|
Post by Martin Stett on Mar 29, 2019 3:55:51 GMT
Anyway, now we are back on topic again, wondering what the supporting cast for this will look like? Will Joel rope in their usual Coen troupe of actors, or cast more experienced Shakespeare performers? I don't really feel like seeing George Clooney or Brad Pitt play Macduff or Banquo, but I suspect their are some Coen regulars versed in Shakespeare. I can almost guarantee that Tim Blake-Nelson should be in this, as he's done Shakespeare on stage for repatory companies. I'm sure most of Coens regulars will want roles in this even if they aren't experienced Shakespearians. The potential of the project is too big. I am perhaps the only fan in the world of Bill Murray's Polonius, and I'd love to see him do more Shakespeare. Edit: Wait, he's a Wes Anderson regular. Nvm. Edit 2: Wes Anderson's Macbeth would be so awesome tho.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Mar 29, 2019 5:29:01 GMT
I'm late, but where the hell is Ethan?! Busy writing plays? Can I imagine a Coen movie that's not a Coen Brothers movie?! What's the world coming to?!? What's next? No Trump impeachment after the much anticipated Mueller report?! No more Dems and the News screaming "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!"?! Actual courtship in the political arena to defeat that orange idiot, with ideas and shit?! The US ignoring international law to help that other war-monger Bibi Netanyahu to win his next election?! Me going on with a political rant that has nothing to do with this thread?! I'm speechless...
Ok, honestly, this project sounds... weird. I can't wrap my head around it. I like everybody involved, love Joel Coen, love Denzel for the most part, like McDormand tremendously, but Macbeth? I really can't see a straight adaptation and honestly I also can't see them reshaping it to make it different, different setting, time, circumstances, without removing the project too much from its original source material. And what about the language? Maybe they just take Macbeth as a starting point and make something new out of it. In Joel I trust (and in Ethan! Btw, where's Ethan?)
Never imagined Denzel in a Coen movie (also never imagined Bill Murray NOT in a Coen movie, so you see, I'm not a stable genius). But I love the idea. But I would love it even more if they would bring some new shadings out of Washington, without the brooding swagger.
Everybody seems very excited around here, so I know it sounds like heresy, but imagining an agonizing Denzel and a scheming Frances as the lovely Macbeths, just sounds basic to me. After all we already have some fine Macbeth adaptations and the theater stages of the world are full of them. So do something new, something original. But then there's Joel Coen. That's where things start to get exciting.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Mar 29, 2019 8:11:44 GMT
John Turturro, a Shakespeare's lover, an ex-Coen's bros regular and appears in at least 3 Denzel movies, I can see him in it. Plus I remember that modern adaptation of shakespeare's Macbeth he did a long time ago, Men of Respect.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 29, 2019 8:22:44 GMT
It almost sounds as if you'd eventually learn that it is an "inspired by Macbeth" project instead of literally Macbeth - and of course that has lead to many great films like Throne of Blood - my favorite Kurosawa etc. but nothing you see "literally" as Macbeth jibes with Joel Coen - maybe people don't really know Macbeth "that" well. I still don't see how if it is an adaptation where "Coen" humor comes into that story at all but like I said he's a great writer/director so....
But with Rudin producing (big time), the two leads (very big time) and a Coen directing (that's 3 big times) they could have their pick of a supporting cast and for Coen regulars Turturro especially fits perfectly in several male roles (and who did a Macbeth sort of himself with Men Of Respect), Goodman could fit depending on the vision - heck Waits even fits in a way - you never know with a traditional Coen's feature though they almost never miscast at all - on the contrary, they perfectly cast supporting roles - they are uncanny with that really.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 29, 2019 16:44:24 GMT
John Turturro, a Shakespeare's lover, an ex-Coen's bros regular and appears in at least 3 Denzel movies, I can see him in it. Plus I remember that modern adaptation of shakespeare's Macbeth he did a long time ago, Men of Respect. I'm kinda hoping now that Coen turns it into a hardboiled noir (like Miller's Crossing without the feather-light touch), and Turturro (especially in his weary The Night Of mold) would be a great foil to Washington.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Mar 29, 2019 16:53:32 GMT
Still not over the sunuvabitch who made this fan poster
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 17:04:42 GMT
The Coens have a perfect Falstaff right there with Goodman if they ever want to give Henry IV the same treatment they gave to The Odyssey.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Mar 29, 2019 20:05:27 GMT
John Turturro, a Shakespeare's lover, an ex-Coen's bros regular and appears in at least 3 Denzel movies, I can see him in it. Plus I remember that modern adaptation of shakespeare's Macbeth he did a long time ago, Men of Respect. I'm kinda hoping now that Coen turns it into a hardboiled noir (like Miller's Crossing without the feather-light touch), and Turturro (especially in his weary The Night Of mold) would be a great foil to Washington. Miller's Crossing being probably my favorite Coen's bros film, I wouldn't be against it. There is a lot of ways at how he could adapts it, I will simply trust him (I haven't say that for someone directing a Denzel's film since a very long time, it feels weird). As an aside, on the net I see some reactions like "Macbeth again...okay I'm "in" because of these 3 but...", well, my 2 favorites Macbeth big screen adaptations are by far the one by Sensei kurosawa and Maqbool starring Irrfan Khan/Tabu, a Japanese and one from Bollywood, so yeah, in my view, we need another great, if possible...definitive, big screen adaptation of Macbeth in Shakespeare original language.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Mar 30, 2019 2:51:26 GMT
It will be interesting to see how things shake out with this one, casting, concept etc. Considering it is a Coen Brother, there's a big chance it won't be a straight adaptation. But it's all guesswork at this point. The Coens have such an idiosyncratic style that it's hard and at the same time exciting to imagine what they (or he) will do with the themes and especially the language of The Bard. As for the casting, as others have mentioned, there are a bunch of Coen regulars who could fit into this (of course also depending on what they're aiming for), and Joel Coen working with that big international superstar Washington for the first time it's possible he could feel more comfortable with some long time co-workers around him (never underestimate such things, after all they're just humans). On the other hand, if we all remember McDormand talking/screaming about "inclusion rider" or what that thing was called back at the Oscars, maybe they'll intentionally go with a more diverse cast, which could also lead to some interesting possibilities. On a side note, two things: First, I know it's fun to speculate about potential Oscar contenders, I do it all the time, but I think we all agree that it hasn't much to do with what's actually great and what isn't. Disregarding such things like legacy and overall popularity with the public/critics, it's a nice validation and it can, at best, indicate there's a certain quality in there, but when it comes to the actual work, it's essentially meaningless. So if DDL comes out of retirement for example and makes 5 movies in 10 years and doesn't win another Oscar for any of them, and in the same time Denzel wins another 3, it doesn't mean a thing in the first place. If you look at the performances themselves, of course it could mean something. But just statistics mean nothing in art. This isn't sport. And secondly, Mattsby, that Cronenberg/Irons/Huppert poster, you broke my heart! 🙃😄
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 30, 2019 9:25:33 GMT
It will be interesting to see how things shake out with this one, casting, concept etc. Considering it is a Coen Brother, there's a big chance it won't be a straight adaptation. But it's all guesswork at this point. The Coens have such an idiosyncratic style that it's hard and at the same time exciting to imagine what they (or he) will do with the themes and especially the language of The Bard. As for the casting, as others have mentioned, there are a bunch of Coen regulars who could fit into this (of course also depending on what they're aiming for), and Joel Coen working with that big international superstar Washington for the first time it's possible he could feel more comfortable with some long time co-workers around him (never underestimate such things, after all they're just humans). On the other hand, if we all remember McDormand talking/screaming about "inclusion rider" or what that thing was called back at the Oscars, maybe they'll intentionally go with a more diverse cast, which could also lead to some interesting possibilities. On a side note, two things: First, I know it's fun to speculate about potential Oscar contenders, I do it all the time, but I think we all agree that it hasn't much to do with what's actually great and what isn't. Disregarding such things like legacy and overall popularity with the public/critics, it's a nice validation and it can, at best, indicate there's a certain quality in there, but when it comes to the actual work, it's essentially meaningless. So if DDL comes out of retirement for example and makes 5 movies in 10 years and doesn't win another Oscar for any of them, and in the same time Denzel wins another 3, it doesn't mean a thing in the first place. If you look at the performances themselves, of course it could mean something. But just statistics mean nothing in art. This isn't sport. And secondly, Mattsby , that Cronenberg/Irons/Huppert poster, you broke my heart! 🙃😄 On the one hand, in a just world, what you say about Oscars and nomination tallys is true, and the work would speak for itself, but as symbolic institutions, they matter. Yeah, it's just an award in theory, but yeah it kind if also makes a difference to how these artists are perecieved. Streep's reputation as the actress du jour is pretty much insoluble thanks to her Oscar record, as was Katherine Hepburn's before her. There is no denying DDL"s reputation and prestige was enhanced by his three Best Actor wins. If DDL had the same body of work, but 0 Oscars, would he be held in the same level of reverence he is today? I'd have to say, almost certainly not. He'd probably be percieved as great by cinephiles, but underrated in general.There is no denying Denzel's 8 nominations (& counting) + his two wins, has moved him into rarified air, and help consolidate his claim to being GOAT/greatest living actor to people for whom such things matter. It's not everything.Some performers with strong Oscar legacies have receded in memory, while some with weak Oscar track records have grown in esteem and recognition. But generally speaking, it can be a game changer for most actors reputations
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 30, 2019 10:14:20 GMT
I think what pupdurcs says is true and what Leo_The_Last says is also true.
Recently I have posted something a lot about Ian McKellen who has never won and yet has somehow positioned himself in his 70s/80s - as being "above" Hopkins/Caine. Now in a way that doesn't fit as easily as the DDL example - 3 BA's is a lot, no one from DDLs whole country has more than 1 BA right and that country is known for its acting - ?!??!?!? - to many McKellen will never be Hopkins/Caine either but its not unreasonable to say that about him because the Oscar gap seems logical, not overwhelming.
Things happened historically that changed the Oscar award - and its meaning imo starting with Hanks winning back to back and NOT winning his 3rd in '98 when Nicholson winning his 3rd was a huge (undeserved) deal in this regard - so when DDL won 3 BA's for such a small body of work (and not being American etc.) that further took the allure out of it and made it more like statistical sports now.
The expectation changed a bit so now there's actually an Oscar entitlement game going on which is not the same as an Oscar race - its become not "if" but "when" - when is Hanks getting his 3rd! when is Denzel come on etc! - part of that is just the BS of awards in general, but at the very least it's grown more ........."sporty" or obviously crass in the modern era specifically, and there were seismic shifts that happened in 94-98 definitely.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Mar 30, 2019 10:59:38 GMT
For reasons not known to me I had a dream this night in which it was announced that this film would take place in 1996
|
|
|
Post by jimmalone on Mar 30, 2019 13:58:16 GMT
Not that intrigued. I think Macbeth is a very good play, but not quite up with Shakespeare's very best. But I still see no need to make a new film out of it. I'd reckon that the Coen's could adapt in a way they did with O Brother where Art Thou? (though factually the parallels to the Odyssey are quite lose and overblown a lot).
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Mar 31, 2019 2:50:04 GMT
This will be fascinating. I've read Ethan's collection of short stories (Gates of Eden), his book of poems (The Drunken Driver Has the Right of Way), and his collection of plays (Almost an Evening), and they're all very similar in style and language to Coen brothers scripts. It'll be interesting to see something entirely conceived by Joel for once. I've long felt that Ethan is most responsible for the dialogue in their films, which leads me to believe that this might not be as loose of an adaptation as O Brother. It may be set in an anachronistic time period, but it'll almost certainly contain only Shakespeare-accurate dialogue. I haven't seen a lot of Denzel's most recent work (apart from Fences, which I didn't love), so I'm excited to see him in a project that interests me.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Mar 31, 2019 4:08:05 GMT
Yes, pupdurcs & pacinoyes, you're both right with what you're saying. Actually, there was no real difference between pupdurcs' argument about why awards matter and my original post, as I pointed out, to quote myself, "Disregarding such things like legacy and overall popularity with the public/critics...". Yes, the Oscars matter. But still, the work is the work is the work. No nomination or win makes you a better performer or the opposite. And the Streep & DDL examples are valid and true, but it's not their Oscar wins that make or don't make them great actors. Legacy, public reputation etc., that's a different matter. That's all I've tried to say. And to make things even more confusing (😄), at the end of the day, when it comes to judging art, we're entering the infinite world of the glorious subjectivity of perception. And pacinoyes makes a good point about how the whole Oscar game has become, well, a game, including the focus on statistics and such things. It's pretty ridiculous, to be honest, this development. I mean, probably everyone wants to win an Oscar and every fan wants his/her idol to win an Oscar, sometimes even more so. But especially after DDL's record setting third win, things started to spiral out of control (and you could make a good argument that those three wins are at least one too many, and I love him). Since then it's not just he or she will/should/could win an Oscar, or another one, now the talk is about "with this thing and the next one he's going to get to that record setting 175th nomination and win his 111th Academy Award and then he's undeniably going to be the greatest actor of his generation, or ever, and everybody will recognize it and bow down to him and kiss his feet..." - ok, I went a little bit too far with that one. I hope you don't feel attacked about this pupdurcs, I know you admire Washington immensely (he's a great actor), and you're honest about your feelings and hopes. And I guess, if we're all honest with ourselves, we probably feel the same way about our favorites. At least I can say for myself that, yes, dammit, I want De Niro and Pacino to win those f_ucking awards next year, and Scorsese too, and Pesci wins for Supporting Actress or whatever, and Polanski... But at the same time I have to admit to myself that this thinking is futile. There was certainly a lot of false modesty involved back then, but still, gone are the days when some artists deemed themselves too cool to attend the Oscars, even if they had a big chance to win that naked golden boy, or even spit in the face of the Academy, full of disgust about that whole circus. Now it's about schmoozing and kissing asses and being emotional and vicariously fighting for something "important" and about solidarity with the men and women who {please insert here}... It has probably always been that way, what do I know (yeah yeah, old man yells at cloud, and I'm not even that old)? And we, the movie lovers and the pundits are looking at the whole thing like it's sport and if it comes to certain actors we feel they're entitled to this or that and than we're talking about he/she will dethrone that person and be the king of his/her generation etc. So in that regard, it's pretty fitting we're dealing with Macbeth and Shakespeare here. And please, don't understand my jabbering as a way to tell this board to stop having those discussions, because, well, I love those discussions (😄) and there's no place on the internet where I would rather read all you're (heated) arguments about legacy and critical standing and so on than on this board, I just think that, at long last, Oscars are bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 31, 2019 4:33:03 GMT
Ehhh...Oscars have always been a competitive sport. I think acting like it's a recent development because DDL won a 3rd Oscar is disingeneous. What do you think George C Scott's protest was about when he refused to accept his Best Actor win? He didn't like the competitive aspect of it, pitting actors against each other etc etc. The circus, the schmoozing. It's always been that way. Brando, never one to see a cause he couldn't jump on, soon jumped on Scott's bandwagon to decry the Oscars as a pointless cockfight. Sean Penn, who copied Brando religiously boycotted attending the Oscars (till he was certain of winning). Then he became a religious convert of the whole a spectacle (even writing campaign articles in trades every year for his friends, from Inaurritu, DiCaprio and Bradley Cooper)
It's not a "development". The Oscars have always been set up this way. If you think it's bullshit now, well then, it's always been bullshit. It was bullshit when Pacino and DeNiro were winning them, it was bullshit when Vivien Leigh and Bette Davis were winning them. It's the pinnacle of showbiz spectacle.
So yeah, I get what you are saying, but I'm also not about this "too cool for school" attitude when it comes to the Oscars and the power and influence it holds. If someone else chooses to be, that's up to them. But I respect the power of the institution and the value and respect it conveys. While I don't think it's intentional either, I think it's somewhat problematic to start trying to devalue the symbolic power of the Oscars when it looks like an African-American male is in a position to take the all-time nomination record for men. To a lot of people, the world, his community, film fans, Washington becoming the most decorated male actor ever by the Oscars (nomination wise) and potentially winning a 3rd (or 4th or 5th) Oscar will carry immense pride, meaning, historical significance and value. It won't be just a statistic. And to me, that's far from bullshit. His Oscar record doesnt make him a great actor from an artistic perspective, but he can only get that track record through being a great actor (like DDL and Streep) so it goes hand in hand.
So I have zero issue talking about how his Oscar record raises his value and reputation as an actor (currently and historically), and helps him in GOAT or greatest living actor debates. It just does. It's the way the business and industry of film and acting was set up, and a black man was not supposed to get close to these records. I mean Laurence Fishburne is a great actor...in the 90's a direct peer and rival to Denzel. But do we talk about Fish in greatest living actor or GOAT debates?No, in part because he doesnt have the consistent acknowledgement of that ultimate power structure that is AMPAS that increases the perceived worth and value of an actor tremendously. What Denzel is doing is unprecedented and it's being done through pure talent and peer group respect that is through the roof, in a system not built to benefit him. Some people might not like hearing it, but it's also sort of not my problem.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Mar 31, 2019 5:57:05 GMT
I think you didn't read my post thoroughly pupdurcs, or I wasn't clear enough or both. I didn't say the Oscars weren't bullshit back then when white dudes won the awards, or Bette or Bob or Emil. And I also mentioned the false modesty aspect of it, the too cool for school mentality. And yes, I also never thought or wrote the Oscars weren't competitive in the past. But everyone and their mother agrees that the whole circus around them has changed over the last decades. The industry around them, the way the actors and artists have to chase them etc. Maybe I live in an alternative universe or somehow imagined reading all about this. The Scott anecdote is an old hat, do you think I didn't know that? So the development is not that the once so glorious and just Oscars have deteriorated into a senseless bullshit spectacle and that this happened coincidentally when there's a chance that a black man can win his third Oscar. At least that's apparently my opinion, intentional or not, as you have insinuated. Well, I respect you pupdurcs, but I call that disingeneous. My main points were that the Oscars are bullshit, have been bullshit and will probably always be bullshit as long as they exist. And with the term bullshit I try to describe the fact that the Oscars are, at least to a certain degree, no great indicator for good art. And that winning Oscars doesn't equal greatness. Aaaand that the discussion around them has started to become focused on statistical records, especially after DDL's third win. That's all. Fundamentally, there's no difference between our takes on the Academy Awards and what they mean for an actor. I repeatedly stated that they matter in regards to legacy, critical standing etc. Those things are a totally different discussion, miles away from the point that I was trying to get across. And yes, I know about the structural obstacles black actors had/have to deal with. And I really have no idea who you're talking about, but no, I have no problem with a black actor being deemed the greatest of all time, no matter if I agree with it or not. I don't care about the skin color of people when I look at them. And again, I can't see where and when I ever suggested or indicated such a thing. In all honesty pupdurcs, it's indecent of you to presume something like that, even if you phrased it innocuously.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 31, 2019 6:15:45 GMT
Well, I did say I didn't think you (or whomever else) decrying the value of the Oscars in light of DDL winning his 3rd (and talking of a 3rd for Denzel and the significance of his nomination tally) was malicious or deliberate, but I was just pointing out the optics involved, for future reference.
I gave my reasons why it's important to talk about Oscars and their impact in relation to actors (specifically Denzel on this thread), and you have your reasons why you don't think it's so important. We are allowed to have different points of view. So we both understand where each other is coming from. I think it was a useful discourse, and sorry if you thought I was aiming some indirect shade implying you were racist or had issues with black actors being considered the greatest (I wasn't). But I was just trying to share some perspective on why these things aren't neccesarily just frivolous distractions, or idle boasts for your favorite actors.
In short, my post wasn't about you. I'm disappointed that's what you took from it.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Mar 31, 2019 6:52:38 GMT
Ok, all good. Maybe there were some things lost in translation. And yes, it was a useful discourse. And we are allowed to have different opinions. The funny or not so funny thing is that we most certainly agree on most issues. I understand where you're coming from regarding African American actors, history and the Oscars and what such a validation means or doesn't mean. And hey, I agree, I never suggested anything else. The same is true about the Oscars and how an artist's legacy can be shaped by them. But that was never the point I was trying to make, maybe there's the origin of all this talk. No matter what, I stop feeling maliciously attacked and you quit being disappointed. Have a good time pupdurcs
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 31, 2019 6:57:41 GMT
Ok, all good. Maybe there were some things lost in translation. And yes, it was a useful discourse. And we are allowed to have different opinions. The funny or not so funny thing is that we most certainly agree on most issues. I understand where you're coming from regarding African American actors, history and the Oscars and what such a validation means or doesn't mean. And hey, I agree, I never suggested anything else. The same is true about the Oscars and how an artist's legacy can be shaped by them. But that was never the point I was trying to make, maybe there's the origin of all this talk. No matter what, I stop feeling maliciously attacked and you quit being disappointed. Have a good time pupdurcs Fair enough man. Appreciate it
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 31, 2019 9:01:04 GMT
Yes, the Oscars matter. But still, the work is the work is the work. No nomination or win makes you a better performer or the opposite. And the Streep & DDL examples are valid and true, but it's not their Oscar wins that make or don't make them great actors. If you look at this Macbeth (just to get back on track) you can learn a lot about how we see the Oscars and why they basically always fnck everything up - ie no actor ever playing Macbeth/Lady Macbeth really would ever make sense for us to say "XXXXX is coming for that Oscar (or that Oscar nod)!" in Macbeth and especially in this era. No one has ever been nominated for any role in any Macbeth ever afaik , no American has been nodded since Brando (I think) 65+ years ago in anything at all in Shakespeare, and the casting suggests a flip here - ie Macbeth's race is not a big deal but this isn't Othello either and both their ages are quite high (this is the oldest Macbeth and Lady Macbeth I've ever heard of - even older than Plummer/Jackson (didn't see it) in the 80s on stage etc. Maybe I'm wrong .........but I don't recall an older two?) Now yes I get it - things change and just because things never happened before doesn't mean they can't happen now, and there's never been a Macbeth with this heft either - Washington/McDormand/Coen - so that's a whole different thing and a nod wouldn't surprise me for any of them - even McDormand - but it's the very fact that so many people default to an Oscar discussion "first" rather than the real exciting prospect that 3 Americans doing Shakespeare in a big film - THREE Americans! - THAT'S unheard of! - for me is a bit of a letdown/puzzler/missing the bigger picture kind of thing. But......... Good conversation
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 31, 2019 11:14:37 GMT
I think Americans doing Shakespeare (whether it's one or three or a whole cast) has long ceased to be a novelty, so it's understandable very few care about that aspect. Nobody is doing a headcount. We know American can do Shakespeare. It's the pedigree of the three principle players that's exciting people, not their passports. And that pedigree naturally leads to Oscar talk.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 31, 2019 11:39:21 GMT
I think Americans doing Shakespeare (whether it's one or three or a whole cast) has long ceased to be a novelty, so understandably very few care about that aspect. Nobody is doing a headcount. It's the pedigree of the three principle players that's exciting people, not their passports. And that pedigree naturally leads to Oscar talk. Just disagree then - if you were to ask one or two or three of your friends about on a small level you'd have a point. But more broadly to me it's obvious that the pedigree "naturally" leading to Oscar talk is the precise problem as I pointed out Macbeth doesn't or hasn't attracted the sort of luster - never yet anyway - that is my whole point. What's interesting is the nationality here. To me I don't care if anyone say "catches" Jack Nicholson and stuff like that - he has 12 nominations that's a lot, no other American has double digits even - what's to "talk" about with that idiotic bullsh it then? What's there to talk about McDormand "maybe" tying Streep (and approaching Hepburn) for BA wins when the film hasn't been shot yet? I realize you could stretch this "oh it's common" lie to make your point by saying "Oh well there was Hawke's filmed Hamlet!" but that was small time from the start. You don't get many Shakespeare films period. You don't get many Americans - much less 3 - doing it period especially in a big film. Unless I'm forgetting, the closest I can think of here is Romeo + Juliet with an Australian behind the camera - 20++ years ago.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 31, 2019 12:00:20 GMT
Before Spielberg's Lincoln, nobody had ever won an Oscar for playing US president. Or Lincoln himself. We could literally apply the same argument you are to Macbeth and say DDL won't win for Lincoln...Nobody who plays actual US presidents wins. How did that turn out?
People instinctively knew it was different this time with the combined pedigree of DDL and Spielberg. That they could easily trump past stats regarding Presidential roles and wins. People started predicting on the pedigree as soon as it was announced and they were correct to do so. And the exact same thing applies to Denzel, Coen and McDormand. Done right it's Oscar catnip with this team, and previous stats regarding Shakespeare or Americans or wins will not neccesarily apply.
If you are more excited about the American thing, more power to you. I'm more intrigued by the prospect of 3rd Oscars (mainly for Denzel, but McDormand isn't out of the realm of possibility either....especially if she goes supporting)
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 31, 2019 12:09:06 GMT
Done right it'd Oscar catnip with this team, and previous stats regarding Shakespeare or Americans or wins will not neccesarily apply.
Yes, agree I said this already as well below (?) - but again not my point, I care about the logistics/components of the project, do not care about the Oscar potential at all etc. if you do that's cool we just disagree there.
Now yes I get it - things change and just because things never happened before doesn't mean they can't happen now, and there's never been a Macbeth with this heft either - Washington/McDormand/Coen - so that's a whole different thing"
|
|