The 93rd Academy Awards (for 2020–early 2021)

NonP

Legend
Since most of us are still stuck in (semi-)WFH mode I'm extending my Oscar coverage here for at least one more year. I'm guessing y'all already know that this has been the longest film awards season yet thanks to the world-wrecking b@stard, but for those of you who are wondering why we're seeing several 2021 titles here I suggest you pay closer attention to the thread title or check out this article.

A word on the ceremony before moving on the picks/prognostications: I'll leave it to an insider like Moose to provide the full dish on the logistics, but anyone who has stepped inside the cavernous Union Station should know it can well accommodate the glitterati with room to spare, which is why it can and will remain open to all transit riders throughout the whole thing. As for the satellite transmission from international locations I just can't see Soderberg and Co. doing even worse than the HFPA who I actually thought did a decent job with the Globes despite all the hand-wringing, so expect a fairly smooth sailing with a couple unexpected hitches.

Speaking of which you may wanna check out my post on some of the GG nominees because I'm still catching up on their Oscar siblings and at this late point even a cursory overview is impossible. I'll try to return with capsule reviews of worthy nominees either here or in the movie thread after tonight.

Now without further ado:

Best Picture - Nomadland is expected to take it, with Minari potentially extending the Korean(-language) invasion of Hollywood for another year. Since I've yet to see the latter I'll just add that much of the backlash to Zhao's modern road movie by way of a Western strikes me as ideological when it seems to be making the very opposite point, and said detractors' glib dismissal of Westerns as capitalist fantasies could be applied to just about every other film genre. Personally I'm more bemused by with Zhao's characters who are less full-bodied persons than ingredients of an MFA thesis.

Of course the real scandal here is the absence of Pedro Costa's Vitalina Varela, Kelly Reichardt's First Cow and other worthy contenders which almost certainly gave us more to chew on than any of this year's nominees, but they committed the cardinal sin of being limited to arthouse circuits which somehow disqualifies them as a "Best Picture" of any sort. The howling over Minari's exclusion from most award categories has been welcome, but the fact of the matter is that Lee Isaac Chung's latest feature enjoys the full backing of indie darling A24 who put Reichardt's in the less favorable early-year slot, and Costa's can't even claim this limited support to begin with. Until we tackle this widespread supremacy of advertising in the industry any talk of diversity will ring hollow.

Directing - Ditto, although there's a slim chance that Vinterberg will play spoiler in one of the biggest upsets in Oscar history. And I can't believe I'm saying this but I hope the erstwhile Dogme 95 brat pulls it off.

Actor in a Leading Role - If there's anything preordained about this year's Oscars it's that this one will be won by the late Chadwick Boseman, but while his Levee Green is a fine performance there's something rather studied about the role that precludes a wholehearted endorsement of my own. I understand some of my reservation must be attributed to August Wilson himself whose original play is probably among the weakest in his Pittsburgh Cycle, but I continue to be mystified that this adaptation seemingly can do no wrong according to the critics while the same criticism they leveled against Denzel Washington's superior (IMO, yes) Fences - namely that it's not cinematic enough - could easily be made of Ma Rainey's Black Bottom as well, if not more so. And while Boseman can be forgiven for not quite measuring up to the presumably greatest actor alive I felt Viola Davis herself made an uncharacteristically by-the-book Ma Rainey vs. a more energetic Rose Lee Maxson in the earlier adaptation.

And I thought Hopkins overdid his mommy routine in The Father. So I'm giving it to Riz Ahmed for his commendably sympathetic portrayal of the deaf Ruben Stone in Sound of Metal, again with my earlier caveat about Minari.

Actress in a Leading Role - See above re: Davis. But Carey Mulligan is another strong contender as Cassandra "Cassie" Thomas and though I hated the movie I wouldn't mind her taking home the Oscar and spreading the glitter around.

Actor in a Supporting Role - Once you saw Daniel Kaluuya's fiery "I am a revolutionary!" speech as Fred Hampton you knew he was winning the Oscar. And I've made my position on SBC in this role vs. his latest Borat outing clear and Paul Raci's Joe is hardly less impressive than Ahmed's Ruben Stone, but who am I kidding? Daniel FTW.

Actress in a Supporting Role - Youn Yuh-jung as Soon-ja is the fave here though Maria Bakalova's breakout turn as Tutar Sagdiyev offers strong competition. But any of the remaining nominees would be a worthy winner, and while there's next to zero chance Glenn Close will finally end her drought tonight stranger things have happened at the Oscars.

(To be continued....)
 
Animated Feature Film - I've yet to see any of the nominees save Onward, and though I'm bored at the prospect of another Pixar movie continuing the foregone annual conclusion I can't imagine the shoo-in Soul being more pedestrian than its predecessor which was a rare misstep by the animation giant.

Cinematography - Joshua James Richards is the odds-on fave for Nomadland, but I thought Dariusz Wolski's ravishing camerawork in News of the World was even better and hope he takes it.

Costume Design - Ditto Ann Roth for Ma Rainey's, but none other than the Regency fashion scholar Hilary Davidson (not to be confused with the mystery novelist) gave Emma. a "(Hard) PASS" on her delightful "Bill and Ted Test" and having finished about quarter of her magisterial book I can say the lady knows full well what she's talking about. So Alexandra Byrne it is, despite my antipathy towards the slog of a film adaptation itself.

Documentary (Feature) - TBD, as I've seen only two of the nominees (Collective and The Mole Agent). This is a fairly wide-open field, though my money would be on Collective.

Documentary (Short Subject) - Afraid I've yet to check out any of 'em. (Damn COVID has put out of business the cozy West End Cinema, the only Landmark Theatre in DC or indeed any other cinema in the area that would show the short docs.)

Film Editing - Nomadland is probably the slight fave here, but the other contenders have a real shot.

International Feature Film - All worthy films and I'll probably revisit this category if not anything else. Another Round is widely expected to win, and while I'm generally against personal circumstances dictating merit-based achievements Vinterberg winning it for his late daughter Ida - whose untimely death in a car accident no doubt informed the film's life-affirming stance and particularly Mads Mikkelsen's much-discussed dance to cap it off - would be a most welcome triumph for everyone involved.

Makeup and Hairstyling - Ma Rainey's will win, as confirmation of Hollywood's more-is-better aesthetics. I much prefer Pinocchio in this category.

Music (Original Score) - If you really think any nominee will upset Soul here you haven't been paying much attention.

Music (Original Song) - When was the last time you felt any of these songs was a bona fide classic? Anyhoo I've got a slight preference for "Husavik," again to spread the glitter around.

Production Design - Another pretty open field. I just hope they don't give it to Tenet as it's almost certain to win another category (see below).

Short Film (Animated) - If Anything Happens I Love You will probably win for its "relevance," and it's indeed a fine portrayal of how American gun culture can tear apart a family in more ways than one. I've seen Opera mentioned as a potential spoiler and it'll be nice to see not one but two Oscar winners for (South) Korea, but it's probably too experimental to secure enough votes from the risk-averse Oscar crowd.

Short Film (Live Action) - Again Two Distant Strangers is the "relevant" work here and that may push it through, but the rest of the pack are hardly less so and far less glib about the issues they take head-on. Let's hope they pick the right winner this time.

Sound Editing and Sound Mixing - Sound of Metal is the obvious choice, but don't be surprised to see Soul make it a twofer.

Visual Effects - This is the Oscar that will go to Tenet. And that happens to be the only nominee I've seen in this category so I won't fret too much.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay) - Zhao will likely win for Nomadland (again), and I don't feel too strongly about the rest except the self-ingratiating Borat so I'll keep quiet.

Writing (Original Screenplay) - I can't believe Emerald Fennell's cynical, even misanthropic revenge fantasy will likely win this category. Since the ceremony has just begin let me just add that the Marders' humane treatment of the deaf community and likely Lee's heartfelt exploration of the immigrant experience would be far more deserving winners.

Enjoy the multi-location Oscars, y'all.
 
Since most of us are still stuck in (semi-)WFH mode I'm extending my Oscar coverage here for at least one more year. I'm guessing y'all already know that this has been the longest film awards season yet thanks to the world-wrecking b@stard, but for those of you who are wondering why we're seeing several 2021 titles here I suggest you pay closer attention to the thread title or check out this article.

A word on the ceremony before moving on the picks/prognostications: I'll leave it to an insider like Moose to provide the full dish on the logistics, but anyone who has stepped inside the cavernous Union Station should know it can well accommodate the glitterati with room to spare, which is why it can and will remain open to all transit riders throughout the whole thing. As for the satellite transmission from international locations I just can't see Soderberg and Co. doing even worse than the HFPA who I actually thought did a decent job with the Globes despite all the hand-wringing, so expect a fairly smooth sailing with a couple unexpected hitches.

Speaking of which you may wanna check out my post on some of the GG nominees because I'm still catching up on their Oscar siblings and at this late point even a cursory overview is impossible. I'll try to return with capsule reviews of worthy nominees either here or in the movie thread after tonight.

Now without further ado:

Best Picture - Nomadland is expected to take it, with Minari potentially extending the Korean(-language) invasion of Hollywood for another year. Since I've yet to see the latter I'll just add that much of the backlash to Zhao's modern road movie by way of a Western strikes me as ideological when it seems to be making the very opposite point, and said detractors' glib dismissal of Westerns as capitalist fantasies could be applied to just about every other film genre. Personally I'm more bemused by with Zhao's characters who are less full-bodied persons than ingredients of an MFA thesis.

Of course the real scandal here is the absence of Pedro Costa's Vitalina Varela, Kelly Reichardt's First Cow and other worthy contenders which almost certainly gave us more to chew on than any of this year's nominees, but they committed the cardinal sin of being limited to arthouse circuits which somehow disqualifies them as a "Best Picture" of any sort. The howling over Minari's exclusion from most award categories has been welcome, but the fact of the matter is that Lee Isaac Chung's latest feature enjoys the full backing of indie darling A24 who put Reichardt's in the less favorable early-year slot, and Costa's can't even claim this limited support to begin with. Until we tackle this widespread supremacy of advertising in the industry any talk of diversity will ring hollow.

Directing - Ditto, although there's a slim chance that Vinterberg will play spoiler in one of the biggest upsets in Oscar history. And I can't believe I'm saying this but I hope the erstwhile Dogme 95 brat pulls it off.

Actor in a Leading Role - If there's anything preordained about this year's Oscars it's that this one will be won by the late Chadwick Boseman, but while his Levee Green is a fine performance there's something rather studied about the role that precludes a wholehearted endorsement of my own. I understand some of my reservation must be attributed to August Wilson himself whose original play is probably among the weakest in his Pittsburgh Cycle, but I continue to be mystified that this adaptation seemingly can do no wrong according to the critics while the same criticism they leveled against Denzel Washington's superior (IMO, yes) Fences - namely that it's not cinematic enough - could easily be made of Ma Rainey's Black Bottom as well, if not more so. And while Boseman can be forgiven for not quite measuring up to the presumably greatest actor alive I felt Viola Davis herself made an uncharacteristically by-the-book Ma Rainey vs. a more energetic Rose Lee Maxson in the earlier adaptation.

And I thought Hopkins overdid his mommy routine in The Father. So I'm giving it to Riz Ahmed for his commendably sympathetic portrayal of the deaf Ruben Stone in Sound of Metal, again with my earlier caveat about Minari.

Actress in a Leading Role - See above re: Davis. But Carey Mulligan is another strong contender as Cassandra "Cassie" Thomas and though I hated the movie I wouldn't mind her taking home the Oscar and spreading the glitter around.

Actor in a Supporting Role - Once you saw Daniel Kaluuya's fiery "I am a revolutionary!" speech as Fred Hampton you knew he was winning the Oscar. And I've made my position on SBC in this role vs. his latest Borat outing clear and Paul Raci's Joe is hardly less impressive than Ahmed's Ruben Stone, but who am I kidding? Daniel FTW.

Actress in a Supporting Role - Youn Yuh-jung as Soon-ja is the fave here though Maria Bakalova's breakout turn as Tutar Sagdiyev offers strong competition. But any of the remaining nominees would be a worthy winner, and while there's next to zero chance Glenn Close will finally end her drought tonight stranger things have happened at the Oscars.

(To be continued....)

What on Earth ?????? Never heard of these movies before. I saw ONE decent korean movie and it was Train to Busan. and it wasn't romantic comedy either.

Train-to-busan.jpg
 
Not sure I can recall Best Picture ever being announced before any other category. Or the last time the acting Oscars were presented by the previous year's winners of the same gender. Do they really think these cosmetic changes will bring viewers back or was this just a temporary fix I wasn't aware of?

Will share more thoughts later but let's revisit the biggest shock of the nite:

Actor in a Leading Role - If there's anything preordained about this year's Oscars it's that this one will be won by the late Chadwick Boseman, but while his Levee Green is a fine performance there's something rather studied about the role that precludes a wholehearted endorsement of my own. I understand some of my reservation must be attributed to August Wilson himself whose original play is probably among the weakest in his Pittsburgh Cycle, but I continue to be mystified that this adaptation seemingly can do no wrong according to the critics while the same criticism they leveled against Denzel Washington's superior (IMO, yes) Fences - namely that it's not cinematic enough - could easily be made of Ma Rainey's Black Bottom as well, if not more so. And while Boseman can be forgiven for not quite measuring up to the presumably greatest actor alive I felt Viola Davis herself made an uncharacteristically by-the-book Ma Rainey vs. a more energetic Rose Lee Maxson in the earlier adaptation.

And I thought Hopkins overdid his mommy routine in The Father. So I'm giving it to Riz Ahmed for his commendably sympathetic portrayal of the deaf Ruben Stone in Sound of Metal, again with my earlier caveat about Minari.

This take-it-to-the-bank prediction has sure aged well, LOL. In my defense just about everyone got it wrong, and frankly Hopkins deserved it more than not only Boseman but probably Ahmed as well. I'm still not a fan of his mental breakdown at the end which feels out of sorts with the rest of his pitch-perfect performance, but the way he conveys his character's confusion, annoyance, anger and torment with a single gesture or eye movement puts most actors to shame. Without question one of the ATGs.

One more thing:

What on Earth ?????? Never heard of these movies before. I saw ONE decent korean movie and it was Train to Busan. and it wasn't romantic comedy either.

Train-to-busan.jpg

This is the 2016 original, not the stand-alone sequel Peninsula which had a brief theatrical run last year (I actually saw it in IMAX in my first post-lockdown outing). I found the former's nonstop, almost manic action a little too much, but it was definitely the better popcorn flick of the two, especially in these stressful times.
 
Congrats Hopkins
I'm glad that Hopkins ranked between of the elite actors with two or more Oscars (in actors categories), by the side Nicholson, Hanks, Hoffman and others. At the same time, he set a new record as the oldest award-winning actor in the lead role (he is now 83 years old).
 
What on Earth ?????? Never heard of these movies before. I saw ONE decent korean movie and it was Train to Busan. and it wasn't romantic comedy either.

Train-to-busan.jpg


I'm saddened that you though this was a decent movie - lol!


My reaction to being made to watch this was rather unsavoury and I didn't finish it. The last two Korean movies I watched are Parasite and The Call.

Parasite is hailed by many as a masterpiece but I find it underwhelming... it's fine enough. The Call was more interesting, frankly. Neither are great.
 
Great to see two veterans in the industry take another one home.

Hopkins now joins an elite group of actors to win 2+ best actors while McDormand is solo second with 3 best actress’

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Frances McDormand has been Hollywood’s most successful actress over the past 25-30 years now....although Streep might have something to say about that
 
Last edited:
Wow, interesting information. All these awards shows- Emmys, Grammys, Tonys, Acadamy Awards- all just seem to be a lot of sound and flurry- promting the medium,
yet at the same time undermining it by boring the audience to death.

In the 1950s people colleceted "autographed" pictures of their idols and there was a kind of reverence for the grand images of the screen.
Something has changed in the film making industry over the last 70 years, but the ceremonies have not kept up. Many of the films recently "honored" with oscar nomonations
are merely workman-like products and not worth celebrating.

I don't have answers at the moment, but money usually finds a way. Let's hope future awards are more about the art, itself, and not just mindless glitz for selling advertising time.
I've never been that interested in celebrity culture and the glamour and awards side of filmmaking, but do watch the Academy Awards almost every year for entertainment. In the early days of Hollywood, actors were America's version of royalty, otherworldly beings only seen on the big screen and read about in gossip columns as if they were a superior species. Those days are long gone. Social media and scumzines like TMZ have humanized American celebrities.
 
Given the age of the Academy members, I would have thought Anthony Hopkins to be a shoo-in for best actor.
 
Last edited:
Whatever happened to the big budget spectacle films? That was how Hollywood was able to battle against television competition in the glorious fifties, with Biblical spectacles in widescreen format, extravagant sound reproduction, and all of it live with real people and sets, not CG fakery.

Hollywood is dying an agonizing death. The incessant liberal political encodings have choked the life out of it.
Hollywood still makes big budget action films intended for international release. This is where they make the big money.

Theatrical releases are no longer the primary way to watch films. Many, many quality films are made for services like Netflix and Amazon Prime rather than theatrical release. What are you looking for, Mr. Lobb? I am sure you can find a film to suit your taste. If you can't, don't blame Hollywood, because films are made all over the world. You may be the problem.
 
If I wanted I would never have to step-into a supermarket again, and everything would be home delivery at virtually no-cost.

I'm beginning to think that stepping into the cinema could be a thing of the past for most people not using it as an excuse for socialising.
 
I paid close attention to it this year as in lockdown I watched gold derby and oscar experts youtube channel. They were very entertaining. I watched the ceremony. It really was not so bad at all. Some good speeches. A different style, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
I'm beginning to think that stepping into the cinema could be a thing of the past for most people not using it as an excuse for socialising.

Tell us which 2020 films you saw and liked. Any of the nominated ones? Happy to say that we didn't see any of them.
 
Last edited:
I'm not really a Hollywood film type or, more accurately, I don't value them at twenty dollars plus.

I used to go to American cinema for a director like Scorsese or Tarantino.

Tell us which 2020 films you saw and liked. Any of the nominated ones? Happy to say that we didn't see any of them.
 
Whatever happened to the big budget spectacle films? That was how Hollywood was able to battle against television competition in the glorious fifties, with Biblical spectacles in widescreen format, extravagant sound reproduction, and all of it live with real people and sets, not CG fakery.

Hollywood is dying an agonizing death. The incessant liberal political encodings have choked the life out of it.

...did you ever hear of these super cool, underground movies by this indie studio called Marvel?
 
Whatever happened to the big budget spectacle films? That was how Hollywood was able to battle against television competition in the glorious fifties, with Biblical spectacles in widescreen format, extravagant sound reproduction, and all of it live with real people and sets, not CG fakery.
Are you upset with the Canadian Film Institute as well?

05920.jpg
 
Hollywood still makes big budget action films intended for international release. This is where they make the big money.

Theatrical releases are no longer the primary way to watch films. Many, many quality films are made for services like Netflix and Amazon Prime rather than theatrical release. What are you looking for, Mr. Lobb? I am sure you can find a film to suit your taste. If you can't, don't blame Hollywood, because films are made all over the world. You may be the problem.

Albeit this just got a little more difficult now with Scott Rudin biting the dust. Uncanny the similarities between him and Weinstein - both Jewish New Yorkers, both struck out and scored over the big boys as independent producers, both had great taste and produced many great films that Disney may not have touched and both turned out to be horrible people. Lionsgate survives now. For how much longer, we'll see.
 
Damn I just wasted at least two hours trying to digest all the Oscar coverage on the Hankyoreh site. (South Korea's Big 3 newspapers are often referred to by the pejorative yet hardly unfair term Chojoongdong, so when I'm interested in the latest SK news I generally check out their far lesser-circulated but more reality-based peer, if usually its English edition.) Throw in what must've been another hour to browse other papers and we're looking at a ridiculous amount of effort just to see what the SK media have been saying about Youn Yuh-jung's historic Oscar. They're understandably proud and I was able to dig up some choice morsels from the actress herself which I'll share shortly, but I don't think I have the patience to do another round (hehe geddit) of this. Either I brush up/improve my Korean or I stick to the English sites. Guess which is more likely. (Or maybe I get @Bender to pick up the slack. Or something.)

K, so I came across this interview where the new internet sensation dishes on her crazy newfound fame, her future, her "philosophy" (that's straight from one of the questioners) and all that jazz. The highlights:
  • She had no background in theater or cinema when she was discovered while working part-time in school. (Wiki says she actually majored in Korean language and literature so she's being rather modest here.)
  • Her philosophy: know your weaknesses, memorize your lines and do others no harm. For her a script is like a bible. And practice can't be ignored.
  • When asked whether this counts as the best moment (in her life or career): she doesn't like the very notion of "the best" (최고 or choego) and instead prefers to think in terms of "the most" (최중 or choejung - had to look that up).
  • She speaks very fondly of Lee Isaac Chung, claiming to have wondered how this kind of person existed and naming him the first director she's found no fault with.
  • She's got no specific plans and would like to die working till she's too sick to continue.
  • Cinema is direction (she actually says "director") and it's something she realized after reaching age 60. She also expresses her regret that it took her that long to become grateful to Kim Ki-young, whom she paid a touching tribute in her Oscar speech. (He directed her 1971 film debut Woman of Fire - yes she was a looker back then - an update of his 1960 classic The Housemaid.)
  • She's also grateful to her compatriots and now understands how (Korean) soccer players felt particularly during the 2002 World Cup. Ditto figure skater Yuna Kim. She'd never dealt with such pressure before and it's the one part of this experience she didn't enjoy.
That sense of patriotism may be foreign to Westerners but hardly out of the ordinary in East Asia, where even the most powerful CEOs bow to the public to show their contrition following a corporate scandal which he may not be chiefly responsible for. And as you might expect the pay disparity between CEOs and lower-level employees is far less egregrious there than here in America. Individualism has its own virtues but not as a national religion, as we've seen in stark terms recently.

Switching gears (or borders) a bit, I didn't know Denmark had a sole national Twitter account which naturally celebrated its countrymen's Oscar triumphs:


Setting aside the strong likelihood that the emoji-ridden account is run by a Zoomer, doesn't Denmark have its own NEA or AFI that would be better equipped for this task? I understand it's a small country of 5.8 million, but that's still more than the population of LA which, of course, houses Hollywood itself.

A couple more late postmortems:
  • Perhaps due to the limited attendance there was no dud on the red carpet and if anything it was men who turned heads, with Colman Domingo with his all-flamingo (maybe the rhyme was intentional?) getup taking the top prize. Likewise Amanda Seyfried wowed in her generally no-no full-red Armani Privé, though I also dug Maria Bakalova's all-white Louis Vuitton. Oh yeah, and Alan Kim in his shorts-tux Thom Browne with mismatching knee-high socks was age perfect.
  • As you can see my taste in haute couture runs conservative, so I wasn't crazy about the midriff on Zendaya, Carey Mulligan and Andra Day though I do applaud the latter two's bold all-gold (what's with the all this year?) Valentino/Vera Wang meets Oscar. Ditto Leslie Odom Jr.
  • Best coiffure: Margot Robbie with her blunt bangs and ponytail, with a ravishing casual-formal floral dress to boot. Not so best: Halle Berry with her own bob-and-bangs which somehow do not do her versatile oval face justice. Most badass manicure: Paul Raci with his Black Sabbath-inspired polish to go with his all-black (yes, another all) ensemble.
  • Speaking of who, I neglected to mention that Raci was born to deaf parents so what you see with his ASL in Sound of Metal is what you get. Whoever did its casting deserves its own Oscar.
  • As you may recall it wasn't that long ago when Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything) upset the heavily favored Michael Keaton (Birdman) for the best actor Oscar. Obviously Hopkins' win this time was only as shocking, not egregious, but I'm struggling to think of a recent equivalent on the female side. Maybe there's a separate machination for (best) men which even Academy members aren't privvy to?
  • For those of you still wondering about McDormand's wolfish coda to her speech, that was a howl-out to Nomadland's sound engineer Michael Wolf Snyder who took his life back in March (RIP).
  • I didn't realize there's now only one Oscar category for sound, and while that may not be such a welcome change for sound engineers - to put it crudely, sound editing involves collection while sound mixing has more to do with combination - it's probably a necessary one for everyone else given how the ceremony always seems to run over three hours.
  • I'd like champions of Promising Young Woman, or those who voted for its screenplay at any rate, to explain to me how Emerald Fennell's Tarantinoesque revenge fantasy is more edifying (which I hope is still the main criterion here) than any of this year's other nominees. Misanthropy with a feminist face and cute emoji is still misanthropy, and you can't dilute the gleeful violence by having a woman carry it out, though Mulligan surely tries her best.
  • On a more positive note this was the first Oscars with a ramp. It's truly incredible that it took the Academy all these years to make this simple installation which was all but mandatory for most public facilities even before the ADA recently updated its requirements, though the fact that most of us (including moi, yes) weren't even aware of it shows why stories like Crip Camp are necessary.
Got another grand dissertation in mind but that'll have to wait. On to the replies:

I've never been that interested in celebrity culture and the glamour and awards side of filmmaking, but do watch the Academy Awards almost every year for entertainment. In the early days of Hollywood, actors were America's version of royalty, otherworldly beings only seen on the big screen and read about in gossip columns as if they were a superior species. Those days are long gone. Social media and scumzines like TMZ have humanized American celebrities

Hey don't you go dissing the hardworking scribes at TMZ! I mean, how can you dismiss them as "scum" when you say they've "humanized" those previously untouchable celebs?

In fact they're often the first to break a major (celebrity) story, and while one may decry the incestuous relationship between the glitterati and the tabloids I'm all for taking the rich and the famous down a peg when "serious" news fails to attract enough eyeballs for meaningful action. Instead of reviling TMZ and its ilk we should be celebrating them as the unsung heroes they are!
 
Hollywood still makes big budget action films intended for international release. This is where they make the big money.

Theatrical releases are no longer the primary way to watch films. Many, many quality films are made for services like Netflix and Amazon Prime rather than theatrical release. What are you looking for, Mr. Lobb? I am sure you can find a film to suit your taste. If you can't, don't blame Hollywood, because films are made all over the world. You may be the problem.

I'm still optimistic about the future of cinema (whose definition will undergo constant revisions), but I do think the cold reception to this year's Oscars will prove not a temporary blip but an acceleration of the current trend towards the small(er) screen. Before the pandemic I used to watch more movies in theaters than at home, including revivals. That I was among a tiny minority goes without saying, but I doubt I'm alone among these cinephiles in expecting not to return to my old ways anytime soon if ever - not only because I won't be driving for work nearly as often but also because my recent discovery of TCM has shown me just how much classic cinema I remain in the dark about. There's just too much to explore outside the movie theater, and if that necessary solitutde comes at the expense of the communal experience of moviegoing, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

He's made some other excellent films as well. This is the sort of moment the Oscars are about to me.


Frankly, apart from maybe Festen/The Conversation I can't think of any Vinterberg film I liked before Another Round. Guess I could also include his 2015 version of Far from the Madding Crowd (which I happened to see with a bud at the AFI Silver on our way back from a 2-day trip to an old neighborhood), but while it was nice to see him dispense with the Dogme nonsense you still expect more than a competent adaptation of a major Hardy novel from one of our supposedly major filmmakers.

All that said, yes his latest feature is arguably his best. I personally would've preferred a little more "letting go of control" in the finale - especially considering Mads Mikkelsen's original background as a professional dancer - but the scene is still an instant classic in the best un-Vinterbergian way:


Also I forgot to mention in my (2nd) OP that Thomas' late daughter Ida was to star in the film and four days into filming at the time of her fatal accident, which no doubt compounded his grief. Very glad to see his perseverance rewarded, though it obviously would've been sweeter with Ida in attendance.

Albeit this just got a little more difficult now with Scott Rudin biting the dust. Uncanny the similarities between him and Weinstein - both Jewish New Yorkers, both struck out and scored over the big boys as independent producers, both had great taste and produced many great films that Disney may not have touched and both turned out to be horrible people. Lionsgate survives now. For how much longer, we'll see.

LOL, trust me Weinstein was not a friend of cinema. Stories abound of his tampering with directors' approved/preferred versions if not outright sabotaging them after they refused to give in to his demands, and that's on top of him acting like the biggest a-hole ever. Kate Winslet, who admitted the producer never tried to take sexual advantage of her, instead had this to say:

Weinstein was reported to have badgered producer Sydney Pollack on his deathbed and the widow of Anthony Minghella after Reader director Stephen Daldry said the film wouldn’t be ready for Oscar season. “I can’t even begin to describe the disgraceful behavior that went on,” Winslet said of Weinstein’s actions during the making of the movie.

That Weinstein's artistic crimes have received only a tiny fraction of the scrutiny over his sexual ones speaks volumes as to where the pundits' priorities lie. I suppose that's to be expected in this country that provides military marching bands with almost twice as much public funding as the entire National Endowment for the Arts, but the conversation has hardly been less lopsided outside the US, at least not from my own vantage point. And I can't help but wonder just how much contempt we the educated audience actually have for the arts when so many of us can't even stick around for applause at the end of a concert (apparently saving maybe 10-20 minutes tops getting back home is worth the middle finger to the artists), sit through the movie credits (this impatience, I should add, is not universal), spend half as much time reading or listening as taking selfies at galleries, etc.

In short philistinism is rampant at all levels of our society, which has screwed up not only the arts but the rest of our endeavors which increasingly resemble business dealings in their myopia. Otherwise we wouldn't be stuck in our current mess where a significant minority of the population is willing to disregard facts if not resort to outright lies for short-term gains.
 
Was interesting to see all the righteous indignation among bloggers and other internet regulars expressing anger and bitterness that Hopkins won the lead actor award rather than Boseman, as if the Academy should have done more (alter the vote count? Aren't we tired of that suggestion?) to ensure a Boseman win.
 
LOL, trust me Weinstein was not a friend of cinema. Stories abound of his tampering with directors' approved/preferred versions if not outright sabotaging them after they refused to give in to his demands, and that's on top of him acting like the biggest a-hole ever. Kate Winslet, who admitted the producer never tried to take sexual advantage of her, instead had this to say:



That Weinstein's artistic crimes have received only a tiny fraction of the scrutiny over his sexual ones speaks volumes as to where the pundits' priorities lie. I suppose that's to be expected in this country that provides military marching bands with almost twice as much public funding as the entire National Endowment for the Arts, but the conversation has hardly been less lopsided outside the US, at least not from my own vantage point. And I can't help but wonder just how much contempt we the educated audience actually have for the arts when so many of us can't even stick around for applause at the end of a concert (apparently saving maybe 10-20 minutes tops to avoid getting back home is worth the middle finger to the artists), sit through the movie credits (this impatience, I should add, is not universal), spend half as much time reading or listening as taking selfies at galleries, etc.

In short philistinism is rampant at all levels of our society, which has screwed up not only the arts but the rest of our endeavors which increasingly resemble business dealings in their myopia. Otherwise we wouldn't be stuck in our current mess where a significant minority of the population is willing to disregard facts if not resort to outright lies for short-term gains.

This all would be true and I have read these stories of Weinstein interfering in the director's vision before. Nevertheless I liked the odds of a good film coming out of Miramax or Rudin's company than Disney which is so much in playing it safe mode it made a scene by scene remake of Lion King. If only Disney and Sony survive as film producers, it's gonna be tremendously boring imo.
 
Hey don't you go dissing the hardworking scribes at TMZ! I mean, how can you dismiss them as "scum" when you say they've "humanized" those previously untouchable celebs?

In fact they're often the first to break a major (celebrity) story, and while one may decry the incestuous relationship between the glitterati and the tabloids I'm all for taking the rich and the famous down a peg when "serious" news fails to attract enough eyeballs for meaningful action. Instead of reviling TMZ and its ilk we should be celebrating them as the unsung heroes they are!

Whenever I’m puzzled by our human social behavior, I remind myself that our brains are still designed as if we live in a small group where hierarchies within the group are crucial to survival and reproduction, making us very interested in what others are doing and changes in rank within the group. Our hidden subconscious primitive mind is fascinated with status. In massive and complex modern societies this can lead to strange behavior.

For some reason, societies have a tendency to give certain groups a status above the rest, maybe tapping into the awe that chimps feel for the alpha male or gorillas for the silverback. Royalty used to be the special group. In the media age, entertainers and the super rich fill this role, and now fame itself is all that is needed to evoke adulation.

Noble Prize winners don’t get groupies and become the source of endless gossip, but reality “stars” famous for nothing more than being on TV do. Our societal relation to fame is nuts.
 
Hey don't you go dissing the hardworking scribes at TMZ! I mean, how can you dismiss them as "scum" when you say they've "humanized" those previously untouchable celebs?

In fact they're often the first to break a major (celebrity) story, and while one may decry the incestuous relationship between the glitterati and the tabloids I'm all for taking the rich and the famous down a peg when "serious" news fails to attract enough eyeballs for meaningful action. Instead of reviling TMZ and its ilk we should be celebrating them as the unsung heroes they are!
Oscar Psychology: Why Celebrities Fascinate Us
By Stephanie Pappas

From the Oscar's red carpet to the tabloids lining supermarket checkout lines, celebrity obsession is everywhere. Even the most casual moviegoer might find him or herself flipping through a slideshow of Academy Award fashion after the big event. So why do we fixate on celebrities?

In most cases, it's perfectly natural. Humans are social creatures, psychologists say, and we evolved — and still live — in an environment where it paid to pay attention to the people at the top. Celebrity fascination may be an outgrowth of this tendency, nourished by the media and technology.

It's only relatively recently in human history that people have had near-constant access to celebrity news and gossip. But celebrities themselves are nothing new. People have long looked to monarchs for social, and even fashion, cues: The now-ubiquitous white wedding dress caught on after Queen Victoria wore one in 1840.

Even hunter-gatherer societies in which material goods are relatively scarce have status hierarchies, said Daniel Kruger, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan. Other primate species also keep a close eye on the dominant individuals in their groups.

"There's a few different reasons for that," Kruger told LiveScience. "One is just learning what high-status individuals do so you might more effectively become one, and two, it's basically political. Knowing what is going on with high-status individuals, you'd be better able to navigate the social scene."

Whether Brad Pitt is on good terms with his ex Jennifer Aniston isn't likely to affect the average person's life one way or another, of course, but the social tendency to care is deeply ingrained, Kruger said.
https://www.livescience.com/18649-oscar-psychology-celebrity-worship.html

Why We Seek the High of Stardom
Mark D. Griffiths Ph.D.

Psychologists Donna Rockwell and David Giles carried published a qualitative interview study in the Journal of Phenomenological Psychology with 15 well-known American celebrities from the fields of politics, law, business, writing, sports, music, film, TV news and entertainment. The study found that those interviewed felt that being famous had led to a loss of privacy, demanding expectations, gratification of ego needs, and symbolic immortality. Areas of psychological concern for celebrity mental health included isolation, and an unwillingness to give up fame. Based on their data, Rockwell and Giles argued that celebrity is a process involving four temporal phases:
  1. a period of love/hate towards the experience;
  2. an addiction phase where behavior is directed solely towards the goal of remaining famous;
  3. an acceptance phase, requiring a permanent change in everyday life routines;
  4. an adaptation phase, where new behaviors are developed in response to life changes involved in being famous.
The authors noted: "The lure of adoration is attractive, and it becomes difficult for the person to imagine living without fame. One participant said, ‘It is somewhat of a high,’ and another, ‘I kind of get off on it.’ One said, ‘I’ve been addicted to almost every substance known to man at one point or another, and the most addicting of them all is fame.’ Where does the celebrity go when fame passes; having become dependent on fame, how does one adjust to being less famous over time? ‘As the sun sets on my fame,’ one celebrity said, ‘I’m going to have to learn how to put it in its proper place.’ The adjustment can be a difficult one."

There is also research on the question of whether those who are famous are more susceptible to developing other types of addiction. In an article in the magazine The Fix, Dr. Dale Archer said: “Fame and addiction are definitely related. Those who are prone to addiction get a much higher high from things — whether it’s food, shopping, gambling or fame — which means [the behavior or situation] will trigger cravings. When we get an addictive rush, we are getting a dopamine spike. If you talk to anyone who performs at all, they will talk about the ‘high’ of performing. And many people who experience that high report that when they’re not performing, they don’t feel as well. All of which is a good setup for addiction. People also get high from all the trappings that come with fame. The special treatment, the publicity, the ego. Fame has the potential to be incredibly addicting."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201403/why-we-seek-the-high-stardom
 
I'm still optimistic about the future of cinema (whose definition will undergo constant revisions), but I do think the cold reception to this year's Oscars will prove not a temporary blip but an acceleration of the current trend towards the small(er) screen. Before the pandemic I used to watch more movies in theaters than at home, including revivals. That I was among a tiny minority goes without saying, but I doubt I'm alone among these cinephiles in expecting not to return to my old ways anytime soon if ever - not only because I won't be driving for work nearly as often but also because my recent discovery of TCM has shown me just how much classic cinema I remain in the dark about. There's just too much to explore outside the movie theater, and if that necessary solitutde comes at the expense of the communal experience of moviegoing, maybe that's not such a bad thing.
I remember thinking back in the early 1990s how easy it would be to bypass the studio system and make films on extremely low budgets with video. The problem then was that theatrical releases were still crucial for getting the recognition and credibility to be picked up for video and cable.

Now the technology for high-quality video and sound on budgets is amazing, and things like image stabilizing for tracking and other motion shots, editing, and post-production on a professionally level are very accessible.

It’s really not very difficult to make a film if you know the basics of camera set-ups, lighting, sound and editing. Many people write a screenplay or are in a cover band, but for some reason making a film often seems less possible. It’s very easy, but like being a musician or writer, not many people have the talent to be really good at it.

There are more avenues than ever for unknown filmmakers to have their work seen, but unless the film stands out for some reason, it will be lost in the crowd like the screenplays that flood Hollywood. I had an summer internship in college at Samuel Goldwyn. I had to cut out articles pertaining to their films and make a scrapbook for Samuel Goldwyn Jr., and photocopy tons of screenplays among other menial tasks. I also worked as a script reader right after college for a couple of different producers. All the screenplays I read had made it through the filters necessary to make it to a major producer, and only a tiny fraction made it to the decision makers, and only a tiny fraction of those got optioned, and only a tiny fraction of the optioned screenplays ever made it to the screen. I imagine young filmmakers are experiencing the same problem with getting their films seen that screenwriters experience. At least they have the finished product in hand.

Italian Neorealism and the French New Wave were examples of people making films on a budget, breaking all the rules in the process. I’d like to see more of that today.

Frankly, apart from maybe Festen/The Conversation I can't think of any Vinterberg film I liked before Another Round. Guess I could also include his 2015 version of Far from the Madding Crowd (which I happened to see with a bud at the AFI Silver on our way back from a 2-day trip to an old neighborhood), but while it was nice to see him dispense with the Dogme nonsense you still expect more than a competent adaptation of a major Hardy novel from one of our supposedly major filmmakers.

All that said, yes his latest feature is arguably his best. I personally would've preferred a little more "letting go of control" in the finale - especially considering Mads Mikkelsen's original background as a professional dancer - but the scene is still an instant classic in the best un-Vinterbergian way:


Also I forgot to mention in my (2nd) OP that Thomas' late daughter Ida was to star in the film and four days into filming at the time of her fatal accident, which no doubt compounded his grief. Very glad to see his perseverance rewarded, though it obviously would've been sweeter with Ida in attendance.
Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg’s Dogma 95 shook things up (a little bit).

THE VOW OF CHASTITY

I swear to submit to the following set of rules drawn up and confirmed by DOGMA 95:
  • Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
  • The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot.)
  • The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted.
  • The film must be in color. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera.)
  • Optical work and filters are forbidden.
  • The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
  • Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
  • Genre movies are not acceptable.
  • The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
  • The director must not be credited.
Furthermore I swear as a director to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a “work”, as I regard the instant as more important than the whole. My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings. I swear to do so by all the means available and at the cost of any good taste and any aesthetic considerations.

Thus I make my VOW OF CHASTITY.

Copenhagen, Monday 13 March 1995
On behalf of DOGMA 95
Lars von Trier Thomas Vinterberg

http://www.dogme95.dk/the-vow-of-chastity/
 
Last edited:
Frankly, apart from maybe Festen/The Conversation I can't think of any Vinterberg film I liked before Another Round. Guess I could also include his 2015 version of Far from the Madding Crowd (which I happened to see with a bud at the AFI Silver on our way back from a 2-day trip to an old neighborhood), but while it was nice to see him dispense with the Dogme nonsense you still expect more than a competent adaptation of a major Hardy novel from one of our supposedly major filmmakers.
I don't like all his films, but Festen (The Celebration) is still one of my favorite films.
 
Back
Top