No, it won't be gone, JL. The problem with those who hide in the dark as your avatar shows is that they are allergic to the bright light of truth.
But why are you worried? The truth always wins out in the marketplace of ideas.
Are you so unsure of your ideas that you don't even want to look at others or even try to rebut the others?
Poor fellow!!!!
Lightwizard wrote:eoe wrote:JLNobody wrote:What a wierd intrusion. I simply would not respond to it.
I'm trying to move us along but LW seems stuck in the muck.
So...do you think that this year ushered in a 'new & improved" Oscars or was this year just a fluke?
I would hope that it's a good sign, although the Oscars hasn't exactly igorned independent films. The year "Jerry McGuire" was nominated, it was the only studio feature.
Oh no. I never said that the Oscars are guilty of ignoring independent films. But the vibe this year was very different. It's as if a shift of some kind has taken place.
It won't be certain until we see more years of Oscar nominations which do honor films that are unique, and not pandering and prostituting to the masses, like, for instance, "The Smashin' of the Christ." Frank Lloyd Wright called it the Mobocracy and it's not going to change anytime soon. Box office means little if the film is bad.
Yes, I do agree. There have indeed been films which have been unique and have not pandered to the masses.
Some, unfortunately, have not done so well.
Mohammed, Messenger of God, was certainly unique but fell prey to those who viewed it as a blasphemy.
The WIz( 1978) should have been a blockbuster but fell prey to the racist attitudes of the American theatregoer.
I am reliably informed that Mr.Ang will be striking out into unique territory with his ground breaking epic remake of "Priests"( Miramax)- A stunning expose of homosexuality in the Priesthood.
You could be right, eoe, that this year may bring some new revelations in movies. It's only March and already "Game 6" has offered Michael Keaton in a very potent performance and getting a pitance of his former salary. Film, the supposed lowest form of art, is trying to redeem itself? Or is it that the arts have been dominated by such mediocre abominations as Kinkade has elevated film to a new level?
LW- Not to sound trite, there was nowhere to go but up. In the recent past, I had found that the vast majority of film was pandering to the lowest common denominator amongst us. When I would think of memorable films, most of the best ones were from the era before many of the people on A2K were born.
I subscribe to "Blockbuster Online", and have gotten to see more films in a year, that I probably had seen in the previous ten. One thing struck me. The films that I found most appealing were not from Hollywood, but from Great Britain. The actors were not strutting their own personal persona. They were playing a PART. And isn't that what acting is all about?
I think that Hollywood is beginning to understand the difference between "movie star" and "actor". Or maybe it isn't Hollywood at all. Perhaps it is the rise of the independent film maker that has caused Hollywood to rethink its priorities.
I do Blockbuster Online as well - lets me satisfy my movie-bugism without ever leaving home...
I like that "strutting their own personal persona." Like Colin Farrell in "Alexander?" That performance just didn't do it for me. It was Greek to me, but not Farrell. That wasn't its only problem, however.
Yes, eoe, I hope the studios finance more small budget independents (Focus Features is owned by Universal which financed BBM). I look forward to Ang Lee's next film.
I do NetFlix as I constantly delve into the independent, foreign and alternative cinema. Some are great, some are not-so-great but even the not-so-great leaves one with something to ponder. Not that I'm not entertained by a big budget movie where CGI, cinematography, music and all the best professional production values relinquish a great way to spend a couple of hours. Although "King Kong" was overlong, it was a better remake than we've seen in many years (Jackson rather combined the emotions of "Kong" with "Mighty Joe Young.")
Personally i think Joaquain Phoenix deserved the Best Actor oscar, He was absolutely fantastic in Walk The Line as was Reese Witherspoon who deserved her oscar very much. To the original poster who found Walk The Line boring, why did you find it boring? I though it was a brilliant film full of emotions and even funny moments.
I'm looking forward to renting that. Joaquim has proven himself quite capable an actor and of course the story of Mr. Cash is just as full of drama as anyone else's. Loretta Lynn, Patsy Cline, Hank Williams, the beat goes on and on.
I think Phoenix is a wonderful actor.
Never seen him in a bad movie -- he always delivers. In "Quills," he just got into my head and sent me reeling. In my opinion, the only actor who could have done Johnny Cash.
Thought he was a brilliant choice...
I wonder if his brother had survived, would Joaquim have had the opportunities, or the wherewithal, to make it happen for himself like he has? The shadow of a popular older brother in the same field of endeavor can stretch far and be pretty stifling.
Actually, all the actors in the top films were expertly cast. This was the most exciting of the competitions. Felicity Huffman in "Transamerica," Heath Ledger in "Brokeback," George Clooney in "Syriana," all perfectly cast and all of the actors they worked with were superb in their roles. Of course, this was one of the reasons they were the top films.
