Comments on: The 80th Academy Awards: The Day After

By: theottery

theottery — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:41:05 +0000

Meh. Still haven’t seen Atonement, though I’m planning to remedy that this week, and never will see No Country for Old Men. Come to think of it, the past four Best Picture winners are all films I either had no desire to see or was morally opposed to seeing (Million Dollar Baby). I’m glad to hear your endorsement of Atonement, though, because most of the reviews I’ve read have been mediocre.

As for foreign films not winning, are you at all appeased by the fact that all the Best Acting winners were furriners? I mean, Hollywood’s so proud of itself for its nobility extending the awards to white Europeans. Here’s Stephen Colbert on the topic: http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_goldderby/2008/02/stephen-riffs-o.html

By: BoogaFace

BoogaFace — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:50:28 +0000

“No Country for Old Men” winning so much is depressing.

First, for adaptation? True, this is a rare case of the movie being better than the novel, but if you read the book, you can see that the Cohen bros. didn’t have much to adapt. The book was deliberately written for the screen. All the Cohens had to do was cut out a lot of the annoyingly endless and repetitive dialogue.

Second, while I love the Cohen bros., this was not even close to being their best work.

Third, the movie is xenophobic. After “Lone Star”, how can anyone plausibly make a movie set in a Texas border town and not have a single Hispanic character? And what’s with the cartoonish personification of evil as a vaguely foreign guy?

Fourth, Atonement was way better, in terms of its combination of sound, visual, character, plot, etc. It’s a first-rate adapatation and a powerful movie. My guess is that the only reason it didn’t win is the same reason why foreign films never win best picture at the Academy.

By: theottery

theottery — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:33:55 +0000

They do so insult the dress.

I imagine it’s rather difficult not to dress like a droopy Grecian urn when you’re pregnant.

By: Mink

Mink — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:32:42 +0000

Whatever – they’re not insulting the dress – they’re insulting her inability to stay in it. That’s different. And a cavewoman look sure beats the droopy Grecian urn look on the Cate Blanchett page… Them you-know-what’s are getting even less support… And once again, my interest in the Oscars is entirely haute couture.

By: theottery

theottery — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:53:03 +0000

I might have to fight you about Hilary Swank’s dress. Of course, I’m unreasonably biased against the one-shoulder look that’s in right now. It makes me think of cavewomen. Plus, you are much prettier than Hilary Swank. Finally, to back me up in my dislike of her outfit, I have the Fug Girls on my side: http://gofugyourself.typepad.com/go_fug_yourself/2008/02/oscar-fug-car-8.html#more

By: Mink

Mink — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:43:52 +0000

A few comments from Mink:

Uh, Cate looked fabulous – her dress, not so much. In fact, most people’s dresses looked like they got them off-the-rack at the same store.

Whoah, I think that Hilary Swank picture looks like me. At least *her* dress is good.

And why is Tilda Swinton so inclined against makeup? She looks freshly showered. Wearing a black dressing gown.

And why is Mr. Day-Lewis’s last name hyphenated? Probably hyphenating it some more would be even sillier though: Daniel Day-Lewis-Miller.

And Helen Mirren is splendid.

And I really shouldn’t say anything else since I didn’t watch the Oscars, or the movies they were awarding. But thanks for keeping me in the film loop, Otter, if only for the fashion tips…