(D)Evaluating the nominees

For the films of 2018
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: (D)Evaluating the nominees

Post by Reza »

Uri wrote:Part of the annual closure of the year ritual, along with person/book/song/trend/whatever of the year, we also get suggestions for word of the year. Since this is our conclusion of the last cinematic year, I guess as far as the Oscars are concerned, the current Word of the Year must be “Obvious”. And I don’t mean the identity of the nominees and the winners is obvious (although it practically is). It’s that aesthetically, thematically, ideologically – you name it - the films that are allowed to be part of the discussion, awards wise, must be. Obvious, that is. Narrative, characters, relationships, motivations should all be efficiently functional and clear-cut, i.e. the least multi-dimensional they are the better. Historical, cultural, political or moral references ought to be immediately approachable to people who know nothing about history, culture, politics or moral. So, concepts such as subtlety, ambivalence, subtext, complexity, uncertainty are thrown, unused, out of the window.

Almost a year ago, when the discussion about this year Oscar began, there was one sure thing – First Man was going to be THE major player. Easy peasy. And then it opened – and guess what – it was a decent, respectable, reasonably intelligent, not bad at all popular film. The kind that for decades used to be bread and butter, come Oscar time. No brainer. Not this year. It seems FM dared to avoid some of the more, you know, obvious narrative choices people expected it to make, presented its characters in a little bit less extrovert way and Bang, its Oscarbility went down the drain.

And in this year of Proud Black Awareness - Oscar wise - they passed on another decent film, also by a recent winner, which was even based on a respected piece of literature (that is If Beale Street Could Talk). But no, going for a sincere, realistic if lyrical depiction of black people struggle is for sissies. A young pregnant girl, her unjustly imprisoned lover, their fathers who have no choice but to preform petty crimes – their story is not empowering enough (only the lioness-like mother managed to snick in). Only bluntly simplistic fantasies in which black people are comics-book kings and super heroes, or singlehandedly extinguishes the KKK or at least being better than white people in white people stuff are celebrated. (And yes, all the accolades these films are getting are political, to refer to a recent debate on the board I managed to avoid).

And to add to these three, the politically monovalent Vice, the self-congratulatory and sycophantic Roma, the cry-baby A Star is Born, the slow-speed-dictation like Bohemian Rhapsody – frustratingly, everything about these films is so loudly and clearly spelled out I feel extremely deflated by this year race.

I’m afraid that now there is no real point in the followings, but still.

My rating: A- the ultimate best of the year, B- very good, would make a decent, worthy winner, C- a nomination should suffice, D- not necessarily bad, but not award material, F- a failure.

Best Picture
1. The Favorite – C. It is, indeed, head and shoulders above its competitors. Not a big deal, but still. I enjoyed it – it’s smart and wicked and biting – yet somewhat superficial. It’s not subtle or understated, which is what enabled it to get into this lineup this year, I guess. But it’s not meant to be – at least in its case, the grotesque nature of the material justifies the broad, showoff tone.
2. BlacKKKlansman – D. Way too didactic, preachy and simplistically symmetric for me.
3. Roma – D. I feel I have nothing more to say about this by-the-numbers Masterpiece…
4. A Star is Born – D. … nor about this one.
5. Green Book – D. This year’s The Help. A crowd pleasing, heartwarming (for those who have a heart, which I guess I haven’t) softcore racism. Black people should get equal rights not for being people but for being good and noble and for helping white protagonists of mechanical, catharsis inducing movies.
6. Bohemian Rhapsody – F. Apparently, it’s a very – VERY – effective, if extremely klutzy, tribute act. Perfectly fine for a local pub, rather bizarre as a global cultural phenomenon, not to mention an honored cultural phenomenon.
7. Black Panther – F/Not ranked, for technical reasons. As God is my witness – I tried. I really did. The first time, I watched the first few minutes (the section that’s set in the USA), and I just had to stop. Then I decided I should give it a try, and I saw about two thirds of it and to this day I just can’t bring myself to complete the viewing. It’s me – I’m not worthy. I’m sorry, and I know I will be burned in Hell for what I’m about to say, but – this one is just so silly.
8. Vice – F. Dick Cheney is a bad human being. It took me 20 seconds to type this last sentence (I’m a slow typist). This is also all this film has to say about him. A waste of time and money, which is fine, as long as it’s not mine (which it was).

Best Director
1. Yorgos Lanthimos – C. There is always something off about his films which I’m never, or at least not yet, sure if it’s fully intentional or not. It certainly contributes to the disturbing, un-balanced nature of his output. Which is a good thing.
2. Pawel Pawlikowski – C. In a way, he’s the opposite of Lanthimos – for all the bleakness, doom and gloom nature of the themes he’s dealing with, I find his films (that’s the two I saw) to be too elegant, too neat for their own good. Still, I must admit they are very elegant and neat. That’s good, I guess.
3. Spike Lee – D. It’s about time. He is a better, certainly more important director than all the Ron Howards and Tom Hoopers the Academy just loves to embrace. I just don’t like his film that much.
4. Alfonso Cuarón – D. Him winning this category will be the culmination of an extremely well-crafted campaign to achieve the status of a Cinematic Grand Master. Good for him.
5. Adam McKay – F. I guess that nominally he can’t be described as someone who knows nothing about history, culture, politics or moral. He just doesn’t really care about it, apart from using it to create his flashy yet vacant films.

Best Actor
1. Willem Dafoe – ?. I don’t know if or when I’ll be able to see his film. Still – I hope he’s good here, (although Schnabel’s approach to film making might be at odds with my middlebrow sensibilities). But his performance must be better than the rest on this list, mustn’t it?
2. Rami Malek – D. With a better platform he would have probably given a more substantial performance. And while the film he was in was an utter mess, he wandered through it like likeable puppy. In other words, of the four actors I actually saw, his turn was the one that irked me the least. A high praise indeed.
3. Bradley Cooper – D. He’s a harmless actor. Alas, it also means he’s rather ineffective too.
4. Viggo Mortensen – D. Lik-e e-ve-rything-e els-e in-e his moo-vi – everything in his performance is oh-so über-accentuated, über-manifested I was totally drawn away. But I’m afraid I never really got him as an actor. Not as a blond one, and, alas, not even as a brunette. (What? As if his physical attributions were not always a (the?) major part of his appeal).
5. Christian Bale – F. Empty and pointless. The concept that Cheney is a man without qualities is a valid one. Bale’s decision to play him this way literarily is not.

Best Actress
1. Melissa McCarthy – B. It’s a rare and exiting occurrence – watching an actor or an actress reinventing themselves. This is not about carefully keeping one’s usual mannerisms and schticks at bay, the way comic actors too often do when facing dramatic roles, resulting in lifeless turns. It’s about bringing forward strengths and abilities an actor possesses in the service of the character and in the context of the piece one is in. This is a fine example of internal acting.
2. Olivia Colman – B. She gave my most favorite performance this year – in a recent episode of Who Do You Think You Are (you can watch it online). She is enormously talented and likeable actress, and she always manages to infuse the characters she plays with great humanity and make them approachable and understandable. As she does here with this grand, bravura performance - this is a fine example of virtuoso acting – yet, in a way, this is what bothered me slightly – did it, slightly, just slightly, made this queen too approachable, itsy-bitsy too common? I haven’t made up my mind yet. And btw, how could anyone, in clear conscious, not consider her as lead?
3. Glenn Close – D. But really, what is Acting? Is it the ability to believably convey a certain emotion, or even an abstract notion, on cue? Or to infuse a spoken text, or a physical gesture, with a hint of human truth? If these are the requirements, then Close’s turn here is indeed fine acting - but we do know she is a capable thespian. If Acting is about the ability to create a fully realized character and to maintain it and develop it over an entire vehicle in a coherent and cohesive way - then no, this is not an exemplary showcase of great acting.
4. Lady Gaga – D. What is Acting? Is it the same as Performing, in the sense that the person who does it is out there to grab the spectators’ attention and to manage to effectively create an impression on them? Well – no, it’s not the same.
5. Yalitza Aparicio – D/Not ranked. “What is Acting?” (Y. Aparicio, 2018)

Best Supporting Actor
1. Richard E. Grant – C. A very engaging performance, yet not a revelation – it’s very much a typical “Richard E. Grant” turn – smart, sly and bitchy, though never in an off-putting way – the way he was in much of his acting and even more so in his gig as the host of a nihilist documentary series about luxury hotels, which is what I was exposed to him in in the last few years. I'm pleased for him and he’s the only one on this list who should be here.
2. Adam Driver – D. He is a good actor and he’s perfectly fine in this film, yet, like the rest of it, his part is not really profound in any way. But since I loved him in Paterson for which he should have been recognized, I’ll take this nod as an acceptable compensation.
3. Sam Elliott – D. It’s nice he’s finally, at this stage of his career, an Oscar nominee. And he presented the most relatable person in his film. And because of this nomination, he and his lovely wife ignited an enjoyable trivia debate here on this board. Other than that – no.
4. Mahershala Ali – D/Not ranked – he’s a lead. Mahershala – if I may – you’re a fine actor, but please – don’t follow Denzel’s lead. Don’t feel obliged to protect the characters you’re portraying because there’s a need for strong black cinematic role models. Allow them to be three dimensional, vulnerable, even weak. It will pay in the long run. Thank you. (And how lucky you were to have Viggo as your partner? His performance made yours looks almost subtle).
5. Sam Rockwell – D. I know Vice was meant to be a comedy, but that doesn’t mean it had to be rewarded with this joke of a nomination. But seriously – this is a fine example of a lazy, preconceived nomination – it looked inevitable on paper, yet no one was bothered with checking the actual, onscreen result (a.k.a. the Stanley Tucci’s nod).

Best Supporting Actress
1. Regina King – B. I said it about Moonlight and watching IBSCT confirmed my impression that Jenkins film making is very traditional and old fashioned - in a good way. And so is, very fittingly, King. Here she gives a proper Anne Revere performance – commanding and compassionate, combining pathos and warmth, giving us all a fine lesson on exemplary motherhood. All credit for her for making it work.
2-3. Emma Stone & Rachel Weisz – B/Not ranked – how could anyone, in clear conscious, not consider them as lead. They fit very well into the grand scheme of their film, willingly and capably and even more so, playfully hamming up their attributes – Stone’s down to earth (literally) sexiness, Weisz’s soulfulness. It’s fun and quite exhilarating, at times even elevated into true pathos, but overall, like the film itself, not reaching real greatness.
4. Marina de Tavira – C/Not ranked. I’m not a big fan of Roma, but I did comment when writing about it that the character she’s playing is the most fleshed out one in the film and I guess that beyond the fact she was handed the best written role, her apparent capabilities as an actress (which she, for one, is) contributed a lot to it.
5. Amy Adams – D. I recently watched Sharp Objects. The best thing about it was the casting – I was very pleased they managed to find actresses to play her sisters and her character as a young girl who resemble her a lot. And then I realized – the majority of American actresses resemble her a lot. This generic essence she has about her, when addressed and smartly used, can be effective. Here it’s not.
A fantastic read. You've completely caught the drift of this lot by and large.

And your piece on Amy Adams is spot on. That "generic essence" about her may be effective but it is also one of the reasons why she keeps getting nominated without winning. A "problem" she has in common with Deborah Kerr. Both actors have blandness as the common denomination in their personalities. Adams is a generic American while Kerr was a generic Brit. While both are perfectly good actors neither really stand out on screen.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

(D)Evaluating the nominees

Post by Uri »

Part of the annual closure of the year ritual, along with person/book/song/trend/whatever of the year, we also get suggestions for word of the year. Since this is our conclusion of the last cinematic year, I guess as far as the Oscars are concerned, the current Word of the Year must be “Obvious”. And I don’t mean the identity of the nominees and the winners is obvious (although it practically is). It’s that aesthetically, thematically, ideologically – you name it - the films that are allowed to be part of the discussion, awards wise, must be. Obvious, that is. Narrative, characters, relationships, motivations should all be efficiently functional and clear-cut, i.e. the least multi-dimensional they are the better. Historical, cultural, political or moral references ought to be immediately approachable to people who know nothing about history, culture, politics or moral. So, concepts such as subtlety, ambivalence, subtext, complexity, uncertainty are thrown, unused, out of the window.

Almost a year ago, when the discussion about this year Oscar began, there was one sure thing – First Man was going to be THE major player. Easy peasy. And then it opened – and guess what – it was a decent, respectable, reasonably intelligent, not bad at all popular film. The kind that for decades used to be bread and butter, come Oscar time. No brainer. Not this year. It seems FM dared to avoid some of the more, you know, obvious narrative choices people expected it to make, presented its characters in a little bit less extrovert way and Bang, its Oscarbility went down the drain.

And in this year of Proud Black Awareness - Oscar wise - they passed on another decent film, also by a recent winner, which was even based on a respected piece of literature (that is If Beale Street Could Talk). But no, going for a sincere, realistic if lyrical depiction of black people struggle is for sissies. A young pregnant girl, her unjustly imprisoned lover, their fathers who have no choice but to preform petty crimes – their story is not empowering enough (only the lioness-like mother managed to snick in). Only bluntly simplistic fantasies in which black people are comics-book kings and super heroes, or singlehandedly extinguishes the KKK or at least being better than white people in white people stuff are celebrated. (And yes, all the accolades these films are getting are political, to refer to a recent debate on the board I managed to avoid).

And to add to these three, the politically monovalent Vice, the self-congratulatory and sycophantic Roma, the cry-baby A Star is Born, the slow-speed-dictation like Bohemian Rhapsody – frustratingly, everything about these films is so loudly and clearly spelled out I feel extremely deflated by this year race.

I’m afraid that now there is no real point in the followings, but still.

My rating: A- the ultimate best of the year, B- very good, would make a decent, worthy winner, C- a nomination should suffice, D- not necessarily bad, but not award material, F- a failure.

Best Picture
1. The Favorite – C. It is, indeed, head and shoulders above its competitors. Not a big deal, but still. I enjoyed it – it’s smart and wicked and biting – yet somewhat superficial. It’s not subtle or understated, which is what enabled it to get into this lineup this year, I guess. But it’s not meant to be – at least in its case, the grotesque nature of the material justifies the broad, showoff tone.
2. BlacKKKlansman – D. Way too didactic, preachy and simplistically symmetric for me.
3. Roma – D. I feel I have nothing more to say about this by-the-numbers Masterpiece…
4. A Star is Born – D. … nor about this one.
5. Green Book – D. This year’s The Help. A crowd pleasing, heartwarming (for those who have a heart, which I guess I haven’t) softcore racism. Black people should get equal rights not for being people but for being good and noble and for helping white protagonists of mechanical, catharsis inducing movies.
6. Bohemian Rhapsody – F. Apparently, it’s a very – VERY – effective, if extremely klutzy, tribute act. Perfectly fine for a local pub, rather bizarre as a global cultural phenomenon, not to mention an honored cultural phenomenon.
7. Black Panther – F/Not ranked, for technical reasons. As God is my witness – I tried. I really did. The first time, I watched the first few minutes (the section that’s set in the USA), and I just had to stop. Then I decided I should give it a try, and I saw about two thirds of it and to this day I just can’t bring myself to complete the viewing. It’s me – I’m not worthy. I’m sorry, and I know I will be burned in Hell for what I’m about to say, but – this one is just so silly.
8. Vice – F. Dick Cheney is a bad human being. It took me 20 seconds to type this last sentence (I’m a slow typist). This is also all this film has to say about him. A waste of time and money, which is fine, as long as it’s not mine (which it was).

Best Director
1. Yorgos Lanthimos – C. There is always something off about his films which I’m never, or at least not yet, sure if it’s fully intentional or not. It certainly contributes to the disturbing, un-balanced nature of his output. Which is a good thing.
2. Pawel Pawlikowski – C. In a way, he’s the opposite of Lanthimos – for all the bleakness, doom and gloom nature of the themes he’s dealing with, I find his films (that’s the two I saw) to be too elegant, too neat for their own good. Still, I must admit they are very elegant and neat. That’s good, I guess.
3. Spike Lee – D. It’s about time. He is a better, certainly more important director than all the Ron Howards and Tom Hoopers the Academy just loves to embrace. I just don’t like his film that much.
4. Alfonso Cuarón – D. Him winning this category will be the culmination of an extremely well-crafted campaign to achieve the status of a Cinematic Grand Master. Good for him.
5. Adam McKay – F. I guess that nominally he can’t be described as someone who knows nothing about history, culture, politics or moral. He just doesn’t really care about it, apart from using it to create his flashy yet vacant films.

Best Actor
1. Willem Dafoe – ?. I don’t know if or when I’ll be able to see his film. Still – I hope he’s good here, (although Schnabel’s approach to film making might be at odds with my middlebrow sensibilities). But his performance must be better than the rest on this list, mustn’t it?
2. Rami Malek – D. With a better platform he would have probably given a more substantial performance. And while the film he was in was an utter mess, he wandered through it like likeable puppy. In other words, of the four actors I actually saw, his turn was the one that irked me the least. A high praise indeed.
3. Bradley Cooper – D. He’s a harmless actor. Alas, it also means he’s rather ineffective too.
4. Viggo Mortensen – D. Lik-e e-ve-rything-e els-e in-e his moo-vi – everything in his performance is oh-so über-accentuated, über-manifested I was totally drawn away. But I’m afraid I never really got him as an actor. Not as a blond one, and, alas, not even as a brunette. (What? As if his physical attributions were not always a (the?) major part of his appeal).
5. Christian Bale – F. Empty and pointless. The concept that Cheney is a man without qualities is a valid one. Bale’s decision to play him this way literarily is not.

Best Actress
1. Melissa McCarthy – B. It’s a rare and exiting occurrence – watching an actor or an actress reinventing themselves. This is not about carefully keeping one’s usual mannerisms and schticks at bay, the way comic actors too often do when facing dramatic roles, resulting in lifeless turns. It’s about bringing forward strengths and abilities an actor possesses in the service of the character and in the context of the piece one is in. This is a fine example of internal acting.
2. Olivia Colman – B. She gave my most favorite performance this year – in a recent episode of Who Do You Think You Are (you can watch it online). She is enormously talented and likeable actress, and she always manages to infuse the characters she plays with great humanity and make them approachable and understandable. As she does here with this grand, bravura performance - this is a fine example of virtuoso acting – yet, in a way, this is what bothered me slightly – did it, slightly, just slightly, made this queen too approachable, itsy-bitsy too common? I haven’t made up my mind yet. And btw, how could anyone, in clear conscious, not consider her as lead?
3. Glenn Close – D. But really, what is Acting? Is it the ability to believably convey a certain emotion, or even an abstract notion, on cue? Or to infuse a spoken text, or a physical gesture, with a hint of human truth? If these are the requirements, then Close’s turn here is indeed fine acting - but we do know she is a capable thespian. If Acting is about the ability to create a fully realized character and to maintain it and develop it over an entire vehicle in a coherent and cohesive way - then no, this is not an exemplary showcase of great acting.
4. Lady Gaga – D. What is Acting? Is it the same as Performing, in the sense that the person who does it is out there to grab the spectators’ attention and to manage to effectively create an impression on them? Well – no, it’s not the same.
5. Yalitza Aparicio – D/Not ranked. “What is Acting?” (Y. Aparicio, 2018)

Best Supporting Actor
1. Richard E. Grant – C. A very engaging performance, yet not a revelation – it’s very much a typical “Richard E. Grant” turn – smart, sly and bitchy, though never in an off-putting way – the way he was in much of his acting and even more so in his gig as the host of a nihilist documentary series about luxury hotels, which is what I was exposed to him in in the last few years. I'm pleased for him and he’s the only one on this list who should be here.
2. Adam Driver – D. He is a good actor and he’s perfectly fine in this film, yet, like the rest of it, his part is not really profound in any way. But since I loved him in Paterson for which he should have been recognized, I’ll take this nod as an acceptable compensation.
3. Sam Elliott – D. It’s nice he’s finally, at this stage of his career, an Oscar nominee. And he presented the most relatable person in his film. And because of this nomination, he and his lovely wife ignited an enjoyable trivia debate here on this board. Other than that – no.
4. Mahershala Ali – D/Not ranked – he’s a lead. Mahershala – if I may – you’re a fine actor, but please – don’t follow Denzel’s lead. Don’t feel obliged to protect the characters you’re portraying because there’s a need for strong black cinematic role models. Allow them to be three dimensional, vulnerable, even weak. It will pay in the long run. Thank you. (And how lucky you were to have Viggo as your partner? His performance made yours looks almost subtle).
5. Sam Rockwell – D. I know Vice was meant to be a comedy, but that doesn’t mean it had to be rewarded with this joke of a nomination. But seriously – this is a fine example of a lazy, preconceived nomination – it looked inevitable on paper, yet no one was bothered with checking the actual, onscreen result (a.k.a. the Stanley Tucci’s nod).

Best Supporting Actress
1. Regina King – B. I said it about Moonlight and watching IBSCT confirmed my impression that Jenkins film making is very traditional and old fashioned - in a good way. And so is, very fittingly, King. Here she gives a proper Anne Revere performance – commanding and compassionate, combining pathos and warmth, giving us all a fine lesson on exemplary motherhood. All credit for her for making it work.
2-3. Emma Stone & Rachel Weisz – B/Not ranked – how could anyone, in clear conscious, not consider them as lead. They fit very well into the grand scheme of their film, willingly and capably and even more so, playfully hamming up their attributes – Stone’s down to earth (literally) sexiness, Weisz’s soulfulness. It’s fun and quite exhilarating, at times even elevated into true pathos, but overall, like the film itself, not reaching real greatness.
4. Marina de Tavira – C/Not ranked. I’m not a big fan of Roma, but I did comment when writing about it that the character she’s playing is the most fleshed out one in the film and I guess that beyond the fact she was handed the best written role, her apparent capabilities as an actress (which she, for one, is) contributed a lot to it.
5. Amy Adams – D. I recently watched Sharp Objects. The best thing about it was the casting – I was very pleased they managed to find actresses to play her sisters and her character as a young girl who resemble her a lot. And then I realized – the majority of American actresses resemble her a lot. This generic essence she has about her, when addressed and smartly used, can be effective. Here it’s not.
Post Reply

Return to “91st Academy Awards”