam transplanted in the Middle East (this time without France...I mean Freedom invading first). where's the originality there?
Post a Comment
<< Home