Academy Award nominations are out

[NebraskaRed]

Odd question: Why are there separate categories for Actors and Actresses? They put on a performance and gender should not matter in how they are recognized. No one would ever abide by a category of "Best Performance by a Person of Color" so why is there a differentiation based on gender. It was just my odd thought for the day.

it's a valid question. I'd guess that part of the reason is that there are far more movies with male leads than there are with a female lead. By dividing it into actor and actress, you're giving women a better chance to be nominated.

[FlightRick]

If [I]For me, biopics with actors playing showy roles with predictable character arcs are oscar-bait.

Ummmm, you realize that this is a precise description of what "The Revenant" is, right?

Not to discount the idea that the Academy certainly seems to have "a type," because they do. A meticulously made movie about events that actually happened, for better or worse, puts an emphasis on the process and art of filmmaking, and not so much on the entertainment value. And it's safe to say, the Academy LOVES it anytime it can reward the "art of filmmaking" over entertainment.

But that said, "The Revenant" is as oscar-baity as "The Theory of Everything" or "Steve Jobs" or "Joy" or "Trumbo" or "Wolf of Wallstreet" or "American Hustle" or "Argo" or "The Social Network" or "The King's Speech" or.... well, I'm kind running out of recent Oscar-winning movies I can remember that were biopics.... but the trend goes back a long ways, and I think you get the idea. "The Revenant" is one more for the pile.

I will say that while they all belong in the same pile in terms of "genre," that doesn't necessary mean that all oscar-baity biopics are created equal. Some definitely pack in more of the "entertainment" value on top of the filmmaking, and those are the ones that you end up continuing to watch and rewatch over time. I was stunned and pleased when "Argo" won a few years ago, and suspect it will join the ilk of "Apollo 11" and "Miracle" as biopics that I'll actually keep watching if I flip past it on TV. As opposed to roughly 8 out of 10 "best pictures" that gets all the trophies, but then, it pretty much fades into obscurity, because it's a movie that requires you to "appreciate" rather than just "enjoy." I haven't decided exactly how I feel about "The Revenant" along THAT continuum, so I'll leave it to others to debate, in my stead....



Rick

[RedEye]

To enjoy is to appreciate. To appreciate is to enjoy. Let's just say I don't get the binary personally -- though I understand where it comes from historically as a function of Hollywood entertainment and Oscars awards culture.

I understand that I am in many ways not the typical viewer though.

[RedEye]

it's a valid question. I'd guess that part of the reason is that there are far more movies with male leads than there are with a female lead. By dividing it into actor and actress, you're giving women a better chance to be nominated.

I think the simple answer is tradition. When the Oscars started in 1929, male and female lead roles were viewed as different in kind in many ways. My sense is also that gender was publicly discussed in far less fluid ways than it is now -- not to mention that the women's rights movement was just in its first stages.

In a way, Hollywood hasn't actually come that far in terms of gender disparities. There is still a huge double standard in terms of how a male actor and a female actor tend to be treated in the industry after a certain age, for instance.

[RedTeamGo!]

Ummmm, you realize that this is a precise description of what "The Revenant" is, right?

Not to discount the idea that the Academy certainly seems to have "a type," because they do. A meticulously made movie about events that actually happened, for better or worse, puts an emphasis on the process and art of filmmaking, and not so much on the entertainment value. And it's safe to say, the Academy LOVES it anytime it can reward the "art of filmmaking" over entertainment.

But that said, "The Revenant" is as oscar-baity as "The Theory of Everything" or "Steve Jobs" or "Joy" or "Trumbo" or "Wolf of Wallstreet" or "American Hustle" or "Argo" or "The Social Network" or "The King's Speech" or.... well, I'm kind running out of recent Oscar-winning movies I can remember that were biopics.... but the trend goes back a long ways, and I think you get the idea. "The Revenant" is one more for the pile.

I will say that while they all belong in the same pile in terms of "genre," that doesn't necessary mean that all oscar-baity biopics are created equal. Some definitely pack in more of the "entertainment" value on top of the filmmaking, and those are the ones that you end up continuing to watch and rewatch over time. I was stunned and pleased when "Argo" won a few years ago, and suspect it will join the ilk of "Apollo 11" and "Miracle" as biopics that I'll actually keep watching if I flip past it on TV. As opposed to roughly 8 out of 10 "best pictures" that gets all the trophies, but then, it pretty much fades into obscurity, because it's a movie that requires you to "appreciate" rather than just "enjoy." I haven't decided exactly how I feel about "The Revenant" along THAT continuum, so I'll leave it to others to debate, in my stead....



Rick

The Theory of Everything = LIFE of Hawking
Steve Jobs = LIFE of Steve Jobs
Wolf of Wall Street = LIFE of the Wolf of Wall Street

The Revenant = one week or so in the life of Glass

To me, a biopic tends to be about the life of a person, not one particular moment of their life.

[RedEye]

The Theory of Everything = LIFE of Hawking
Steve Jobs = LIFE of Steve Jobs
Wolf of Wall Street = LIFE of the Wolf of Wall Street

The Revenant = one week or so in the life of Glass

To me, a biopic tends to be about the life of a person, not one particular moment of their life.

Interesting. I agree with you generally that the genre usually has a larger scope. That said, the lines between "biopic" and "historical film that happens to be about a moment in a person's life" tend to get hazy at times. I just taught Young Mr. Lincoln last semester -- probably one of the most famous biopics out there, but also really only about a few weeks in the the man's life (although his historical stature is implied in so many ways throughout the film).

Actually, a quick Google search turns up some interesting other entries...

http://www.pastemagazine.com/blogs/l...-all-time.html

[FlightRick]

To enjoy is to appreciate. To appreciate is to enjoy. Let's just say I don't get the binary personally -- though I understand where it comes from historically as a function of Hollywood entertainment and Oscars awards culture.

If it helps, I don't view it as a necessarily binary distinction: in addition to enjoyment being a separate thing from appreciation, there are also situations where BOTH enjoyment and appreciation can be present, and where neither is.

And for whatever it's worth, I don't even most closely associate the distinction with movies. For me, it was music that led to to realize these were two different things. My favorite band of my formative high school years was Nirvana (where it turns out the drummer was the only really instrumentally talented one), and then my least favorite thing once I got to college was "Yeah, well, but you at least gotta admit they are GREAT musicians" from countless hippie Phish fans. Since I was in the midst of playing in a bunch of bands in and well after college, yeah, I wound up coming to appreciate when a talent well beyond mine was on display, but I also had to create the framework in which it was still OK if I didn't like it.

Thus, enjoyment vs. appreciation. I ENJOY the end product: the song or album or live show, which just gives me pleasure by sheer virtue of having consumed it. But when pressed, I will APPRECIATE the process behind a different thing: I could take or leave the actual end product, as it fills me with no instantaneous boost to my lifeforce, but if I step back and think about it, I can recognize the effort and the work that went into it as being a a notch above.

Obviously, the best thing is when something that hits me in my sweet spot (be it music or movies or books or TV or food or whatever) is also objectively very well made, because that makes it possible to go back to it, over and over again, and enjoy/appreciate it in countless different ways and configurations, depending on what mood I'm in. But by no means are those two things the same to me.... one is an almost involuntary response, but the other takes a little effort.


Rick

[RedTeamGo!]

If it helps, I don't view it as a necessarily binary distinction: in addition to enjoyment being a separate thing from appreciation, there are also situations where BOTH enjoyment and appreciation can be present, and where neither is.

And for whatever it's worth, I don't even most closely associate the distinction with movies. For me, it was music that led to to realize these were two different things. My favorite band of my formative high school years was Nirvana (where it turns out the drummer was the only really instrumentally talented one), and then my least favorite thing once I got to college was "Yeah, well, but you at least gotta admit they are GREAT musicians" from countless hippie Phish fans. Since I was in the midst of playing in a bunch of bands in and well after college, yeah, I wound up coming to appreciate when a talent well beyond mine was on display, but I also had to create the framework in which it was still OK if I didn't like it.

Thus, enjoyment vs. appreciation. I ENJOY the end product: the song or album or live show, which just gives me pleasure by sheer virtue of having consumed it. But when pressed, I will APPRECIATE the process behind a different thing: I could take or leave the actual end product, as it fills me with no instantaneous boost to my lifeforce, but if I step back and think about it, I can recognize the effort and the work that went into it as being a a notch above.

Obviously, the best thing is when something that hits me in my sweet spot (be it music or movies or books or TV or food or whatever) is also objectively very well made, because that makes it possible to go back to it, over and over again, and enjoy/appreciate it in countless different ways and configurations, depending on what mood I'm in. But by no means are those two things the same to me.... one is an almost involuntary response, but the other takes a little effort.


Rick

Phish is amazing

[Ohayou]

Kind of (but not really) surprised that The Force Awakens was snubbed for best picture.

[RedEye]

Kind of (but not really) surprised that The Force Awakens was snubbed for best picture.

You really view that as a snub? I like the film,
But I don't view it as nearly a candidate for best of the year.

[RedEye]

Phish is amazing

Ever talk to someone who doesn't appreciate jam bands and say that they "suck" because they view their pointless musical interludes as pretentious?

[marcshoe]

I've always been kind of meh about Phish, but I will say that Trey Anastasio's "Clint Eastwood" cover is amazing.

[RedTeamGo!]

Ever talk to someone who doesn't appreciate jam bands and say that they "suck" because they view their pointless musical interludes as pretentious?

I know you're joking, but no, not really. Usually people say it's dumb.

[RedEye]

I know you're joking, but no, not really. Usually people say it's dumb.

Whatever words they use, the point is that what you would be dealing with there is a refusal to understand Phish on their own terms. A refusal to engage with something (like saying it "sucks" or is "dumb" or is "pretentious") doesn't really advance the conversation very far. And the analogy with Malick kind of works in that both Phish and he are available to mainstream consumption, yet they are on its fringes stylistically, so also involve a sort of connoisseurship in consumers who want to appreciate them. Would you agree?

[RedTeamGo!]

Whatever words they use, the point is that what you would be dealing with there is a refusal to understand Phish on their own terms. A refusal to engage with something (like saying it "sucks" or is "dumb" or is "pretentious") doesn't really advance the conversation very far.

So my response is "phish is amazing" and then I walk away.