Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Posted: **Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:18 am**

ITALIANO wrote:
Okri wrote:Italiano, a different question: is Raiders of the Lost Ark a great art? Is Jaws great art?

Of course not They are very entertaining movies, but I would never call them "masterpieces"... But, I mean, I don't have anything against pure entertainment, so I don't understand your question...

Oh, you did. I was just curious.

Can a movie be great art if there is no subtext?

Posted: **Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:45 am**

taki15 wrote:
ITALIANO wrote: One thing which is typical of those who don't understand much about movies (and sorry - this IS objective) is that they use to compare cinema not to other forms of art, like, say, literature or painting, but to food, which can provide pleasure especially if it's well-made, but, needless to say, isn't a form or art. So when one starts a metaphor like the one you just wrote about - with hamburgers, etc - I can't insist anymore, it's a view of cinema which is completely absurd but which I can't change, because it comes from years - in your case maybe decades anonymous - of, as Almodovar would call it, "mala educacion". Not your fault, don't get me wrong, and the important thing is that you are happy this way. But cinema is obviously so much more than hamburgers - or even foie gras. Or should be.
Gee, how thoughtful of you to open our eyes about the art of cinema.
If I didn't know what a kind-hearted and humble person you are I might have misjudged you for being a self-important jerk.

I love that you are so obsessed with me and with what I write, taki15. Too bad this hasn't made you a better person - nor, sadly, a happier one. But I have an inner faith in human beings - who knows, maybe with time... You are just 15 after all...

Posted: **Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:43 am**

Okri wrote:Italiano, a different question: is Raiders of the Lost Ark a great art? Is Jaws great art?

Of course not

They are very entertaining movies, but I would never call them "masterpieces"... But, I mean, I don't have anything against pure entertainment, so I don't understand your question...

Posted: **Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:12 am**

Okri wrote:Italiano, a different question: is Raiders of the Lost Ark a great art? Is Jaws great art?

No, dah.

(And btw, for what it is, which is not, as we established, Great Art, Raiders is great. I'm not a great fan of Jaws myself, or at least my teenager self was't 40 years ago. I haven't seen it since).

Posted: **Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:45 pm**

Italiano, a different question: is Raiders of the Lost Ark a great art? Is Jaws great art?

Posted: **Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:24 pm**

ITALIANO wrote: One thing which is typical of those who don't understand much about movies (and sorry - this IS objective) is that they use to compare cinema not to other forms of art, like, say, literature or painting, but to food, which can provide pleasure especially if it's well-made, but, needless to say, isn't a form or art. So when one starts a metaphor like the one you just wrote about - with hamburgers, etc - I can't insist anymore, it's a view of cinema which is completely absurd but which I can't change, because it comes from years - in your case maybe decades anonymous - of, as Almodovar would call it, "mala educacion". Not your fault, don't get me wrong, and the important thing is that you are happy this way. But cinema is obviously so much more than hamburgers - or even foie gras. Or should be.

Gee, how thoughtful of you to open our eyes about the art of cinema.
If I didn't know what a kind-hearted and humble person you are I might have misjudged you for being a self-important jerk.

Posted: **Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:11 am**

anonymous1980 wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:I mean, you ("you" in general, not you Oscar Guy) enjoyed the movie for its action and the thrills? Good, I don't have anything against it - like I don't have anything against amusement parks. But please don't say that this is a great movie because this is really embarassing... I'd expect it from my 5-year-old nephew, not from adults.
Are you saying that action films that offer visceral thrills can never, ever be a great film or at least an artistic work of note simply because it aims to thrill and entertain its viewers? I strongly disagree with that. Mad Max: Fury Road is undeniably an enjoyable thrill ride of a film. It features superb editing, the cinematography is outstanding (did you see the shots during the sandstorm sequence? It's like a freakin' painting!), the acting is great and the special effects and stunts are extremely well-executed. This is CINEMA. This is what CINEMA is. Entertainment that's visually telling a story on film! It goes right back to stuff like The Great Train Robbery or Battleship Potemkin or even the elaborate stunts of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd. Although this infuses it with modern-day technology, it's really old-fashioned in its very core down to its scant dialogue and deceptively simple plot. This is on top of the themes tackled in it like the oppressiveness of patriarchy, sex slavery, feminism, the brainwashing of child soldiers, as well as environmental awareness. These subject matters have been tackled in more straightforward films that are more to your taste but the fact that they tackled it in a highly stylized action film to make more palatable to more people is something to be admired. That's what placed it over-the-top for me.

I've already made a food comparison at another thread but I'll make it here again. Yes, Mad Max: Fury Road is ESSENTIALLY an action film. It is not a masterpiece in a way like, say, La Dolce Vita is a masterpiece or let's say Celine and Julie Go Boating is a masterpiece. It is not foie gras or caviar. Mad Max: Fury Road like all action thrill pictures is a hamburger. However, unlike most other hamburgers, Mad Max: Fury Road is a gourmet hamburger with lots of high-quality ingredients and made with soul and with love. Films that are traditionally thought of to be awards-bait films strive to be foie gras and caviar but even the mediocre ones almost always get to sit at the table. My argument is, Mad Max: Fury Road is a delicious, well-made quality hamburger and deserves to be at the table alongside the foie gras and caviar and I would definitely prefer it to be showered with awards than a mediocre foie gras and caviar (*coughsTrumbocoughs*)

Well, you say that "the acting is great" - it's your personal opinion, but one that others could easily disagree with. As for the editing, etc - of course the movie is technically well-made, but form without content doesn't amount to much I'm afraid. It can provide entertainment, and many can find this movie entertaining - I repeat that I have no problem with that - but a true masterpiece needs something more than just entertainment value.

One thing which is typical of those who don't understand much about movies (and sorry - this IS objective) is that they use to compare cinema not to other forms of art, like, say, literature or painting, but to food, which can provide pleasure especially if it's well-made, but, needless to say, isn't a form or art. So when one starts a metaphor like the one you just wrote about - with hamburgers, etc - I can't insist anymore, it's a view of cinema which is completely absurd but which I can't change, because it comes from years - in your case maybe decades anonymous - of, as Almodovar would call it, "mala educacion". Not your fault, don't get me wrong, and the important thing is that you are happy this way. But cinema is obviously so much more than hamburgers - or even foie gras. Or should be.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:50 pm**

ITALIANO wrote:I mean, you ("you" in general, not you Oscar Guy) enjoyed the movie for its action and the thrills? Good, I don't have anything against it - like I don't have anything against amusement parks. But please don't say that this is a great movie because this is really embarassing... I'd expect it from my 5-year-old nephew, not from adults.

Are you saying that action films that offer visceral thrills can never, ever be a great film or at least an artistic work of note simply because it aims to thrill and entertain its viewers? I strongly disagree with that. Mad Max: Fury Road is undeniably an enjoyable thrill ride of a film. It features superb editing, the cinematography is outstanding (did you see the shots during the sandstorm sequence? It's like a freakin' painting!), the acting is great and the special effects and stunts are extremely well-executed. This is CINEMA. This is what CINEMA is. Entertainment that's visually telling a story on film! It goes right back to stuff like The Great Train Robbery or Battleship Potemkin or even the elaborate stunts of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd. Although this infuses it with modern-day technology, it's really old-fashioned in its very core down to its scant dialogue and deceptively simple plot. This is on top of the themes tackled in it like the oppressiveness of patriarchy, sex slavery, feminism, the brainwashing of child soldiers, as well as environmental awareness. These subject matters have been tackled in more straightforward films that are more to your taste but the fact that they tackled it in a highly stylized action film to make more palatable to more people is something to be admired. That's what placed it over-the-top for me.

I've already made a food comparison at another thread but I'll make it here again. Yes, Mad Max: Fury Road is ESSENTIALLY an action film. It is not a masterpiece in a way like, say, La Dolce Vita is a masterpiece or let's say Celine and Julie Go Boating is a masterpiece. It is not foie gras or caviar. Mad Max: Fury Road like all action thrill pictures is a hamburger. However, unlike most other hamburgers, Mad Max: Fury Road is a gourmet hamburger with lots of high-quality ingredients and made with soul and with love. Films that are traditionally thought of to be awards-bait films strive to be foie gras and caviar but even the mediocre ones almost always get to sit at the table. My argument is, Mad Max: Fury Road is a delicious, well-made quality hamburger and deserves to be at the table alongside the foie gras and caviar and I would definitely prefer it to be showered with awards than a mediocre foie gras and caviar (*coughsTrumbocoughs*)

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:56 pm**

Man Up (Ben Palmer)

Wish it had a better title. Also wish it didn't so blindly adhere to the rom com formula playbook. Although if you're going to do it, one could do a lot worse than recruiting Lake Bell and Simon Pegg for the leads. Thirty-four year old Nancy, who is going to her parents' wedding anniversary and needs to take more romantic chances, bumps into twenty-four year old Jessica on the train there, who is being set up for a blind date and the only way they'll recognize each other is that they both have the same book. The train arrives, Nancy wakes up, Jessica is gone but her book is still there. She runs off looking for Jessica, bumps into her blind date, and goes on it in her place. This is a totally hackneyed and very effective meet cute.

Like 'Sleeping with Other People', a movie I liked a lot more but has a similar trapping, it never quite breaks out of its sitcom scope. I think where it fails is Tess Morris envisioned her characters a little more earnestly. Bell and Pegg are better at selling comedic desperation than earnest need. But 'Man Up' juggles two playbooks is by having a manic energy going for it. Like, truly manic. It's at once totally optimistic and antagonistic at the same time. It's the rare romantic comedy that knocks it out of the park when the leads are bickering and tossing off insults. I don't want to overrate this minor delight and I need to see it again to prove this but one of the ways it keeps us off-guard is with a unique balance of rom com behavior. Characters who are in a right and decent state of mind (or who are just right and decent) react to situations like normal people or are erstwhile helpful and kind. Characters who are in a selfish place engage in the kind of psychotic behavior endorsed by romantic comedies. Again, this is a very modest film with its own flaws (it's too short and minor for any grand romantic gesture really), but it had a way of keeping me off guard. Unfortunately that also makes its cheaper moments when it reverts to form all the more annoying. Worth seeing.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2016 2:01 pm**

That's text, not subtext... Having a strong female character or a villain who's also a dictator doesn't mean anything, and certainly nothing subtle or profound... I mean, you ("you" in general, not you Oscar Guy) enjoyed the movie for its action and the thrills? Good, I don't have anything against it - like I don't have anything against amusement parks. But please don't say that this is a great movie because this is really embarassing... I'd expect it from my 5-year-old nephew, not from adults.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:21 pm**

Of course, I guess the whole female empowerment angle, conveyed in myriad manners and details, including scenery details within the compound, is too obvious. Or the anti-oligarchic commentary is too obvious. I was afraid people missed those. Good to know that none of that is subtext. I'm glad everyone understood that because I would hate for someone to miss those key themes or the subtle ways they are exposed within the framework in the film.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:48 am**

Big Magilla wrote: If there was subtext to the film, I missed it.

There's NO subtext at all in Mad Max Fury Road.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:24 am**

BEASTS OF NO NATION
Cast: Abraham Attah, Idris Elba, Kurt Egyiawan, Emmanuel Nii Adom Quaye, Jude Akuwudike.
Dir: Cary Joji Fukunaga.

In an unnamed country in West Africa, civil war breaks out and a young boy from a village gets recruited to become a child soldier. The subject matter of child soldiers in Africa is quite upsetting in and of itself. And indeed, the film is a tough sit and features some harrowing and shocking violence. Cary Joji Fukunaga is one of the best young filmmakers today and he continues to make his mark with this film. Despite all the ugliness, it's still a beautifully made piece of work. It also features a pair of great performances: newcomer Abraham Attah gives a haunting performance as the lead kid and Idris Elba is, non-surprisingly since he is one of the best actors working today, also great. So it is kind of disappointing to say that this had a flawed script keeps that kept it from true greatness. Still recommended though.

Oscar Prospects: Personally, I think Abraham Attah is a bit more deserving of a nomination than Idris Elba but both are worthy.

Grade: B.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:37 am**

Video games did not invent the chase. They did not invent sadistic killers. Chase scenes in movies go back at least as far as 1903's The Great Train Robbery. Films about humans being hunted like animals by a sadistic killer go back at least as far as 1932's The Most Dangerous Game which is based on an award-winning turn-of-the-century short story by O. Henry.

By "video game mentality" I am not referring to chase scenes or sadistic killers in and of themselves. Nor am I dismissing the sharpness of the mind and eye to hand dexterity which the playing of video games have produced in what is now several generations of players. Neither I am dismissing the skill it takes to figure out which doors and windows to open and which to avoid, which often require great mental acuity. I am referring to the simplistic nature of the games themselves which is to hunt down and knock off as many of the little green men, or whatever other widgets are in play, as the player can with no cumbersome psychological meaning ascribed to the characters, good or bad. They merely exist to kill and be killed.

Mad Max: Fury Road was not Children of Men with layers and layers of underlying meaning. If there was subtext to the film, I missed it.

And, no, Lifetime movies are not "Sirkian". Sirk took soap operas and gave them subtext. Lifetime and Hallmark Movie Channel movies (not the high quality specials they occasionally still do for the Hallmark Hall of Fame) are all surface with no subtext. I've never known anyone to dismiss movies made for HBO or Showtime, which are almost always a cut above the average theatrical release.

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:26 am**

It's style is reminiscent of the original films even if the plot isn't at all related to them. As far as I'm aware, this "video game" mentality you speak of would have to have been influenced by the likes of Mad Max rather than the other way around. After all, Mad Max and Road Warrior both existed PRIOR to the type of commercial video games to which you are alluding. As a matter of fact, ALL of the Mad Max films and the action genre that existed throughout the 1980s existed BEFORE video games.

This whole video game-style mentality is a modern construct levied at films unfairly since video games have been more heavily influenced by film standards rather than the other way around. As the graphics and production methods have improved over the last two decades, they have become more cinematic rather than less so. As such, to claim that a film is made like a video game is to acknowledge the significant influence that cinema has had on video games and, thus tangentially, acknowledging that it is not an insult at all to claim a video game has influenced a film like Mad Max, even if it's patently untrue.

It's like claiming that a film is a Lifetime movie or an HBO movie. HBO has been creating quality programming, oftentimes more competent programming than cinema, for the better part of three decades now.

Lifetime movie styles were influenced by Sirkian melodrama if not directly, via the TV soap opera styles of the 1970's and 1980's. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily good (though some might argue that their quality is superior at times to that of films that win Oscars, say The Theory of Everything).

All forms of creative art are influenced by one another. Whether it's cinema, television, theater, video games, advertising, and so forth. I'd highly recommend that you choose words such as "video game style" a little more carefully unless you want to sound like a curmudgeon who wants the damned kids to get off their damned lawn.

Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015