Oscars

[JundtHeald]

David, how did you like the Oscars?
Jamie

[MrMacabre]

(Yes, I know I'm not David, but...)

As far as the oscars go [or any other film-related event / topic for that matter], I'll just be glad if I never hear about the Lord of the F**king Rings again!!!

[DAVID HESS]

Wouldn't mind winning one, Jamie,
As far as the quality goes. It gets suckier and suckier. I'd be careful, they may dislocate their respective shoulders, if they are not careful. Do the work and get on with it. You don't need instant gratification 24/7. Basically, it's Hollywood applauding themselves at the expense of the public. I don't know if I'd ever go. But then, I haven't been invited yet. [img]graemlins/film.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/film.gif[/img]

[Edwardt]

I agree with Mr. Macca; Lord of the Rings is symptomatic of everything that's wrong with Hollywood, and by extension, the entertainment industry as a whole. In fairness to the film, I didn't see it, but as an adult, do I really want to see a movie about fairies and elves? In the past, movies seemed to be aimed at adults. Now, everything is aimed at the youth market, and is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator (don't want to seem like an elitist, but if you compare the movies of today with what was being put out 30 years or so ago, you'll see what I'm saying). The music industry is another glaring example of this. There are abundant musicians of talent around, but instead of featuring them or their works, we're bombarded constantly with images and music (?) of Britney Spears or Jennifer Lopez or whatever other marginal or mediocre talent is being promoted this week. Sorry to go off on this perennial rant of mine, but it's obviously something I feel strongly about...
Anyway, I did see some of the work that won Oscars and for once I was in agreement. "Mystic River" was a flawed movie, the storyline was too convoluted for my taste, but the acting was superlative, and Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are 2 of the better actors at work in America today. I also saw Charlize Theron in "Monster" and was quite impressed with her performance. Obviously, a remarkable transformation was wrought via makeup, but to attribute the effectiveness of her performance to this factor alone sells her short. So, all in all, I think some quality work did get some recognition. Then again, the Oscars lost all credibility for me when "Terms of Endearment" won best picture. It's pretty clear that other considerations go into picking the winners than quality.
Ed T.

[Tard]

"'Lord of the Rings' is symptomatic of everything that's wrong with Hollywood"

Sorry to disagree here, but LOTR was New Zealand, not Hollywood. New Line allowed him the budget that TWO earlier movies totally failed at fleshing-out successfully. Wingnut Films should have won an Oscar or two for Heavenly Creatures, or at least a SFX-makeup nomination for the zombie-comedy BrainDead. [img]wink.gif[/img]

No-matter who the Aragorn & Legolas prepubescent screaming fans seem to be currently, LOTR was written in the 1950's, for an older generation. I read the novels over 20-years ago, and am overjoyed someone has FINALLY found a way to translate Tolkiens story to film. Wasn't that also the problem with Heart Of Darkness until Francis Ford Copolla took-up the job? That it was a story which couldn't translate into a movie?

[Edwardt]

Well, maybe it's a matter of taste regarding that particular film. To be truthful, I have as much desire to see TLOTR as I do to see the Jesus movie. A girl I knew 20 years ago induced me to read the book. I made it through 2 chapters before giving it up. Not that the writing was bad; I just couldn't get into the story or the whole Hobbit-style mythology. As for translating books into film, seems a very difficult process to me. I always loved Dracula, and I've yet to seen a definitive version of it done. The BBC did a version with Louis Jourdan years ago that probably came closest, but even that left a lot to be desired. I've never read Heart of Darkness, but Apocolypse Now is a difficult movie for me to watch, mainly because of the promise of what might have been. As critics have commented, the first part is masterfully done, but the 2nd part is just a pretentious mess, in my opinion. As much as I like and respect Brando, I thought he was wrong in the pivotal role he played. I don't know how closely the story adhered to the Conrad book, but I don't think Coppola ever made a worthwhile movie following that. And I still stand by my initial statement that as a general rule Hollywood (take it as a euphemism for the mainstream moviemaking industry if you will) increasingly bypasses adult or provocative themes in favor of fantasy or works that appeal primarily to a youthful market. Where's the inspiration? We pride ourselves on being a diverse culture. I contend there's depressingly little diversity in the mainstream entertainment industry today. We're cannibalizing old sitcoms, cop shows, and cartoons for our movies. Nothing speaks more eloquently as to how bankrupt the industry is than that.

[JundtHeald]

Wow, I thought The Lord of the Rings trilogy was one of the best series of films I have ever seen. Sure, people might not be into fantasy but there is no denying how well-made those movies are. From special effects to screenplay to acting and directing, all were top notch. And it isn't for children at all! Harry Potter, yes. Rings, no way.

[Tard]

The only 'problem' I see is the Oscar-voting-committee waiting until the LOTR series was complete before giving anybody kudos. By the end, they realized the ending was just as well-made as the first third of the movie! Academy awards have a tendency to snub 'fantasy' movies,

Totally unlike MATRIX, where the first movie was revolutionary, the middle-chapter confused, and the ending let everyone down.

So you didn't even read the trilogy, eh? I started with Tolkien's childrens-book 'The Hobbit' right before diving-into 'Lord Of The Rings' & all the appendices to follow. Guess that girl 20 years ago didn't 'induce' you all that much, if you quit reading after 2 chapters....

[Tard]

I'm somewhat similar as you with books. Put in the time to start reading it, damn well better have the stamina to finish it.

Only three books I can remember starting that gave-up reading before the end. 1) Thomas Pynchon 'Gravity's Rainbow' 2) James Joyce 'Ulysses' (in both cases, realized after 150-someodd pages I didn't have a CLUE what either book was talking about) 3) The Bible, old testament (I read books from beginning-to-end, no deviation or hopping between sections. But it's the non-narrative lists of names & lineage page-after-page which always burns me out right from the start. I can never get past Genesis...) [img]graemlins/sleepy.gif[/img]

[Edwardt]

Yeah, I agree- the Old Testament was tough reading. The New Testament came across as somewhat more progressive and humane, but only marginally so, in my opinion. I shared your experiences with Joyce. I read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" a long time ago. Joyce certainly had a beautiful way with the written word, but his storylines were a little too non-linear for my taste. I read the Bible straight through and did so because of what I humbly feel is an innate sense of fairness within myself (or am I being arrogant?). After a lifetime of being force-fed Christian dogma, my hostility toward religion was fairly intense but I had never sat down and actually read the tome on which it was all supposedly based. So, in the interests of fairness, I did so. A great portion of it was profoundly boring, or narrow minded, or hateful. Some of it was allegorical and poetic. A lot of it was interesting to me as a cultural and/or historical document. The most interesting thing about it, for me, was the dichotomy between the way Jesus had been presented to me as a child and the interpretation I got from my own reading, with what was hopefully an open mind. To me, Jesus came across as a Marxist. He allegedly consorted with prisoners and prostitutes, the poor and destitute. He said it would be nearly impossible for a rich man to enter into Heaven. Considering the wealthy and elitist people who claim to be so into him and, ostensibly, his ideology, this indeed came as a revelation, pardon the pun. Not that it in any way made me more religious. Just more aware, I guess, but that's always the most important result of any reading you do. As an agnostic, the only religious system that seems to make some kind of realistic sense to me is Buddhism, perhaps.
Ed T.
PS- Speaking of the Bible and Jesus, while I agree with David that it's probably important to see Mel Gibson's film, I hate the idea of putting anymore money into the man's pocket. It bothers me greatly that this is presently the nbr 1 film in America. Kinda sad, although I was surprised to hear a Presbyterian minister on a NY classic-music radio station rip into Gibson and his "vision." I guess the moral there is that not all religious people are intolerant and inflexible.