Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

It was my understanding it was Annie Hall quoting Grammy Hall. If I just a reference wrong from the Greatest Oscar Winner Ever, wow, am I going to be pissed at myself.

Sabin wrote:As Grammy Hall said, well, la dee da, la dee da, la la, yeah.

I thought that was Annie Hall, or was it Annie Hall quoting Grammy Hall?

As Grammy Hall said, well, la dee da, la dee da, la la, yeah.

Sabin wrote:I have never heard somebody say so many times that they are not going to see a movie that they are 100% going to see.

And I have actually just seen it...

I have never heard somebody say so many times that they are not going to see a movie that they are 100% going to see.

rolotomasi99 wrote:

ITALIANO wrote:

rolotomasi99 wrote: the bad guys.

Now I really don't need to see the movie.

You probably should not. I would suggest LIONS FOR LAMBS, REDACTED, or RENDITION. They seem more your speed.

Thank you for your kind advice - but I have already seen two of these movies and hated them, so maybe you simply don't understand my point of view - which can happen.

ITALIANO wrote:

rolotomasi99 wrote: the bad guys.

Now I really don't need to see the movie.

You probably should not. I would suggest LIONS FOR LAMBS, REDACTED, or RENDITION. They seem more your speed.

ZERO DARK THIRTY, ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN, and ZODIAC are meticulous accounts of how folks become obsessed with finding people they view as bad. The films meticulously recount what went into the search, but they do not pause to really look at the moral nature of the folks being hunted. They are character studies rather than movies with clear agendas. Some folks call them boring, but I call them great works of art.

Uri wrote:Saying and speaking (which is indeed what Lions for Lambs tiresomely did) are not the same. And there is no such thing as just chronicling, as I’m sure you know. Once you tell a story you translate it, and the agenda you have (and I do wish you do have a one you are actually aware of) is part of the tools you use, preferably consciously. AtPM had one, as did Zodiac. ZDT has one too off course, but I’m afraid isn't-explosions-make-great-cinematic-impacts and we-should-all-be-thankful-for-our-brave-men-and-women are not enough for me. Perhaps it has something to do with not fully knowing who the “bad guys”, as you call them, of this story really are.

There is no way do not know who the so-called bad guys are in this story Uri. Perhaps it is that you do not see them as bad guys. You are free to have that opinion, but do not lie and pretend this movie was not 100% clear on who it thought was bad. The only ambiguity was whether the U.S. was any better. The characters talk about how horrible the terrorists are, but they themselves kidnap and torture people or execute people without a trial. This is where the movie steps back a bit and lets people decide for themselves. It is true the film does not treat the actions of the CIA as equally immoral as al-Qaeda, but it certainly does not paint these folks as virtuous. No film would allow their characters to be so emotionally disturbed by what they are doing if it felt there was no moral ambiguity in their actions.

Maybe I saw the deliberate ambiguity from Boal and Bigelow because I have similar thoughts. I believe torture and execution are wrong, no matter who are enemy is. Bin Laden should have been tried for his crimes, and spent the rest of his life in jail. However, George W. Bush should be locked up as well for the greater loss of life he is responsible for. They are both bad guys as far as I am concerned, but I know most people do not agree with me on this. I was so grateful to Boal and Bigelow for not turning this film into SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, with U.S. soldiers treated like saints and their mission to kill Bin Laden as a noble cause. They clearly wanted to depict the hunt as something that destroyed the lives of pretty much everyone involved.

Boal is a journalist, and that background influenced the way this film was made. This is why I compare it to ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN and ZODIAC. He lays out the story as a dramatic interpretation of the detailed research he did, including interviewing those who were directly involved in the hunt. He is telling their story. This is neither a celebration nor a condemnation of what was done, but an accounting of how it happened and how the people involved were affected.

There were two moments in the film which really stuck with me. The first was when the soldier on the Bin Laden raid who was warning the crowd gathering outside the compound to get back finally went inside. As you hear the other soldiers in the background celebrate and tear the place apart, the camera follows him as he looks at all the corpses. His face is not filled with joy or pride, but what I interpreted as sadness. It was the sadness I think everyone should feel in the face of death. It is the sadness that truly horrible people are missing, which is why killing is so easy for them. The other moment is the final shot. This movie could have easily ended with a shot of the soldiers celebrating their mission accomplished or with Obama's speech to the nation announcing Bin Laden's death or even with the folks cheering in the street at the White House or Ground Zero. However, it ends with Maya, sitting alone in the plane, crying. I am not sure how you interpreted that final image, but I saw it as a reflection of exactly what I felt when I heard the news: I was relieved he was dead, but I was saddened by the act of violence.

This movie was not a celebration of Bin Laden's execution. It was not a celebration of the moral righteousness of the United States. It was certainly not a celebration of military might given the contempt Maya expressed toward the soldiers. The only thing the filmmakers really wanted to push on the audience was the true story of one woman in the CIA being the driving force in finding Bin Laden when no one else seemed to care.

I am not sure what you needed from this film, Uri. It sounds like you do not know what you think about the killing of Bin Laden. As I stated above, I have conflicted feelings about it myself. However, it seems really silly to be angry at ZERO DARK THIRTY for not supplying you with a clear cut answer on how you should feel. This is something you need to figure out on your own.

rolotomasi99 wrote: the bad guys.

Now I really don't need to see the movie.

Saying and speaking (which is indeed what Lions for Lambs tiresomely did) are not the same. And there is no such thing as just chronicling, as I’m sure you know. Once you tell a story you translate it, and the agenda you have (and I do wish you do have a one you are actually aware of) is part of the tools you use, preferably consciously. AtPM had one, as did Zodiac. ZDT has one too off course, but I’m afraid isn't-explosions-make-great-cinematic-impacts and we-should-all-be-thankful-for-our-brave-men-and-women are not enough for me. Perhaps it has something to do with not fully knowing who the “bad guys”, as you call them, of this story really are.

Uri wrote:6. Zero Dark Thirty – D. At one point there’s a state of the art helicopter which must be blown up. The camera lingers around it, the music wallows, requiem like. No lost of human life (and there were plenty in ZDT, thank heaven) received such a display of empathy. Other than manifesting its fetish for everything military, this film really has nothing to say.

You are right Uri. ZERO DARK THIRTY has nothing really to say. It is just a cinematic chronicle of an important moment in our countries history. It does not offer up clear opinions or answers to the issues depicted in the film. Much like ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or ZODIAC, it is a procedural film that takes us through the events as they happened and offers us a dramatization of the people obsessed with catching the bad guys.

If you are genuinely interested in a movie with lots of things to say about terrorism, how our country goes to war, and other important topics, you should check out LIONS FOR LAMBS. I do not think it has anything insightful to offer on these important issues, but it sure has a lot to say. It sounds more like the film you wanted ZERO DARK THIRTY to be.

I wanted something in the same league as ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN and ZODIAC, and I got it. I am so happy ZERO DARK THIRTY did not try to be anything else.

Bog wrote:

flipp525 wrote:Ithink all three The Master nominees, in a perfect world, would win in their respective categories.

Correct

Precious, aversion to the film, or PTA period understand...in this case was it so extreme you weren't able to enjoy the acting master classes achieved (pun unintended)?

I did like Philip Seymour Hoffman, though not enough to place him as a nominee. I felt Amy Adams had little to do and Phoneix was nothing but a collection of ticks and neurotic twisting. At times he was twisted about and other times he wasn't, I felt the performance was all over the place. Whilst I didn't care for the film I can certainly appreciate the passion that many have felt for it.

It's a shame the film missed out on technical awards (art direction, cinematography, costume design) that would have been very much deserved. Gorgeous period detail.

It is the sort of film, and given the general high standard of Anderson's work, that I would be prepared to re-watch in a couple of years time. Something I wouldn't do with some of the other nominees (Beasts, Les Mis, Lincoln, SLP).

flipp525 wrote:Ithink all three The Master nominees, in a perfect world, would win in their respective categories.

Correct

Precious, aversion to the film, or PTA period understand...in this case was it so extreme you weren't able to enjoy the acting master classes achieved (pun unintended)?

It's hard to rank the nominees this year as so many of them are underserving of so much as a nomination. I've seen all the nominees in the major categories put will only rank the 'at least worth a nomination' ones:

Picture

1. Amour
2. Argo
3. Life of Pi

Director

1. Michael Haneke
2. Ang Lee

Actor

1. Daniel Day-Lewis

Actress

1. Emmanuelle Riva

Sup. Actor

1. Christoph Waltz

Sup. Actress

1. Helen Hunt

Screenplay

1. Amour

Screenplay Adaptation

1. Life of Pi
2. Argo

Uri wrote: Supporting Actress
1. Amy Adams - B. Her usual blandness is a masquerade here for the ruthless determination which is the true engine which drives fanatic movements, and she captures this complexity perfectly.

Exactly, Uri. Far and away the best performance in this category. How she is not the frontrunner (on her fourth nod in, what, 7 years?) is a complete mystery. If you've watched her in The Hollywood Reporter actress round table this year, the woman is truly blander than bland (and seems kind of dumb, frankly). Yet she creates such a compelling, creepy performance, I was absolutely mesmerized. I think all three The Master nominees, in a perfect world, would win in their respective categories.