• Guest blogging for Nathaniel Rogers, Michael C. writes up the apparent death of “Oscar bait” as it pertains to Best Picture winners. [The Film Experience]
• Steve Pond chats with “The Kids Are All Right” writer/director Lisa Cholodenko. [The Odds]
• James Cameron discusses his inspiration for “Avatar” (it won’t go away) in an extended collector’s edition clip. [MTV Movies Blog]
• James L. Brooks’s “How Do You Know” gets a PG-13 rating after all. [Variety]
• Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi talk “Tangled.” [MakingOf]
• Sasha Stone dives in again, writes a BUNCH of words on the year’s Best Picture race. [Awards Daily]
[Photo: Focus Features]
Comments
22 responses to “11/17 OSCARWEB ROUND-UP: The death of Oscar bait, ‘How Do You Know’ nails a PG-13, Moore and Levi on ‘Tangled’”
Interesting article by Michael C.
I personally don’t think The King’s Speech will win. I think it is going to come down to The Social Network and True Grit. The Social Network is one of the best reviewed films in years. Sure, there is the occasional person complaining about misogyny, but the film has a 100% top critic rating on RT with an average rating of 9.5/10. When is the last time that happened? The King’s Speech already has some detractors and it just seems kind of like a great story, well-told kind of movie (although I can’t confirm this as I haven’t seen it) whereas The Social Network really has something to say and is reflective of the times. I see the Academy going for it instead of the more obvious and conventional choice in The King’s Speech.
If The King’s Speech does win, however, I expect Fincher will take home Best Director.
What is it that The Social Network has to say? And if you think TSN will win because “it’s reflective of our times,” on what basis do you also pick True Grit?
“What is it that The Social Network has to say?”
I don’t think a response is warranted to such a silly question. Go look up one of the dozens of articles discussing the film and what it has to say.
“And if you think TSN will win because “it’s reflective of our times,” on what basis do you also pick True Grit?”
Recency effect.
The problem with Michael C’s op-ed is that it’s one BP win away from being rendered pointless.
There is no pattern to what the AMPAS votes for in the BP race. Had THL been released as planned in ’08, it would have been beaten by Slumdog, allowing Avatar an easy path to victory. There are many other stories like that throughout Oscar history.
It all very much comes down to marketing and timing and quite frankly happenstance.
It’s not a silly question, El D; but it is one clearly for which you have no answer.
I don’t know if it has been posted here before but yesterday it was announced that “True Grit” aslo got the first a “PG-13”. This, combined with the fact that it’s the first ever such rating for Coens (I think) and the trailer definitely seams to position the movie is a commercially succesful work. That, of course, doesn’t mean it also cannot be an Oscar contender.
Intolerable Cruelty, O Brother, and Raising Arizona were PG-13 (The Hudsucker Proxy was PG).
Thanks for the correction, Loyal. I knew that didn’t sound right and instead went along with what was erroneously reported in the original news article.
Still, for what it’s worth, a PG-13 rated winning Oscar film is a rarity.
“It’s not a silly question, El D; but it is one clearly for which you have no answer.”
Jesus, must I spell it out for you?
For starters, the entire film is a metaphor for how social networking leads to social disconnect. The creation of Facebook represents an average person’s use of Facebook. The more you get wrapped up in it (like Mark got wrapped up in creating it), the more you distance yourself from the people (Erica) you are using (creating) it for to connect with.
It also has a lot to say about how different generations go on about their business. In the past, suing was considered a cop out, something only the weak and jealous did. Then we have the transition into the new generation or the Facebook generation, where suing becomes the norm. People no longer have to work their ass off to get what they want, it’s all about who you know, who your dad is, who has the best lawyers, etc. The actions of the Winklevi highlight this transition that became evident in the early 2000s.
That’s just a taste, surely if you actually watched the film and thought about it a bit you would realize it has plenty to say.
Am I the only one getting tired of the “well, it will/should win because it’s a movie of the time, of our era, of the zeitgeist, of the …”.
Dammit, can’t a movie just be bad, ok, good, or great?
I thought ‘The Social Network’ was a great movie, and don’t give a rat’s as* about it’s zeitgeist-ness.
I thought ‘Up in the Air’ was ok, and don’t give a rat’s as* about it being about today’s unemployment times.
There’s not one person I know (who I consider intelligent human beings) who mention ‘Up in the Air’ in those terms, etc..
If a film doesn’t have any substance then why should I care? The King’s Speech seems like something I will see, enjoy (maybe even love), but forget about after a while because enjoyable and well-made is pretty much where it ends. That doesn’t mean a film has to define a generation or anything, but it has to carry some weight and provoke some thought.
Well, of course. I would agree, El Duderino.
I want to be moved. I need some gravitas. I just think that the terms/notion that a winning film must “say” something/be of our time/zeitgeist is overused.
“the entire film is a metaphor for how social networking leads to social disconnect.”
Ahh yes, the ‘more we connect the more we are disconnected’ argument. I find that specious. It may be true of Mark, but it’s not a valid generalization. Nor does it have to be. I’m puzzled by people saying that it has a deep message for our times. Because it doesn’t. Nor does it have to.
And why the antagonistic tone? This is what discussions are about, an exchange of ideas. You sound very young.
“Ahh yes, the ‘more we connect the more we are disconnected’ argument. I find that specious. It may be true of Mark, but it’s not a valid generalization.”
I think it is pretty valid. Face to face interaction has taken a back seat to communicating via social media. It’s not necessarily true for every single person on the planet, and I didn’t say that, but social media and technology are certainly having a negative impact on a large portion of the current generation of youth.
I recommend giving Catfish a viewing as well if you haven’t done so. It highlights how being too reliant on social media and not making an effort to properly engage in face to face social interaction can lead to an individual having many social and psychological issues.
“I’m puzzled by people saying that it has a deep message for our times. Because it doesn’t.”
It’s not really a deep message, but it is a message nonetheless, and an important one that people continue to ignore. The message isn’t in your face and telling you how important it is. It subtly develops as the film goes along and leaves room for further interpretation and discussion once the film is over.
“And why the antagonistic tone? This is what discussions are about, an exchange of ideas. You sound very young.”
I apologize. A bit of a rough day and the tone of your first response (and subsequently the second) just kind of rubbed me the wrong way.
Moreover, “The Social Network” goes into great detail exploring a generation lost of a fluid identity due to an ever evolving digital landscape, as well as highlighting the peculiar insularity AND interconnectedness the internet can exhibit. I think ultimately it portrays the idea that today’s society, the actual raw human element, is not much different from other eras at all. The difference is only in the way we manage to express (or not) those human proclivities through mechanized means.
If Social Network didn’t have a message or something to say I don’t think we’d be debating about it, would we? And I certainly don’t think there’d be numerous articles discussing the merits of its themes and nuances.
It’s ignorant to say TSN is shallow or without a message when 97% of critics say otherwise. You can dislike the film all you want, but anyone proclaiming the film is not reflective of our current society is either not paying attention, or allowing the stigma of “the facebook movie” to blind them from what the movie is really about.
Not to mention what The Social Network has to say about Harvard and the class system.
But of the two films, which I enjoyed quite a bit, I’m a bigger fan of The King’s Speech. It feels weird to be rooting for it as the “underdog” because it’s not hip enough to win the Best Picture Oscar.
I am not saying The Social Network is without a message/shallow. Not at all.
I’m merely saying: I really, really enjoyed watching it despite my not caring if it HAS a message or not.
That goes for a lot of movies that are supposed to be loved/appreciated simply because it has a “omg socio/political/cultural message” to impart. I’m just happy to have I loved it.
have loved it.
“Face to face interaction has taken a back seat to communicating via social media.”
True enough. But at the same time, social media has connected people who wouldn’t otherwise have ever connected on any level. An interesting paradox.
El D, sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way. Not intentional. I appreciate your thoughtful reply.
I think the paradox is the point, Ella.