Oscar Watch

Three words:
NOT
ENOUGH
BEER

Probably true. Though you can say the same about the second Star Wars trilogy.

halfwise wrote:

Radaghast wrote:I really dig PF, I must say. I don't feel as strongly about his other films (unless it's to hate DU) but I really enjoy the hell out of PF.

Why the hatred for Django Unchained?  Hitting some themes a bit too obviously?  I thought the parts with the german doctor/hit man were brilliant, but I agree the slavery themes were a bit heavy handed, lacking in either wit or artistry.  But I'd gladly watch it for the good parts.

For me, it falls apart when they talk about how they'll rescue Broomhilda. Django suggests they buy her but Schultz seems to think the owner will charge them a lot of money. If so, why? And even if so, who cares? They had the money and aren't you trying to save the love of your life here? Didn't you patiently wait an entire winter to do this? Didn't she suffer through this entire winter?

It smacks of contrivance, first so that Tarantino could show all that Mandingo fighting stuff, which is of dubious historicity. Second, it actually manufactures the drama by including Django in the ruse. If Django weren't there, Steven (the horrible Samuel Jackson character) wouldn't have figured out that he and Broomhilda knew one another and the events that followed wouldn't have happened. I don't really know why Schultz needed Django for this plan to work and couldn't see that he actually endangered it. And thanks to Steven, Candie does figure out that they're really not after the fighter and Django and Schultz agree to pay some exorbitant amount anyway.

Of course they don't because, to top it all off, Schultz is so offended by Candie that he can't bring himself to shake his hand and instead kills him, thus risking Django's and Broomhilda's lives, not to mention his own. This is more contrivance, followed by convenience (for Django), and ending with Django prancing on his horse. In the meantime, buckets of raspberry jam blood are shed.

A fair and logical argument, but one that plops your main character on the back burner for a good while. A mix like most Tarantino. For me the treat of seeing Samuel Jackson perform brilliantly against his usual type casting outweighed some of the contrivances.

The prancing horse at the end was sheer school-play stupidity, admittedly.

True about the main character, but I have to imagine there are better ways to have him be part of the action that aren't so contrived.

I'm also put off by the portrayal of black characters that aren't Django, as either cyphers and victims or offensive, self-hating stereotypes (Steven). The slaves at the beginning of the film might as well have been zombies for all the emotion they showed.

They probably would have felt like zombies at that point. But I see it mainly as a dark comical effect: given the choice between the extreme moral strength of letting their owners go and beating the crap out of them, we find that they are not in fact emotional zombies at all. They naturally beat the crap out of them.

Well they shoot the remaining slaver in the face. I just wish they'd have said more than a few words. I don't recall much dialogue from anyone that wasn't Jamie Foxx or Samuel Jackson.

Plus, this movie was nothing but revenge porn with slavery as a backdrop. And slavery was (is) horrible, but this idea that every white owner was a sadistic bastard is way too overdone. Slaves were investments and didn't come cheap; thus slave owners weren't about to routinely risk injury to them. Not to say there weren't sadistic slave owners, but it wasn't the norm.

Radaghast wrote:Slaves were investments and didn't come cheap; thus slave owners weren't about to routinely risk injury to them. Not to say there weren't sadistic slave owners, but it wasn't the norm.

While there's some truth to this, the problem is that when you remove the ethical rules and replace them with economic rules, very bad things can happen without technically being sadistic.  

The old and the sick, for example, are culled from any livestock herd with no consideration to what they may have contributed in the past. It's just good economics.

Once she can no longer breed, the old milk cow becomes hamburger, and the old slave is given the highest risk jobs. It's just good economics.

Once they're of working age, young slaves were more productive if separated from their families, simply because they wouldn't be wasting energy caring for  their older family members, which in turn shortened the lives of the elderly, further reducing costs and increasing productivity.  And it all passed for good business.

And I'm afraid that was the norm.

Well, yeah, it was an inhumane business, no denying that. I just wish movies would not be so sensationalistic and simplistic about it.

I haven't seen 12 Years a Slave, but various reviews seem to liken it to The Passion of the Christ, where everyone is either a sadistic demon or a saint and there are lots of beatings and torture to beat the viewer over the head.

Note to the mods: just a suggestion, but since this thread contains a lot of different subjects, not all of them topical to TH, would it make sense to move it to the other board?

Radaghast wrote:

I haven't seen 12 Years a Slave, but various reviews seem to liken it to The Passion of the Christ, where everyone is either a sadistic demon or a saint and there are lots of beatings and torture to beat the viewer over the head.

Yeah, I haven't seen 12 Years a Slave either. Slavery is such a loaded subject that it's almost impossible to be relevant and entertaining and not step on any landmines, all at the same time. But I've been curious, as Halfwise said. If 12 Years pulls off the tightrope walk without too many stumbles, I'd definitely like to see it. I read a few slave narratives (free downloads) a couple years ago, and they're fascinating! They could easily make good movies in the right hands.

That's another thing about 12YaS; it allegedly doesn't stick to its source very well. Par for the course for Hollywood, I guess. I think I'll check out the book first, whether I end up watching the movie or not.

halfwise wrote:Why the hatred for Django Unchained?  Hitting some themes a bit too obviously?  I thought the parts with the german doctor/hit man were brilliant, but I agree the slavery themes were a bit heavy handed, lacking in either wit or artistry.  But I'd gladly watch it for the good parts.

My biggest problem with Django was the pacing. I don't expect a ton of plausibility from Tarantino (Radaghast's points are reasonable, but one could pick similar holes in the plots of Pulp Fiction or Inglourious Basterds), but when his films start to drag they become really dull to me (see also: large parts of Kill Bill).

In opposition, I need to see 12 Years a Slave.  Couldn't bring myself to watch it when it first came out (too searing), but the bits that have been shown coming up to the Oscars have been so beautiful I think it will carry me through the dark parts.

They played part of this scene during the Oscars and it made me want to see 12 Years a Slave even more.

It wasn't showcased so well in that scene, but the cinematography in everything I've seen has been so gorgeous; saturated colors and perfect framing without seeming contrived (one of my beefs with Spielberg) that I just want to soak it in.

Eldorion wrote:My biggest problem with Django was the pacing.  I don't expect a ton of plausibility from Tarantino (Radaghast's points are reasonable, but one could pick similar holes in the plots of Pulp Fiction or Inglourious Basterds), but when his films start to drag they become really dull to me (see also: large parts of Kill Bill).

I haven't seen IB but I don't recall any major plot holes or contrivances about Pulp Fiction.

'worthy' films make me nervous. If Shindlers List was made by a Jewish person and 12 years was made by a Black person theres going to be a certain amount of unconscious efforts of the awards boards to give a signal to the world that they care about these issues and theres a lot of back slapping and congratulatory gushing that I find a bit cringeworthy. Not saying they are incapable of objective film making its just that we know beforehand who's going to get demonized and who the victims are. We all know Jews and Blacks were victims but I dont need to see 3 hours of brutality unfolding to know that. Also all Germans were not nazis and all white people werent in favour of slavery, its too simplistic. I think these are good films but they make me nervous, they perpetuate myths as well as truths.

I thought 12 years a slave didn't live up to the hype. I watched it and it had a strange use of discontinuity editing, using extremely long takes and lots of ellipses in time between takes. It wasn't really that bad in terms of beating, it was realisitc. Instead of showing the lash hitting skin, McQueen showed the audience the face of the person being beat. Equally hard to take, but easier to swallow I guess? To me it just seemed like any other slavery movie. If they wanted to grab my attention, they would have focused the whole thing on Patsy's life. I've read some excerpts from the book in one of my classes, and they ended up in the film. I have the book with me here at school, and might pick it up if I'm ever in the mood.

I think Gravity should have won Best Film but it was up against a 'worthy' film so it had no chance. Gravity should have won because the themes are universal to all humans, not that we all go up in space with Buzz Lightyear, but that our struggle to survive is universal. not just a section of people 100 years ago. yeah I know 12 years had someone struggle to survive, but Gravity the woman was challenging her self to survive she had a choice, live or die, and she chose life. and yeah I know there is slavery today, but thats not the point they were making by making 12 Years. Actually I dont know what point they were making to be honest. But imho Gravity was just better in all ways.

I just googed Gravity. 7 Oscars, including best director, best cinematography and best score is a really very high honor, especially because SciFi films have always been treated as "popcorn" movies by the Academy (2001: A Space Odyssey won 1).

I also googled where I'd have to go to see it. A hundred and sixty-five miles......   
And it won't be the same on DVD...

I didn't know Gravity was still showing.  I didn't get around to seeing it when it came out last fall so I had resigned myself to the home video experience (which really isn't that bad IMO, at least not with modern large-screen TVs and Blu-rays)

Eldorion wrote:I didn't know Gravity was still showing.

They seem to have brought it back for a limited second run as a "victory lap" after the 7 oscars. It's one of the few films I'd care about seeing in theatrical 3D, but a 330 mile round-trip drive.....probably don't need to see it that badly.  

Eldorion wrote:I didn't know Gravity was still showing.  I didn't get around to seeing it when it came out last fall so I had resigned myself to the home video experience (which really isn't that bad IMO, at least not with modern large-screen TVs and Blu-rays)

Maybe in your parent's home, but in the near future you'll have to decide yourself whether you want to plump down that kind of money. though come to think of it, obsolescence may not give you much of a choice. I own neither of those and may not until the current stuff breaks. Takes a while, few moving parts.

halfwise wrote:
 I own neither of those and may not until the current stuff breaks.  Takes a while, few moving parts.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But some of my newer electronics seem to die within a year of their warrantee expiring.   

Of course if they lasted forever, the TV and DVD manufacturers would go out of business. You don't suppose there's a little self-destruct clock buried somewhere in that programming do you? 

halfwise wrote:Maybe in your parent's home, but in the near future you'll have to decide yourself whether you want to plump down that kind of money.  though come to think of it, obsolescence may not give you much of a choice.  I own neither of those and may not until the current stuff breaks.  Takes a while, few moving parts.

I got a Blu-ray player a couple years ago (albeit as a Christmas present), but yeah, I'm not expecting to have the full home theatre set-up when I move out. Hopefully I can take the older TV we used to use though, which is still way bigger than the Cathode Ray Tube we had when I was little.