82nd Academy Awards... Sunday, March 7, 2010

0 Kudo

Started By	Comment
midnightproblay		#381	[-]
Posts: 154 (01/10/09 12:58 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I've only read The Reader, not seen the film yet, but Winslet's character IS arguably supporting. The lead is obviously David Kross, with Kate Winslet as a maybe lead. There is a significant portion of the book where she's completely absent, and then she only shows up sporadically in some scenes.
reggierules		#382	[-]
Posts: 2155 (01/10/09 1:03 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I've only read The Reader, not seen the film yet, but Winslet's character IS arguably supporting. The lead is obviously David Kross, with Kate Winslet as a maybe lead. There is a significant portion of the book where she's completely absent, and then she only shows up sporadically in some scenes. They aren't shipping the award for the book. They're campaigning for the movie. And Kate Winslet is the character the entire story revolves around. She may not be in 100% of the movie, but she is not absent for large chunks and I'd argue she's in at least 90% of the movie, with the other 10% being about her. So, I've also wondered how they had the ridiculous audacity to suggest this is a supporting role. But, I don't really care. As long as she's recognized for her awesome work.
Heliox		#383	[-]
Posts: 1676 (01/10/09 1:18 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Fezzzy wrote: It's actually pretty good. And I hate brown people. Hate them. Batwanarossa is angry at you!
GnarlsInCharge		#384	[-]
Posts: 3035 (01/10/09 1:26 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	LKMOSCAR wrote: Kate Winslet is lead in The Reader, so she shouldn't be nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Since their is no set criteria in place for what is a lead or supporting performance Oscar voters usually wilingly go along with however someone is campaigned as. The slickest example of this is when Timothy Hutton who was in 90% of the scenes in Ordinary People won in supporting,because their was no way anyone was gonna beat Robert Deniro for Raging Bull.
Carboys Desire		#385	[-]
Posts: 4234 (01/10/09 1:31 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I've read that the studio decides which category to submit the actor or actress into so it's not the academy that is to blame. The studios make an assessment of where they have a better chance of winning, and that often has little to do with screen time: Rachel Weisz was the lead in The Constant Gardener yet she was nominated as Best Supporting Actress. Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs was nominated in the supporting role. Al Pacino in The Godfather was nominated in the Lead Actor category, while Marlon Brando was submitted in the Best Supporting category. Judy Dench was in Shakespeare in Love for only 7 minutes of screen time yet she won as Best Supporting Actress. Nicole Kidman won Best Actress for The Hours and she too was hardly in half the movie. Here's a terrific article discussing Kate's placing as a Supporting Actress: http://latimesblogs.latim...8/12/supporting-race.html
seaguy		#386	[-]
Posts: 13537 (01/10/09 1:57 AM) AI Forum Moderator Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Carboys Desire wrote: Nicole Kidman won Best Actress for The Hours and she too was hardly in half the movie. Like a knife through my heart, you bastard!! Do not remind me of the ROBBING that my beloved Julianne Moore got that year! Her performance in "Far From Heaven" was amazing. Goddamn fake nose on Kidman got her the Oscar. Ok, glad I got that off my chest. Thank you.
LKMOSCAR		#387	[-]
Posts: 5771 (01/10/09 5:05 AM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Rachel Weisz was the lead in The Constant Gardener yet she was nominated as Best Supporting Actress. Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs was nominated in the ~~supporting role~~ leading category. Al Pacino in The Godfather was nominated in the Lead Actor category, while Marlon Brando was submitted in the Best Supporting category. (Marlon won the Best Actor category) Judy Dench was in Shakespeare in Love for only 7 minutes of screen time yet she won as Best Supporting Actress. Nicole Kidman won Best Actress for The Hours and she too was hardly in half the movie. It's not a problem when a supporting performance (think Louise Fletcher in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) makes it into the lead category, but it is a problem when a lead performance (think Kate Winslet for The Reader, or for another example, Casey Affleck in The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford) is being pushed in the supporting one. If category fraud continues to occur, there mine as well not be a supporting category. About the bolded: Rachel Weisz was the female lead in the film, but she was definitely supporting Ralph's Justin. She was in most of the beginning, but Tessa was absent in long stretches of the film. Her category placement is fine. Although Hopkins was only on for some 17 minutes, it's spaced out enough to make him a lead. Also, once again, there isn't a problem when supporting performances are campaigned as lead. There isn't a Best Cameo category, so Judi was in the right spot. Technically speaking, Beatrice Straight has the shortest winning performance for about 5 minutes of acting. Nicole Kidman, as well as Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep, were leads. Therefore, the fraud came with Julianne being pushed to supporting because the companies didn't want her to fight against herself in Best Actress (Far From Heaven).
Blaise214		#388	[-]
Posts: 256 (01/10/09 10:33 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Gregoire wrote: I wish Meryl had been at the event so she could throw her handbag and coat into Anne's hand and push her away from the microphone. "Go get me a coffee." I think Angelina was thinking the same thing as the icy dagger she was shooting in Anne's direction was practically the equivalent of throwing a handbag and coat into Anne's hand, pushing her away from the microphone, and ordering her to get Maddox a coffee.
Miles Edgeworth		#389	[-]
Posts: 1018 (01/10/09 10:39 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I thought Hopkins was nominated in the lead role. Another example would be Jamie Foxx nominated for supporting in Collateral despite having more screen time than Cruise (at least it seemed that way). If Doubt doesnt win the Sags award there must be something wrong with that show. Last Edited By: Miles Edgeworth 01/10/09 3:06 PM. Edited 1 times.
Bjorkrazy		#390	[-]
Posts: 240 (01/10/09 1:42 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	And Kate Winslet is the character the entire story revolves around. No, the entire story revolves around David Kross' Michael. It's about HIS sexual awakening, HIS coming-of-age, and HIS problems with opening up to people. What I really love about 'The Reader' is that it explores so many different themes. And Winslet is acceptable as either a Lead Actress or a Supporting Actress. I agree that Doubt should take best ensemble in a cakewalk. Milk? Please, there were only two standout performances. Ben. Button? The acting was horrible and cliche because the writing was so god-awful that the characters had no complexity or emotion. Doubt has 4 great performances. Last Edited By: Bjorkrazy 01/10/09 1:46 PM. Edited 1 times.
Survivor2345andbeyond		#391	[-]
Posts: 3527 (01/10/09 9:41 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	is Anne Hathaway's character in Rachel Getting Married similar to Sandra Bullock in 28 Days? That's all I think of when I see previews.
survivorjordancontestant		#392	[-]
Posts: 1708 (01/10/09 10:22 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	LKMOSCAR wrote: Rachel Weisz was the female lead in the film, but she was definitely supporting Ralph's Justin. She was in most of the beginning, but Tessa was absent in long stretches of the film. Her category placement is fine. that's exactly what Kate's role in "the Reader" is...
LKMOSCAR		#393	[-]
Posts: 5773 (01/10/09 10:31 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	that's exactly what Kate's role in "the Reader" is... No. Kate isn't absent for long stretches. It's as lead a performance as any this year. It's like the case two years ago when Cate Blanchett was pushed down for Notes on a Scandal. There are such things as co-leads.
Willy2Fun		#394	[-]
Posts: 2051 (01/10/09 10:57 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I agree, it's a co-lead situation. I really don't buy that Kate Winslet is a S.Actress in the Reader (and I do want her to win!) ...I think it's so subjective and they just toss it one way or the other. Also, I agree that Cate B. was also a 'co-lead' in Notes. When I walked out of the theater after watching 'The Reader' it was Kate Winslet's character that filled most of my thoughts because she is 'in' most of the film. But, whatever..they do what they do. It's so political.
Fezzzy		#395	[-]
Posts: 2087 (01/10/09 11:24 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I just saw Benjamin Button. Has it been mentioned how shitty it was on various levels. I feel that most of the script consisted of throw-away lines that would sound equally as vague and dumb in any other Oscar-bait movie. Like when the captain died? He said something that made me squirm and roll my eyes. And Brad Pitt, aside from being shit, used his old man voice a tad too long, yeah? He was Eastwood growling at 50. Go Slumdog.
Carboys Desire		#396	[-]
Posts: 4241 (01/10/09 11:44 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	I just got back from Gran Torino and I fucking loved it. No, it's not an Oscar worthy film but damn if it wasn't entertaining. It was not what I was expecting at all, but it was great. The ending was kind of all wrapped up in a bow and that usually bugs, but it wasn't necessarily a happy ending so it's all good. Thanks, Clint.
reggierules		#397	[-]
Posts: 2157 (01/11/09 7:02 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	No, the entire story revolves around David Kross' Michael. It's about HIS sexual awakening, HIS coming-of-age, and HIS problems with opening up to people. What I really love about 'The Reader' is that it explores so many different themes. And Winslet is acceptable as either a Lead Actress or a Supporting Actress. No. :) Perhaps in the book, which I haven't read, but the movie was clearly stilted in Kate Winslet's character for...whatever reason. Strength of acting, inability to tell the subtlety of the male character...whatever. But it was SOLIDLY about Nina. You could tell that there were parts where the movie wanted to be more about Michael, but it failed because the fact of the matter was, that wasn't where the interesting parts of the story were. So they were glossed over. His relationship with his daughter was given mere lines, the trauma the event had in his life was equally given hardly any time. And frankly, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who think that his character was nothing more than a symbol to HOW powerful Nina's existence was. The number of people she affected, negatively, positively, both.
Bjorkrazy		#398	[-]
Posts: 241 (01/11/09 11:26 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	reggierules wrote: No, the entire story revolves around David Kross' Michael. It's about HIS sexual awakening, HIS coming-of-age, and HIS problems with opening up to people. What I really love about 'The Reader' is that it explores so many different themes. And Winslet is acceptable as either a Lead Actress or a Supporting Actress. No. :) Perhaps in the book, which I haven't read, but the movie was clearly stilted in Kate Winslet's character for...whatever reason. Strength of acting, inability to tell the subtlety of the male character...whatever. But it was SOLIDLY about Nina. You could tell that there were parts where the movie wanted to be more about Michael, but it failed because the fact of the matter was, that wasn't where the interesting parts of the story were. So they were glossed over. His relationship with his daughter was given mere lines, the trauma the event had in his life was equally given hardly any time. And frankly, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who think that his character was nothing more than a symbol to HOW powerful Nina's existence was. The number of people she affected, negatively, positively, both. I'm assuming you mean Hanna. If there were parts that wanted to be about Michael, then the story is about Michael. But I don't think they failed. His story was more interesting. His relationship with his daughter was an important theme of the story, he couldn't open up to her. It wasn't given "mere lines", there were two long scenes with the two of them. And frankly, if Michael was just a "symbol" for Hanna's story, it wouldn't be told the way it was told. If it was Hanna's story, it would be from her point of view. Instead, it's the other way around because it's Michael's story. Surely, Hanna's existence was a theme of the story because of the reasons you listed. But it's still way more about Michael, given the major themes. His coming-of-age, his sexual awakening, his trouble opening up to people, his trouble understanding love, his trouble understanding what true consequences are.
Firebolt31		#399	[-]
Posts: 28 (01/11/09 12:26 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Fezzzy wrote: I just saw Benjamin Button. Has it been mentioned how shitty it was on various levels. I feel that most of the script consisted of throw-away lines that would sound equally as vague and dumb in any other Oscar-bait movie. Like when the captain died? He said something that made me squirm and roll my eyes. And Brad Pitt, aside from being shit, used his old man voice a tad too long, yeah? He was Eastwood growling at 50. Go Slumdog. I saw the movie yesterday, and was not impressed with it either. The premise sounded interesting at first with the aging backward storyline, but that gimmick ran out fast and the rest of the movie wasn't interesting enough to keep your attention. Several of the events in the movie either drag on for way too long or shouldn't have been included at all. Brad Pitt's acting is so one-note and bland, but I really liked Cate Blanchett though. Go Milk.
survivorjordancontestant		#400	[-]
Posts: 1709 (01/11/09 12:58 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts Message Connection Block Invite	Bjorkrazy wrote: reggierules wrote: No, the entire story revolves around David Kross' Michael. It's about HIS sexual awakening, HIS coming-of-age, and HIS problems with opening up to people. What I really love about 'The Reader' is that it explores so many different themes. And Winslet is acceptable as either a Lead Actress or a Supporting Actress. No. :) Perhaps in the book, which I haven't read, but the movie was clearly stilted in Kate Winslet's character for...whatever reason. Strength of acting, inability to tell the subtlety of the male character...whatever. But it was SOLIDLY about Nina. You could tell that there were parts where the movie wanted to be more about Michael, but it failed because the fact of the matter was, that wasn't where the interesting parts of the story were. So they were glossed over. His relationship with his daughter was given mere lines, the trauma the event had in his life was equally given hardly any time. And frankly, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who think that his character was nothing more than a symbol to HOW powerful Nina's existence was. The number of people she affected, negatively, positively, both. I'm assuming you mean Hanna. If there were parts that wanted to be about Michael, then the story is about Michael. But I don't think they failed. His story was more interesting. His relationship with his daughter was an important theme of the story, he couldn't open up to her. It wasn't given "mere lines", there were two long scenes with the two of them. And frankly, if Michael was just a "symbol" for Hanna's story, it wouldn't be told the way it was told. If it was Hanna's story, it would be from her point of view. Instead, it's the other way around because it's Michael's story. Surely, Hanna's existence was a theme of the story because of the reasons you listed. But it's still way more about Michael, given the major themes. His coming-of-age, his sexual awakening, his trouble opening up to people, his trouble understanding love, his trouble understanding what true consequences are. exactly, it wasn't Hanna's story, sure she was the lead female character but in the grander sense, she was still just a supporting character to Michael's story.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

82nd Academy Awards... Sunday, March 7, 2010

Quick Reply