Academy Awards (Oscars 2021)

The White Wolf

I remember only too well the complexity surrounding Heath Ledger's win. What helped is that after having watched all nominated performances, I felt his portrayal of The Joker edged it on merit (PSH was close second for me in Doubt).

That being said his win for TDK was just as much about how he was (wrongly IMO) snubbed for Brokeback. That's just how the Academy works. Would Ledger have won posthumously had he won years prior? My inkling tells me maybe not, and maybe that's what ultimately went against Chad; he just didn't have that buffer of a previously nominated strong showing.

branie2

Great that Anthony Hopkins won again

silliussoddius

JimmyVik wrote: »

You know I was thinking that the last couple of years.
The oscars has become a political show now.
They have gone to a stage of having to prove how woke they are, instead of stick to honouring the best performances.

I didnt even bother with it this year.

They must be sincere, it’s not as if they act for a living.

JP Liz V1

branie2 wrote: »

Great that Anthony Hopkins won again

30 years after his last win

Mad_maxx

Hopkins should have won for The Remains Of The Day , its his best performance in my view and was certainly superior to Tom Hanks in Philadelphia , i like Tom Hanks BTW

Mad_maxx

bigar wrote: »

Brendan Gleason (for Calvary) and Brian Cox (for Manhunter) deserved one a long time ago.

Calvary was pure crap

Mad_maxx

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Boseman had been winning most awards and his performance is supposedly great in that film

Boseman lead a quite life besides his Marvel media appearances, he was on the cusp of big things in his movie choices outside of Marvel

the film ( Ma raineys black bottom ) is mediocre

sporina

watched Nomadland tonight - we lovved it.. a feast for the soul as well as the eyes.. wudda loved to have seen it in cinema.. the soundtrack was bang on too.. felt almost transcendental at times.. oh I could go on but just remembered that this is not a review thread and I don't wanna spoil it for anyone.. but there wer so many scenes that tugged hard at my heart strings... McDormand was 1st excellent.. fair play to The Oscars for honouring this one.. and I didn't know she co produced it.. hats off to her!

Thought Angela Bassett gave a great performance for her from the heart speech/introduction :pac:

Watched about a 1/2 hour of it last night - then it dawned on me it wasn't live, so I thought "what's the point?" in watching this muck.

Mad_maxx

Deleted User wrote: »

Thought Angela Bassett gave a great performance for her from the heart speech/introduction :pac:

Watched about a 1/2 hour of it last night - then it dawned on me it wasn't live, so I thought "what's the point?" in watching this muck.

Stunningly beautiful woman

MfMan

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Stunningly beautiful woman

And a very fine actress also.

branie2

She was very good as Tina Turner in What's Love Got to do With It?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Hopkins should have won for The Remains Of The Day , its his best performance in my view and was certainly superior to Tom Hanks in Philadelphia , i like Tom Hanks BTW

Yeah but the topic of AIDs was zeitgeisty at the time. Philadelphia was Oscar bait if ever I saw it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Stunningly beautiful woman

Sure is. She’s a girl crush of mine.

MfMan wrote: »

And a very fine actress also.

Yeah, she’s great in anything I’ve seen her in.

JP Liz V1

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Stunningly beautiful woman

MfMan wrote: »

And a very fine actress also.

Ageless

Mad_maxx

MfMan wrote: »

And a very fine actress also.

Indeed

TomSweeney

I posted this on the woke thread ... I am a bit skeptical of posting here but here goes ...


Nerdrotic on the Oscars ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwvnTVy-pbE&ab_channel=Nerdrotic

and critical drinker on same ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aRGYPxoZQY&ab_channel=TheCriticalDrinker

MisterAnarchy

TomSweeney wrote: »

I posted this on the woke thread ... I am a bit skeptical of posting here but here goes ...

This one by Bill Maher is on the button too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AK-vrk9R-s

johnny_ultimate

I have close to zero tolerance / interest in the Oscars and everything that surrounds them, including their hollow, tokenistic gestures towards actual progress and general vibe of Hollywood self-congratulatory back-patting.

I’d still watch the ceremony a few times over before listening to some ‘anti-woke’ YouTube ‘skeptic’ ranting for an hour about identity politics or the SJWification of movies made for children. Insufferable garbage.

TomSweeney

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I have close to zero tolerance / interest in the Oscars and everything that surrounds them, including their hollow, tokenistic gestures towards actual progress and general vibe of Hollywood self-congratulatory back-patting.

I’d still watch the ceremony a few times over before listening to some ‘anti-woke’ YouTube ‘skeptic’ ranting for an hour about identity politics or the SJWification of movies made for children. Insufferable garbage.

sad

DavidLyons_

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I’d still watch the ceremony a few times over before listening to some ‘anti-woke’ YouTube ‘skeptic’ ranting for an hour about identity politics or the SJWification of movies made for children. Insufferable garbage.

Except all three videos above are approximately 7 minutes long and absolutely spot on. Not sure why you'd just off-hand dismiss valid opinions you clearly haven't listened to.

Not only is the quality of the storytelling within films being made over the last number of years dropping off a cliff but the preachy, pontificating guff the ones making them spout is the "insufferable garbage".

johnny_ultimate

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

sure why you'd just off-hand dismiss valid opinions you clearly haven't listened to.

I've unfortunately seen Critical Drinker videos before. I feel confident in off-hand dismissing his opinion.

Also have previously watched the Bill Maher clip. "Old man shakes fist at cloud" level rant.

As said, I have zero love for the Oscars. I have even less time for right-wing, perpetually furious YouTube warriors manufacturing outrage for hate clicks.

pixelburp

If I had a euro every time that Critical Drinker was quoted as some kind of Voice of Sanity, I'd have a lot of coin in this paperless age

Hollywood is performatively liberal. This is neither new nor shocking, particularly their proclivity for superficial demonstrations to that effect; maybe these YouTube bores should do a modicum of research into the history of Hollywood, they might learn that liberalism didn't come down with the last shower, or Twitter. Occasions such as that time Marlon Brando had a native American collect his award are good historical examples of something that isn't remotely new. (assuming they haven't mentioned them, I've no interest in giving Drinker another go).

The Arts, in general, leans left-wing. Always has done, by and large; I'm sure cleverer people than me have tried to figure on the why. Maybe it's due to arts requiring the kind of emotional self-examination and progressiveness conservativism tends to shy away from. So take that, add in the natural showboating performance of Hollywood and you get ... The Oscars. Artsy people tend to be lefties. Dog Bites Man.


It's not even that committed to liberalism either: Hollywood would remaster Leni Riefenstahl's. back catalogue if they thought it'd play well in China, so more fool anyone for taking these ceremonies as anything other than a bit of self-congratulatory pageantry.

That isn't going to change, the only difference being in the internet age you get these 20 somethings who think cinema started in 2008 with the MCU, acting outraged, every year, that Hollywood is liberal.

TomSweeney

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I've unfortunately seen Critical Drinker videos before. I feel confident in off-hand dismissing his opinion.

Also have previously watched the Bill Maher clip. "Old man shakes fist at cloud" level rant.

As said, I have zero love for the Oscars. I have even less time for right-wing, perpetually furious YouTube warriors manufacturing outrage for hate clicks.

Right wing !!


Come on sure you may as well say the N word ... go on ..

DavidLyons_

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I've unfortunately seen Critical Drinker videos before. I feel confident in off-hand dismissing his opinion.

Also have previously watched the Bill Maher clip. "Old man shakes fist at cloud" level rant.

As said, I have zero love for the Oscars. I have even less time for right-wing, perpetually furious YouTube warriors manufacturing outrage for hate clicks.

I know nothing of either of the youtubers whose videos are posted but they both nail this topic.

Bill Maher's opinion is less valid because he's older?? Strange. It seems to me that he's making some very important and perfectly reasonable points. I also wouldn't class the man as "right-wing" (the ever reliable way of the deluded to dismiss opinions on the internet nowadays it seems).

pixelburp wrote: »

It's not even that committed to liberalism either: Hollywood would remaster Leni Riefenstahl's. back catalogue if they thought it'd play well in China, so more fool anyone for taking these ceremonies as anything other than a bit of self-congratulatory pageantry.

Agree with this. The current overkill in preachiness wouldn't (and I expect won't) last much longer if they start to feel the pinch in their wallets.

MisterAnarchy

pixelburp wrote: »

Hollywood is performatively liberal.

The Arts, in general, leans left-wing. Always has done, by and large; I'm sure cleverer people than me have tried to figure on the why. Maybe it's due to arts requiring the kind of emotional self-examination and progressiveness conservativism tends to shy away from. So take that, add in the natural showboating performance of Hollywood and you get ... The Oscars. Artsy people tend to be lefties. Dog Bites Man.

Thinking in terms of left or right, conservative or liberal, is not an accurate way to understand the current cultural climate.

A far more accurate lens is cognitive liberty: those who demand you think a certain way are on one side while those who do not are on the other.

Liberal:
a person who is liberal: such as. a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.

These so called liberals are anything but open-minded.

pixelburp

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Agree with this. The current overkill in preachiness wouldn't (and I expect won't) last much longer if they start to feel the pinch in their wallets.

Again, I don't see anything that's overkill except the constant, breathlessly upset examination of Hollywood liberalism as if it's both new, or especially public. It's neither and the one thing I notice of this kind of YouTubers is that, TBH, they come across like weekend warriors using the YT algorithm and echo chambers to pull a modest career in bad faith takes. That and their neither know or care to know of nuance, or context.

I don't care if I sound like a snob, but every year these kind of people pop up to shout loudly about the Oscars, then disappear for the rest of the cinematic year. The Oscar are a ceremony for people who don't like cinema, and TBH anyone who loves cinema doesn't give a hoot about this exercise in public masturbation - except those with an axe to grind - and videos to monetise.

If a modern-day star had a Native American receive their award, these people would have had a meltdown. Or if the biggest star in Hollywood made a sweeping epic about communism, which was beloved of the Academy. Or the endless, endless "we solved racism" films that have been going on since "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?"

Call Hollywood out on its hypocrisy by all means, but calling it out on its performative liberalism is like criticising the sea for being wet. It's just boring, and idiotic.

DavidLyons_

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Thinking in terms of left or right, conservative or liberal, is not an accurate way to understand the current cultural climate.

A far more accurate lens is cognitive liberty: those who demand you think a certain way are on one side while those who do not are on the other.

Liberal:
a person who is liberal: such as. a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.

These so called liberals are anything but open-minded.

This all day.

MisterAnarchy

pixelburp wrote: »

Call Hollywood out on its hypocrisy by all means, but calling it out on its performative liberalism is like criticising the sea for being wet. It's just boring, and idiotic.

Hollywood is not being called out for its performative liberalism.
Its being called out for its hypocritical virtue signalling, and woke falseness.
It has no substance.

It supposedly stands for everything but in reality it stands for nothing.

If you have a difference of opinion with these "liberals" , you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin.
You are a racist, a homophobe or whatever the villain of the day happens to be.

pixelburp

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

This all day. Certain posters seem to struggle to grasp this.

Certain posters. Sigh. It's not hard to understand; it's just also patently obvious when watching videos like the above, that the stance being peddled is neither neutral nor honest. The closest I'd watch would be someone like Jonathon Pie, and even he can't resist a frequent "fúck the tories" angle; but at least he's open about it. By his own admission he's hated from both sides of the political spectrum so that's when you know you're properly satirical

The internet, Twitter especially, is a pox upon nuanced discussion and understanding the context of people's intent or beliefs. You'll get no argument with me there. But that's a stain that covers all those 'isms - liberalism, conservatism, left-right whatever. And all the worst excesses within those banners.

But WITHIN the context of modern-day Hollywood, to pick on them as being somehow especially bad purveyors of whatever angle displeases the audience doesn't pass the smell test. "Hollywood is hypocritical" is not an especially difficult angle to take, it's just funny how it isn't at the forefront of some arguments either.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Hollywood is not being called out for its performative liberalism.
Its being called out for its hypocritical virtue signalling, and woke falseness.
It has no substance.

It supposedly stands for everything but in reality it stands for nothing.

If you have a difference of opinion with these "liberals" , you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin.
You are a racist, a homophobe or whatever the villain of the day happens to be.

I don't agree, and I don't agree that it's always "just asking questions" of hypocritical "virtue signalling" because when the angle of attack becomes "does it star a woman or black person?" the nobility of purpose in criticising Hollywood becomes suspect. Corners of YouTube blowing up because Star Wars has a black stormtrooper, review bombing Captain Marvel etc. Whatever the fúck happened around Ghostbusters 2016, where everyone came out looking like an idiot. If you're truly against hypocrisy then, you have to acknowledge that those who purport to be doing God's work are not doing so in good faith either.

And to the villains, like who? I mean I'm thinking on James Woods or Jon Voight; both seemed happy to dive into right-leaning politics that aren't going to wash, regardless of era. Or Jim Caviezel, who recently blotted his own copybook for jumping in with the "adrenochroning" conspiracy crowd so no great loss either. Beyond that you got Todd Phillips lamenting the death of comedy cos of "PC gone mad" but he seemed to be doing all right for himself with his Scorcese knock-off.