|
Post by JangoB on May 21, 2023 13:51:25 GMT
Love these Cannes applause videos. All the love in the room! I love videos where Marty is being applauded and he has that look for a few seconds where he's trying to be all cool and dignified, and then he can't hold it back anymore and that joyous smile breaks. I also love videos when it's the Cannes Film Festival premiere of a Martin Scorsese picture and there're excited Native Americans literally screaming at the top of their lungs out of celebration. The dude at 6:05 is a legend! Marty appears to be sound-shocked after his yells
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 21, 2023 14:14:36 GMT
Seeing a few people describe De Niro as co-lead. What do we think about that? Because De Niro scenes are with DiCap (mostly, apparently?) there's no way he gets into BA too........the fear is - God forbid - he gets squeezed out of BSA because there are so many movies in 2023 that have the potential for legitimate double BSA Supporting Nods (Saltburn, Oppenheimer, Color Purple, Poor Things)........ Now I really doubt that he doesn't get a nod - and he could easily win (Amen).......but if any of those 4 movies ^ - and there's even more than them tbh - 2023 is nuts - catches fire, then De Niro can go from 1 to 3 or 4 awfully quick.......
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 21, 2023 14:17:32 GMT
Seeing a few people describe De Niro as co-lead. What do we think about that? Because De Niro scenes are with DiCap (mostly, apparently?) there's no way he gets into BA too........the fear is - God forbid - he gets squeezed out of BSA because there are so many movies in 2023 that have the potential for legitimate double BSA Supporting Nods (Saltburn, Oppenheimer, Color Purple, Poor Things)........ Now I really doubt that he doesn't get a nod - and he could easily win (Amen).......but if any of those 4 movies ^ - and there's even more than them tbh - 2023 is nuts - catches fire, then De Niro can go from 1 to 3 or 4 awfully quick....... From what I've been told, De Niro is definitely supporting. He has substantial screentime that is more or less equivalent to Gladstone, but DiCaprio is the sole lead.
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on May 21, 2023 14:20:15 GMT
Seeing a few people describe De Niro as co-lead. What do we think about that? Because De Niro scenes are with DiCap (mostly, apparently?) there's no way he gets into BA too........the fear is - God forbid - he gets squeezed out of BSA because there are so many movies in 2023 that have the potential for legitimate double BSA Supporting Nods (Saltburn, Oppenheimer, Color Purple, Poor Things)........ Now I really doubt that he doesn't get a nod - and he could easily win (Amen).......but if any of those 4 movies ^ - and there's even more than them tbh - 2023 is nuts - catches fire, then De Niro can go from 1 to 3 or 4 awfully quick....... Gosling in Barbie vs. De Niro in KOTFM would be a fun race!
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on May 21, 2023 16:11:08 GMT
Great reviews for the most part, and I love it that some didn't care for it much, and most of them for the "right" reasons I guess... Scorsese loves to shake the cage a bit and it seems he certainly did with this one (accomplished by an 80 year old punk!).
How boring would it be if Scorsese satisfied all those blowhards with exactly what they've asked for, categorizing every human element along the lines of their zeitgeisty morals.
It's funny how some contemporary critics twist themselves into a pretzel just to proclaim: I want more victim stuff, and that Catholic white guy, wouldn't this movie be better if the director was, you know, a Native American? They would jizz themselves if it was made by the pure-blooded great-great-grandson of Mollie. Lineage extremism satisfied. The question of representation is a worthy one. But it has to be asked in terms of our culture as a whole, or in this case, the movie industry. But judging a specific work of art along those lines is profoundly stupid and is detrimental to everything art should stand for.
It looks like it's pretty much what I was suspecting: DiCaprio going out on a limp. Complicated character, an actor brave (and smart?) enough to try things, not playing it safe, embracing all the inherent contradictions of a great character. Touching on all the different colors of the human soul. What is a great actor? You could argue it's where artistic accomplishment merges with a sense of an accentuated place within a certain demographic at a certain time. Garbo, Stewart, Brando, Nicholson, Pacino and so on. DiCaprio reigns supreme over his contemporaries I think.
Those reviews indicate more than I could have dreamed for regarding De Niro. Everybody loves a great villain. And it's telling that some reviews (like the UK Times) complain about the villains not being villainous enough. But that's the point of it all. And those artists are smart enough to know that.
Great ink for Gladstone. Very happy about it. Not not to diminish her work here sight unseen, but there's a lot of projection going on in those early reviews. It's the opposite of the centuries old systematic degradation of minorities. Now every raised eyebrow, every sign of dignity in the face of human ruin, of human corrosion, is of course above and beyond anything anyone else could ever feel or endure. It's the sacralisation of the human experience along certain cultural norms, and it's as old as humanity itself. That reaction, to single out Gladstone, was expected. But ignoring all that, it looks like she delivered tremendously based on the promise of Certain Women.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 21, 2023 16:33:49 GMT
Great reviews for the most part, and I love it that some didn't care for it much, and most of them for the "right" reasons I guess... Scorsese loves to shake the cage a bit and it seems he certainly did with this one (accomplished by an 80 year old punk!). How boring would it be if Scorsese satisfied all those blowhards with exactly what they've asked for, categorizing every human element along the lines of their zeitgeisty morals. It's funny how some contemporary critics twist themselves into a pretzel just to proclaim: I want more victim stuff, and that Catholic white guy, wouldn't this movie be better if the director was, you know, a Native American? They would jizz themselves if it was made by the pure-blooded great-great-grandson of Mollie. Lineage extremism satisfied. The question of representation is a worthy one. But it has to be asked in terms of our culture as a whole, or in this case, the movie industry. But judging a specific work of art along those lines is profoundly stupid and is detrimental to everything art should stand for. The way I look at it is this: a director can and should be able to tell any story they wish, regardless of what their origin is . . . but they also have to take great care in understanding that, if they are inspecting a culture from an outsider perspective, they have a responsibility to ensure that they are portraying those characters and cultures with dignity and respect. Hollywood has a nasty history when it comes to minimizing other cultures in favor of the white experience, and perhaps no group has been more "othered" than Native Americans. It's even a basic shorthand used in our society ("Cowboys vs. Indians") which has been engrained in the cultural mindset well before the advent of cinema. For the longest time, rarely were Native Americans or Indigenous peoples given anything that was remotely respectful of their culture and for the most part, their roles were scarcely even played by Native actors. Even in the advent of something like Dances With Wolves, which tries at least for a more even-handed approach to the myth of the West, it's still told from the perspective of a white man acting much the part of a savior of their culture. I think of recent movies like Wind River and Hostiles, which had heavy themes regarding Natives that, with a few minor fixes and risks on the part of the filmmakers, could've done a great deal in narrowing that divide (the former by casting an actual Native actor in the lead role instead of Jeremy Renner, as much as I liked Renner's performance; the latter by making the Natives more than just a MacGuffin to escort across the frontier). But those films took very real and provoking stories and lensed them through white protagonists, and I feel like those movies, even with their good qualities, still feel more like missed opportunities than anything else. Now. Full credit to Scorsese and DiCaprio for recognizing that the basic story as outlined by David Grann is very much a white savior story. Tom White and the nascent Bureau come in and save the day. And they should be lauded for consulting with the Osage in trying to tell a story that deconstructs that tired old trope. But I feel like there's a great degree of vanity being overlooked here on DiCaprio's part. He wanted the role to be revised and refocused to give him the more morally complex role of Ernest Burkhart, which is completely understandable as a more challenging role as an actor and a more provoking one for an audience. But, again, to what degree do we lose the perspective of the victimized Osage culture? Could the film not also be from Mollie Burkhart's perspective: a woman drawn into a dark quagmire of seeing her people be exploited, and having to deal with the knowledge that her husband is a key component of that exploitation? I think when we ultimately see the movie, this is something we'll have to keep in mind: did Scorsese and Co. go as far as they could? Going back to the original point of the post, it would obviously be great if Native voices could tell Native stories in a mainstream format like this, and hopefully Scorsese's film will do well enough that it creates a demand for them. But the reason we are having this conversation now is because it's a long, long overdue one still needing to be addressed. People were saying this after Kevin Costner won his Oscar, and they're still saying it now.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 4,377
Member is Online
|
Post by Archie on May 21, 2023 16:37:44 GMT
I really think you should check this thread out, guys.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 21, 2023 16:42:06 GMT
I really think you should check this thread out, guys. I saw that thread and I wrote my reply with it fully in mind. It's clear just from the pre-production that Scorsese took great care to make sure the Osage voices were augmented and given a proper platform. I just think that it's one of those things where we have to see to what degree that voice is augmented, and whether they could have done more.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on May 21, 2023 16:53:11 GMT
Because De Niro scenes are with DiCap (mostly, apparently?) there's no way he gets into BA too........the fear is - God forbid - he gets squeezed out of BSA because there are so many movies in 2023 that have the potential for legitimate double BSA Supporting Nods (Saltburn, Oppenheimer, Color Purple, Poor Things)........ Now I really doubt that he doesn't get a nod - and he could easily win (Amen).......but if any of those 4 movies ^ - and there's even more than them tbh - 2023 is nuts - catches fire, then De Niro can go from 1 to 3 or 4 awfully quick....... From what I've been told, De Niro is definitely supporting. He has substantial screentime that is more or less equivalent to Gladstone, but DiCaprio is the sole lead. For awards, I think it is safe to say:
Leonardo Dicaprio - Lead Robert DeNiro - Supporting Actor
Jesse Plemons / Brendan Frasier - Supporting Actor
Lily Gladstone - Supporting Actress
Dicaprio, DeNiro, and Gladstone at least. Plemens is a strong possibility. Gladstone could be considered lead. If "we" thought Michelle Williams in The Fabelmans and Sharon Stone in Casino were "leads", you could make the same argument for Gladstone. But I don't think that is going to happen. Her "unknown" status makes her supporting. We have to look at these from a positional point-of-view.
And don't worry, I will do a "Will It Oscar thread"
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 21, 2023 16:57:35 GMT
From what I've been told, De Niro is definitely supporting. He has substantial screentime that is more or less equivalent to Gladstone, but DiCaprio is the sole lead. For awards, I think it is safe to say:
Leonardo Dicaprio - Lead Robert DeNiro - Supporting Actor
Jesse Plemens / Brendan Frasier - Supporting Actor
Lily Gladstone - Supporting Actress
Dicaprio, DeNiro, and Gladstone at least. Plemens is a strong possibility. Gladstone could be considered lead. If "we" thought Michelle Williams in The Fabelmans and Sharon Stone in Casino were "leads", you could make the same argument for Gladstone. But I don't think that is going to happen. Her "unknown" status makes her supporting. We have to look at these from a positional point-of-view.
And don't worry, I will do a "Will It Oscar thread"
Fraser is only in two scenes -- he'll be closer to someone like Jean Dujardin was in The Wolf of Wall Street: a role that is only highlighted because the actor recently won an Oscar. And Plemons's Tom White is largely relegated to the sidelines, and from what I hear there likely won't be a big push for him. De Niro will be the sole focus of the campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fease on May 21, 2023 17:05:14 GMT
For awards, I think it is safe to say:
Leonardo Dicaprio - Lead Robert DeNiro - Supporting Actor
Jesse Plemens / Brendan Frasier - Supporting Actor
Lily Gladstone - Supporting Actress
Dicaprio, DeNiro, and Gladstone at least. Plemons is a strong possibility. Gladstone could be considered lead. If "we" thought Michelle Williams in The Fabelmans and Sharon Stone in Casino were "leads", you could make the same argument for Gladstone. But I don't think that is going to happen. Her "unknown" status makes her supporting. We have to look at these from a positional point-of-view.
And don't worry, I will do a "Will It Oscar thread"
Fraser is only in two scenes -- he'll be closer to someone like Jean Dujardin was in The Wolf of Wall Street: a role that is only highlighted because the actor recently won an Oscar. And Plemons's Tom White is largely relegated to the sidelines, and from what I hear there likely won't be a big push for him. De Niro will be the sole focus of the campaign. It depends on how much they love the movie. Plemons could score a nomination over an actor in a lesser film.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 21, 2023 17:09:29 GMT
Fraser is only in two scenes -- he'll be closer to someone like Jean Dujardin was in The Wolf of Wall Street: a role that is only highlighted because the actor recently won an Oscar. And Plemons's Tom White is largely relegated to the sidelines, and from what I hear there likely won't be a big push for him. De Niro will be the sole focus of the campaign. It depends on how much they love the movie. Plemens could score a nomination over an actor in a lesser film. He could get in if the film overperforms, but Best Supporting Actor looks like we might be spoiled for choice this year, as opposed to in 2021 when Plemons coat-tailed for The Power of the Dog. Even the film's most fervent supporters say he has nothing much to do in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on May 21, 2023 17:15:17 GMT
GIVE JACK FISK HIS GODDAMN OSCAR NOW. And get SISSY SPACEK to present it to him
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on May 21, 2023 17:48:55 GMT
stephenI agree with you. Pretty much 100%. The history of Native American representation in western culture, or in this case, American filmmaking, is far from being laudable. Quite the opposite obviously. So you can't argue about that stuff like a bull in a China shop. Maybe I did. I certainly didn't want to. My point is: You can center a work of art around any subject yo want. You can make a movie about the Holocaust just from the point of view of the perpetrators. Or the unscrupulous bystanders. Or in this case: You could make a movie just from the perspective of De Niro/DiCaprio. Make the Gladstone part as small as possible. All of that would tell us nothing about the artistic value of Scorsese's endeavor. Nothing about its dramatic shortcomings, nothing about its actorly brilliance. No work of art has to accomplish a survey over every perspective possible. Even, and that may sound harsh, the perspective of the victims. Marty Scorsese, tell us about those culprits, their hubris, their idea of themselves, ground them in the times and norms they've lived in. It looks like Scorsese was adamant to affect his work with the Osage perspective, their rituals, their sense of themselves, overrun by a philosophy of "their time is over". That's the idea. Then and now. Just to digress a bit: I really don't need artists to tell me about the sins of the past and the virtues of the present. Scorsese is smart enough to know that. The way we compartmentalize our sense of the past. The coda of 'Flower Moon' looks like to acknowledge that. What has been done to the Natives is as present as it was back then. I'm very much aware of the pitfalls of my arguments regarding representation: It's the perfect excuse to keep going like we did in the last 100 years. Everybody has the right to their artistic perspective. And in the end, if there are no stories to be found from and/or about the Natives? Who cares?! And that's certainly not what I want or what's desirable. But I'm even more convinced that no work of art is bound by societal boundaries or any idea of serving justice, be it historically, politically or morally.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 21, 2023 17:55:13 GMT
stephen I agree with you. Pretty much 100%. The history of Native American representation in western culture, or in this case, American filmmaking, is far from being laudable. Quite the opposite obviously. So you can't argue about that stuff like a bull in a China shop. Maybe I did. I certainly didn't want to. My point is: You can center a work of art around any subject yo want. You can make a movie about the Holocaust just from the point of view of the perpetrators. Or the unscrupulous bystanders. Or in this case: You could make a movie just from the perspective of De Niro/DiCaprio. Make the Gladstone part as small as possible. All of that would tell us nothing about the artistic value of Scorsese's endeavor. Nothing about its dramatic shortcomings, nothing about its actorly brilliance. No work of art has to accomplish a survey over every perspective possible. Even, and that may sound harsh, the perspective of the victims. Marty Scorsese, tell us about those culprits, their hubris, their idea of themselves, ground them in the times and norms they've lived in. It looks like Scorsese was adamant to affect his work with the Osage perspective, their rituals, their sense of themselves, overrun by a philosophy of "their time is over". That's the idea. Then and now. Just to digress a bit: I really don't need artists to tell me about the sins of the past and the virtues of the present. Scorsese is smart enough to know that. The way we compartmentalize our sense of the past. The coda of 'Flower Moon' looks like to acknowledge that. What has been done to the Natives is as present as it was back then. I'm very much aware of the pitfalls of my arguments regarding representation: It's the perfect excuse to keep going like we did in the last 100 years. Everybody has the right to their artistic perspective. And in the end, if there are no stories to be found from and/or about the Natives? Who cares?! And that's certainly not what I want or what's desirable. But I'm even more convinced that no work of art is bound by societal boundaries or any idea of serving justice, be it historical, politically or morally. Agreed -- I think that what we can learn from something like Killers of the Flower Moon is that it is not going to immediately solve the issues that we're talking about, nor should it. What it should do is further the conversation and continue the growth of the industry to fit societal changes, as art is designed to do, and to give platforms to marginalized voices to be able to speak their truths and tell their stories. I disagree that this story shouldn't be told by someone like Scorsese; if anything, he's perfectly equipped to tell the story of white people coming to terms with the sins of manifest destiny, oppression, and exploitation of Native culture and natural resources. But this is the sort of story that has another side to it: that of the suffering of those peoples under the yoke of white supremacy under the guise of American exceptionalism, and that story deserves to be told as well. From what I am hearing, Scorsese offers more than a cursory hint of this other story, but what this film should be is more opening the door for those stories, rather than being the capstone example of them.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on May 21, 2023 18:11:19 GMT
It depends on how much they love the movie. Plemens could score a nomination over an actor in a lesser film. He could get in if the film overperforms, but Best Supporting Actor looks like we might be spoiled for choice this year, as opposed to in 2021 when Plemons coat-tailed for The Power of the Dog. Even the film's most fervent supporters say he has nothing much to do in the movie.*raises hand* The people saying that are wrong. It was my favorite movie of 2021 and I thought Plemons was exceptional in it. His affable awkwardness (case in point, the scene where he adorably takes 3 minutes to ask Phil to take a damn bath) was welcome reprieve from the twisted dynamic between Cumberbatch, Smit-McPhee and Dunst. He doesn't have much to do in the 2nd half but his gentle scenes with Dunst in the first half are absolutely essential to the film and serve as contrast to Phil's bitterness and loneliness. I couldn't imagine that film without Plemons. Without him the bleakness would've been overwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 21, 2023 18:14:28 GMT
He could get in if the film overperforms, but Best Supporting Actor looks like we might be spoiled for choice this year, as opposed to in 2021 when Plemons coat-tailed for The Power of the Dog. Even the film's most fervent supporters say he has nothing much to do in the movie.*raises hand* The people saying that are wrong. It was my favorite movie of 2021 and I thought Plemons was exceptional in it. His affable awkwardness (case in point, the scene where he adorably takes 3 minutes to ask Phil to take a damn bath) was welcome reprieve from the twisted dynamic between Cumberbatch, Smit-McPhee and Dunst. He doesn't have much to do in the 2nd half but his gentle scenes with Dunst in the first half are absolutely essential to the film and serve as contrast to Phil's bitterness and loneliness. I couldn't imagine that film without Plemons. Without him the bleakness would've been overwhelming. I was referring to Killers of the Flower Moon, not Power of the Dog.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on May 21, 2023 18:20:02 GMT
You're right stephen, in that sense, art is here to infuse society. Maybe we learn something, whatever that means, but it certainly enriches us. And 'Flower Moon' is hopefully no capstone in the story of Native perspective in American filmmaking. That story is never to be buried. Just like everything else. To quote Faulkner: The past is never dead. It's not even past.
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on May 21, 2023 19:39:43 GMT
Great reviews for the most part, and I love it that some didn't care for it much, and most of them for the "right" reasons I guess... Scorsese loves to shake the cage a bit and it seems he certainly did with this one (accomplished by an 80 year old punk!). How boring would it be if Scorsese satisfied all those blowhards with exactly what they've asked for, categorizing every human element along the lines of their zeitgeisty morals. It's funny how some contemporary critics twist themselves into a pretzel just to proclaim: I want more victim stuff, and that Catholic white guy, wouldn't this movie be better if the director was, you know, a Native American? They would jizz themselves if it was made by the pure-blooded great-great-grandson of Mollie. Lineage extremism satisfied. The question of representation is a worthy one. But it has to be asked in terms of our culture as a whole, or in this case, the movie industry. But judging a specific work of art along those lines is profoundly stupid and is detrimental to everything art should stand for. The way I look at it is this: a director can and should be able to tell any story they wish, regardless of what their origin is . . . but they also have to take great care in understanding that, if they are inspecting a culture from an outsider perspective, they have a responsibility to ensure that they are portraying those characters and cultures with dignity and respect. Hollywood has a nasty history when it comes to minimizing other cultures in favor of the white experience, and perhaps no group has been more "othered" than Native Americans. It's even a basic shorthand used in our society ("Cowboys vs. Indians") which has been engrained in the cultural mindset well before the advent of cinema. For the longest time, rarely were Native Americans or Indigenous peoples given anything that was remotely respectful of their culture and for the most part, their roles were scarcely even played by Native actors. Even in the advent of something like Dances With Wolves, which tries at least for a more even-handed approach to the myth of the West, it's still told from the perspective of a white man acting much the part of a savior of their culture. I think of recent movies like Wind River and Hostiles, which had heavy themes regarding Natives that, with a few minor fixes and risks on the part of the filmmakers, could've done a great deal in narrowing that divide (the former by casting an actual Native actor in the lead role instead of Jeremy Renner, as much as I liked Renner's performance; the latter by making the Natives more than just a MacGuffin to escort across the frontier). But those films took very real and provoking stories and lensed them through white protagonists, and I feel like those movies, even with their good qualities, still feel more like missed opportunities than anything else. Now. Full credit to Scorsese and DiCaprio for recognizing that the basic story as outlined by David Grann is very much a white savior story. Tom White and the nascent Bureau come in and save the day. And they should be lauded for consulting with the Osage in trying to tell a story that deconstructs that tired old trope. But I feel like there's a great degree of vanity being overlooked here on DiCaprio's part. He wanted the role to be revised and refocused to give him the more morally complex role of Ernest Burkhart, which is completely understandable as a more challenging role as an actor and a more provoking one for an audience. But, again, to what degree do we lose the perspective of the victimized Osage culture? Could the film not also be from Mollie Burkhart's perspective: a woman drawn into a dark quagmire of seeing her people be exploited, and having to deal with the knowledge that her husband is a key component of that exploitation? I think when we ultimately see the movie, this is something we'll have to keep in mind: did Scorsese and Co. go as far as they could? Going back to the original point of the post, it would obviously be great if Native voices could tell Native stories in a mainstream format like this, and hopefully Scorsese's film will do well enough that it creates a demand for them. But the reason we are having this conversation now is because it's a long, long overdue one still needing to be addressed. People were saying this after Kevin Costner won his Oscar, and they're still saying it now. I remember thinking at the time the project was announced that I just couldn't see a DiCaprio going for that straight laced part. He just doesn't do those kinds of roles anymore.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 21, 2023 20:03:53 GMT
The very cultural elements on how this story - and through whose POV - is told - are going to be fascinating to watch in its Oscar chances:
I mean the reviews are awesome imo I'm going to love it I'm sure - but there are big media outlets who are already grumbling about how it's told in their reviews (Variety, LA Times etc). It isn't really how great a movie is - but how great it makes you feel in its components.....
I mean when you have people saying "it's great - but I could see it performing like GONY or The Irishman" - ie losing every nod - it's kind of depressing ......that hurdle doesn't seem like a big deal in May but the argument against this movie has already been laid out tbh........just wait until we get to the end of year.........ugh
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on May 21, 2023 21:50:35 GMT
Yes, big fat chance this isn't going to be the big winner next year. Technical categories seem more likely, but above the line stuff, I don't know. All depends on the rest of the year of course, and the dynamics around the race itself. But it's Scorsese man! So no big surprise. JangoB made the joke about "Best Director goes to... Radio Silence", and that's as prescient as it gets.
Scorsese and the Oscars, it has never been a love affair really. I mean everybody adores the guy. But there's always someone they just like a little bit more. And the man knows it. He's a bit whiny about it also, plays with that idea, in a sort of mischievous New York wise guy way. And you might think, what the hell Marty, they nominate you pretty much everytime for the last 20 years! But in a way he's right. The industry and its people have changed obviously over the last 50 years, and with them Scorsese's chances to get nominated. But it's basically the same for him as it was all those years ago. Scorsese doesn't make Oscar movies.
When you watch some of the docs about Scorsese from the 90s or so, there's always someone like his friend Jay Cocks, or Richard Schickel or so, who says "Marty is never going to win an Oscar! He can't bring himself to make an Oscar friendly picture." The irony of course, he did win for a very Oscar unfriendly pic. But they just couldn't escape him anymore. It was his time.
But the basics of that whole story are still the same. I mean, Scorsese isn't stupid. He could have shaped that 'Flower Moon' narrative differently. He knows what he does. But he's just driven to those dark places of human duality. No surprise DiCaprio/De Niro look like they're front and center here, and not just circling around Gladstone at the center. Right or wrong, Scorsese stays true to himself.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on May 21, 2023 22:00:39 GMT
The very cultural elements on how this story - and through whose POV - is told - are going to be fascinating to watch in its Oscar chances: I mean the reviews are awesome imo I'm going to love it I'm sure - but there are big media outlets who are already grumbling about how it's told in their reviews (Variety, LA Times etc). It isn't really how great a movie is - but how great it makes you feel in its components..... I mean when you have people saying "it's great - but I could see it performing like GONY or The Irishman" - ie losing every nod - it's kind of depressing ......that hurdle doesn't seem like a big deal in May but the argument against this movie has already been laid out tbh........just wait until we get to the end of year.........ugh The "think pieces" will be written no matter what, though I do ponder if they matter as much as people perceive them to. The Academy did completely ignore twitter and every think piece for Green Book, so I think in a way we, and many major media outlets, may overvalue that reaction.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 21, 2023 22:01:55 GMT
Yes, big fat chance this isn't going to be the big winner next year. Technical categories seem more likely, but above the line stuff, I don't know. All depends on the rest of the year of course, and the dynamics around the race itself. But it's Scorsese man! So no big surprise. JangoB made the joke about "Best Director goes to... Radio Silence", and that's as prescient as it gets. Scorsese and the Oscars, it has never been a love affair really. I mean everybody adores the guy. But there's always someone they just like a little bit more. And the man knows it. He's a bit whiny about it also, plays with that idea, in a sort of mischievous New York wise guy way. And you might think, what the hell Marty, they nominate you pretty much everytime for the last 20 years! But in a way he's right. The industry and its people have changed obviously over the last 50 years, and with them Scorsese's chances to get nominated. But it's basically the same for him as it was all those years ago. Scorsese doesn't make Oscar movies. When you watch some of the docs about Scorsese from the 90s or so, there's always someone like his friend Jay Cocks, or Richard Schickel or so, who says "Marty is never going to win an Oscar! He can't bring himself to make an Oscar friendly picture." The irony of course, he did win for a very Oscar unfriendly pic. But they just couldn't escape him anymore. It was his time. But the basics of that whole story are still the same. I mean, Scorsese isn't stupid. He could have shaped that 'Flower Moon' narrative differently. He knows what he does. But he's just driven to those dark places of human duality. No surprise DiCaprio/De Niro look like they're front and center here, and not just circling around Gladstone at the center. Right or wrong, Scorsese stays true to himself. It really cannot be understated how much I think the run in 2006 up to Scorsese's long-overdue Oscar has worked against him ever since. You would think that, given the Academy's latter-day propensity for Picture/Director splits and for recognizing the more virtuosic technical achievements in Director, that he would've won his second in 2011 for Hugo against a first-time nominee like Hazanavicius, even with Weinstein behind the latter . . . but it didn't happen. Silence, a long-gestating passion project, nearly went blanked in 2016. The Irishman, another project that had been years in development with the long-awaited reteaming of De Niro/Pacino (and Pesci), similarly was shut out. But I think that a successful overdue narrative is hard to really overcome in future seasons. They already rewarded Scorsese once, and anything else is just gravy. He would have to be truly undeniable, and while this looks to be one of the more ambitious projects he's ever mounted in terms of theme and scope (tm pacinoyes), he's got a lot of competition this year from non-winning auteurs in both arenas. I can certainly see a world where Scorsese nabs his second Oscar, and maybe even for this, but I have the sneaking suspicion that it's going to be more akin to something like Tarantino's Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood: an early-ish release that bags a win or two, but loses out on the top prize to something with more passion and timeliness. (I also think DiCaprio might also suffer from a similar problem with a second win after a perceived overdue narrative in 2015 . . . for a film with similar themes involving Natives in a Western-adjacent setting, no less. Again, he would have to be well and truly undeniable, and Best Actor is looking dense this year. I think De Niro and Gladstone are going to be the ones with the stronger equity here, at least at this point.)
|
|
franklin
Badass
Posts: 1,783
Likes: 866
Member is Online
|
Post by franklin on May 21, 2023 23:15:54 GMT
I know it's too early to tell, but i can see the supporting ones winning.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on May 22, 2023 0:03:35 GMT
Fraser is only in two scenes -- he'll be closer to someone like Jean Dujardin was in The Wolf of Wall Street: a role that is only highlighted because the actor recently won an Oscar. And Plemons's Tom White is largely relegated to the sidelines, and from what I hear there likely won't be a big push for him. De Niro will be the sole focus of the campaign. It depends on how much they love the movie. Plemens could score a nomination over an actor in a lesser film. This is worse than the people who still use a double 'm'.
|
|