|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 292 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 3 of 292:
| 
Mar 22 11:39 UTC 1999 |
The winners, from memory:
Picture: Shakespeare in Love
Director: Stephen Spielberg
Actor: Roberto Benigni
Actress: Gwyneth Paltrow
Supporting Actor: James Coburn
Supporting Actress: Judy Dench
Benigni won for Best Foreign Film, too. At one point he was
standing on the back of Stephen Spielberg's seat. Is he really
*like* that, or is it deliberate? When I asked my son just now
if he remembered who won Best Supporting Actress, he said, "The
woman who played Queen Elizabeth for 8 minutes." (Dench's total
time on camera.) Jennifer Lopez presented the award for Best
Song, so I have no recollection of who won in that category.
|
remmers
|
|
response 4 of 292:
|
Mar 22 11:44 UTC 1999 |
Benigni has behaved that way every time I've seen him. Whether he's
really "like that" I don't know.
None of Richard's preferences panned out. "Shakespeare in Love" was best
picture (an upset). I would have liked to see Nolte win for "Affliction"
also, but was pleased that James Coburn won best supporting actor for
the same film.
|
md
|
|
response 5 of 292:
|
Mar 22 11:59 UTC 1999 |
(BTW, even after Sofia Loren correctly pronounced Benigni's
name several times -- beh-NIN-yee -- the stupid Americans kept
calling him beh-NEE-nee. The "g" is not silent, gringos.)
|
md
|
|
response 6 of 292:
|
Mar 22 13:49 UTC 1999 |
The audience was quite civilized during the Elia Kazan
presentation. There were shots of a few grimly scowling
folks sitting there with their arms crossed. I'm not
blaming them (am not sure I wouldn't've done the same).
But even well-known far-leftists like Warren Beatty stood
and applauded when Kazan appeared. John applauding Judas.
Very classy.
|
senna
|
|
response 7 of 292:
|
Mar 22 15:31 UTC 1999 |
Shakespeare in Love really came up big. How amusing. I saw it
yesterday, too. It's almost as if the Academy hasn't gotten Titanic out
of their system yet.
|
jazz
|
|
response 8 of 292:
|
Mar 22 15:56 UTC 1999 |
I caught _Forces of Nature_ over the weekend. I'd invited two GREXers,
but neither was able to attend. (the bastards!)
It was a very enjoyable and actually very intelligent movie about human
relationships, but it's intelligence was subtle, and quite unlike either the
neurotic-critical Woody Allen vein or the more recent Sarah Jessica-Parker
witty-critical self-dialogue, so I'm sure it's something that the critics will
miss. But what else can you call a film that addresses issues such as the
attractiveness of the "beautiful fucked-up man" (or woman, quoting Sarah
MacLachlan) in spite of, or perhaps because of, their unresolved problems,
or the tendency for the same things that attract us to a person to be the
things that eventually drive us away?
|
eeyore
|
|
response 9 of 292:
|
Mar 22 16:05 UTC 1999 |
I enjoyed watching Roberto Benigni...he was so happy and enthusiastic...Same
with Gwyneth Peltrow....it was cool to see real emotion from the people who
recieved the awards.
Since nobody has said anything...What did everybody think of Whoopie last
night? :)
|
omni
|
|
response 10 of 292:
|
Mar 22 16:12 UTC 1999 |
I loved her. She kept it interesting.
|
md
|
|
response 11 of 292:
|
Mar 22 16:26 UTC 1999 |
She certainly was a good sport about all the costume changes.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 12 of 292:
|
Mar 22 16:32 UTC 1999 |
It wouldn't have surprised me if she instigated all of them. :)
She kept saying that she wouldn't be invited back....I think she should
be...commants?
|
md
|
|
response 13 of 292:
|
Mar 22 16:41 UTC 1999 |
I agree. Maybe she and Billy should alternate?
|
md
|
|
response 14 of 292:
|
Mar 22 16:56 UTC 1999 |
Re #8, I'm so glad to hear someone else liked Forces of Nature.
The earliest reviews were very negative, but some more recent
ones are turning out to be better. A problem I've noticed for many
critics is that they need to pigeon-hole every movie they see. The
Entertainment Weekly reviewer saw Forces of Nature as a failed
screwball comedy, almost as if it was supposed to be a remake of
It Happened One Night. But, as jazz points out in #8, this movie
really doesn't fall into any neat category.
|
jazz
|
|
response 15 of 292:
|
Mar 22 18:34 UTC 1999 |
I've seen a couple of films of the genre, which is a small but
noticeable one - the responsible man meets up with the irresponsible and
"crazy" woman, and embarks on an adventure. It's a powerful fantasy for both
genderst that incorporates much sexuality, but usually transcends sexuality.
Some of the examples I can recall are "Something Wild" (1986) and "Overnight
Delivery" (1997) both of which I enjoyed.
It's definitely more intellectual than the latter; and probably the
former too - although I would credit the former with being a very early
example of the genre as it exists today and worthy in it's own regard. I
think it's that "Forces of Nature" really doesn't make the audience feel
anything, in particular, other than the thrill of the ride, but gives them
ample opportunity to think, that resulted in it's initial poor reviews. It's
one of the better films I've seen this year.
|
aruba
|
|
response 16 of 292:
|
Mar 22 19:10 UTC 1999 |
I agree with eeyore in #9 - I am impressed to see real emotion from people
you expect to be fake (because being fake is what they do for a living).
|
richard
|
|
response 17 of 292:
|
Mar 22 23:07 UTC 1999 |
"Shakespeare in Love" won due to demographics...a majority of
academy voters who actually vote are women. what are women going to
vote for when they have a choice between Shakespeare and a war
movie three hours long with *no* female characters? "
"Saving Private Ryan" also had the distinct disadvantage of having
come out last summer.
I question also how academy voters who dont speak Italian voted for
Roberto Begnini as best actor. How do you judge that one has done a
better job of acting than the other nominees when you dont understand the
words coming out of his mouth? Sure you can read the sub-titles but I
dont think its nearly as easy to guage the emotion and impact of one's
acting unless you actually hear and understand the words he is speaking.
If I was an academy voter, voting in an acting category, I would not
presume to make judgements about the acting of an actor who is acting
in a language I dont speak or understand.
|
otter
|
|
response 18 of 292:
|
Mar 23 00:22 UTC 1999 |
But if he conveyed emotion that you could understand without relying on words,
doesn't that make him a *better* actor?
|
senna
|
|
response 19 of 292:
|
Mar 23 04:29 UTC 1999 |
Yes. And he did. Have you seen the film? He is magnificent. I'm sort
of amused by where the awards went. I think Private Ryan was more hurt
by Thin Red Line than by women demographics (that sounds awfully sexist,
too). They offset each other. It was a great class of movies at any
rate. I'm glad that it takes more than gritty realism to win an Oscar.
|
md
|
|
response 20 of 292:
|
Mar 23 12:15 UTC 1999 |
Re Forces of Nature: I just heard that David Strickland, the
actor who played the successful lawyer who was in love with
Ben's fiancee' in the movie (he was also a regular on the TV
series Suddenly Susan) hanged himself in a hotel room in Las
Vegas yesterday.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 21 of 292:
|
Mar 23 12:42 UTC 1999 |
I heard that too. Sounds like it may turn out to be another auto-erotic
asphyxiation death . . . . .
|
remmers
|
|
response 22 of 292:
|
Mar 23 14:22 UTC 1999 |
One theory I've read for why "Shakespeare in Love" beat out "Saving
Private Ryan": Academy members get videocassettes of nominees and watch
them at home. "Shakespeare in Love", being a more intimate film, plays
better on TV than "Saving Private Ryan", which needs the big screen.
|
aaron
|
|
response 23 of 292:
|
Mar 23 15:24 UTC 1999 |
There's more to it than that. First, "Saving Private Ryan" was neither
original nor very good. It was exceptional in its violence, and had a
few good scenes (e.g., the "cognitive dissonance" scene where the men
are going through dogtags of deceased soldiers, like it's a big joke), but
on the whole it was a mediocre movie with a corny, contrived ending.
Further, having a similar movie up for the nomination likely "split the
vote" to some degree. When four excellent British actresses were up
for Academy Awards for best supporting actress, for similar roles in
dramas, the award went to Marisa Tomei from My Cousin Vinnie. Probably
not the best, but certainly the stand-out.
|
scott
|
|
response 24 of 292:
|
Mar 23 15:26 UTC 1999 |
The theory in #22 is at odds with last year's success by "Titanic", which also
needs a big screen.
|
mary
|
|
response 25 of 292:
|
Mar 23 18:45 UTC 1999 |
I found "Saving Private Ryan" to be a much better film than
Aaron. Individual characters were well drawn. I was especially
fascinated by the character of the very bright but highly vulnerable
soldier, the one who freezes under fire.
It didn't do well at the Oscars for much the same reason "Affliction"
didn't do well. Both were not all that much fun to watch and for
the most part people are looking for a good time when they chunk
down $8.00.
|
aaron
|
|
response 26 of 292:
|
Mar 23 19:18 UTC 1999 |
Right.... That's why Schindler's List won. Nothing but a good time, there.
|
md
|
|
response 27 of 292:
|
Mar 23 19:22 UTC 1999 |
The Academy does seem to worship the box office sometimes.
I tend to agree with Aaron about Saving Private Ryan, though.
I remember thinking it was marred by cliches, as exemplified
by that bright but vulnerable soldier who freezes under fire.
I think you can find Steve Conte movies from the 1950s that
had that character. What *really* gave away the movie's
manipulative designs was the fruity John WIlliams music, with
those heavenly choirs vocalising in the background. Yech.
I believe the movie was redeemed by the two big battle scenes,
especially the one at the beginning. If Spielberg had simply
let it go on for three hours, he might have had something. A little
too avant-garde for him, though, and wouldn't've put many fannies
in the seats.
|
