Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212 
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 23, 2024 21:49:32 GMT
I've seen comments here as to how her loss will be a Lydia Tar 2.0... What would you think will cause that, in case it happens at all?  |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 23, 2024 22:04:59 GMT
I mean, it would come down to a combination of factors. Gladstone has the acclaim and a strong critics' run (though Stone was nipping at her heels the whole time), there's pushback after Gladstone's BAFTA snub where voters may see the need to correct (which may pan out at SAG), and Gladstone doesn't have an Oscar while Stone has one, and there's obviously the narrative of Gladstone potentially shattering a glass ceiling with representation.
But I don't think Stone's at any real deficit. Her film exceeded Gladstone's with nominations with really no real sign of weakness, it's actually peaking right now whereas Gladstone's had a few months for her film's momentum to slow to a crawl, Stone is working the circuit like there's no tomorrow (and giving killer acceptance speeches, whereas Blanchett was actively telling people to look at other options for the win during hers), and it's easily the showiest performance in contention, whereas Gladstone is a very subtle and passive performance. I don't look at this as Blanchett/Yeoh redux. This feels much more like Colman/Close 2.0, where the more outsized, dominant, actorly performance wins out over the somber, subdued one. And Stone definitely feels like someone they'd be happy giving a second Oscar to, as she's more than lived up to the promise of her first win.
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 23, 2024 22:10:34 GMT
Hey remember the time I said people can - and do - get nominated - and win - Oscars because of their race (among many other things) and people freaked out and called me a racist? Good times, good times.....well now, that seems stupid - but Gladstone being a "better choice than her" is fascinating in its vagaries ............ let's discuss the "why" - are you saying she gave a better performance? Pfffft - ....or are we DEI'ing / DIE'ing again .........  It is an extremely sexualized role though and certainly the only Oscar nominee in history where she is told we need to discuss your whoring  |
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jan 23, 2024 22:57:55 GMT
'slutty'. Woken up to some weird posts this morning.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 23, 2024 23:09:08 GMT
'slutty'. Woken up to some weird posts this morning. Good weird or bad weird? |
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Jan 23, 2024 23:17:26 GMT
Mary McCormack launching a guerilla campaign to get Gladstone the win, obviously
|
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Jan 23, 2024 23:18:30 GMT
The same thing that caused it for Lydia Tar. Affirmative action. It wouldn’t be quite as offensive this year as last year, but not great.
|
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Jan 23, 2024 23:25:42 GMT
I think those whole question is kind of silly. I don’t think there is ever just one reason. It’s thousands of people voting for their own reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulgallo on Jan 23, 2024 23:28:06 GMT
None of the mentioned, it would be foremost Gladstone's narrative.
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jan 23, 2024 23:41:17 GMT
I think ultimately, while losing to Gladstone would be losing to a weaker performance, I don't think Stone is better than Huller. Stone just doesn't have some undeniable Ledger in TDK type thing, so being a previous winner and there being other narratives makes a loss entirely plausible. There's been a strange overpraise of Stone's performance in Poor Things because of the accurate playing a toddler technical aspect of it in the early portion. It's not actually the tour de force it was acclaimed to be, similar to Blanchett in Tar.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 23, 2024 23:56:04 GMT
There's been a strange overpraise of Stone's performance in Poor Things because of the accurate playing a toddler technical aspect of it in the early portion. It's not actually the tour de force it was acclaimed to be, similar to Blanchett in Tar. I'd say that's how it starts, for sure, but she (with the help of the script) goes on to make progression within it. Bella's a strange, wacky bird but midway through, the film (and/through the actress) discovers the humanity in her... I don't use that "tour-de-force" thing a lot but between the two, yes, I think Blanchett is closer to it. Both of them make their characters believable, but to different results (due to the nature of the projects). Stone makes a fantastic creature, understandable (and likeable) by the end. Cate's character already operates in a world mirroring ours, and in front of the camera (that is always on her; body and face, and not surrounded by fantastical attractions of another universe) Cate Blanchett dies, and Lydia Tar lives. She is her own being now... long after the film's finished. Gawd I wish Poor Things went and ended somewhere better, or as good as it's first 2/3. |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jan 24, 2024 0:09:57 GMT
There's been a strange overpraise of Stone's performance in Poor Things because of the accurate playing a toddler technical aspect of it in the early portion. It's not actually the tour de force it was acclaimed to be, similar to Blanchett in Tar. I'd say that's how it starts, for sure, but she (with the help of the script) goes on to make progression within it. Bella's a strange, wacky bird but midway through, the film (and/through the actress) discovers the humanity in her... I don't use that "tour-de-force" thing a lot but between the two, yes, I think Blanchett is closer to it. Both of them make their characters believable, but to different results (due to the nature of the projects). Stone makes a fantastic creature, understandable (and likeable) by the end. Cate's character already operates in a world mirroring ours, and in front of the camera (that is always on her; body and face, and not surrounded by fantastical attractions of another universe) Cate Blanchett dies, and Lydia Tar lives. She is her own being now... long after the film's finished. Gawd I wish Poor Things went and ended somewhere better, or as good as it's first 2/3. I think Stone was good and wouldn't begrudge her the Oscar. I just feel too many people have started watering down judicious assessments of things just to have something to praise to extremity every year. Not every year has a brilliant performance like a Huppert in The Piano Teacher. Not every year has a film that's a masterpiece like a Mulholland Dr. I can think Emma Stone perfectly good in Poor Things and absolutely sneer at the idea that it's an all-time great performance or deserves an Oscar reflexively. |
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 24, 2024 0:22:25 GMT
I'd say that's how it starts, for sure, but she (with the help of the script) goes on to make progression within it. Bella's a strange, wacky bird but midway through, the film (and/through the actress) discovers the humanity in her... I don't use that "tour-de-force" thing a lot but between the two, yes, I think Blanchett is closer to it. Both of them make their characters believable, but to different results (due to the nature of the projects). Stone makes a fantastic creature, understandable (and likeable) by the end. Cate's character already operates in a world mirroring ours, and in front of the camera (that is always on her; body and face, and not surrounded by fantastical attractions of another universe) Cate Blanchett dies, and Lydia Tar lives. She is her own being now... long after the film's finished. Gawd I wish Poor Things went and ended somewhere better, or as good as it's first 2/3. I just feel too many people have started watering down judicious assessments of things just to have something to praise to extremity every year. Not every year has a brilliant performance like a Huppert in The Piano Teacher. Not every year has a film that's a masterpiece like a Mulholland Dr. I generally agree with this, and try to be more careful with my choice of words ever since I realized this. I think everyone is eager to find the next great thing, the next Mullholland Dr. and do it first; there's excitement in it, even joy... hell, people more often than not convince themselves that a bad or mediocre movie was "fine" or "good" or "solid" just to convince themselves they didn't waste 2+ hrs of their time and money... tricky thing is, that time is the best judgment as to which work of art (or an element in it; like a performance) will endure the test... and that requires patience... which also, is fuelled by a more "invisible" excitement... but nobody got time for that, and a big part of the fun in a movie circle like this would've disappeared if everybody avoided it. |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jan 24, 2024 0:31:30 GMT
I just feel too many people have started watering down judicious assessments of things just to have something to praise to extremity every year. Not every year has a brilliant performance like a Huppert in The Piano Teacher. Not every year has a film that's a masterpiece like a Mulholland Dr. I generally agree with this, and try to be more careful with my choice of words ever since I realized this. I think everyone is eager to find the next great thing, the next Mullholland Dr. and do it first; there's excitement in it, even joy... hell, people more often than not convince themselves that a bad or mediocre movie was "fine" or "good" or "solid" just to convince themselves they didn't waste 2+ hrs of their time and money... tricky thing is, that time is the best judgment as to which work of art (or an element in it; like a performance) will endure the test... and that requires patience... which also, is fuelled by a more "invisible" excitement... but nobody got time for that, and a big part of the fun in a movie circle like this would've disappeared. I'm personally not sanguine about the state of the film industry. But the reason why I don't think I'm an old man unable to identify great contemporary work is because I don't have this reaction to the best of what's coming out in TV. The Bear, Beef, what I liked about Succession before it became tendentious in the last episode...I don't think acclaimed films like Anatomy of a Fall or Oppenheimer or Flower Moon measure up at all, and largely because of basic conceptual deficits rather than lacking the sheen of technical competence or possessing good performances. I love me a TDK or Interstellar or Goodfellas or The Departed. Yet somehow I'd take two episodes of The Bear S2 (Forks and Fishes) over any film I saw from 2023. It's getting alarming to me the state of cinema. |
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 24, 2024 0:43:11 GMT
I generally agree with this, and try to be more careful with my choice of words ever since I realized this. I think everyone is eager to find the next great thing, the next Mullholland Dr. and do it first; there's excitement in it, even joy... hell, people more often than not convince themselves that a bad or mediocre movie was "fine" or "good" or "solid" just to convince themselves they didn't waste 2+ hrs of their time and money... tricky thing is, that time is the best judgment as to which work of art (or an element in it; like a performance) will endure the test... and that requires patience... which also, is fuelled by a more "invisible" excitement... but nobody got time for that, and a big part of the fun in a movie circle like this would've disappeared. I'm personally not sanguine about the state of the film industry. But the reason why I don't think I'm an old man unable to identify great contemporary work is because I don't have this reaction to the best of what's coming out in TV. The Bear, Beef, what I liked about Succession before it became tendentious in the last episode...I don't think acclaimed films like Anatomy of a Fall or Oppenheimer or Flower Moon measure up at all, and largely because of basic conceptual deficits rather than lacking the sheen of technical competence or possessing good performances. I love me a TDK or Interstellar or Goodfellas or The Departed. Yet somehow I'd take two episodes of The Bear S2 (Forks and Fishes) over any film I saw from 2023. It's getting alarming to me the state of cinema. That might be true; that TV (or some other medium) is in a better state now than cinema (artistically, culturally, maybe even financially idk)... I mean I haven't seen these three shows that you mentioned, but looking back at the previous decade, I'd easily take Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones (while it was good) over my top films of the decade (2010 until 2015 mostly; when I stopped following movies for a while altogether)..... but again, what can I do. I don't have time to invest in a series, I still love this medium (I got such joy from watching stuff like Make Way for Tomorrow and Nostalghia in this month I didn't know I still had with me) and following new releases can be a little too fun to give up on entirely, or not to speak positively on them when they have good elements about them... stuff like Poor Things... aaaand with that we circle back to the main topic  |
|
|
|
Post by dadsburgers on Jan 24, 2024 0:54:03 GMT
There are a lot of ways to answer this question, and I imagine however you do says more about you than about the "real reason" (which we won't know unless we submit each voter to a lie detector test)
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 24, 2024 1:00:25 GMT
There are a lot of ways to answer this question, and I imagine however you do says more about you than about the "real reason" (which we won't know unless we submit each voter to a lie detector test) That really is why I posed this Q to the board. I don't know about some of the replies; maybe I didn't phrase it ideally? I myself for example think it's a combination of #2 and #3... I feel performances with a lot of sex scenes don't ultimately win (Fassbender for Shame wasn't even nominated, and he was RAVED) and Gladstone would make a more "proper" win. It will make history, and thank God she's actually good too. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 24, 2024 1:41:28 GMT
D). More people vote for Gladstone than her
|
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jan 24, 2024 1:45:59 GMT
There are a lot of ways to answer this question, and I imagine however you do says more about you than about the "real reason" (which we won't know unless we submit each voter to a lie detector test) That really is why I posed this Q to the board. I don't know about some of the replies; maybe I didn't phrase it ideally? I myself for example think it's a combination of #2 and #3... I feel performances with a lot of sex scenes don't ultimately win (Fassbender for Shame wasn't even nominated, and he was RAVED) and Gladstone would make a more "proper" win. It will make history, and thank God she's actually good too. Not for women e.g. Natalie Portman & Kate Winslet. |
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Jan 24, 2024 3:33:51 GMT
It would be because Gladstone has a stronger narrative/momentum, not because Stone has won/too many sex scenes. They don't mind recent winner winning a second (besides it's not that recent; she won 7 years ago, not last year) and they don't mind nudity.
|
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 24, 2024 4:08:18 GMT
Gladstone, along with like 15-20 other performances, would be better choices than her
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Jan 24, 2024 8:09:42 GMT
Bloody hell... 7 years already? I mean 2019-on did drag. In the real world though... Kino-world doesn't move the same. Gladstone, along with like 15-20 other performances, would be better choices than her  |
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Jan 24, 2024 10:17:16 GMT
'slutty'. Woken up to some weird posts this morning. Good weird or bad weird? Bad weird. Definitely bad weird. |
|
