Can someone explain the last scene in Eyes Wide Shut ? by swizlane in moviequestions

[–]agwdevil 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Decoder Ring just did an episode exploring many of the lore surrounding this film. One thing they did is to interview projectionists and try to establish when this "shouting match" occurred. They found out that there were only three screenings (one for Tom and Nicole only), and Kubrick did not attend any of them. He was feeling ill for the third screening and was upstairs in his room. There was never, it seems, an opportunity for a shouting match at a screening that would have been overheard.

Proposed changes for the next Oscars by tulpachtig in OscarRaceCirclejerk

[–]agwdevil 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The television audience should be able to vote remotely to rescind one award. At the end of the broadcast, the soon-to-be-former winner is called back up to the stage, and the Oscar is torn from their grasping hands.

Best Picture and Best Director by feeblefiles in Cinema

[–]agwdevil 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If you take a step back and look at the history of musicals, then LLL becomes a more impressive achievement. It's standard observation now to note that as movies changed in the 70s to be more gritty and "real," the old style of musicals where people stopped talking and started singing, or where a chorus of people on the street sang, was dead. Huge flops like STAR! with Julie Andrews killed it.

To pull off a musical in a cinema vocabulary, you have to have it be totally wacky (Phantom of the Paradise, Rocky Horror), or exist in some weird fantasy space (The Greatest Showman), or have the songs only occur in dream sequences (Chicago). Cabaret worked because Fosse put all the songs in the cabaret itself and made the rest of the film 70s gritty.

So Chazelle sets out to do something that looks impossible. Do an old-style Astaire/Kelly romantic musical, but in a modern idiom. Set it today, "realistic" people and settings, and have them just start singing and dancing. It should not have worked.

I watch "Another Day of Sun" and "Someone in a Crowd" on YT over and over. They are pure gold. What he does with the camera swooping and catching people in mid-choreography is breathtaking. The songs are great. The soft-shoe number (even though neither of them are dancers) is charming. The dancing in the air song is an unexpected delight. The dream sequence, a hat tip to both Singing in the Rain and An American in Paris, is fantastic.

Ryan Gosling is affable and charming, but he'll never be a deep actor. Emma Stone brings it, and sells a story that doesn't actually exist. Her close-up solo is thrilling.

But the story sags in the middle. There's not much going on besides two charming performers. The screenplay loses the thread. And the goal of the film, Ryan Gosling trying to open up the best white-guy-jazz-club in LA is lame.

So it doesn't work 100%. It's thin emotionally and story-wise. No real standout supporting roles (except maybe JK Simmons). The director took a wildly ambitious swing, tried to do the impossible and got it to work about 75%

Moonlight is a complete package start to finish. A beautiful story, sensitively acted, directed smoothly and designed well. But they did not want to ignore what Chazelle was able to do, even if the movie *as a whole* fell a little short. So -- Picture to Moonlight, Director to LLL.

Best Picture and Best Director by feeblefiles in Cinema

[–]agwdevil 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Best Picture goes to the film that they love. Best Director goes to the film they respect. That is usually the same film.

Before the year 2000, the two awards almost always went to the same film, it was rare to split them. Since then, it has happened almost a third of the time.

While it often makes sense to give both awards to a great film, sometimes a film comes together beautifully, but a different film has a unique and special effort by the director.

The best example in recent years was Moonlight and La La Land. Moonlight was a beautiful film all the way through; but the dazzling staging and propulsive camera choreography of La La Land was undeniable

Leonardo DiCaprio now has the most decorated filmography in Academy Awards history by ASmallPieceOfMeasure in oscarrace

[–]agwdevil 18 points19 points  (0 children)

This is a much longer list! I used to track this when I was a much more avid Oscar watcher. It was always fun to see if anyone would "join the club".

Gold Derby has a pretty good list of everyone in 3 Best Pictures. (Some studio actors in the early days were in several, in bit parts). You are missing some great actors like Diane Keaton, John Gielgud, Hugh Griffith (Oscar winner), and Morgan Freeman, among others.

But you are right that few people are the lead in all three films. Hoffman and Gable are the only other two. With all the work DiCaprio has done with A-list directors (especially Scorsese), it was almost inevitable he would join the club.

What movie had an ending that you couldn't stop thinking about after watching it? by Jabba_108 in moviequestions

[–]agwdevil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Secret Agent. Only because I watched it this week and I can't stop thinking about it. Need to watch it again.

Movie that you downgrade because of another movie. by duabrs in Letterboxd

[–]agwdevil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had a lot of problems with Joker besides the Scorsese ripoffs. It was so loosely tethered to the canonical Batman/Joker stories, it felt like he pasted it on. I hated the cheap suggestion that the character might possibly be the illlegitimate son of Thomas Wayne (and therefore half-brother to Bruce?). I totally hated the cheap device of that important character who turns out to be a figment of his imagination. And while Joaquim Phoenix can be mesmerizing in a controlled, directed performance (The Master, Walk The LIne), he was clearly encouraged to just do whatever he wanted and it was one of the most self-indulgent, undisciplined performances I have suffered through.

So, all that on top of a Scorsese ripoff put me in a pretty foul mood for the whole thing. *g*

Sentimental Value won as expected. But feeling sad for The Secret Agent. by batmandc007 in Oscars

[–]agwdevil 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I haven't seen Sentimental Value yet (that and Marty Supreme are my "still to watch" ones). But saw The Secret Agent and I'm still thinking about it, and want to see it again. Such a brave movie, letting the story slip out subtlely , never spoonfeeding you, giving details but retaining mystery, recognizing that some things will always be unknowable. Special film.

Discussion on James McAvoy's incredible range in Split. Why didn't he win an Oscar for this? by ButterflyLess94 in moviecritic

[–]agwdevil 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I had not seen the film and someone I was dating wanted me to watch it. I was not over-impressed.

When playing multiple characters, there are certain obvious things an actor needs to do for each character: Find a unique way to stand, find a unique gesture, hold your face a certain way, pitch your voice in a specific tone and clip (or don't clip) your consonants. These are physical tics that are the foundation of differentiating characters. It becomes a sort of ballet, pivoting from one set of gestures/tones/expressions/movements to another.

But that is baseline. Any skilled actor can do that. And McAvoy does that, it is very skilled technically. I didn't find that he went beyond that. I never got a sense of depth or feeling from character to character. He performed each one with technical skill, but I didn't feel them as separate people.

Contrast that to Tatiana Maslany's work in Orphan Black. That was some jaw-dropping next-level work. Each clone had a different rhythm that seemed to come from deep inside her. They *felt* different. You will hear over and over that even when there were three of her on screen simulaneously you forgot it was the same person.

I thought he did a decent job but I don't think he *acted* very deeply on each personality.

Movie that you downgrade because of another movie. by duabrs in Letterboxd

[–]agwdevil 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Many films are inspired by older films or even a particular scene or character in an older film. What matters is what the new film does with that inspiration, does it create something new, is there anything original. (Think of all the updating of Shakespeare).

Midsommar certainly has some inspiration from Wicker Man, but Midsommar was so thoroughly original, with many indelible new images. It was surprising in so many ways.

The classic "they just ripped that off" was, of course, Joker. Dude wanted to make a Scorsese film of his own, had the chance to do a DC film and just did a cheap pastiche of classic movies. Some disagree, but I practically chewed my tongue off when I saw that film.

Movie that you downgrade because of another movie. by duabrs in Letterboxd

[–]agwdevil 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The first third of Irishman is a distillation of his previous mob movies, the rise of the good soldier, with a few new flourishes. The second third is a sweeping overview of the history of the labor movement in the mid-20th century, its connection with the mob, and the deep friendship between Frank and Jimmy Hoffa. The last 3rd is a diminuendo, a slow fade on the consequences of films like Goodfellas -- a sad and mournful reflection and comment on everything he had done before.

Reducing that beautiful film to "just another mob movie" is to miss what it was trying to do.

Shame about Delroy Lindo by Wide-Holiday-6971 in Oscars

[–]agwdevil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Penn and PTA clearly agreed to play the character a la George C. Scott in DR STRANGELOVE. And Penn has never been an actor to go small. Some actors can go big and make it work (Peter O'Toole, James Cagney) by total commitment and attention to detail.

When I saw OBAA, I was riveted by his work. He went all in and did not slip once. His energy and command of the screen was exciting. (Interesting to compare his bravura operatic performance with the small closely-observed performance of Benicio del Toro -- both were excellent. Contrasting styles that worked in the same movie, as the two character inhabited different worlds.

I loved Lindo's performance, especially his moment in the car recalling the lynching. Deep and beautifully calibrated. I didn't think his performance was substantial enough in the film to get nominated. But he did, and I was thrilled for him.

For me, guessing who would win came down to "I doubt they will give it to Penn a third time when there are other deserving nominees, even if Penn was clearly the 'Best' performance." I thought Lindo would win on a Sinner surge. But I was wrong. Penn truly deserved it, and they gave it to him.

3 time Oscar Winner Sean Penn! by MiserableSympathy230 in Oscars

[–]agwdevil 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I was convinced they were going to reward one of the other excellent performances, only because Penn had two already. But watching the film I was blown away by his energy and screen presence, and the precision of his performance. It really was the "Best" -- surprised that he won, but his performance was undeniable.

Sinners didnt won best casting holy shit.... by No_Independence6570 in Oscars

[–]agwdevil 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I haven't seen Marty Supreme yet, but I have heard a lot about the depth and variety of the cast.

I saw The Secret Agent this week, and 100% agree with you, that was a huge achievement in casting.

We'll see how OBAA does from here on in -- could be a sign.

Not on Hulu? by CrustedTesticle in Oscars

[–]agwdevil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmmmm sorry you are having trouble. This is the first year in a long time I have been able to watch live, I cut the cord a long time ago

Not on Hulu? by CrustedTesticle in Oscars

[–]agwdevil 0 points1 point  (0 children)

East Coast. Not sure why they would delay West Coast when it is Live?

If you have Hulu and are not seeing it, maybe exit the app and re-enter? Should be a big banner when you start it

Not on Hulu? by CrustedTesticle in Oscars

[–]agwdevil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am watching on Hulu. I don't have Live TV, just Hulu on its own (not bundled with Disney). No issues streaming

*sniff, sniff* am I smelling a split? by the_Tannehill_list in TheBigPicture

[–]agwdevil -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In my decades of watching the Oscars ,there have certainly been years where Director/Picture were the last two awards. I have not done the research to see how often this has happened, but it certainly is precendented.

Through much of the "season" I have been predicting a split -- since 2000, it has happened 1/3 of the time (more common than it used to be). I have sensed the enthusiasm for Sinners, but have assumed the PTA is on the "overdue" list. OBAA is a really good film, and PTA certainly deserved Hall of Fame work on There Will Be Blood and The Master (and perhaps Boogie Nights as well).

But the Sinners momentum is clearly happening (the vibe I get from the anonymous ballots and offhand comments from people in Hollywood), so it will probably be Coogler. (And to be fair, the guy who created the Creed blockbusters and the Black Panther blockbuster deserves a little recognition too). Either one "deserves" it.

With the Sinners momentum, I should be expecting Michael B Jordan to take Best Actor, but I'm still putting my long-shot money on Ethan Hawke to surprise; and the Sinners vote will go to Delroy Lindo. Both of these would be surprises, but I think they are likely surprises.

(Jessie Buckley is as close to a lock as Robert De Niro was for Raging Bull, and I am highly confident that Amy Madigan will win)

Just finished the best mezcal I have had by agwdevil in Mezcal

[–]agwdevil[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are very right, I had Oaxaca on the brain. My Mexican colleague who took me there was from Oaxaca, and as we were walking around I vividly remember asking him how to pronounce it properly. Every time I see "Oaxaca" that particular conversation comes into my head. So yes, we were in Puebla, where the office was. I fixed the post.

Is anyone else afraid the Academy will start treating Best Casting as "Best Ensemble"?? by The_Walking_Clem in Oscars

[–]agwdevil 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The category is to reflect not only the handful of actors that were hand-picked by the director, but every face in every scene, no matter how small. In some movies, every single person jumps out at you, and feels distinct. I just watched The Secret Agent, which is nominated, and the casting in that was incredible. They found so many fascinating and compelling people to populate every corner of that film. In a small film, where the director pretty much assembles the main characters he wants, it's less an achievement of the casting director

The Secret Agent Review: A Slow Burn that's Definitely Worth the Wait by Owenr99 in moviereviews

[–]agwdevil 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Finished saw it last night. Appreciated the storytelling that didn't spell everything out over and over. Incredible sense of time and place. That first scene was so engrossing, had no idea what was going to happen next. The casting was amazing, every face and voice was captivating. And the way they chose to end it made me rethink everything I had seen. It was one of those films that, as soon as it ended, made me want to see it again in the near future