Ipickthiswhiterose
-
Posts
1,086 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Ipickthiswhiterose
-
-
I hope this is worthy of its own thread.
I thought I would write a post about a deep personal bugbear of mine. I should probably preface this that I am an acting coach at a drama school as well as director and producer in the commercial (immersive thatre) sector and have trained actors for over a decade. You are more than welcome to dismiss this, but I hope it contextualises that even if you disagree with my assertions here, I do at least vaguely know what I am talking about.
Since 2000, of the 38 Academy Awards handed for Best Actor or Actress, NINETEEN have gone to PURE facsimile biopic roles. To be clear, this doesn't even include somewhat expressionist renderings of characters (Olivia Coleman as Queen Anne), unknown people who have had their lives exposed (Dallas Buyers, the Revenant) or interpretations of real people into fictional equivalents (Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart). Just facsimile, tell-a-basic-story-about-a-notable-person biopics.
So thats half of the greatest performances of each year being straight up impressions of other real people.
In that time, ONE performance from a horror film has been nominated (Two if one is super generous and includes Sweeney Todd), and THREE performances from pure comedies (Bridget Jones, Depp for Pirates, O Toole for Venus) have been nominated (yes, there are loads more for Dramedies - but there is enormous difference beteween the demands of a comedy intended entirely to make people laugh and a dramedy where laughter is a bonus.).
Over 4 times more biopic performances have WON Oscars than horror and comedy combined have even been nominated.
And the thing is....A biopic performance mostly is just a copy of another personas behaviour. In terms of the order of skills to ask actor to engage in its literally the easiest. There are very, very few examples of biopics critically failing, and even fewer where the 'star turn' has been panned.
Compare that to the number of times where true greats have fallen flat on their face doing comedy or horror. Comedy and horror are REALLY hard to act in. The skills demanded are immense.
So I ask.....Is this okay? Am I the only person bothered with this pattern? Did you realise the trend was this extreme? Why do you think this is the case (if people care about this thread Ill shade my own thoughts later)? And is there any way or chance it will change?
Show 100 people Requiem For a Dream (not a horror film, but one that demanded similar performance demands and techniques) and Erin Brockovich and I challenge ONE to genuinely claim Julia Roberts' performance has the demands of Ellen Burstyn. They arent even in the same ionosphere of difficulty and at least in this case it tends to be universally accepted that Burstyn was screwed by the desperation to hand a megastar a big award. I would have thought the lunacy of the Roberts win would have started a backlash against the biopic, but if anything it has become turbocharged this century. Why has this genre, so insignificant at the box office, come to so dominate awards season above its station?
-
1
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, filmlover said:
Did it, though? Felt like everyone thought Judy had just as much, if not more, potential to be a disaster (think a Diana or Grace of Monaco) than it did at turning out well before it screened at the fall festivals.
Diana, Grace of Monaco.....maybe Gotti. Facsimile biopic critical failures are incredibly rare. Even the two you mentioned featured a lot of critics going to great pains to criticise the movie but not the performance. I'd also point out the two you discuss also came out the same year and so positioned themselves against each other.
I've said before and I'll say again: The easiest thing you can ask an actor do to is an impression. The number of Oscars given to biopics, especially given since 2000 is shameful. It takes up OVER HALF the Best Actor and Best Actress awards from Colin Firth to Adrian Brody, Rami Malek to Jamie Foxx, Eddie Redmayne to DDL, Helen Mirren to Meryl Streep, Marion Cotillard to Reese Witherspoon and others in between. In that time the horror and comedy genres between them can barely muster up a nomination. The line has to be drawn in the sand at some stage.
-
I really enjoyed this more than I was anticipating. Probably prefer it even Richie's earlier blokey-blokey films. What it loses in him no longer being grounded in anything like that world, it gains in his improved storytelling skills.
There's still some daft showey-offy sub-Tarantino dialogue that veers into cringe once or twice but for the most part the excellent acting covers it. And there's actually just a really good, solid, enjoyable story going on here, told well by a man who has clearly learned quite a lot by rubbing shoulders with massive broad populism for a bit.
-
21 minutes ago, Tower said:
1917 looks likely at this point, so 30.
Ah, whoops. Sorry am in UK so was thinking of 1917 as 2020, forgot it opened in 2019 in the US. You're completely correct.
-
On 1/5/2020 at 4:55 PM, Avatree said:
Can't remember record, i thought it was 36? But according to the numbers 2013 had 32.
Anyway a very quick look at schedule and my guesses:
1. Birds of Prey
2. Onward
3. Quiet Place 2
4. Mulan(...................)
Throw in a few surprises and it still won't get close to the record. Super weak year.
OUT!
Yeah, this list seems pretty comprehensive. Sure there will be a smattering of names that aren't on the radar, plus I do think Dolittle will squeak it at the start of the year (I think it will do poorly, but more of a Dumbo/Malificent2/GodzillaKOTM 'meh' than a total car crash), I'm fairly high on In The Heights catching a bit of fire, and even if Dune doesn't break out at Christmas there will be a *something* beyond CTA and WSS that will, but agree it won't just be short of the record but short of 2019 as well.
-
Little Women looks likely at this point, but seems like that's going to be it. Spies in Disguise looking unlikely. Even if Uncut Gems gets some major Oscars run or something I don't see it getting up to much beyond 70m.
Looks like it's topping out at 29 for the year.
-
The nominations for major awards aren't specifically/actively racist or sexist. They are, however, enormously lazy - making them somewhat passively racist, sexist, classist, and an awful lot of other things-ist because laziness involves being enormously weighed in favour of the established norm. There's a massive difference between that and being actively bigoted.
Take Best Director for example.
It's the three most famous directors (Mendes, Scorsese, Tarantino) plus the guy with a big populist hit that people can position as at least somewhat artsy (Phillips). After that there's one position left. It's that simple. And the more established massive-name directors and the guy with the biggest hit are all generally likely to be white men (except for the occasional likes of Cuaron like last year).
The Eggers, Aster and Mangold types are just as screwed by the system as women and minorities. They are just all screwed together. Because it's largely a popularity contest and the popular names are already established.
Now can you argue that a specific person might legitimately believe that Irishman, OUATIH, Joker and 1917 were 4 of the best director movies of the year in a year that also included The Lighthouse, Midsommar, Ford V Ferrari, Knives Out, Parasite, Farewell, Portrait OALOF, Little Women, Jojo Rabbit...yes.
Can you argue that those four movies are so fundamentally better directed than the other ones named that it justifies the pattern of them being nominated over and over again? No.
Just like one can't argue the predictability of Renee Zelwegger being a likely winner for a mundane biopic movie that came out a while ago and doesn't have any specific buzz for any other category despite the performances of many women before or since being, if not objectively better (for those obsessed with pretending everything involved in evaluating art is subjective), at the very least clearly more challenging roles. The call went out a year ago and the fix was in.
And if you think there isn't something ridiculous about Margot Robbie being nominated for a performance in which she has about 5 minutes of screentime and in which most of that screentime is spend watching a movie....I'm sorry, you're off your rocker. Not even Margot Robbie thinks she gave one of the best five supporting performances for OATIH, you can say that without even insulting her performance in the least - it barely lifts above a cameo.
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, The Futurist said:
Knives Out was just stOOpid and insulting, end of.
Rian Johnson is a joke.
But Rian Johnson s flaw is the same as every leftist, he s
naive and childish.
I don't know whether this is a parody or serious. I mean, I'd assume it was a parody.
But I suspect it's sort of trying to be both simultaneously, under the guise that is somehow enlightened and objective.
But just for the kicks, I'll bite: What is the issue you have with Rian Johnson's exploration of the dissonance between inheritance and meritocracy in Knives Out? Why is it specifically "insulting" rather than, perhaps, just something you disagree with? And regardless of the rest of the movie, how is the ending of any Star Wars movie more thematically appropriate to the previously-established Star Wars Universe than "Angry man completely overcome by rage and passion realises that he is just fighting himself and flailing around at nothing"
EDIT: Oh, and just for a laugh I'll throw in "Exactly what boundary-pushing, outrage-inducing comedy was the guy responsible for toothless broad comedy like the Hangover movies trying to make that 'couldn't get made' in the same year that Chris Morris' The Day Shall Come came out?"
-
18 hours ago, Avatree said:
I get that Edgar wright is amazing and all, but when was the last time a horror film finished with almost 4x its OW?
2017: Get Out did x6ish. Quiet Place wasn't far off x4 . Hereditary did well over x3.
2018: Escape Room did 3x last year.
-
14 hours ago, moms 4 opiuM 4 college said:
who is he targeting with his hazardous philosophy?
Contemporary America, which is supposedly predicated on a meritocratic capitalist system - but fails to ballast the supposed meritocracy of that very system by having any format to prevent a feudal society from developing since every generation that inherits privilege is subsequently immensely advantaged to win the "meritocratic" race thus resulting, over generations, in a system that isn't meritocratic at all but essentially just the aristocratic, feudal system that capitalism actually was designed to replace. With the nexus point of all this being the moment of inheritance and the question of what do you do with the money of a person who meritocratically earned a lifetime of wealth and luxury on their own merits - which few people have a problem with - but who doesn't have any family members worthy of the immense privilege they are about to receive despite having been inured to the lifestyle that it buys from birth.
Which is exactly what Knives Out, a movie approximately 25 times more complex than anything in any Star Wars movie Or the Joker, is addressing. Very well, I might add. With the perfect embodiment of the movie's central philosophy being stated in an exchange at the end of the movie (I won't spoil the movie, but it pertains to the "family mansion" and its origins)
Of course, some people would just consider this to be a discussion point, a thesis, or a piece of analysis being made by a movie maker rather than "hazardous philosophy" being as it is a critique of the society the filmmaker lives in which is traditionally considered one of the entire points of being an artist. But we live in weird times where if your put themes or perspectives into a movie, fauxbjectivists come along and decry you for making "hazardous" propaganda; and if you critique the specific contemporary version of ultra-deregulated capitalism that is currently our system of government ThaT MEanS Ur A COMmmuNiZt/&£*£$
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, La Binoche said:
All his pretentious quotes wouldn't be so annoying if he hadn't made the year's dullest, most been there/seen that movie. Every Marvel movie is better than The Irishbore, and Joker is leaps and bounds above it. Let's put Robert Deniro and Al Pacino in more mob movies with no women in them, no one's seen that before, that's cinema!!!!
To be fair...
You could pretty much iterate out the whole of Joker from the SNL Oscar the Grouch Parody. That's the extent to which it's following a (albeit non-superhero) formula.
Once you recognise the influences then, yes, you can definitely make an accurate summation mentally of at least 80-90% of the film based on just a couple of minutes of screen time.
That said, if I think the Joker was the Emperor wearing, if no clothes, at least somewhat skimpy attire, then the Irishman is the Emperor going Donald Duck.
-
1
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, CJohn said:
Is Jumanji still on track for 300M DOM? I really want a 3rd one after that ending.
On $202m after a £10m NYD.
Also about Half Billion international, has released almost everywhere now. Reported budget is £125m though so looking at a pretty decent profit at this stage regardless of what will still likely be some decent legs domestic and a few dozen million still left to come internationally.
I'd say they could happily green light another sequel if they wanted regardless of what happens from here.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Eric Laurence said:
Can’t wait for Greta Gerwig’s live-action Frozen!
Y'Know, while this is so very obviously an overture from Iger to Gerwig and we absolutely should expect her to be given a gun project sometime soon, I'd actually really rather love to see what she would do with a lesser profile property like The Rescuers or Black Cauldren. Or even a live action Fantasia.
As it is I suspect the one she is offered will actually be Hunchback.
-
32 minutes ago, Movie nerd said:
Imagine being that delusional and full of yourself to think that your personal opinions are some kind of undeniable facts.
Lovely bit of ad hominem.
How pleasant.
Again, there is difference between objective analysis and personal opinion and sensation. I really can't fathom why this is so difficult to grasp. Especially as I've clearly indicated I'm happy to listen to arguments: if you want to defend the Wayne material that requires outside-film knowledge or the hospital scene that seemingly undermines the notion that the character is a failure who has never been happy or indulged then you are welcome. Equally if you want to explain how I am meant to respond to the final scene or suggest what the film says about what support should have been given to this person with extreme narcissism and psychotic tendencies. Please go ahead. I already think it's a good film, it's not like I couldn't be convinced its a very good film. It's just that those are pretty large issues on top of the film's already accepted borderline-copycat nature.
And this literally just started with me asking if there was a chance Joker would be left off the nomination. All I'm doing since then is bolstering my opinion with evidence and analysis where appropriate. Like one does on a discussion forum.
-
20 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:
if you don't enjoy a certain film, don't pretentiously acknowledge it as your top film. If a film failed your scale of greatness, don't bend it for the sake of comforting the community you are in. Judge a film subjectively with objective parameters.
Joker has better editing, score and cinematography than Parasite. I reaffirmed my judgement. And I appreciate the God created me a different left and right brain from you.
I mean, this is just incoherent waffle mate, sorry.
A film doesn't have to be enjoyed to be good. I'm not bending anything for the sake of any community.
"Failed your scale of greatness"....but you've just admitted your only scale of greatness is whether you enjoyed it or not.
I'm glad you find greatness in Joker. I'm glad you overlook the very clear faults it has, especially on a narrative level. It still doesn't make it an objectively great, rather than good, film that is immensely derivative of other great films and completely contradicts its own rationale at least twice.
-
9 hours ago, RealLyre said:
it will still be subjective because people will respond to different movies differently, there are some who think Joker was handled and acted better than You Were Never Really Here or Taxi Driver.
It will be experienced subjectively but it can be evaluated objectively.
And the more films a person sees, and particularly the more they analyse, the more they can discern between their subjective response and objective quality.
I don't enjoy the Godfather in the least. I have no emotional connection to it whatsoever and it does not resonate with me. But that doesn't stop me from acknowledging that it is one of the best films ever made. Does my emotional connection play a part? Yes, I'd always argue it out of an all-time top 10. But not much more than that.
And one has the right to argue that Joker was better than Taxi Driver or YWNRH. Though you'd struggle on an acting basis since you'd be comparing it to the same actor working with a superior script in one case, and with one of the universally accepted GOAT performances on the other. I'm not saying you can't do it. But it would be a mission.
As for the comment afterwards. Claiming that Joker has better cinematography, score and editing than Parasite or Little Women is simply lol. Little Women is one of the best lit, designed and photographed movies I've seen in years and Parasite is an editing masterpiece.
-
4 hours ago, DAJK said:
I mean awards-wise. It's being turned into a victim, that would otherwise be winning everything if it weren't for sexist voting practices etc.
https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/cahirodoherty/little-women-awards-problem
I'm not saying the movie doesn't deserve awards. I haven't seen it yet, and I might absolutely love it. But at this point I feel like any opinion I have on the movie is going to be judged based on what my gender is.
Ah. The old "I haven't seen the movie but....." move.
This truly is the weakest of sauce.
PS: Even this opinion article, by a single Irish journo who isn't even from the movie trades and is trying to boost the movie because Saiorse Ronan is a beloved local, doesn't really imply that it should be "winning everything". Merely that you would think it would have been nominated for something by now given the quality of the film.
PPS: The observation that the movie shows technical excellence and is much beloved by most who have seen it juxtaposed against its lack of nominations thus far is of note regardless of the gender of the director. Just as it was last year with Leave No Trace, The Rider and You Were Never Really Here.
PPPS: I do hope you enjoy the film. I did. It's close to my favourite of the year, if not actually so. If not, I don't think you're a sexist. Though I might think you don't necessarily have the best taste.
Really hoping it can make it to the $100m mark, along with Uncut Gems and Knives Out as the big wins of the season. (Well, Frozen 2 is the big win of the season, but otherwise)
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Movie nerd said:
Of course it's entirley subjective as art is in general.
The point in having such concept as awards is that the group of people, in case of Oscars Academy members, decide which films and diffrent related with it things were best in given year. In their opinion. That’s all.
Evaluating art isn't entirely subjective either.
You still have precedents, structures and facets.
Anyone can LIKE whatever they want. And nobody has the right to tell anyone what they are allowed to enjoy or not. But negotiate on quality? Of course. Especially when it comes to how many films and how accustomed each person is to evaluating material.
Joker, for instance, has a clear precedent set in You Were Never Really Here. A film with almost the same themes, with the same structure, with the same lead actor was made last year. Only with additional social commentary surrounding child trafficking and a more detailed notion of the difficulties in defining a hero by someone who does net good deeds.
If you hadn't seen You Were Never Really Here, then the Joker probably looks a lot better as a film than if you have. If you have seen not just You Were Never Really Here, but also Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, then Joker looks like a nice replication of that formula for a broad mainstream audience, avoiding the more difficult questions. Which is nice. But as a movie.... without expanding on their themes (which it doesn't), saying something new (which it doesn't) or engaging in additional filmmaking technique (which it doesn't) then it can't claim to be as good as those predecessors.
My little God Daughter has declared The Lion King (2019) to be the best film ever ever ever. Her experience has just as much value as a movie critic, but her evaluation sure as heck doesn't
-
16 minutes ago, Movie nerd said:
You know it's just your opinion and not some kind of enlightened truth, right? You know that is all entirely subjective? Something which is a flaw in your eyes can completely be fine or even a plus in eyes of diffrent person.
Same with what movie is better or worse than the other or which one deserves awards recognition or not.
We will soon know what opinion Academy members have about all of this.
That's what matters in the subject of this discussion topic.
Of course it's my opinion.
But of course it's not all entirely subjective, don't be ridiculous. If it were all entirely subjective then there would be no point in having such concept as awards. Just give the award to the movie that made the most money and there an end.
How is undermining the thesis of your film in the final scene, by presenting SuperKool Joker as an edgy and hipster psycho killer when you have spent the entire movie developing a societal argument that he is in some way a product of his environment.... ever a good thing? Or even fine? None of the other movies in this conversation have something so utterly incongruous. Unless you want to argue that they do, which you're welcome to. Or if you want to mount an argument for the last scene, the children's hospital scene that shows the Joker being good at and enjoying his job, and the auxiliary Wayne material that requires context, to be important aspects of Joker as a film that I'm misreading. You can do that too.
I was under the impression that this was for discussing which movies we thought might and should win best picture. Which was what I first posted about, ever since then I've just been responding to people who have directly responded to me.
-
34 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:
I guess pretty much every film will have all these kind of flaws, perhaps even more if that was your approach of analysis
Not really, no. Some films are just good without necessarily being great. Joker is a good film.
And certainly not every film has a scene anything like as poorly made and written as the last scene of Joker. It is self-evidently appalling and undermines so much of the previous half hour. Which added to the scene in the children's hospital means that there are literally two whole scenes of Joker that directly undermine and contradict the seeming central concept of the movie.
Much worse films have been nominated and even won. But it isn't really a Top 10 of the year movie with so many issues and with not all that much to say.
If it wins it wins, and would join the likes of Braveheart and Forrest Gump as hugely popular, flawed movies that are good but nowhere near the best of their year to have won the Oscar. Though it probably isn't as good as Braveheart realistically.
I don't see how this perspective is particularly contentious. Do you have any issues with the critiques I've given? Do you want to formulate an argument (without appeal to popularity) for why Joker is a better movie than Parasite, Little Women, Knives Out, Irishman or Marriage Story (to use just a few movies I've seen that I can't come up with reasons how Joker could be perceived as stronger than)? I'm happy to listen.
-
21 minutes ago, Movie nerd said:
I would "objectively argue" (what a oxymoron in the context of discussion subject) that it's easily in top 10.
There is some excellence in the last half hour of Joker and it contains a superb performance but....
- The final scene is something from an 'edgy' 2000s horror film. It's damn cringeworthy, frankly, and on its own would take any film out of a genuine list of top class movies.
- It makes no sense whatsoever to have that end scene if it hadn't been used as a framing device (i.e. the same location and context was the opening scene as well)
- It has a twist that was editorially presented as a big OMG moment despite it being borderline obvious.
- It pretends to be saying far more than it actually is socially. It points at things like mental health provision and anarchic movements, but doesn't really say anything about them because it's far more concerned with enjoying the chaos.
- It's following a formula pretty closely. It may not be the standard superhero formula, but it still a pretty well trodden formula. Heck, the same actor was in a movie that followed the same formula last year. Only it didn't have a big famous IP attached so nobody cared.
- It overtly shows a scene of the principal character being good at his job, and being appreciated for the job he does at one point, only to totally ignore this fact the entire rest of the running time.
- Dedicating screentime to the Wayne/Batman narrative that depends on extracurricular knowledge, even though that supposedly isn't what this film is doing.
I like Joker. It's a good movie. In enjoyed it. Heck, It's better than three of the films nominated for best picture last year - because last years nominations were largely a shambles. But I really don't see how it's on the level of some of these other films when subjected to analysis.
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, DAJK said:
Outlets are desperately trying to pump up ROS and Little Women
What?
Little Women has had a great opening for a period drama that will veer female (thus no opening weekend rush) and possibly older. And all anyone is doing is posting numbers. How does that even vaguely compare with the massive overestimations by around $100m of where ROS will finish and accompanying articles from the trades that make no sense?
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Alli said:
I thought Knives Out was just ok. I'm surprised it's doing that good. Daniel Craig didn't have to do much sleuthing. It was more of a comedy.
It's a comedy on the surface but there is a large political undertone saying an awful lot about the juxtaposition between aristocratic feudal societies and supposedly "meritocratic" deregulated capitalism. As is highlighted by the dialogue at the end with Chris Evans. And indeed the fact that this is framed as a Peter Whimsy style historic mystery among the landed gentry despite the fact that it's set in present day America. It's ingenious, actually.
Knives Out and Little Women doing well warms my cockles, frankly. A delightful bit of justice. And while I haven't seen Uncut Gems, also great to see the wonderful A24 reel in some $$$.
-
4
-
-
With 49 Movies watched this year (UK Releases, hence Perfection and Favourite)
A
1. Little Women
2. Midsommar
A-
3. Booksmart
4. Knives Out
5. Ford V Ferrari
6. the Favourite
7. Marriage Story
8. Ad Asra
B+
9. Ready or Not
10. Shazam
11. Dolemite is my Name
12. Lego Movie: Second Part
13. The Perfection
14. Captain Marvel
15. Fighting With My Family
16. HTTYD: The Hidden World
17. Avengers Endgame
18. John Wick 3: Parabellum
19. Crawl
B
20. Hustlers
21. The Joker
22. Alita: Battle Angel
23. Good Boys
24. Godzilla KOTM
B-
25. The Aeronauts
26. Frozen 2
27 Us
C+
28. Escape Room
29. Happy Death Day 2U
30. Spider-Man FFH
31. Aladdin
C
32: Zombieland Double Tap
33: Jumanji: The Next Level
34: Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker
35: Toy Story 4
C-
36: Dora and the Lost City of Gold
37: Spies in Disguise
38: Animals
39: Pokemon:Detective Pikachu
D+
40: It: Chapter Two
41: Charlie's Angels
D
42: Pet Sematary
43: Always Be My Maybe
44: Hellboy
45: The Kid Who Would Be King
46: Cats
D-
47: Scary Stories To Tell In the Dark
F1
48: Brightburn
F4
49: The Lion King
Acting awards and Biopics
in And The Winner Is...
Posted
I would argue getting a script, evaluating it, determining that a real life person can be used to map it, then replicating that behaviour and incorporating it where possible matched against the given circumstances into your performance is a much higher order skill set than knowing from the start to replicate a performance.