11/2 OSCARWEB ROUND-UP: Newton on ‘For Colored Girls,’ Godard’s Oscar revives controversy, ratings board drama

Posted by · 9:30 am · November 2nd, 2010

Jean-Luc Godard’s Honorary Oscar revives controversy over the director’s supposed anti-Semitism. [New York Times]

Amy Kaufman sits down with “Love & Other Drugs” director Edward Zwick. [The Envelope]

Edward Douglas chats up “For Colored Girls” star Thandie Newton. [Coming Soon]

Steve Wintraub talks “Megamind” and more with David Cross. [Collider]

Patrick Goldstein on “The King’s Speech” getting an “R” rating (for multiple uses of the “f” word). [The Big Picture]

Also, as reported on Oscar Talk a few weeks back, “Blue Valentine” producer Jamie Patricof says “Blue Valentine” will not be re-edited in the wake of an NC-17 rating. [Cinematical]

Sasha Stone on the two types of Best Picture winners: those that entertain and those that are groundbreaking. [Awards Daily]

Peter Knegt talks to “127 Hours” star James Franco and director Danny Boyle. [indieWIRE]

[Photo: Historynet.com]




→ 4 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

4 responses so far

  • 1 11-02-2010 at 10:14 am

    James D. said...

    Is Stone implying that The Social Network is groundbreaking? I think that is absurd, and I quite enjoyed it.

    As for Godard, there is certainly some disturbing trends of his regarding anti-Semitism, but he is still one of the greatest directors ever and that is all that matters. It isn’t like he drugged and anally raped anyone.

  • 2 11-02-2010 at 11:19 am

    Maxim said...

    I will make one comment relating to that NYT article but I don’t want it to seem that it’s about Goddard or anyone else in particular:

    When it comes to the types of Awards under which Honorary Oscars fall under, arguments of the type “think of the work, don’t think of the man” simply do not apply. Honorary Oscars are all about recognizing and rewarding individuals as individuals. There are other awards that are specifcally designed to recognize works (art, skills, achievements, etc) and they happen to be more common.

    Lifetime Achievement Awards are different and are different for a good reason. The contibution a person made certainly plays the key role in how the individuals should be selected but the defintion of that word must not be limited to just tangeble works but to legacy as a whole. And if the legacy is checkered, one should not shy away from admitting it.

    And that is why I have no problem admitting that while I think Elia Kazan was a tremendous artist (I really admire the man’s art), Honorary Award is not one he should have gotten. And if you say that my argument should not work for an Award given by Cinematic community I will respond by saying that it is the very community his actions have hurt.

    And I will say, that quite a few staments made by Goddard towards fellow fillmakers were objectively uncalled for, dumb/jealous (remember the comments he made about Michael Moore?) and quite hurtful. I will not, however, compare the, to the effect of Kazan’s testimonies, because that would be silly.

    I will also say that, to his credit, Goddard has not really done anything wrong in regards to the ceremony itself. He acknowledged the fellow nominees, in what seemed to be in a perfectly respectful maner and there was hardly anything offensive about him declining to be present at his age.

    And that is why, considering how long we’ve known about these’s years crop of winners, NYT’s article left a bad taste and seemed exploitative. Sure some people are predictably displeased (myself included) but why post it now when Goddard has been acting perfectly ok? It’s just going to make both sides upset.

  • 3 11-02-2010 at 11:22 am

    Maxim said...

    James, I do not believe that descrimination of any sort is to be taken lightly. Personally, I think it’s the main cause of most of our problems but I don’t want to go into that.
    Comments of the sort “sure X is bad but it’s not like it’s Y” are not doing anyone any favors.

  • 4 11-02-2010 at 11:42 am

    Guy Lodge said...

    Whatever your reservations about Godard, at least grant him the courtesy of spelling his name correctly.