• At least Ron Rosenbaum kind of gets it. Though he apparently thinks he’s the only one a bit miffed at the redemption angle. Do some more Googling, Ron. [Slate]
• Joining the “Reader” bash, Noah Forrest pleads with the Academy not to hand the Oscar to Kate Winslet. [Movie City News]
• Jeff Wells gets word that Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” could be in theaters by the end of the year. [Hollywood Elsewhere]
• David Poland scatters “Watchmen” gossip while apparently indicating that Warner Bros. owes him and others a look at the film a month in advance. [The Hot Blog]
• Patrick Goldstein is big on foreign film contender “The Class.” [The Big Picture]
• Brits pick the most memorable movie quotes ever. [Daily Telegraph]
• Sasha Stone talks to Oscar-nominated “Frozen River” scribe Courtney Hunt. [Awards Daily]
• Thank God Michael Bay didn’t have his way with this year’s Oscar telecast. [Rope of Silicon]
• Pete Hammond jumps on the “Mickey might win” bandwagon, becomes, like, the 10th person to draw a parallel to last year’s Best Actress race. He also points to a potential Viola Davis upset in the supporting actress category. [Notes on a Season]
• David Carr, meanwhile, comments on Rourke’s “whale of a speech” at the BAFTAs. But he rather insultingly thinks voters would be “picking the speech over the performance.” Hardly. [The Carpetbagger]
• Xan Brooks prays for a little spice and surprising variety at this year’s Oscar ceremony. [The Guardian]
Comments
20 responses to “2/10 Oscarweb Round-up”
How could Spielberg possibly have time to do Lincoln with Tintin starting to film this week. Not to mention the lenghty post the movie will need.
Kris, while you might not agree, David Poland makes a great point. The doubts he has (which he validates completely) are the same ones that I have, and the same ones that I have gotten ripped for by so many people. Again, for the record, I don’t want this movie to fail, and every time I exercise some doubts about the film, I am made out to be a troll.
Also Kris, if you read his article, he doesn’t think that Warner Bros. owes him and others specifically an early screening of the film, he merely states that the is another area of concern, especially for a film of this magnitude. You’re making him out to be rather selfish in his statements, while that is clearly not the truth.
And how is what he is saying gossip? Since when is expressing concerns about an upcoming work gossiping? I certainly can’t verify these sources of people he says who have seen it and not been too impressed, but you said that you had been hearing good things about the film. Whose to say whose sources are right here? In all reasoning it is just as likely that you are spreading gossip about the film.
I’m sure that you, as many others have, are going to accuse me of having preconceived notions of the film or writhing a review before I see it, but again, it seems just as likely that you yourself may have strong preconceived notions on the film, just on the opposite spectrum.
God, do you snipe at every film writer every morning? You really come across as a brat who thinks he knows it all. Ugh. Gotta stop reading.
when noah forrest writes:
“The role of Hanna Schmitz is simply not a good role because the film doesn’t know what to make of her.”
i personally think this analysis is a total misreading of the movie and the performance. the movie emphasis this ambiguity throughout the entire movie throughout many characters, just re-look at lena olin’s character for instance. the ambiguous nature of winslet’s character is what you make of it as a viewer. i just think that noah and perhaps others feel that the movie has to give them a clear read on the character which i’m not sure is the point of the movie.
Scott: I know David, you don’t. End of story.
Fred: I sniped at three writers. Don’t be so precious, it’s just commentary.
So therefore his comments carry no weight?
I think Tin Tin has a three week shooting schedule. He could, conceivably, start Lincoln in April/May.
Scott: Not really sure what that means. Regardless, I think it’s a valid point that as a crusader against gossip, David is being hypocritical by pumping a bunch of gossip into that piece. Negative reactions from so and so, mixed to negative, completely ignoring the positive assessments of the same footage that have been on the record for some time. And I wasn’t the only one to call him out on it.
I’m not sure I buy into Noah’s argument. While I completely agree with him that several actors have been in a “right performer, wrong performance” situation with the Oscars (This site did an article about that if I’m not mistaken), I don’t see why giving Kate an award would be particularly egregious. Plus, she is NOT the weakest nominee, especially compared to Streep and Jolie’s histrionics.
Sure, the Academy blew it when she didn’t win for her superior work in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, giving her a “make up” award is certainly no worse. At least she’ll be in good company.
I thought Jolie was fantastic. I don’t get why one scene depicting a woman screaming suddenly becomes “histrionics” either. It’s not her fault that clip was played ad nauseam throughout the year.
It’s become one of the biggest myths of the year. One scene is dependent on an emotional outburst, and for the rest of the film, she’s an even keel. Suddenly it’s “histrionics.”
I don’t get it.
I’m with you on Streep, though.
I loved Noah Forrest’s piece on the lameness of a Reader win for Kate. I can’t believe in a year with 2 of my 3 favorite actresses nominated I don’t think either of them gave particularly good performances. Streep and Winslet that is
Regarding Noah: I think Kate in ‘The Reader’ gives the performance of the year. SDhe absolutely deserves the win, and for that role. ‘Rev. Road’? THAT is what you call an over-the-top performance. Not that she’s bad, she’s not. But I found her inifintely superior in ‘The Reader’. Very difficult character to portray. I entirely disagree with Noah.
Hey, everyone’s got an opinion and that’s fine, film is a subjective medium. My issue is this: if the Academy voters truly love her performance in The Reader and think it’s the best female lead performance of the year, then that’s fine. BUT, we all know that there will be more than a handful of voters who will be putting the check mark next to her name because of her distinguished career and not just this performance.
Individual acting Oscars are not supposed to be Lifetime Achievement Awards (that’s what the Lifetime Achievement Award is for). I thought her performance in The Reader was weaker than the others, but if the Academy in its infinite wisdom thinks otherwise then…oh well. I just think they’ve already hurt their credibility by not giving Winslet an Oscar for one of her past deserving portrayals and giving her one for this performance will just hurt their credibility further. But that’s just my opinion!
(sigh) Ugh Kris. Again Kris, who are you to say that your sources are legit while his aren’t. But that’s not really the important thing. The important thing is that you so badly want Watchmen to be good that you discredit anybody who doesn’t agree with you, no matter how good their point is. But I’m through talking about this, because you obviously don’t want to be bothered with any negative views on this film, even though you certainly spread positive things about it.
Not about my sources versus his, Scott. It’s about his infatuation for NOT doing exactly what he’s doing. As for me “wanting so badly for Watchmen to be good,” I think you’re projecting.
Fair enough – he’s a hypocrite. But that still doesn’t make his actual points illegitimate. I guess all we can really do is wait another month.
And yet what I wrote was and still is true. Funny how arguments pop up around nothing.
No, you can’t say what you wrote is true, because you haven’t seen the film. If Poland’s hunches are true and Watchmen isn’t that great, then he wasn’t spreading gossip, only truth. Just because you say something negative about anything doesn’t always mean that it is gossip.
And you can’t say that your only qualm with Poland in this instance was his hypocrisy.