I was talking recently with an Academy member who shall remain nameless and “The King’s Speech” came up. This is what you’d definitely call a “steak eater” voter, if you will, part of a below-the-line branch, real rank and file type with zero connection to the film. I thought I’d share his feelings on the movie because I think they might offer some insight for those wondering how or why the film is resonating so much:
I watched that movie and it made me understand why I love movies. I don’t know, humanity, I guess, man. Trusting in another human being and your most vulnerable f***ing thing that you’re the most terrified of and give it to somebody else? I mean, I come from recovery. I’ve been sober for 26 years. The idea to say, “Please help me,” is the transformation of a lifetime if you’re willing and can ever get to that place. For me that movie resonated in so many f***ing ways. I came away going, “Well, that’s my movie. F*** everything else.”
Sure, it’s a specific guy’s thought process. But there is nuance built into that heart/head, see/feel debate raging in this year’s race, and I think these comments do a nice job of illuminating some of that.
[Photo: The Weinstein Company]
Comments
142 responses to “Relatability”
Everyone has his/her preferences. However, I just watched some video about some bloggers panel in Santa Barbara. One out-of-control (!)blogger says that when she goes to Rite aid, she thinks “that’s kings speech person, that’s kings speech person” and they never get The Social Network, not in million years”
I cant believe that kind of condescending attitude. So if you didnt like TSN, it means you didnt get it???? This is not the first time she says that! She must herself very smart to get that movie!
Some people just dont accept that movies are experiential. There are so many reasons why you like or dont like a movie! But attacking other people just they dont like the movie you like??? That’s crazy!
I see we have a post on the “historical inaccuracies” of TKS — per the latest campaign to discredit it and somehow throw it off-track — while conveniently failing to mention that TSN was, admittedly, based on a book that offered one side of a very complicated story. No inaccuracy there!
As to some of us not “getting” TSN, per the blogger on the Santa Barbra panel who evidently has ample time to obsessively consider such things, it’s quite possible that many of us who saw TSN did, in fact, “get it’ and just decided we didn’t want it.
To each his (or her) own.
“Frankly, I’m getting tired of hearing about how I’m obligated to recognize “The King’s Speech” as a deserving Best Picture winner.”
I don’t think anyone has asked as much of you.
Kris, I’ve been following In Contention for some time now, and have never really gotten down to commenting. I have to say, though, that you certainly are the most objective of critics. It’s very refreshing- especially because many critics seem to forget their responsibility towards their readers to *first* present the facts they have dug up, and only then to present their own views on the subject.
I, personally, did not like either TSN or TKS very much- in fact, I disliked the former a lot more than I did the latter. I did not relate to either of these films, I did not connect to them, and both came across to me as cold and unfeeling. (I am in my twenties, so I guess I should have like TSN, but seriously thought it was pretty poor film-making/story-telling)
That said, I completely get that there are other people out there who could connect to both these films, and largely, that is the measure of a great work of art. You can’t stand back and judge a film (or a poem, or a song) analytically. To me, TSN was technical perfection with some very good performances. The TKS was very well-made, too.
But as a human being, I would (and should) vote for the film that moved me the most. If I didn’t, it would be like I was being dishonest with myself.
The greatest pleasure an artist can have is teh knowledge that she/he has moved someone and made them feel included in this large, bustling, lonely hellhole.
re: JW and his ilk: having been forced out of the first feelings of shock and denial, as long as you’re stuck in this prolonged anger phase of your grief, you will never get a good night’s sleep until you find some form of acceptance.
“I see we have a post on the “historical inaccuracies” of TKS — per the latest campaign to discredit it and somehow throw it off-track — while conveniently failing to mention that TSN was, admittedly, based on a book that offered one side of a very complicated story. No inaccuracy there!”
One rewrites history, and the other tells a story from biased point of views. Not quite the same.
@Troy actually, when it comes to Zuckerberg’s girlfriend, Social Network does rewrite history. Indeed, you could argue that’s a more dramatic rewrite since Mark Zuckerberg’s entire motivation and sympathetic streak is hinged on the desire for ‘the one that got away’. On the other hand, George VI’s support for appeasement has minimal impact on the central narrative of TKS.
But none of that really matters. They’re movies, not documentaries. What difference does it make? Who cares?
The King’s Speech is the best picture of the year in the same way that Driving Miss Daisy, Chicago and Crash were the best pictures of their respective years. But it doesn’t matter. The Oscars have never been known for recognising art, yet we get sucked into this same argument year after year. The best thing to do about it is laugh and shake your head. Giving The King’s Speech the Oscar over The Social Network is no different to giving the Oscar to Shakepeare In Love over The Thin Red Line. It’s the Oscars folks, that’s what they do. It’s not to be taken seriously.
It’s kind of really funny that all TSN fans start throwing mud at The King’s Speech (especially considering the historical accuracy) and they never ever ask themselves if they’re doing damage to their favorite – and they are! Because what an Oscar contender needs is to stay in the headlines, to stay in the ramplight. And TKS definitely stays there and given the recent turn of events and the interesting little detail that TSN fans (and actually stars) are behaving really badly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the film really gets a bad treatment from the Academy. In the end the Academy loves somebody who plays the game. Mo’Nique PLAYED the game last year, but she played it wisely. She was there for her Globe, she was there for her SAG Award, she made everything to stay in the ramplight and she gave interviews, tried everything she could to be moving on all these events. And she got it CAMPAIGNING! And this year the stars of THE SOCIAL NETWORK really did all the wrong choices at the SAG Awards. They acted bored, they acted angry, they acted arrogant. That Andrew Garfield reaction to the applause for their film was a bit over the top. I already stated on another web page that probably it wasn’t what we all think it is, but it doesn’t matter. Hollywood hates attitude and bitter losers and this could only do damage. In the end the guilds matter more than the Globes and the NYFCC/LAFCA/NSFC. But there is something: remember 2007? Marion Cotillard was losing momentum. Julie Christie had all the awards – the Globe, the SAG Award, the NYFCC, the NSFC, the Critics’ Choice, the NBR. But Cotillard actually showed up everywhere, she was a gracious loser and she gave interviews and behaved like a lady – charming, humble, appreciating the other performances, praising the winners etc. Hollywood loves them this way.
I wish I got this feeling from The King’s Speech, I really do. It just did nothing for me emotionally nor did it impress me as film (besides the acting). I felt it was run of the mill stuff and while still enjoyable, I walked out feeling let down.
I remember walking out of TSN literally saying “wow”. I also remember walking out of TKS saying “I can understand why this is getting buzz and Firth will win”. But there was no wow.
And yet, I’ve seen TSN several times since, and the effect has worn off a bit. And upon seeing TKS a second time, I found much more to like.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I find both films have amazing strengths and certain weaknesses (on an emotional level). Though both films are great, TSN is not the ‘be all end all’, and I don’t find TKS to be as heartwarming/rousing as others. That’s just my opinion.
And though they’re not as significant, I got stronger emotional responses from ‘The Fighter’, ‘TS3’, ‘HTTYD’, and ‘Another Year’.
But those aren’t contending for the win, are they? Well, maybe ‘The Fighter’, but it’s a big stretch.
44
That’s all well and good, but then again, there’s never going to be a best picture winner that’s agreeable to everyone. Last year, I thought Avatar was the epitome of mediocrity dressed up in a flashy suit, and had it won best picture, it would have been, in my opinion, one of the worst winners in the history of the award. Basterds was my favorite, but that film had as many haters as it had fans, and Up in the Air never gained any traction at all.
I’m ok with it if you didn’t like the film, or if you don’t like this year’s inevitable winner. What does bother me is the people who cite the main problem they have with a film as “it beat so and so for best picture”. I’m not suddenly going to drop The King’s Speech to the bottom of my best picture nominee rankings because it’s not the frontrunner, but I feel like there’s some of that going on here (and over at Awardsdaily, especially). I don’t think it’s anywhere near the film that The Social Network, but I think it’s probably still my third or fourth favorite of the films. I enjoyed it more than True Grit, which is notable because the Coens are among my favorite directors. I enjoyed it more than Black Swan, though that one probably deserves another look. And I enjoyed it more than Toy Story 3, which I think is easily the weakest film in that series, and didn’t have the huge emotional impact on me that it seemingly had on everyone else. These things are never going to stay constant from one viewer to another, but it’s obvious that The King’s Speech has resonated with a lot of academy voters, and whether it’s the best film or not, that’s all it needs. Game over.
I really dont understand that some people, including some I-know-everything bloggers still call the Social Network as “the best movie of the year”. They still present their opinions as facts! I dont think it is a universal fact that TSN is the best movie of the year. Go and ask PGA, DGA, SAG and many people.
I believe they should say “I believe”, “I think” or “in my opinion” when they declare TSN as the best movie of the year!
Just like one cannot say that TKS is the best movie of the year, as that sentiment is not shared by all!
By presenting your opinion as the fact?? That’s very ego-centric and misleading.
When someone says something is “the best movie of the year”, it’s implied that it’s opinion. Who cares?
Craig,
maybe for you and me, yes. But some people state it as a fact! That was my point!
Kris, once again thanks for your objective coverage. Instead of bashing TKS down, here at In Contention you are trying to break down why it resonates with people. That is the best way to analyze it.
I disagree with the so called insult people direct at supporters of TKS, calling them old, unsophisticated. It is uncalled for and simply untrue.
I am not in the movie business. Yet I know well enough that under another director with another script and different actors, the movie could have been a disaster. It is about a man who stutters! What an awful idea for a movie.
I loved Hooper’s direction and the choices he made. On the first scene, I felt Bertie’s helplessness, I felt claustrophobic. He did not have the chance to run away. The longer it went, the worse it got. I felt the discomfort of the audience. I cringed. I became restless in my seat. It was so beautifully done. All throughout the movie, the audience was moaning, cringing and feeling for Bertie whenever he had to give a public speech.
Trivializing his stutter is unfair. It is a great hindrance to once psyche. You avoid conversation; your interaction with people is affected. Bertie also thought there was no cure. Living with an ailment without hope for cure is something I can empathize with.
I also have another comment about this movie. I have watched many war movies. Yet for the first time in this movie, I felt the heavy burden of taking that big decision to go to war. I felt the reluctance of the government and I understood the reasons. Seeing the older people listening to the final speech, I was telling myself, these are the people who have seen the Great War, who suffered and lost loved ones and now they know it will all happen again. When you read history you do not get these. It is the great books and the great movies which give you that perspective and TKS did a superb job at that. It is for these reasons that The Thin Red Line is one of my favourite war movies. It gave me another perspective. For the same reason the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan was so revolutionary. Never before had I felt so strongly what it would be like to be on the front line and to go to a certain death.
All this is not to take away anything from TSN’s accomplishment. I loved it! It reminded me of The Insider. Another great movie, perfectly done. I am hoping TSN will get the BD and adapted screenplay award and TKS best picture award.
Regarding the argument that Oscars was getting it right in the last few years and this year it loses its winning streak. I disagree. Again it is all subjective. I really did not get the hype about The Hurt Locker. I thought it was an OK movie. Inglorious Basterds was the best of all the nominees in my opinion. My reaction to No Country For Old Man was the same. I loved all the other four nominees better. Juno was a gem. TWBB was a daring movie. Michael Clayton was the unglamorous great movie we all yearn to watch. Atonement was epic, James McAvoy should have been nominated for best actor.
So just because the Academy happened to award your favourite film in the last few years does not mean they got it right. IMO they got it wrong. It is all subjective.
“Man, The King’s Speech is so emotional and relatable! It moved me so much that I’m also voting for it in Art Direction, Cinematography, Film Editing, Sound Mixing, and Score!”
;-)
Sertan,
I usually just try not to take it that way, especially in talks about which films we find to be better than others. But you’re right, I’m sure some people state their opinions with belief that they are absolute fact.
I didn’t care too much for either movie, although I do think Jesse Eisenberg’s performance is alot more Oscar-worthy than Colin Firth’s. His career-topping performance came and went last year. I’m honestly predicting an upset in Best Actor, with Eisenberg taking the Oscar ala 2003.
of course, art is subjective but there are clear superlatives, whether we prefer them or not. It is the award for “best picture of the year” not “favorite movie of the year”. there is a clear distinction.
It is not arrogant to state that “The King’s Speech” is not the best picture, because it is not, period. I like the film and it is a very good film indeed, but not the best. My favorite painting is one that I bought at a local art gallery because it reminds me of the scenery I used to watch with my grandmother in my youth in summer afternoons. Is it better than DaVinci’s Last supper? No, and because I relate to it and have more of an emotional impact from it, I can’t be ignorant and say my favorite painting is better than a Picasso or Van Gogh.
What proves TSN is the better movie? Unprecedented critical acclaim. People who live, breathe movies should have more reliable expertise. We undermine critics too much. They study, research, films, it is their profession; they should know which is the better film over any sound mixer or costume designer. and that Tom Hooper is the frontrunner in such a stellar year for directors, is appalling. I dare one person to defend the DGA choice. Hooper borderline deserved a nomination, much less a win. Its not about being subjective, its about being rational. Oh well, the academy didn’t nominate Scorsese for Taxi Driver or Hitchcock for Vertigo because those films did not hit them on a gut level. And this mentality represents the the gold standard for film achievement?
An American in Paris wasn’t as fun or inspiring so it beat A Streetcar Named Desire and the same occured when Rocky, one of my favorite movies, beat Taxi Driver and Network and All the President’s Men. Downright stupid!
“Samuel said…
What is art and cinema for if it doesn’t move us on a human, emotional level? It’s not mathematics.”
Yes and that’s why I love movies and have been disappointed at the Oscars when they move away from that. Give me emotion over a smart script any day.
Okay, I’m gonna step in here. Critics do NOT “live , breathe movies”. They WATCH movies. A lot of them. And they offer their paid opinion, an opinion driven by their personal likes and dislikes based on (sometimes) years of watching movies.
To imply that because they watch a lot of movies they are, therefore, the experts on what makes a Great Movie is a bit like saying the actor who can occasionally think of good dialogue can also sit down and write a good screenplay. Or a critic who thinks a shot could be structured differently can go out and direct a good film.
Not the same thing at all.
The people who do, actually, live and breathe movies are those who MAKE movies. In some cases, many, many movies over many years. They have a perspective based on real world experience that a critic — or a lay person or blogger or pundit — will never have. And, given the choice — looking at the PGAs, the DGAs and the SAGs –, they chose TKS over TSN.
As one screenwriter-friend of mine said to me while watching TSN at a screening back in mid-September, as we once again cut to yet another deposition scene in order to impart yet more salient info and keep the narrative on-track, “Is it me, or do you feel like you’re watching episodic TV?”
His opinion, of course. But it was based on what he, as a screenwriter, is aware of. The choices he could have made that would have been different than what Sorkin or Fincher made.
And, yes, this friend does have one of those shiny gold men being handed out in late-February. So he probably does know what he’s talking about.
GOLDEN STATUES IS SERIOUS BUSINESS
GOLD AIN’T CHEAP MR HARMONICA
The same could be said about The King’s Speech when Firth, Boham Carter and Rush are performing the many speech exercises and there are cuts to the king performing better speeches at different venues in between. That is more episodic TV than TSN presenting multiple and contrasting points of view in the cuts from deposition room to deposition room.
Having a “shiny gold man” has been proven to not have the supreme authority on what good filmmaking is. Hilary Swank has two Best Actress awards and anyone would rather have an acting class from Meryl Streep with one. Your friend should know a TV director when he sees one, Tom Hooper is after all a TV director unlike Fincher who’s a consumate film director. I think it is fair to believe fincher knows more what he is doing from scene to scene. Just because Matt Damon and Ben Affleck won a screenwriting award does not make them the go-to for screenwriting. A critic is important to determine a film’s value, not always as there is no objective rubric to judge art, it is like a casting director who is the authority on gathering the potential candidates for role despite them not acting for a living themselves.
I am catholic, we go to our priests for advice in issues such as maritalconflicts and such, despite them never have been married themselves….just an example, I am aware not everyone shares this point of view, my point is you don’t have to actively be part of a subject to be the best judge of it. Historians don’t need to make history to evaluate history etc.
Sorry but I don’t find this article fair or objective. It’s sad to see that how PGA-DGA-SAG wins have resulted in people experiencing a sudden change of mind (or heart). it is so ridiculous. I can clearly see a very apparent change of tone (for TKS) here. it is now all praise for TKS and kind of a backlash for TSN.
Ah, there’s the rub. We would almost expect a TV formula from a man who directed TV. We didn’t expect it from a film director who’s evidently directed “a work of art” or the movie of a generation comparable, per one critic, to Citizen Kane (for Christ’s sake!). We expected more and got decidedly less. With TKS we didn’t expect much and were pleasantly surprised.
Never said having an Oscar makes you an expert. It may give your opinion more weight, though, than a critic who neither makes nor writes movies.
Just sayin’ …
And now we’re going to bring priests and historians into the argument? I guess when all else fails, toss in the kitchen sink.
By your definition all courtroom movies are “episodic TV.” This is absolutely ridiculous. Not a moment in “The Social Network” doesn’t feel entirely cinematic, invigorated with the passion and scope that only film can accomplish. “The King’s Speech” feels awfully light, by comparison.
To those who find The King’s Speech bland, boring, simplistic filmmaking I’m not sure what to say anymore.
I’m one of the film lovers who admire works such as In the Mood for Love, Bergman’s Shame, The Conformist, Kieslowski’s Blue/White/Red, Throne of Blood, Tokyo Story, Band of Outsiders, Battle of Algiers, The Magnificent Ambersons, The Lady Eve, Vertigo, They Live By Night, Shoot the Piano Player, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, The Conformist, Howards End, I Know Where I’m Going, Mean Streets, My Darling Clementine, Funny Face, Only Angels Have Wings—the lists gos on and on.
In 2010, I liked/loved such films as Another Year, 127 Hours, Rabbit Hole, Blue Valentine, In a Better World, Never Let Me Go, Nowhere Boy, Youth in Revolt, and Soul Kitchen but they’re not winning much.
I think I’m a pretty demanding and picky filmgoer.
I don’t think The King’s Speech is a masterpiece but I have to say when I saw it in Toronto I was just delighted by the screenplay, the acting, and the no-nonsense storytelling. I was one of those who joined the large audience to applaud and cheer at the end. I don’t expect that giddy feeling to experienced by everyone who sees it but I didn’t have any reviews to go by, just my initial reaction.
If you’ve listened to Hooper talk about working on the movie, you’ll know that he found this a personal project because of his Australian/English upbringing. I do have some quibbles with the wide angle close ups now and then but then Hooper explains why he used them and it makes sense in terms of the performances he wanted to get from Firth and Rush.
So I like the film a lot and have no problem with it winning best picture. Do I think it’s a deep, haunting film like some of my all-time favorites? No.
But to treat it with utter disdain or as the work of hack just seems unfair.
And to those who say it could be a TV movie, I might counter that by saying some of the best writing in America is being done on TV now, not on the big screen. Just ask Aaron Sorkin.
Oh, I hate to burst your bubble, mate, but there were people of all ages — 20s to 80s — at some of the screenings of TSN I went to who were nodding off. Not sure how cinematic that makes it.
Now The Fighter and TKS and even Black Swan? (okay, maybe not Black Swan) Totally engaged and enjoying the experience.
It’s important to remember that film is a subjective experience. What you see may not be seen by someone else and your experience with the film is entirely your own. Doesn’t make them wrong or you right (or vice versa) if there’s a difference of opinion.
So let’s try and keep it in perspective.
“Unprecedented critical acclaim.”
Meaningless. Critics have just as often missed the boat on films that turned out to be classics.
“It’s sad to see that how PGA-DGA-SAG wins have resulted in people experiencing a sudden change of mind (or heart). it is so ridiculous.”
That’s not what happened at all. These reactions were heard (and reported on) for weeks prior to any guild award.
The backlash, clearly, is aimed at TKS, which is suffering from revisionism now. But thankfully, folks like daveylow above have a grasp on things.
Revisionism is a good way to put it. In fact, TSN was re-released early last month — sign of desperation on the studio’s part? perhaps — and had a below dismal showing (oops). Still has yet to reach $100M domestically even though it opened wide with ecstatic reviews.
Point of this is that the critical acclaim, as Kristopher so rightly alluded to in an earlier post, has become a burden. Without the weight of all those accolades, who knows where it would be in the race right now or whether or not TKS would have been able to sneak up and steal its thunder?
“Still has yet to reach $100M domestically even though it opened wide with ecstatic reviews.”
Let’s not diminish the accomplishment of reaching $96 million with a talky drama in October.
***Oh, I hate to burst your bubble, mate, but there were people of all ages — 20s to 80s — at some of the screenings of TSN I went to who were nodding off. Not sure how cinematic that makes it.***
And I can counter that by saying people were nodding off during my screening of “The King’s Speech.” People got up and left immediately,whereas with “The Social Network” the stayed glued to their seats.
This is useless, because it’s obviously subjective. Not every audience is going to be the same, or react in the same way.
arjecc, you said “(Critics) who live, breathe movies should have more reliable expertise.”
I couldn’t disagree more.
First of all as Kicksotic so well put, it is Guild members who make movies and hence live and breathe movies, not the critics.
I know a few critics, funnily I once was one of them for while and I do not believe that they are a better judge of movies. I would rely on the ones whose tastes aligned with mine more often than not since they see more movies than I do. That is it. I trust a critic in doing two things: 1. Put the spotlight on good movies, 2. Give me an analysis of the movie, a different perspective, catching references to other movies I have not seen, etc… Of course the critic should also be a great writer.
“I am catholic, we go to our priests for advice in issues such as marital conflicts and such, despite them never have been married themselves” I am not even going there…
Calling Hooper a TV director to somehow diminish him astonishes me. First of all, what is all the negative talk regarding TV? The Wire was better than most movies I’ve ever watched. There are many more examples and Hooper’s TV efforts, John Adams and Elizabeth are two of those.
I don’t think people are saying TKS is a piece of shit. I don’t even think Shakespeare in Love is a POS. It’s not so much the winner but the films it beat.
Can I just say that I’m a bit surprised at Scott Rudin right now? The guy is not known for taking a defeat laying down. Why isn’t he pushing against this tidal wave of support for The King’s Speech. Instead, he seems to be rolling over and accepting defeat. What gives, man? Why not fight harder for the film you’ve been pushing all year?
I’m not dimishing it, Kristopher. With the reviews, though, they were anticipating a higher opening than the $22 or $23M they got — target was $25 to $35M, I believe — and, even with the incredibly favorable press, they’ve found it hard to hit that magical $100M.
One wonders what would have happened if they had rolled it out slowly like Harvey’s doing with TKS?
Kicksotic, you just seem insistent on diminishing The Social Network at every turn. This sentence especially annoyed me:
“We didn’t expect it from a film director who’s evidently directed “a work of art” or the movie of a generation comparable, per one critic, to Citizen Kane (for Christ’s sake!). We expected more and got decidedly less. With TKS we didn’t expect much and were pleasantly surprised.”
Stop using the word “we”. “We” weren’t all disappointed by TSN. Some of us found it to be everything we wanted it to be and more, and some of us didn’t let the ridiculous hyperbole of those statements effect our enjoyment of the film. Someone was complaining earlier about people stating their opinion as fact, and I said that usually, opinion was implied when making the sort of statements made throughout the majority of this thread. You however, with your use of the word “we”, clearly ARE stating your opinion as fact, and it’s endlessly irritating. We get it, you have buddies in the Academy. We also get that you don’t like The Social Network. That doesn’t mean you have to try to make it’s screenplay sound like a mediocre television script or it’s $96 million gross (nothing to laugh at, at all) sound like a failure. As for the re-release, The Dark Knight did that 2 years ago and I don’t recall anyone labeling it as “desperation on the studio’s part” – it’s campaigning, that ‘s what every single film in this race is doing.
Kevin K — What’s with Scott Rudin. Maybe he loves The King’s Speech too. Maybe he wants to make a movie with Tom Hooper.
Kris, just wanted to say, again, thanks for the balanced, thoughful coverage. In Contention has been knocking it out of the park since Telluride and has remained my go-to place. Really appreciate the professionalism.
I can understand why the perspective of filmmakers is valuable, but critics’ opinions are distinct from theirs and valuable too. I mentioned this on another thread, but it worth remembering:
“In fact, the first film critics group, the New York Film Critics Circle, was created in 1935 in reaction to the Academy, and it’s fun to see where the two groups have differed over the years. I smiled that New Yorkers gave James Cagney (one of my favorite actors) the best actor award in 1938 for “Angels with Dirty Faces” (one of my favorite gangster movies), and that both “Citizen Kane” (instead of “How Green Was My Valley”) and “The Treasure of Sierra Madre” (instead of “Hamlet”) won best picture awards. At the same time, here’s some pictures the Academy anointed that the New York critics did not: “Gone with the Wind,” “Casablanca,” “The Godfather,” “The Godfather – Part II” and “Amadeus.” There’s fault in everything if you look closely enough. ”
Even though these individuals might in AMPAS and the guilds might breathe film, there still seem to be some things that critics catch that they do not.
Kicksotic
I can understand why the perspective of filmmakers is valuable, but critics’ opinions are distinct from theirs and valuable too. I mentioned this on another thread, but it worth remembering:
“In fact, the first film critics group, the New York Film Critics Circle, was created in 1935 in reaction to the Academy, and it’s fun to see where the two groups have differed over the years. I smiled that New Yorkers gave James Cagney (one of my favorite actors) the best actor award in 1938 for “Angels with Dirty Faces” (one of my favorite gangster movies), and that both “Citizen Kane” (instead of “How Green Was My Valley”) and “The Treasure of Sierra Madre” (instead of “Hamlet”) won best picture awards. At the same time, here’s some pictures the Academy anointed that the New York critics did not: “Gone with the Wind,” “Casablanca,” “The Godfather,” “The Godfather – Part II” and “Amadeus.” There’s fault in everything if you look closely enough. ”
Even though these individuals might in AMPAS and the guilds might breathe film, there still seem to be some things that critics catch that they do not.
PS–SOOO, sorry about accidently putting your name in the wrong spot, I meant to address the post to you, but not to do that intentionally.
My use of the “we” has nothing at all to do with you, Craig. It refers to those I saw the screenings with — and, yes, that “we” (all 25 of us in a private screening room in one instance) WERE underwhelmed — and the opinion we all shared. My “we” does not include you. Nor should it as our opinions differ. I also said that movies are a subjective experience. Therefore, there is no right or wrong when it comes to films we … oops, sorry … to films someone likes. It’s all a matter of opinion.
I actually did like TSN. Have seen it at five or six different screenings. So you’re assumption that I don’t like based on my lack of love or support for it is just that: an assumption. No harm done. I just don’t think it deserved the accolades it got. It was a good movie trying to punch above its weight with a “serious message.” Movies do that all the time. Some succeed, others don’t. Again, no harm done.
One friend of mine, a screenwriter, didn’t like the screenplay. Does that mean I, personally, think it sucked? Nope. I thought it was fine and that Sorkin is a lock for the Academy Award. Once more, you’ve made — and evidently been angered by! — a lot of assumptions.
As for the $96M domestic gross, movies only really turns heads — especially if their critically acclaimed and have opened wide — when they hit $100M. It’s a fact of the business. A movie can be good, even great. But it’s considered weak — especially with a $30M (I think?) budget like TSN had — if it can’t hit that threshold.
And let’s not diminish the fact that the opening which hit below the low range of their target was a big deal. A huge deal. Seismic. It was phones ringing off the hook and cells lighting up like Christmas trees big.
Had they hit that target or even, God willing, surpassed it, no one would be having this TKS discussion. Had they hit that target and then gone on to do the kind of business True Grit did and is still doing, it would have seriously been Game Over.
That soft opening was the first definite chink in TSN’s armor and opened the door for other films to have a shot. Holding the #1 spot for two weeks and then slipping to #2 in Week 3 opened the door even more.
My opinion will differ from yours, Craig. And for the sake of Kristopher’s goal of having a civilized discussion on his blog, I suggest we agree to disagree.
No harm done.
Kicksotic
Forgive me if I made assumptions, particularly about your use of the word “we”, but there was nothing in that post to suggest your were talking about the group you saw a screening with. It certainly seemed like an indefinite “we” to me, so thanks for clarifying that.
If you like TSN, even if you don’t think it deserves accolades, I see no really necessity in trying to refute everything anyone says about it. Again, it clearly seemed to me like your posts implied strong dislike against the film, and I apologize if that’s not the case.
As for the box office gross, I still don’t see $96 million as something to be called a failure. It may have had a softer opening than they were hoping for, but it held very well in the second weekend, and has made over $200 million worldwide, much more than just making back it’s budget. Then again, I don’t think gross really has anything to do with whether a film can do well in the awards season: The Hurt Locker proved that.
No problem, Craig. I mentioned in earlier Posts — perhaps not on this thread — that I had seen the movie in screenings with people up to their necks in the film business. It would have been better if I had made that clear in this thread.
As for the $96M domestic/$200M international, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this. To people who are in a different business, that certainly sounds like a respectable number. And it’s certainly nothing to sneeze at.
But with a $40M budget — I checked and it’s officially listed as 40 and not 30 — and the acclaim it got as well as opening in over 2,000 theaters, in Hollywood’s eyes, it should have done better.
And, honestly, the $200M overseas is a non-issue. Studios bank on films doing better overseas than domestically, so it’s the domestic numbers they point to when they want to beat their chests and claim success or dominancy. Sony/Columbia, with TSN posting those numbers, can’t do that.
As I said before, the soft opening and the inability to hit $100M domestically is the unavoidable chink in TSN’s armor. Well, the first chink, I mean. Doesn’t mean it can’t win the Oscar — it just might, you know — or that it’s not a good film that some take seriously. In the eyes of the artists/filmmakers/number crunchers which people this crazy business, it just doesn’t yet have the psychological heft a $100M film has.
In all honesty, although The Hurt Locker was a really good film that was easy to award Best Picture to, there was, for some, more of a personal backstory driving its Academy Award win. The financials never really entered into the discussion, as far as I remember.
I wonder if the Oscars is “something not to be taken seriously”, why are we talking about it?
Or why does it has lots of supporters from the different groups of people?
Why did it last for decades now?
So if The Social Network won BP, it has to be taken seriously?
So, the Golden Globes who picked The Social Network as BP-Drama and nominated Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie and The Tourist for BP-Comedy should be taken seriously over the AMPAS?
Just asking….