Oscars 2007

[Josh]

Another year, another round of the usual Oscar theatrics-- pundits have been complaining for months now about how predictable the Academy is, as they always do, and today they're acting stunned by the few surprises that popped up in the nominations, as they always do. The list is pretty close to what most folks expected, with a few little surprises thrown in for good measure. Anyway, here are my predictions and reactions:

Best Picture
Who will win: Little Miss Sunshine
Who should win: The New World, though it wasn't even nominated. Of these choices, Babel is my favorite, with The Queen not far behind. Sunshine might actually be the weakest film here, though I do like it, and haven't seen Letters from Iwo Jima yet.

Best Director
Who will win: Scorsese... more for career achievement than this particular film.
Who should win: Well, Terrence Malick should win, but of these nominations I'd give it to Inarritu. I'll be very happy if Scorsese wins, though... he really has it coming, for Taxi Driver and Raging Bull as much as for The Departed.

Best Actor
Who will win: This is the toughest category to call, but I think it'll got to Forrest Whitaker, even though many critics are saying his role is more Supporting than Lead.
Who should win: Tommy Lee Jones. Of these nominations, probably Peter O'Toole.

Best Actress
Who will win: Helen Mirren.
Who should win: Helen Mirren.

Best Supporting Actor
Who will win: This one's a little tough as well, but I think Alan Arkin will win for Little Miss Sunshine.
Who should win: Michael Sheen for The Queen. Of the nominations, I wouldn't mind Arkin winning, though it would be pretty cool to see Whalberg get it, too...

Best Supporting Actress
Who will win: Jennifer Hudson
Who shoud win: Either of the women from Babel. They're both incredible.

Best Original Screenplay
Who will win: Little Miss Sunshine... especially if it ends up losing Best Picture to Babel, in which case this is almost sure to be the consolation prize.
Who should win: Babel

Best Adapted Screenplay
Who will win: The Departed is my bet, but Borat is a very real contender.
Who should win: The Departed

[PopePouri]

Who should win: The New World, though it wasn't even nominated. Of these choices, Babel is my favorite, with The Queen not far behind. Sunshine

A New World was nominated last year I believe.

[Josh]

A New World was nominated last year I believe.

Only for cinematography-- which, astonishingly, it lost, despite being one of the all-time great feats of cinematography.

[PopePouri]

DiCaprio should have been nominated for The Departed, not for Blood Diamond. It's a pity because he'll probably end up losing to Forrest Whittaker. I've always liked Forrest Whittaker though. Actually Forrest should win. He's been overlooked by the academy multiple times.

I don't want Babel to win. To me it was a poor man's Crash.

[Josh]

I was disappointed by DiCaprio's nom, too, but then, I haven't seen Blood Diamond-- yeah, his chances are much worse now, but I'm not sure which is actually the deserving performance.

And Babel is so, so, SO much richer, more complex, and more rewarding than Crash. Babel has actual characters and themes, whereas Crash is contrived and full of flat, dull character-types. Crash is admirable in some respects, but it just doesn't work as a film, at least to my eyes and ears. Babel, on the other hand, is a profound and moving work of art-- probably too much so for the Academy to honor it.

[murlough23]

Only for cinematography-- which, astonishingly, it lost, despite being one of the all-time great feats of cinematography.

Seems to me like it was one of the all-time great feats of observing that "Gee, these treees are really, really pretty."

[bloop]

and so they were - an excellent job making the landscape into something almost like another character.

[murlough23]

and so they were - an excellent job making the landscape into something almost like another character.

I'm so over this whole "landscape as a character" trend that directors and critics like to trot out time and again. I love when movies have beautiful settings, but if I want to watch something that focuses on the beauty of nature at the expense of actual characters and dialogue, I'll turn on the friggin' Discovery Channel.

[bloop]

I think "landscape as character" fits this movie.  It's depicted as mysterious, beautiful, and a little threatening, in both "new worlds".  I've only watched it twice, but I got the distinct impression that the shots generally did one of two thing:  a first-person perspective to reveal something about the land from the character's point-of-view, or it gave us a moment to catch what the characters on the screen are missing out on taking in and enjoying. 

I didn't feel it was detrimental to the film's central story arc, and I don't see a good reason to leave all of that to proper nature documentaries.

[murlough23]

I think "landscape as character" fits this movie.  It's depicted as mysterious, beautiful, and a little threatening, in both "new worlds".  I've only watched it twice, but I got the distinct impression that the shots generally did one of two thing:  a first-person perspective to reveal something about the land from the character's point-of-view, or it gave us a moment to catch what the characters on the screen are missing out on taking in and enjoying. 

I didn't feel it was detrimental to the film's central story arc, and I don't see a good reason to leave all of that to proper nature documentaries.

The thing is, I gathered all of that in much less time than was spent running it into the ground with the long languishing shots of nature. It can be used to communicate such things, but I don't think it should be done in a way that bogs down the pacing of a film so much.

I'd still give that movie a solid B, since that was the only aspect of it I could really complain about.

On a different note, I just finished watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I'd seen it so many times in my childhood that I realized I still have a lot of the dialogue memorized, even though at the time, I didn't get half of the innuendoes and references to the overall style of movies and cartoons that were made back in the era the movie was set in. Cristopher Lloyd must have been in like every single one of my favorite movies when I was a kid.

[bloop]

I just don't mind my filmmakers emphasizing their points, and I don't tire of the kinds of shots that reveals natural beauty if the shots are well done in themselves.  So, I guess I disagree that it so much bogs down the pacing in that I think it sets the pace.

If you can actually get me to sit down to watch a movie in the first place, you've generally got my attention.  It's just hard to get me settled initially.

[murlough23]

If you can actually get me to sit down to watch a movie in the first place, you've generally got my attention.  It's just hard to get me settled initially.

And I'm usually pretty patient with movies. I just want my 2+ hours to be time well spent, even if I know that's how long it'll be going into it.