Movies: 2019 Oscar Nominations

[nameless1]

It really wasn't.

I agree. Hollywood movies largely disappoint, but there were a lot of good international films last year.

 

[Player big P]

So, is Black Panther now officially the most overrated film in history?

Most overrated is actually The Shawshank Redemption.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

It's a very, very tall order to tell somebody to go out and try to be Freddie Mercury. But to not only be able to do it, but do it well? That's worthy of an award.

Is it great acting, or a great impression? I haven't seen it, which is why I ask, but I have big, big time fatigue for the obvious bias the Academy has towards performances where actors portray larger-than-life real people as opposed to fictional (or real, but without any defining external attributes) characters. In my very limited time on stage, I've always found it more challenging to concoct a character only using the words on the page (or the suggestions in the air), than when everything is already road-mapped out ahead of me.

 

[Jussi]

I agree. Hollywood movies largely disappoint, but there were a lot of good international films last year.

Granted I only seen so far Black Panther, Deadpool 2, Infinity War, Ant-Man & The Wasp, BlacKkKlansman, Ralph Breaks The Internet, Bumblebee and The Predator. The last one was the only dud for me. All the others I enjoyed. Oh yeah, I forgot Solo. It wasn't great or bad but rather forgettable, somewhat enjoyable, watch maybe once and never again type movie.

 

[Jussi]

Is it great acting, or a great impression? I haven't seen it, which is why I ask, but I have big, big time fatigue for the obvious bias the Academy has towards performances where actors portray larger-than-life real people as opposed to fictional (or real, but without any defining external attributes) characters. In my very limited time on stage, I've always found it more challenging to concoct a character only using the words on the page (or the suggestions in the air), than when everything is already road-mapped out ahead of me.

He did magnificent impression of Mercury on stage. Off the stage is hard to tell because there's not much to compare it to due Mercury keeping that aspect secret. The made up fictional drama was annoying but he pulled it off.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Is it great acting, or a great impression? I haven't seen it, which is why I ask, but I have big, big time fatigue for the obvious bias the Academy has towards performances where actors portray larger-than-life real people as opposed to fictional (or real, but without any defining external attributes) characters. In my very limited time on stage, I've always found it more challenging to concoct a character only using the words on the page (or the suggestions in the air), than when everything is already road-mapped out ahead of me.

Four of five best actor nominees this year are playing real people and three of them are pretty well known individuals. This surely will be the ninth time in the last 15 years the best actor went to a **cough cough** "transformative" performance and either Dick Cheney or Freddie Mercury can join Ray Charles, Truman Capote, Idi Amin, Harvey Milk, King George VI, Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Hawking and Winston Churchill. (DiCaprio and McConaghey also won for playing real people, though neither were famous).

Also nominated in that time: Howard Hughes, Johnny Cash, JM Barrie, Edward R. Murrow, Richard Nixon, Nelson Mandela, Mark Zuckerberg, Billy Beane, John du Pont, Dalton Trumbo, Alan Turing and Steve Jobs.

To say nothing of the other real people portrayed who were not well known like Ron Woodruff, Jordan Belfort, Aron Ralston, Solomon Northrup, etc.

Bios/true stories are just so lazy to me. It happens in other acting categories as well, but it's really a problem in the lead actor.

God forbid someone is recognized for a real, ground-up creation and not an impersonation.

Annual rant over.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Four of five best actor nominees this year are playing real people and three of them are pretty well known individuals. This surely will be the ninth time in the last 15 years the best actor went to a **cough cough** "transformative" performance and either Dick Cheney or Freddie Mercury can join Ray Charles, Truman Capote, Idi Amin, Harvey Milk, King George VI, Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Hawking and Winston Churchill. (DiCaprio and McConaghey also won for playing real people, though neither were famous).

Also nominated in that time: Howard Hughes, Johnny Cash, JM Barrie, Edward R. Murrow, Richard Nixon, Nelson Mandela, Mark Zuckerberg, Billy Beane, John du Pont, Dalton Trumbo, Alan Turing and Steve Jobs.

To say nothing of the other real people portrayed who were not well known like Ron Woodruff, Jordan Belfort, Aron Ralston, Solomon Northrup, etc.

Bios/true stories are just so lazy to me. It happens in other acting categories as well, but it's really a problem in the lead actor.

God forbid someone is recognized for a real, ground-up creation and not an impersonation.

Annual rant over.

Hear hear!!! Sums up my thoughts perfectly. Penn over Rourke and (especially) Redmayne over Keaton were the breaking points for me. Based on the recent track record of biopics, I anticipate that Malek and Bale's performances will be little more than impersonations.

 

[kihei]

Don't forget female impersonators (heh, heh). This century alone in the best actress category:

Julia Roberts--Erin Brockovich (won)
Judy Dench--Iris Murdoch
Nicole Kidman--Virginia Woolf (won)
Charlize Theron--Aileen Wuornos (won)
Imanda Staunton--Vera Drake
Reese Witherspoon--June Carter Cash (won)
Helen Mirren--Queen Elizabeth II (won)
Marion Cotillard--Edith Piaf
Cate Blanchett--Queen Elizabeth I
Sandra Bullock--Leigh Anne Tuohy (won)
Meryl Streep--Julia Child
Meryl Streep--Margaret Thatcher (won)
Michelle Williams--Marilyn Monroe
Judy Dench--Philomena Lee
Felicity Jones--Jane Hawking
Ruth Negga--Mildred Loving
Natalie Portman--Jackie Kennedy
Meryl Streep--Florence Foster Jenkins
Margot Robbie--Tonya Harding
Meryl Streep--Katherine Graham
Olivia Colman--Queen Anne
Melissa McCarthy--Lee Israel

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

He did magnificent impression of Mercury on stage. Off the stage is hard to tell because there's not much to compare it to due Mercury keeping that aspect secret

That. That right there. Therein lies the issue. Acting should be purely evaluative in nature in terms of what we see on screen (or stage or wherever). When we shift away from that and use outside entities to measure against and compare, we're kind of missing the point of the performance (in my opinion, at least).

Maybe it's not a bias so much as an unconscious laziness. Doing what we'll call here a "comparative evaluation" of a performance takes on a very black-and-white, almost quantifiable aspect that I think is appealing to a lot of people. e.g. "Person X was like this, and Actor X seems just like Person X. Therefore, not only is Actor X doing good acting, but it is undeniable they are doing so." 10 people might all have varying opinions on a performance by a different actor depicting a fictional character, because again, there is nothing to "compare" it to, but the same 10 could all agree that Actor X sure talks and looks just like this Person X that existed. Acting. Brilliant!

Also, this might seem like I myself have a bias the other way around. Not so -- my beef is more with how said performances are received/evaluated. I'd love to see things balance themselves out a bit more, but the trends don't look promising at all.

Annual rant over

Annual rant appreciated and enjoyed. Happy to have spurred it, haha

Penn over Rourke and (especially) Redmayne over Keaton were the breaking points for me.

Crazy to think that Keaton's performance that year was the only one among the nominees that wasn't a depiction of a real-life person. Crazier to think that the guy who should've won wasn't even nominated (Ralph Fiennes for Grand Budapest).

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Don't forget female impersonators (heh, heh). This century alone in the best actress category:

Julia Roberts--Erin Brockovich (won)
Judy Dench--Iris Murdoch
Nicole Kidman--Virginia Woolf (won)
Charlize Theron--Aileen Wuornos (won)
Imanda Staunton--Vera Drake
Reese Witherspoon--June Carter Cash (won)
Helen Mirren--Queen Elizabeth II (won)
Marion Cotillard--Edith Piaf
Cate Blanchett--Queen Elizabeth I
Sandra Bullock--Leigh Anne Tuohy (won)
Meryl Streep--Julia Child
Meryl Streep--Margaret Thatcher (won)
Michelle Williams--Marilyn Monroe
Judy Dench--Philomena Lee
Felicity Jones--Jane Hawking
Ruth Negga--Mildred Loving
Natalie Portman--Jackie Kennedy
Meryl Streep--Florence Foster Jenkins
Margot Robbie--Tonya Harding
Meryl Streep--Katherine Graham
Olivia Colman--Queen Anne
Melissa McCarthy--Lee Israel

The female performances haven't won a lot in recent years, especially when compared to the males. I think that's why I overlook that list, even thought it's quite extensive.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

That. That right there. Therein lies the issue. Acting should be purely evaluative in nature in terms of what we see on screen (or stage or wherever). When we shift away from that and use outside entities to measure against and compare, we're kind of missing the point of the performance (in my opinion, at least).

Maybe it's not a bias so much as an unconscious laziness. Doing what we'll call here a "comparative evaluation" of a performance takes on a very black-and-white, almost quantifiable aspect that I think is appealing to a lot of people. e.g. "Person X was like this, and Actor X seems just like Person X. Therefore, not only is Actor X doing good acting, but it is undeniable they are doing so." 10 people might all have varying opinions on a performance by a different actor depicting a fictional character, because again, there is nothing to "compare" it to, but the same 10 could all agree that Actor X sure talks and looks just like this Person X that existed. Acting. Brilliant!

Also, this might seem like I myself have a bias the other way around. Not so -- my beef is more with how said performances are received/evaluated. I'd love to see things balance themselves out a bit more, but the trends don't look promising at all.

This is an excellent point. Though I wish studios and actors would lean less on “true” stories and biopics as a source of material, the heart of my problem is as you say — it’s how we (the viewers) and they (the award givers) evaluate such things. Playing a “real” person is basically letting the audience use Cliffs Notes. That isn’t to say the actor doesn’t work hard, but it does make the audience’s work (and by extension evaluation) sooooo much easier.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, let’s give it an Oscar.
But what if I’ve never seen a duck before?

Related to this is the fact that many often equate acting to makeup/physical transformation. Made yourself fat/ugly/disabled? Well, sir, now you’re ACTING!

I’m far more impressed with performances like Keaton’s in Birdman or Chalamet in Call Me By Your Name or pretty much anything Joaquin Phoenix does (though guess which of his roles I like the least ) or Day-Lewis in Phantom Thread (I DO have as soft spot for his Lincoln, though). Finnes in Grand Budapest. Gyllenhall in Nightcrawler. These feel like creations. I could go on, but I’ll stop with this one — I was a big defender of Matt Damon’s nomination for The Martian a few years back, which caught guff from some around these parts because he “played himself” and/or the role “seemed easy.” I’d argue it seemed easy because the man’s a damn good actor. I’ll take his work there over Gary Oldman in the Darkest Hour any day. MORE work doesn’t mean harder work and it certainly doesn’t always equate to better work.

It’s not always shouting and sweating and accents and fake noses.

 

[Legionnaire]

Most overrated is actually The Shawshank Redemption.

LOL. No. Just no.

 

[Beau Knows]

I’m far more impressed with performances like Keaton’s in Birdman or Chalamet in Call Me By Your Name or pretty much anything Joaquin Phoenix does (though guess which of his roles I like the least ) or Day-Lewis in Phantom Thread (I DO have as soft spot for his Lincoln, though). Finnes in Grand Budapest. Gyllenhall in Nightcrawler. These feel like creations. I could go on, but I’ll stop with this one — I was a big defender of Matt Damon’s nomination for The Martian a few years back, which caught guff from some around these parts because he “played himself” and/or the role “seemed easy.” I’d argue it seemed easy because the man’s a damn good actor. I’ll take his work there over Gary Oldman in the Darkest Hour any day. MORE work doesn’t mean harder work and it certainly doesn’t always equate to better work.

I think the fact that you can't listen to tapes or watch recordings of Lincoln helps make Daniel Day-Lewis's performance more interesting than what you get from most biopics. He couldn't copy Lincoln's voice and study his mannerisms, he had to craft his own character based on accounts from Lincoln's contemporaries.

 

[Player big P]

LOL. No. Just no.

So do you agree with the IMDB Top 250 that says it is the best movie of all time?

Because it isn't even close to being the best movie of all time, yet people seem to think it is. The very definition of overrated.

 

[Legionnaire]

It is closer to the best movie than that steaming pile Crash should ever have been to even a nomination.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Most overrated is actually The Shawshank Redemption.

What a POS film. Next to Forrest Gump, it must have the biggest discrepancy to how good it is and how acclaimed it is.

 

[Evincar]

It must have been a bad year if Sam Rockwell got a BSA nomination for Vice. He was barely in the movie (kinda of the point of the movie) and was good but not memorable.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

What a POS film. Next to Forrest Gump, it must have the biggest discrepancy to how good it is and how acclaimed it is.

All 3 came out the same year and Pulp Fiction didn't win Best Picture.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

I’m far more impressed with performances like...

Once again, get out of my head. These were pretty much all the same recent examples that came to mind for me as well. It still kinda blows my mind the only Oscar nomination Nightcrawler got was for Screenplay, of all things. Like, what? Gyllenhaal (and to a lesser extent Ahmed) was the only compelling thing about that movie. Ditto on Damon -- that's one of the reasons Fiennes' seemingly effortless command in Grand Budapest is so damn impressive.

I think the fact that you can't listen to tapes or watch recordings of Lincoln helps make Daniel Day-Lewis's performance more interesting than what you get from most biopics. He couldn't copy Lincoln's voice and study his mannerisms, he had to craft his own character based on accounts from Lincoln's contemporaries.

Was gonna bring this up, but glad someone else did. Big benefit to DDL in that regard, or anyone doing a role where there's no video, or at the very least, audio recordings, of a person.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

Just want to add because I haven't seen him mentioned, I thought Adam Driver was phenomenal in BlacKKKlansmen.

 

[Pilky01]

I loved, loved LOVED Forrest Gump when I was a kid. Would probably still enjoy it now. I think though what mainly drew me to it back then was the music. Fleetwood Mac, CCR, that was some good shit. I'll never hear those first notes of Fortunate Son and not think of helicopters flying over Vietnam and meeting Lt. Dan.

 

[Puck]

While I might disagree with some of the arguments about biopics, transformational characters, true stories etc..., I find the line of reasoning interesting. I think some people might have more of a dispute with the way the Academy choses winners. I understand actors choose the actors, Directors choose their own and the tech awards are chosen by their peers too. There's probably popularity/personality contests going on, influence by large studios but it is what it is. We all disagree here, it's no different at that scale. I often disagree with awards but....I'm one of those that thinks getting nominated is prize enough, and that goes for the many other awards (other film festivals included) and then there are tributes and accolades that come years later in books and magazines, for films that never won big prizes. I see the Oscars as just another argument environment meant to foster discussion but good films can get accolades and rep years later (even if they never won that year, they get hindsight accolades later). The Oscars are just another medium to get us arguing about films (good PR) and it's all good.

On Shawshank Redemption, I love that movie but I understand the negative blowback it gets because of it's very high valuation on internet sites. I think that is largely a function of the fact the movie was largely evaluated at a time when the internet became 'a thing'. Most people never saw it at theatres but caught it later on DVD. They gave it a 'like' on new websites then and it has stuck as a favorite of the times and all the likes are recorded for posterity now. If the internet had come on in the 70's or 80's a different film of that era would be the fan favorite. It's not worth getting your pants in a knot either way (liking or disliking). Similarly, if the internet was created more recently and you were asked today what your best flick is, you'd get totally new choices (Shawshank would be forgotten), most of the more recent films would be 'liked' (in the last decade) and mostly without regard for older content (people forget or younger people might not have seen it). We are captive creatures of the times we are in.

 

[John Price]

I am bored at home on Friday night watching Chris Rock do the monologue to the Oscars a few years ago.

There should be no doubt that Rock should host the Oscars again. Call him.

 

[PullHard]

@BonMorrison I've been pretty absent from this site for the last couple of years, but after reading through this thread -- you really should participate here again if you have the time or desire. Even those rare times I didn't necessarily agree with your opinion I always appreciated your outlook and thoughtful posts, which is really rare on this site and on any forum. Hot takes are always flying left and right and are meant to land with impact, but you just wanted to generate discussion and were great at starting new threads promptly.

Also, on topic, I have almost no interest in any of the movies nominated this year. I've seen A Star Is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody... I wouldn't mind seeing Vice and You Were Never Really Here.

I don't always see the foreign language films but I really would like to see Roma and Shoplifters.

Overall like others have mentioned in this thread, mostly a shoulder shrug/ meh/ don't care response to seeing the nominees, which is disheartening, because this has been a really exciting event for me in years past.

 

[Puck]

I've seen all the Oscar nominated films now for Best Picture. My personal favorite in that list was Green Book (I love road movies) but I think the race is between Roma and The Favourite. I'll be cheering for Roma, I liked it better than The Favourite. I also found Rhapsody more entertaining than The Favourite so I put it ahead on the list (even though I think The Favourite is a better quality production overall IMHO).

People like lists so here is mine:

1. Roma (Gabriela Rodriguez and Alfonso Cuaron, Producers)

2. Green Book (Jim Burke, Charles B. Wessler, Brian Currie, Peter Farrelly and Nick Vallelonga, Producers)

3. Bohemian Rhapsody (Graham King, Producer)

4. The Favourite (Ceci Dempsey, Ed Guiney, Lee Magiday and Yorgos Lanthimos, Producers)

5. BlacKkKlansman (Sean McKittrick, Jason Blum, Raymond Mansfield, Jordan Peele and Spike Lee, Producers)

6. Black Panther (Kevin Feige, Producer)

7. A Star Is Born (Bill Gerber, Bradley Cooper and Lynette Howell Taylor, Producers)

8. Vice (Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, Adam McKay and Kevin Messick, Producers)