list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Shakespeare in Love on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Shakespeare_in_Love/129215/default.aspx Title: Shakespeare in Love
Year: 1998
Director: John Madden
Plot: William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is on a cold streak. Not only is he writing for Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush), owner of "The Rose," a theatre whose doors are about to be closed by sadistic creditors, but he's got a nasty case of writer's block. Shakespeare hasn't written a hit in years. In fact, he hasn't written much of anything recently. Thus, the Bard finds himself in quite a bind when Henslowe, desperate to stave off another round of hot-coals-to-feet application, stakes The Rose's solvency on Shakespeare's new comedy, "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." The problem is, "Romeo" is safely "locked away" in Shakespeare's head, which is to say that not a word of it is written. Meanwhile, the lovely Lady Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow) is an ardent theatre-goer -- scandalous for a woman of her breeding -- who especially admires Shakespeare's plays and, not incidentally, Bill himself. Alas, she's about to be sold as property into a loveless marriage by her mercenary father and shipped off to a Virginia tobacco plantation. But not before dressing up as a young man and winning the part of Romeo in the embryonic play. Shakespeare soon discovers the deception and goes along with it, using the blossoming love affair to ignite his muse. As William and Viola's romance grows in intensity and spirals towards its inevitable culmination, so, too, does the farcical comedy about Romeo and pirates transform into the timeless tragedy that is Romeo and Juliet. ~ Merle Bertrand, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 37
Number of Lists: 52
Number of blog posts: 4
Number of discussion threads: 14
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:40:30 GMTShakespeare in Love1998John MaddenWilliam Shakespeare (<a href="/players/P___239372/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Joseph Fiennes</a>) is on a cold streak. Not only is he writing for Philip Henslowe (<a href="/players/P___151418/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Geoffrey Rush</a>), owner of "The Rose," a theatre whose doors are about to be closed by sadistic creditors, but he's got a nasty case of writer's block. Shakespeare hasn't written a hit in years. In fact, he hasn't written much of anything recently. Thus, the Bard finds himself in quite a bind when Henslowe, desperate to stave off another round of hot-coals-to-feet application, stakes The Rose's solvency on Shakespeare's new comedy, "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." The problem is, "Romeo" is safely "locked away" in Shakespeare's head, which is to say that not a word of it is written. Meanwhile, the lovely Lady Viola (<a href="/players/P____54871/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gwyneth Paltrow</a>) is an ardent theatre-goer -- scandalous for a woman of her breeding -- who especially admires Shakespeare's plays and, not incidentally, Bill himself. Alas, she's about to be sold as property into a loveless marriage by her mercenary father and shipped off to a Virginia tobacco plantation. But not before dressing up as a young man and winning the part of Romeo in the embryonic play. Shakespeare soon discovers the deception and goes along with it, using the blossoming love affair to ignite his muse. As William and Viola's romance grows in intensity and spirals towards its inevitable culmination, so, too, does the farcical comedy about Romeo and pirates transform into the timeless tragedy that is Romeo and Juliet. ~ Merle Bertrand, All Movie Guide37Tag Target (>10)524143http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t17224d987n.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Shakespeare_in_Love/129215/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/27/40699.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/27/2009 6:01:44 PM
Body: Two more days until we find out who wins this year’s Academy Awards! Okay, so the exclamation point is more than forced. It’s been quite awhile since we’ve had even an ounce of excitement about the Oscars. But we mustn’t let predictability get us down. Sure, even the still-uncertain races (Penn vs. Rourke; Winslet vs. Streep; Man on Wire vs. Trouble the Water) are anything but interesting, because the everyman of 2009 couldn’t care less about who gave the year’s better performance and would probably be fine shrugging his shoulders at the TV screen in the event of a tie (or, better yet, irresolution). However, there’s one thing people keep forgetting about the Academy: they’re full of surprises. So, rather than just go with the easy, “predictable” predictions, we attempted to guess who and what will Crash the Oscars this year with a surprise victory — preferably the kind that adds an “ing” to “upset.” And once again, we’d like to extend the forecasting fun to you. What surprises do you expect and/or hope for? Or, if you’re down with the boring route, what “certain” winners do you truly believe in? And why? The most accurate comments will be reprinted in our final Oscar column on Monday. Best Picture: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button If the Academy didn’t continually cause controversial commotion with Best Picture picks like Shakespeare in Love and Crash, we wouldn’t have very much to talk about the morning after, or years later. So, in a way it’s exciting and somewhat necessary to have the occasional baffling or infuriating upsets in the top category. The one film that would piss off more people this year than any other, even more than The Reader, is Benjamin Button, especially since it pretty much already had the (dis)honor of being an undeserving Best Picture winner 15 years ago. Best Director: Stephen Daldry (The Reader) If Benjamin Button is to win Best Picture, then Danny Boyle should probably still win Best Director, because often in the years of controversial Best Picture upsets the director’s prize still goes to the (critical) favorite. Think of Steven Spielberg in ’99 and Ang Lee in ’06. But just to prove the Oscars are completely out of touch, we have to go with the Academy favorites of Daldry and the Holocaust. Both Fincher and Boyle are Oscar newbies and may have their turn with some future, more lackluster effort. Best Actress: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) For this category, we’re looking to the 2008 presidential election. Let’s consider Meryl Streep to be the older, more experienced, and typically well-respected candidate, who will lose to the young novice in her very first bid. Where that puts thought-to-be-a-lock Kate Winslet in the analogy is not important. As long as people keep mentioning Obama in their reasoning for why Slumdog Millionaire will win Best Picture, it’s just as fair to recognize Hathaway as the most Obama-like choice for Best Actress. Best Actor: undetermined As much as a tie in this category would be a surprising and slightly satisfying turn of events (even though it would be more appropriate in the Best Actress race, since Streep will forever be compared to Katherine Hepburn, who tied with Barbara Streisand 30 years ago), we’re looking to another political race of last year for the Best Actor decision. All we’ll know Sunday night is that it’s still down to Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. But don’t worry, we’ll find out who actually wins in a few months. Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler) Just as Judy Davis probably deserved the Supporting Actress Oscar more for her performance in a Woody Allen film 16 years ago, Penelope Cruz probably deserves it more this year, also for a Woody Allen film. But Tomei is the champion of Oscar surprises, and we could very well see a repeat of 1993. At least this time she’s a little more worthy. Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) Okay, there’s no chance of a surprise here. Because if the Oscar goes to anyone but Ledger, a crazed fan will likely blow up the Kodak. And the Academy must presume that Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister won’t conveniently have access to the detonator this time. Best Adapted Screenplay:  Eric Roth and Robin Swicord (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Never mind the tremendous amount of work Roth put into expanding a very short story into a very, very long film. His and Swicord’s true triumph is in how they were able to rewrite Forrest Gump and repackage it well enough to fool $242 million-worth of moviegoers. Hollywood is surely obligated to reward the duo for pulling off such a double-tiered adaptation and such a well-played moneymaking scheme. Best Original Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Docter (WALL-E) Yes, a lot of people are predicting this to win the Oscar, and so it won’t be quite as much a surprise as a win for Frozen River would be. But the real shocker is going to be when Kung Fu Panda wins Best Animated Feature, a repeat of its glory at the Annies, and Academy logic once again goes completely out the window. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:01:44 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/27/2009 6:01:44 PMTwo more days until we find out who wins this year’s Academy Awards! Okay, so the exclamation point is more than forced. It’s been quite awhile since we’ve had even an ounce of excitement about the Oscars. But we mustn’t let predictability get us down. Sure, even the still-uncertain races (Penn vs. Rourke; Winslet vs. Streep; Man on Wire vs. Trouble the Water) are anything but interesting, because the everyman of 2009 couldn’t care less about who gave the year’s better performance and would probably be fine shrugging his shoulders at the TV screen in the event of a tie (or, better yet, irresolution). However, there’s one thing people keep forgetting about the Academy: they’re full of surprises. So, rather than just go with the easy, “predictable” predictions, we attempted to guess who and what will Crash the Oscars this year with a surprise victory — preferably the kind that adds an “ing” to “upset.” And once again, we’d like to extend the forecasting fun to you. What surprises do you expect and/or hope for? Or, if you’re down with the boring route, what “certain” winners do you truly believe in? And why? The most accurate comments will be reprinted in our final Oscar column on Monday. Best Picture: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button If the Academy didn’t continually cause controversial commotion with Best Picture picks like Shakespeare in Love and Crash, we wouldn’t have very much to talk about the morning after, or years later. So, in a way it’s exciting and somewhat necessary to have the occasional baffling or infuriating upsets in the top category. The one film that would piss off more people this year than any other, even more than The Reader, is Benjamin Button, especially since it pretty much already had the (dis)honor of being an undeserving Best Picture winner 15 years ago. Best Director: Stephen Daldry (The Reader) If Benjamin Button is to win Best Picture, then Danny Boyle should probably still win Best Director, because often in the years of controversial Best Picture upsets the director’s prize still goes to the (critical) favorite. Think of Steven Spielberg in ’99 and Ang Lee in ’06. But just to prove the Oscars are completely out of touch, we have to go with the Academy favorites of Daldry and the Holocaust. Both Fincher and Boyle are Oscar newbies and may have their turn with some future, more lackluster effort. Best Actress: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married) For this category, we’re looking to the 2008 presidential election. Let’s consider Meryl Streep to be the older, more experienced, and typically well-respected candidate, who will lose to the young novice in her very first bid. Where that puts thought-to-be-a-lock Kate Winslet in the analogy is not important. As long as people keep mentioning Obama in their reasoning for why Slumdog Millionaire will win Best Picture, it’s just as fair to recognize Hathaway as the most Obama-like choice for Best Actress. Best Actor: undetermined As much as a tie in this category would be a surprising and slightly satisfying turn of events (even though it would be more appropriate in the Best Actress race, since Streep will forever be compared to Katherine Hepburn, who tied with Barbara Streisand 30 years ago), we’re looking to another political race of last year for the Best Actor decision. All we’ll know Sunday night is that it’s still down to Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. But don’t worry, we’ll find out who actually wins in a few months. Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler) Just as Judy Davis probably deserved the Supporting Actress Oscar more for her performance in a Woody Allen film 16 years ago, Penelope Cruz probably deserves it more this year, also for a Woody Allen film. But Tomei is the champion of Oscar surprises, and we could very well see a repeat of 1993. At least this time she’s a little more worthy. Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight) Okay, there’s no chance of a surprise here. Because if the Oscar goes to anyone but Ledger, a crazed fan will likely blow up the Kodak. And the Academy must presume that Tommy ‘Tiny’ Lister won’t conveniently have access to the detonator this time. Best Adapted Screenplay:  Eric Roth and Robin Swicord (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) Never mind the tremendous amount of work Roth put into expanding a very short story into a very, very long film. His and Swicord’s true triumph is in how they were able to rewrite Forrest Gump and repackage it well enough to fool $242 million-worth of moviegoers. Hollywood is surely obligated to reward the duo for pulling off such a double-tiered adaptation and such a well-played moneymaking scheme. Best Original Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Jim Reardon and Pete Docter (WALL-E) Yes, a lot of people are predicting this to win the Oscar, and so it won’t be quite as much a surprise as a win for Frozen River would be. But the real shocker is going to be when Kung Fu Panda wins Best Animated Feature, a repeat of its glory at the Annies, and Academy logic once again goes completely out the window. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Overrated_Movies/190/40439/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 2/13/2009 11:09:59 AM
Body: Bailey, I'm going to have to go ahead and gree with you on both of those! Goodfellas was a *good* movie, but not *great*. Same can be said for Shakespeare in Love. It was visually pleasant, but really, once again, there wasn't much substance below a glossy exterior. [quote user="bailey822"] I agree completely about Goodfellas. I love Scorsese, but this was no Godfather. Shakespeare in Love was another one that didn't exactly deserve all that critical acclaim...it was basically a romantic comedy with lots of expensive costumes. [/quote]
]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:09:59 GMTseelyTop 52/13/2009 11:09:59 AMBailey, I'm going to have to go ahead and gree with you on both of those! Goodfellas was a *good* movie, but not *great*. Same can be said for Shakespeare in Love. It was visually pleasant, but really, once again, there wasn't much substance below a glossy exterior. [quote user="bailey822"] I agree completely about Goodfellas. I love Scorsese, but this was no Godfather. Shakespeare in Love was another one that didn't exactly deserve all that critical acclaim...it was basically a romantic comedy with lots of expensive costumes. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Overrated_Movies/190/40434/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: bailey822
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 2/12/2009 9:52:49 PM
Body: I agree completely about Goodfellas. I love Scorsese, but this was no Godfather. Shakespeare in Love was another one that didn't exactly deserve all that critical acclaim...it was basically a romantic comedy with lots of expensive costumes. [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous. [/quote]
]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:52:49 GMTbailey822Top 52/12/2009 9:52:49 PMI agree completely about Goodfellas. I love Scorsese, but this was no Godfather. Shakespeare in Love was another one that didn't exactly deserve all that critical acclaim...it was basically a romantic comedy with lots of expensive costumes. [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/2/2/40168.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 2/2/2009 5:01:22 PM
Body: With Danny Boyle’s DGA win over the weekend, Slumdog Millionaire achieved a near-impossible feat; it became even more favored to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Once thought to be an underdog, Slumdog has been pretty much unstoppable throughout the awards season, even picking up the undeserved top honor at the SAG Awards, and has never fallen from its position of frontrunner since it took the lead months ago. Yet last week, the internet was populated by talk of a Slumdog backlash, and for the first time in weeks, other Best Picture candidates were seriously being discussed as slightly plausible victors. The two titles considered most likely to be a threat to Boyle’s film are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Milk, with little concern for either Frost/Nixon or The Reader. However, while the former candidate is probably a sure thing to lose, the latter film should not yet be dismissed. Before the Academy Award nominations were announced last month, The Reader wasn’t even thought to be a contender for any major category except Best Supporting Actress. Now, among its five nominations, it’s up for three higher-tiered Oscars, including Best Picture. So, we can’t rightly continue underestimating its potential. This isn’t to say that we are predicting The Reader to win Best Picture; Slumdog is still the safest bet for the top prize. But odds for The Reader do need to be adjusted, as its chances are a lot closer to, if not better than, secondary favorites Benjamin Button and Milk. Of course, as the it stands now, the film should be an appealing choice for any gamblers out there, because a surprise Best Picture win for The Reader would pay out big time. So, our immediate apologies to betters if the following seven factors have any influence on professional oddsmakers out there. The Cancel-Out Factor Let’s begin with the simplest argument, which has also been used recently as evidence that Milk’s chances for the top award have gone up: Whether due to a backlash or not, Slumdog’s lead may be shortening, and Benjamin Button may be gaining. So, the two films could cancel each other out and The Reader, not Milk, could sneak forward. Or, to give Milk the same credit as others are giving it, the three favorites cancel each other out and The Reader makes an even greater leap forward. The Stephen Daldry Factor Now for the weakest, but not completely implausible argument: It’s clear the Academy loves Stephen Daldry, as they’ve nominated him for Best Director every time he’s made a movie. Unfortunately for him, there’s no way he’ll win his category this year, because no director has ever won the Oscar without at least being nominated for the DGA award. So, Boyle remains a lock for Best Director, but Daldry’s fans could try and make a serious push for the film to win Best Picture. It would be a somewhat ironic win, since Daldry’s first nomination came for a film that wasn’t even nominated for the top award (Billy Elliot). The Posthumous Oscars Factor (aka the Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella Factor) Thanks to a special exception the Academy made for The Reader, there are now three posthumous Oscar nominees. Heath Ledger is most definitely going to win Best Supporting Actor for his role in The Dark Knight, but what about Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella? The two are among The Reader’s four producers named to receive trophies if the film wins Best Picture. Academy members could consider this a year to pay special honor to the artists they’ve lost, and that would mean voting for two of their favorite filmmaking talents. On the other hand, though, with Pollack having previously won two Oscars (out of six nominations) and Minghella having previously won one (out of three nominations), it’s not as if the voters will feel as much of an obligation as they would if neither had been honored before. Still, never underestimate the power of the celebrity death cult. The Harvey Weinstein Factor It’s been awhile since Harvey’s heyday at the Oscars. While heading Miramax, he managed a couple surprise victories in the Best Picture category, and at the 2003 awards, Harvey actually had a connection to four of the five Best Picture nominees. He used to be known as someone not to be reckoned with when it came to his desire for Academy Awards. But it’s taken years for The Weinstein Co. to see one of its films in contention for the top prize. So, will Harvey once again show great influence over the Academy? According to Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Karger, Harvey’s been advised not to go crazy with the Oscar campaigning this year, partly for economic reasons and partly because his chances are considered low. But Karger thinks he’s still going to “go whole hog,” because “otherwise he wouldn’t be Harvey Weinstein.” And when Harvey goes whole hog, things like Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan happen. Seriously, there are already those who believe the whole Slumdog backlash thing was started by a certain “truth-and ethically challenged mogul” who would benefit from such a smear campaign. The Schindler’s List Factor As much as we all like to joke about the Academy’s Holocaust fetish, no Holocaust movie is a sure thing for Best Picture (especially if such a film is the one non-Harvey Weinstein-related nominee). But one Holocaust film in particular is the Academy’s pride and joy: Schindler’s List. If Slumdog Millionaire continues its awards season sweep, garnering top kudos from the WGA, the BAFTAs and finally the Oscars, it will actually become a more-honored film than Schindler’s List, which holds the current record for awards season domination. Unfortunately for Spielberg’s film, as noted by In Contention’s Kristopher Tapley, there were no BFCA or SAG ensemble awards back then. So, due to more opportunities, Slumdog could break the record rather unfairly. For Schindler’s List-loving members of the Academy, that might be an incentive to vote for The Reader, a fellow Holocaust film, instead of for Slumdog, which nobody could reasonably argue is better than the 1994 Best Picture-winner. The Tolerance Factor One of the major arguments in favor of Milk’s chances are that a Best Picture win for that film would make up for the Brokeback Mountain loss three years ago. And the Academy might vote for Milk in order to prove it is tolerant. But in a way, honoring Crash over Brokeback Mountain was a display of tolerance, only one that focused on race rather than sexual orientation. The Reader could be this year’s Crash, and not just because it’s one of the most critically hated Best Picture candidates in years. An argument against the aforementioned Schindler’s List Factor is that The Reader is almost like an anti-Holocaust film, because it attempts to make the audience sympathize with a concentration camp guard who slaughtered many Jewish prisoners. If the Academy should really feel the need to again prove its members are tolerant, honoring The Reader, which allegorically deals with Germany’s struggle to come to terms with its Nazi past, would be an even stronger display of this than would honoring a film focusing on gay rights. The again, the latter action may potentially be easier for some voters. The Surprise Factor Okay, this is actually the simplest argument: the Oscars are full of surprises. From Marisa Tomei’s out-numbered defeat of the British (and Australian) in 1992 to the shocking 1936 win by write-in candidate Hal Mohr to the unexpected Best Picture wins by non-frontrunners Chariots of Fire, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago and Crash (among others), the Academy should never be underestimated when it comes to their aim with monkey wrenches. So, the best reason not to dismiss The Reader in the Best Picture race is that all Oscars races are anyone’s game up until the envelopes are opened and the winners are named. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:01:22 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com2/2/2009 5:01:22 PMWith Danny Boyle’s DGA win over the weekend, Slumdog Millionaire achieved a near-impossible feat; it became even more favored to win the Oscar for Best Picture. Once thought to be an underdog, Slumdog has been pretty much unstoppable throughout the awards season, even picking up the undeserved top honor at the SAG Awards, and has never fallen from its position of frontrunner since it took the lead months ago. Yet last week, the internet was populated by talk of a Slumdog backlash, and for the first time in weeks, other Best Picture candidates were seriously being discussed as slightly plausible victors. The two titles considered most likely to be a threat to Boyle’s film are The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Milk, with little concern for either Frost/Nixon or The Reader. However, while the former candidate is probably a sure thing to lose, the latter film should not yet be dismissed. Before the Academy Award nominations were announced last month, The Reader wasn’t even thought to be a contender for any major category except Best Supporting Actress. Now, among its five nominations, it’s up for three higher-tiered Oscars, including Best Picture. So, we can’t rightly continue underestimating its potential. This isn’t to say that we are predicting The Reader to win Best Picture; Slumdog is still the safest bet for the top prize. But odds for The Reader do need to be adjusted, as its chances are a lot closer to, if not better than, secondary favorites Benjamin Button and Milk. Of course, as the it stands now, the film should be an appealing choice for any gamblers out there, because a surprise Best Picture win for The Reader would pay out big time. So, our immediate apologies to betters if the following seven factors have any influence on professional oddsmakers out there. The Cancel-Out Factor Let’s begin with the simplest argument, which has also been used recently as evidence that Milk’s chances for the top award have gone up: Whether due to a backlash or not, Slumdog’s lead may be shortening, and Benjamin Button may be gaining. So, the two films could cancel each other out and The Reader, not Milk, could sneak forward. Or, to give Milk the same credit as others are giving it, the three favorites cancel each other out and The Reader makes an even greater leap forward. The Stephen Daldry Factor Now for the weakest, but not completely implausible argument: It’s clear the Academy loves Stephen Daldry, as they’ve nominated him for Best Director every time he’s made a movie. Unfortunately for him, there’s no way he’ll win his category this year, because no director has ever won the Oscar without at least being nominated for the DGA award. So, Boyle remains a lock for Best Director, but Daldry’s fans could try and make a serious push for the film to win Best Picture. It would be a somewhat ironic win, since Daldry’s first nomination came for a film that wasn’t even nominated for the top award (Billy Elliot). The Posthumous Oscars Factor (aka the Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella Factor) Thanks to a special exception the Academy made for The Reader, there are now three posthumous Oscar nominees. Heath Ledger is most definitely going to win Best Supporting Actor for his role in The Dark Knight, but what about Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella? The two are among The Reader’s four producers named to receive trophies if the film wins Best Picture. Academy members could consider this a year to pay special honor to the artists they’ve lost, and that would mean voting for two of their favorite filmmaking talents. On the other hand, though, with Pollack having previously won two Oscars (out of six nominations) and Minghella having previously won one (out of three nominations), it’s not as if the voters will feel as much of an obligation as they would if neither had been honored before. Still, never underestimate the power of the celebrity death cult. The Harvey Weinstein Factor It’s been awhile since Harvey’s heyday at the Oscars. While heading Miramax, he managed a couple surprise victories in the Best Picture category, and at the 2003 awards, Harvey actually had a connection to four of the five Best Picture nominees. He used to be known as someone not to be reckoned with when it came to his desire for Academy Awards. But it’s taken years for The Weinstein Co. to see one of its films in contention for the top prize. So, will Harvey once again show great influence over the Academy? According to Entertainment Weekly’s Dave Karger, Harvey’s been advised not to go crazy with the Oscar campaigning this year, partly for economic reasons and partly because his chances are considered low. But Karger thinks he’s still going to “go whole hog,” because “otherwise he wouldn’t be Harvey Weinstein.” And when Harvey goes whole hog, things like Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan happen. Seriously, there are already those who believe the whole Slumdog backlash thing was started by a certain “truth-and ethically challenged mogul” who would benefit from such a smear campaign. The Schindler’s List Factor As much as we all like to joke about the Academy’s Holocaust fetish, no Holocaust movie is a sure thing for Best Picture (especially if such a film is the one non-Harvey Weinstein-related nominee). But one Holocaust film in particular is the Academy’s pride and joy: Schindler’s List. If Slumdog Millionaire continues its awards season sweep, garnering top kudos from the WGA, the BAFTAs and finally the Oscars, it will actually become a more-honored film than Schindler’s List, which holds the current record for awards season domination. Unfortunately for Spielberg’s film, as noted by In Contention’s Kristopher Tapley, there were no BFCA or SAG ensemble awards back then. So, due to more opportunities, Slumdog could break the record rather unfairly. For Schindler’s List-loving members of the Academy, that might be an incentive to vote for The Reader, a fellow Holocaust film, instead of for Slumdog, which nobody could reasonably argue is better than the 1994 Best Picture-winner. The Tolerance Factor One of the major arguments in favor of Milk’s chances are that a Best Picture win for that film would make up for the Brokeback Mountain loss three years ago. And the Academy might vote for Milk in order to prove it is tolerant. But in a way, honoring Crash over Brokeback Mountain was a display of tolerance, only one that focused on race rather than sexual orientation. The Reader could be this year’s Crash, and not just because it’s one of the most critically hated Best Picture candidates in years. An argument against the aforementioned Schindler’s List Factor is that The Reader is almost like an anti-Holocaust film, because it attempts to make the audience sympathize with a concentration camp guard who slaughtered many Jewish prisoners. If the Academy should really feel the need to again prove its members are tolerant, honoring The Reader, which allegorically deals with Germany’s struggle to come to terms with its Nazi past, would be an even stronger display of this than would honoring a film focusing on gay rights. The again, the latter action may potentially be easier for some voters. The Surprise Factor Okay, this is actually the simplest argument: the Oscars are full of surprises. From Marisa Tomei’s out-numbered defeat of the British (and Australian) in 1992 to the shocking 1936 win by write-in candidate Hal Mohr to the unexpected Best Picture wins by non-frontrunners Chariots of Fire, Shakespeare in Love, Chicago and Crash (among others), the Academy should never be underestimated when it comes to their aim with monkey wrenches. So, the best reason not to dismiss The Reader in the Best Picture race is that all Oscars races are anyone’s game up until the envelopes are opened and the winners are named. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Overrated_Movies/190/39479/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: flair
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 1/13/2009 5:56:38 PM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous. [/quote] leeroy, I think you are harsh on Scorsese, and he didn't only make those three flicks prior to the Departed. In the land of overrated for Scorsese, I submit Gangs of New York and The Aviator. I hate them, and they were nominated a million times for a million awards (and were some in the long line of Scorsese's no-Oscar curse). Though, I totally agree with Gladiator (also doesn't hold up to repeat viewings) and Shakespeare in Love. I was hot when the latter won Best Picture thanks to the alpha-campaignig of the Weinsteins. Saving Private Ryan is a much better film, and I personally and generally prefer romances to war movies any day, but come on. And now I see why Shawshank might be considered overrated Ok, I concede on that point, but I'm with leeroy on Amelie. [/quote]
]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:56:38 GMTflairTop 51/13/2009 5:56:38 PM[quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="leeroy711"] [quote user="SkyPilot"] 3. Amelie [/quote] Boooooooooo!!! I love this one and everything else by Juenet. The rest of the list I can't disagree with but mine would look more like: 1. Platoon - Hamburger Hill was better........... trust me. 2. Goodfellas/Casino/Taxi Driver - I didn't really get into a Scorsese film until The Departed. These others were OK, but that's about it. If it weren't for Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese would be the most overrated director. 3. Shakespeare In Love - this was when I stopped watching or caring about the Oscars 4. Gladiator - see No. 3 - And I actually liked Black Hawk Down better for a Ridley Scott film. 5. Shawshank Redemption - This one was clever but c'mon. No. 1 on IMDB's top 250 list is just ridiculous. [/quote] leeroy, I think you are harsh on Scorsese, and he didn't only make those three flicks prior to the Departed. In the land of overrated for Scorsese, I submit Gangs of New York and The Aviator. I hate them, and they were nominated a million times for a million awards (and were some in the long line of Scorsese's no-Oscar curse). Though, I totally agree with Gladiator (also doesn't hold up to repeat viewings) and Shakespeare in Love. I was hot when the latter won Best Picture thanks to the alpha-campaignig of the Weinsteins. Saving Private Ryan is a much better film, and I personally and generally prefer romances to war movies any day, but come on. And now I see why Shawshank might be considered overrated Ok, I concede on that point, but I'm with leeroy on Amelie. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/9/38154.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/9/2008 7:02:15 PM
Body: Is romance dead? David Carr seems to think so, at least in American cinema (both Hollywood and “Indiewood,” as he inclusively clarifies). While celebrating the subway station meet-cute from the beginning of Milk, a scene he claims to be of an increasingly rare sort, Carr states that American filmmakers “can do romantic pathology and entropy, but the kind of love for the ages, a big-movie kind of love? Not so much.” If you agree with him, blame the back-to-back Best Picture winners Titanic and Shakespeare in Love for feeding us the kind of romance that’s so cheesy it clogs our arteries and gives us a coronary. Left with a burst heart and a lack of quality Nora Ephron movies, most of us have been cynics when it comes to love stories these past ten years. Yet cynics can still be swept off their feet, and American filmmakers have adequately supplied them with new kinds of love for the ages. Just take a look at these ten films from the past decade. They may be full of cynicism, but they’re also filled with big-movie love, in their own way. If you can’t see the romance, then the problem is with you, not the movies. Love & Basketball (2000) This underrated film has something for everyone: sports for the boys and romance for the girls; and sports for the girls and romance for the boys. See, it’s a love story that avoids clichés and speaks to both sexes equally. And as far as meet-cutes go, it’s hard to top Quincy’s first encounter with Monica: she beats him at basketball, he knocks her to the ground, and they instantly fall in love, at the age of 13. Plenty of recent films have done the whole love-since-childhood thing, including the contrived Love Me if You Dare and this year’s less-sexually-balanced Slumdog Millionaire. But while others treat this kind of story as fairy tale, Love & Basketball is more real, and true love is definitely more romantic than fantastical love. Punch-Drunk Love (2002) Who knew that Adam Sandler, as a modern-day Popeye, could be so romantic? Apparently Paul Thomas Anderson did, and he was able to transform the typical Sandler man-boy persona into an old-fashioned man-as-protector sort of romantic hero. A bit sexist and a little creepy, sure, but Sandler’s Barry Egan manages to fall on the right side of the fine line between stalker and sentimentally drastic admirer (kind of like a male “Amelie”). All the Real Girls (2003) The direction this film may seem too ironic and cynical to be considered truly romantic, but then think of how cynical our favorite romantic classics are. Gone With the Wind and Casablanca? Neither is as positive and hopeful as we pretend Hollywood romance to be. And while those films’ dialogue may be memorable after all these years, none of their lines are as simply and sweetly romantic as the stuff said by Paul (Paul Schneider) and Noel (Zooey Deschanel) to each other when they’re still falling in love. Cold Mountain (2003) Nicole Kidman and Jude Law may be the worst actors to play romantic leads, considering how stiff and plastic they are. But forgetting the performances and concentrating on the epic love story, this relatively modernized take on The Odyssey (set during the Civil War) is as classically romantic as it gets, right down to the tragic denouement. Surprisingly, it was not well received by either critics or audiences. The problem may have been the fault of Kidman and Law, whose characters were hardly believable as in love, although their compatibility is beside the point. The romantic quest made by Inman (Law) to get back to his barely-familiar sweetheart is powered by the concept of love more than the certainty of love. 50 First Dates (2004) Another Adam Sandler movie? That’s right, and this one is even sweeter and more thoughtfully romantic than Punch-Drunk Love. The plot, which is like a reciprocal Groundhog Day, is a tad too gimmicky to grab your heartstrings right away, but the final scene (ironically in the Arctic) could warm the center of even the most pragmatic, unemotional viewer. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) Two of the best films of 2004 were deconstructions of love. But while Jonathan Glazer’s Birth shattered romance to pieces, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind showed us what it’s made of. The film also somewhat argues that love and romance aren’t necessarily about “happily ever after,” even if the two main characters do seem destined to be together at the end, nor are these concepts limited to good times. The Notebook (2004) It doesn’t get more traditionally romantic than this: forbidden love; correspondence; longing; a World War. But how is this more beloved than either Pearl Harbor or Australia? And why is Nicholas Sparks more respected and read than most romance novelists? Well, if it were that easy to determine, Hollywood wouldn’t keep failing in its attempts to make more films like this. Or, maybe it’s just that The Notebook doesn’t seem to be trying too hard –– it just tells a genuine love story without tugging or overreaching for your presumed romantic buttons. Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005) If Amelie is the most romantic non-American film of the last ten years, and if Punch-Drunk’s Barry Egan is the male Amelie, then Miranda July’s character is simply the American Amelie. She’s a little weird, a little too forthcoming, but she’s so sweet and creative in her pursuits that she’s not just forgivable; she’s completely lovable. Of course, lovable doesn’t exactly equal romantic, but then there are plenty of oddly romantic scenes in the film, too, such as the metaphoric first walk shared by July and John Hawkes’ characters. It’s frank, it’s harsh, but it’s also the best flirtation seen in American cinema in a long time. Brokeback Mountain (2005) It’s upsetting to think of any story involving adultery as being romantic (though Unfaithful almost made this list for other, spoilerific reasons), but the two lovers in Brokeback Mountain are given an exception because of the society they live in. The unapproved affair also makes for one of the most heartbreaking romances ever put on screen. And of all the films selected, this is easily the one that’s liable to make you lose your cynical perspective, at least for a couple of hours. WALL-E (2008) In a way, this animated film is not romantic at all for humans, who are viewed as plump slugs with no real interaction with other people (seriously, a time when we all just use video chat, even when we’re in the vicinity of one another, is not too far off). But for robots, it’s the most romantic thing to come along since the implied relationship between C-3PO and R2-D2. And it’s gender-equal (or, if you believe the characters are gender-neutral, the film is partner-equal) as far as the pursuing, the rescuing and the responsibility go regarding WALL-E and EVE’s relationship. Hopefully, this most recent film on the list will inspire future romantic films to be so progressive and so lacking in cynicism (such optimism: even two humans seem to fall in love at the end). Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:02:15 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/9/2008 7:02:15 PMIs romance dead? David Carr seems to think so, at least in American cinema (both Hollywood and “Indiewood,” as he inclusively clarifies). While celebrating the subway station meet-cute from the beginning of Milk, a scene he claims to be of an increasingly rare sort, Carr states that American filmmakers “can do romantic pathology and entropy, but the kind of love for the ages, a big-movie kind of love? Not so much.” If you agree with him, blame the back-to-back Best Picture winners Titanic and Shakespeare in Love for feeding us the kind of romance that’s so cheesy it clogs our arteries and gives us a coronary. Left with a burst heart and a lack of quality Nora Ephron movies, most of us have been cynics when it comes to love stories these past ten years. Yet cynics can still be swept off their feet, and American filmmakers have adequately supplied them with new kinds of love for the ages. Just take a look at these ten films from the past decade. They may be full of cynicism, but they’re also filled with big-movie love, in their own way. If you can’t see the romance, then the problem is with you, not the movies. Love & Basketball (2000) This underrated film has something for everyone: sports for the boys and romance for the girls; and sports for the girls and romance for the boys. See, it’s a love story that avoids clichés and speaks to both sexes equally. And as far as meet-cutes go, it’s hard to top Quincy’s first encounter with Monica: she beats him at basketball, he knocks her to the ground, and they instantly fall in love, at the age of 13. Plenty of recent films have done the whole love-since-childhood thing, including the contrived Love Me if You Dare and this year’s less-sexually-balanced Slumdog Millionaire. But while others treat this kind of story as fairy tale, Love & Basketball is more real, and true love is definitely more romantic than fantastical love. Punch-Drunk Love (2002) Who knew that Adam Sandler, as a modern-day Popeye, could be so romantic? Apparently Paul Thomas Anderson did, and he was able to transform the typical Sandler man-boy persona into an old-fashioned man-as-protector sort of romantic hero. A bit sexist and a little creepy, sure, but Sandler’s Barry Egan manages to fall on the right side of the fine line between stalker and sentimentally drastic admirer (kind of like a male “Amelie”). All the Real Girls (2003) The direction this film may seem too ironic and cynical to be considered truly romantic, but then think of how cynical our favorite romantic classics are. Gone With the Wind and Casablanca? Neither is as positive and hopeful as we pretend Hollywood romance to be. And while those films’ dialogue may be memorable after all these years, none of their lines are as simply and sweetly romantic as the stuff said by Paul (Paul Schneider) and Noel (Zooey Deschanel) to each other when they’re still falling in love. Cold Mountain (2003) Nicole Kidman and Jude Law may be the worst actors to play romantic leads, considering how stiff and plastic they are. But forgetting the performances and concentrating on the epic love story, this relatively modernized take on The Odyssey (set during the Civil War) is as classically romantic as it gets, right down to the tragic denouement. Surprisingly, it was not well received by either critics or audiences. The problem may have been the fault of Kidman and Law, whose characters were hardly believable as in love, although their compatibility is beside the point. The romantic quest made by Inman (Law) to get back to his barely-familiar sweetheart is powered by the concept of love more than the certainty of love. 50 First Dates (2004) Another Adam Sandler movie? That’s right, and this one is even sweeter and more thoughtfully romantic than Punch-Drunk Love. The plot, which is like a reciprocal Groundhog Day, is a tad too gimmicky to grab your heartstrings right away, but the final scene (ironically in the Arctic) could warm the center of even the most pragmatic, unemotional viewer. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) Two of the best films of 2004 were deconstructions of love. But while Jonathan Glazer’s Birth shattered romance to pieces, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind showed us what it’s made of. The film also somewhat argues that love and romance aren’t necessarily about “happily ever after,” even if the two main characters do seem destined to be together at the end, nor are these concepts limited to good times. The Notebook (2004) It doesn’t get more traditionally romantic than this: forbidden love; correspondence; longing; a World War. But how is this more beloved than either Pearl Harbor or Australia? And why is Nicholas Sparks more respected and read than most romance novelists? Well, if it were that easy to determine, Hollywood wouldn’t keep failing in its attempts to make more films like this. Or, maybe it’s just that The Notebook doesn’t seem to be trying too hard –– it just tells a genuine love story without tugging or overreaching for your presumed romantic buttons. Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005) If Amelie is the most romantic non-American film of the last ten years, and if Punch-Drunk’s Barry Egan is the male Amelie, then Miranda July’s character is simply the American Amelie. She’s a little weird, a little too forthcoming, but she’s so sweet and creative in her pursuits that she’s not just forgivable; she’s completely lovable. Of course, lovable doesn’t exactly equal romantic, but then there are plenty of oddly romantic scenes in the film, too, such as the metaphoric first walk shared by July and John Hawkes’ characters. It’s frank, it’s harsh, but it’s also the best flirtation seen in American cinema in a long time. Brokeback Mountain (2005) It’s upsetting to think of any story involving adultery as being romantic (though Unfaithful almost made this list for other, spoilerific reasons), but the two lovers in Brokeback Mountain are given an exception because of the society they live in. The unapproved affair also makes for one of the most heartbreaking romances ever put on screen. And of all the films selected, this is easily the one that’s liable to make you lose your cynical perspective, at least for a couple of hours. WALL-E (2008) In a way, this animated film is not romantic at all for humans, who are viewed as plump slugs with no real interaction with other people (seriously, a time when we all just use video chat, even when we’re in the vicinity of one another, is not too far off). But for robots, it’s the most romantic thing to come along since the implied relationship between C-3PO and R2-D2. And it’s gender-equal (or, if you believe the characters are gender-neutral, the film is partner-equal) as far as the pursuing, the rescuing and the responsibility go regarding WALL-E and EVE’s relationship. Hopefully, this most recent film on the list will inspire future romantic films to be so progressive and so lacking in cynicism (such optimism: even two humans seem to fall in love at the end). Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/1/37819.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/1/2008 7:00:29 PM
Body: Kate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.” Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin. The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. This probably goes back to the origins of the supporting awards, which began in the mid-30s seemingly to appease the demands of non-A-list actors. Since that time, the supporting honors have often been considered secondary (for their first seven years, their winners were given a plaque rather than a statue) and, due to the constant recognition of children, comedic actors and other potentially fleeting talents, this pair of categories is sometimes seen as a joke. It’s hard to even imagine how exactly the Academy could define lead versus supporting, if it actually wanted to. Going by star status is difficult, of course, though marquee billing has occasionally been a factor when differentiating performances in an ensemble piece. It is this reasoning that has some people preferring Winslet’s Reader performance as lead, because she’s the film’s highest-billed name. And yet there have been certain times when a fifth-billed actor like Maximilian Schell can be nominated for and even win the lead award (for another Holocaust court drama, Judgment at Nuremberg). Another idea might be to focus on character status. The lead category should be reserved specifically for the main character or protagonist. In the event of an ensemble, though, there may be multiple protagonists. So, for instance, one of this year’s supporting actor hopefuls, Robert Downey Jr., would technically be better suited for lead contention (for Tropic Thunder). Also, there are cases where multiple actors portray the main character, such as in Shine, Iris and even The Reader. The only way to fairly make a distinction, then, is with performance length. It’s hard to believe the Academy didn’t decide this thirty years ago, except that they didn’t appear to care enough about the supporting honors to make the effort of timing each performance in every film made. Even to do this solely for those films expected to be Oscar contenders is an extraneously tiresome effort. But it would indeed solve a major issue concerning the awards. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere to find a complete list of Oscar nominees’ performance lengths. Beatrice Straight is known for holding the record for shortest Oscar-winning performance at 5 minutes, 40 seconds, in Network, but she and other short-timers like Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love), Ruby Dee (American Gangster), Sylvia Miles (Midnight Cowboy) and Anthony Quinn (Lust for Life) were nominated in the supporting category. The more interesting questions are what supporting nominee gave the longest performance and what lead nominee gave the shortest. Anthony Hopkins is considered to have given the shortest Oscar-winning lead performance at about 16 minutes, in The Silence of the Lambs, and this fact goes to show that length isn’t a concern for Academy voters. Regardless of its importance to the race, though, where does Winslet’s performance in The Reader fall in terms of length? Steven Zeitchik at the Risky Biz Blog claims she only appears in roughly 50% of the film, which might seem incorrect if you’ve seen the film, because the actress’ performance does dominate the picture, enough to appear as if it’s longer. And that could be a problem with voters who might come away from the film remembering Winslet’s role as bigger. Adding heat to the fire, the International Press Academy just nominated Winslet for a Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama for The Reader. While not a well-respected organization or award (as In Contention points out, the IPA has bizarrely nominated two obvious adapted works, Elegy and Benjamin Button, for Best Original Screenplay), this news could nevertheless prove problematic for the actress’ campaigns. If some Academy voters similarly think to put the actress in the lead category for The Reader while other voters conform to the studios’ wishes by picking her for lead actress for Revolutionary Road, the two performances could cancel each other out (Academy rules say that only one of her performances may receive a nomination in a single category). So, now the only solution may be for the actress herself to make the rounds with her peers and convince them of either a single performance to nominate (Lodge thinks she has a better shot this way) or a distinction between her two Oscar-worthy roles. Because as Winslet admitted to Vanity Fair, “you bet your fucking ass” she wants that Oscar, and with the Academy not caring which way it goes, it’s up to her to make it happen. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:00:29 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/1/2008 7:00:29 PMKate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.” Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin. The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. This probably goes back to the origins of the supporting awards, which began in the mid-30s seemingly to appease the demands of non-A-list actors. Since that time, the supporting honors have often been considered secondary (for their first seven years, their winners were given a plaque rather than a statue) and, due to the constant recognition of children, comedic actors and other potentially fleeting talents, this pair of categories is sometimes seen as a joke. It’s hard to even imagine how exactly the Academy could define lead versus supporting, if it actually wanted to. Going by star status is difficult, of course, though marquee billing has occasionally been a factor when differentiating performances in an ensemble piece. It is this reasoning that has some people preferring Winslet’s Reader performance as lead, because she’s the film’s highest-billed name. And yet there have been certain times when a fifth-billed actor like Maximilian Schell can be nominated for and even win the lead award (for another Holocaust court drama, Judgment at Nuremberg). Another idea might be to focus on character status. The lead category should be reserved specifically for the main character or protagonist. In the event of an ensemble, though, there may be multiple protagonists. So, for instance, one of this year’s supporting actor hopefuls, Robert Downey Jr., would technically be better suited for lead contention (for Tropic Thunder). Also, there are cases where multiple actors portray the main character, such as in Shine, Iris and even The Reader. The only way to fairly make a distinction, then, is with performance length. It’s hard to believe the Academy didn’t decide this thirty years ago, except that they didn’t appear to care enough about the supporting honors to make the effort of timing each performance in every film made. Even to do this solely for those films expected to be Oscar contenders is an extraneously tiresome effort. But it would indeed solve a major issue concerning the awards. As far as I can tell, there is nowhere to find a complete list of Oscar nominees’ performance lengths. Beatrice Straight is known for holding the record for shortest Oscar-winning performance at 5 minutes, 40 seconds, in Network, but she and other short-timers like Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love), Ruby Dee (American Gangster), Sylvia Miles (Midnight Cowboy) and Anthony Quinn (Lust for Life) were nominated in the supporting category. The more interesting questions are what supporting nominee gave the longest performance and what lead nominee gave the shortest. Anthony Hopkins is considered to have given the shortest Oscar-winning lead performance at about 16 minutes, in The Silence of the Lambs, and this fact goes to show that length isn’t a concern for Academy voters. Regardless of its importance to the race, though, where does Winslet’s performance in The Reader fall in terms of length? Steven Zeitchik at the Risky Biz Blog claims she only appears in roughly 50% of the film, which might seem incorrect if you’ve seen the film, because the actress’ performance does dominate the picture, enough to appear as if it’s longer. And that could be a problem with voters who might come away from the film remembering Winslet’s role as bigger. Adding heat to the fire, the International Press Academy just nominated Winslet for a Satellite Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama for The Reader. While not a well-respected organization or award (as In Contention points out, the IPA has bizarrely nominated two obvious adapted works, Elegy and Benjamin Button, for Best Original Screenplay), this news could nevertheless prove problematic for the actress’ campaigns. If some Academy voters similarly think to put the actress in the lead category for The Reader while other voters conform to the studios’ wishes by picking her for lead actress for Revolutionary Road, the two performances could cancel each other out (Academy rules say that only one of her performances may receive a nomination in a single category). So, now the only solution may be for the actress herself to make the rounds with her peers and convince them of either a single performance to nominate (Lodge thinks she has a better shot this way) or a distinction between her two Oscar-worthy roles. Because as Winslet admitted to Vanity Fair, “you bet your fucking ass” she wants that Oscar, and with the Academy not caring which way it goes, it’s up to her to make it happen. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_17_In_The_Nude/625/37420/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/18/2008 8:43:22 PM
Body: So many to list . . . so how about I go with the most shocking (to me). Julianne Moore / Heather Graham / Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights Kevin Bacon in Wild Things Never have I wanted to rip out my eyes so badly before. Denise Richards in Wild Things Makes up for Kevin Bacon. Kate WInslet in Titanic Jennifer Connelly in Requiem for a Dream Holly Hunter in Crash Mena Suvari in American Beauty Michael Pitt in The Dreamers Kate Hudson in Almost Famous Get your pause buttons ready. Dina Meyer in Starship Troopers Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love Monica Bellucci in Irreversible Laura Harring in Mulholland Dr. Out of the middle of nowhere, BAM! Lesbian Sex Scene! Elizabeth Berkley / Gina Gershon in Showgirls From Saved By The Bell to this. Nice transition. Jaime King in Sin City Vinessa Shaw in Eyes Wide Shut Wait? She was wearing a mask? I didn't notice. Milla Jovovich in The Fifth Element Selma Blair in Storytelling Some people only saw a big black censored square over her. Find the unrated version of the film. Selma Blair in A Dirty Shame So they are obviously fake, but holy &#$%! Uma Thurman in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen So she's almost completely naked. Who cares! Sheryl Lee in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me They couldn't do that on television! Rose McGowan in The Doom Generation Erika Eleniak in Under Siege Happy Birthday to me! Erika Eleniak in Chasers Amy Adams in Psycho Beach Party Before she was an Academy Award Nominee. Natalie Portman in Hotel Chevalier Heather Matarazzo in Hostel 2 Christina Ricci in The Opposite of Sex Christina Ricci in Black Snake Moan WOW! Isabella Rossellini in Blue Velvet Ewan McGregor in Velvet Goldmine Emmanuelle Seigner in The Ninth Gate Straddling Johnny Depp next to a burning castle. Hot! Demi Moore in Striptease I think that's enough for now. And yes, I am a pervert.
]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:43:22 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme11/18/2008 8:43:22 PMSo many to list . . . so how about I go with the most shocking (to me). Julianne Moore / Heather Graham / Mark Wahlberg in Boogie Nights Kevin Bacon in Wild Things Never have I wanted to rip out my eyes so badly before. Denise Richards in Wild Things Makes up for Kevin Bacon. Kate WInslet in Titanic Jennifer Connelly in Requiem for a Dream Holly Hunter in Crash Mena Suvari in American Beauty Michael Pitt in The Dreamers Kate Hudson in Almost Famous Get your pause buttons ready. Dina Meyer in Starship Troopers Gwyneth Paltrow in Shakespeare in Love Monica Bellucci in Irreversible Laura Harring in Mulholland Dr. Out of the middle of nowhere, BAM! Lesbian Sex Scene! Elizabeth Berkley / Gina Gershon in Showgirls From Saved By The Bell to this. Nice transition. Jaime King in Sin City Vinessa Shaw in Eyes Wide Shut Wait? She was wearing a mask? I didn't notice. Milla Jovovich in The Fifth Element Selma Blair in Storytelling Some people only saw a big black censored square over her. Find the unrated version of the film. Selma Blair in A Dirty Shame So they are obviously fake, but holy &amp;#$%! Uma Thurman in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen So she's almost completely naked. Who cares! Sheryl Lee in Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me They couldn't do that on television! Rose McGowan in The Doom Generation Erika Eleniak in Under Siege Happy Birthday to me! Erika Eleniak in Chasers Amy Adams in Psycho Beach Party Before she was an Academy Award Nominee. Natalie Portman in Hotel Chevalier Heather Matarazzo in Hostel 2 Christina Ricci in The Opposite of Sex Christina Ricci in Black Snake Moan WOW! Isabella Rossellini in Blue Velvet Ewan McGregor in Velvet Goldmine Emmanuelle Seigner in The Ninth Gate Straddling Johnny Depp next to a burning castle. Hot! Demi Moore in Striptease I think that's enough for now. And yes, I am a pervert. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_10_Whatchamacallit/625/37190/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: seely
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/11/2008 10:02:55 AM
Body: This isn't necessarily a great example of the theme, but I've always found it exceedingly interesting that the phrase is used in Donnie Darko. When Donnie is in the bathroom, about to get his ass kicked, someone else walks in and Seth (who has a 666 in his locker if you look closely) is forced to back down. At that point, Donnie whispers a barely audible 'deus ex machina'. It's always been a bit of a confusing point in the film for me, and I suppose that it could simply be that the unexpected entrance of someone else, however I find it interesting the writers specifically referenced 'deus ex machina' instead of simply having Donnie say 'thank god' or something to that effect. Maybe I'm looking for meaning where there isn't any? [quote user="mercurial"] A deus ex machina (lat. IPA: [ˈdeːus eks ˈmaːkʰina], literally "god from a/the machine")[1] is a god brought on the stage by a mechanical device[2] or 'an improbable contrivance in a story characterized by a sudden unexpected solution to a seemingly intractable problem'.[1] Thus, the term "deus ex machina" has come to mean any inferior plot device that expeditiously solves the conflict of a narrative. In fiction writing, the phrase has been extended to refer to a sudden and unexpected resolution to a seemingly intractable problem in a plotline, or what might be called an "Oh, by the way..." ending.[1] A deus ex machina is generally undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of skill on the part of the author because it does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though more palatable, ending.[29] A well-known modern example of deus ex machinaoccurs in the Michael Crichton book The Andromeda Strain. The pathogen referred to in the title is suddenly rendered non-lethal by a random mutation which apparently affects every existing virus particle instantaneously. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This week is all about those films that use some "creative storytelling" to further a plot that might otherwise be stymied. Probably one of the most flagrant uses of a deus ex machina in recent film history has to be in Magnolia (I won't give any spoilers for those who haven't seen the film, so let's just say it involves one of the biblical plagues occurring in the center of Los Angeles). My personal favorites have to be in Shakespeare in Love when Queen Elizabeth suddenly appears to save the day and declare that Gwyneth Paltrow is really a man and Adaptation, the film about writing a film, which pokes fun at Hollywood writers that use D.E.M. in their films. Has time sorted things to where using a deus ex machina is a good thing? Or was Horace right in thinking it is a moronic device that shows a lack of creativity? Should films avoid it and leave it for television shows like The Simpsons? Let get talkin! [/quote]
]]>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:02:55 GMTseelyWeekly Theme11/11/2008 10:02:55 AMThis isn't necessarily a great example of the theme, but I've always found it exceedingly interesting that the phrase is used in Donnie Darko. When Donnie is in the bathroom, about to get his ass kicked, someone else walks in and Seth (who has a 666 in his locker if you look closely) is forced to back down. At that point, Donnie whispers a barely audible 'deus ex machina'. It's always been a bit of a confusing point in the film for me, and I suppose that it could simply be that the unexpected entrance of someone else, however I find it interesting the writers specifically referenced 'deus ex machina' instead of simply having Donnie say 'thank god' or something to that effect. Maybe I'm looking for meaning where there isn't any? [quote user="mercurial"] A deus ex machina (lat. IPA: [ˈdeːus eks ˈmaːkʰina], literally "god from a/the machine")[1] is a god brought on the stage by a mechanical device[2] or 'an improbable contrivance in a story characterized by a sudden unexpected solution to a seemingly intractable problem'.[1] Thus, the term "deus ex machina" has come to mean any inferior plot device that expeditiously solves the conflict of a narrative. In fiction writing, the phrase has been extended to refer to a sudden and unexpected resolution to a seemingly intractable problem in a plotline, or what might be called an "Oh, by the way..." ending.[1] A deus ex machina is generally undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of skill on the part of the author because it does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though more palatable, ending.[29] A well-known modern example of deus ex machinaoccurs in the Michael Crichton book The Andromeda Strain. The pathogen referred to in the title is suddenly rendered non-lethal by a random mutation which apparently affects every existing virus particle instantaneously. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This week is all about those films that use some "creative storytelling" to further a plot that might otherwise be stymied. Probably one of the most flagrant uses of a deus ex machina in recent film history has to be in Magnolia (I won't give any spoilers for those who haven't seen the film, so let's just say it involves one of the biblical plagues occurring in the center of Los Angeles). My personal favorites have to be in Shakespeare in Love when Queen Elizabeth suddenly appears to save the day and declare that Gwyneth Paltrow is really a man and Adaptation, the film about writing a film, which pokes fun at Hollywood writers that use D.E.M. in their films. Has time sorted things to where using a deus ex machina is a good thing? Or was Horace right in thinking it is a moronic device that shows a lack of creativity? Should films avoid it and leave it for television shows like The Simpsons? Let get talkin! [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Weekly_Theme_for_November_10_Whatchamacallit_a_D/625/37159/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/10/2008 4:54:33 PM
Body: A deus ex machina (lat. IPA: [ˈdeːus eks ˈmaːkʰina], literally "god from a/the machine")[1] is a god brought on the stage by a mechanical device[2] or 'an improbable contrivance in a story characterized by a sudden unexpected solution to a seemingly intractable problem'.[1] Thus, the term "deus ex machina" has come to mean any inferior plot device that expeditiously solves the conflict of a narrative. In fiction writing, the phrase has been extended to refer to a sudden and unexpected resolution to a seemingly intractable problem in a plotline, or what might be called an "Oh, by the way..." ending.[1] A deus ex machina is generally undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of skill on the part of the author because it does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though more palatable, ending.[29] A well-known modern example of deus ex machinaoccurs in the Michael Crichton book The Andromeda Strain. The pathogen referred to in the title is suddenly rendered non-lethal by a random mutation which apparently affects every existing virus particle instantaneously. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This week is all about those films that use some "creative storytelling" to further a plot that might otherwise be stymied. Probably one of the most flagrant uses of a deus ex machina in recent film history has to be in Magnolia (I won't give any spoilers for those who haven't seen the film, so let's just say it involves one of the biblical plagues occurring in the center of Los Angeles). My personal favorites have to be in Shakespeare in Love when Queen Elizabeth suddenly appears to save the day and declare that Gwyneth Paltrow is really a man and Adaptation, the film about writing a film, which pokes fun at Hollywood writers that use D.E.M. in their films. Has time sorted things to where using a deus ex machina is a good thing? Or was Horace right in thinking it is a moronic device that shows a lack of creativity? Should films avoid it and leave it for television shows like The Simpsons? Let get talkin!
]]>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:54:33 GMTmercurialWeekly Theme11/10/2008 4:54:33 PMA deus ex machina (lat. IPA: [ˈdeːus eks ˈmaːkʰina], literally "god from a/the machine")[1] is a god brought on the stage by a mechanical device[2] or 'an improbable contrivance in a story characterized by a sudden unexpected solution to a seemingly intractable problem'.[1] Thus, the term "deus ex machina" has come to mean any inferior plot device that expeditiously solves the conflict of a narrative. In fiction writing, the phrase has been extended to refer to a sudden and unexpected resolution to a seemingly intractable problem in a plotline, or what might be called an "Oh, by the way..." ending.[1] A deus ex machina is generally undesirable in writing and often implies a lack of skill on the part of the author because it does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is often so unlikely that it challenges suspension of disbelief, allowing the author to conclude the story with an unlikely, though more palatable, ending.[29] A well-known modern example of deus ex machinaoccurs in the Michael Crichton book The Andromeda Strain. The pathogen referred to in the title is suddenly rendered non-lethal by a random mutation which apparently affects every existing virus particle instantaneously. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This week is all about those films that use some "creative storytelling" to further a plot that might otherwise be stymied. Probably one of the most flagrant uses of a deus ex machina in recent film history has to be in Magnolia (I won't give any spoilers for those who haven't seen the film, so let's just say it involves one of the biblical plagues occurring in the center of Los Angeles). My personal favorites have to be in Shakespeare in Love when Queen Elizabeth suddenly appears to save the day and declare that Gwyneth Paltrow is really a man and Adaptation, the film about writing a film, which pokes fun at Hollywood writers that use D.E.M. in their films. Has time sorted things to where using a deus ex machina is a good thing? Or was Horace right in thinking it is a moronic device that shows a lack of creativity? Should films avoid it and leave it for television shows like The Simpsons? Let get talkin! http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12479

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1481

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT124793381481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/beautiful/MemberTagFilms.aspxbeautiful
Number of films tagged: 260

Number of people who tagged: 150

Number of times used: 417

]]>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:43:48 GMT260150417Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/original/MemberTagFilms.aspxoriginal
Number of films tagged: 77

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 94

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:02:07 GMT775294Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/england/MemberTagFilms.aspxengland
Number of films tagged: 64

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 83

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:13:04 GMT644183Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tragic/MemberTagFilms.aspxtragic
Number of films tagged: 49

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 68

]]>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:19:35 GMT494168Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lovetriangle/MemberTagFilms.aspxlovetriangle
Number of films tagged: 2902

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 75

]]>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:12:01 GMT29023875Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/shakespeare/MemberTagFilms.aspxshakespeare
Number of films tagged: 35

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 48

]]>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:21:06 GMT353648Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/London/MemberTagFilms.aspxLondon
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 55

]]>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:18:09 GMT463055Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Picture/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Picture
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 118

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:16:34 GMT8326118Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxactor
Number of films tagged: 2328

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 55

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:12:17 GMT23282555Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/confusion/MemberTagFilms.aspxconfusion
Number of films tagged: 120

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 37

]]>Thu, 21 May 2009 07:24:24 GMT1202337Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/acting/MemberTagFilms.aspxacting
Number of films tagged: 66

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 36

]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:14:17 GMT662236Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/theater/MemberTagFilms.aspxtheater
Number of films tagged: 290

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 22

]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:02:23 GMT2901922Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/royalty/MemberTagFilms.aspxroyalty
Number of films tagged: 453

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 23

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:58:48 GMT4531723Tag