|
Has anyone else seen Elle? It was my favorite last year, and Isabelle Huppert deserves the nomination, but I have no expectation of her winning
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
https://letterboxd.com/gemko/film/selma/Mike D'Angelo posted:Got very worried early on, because DuVernay's handling of the Birmingham church bombing is atrocious—not only does she shoot the buildup to the explosion with various doomy portents (close-ups of little hands sliding down bannisters, etc.), she isolates one of the little girls on the stairs in a way that telegraphs what's about to happen, to the point where I actually said "And boom!" out loud about one second before the bomb went off.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Agreed, but he's able to explain his contrarian opinions in a way where I can at least understand where he's coming from Also, regarding Selma's accuracy: Wikipedia posted:Director DuVernay and US Representative John Lewis (whom the film portrays as a young man) responded separately that the film Selma is a work of art about the people of Selma, not a documentary. DuVernay said in an interview that she did not see herself as "a custodian of anyone's legacy". In response to criticisms that she rewrote history to portray her own agenda, DuVernay said that the movie is "not a documentary. I'm not a historian. I'm a storyteller." Lewis wrote in an op-ed for The Los Angeles Times: "We do not demand completeness of other historical dramas, so why is it required of this film?" Not trying to say that Selma is bad (it isn't), but lol at the idea that it is "exceptionally artistic".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Coaaab posted:i did enjoy his page-long mixed reaction to moonlight i can't find one now, but there's at least a couple of Dissolve reviews he wrote where the director showed up in the comments to take personal offense
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
the problem is that working in Hollywood, at least in a capacity that allows you to get invited to join the Academy, doesn't require you to have any scholarly sense of what makes a film objectively good or bad. i remember Ben Lyons, a paid critic, saying that you only notice editing when it's bad. obviously he's a loving moron, but do you think most of the actors/actresses voting have any idea what makes good editing? extrapolate that to pretty much every category. the background in film history & theory that you need to properly appreciate & contextualize a film goes out the window when you spend your 20s at the Royal Tampa Academy of Dramatic Tricks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
it would still be possible to actually choose the best of the five nominees if the people voting on the winner (since everybody votes)...oscars.org posted:Finals voting is also conducted via online and paper ballots. ...made their choices based on objective criteria, rather than "it's their year for it" or "I just loved that movie, so I'll vote for it" edit: see also the Cannes Film Festival, where a jury of cinematic peers still make baffling choices china bot fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
I'll throw in my top ten: 1. OJ: Made in America 2. Elle 3. Author: The JT LeRoy Story 4: Wiener-Dog 5. Don't Breathe 6. The Edge of Seventeen 7. Manchester By The Sea 8. Toni Erdmann 9. La La Land 10. The Nice Guys
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 03:07
|
|