The 89th Academy Awards (2017) Movie • Page 9

The fact that a film was difficult to make does not per se make it worth seeing or good. Obviously.

That said, anyone who argues that La La Land was easy to get made, or that its difficult road to getting made is a lie or a fake narrative, is just wrong. Plain and simple. That doesn't make it the best film of the year, far from it, but it does mean that it was clearly a passion project and a labor of love for the director. Like, seriously, it has legitimate flaws that actually deserve criticism. Arguing this instead is just absurd, especially when it's just a flat-out incorrect position to advocate.

 

Whiplash was the rare film that checked all the boxes. It made a lot of money (relative to its budget), it was nominated for a lot of awards, and it was liked by most critics. Having that kind of success gives you access that very few directors get. Spike Lee has been respected for decades and had to beg for money on Kickstarter to get his musical made.

It was obviously a passion project (Chazelle has a musical background and makes films revolving around it), but most films are passion projects. Outside of your Batman/Jurassic Park/Star Wars, the vast majority of films and filmmakers face enormous difficulty in being made. They have to be passionate to make these films instead of cashing in and making another Transformers movie. This is true for great movies like Moonlight, it is okay for decent movies like La La Land, and it is even true for garbage like The Neon Demon. It is thus tiring that this seems to be a yearly trend; someone else already pointed out how the entire narrative about The Revenant was how much physical torment that Leonardo DiCaprio went through. cwhit posted a really good article refuting the idea that musicals are somehow financial poison; every couple years we have a musical come around and make money and win awards. You can go back to the La La Land thread and look at the general excitement for it from the moment it was announced. There are very few people who openly hate it; it has some great use of colors and a few fun moments even if overall it is lacking in deeper meaning.

I find this stance of yours confusing because of how much emphasis you put on diversity. The film about a gay black kid, even with a much smaller budget, is a miracle for getting so much recognition, especially given the recent political climate. On a much more global scale and going back to another conversation we had, Jafar Panahi laughs at the idea that it was hard to get La La Land made when he is arrested for making movies and has to smuggle his most recent movie on a flash drive smuggled in a birthday cake.

 

Like I said, I'm not arguing this. I don't think La La Land is anywhere near the best film of the year. It's a good film that I liked and that's it. I've said that many times between this thread, the La La Land thread, and others. All I'm saying is that the film was difficult to get made for a number of reasons, took at least six years to get filmed, and required the director to make an entirely other film that had to win three Oscars before anyone would give him the funding to make even a much smaller-scale, cheaper version of what it became. This film was hard to get made, and that is a verifiable fact. Other films that came out last year may have been harder to make (Silence took Scorsese like 30 years to get made) but that does not discount that this one was as well. That is all. Arguing otherwise is dishonest and detracts from the legitimate criticisms that can be levied against it.

 

I'm baffled as to how this detracts from La La Land but literally ignoring Moonlight isn't a detraction.

 

?

 

La La Land was hard to make but Moonlight's road to success was far steeper. The production struggle narrative exists for only one of those films.

 

I literally just said this but I'll say it again. All I was saying was that people who claim La La Land was this swiftly-made, slam-dunk easy greenlight production are wrong. I'm not saying that it was the hardest film to get made of all time, or even of 2016. And it certainly wasn't the film that had the hardest road to success with awards bodies. But the pushback against the film shouldn't be arguing that "No, like, actually it was pretty simple to get made and was definitely going to connect with audiences from Day One." It should be for its lack of meaningful diversity, or for it forgetting to be a musical for a good stretch of time in the middle, or for any number of other reasons. Honest criticism has way more weight behind it because it doesn't make the critic sound like they have a personal grudge against the film and are actually evaluating it objectively.

 

I do read and listen to Wesley Morris all the time, he's one of the few who I just really love to hear talk about anything. (He was great on the latest BS podcast today.)

Not really, I mostly just follow friends and people I know on the interwebs. Like you! Haha, you're a good Letterboxd follow. I am only following like 15 people, but I know/know who they are which I like compared to the huge funnel that comes from Twitter/Facebook.

 

The pushback exists because the marketing team behind the movie is using it as a way of arguing that they should win, just like The Revenant did. Spotlight was supposedly brave for criticizing the Church, even though I think roughly 100% of people admit that the Church was wrong for covering up the molestation. The Big Short was a Very Important Movie because it talked about the recession, even though it was childish and condescending. In fairness, even a movie like Boyhood, one of my favorites of the decade, tried to use that same card of being so hard to make.

 

Let them use it then. It's not false. They aren't lying. They're stating a fact. It was difficult to get made. You're going to fault the studio for using a fact about their movie to their advantage?

Instead, criticize the media for buying in. Criticize them for not recognizing that, even though something like Moonlight maybe was easier to get made with a company like A24 behind it, it had a much more difficult road to awards success than La La Land did. Or criticize the media for not shining a brighter light on the Academy's inherent bias against foreign films in other categories beyond Best Foreign Film, because that is a struggle in and of itself as well. These are just some examples of more constructive things to do instead of dishonestly trying to claim that a film which was demonstrably not easy to get made was in fact a sure thing from Day One six years ago.

EDIT: And yeah, Boyhood was the literal king of "Look at my movie that was so hard to get made, give me all the awards just because it took so long." That campaign was way, way more egregious than La La Land's.

 

I need to check out Morris' podcast so I can listen to him talk with someone other than Bill Simmons. I enjoy the BS Podcast, but unless he's talking about sports movies I do not really enjoy listening to Simmons talk about film in general.

I appreciate that. I like Letterboxd a lot and the close circle it creates (I don't follow many people either, I think just 14). But I do think there are worthwhile critics out there and there's good writing on film out there, I just think it's largely independent of the traditional Rotten Tomatoes critic mode that a lot of people are familiar with. Most critics, I think, overwhelmingly engage in their writing about film from a deeply uninteresting place.

 

Hey Wesley Morris went to the school I teach at!

 

I just started going through the nominees for Best Documentary, and I didn't realize that OJ: Made in America was a five part miniseries (5 episodes, 90 minutes each). Almost done with the first part and I am incredibly captivated.

After I finish it, I'm heading to 13th.

 

I loved La La Land and want it to win, sorry guys. I don't even usually like musicals.


Also, are the acting noms basically locked for Affleck, Stone, Davis, and and Ali?

 

I think it could go pretty evenly to Stone, Huppert or Portman right now for Actress. The other three seem like pretty safe locks.

 

I think I'd prefer any other movie but la la land to win. I'd pick moonlight than Manchester as my favorites.

 

Affleck and Davis are 100%. As for the other two, I'd want to wait until SAG gives out their awards before settling on favorites, however if the ceremony were held tomorrow I'd put my money on Stone and Ali. Ali should win, and I hope he will. Of the five actresses nominated I'd love for Huppert to win, although Stone is most likely given that Portman has won before and the Academy has been enamored as of late with rewarding young actors in showy roles. Two of the best lead performances of the year weren't even nominated though (Amy Adams and Annette Bening), so the category isn't even as competitive as it should be.

 

I could actually see Denzel spoiling in Best Actor if enough academy voters are swayed away from Affleck due to the controversy, plus Denzel has industry clout and respect in spades. Plus imagine an 80 something academy voter looking at the nominees, it's likely they might just check Denzel cause they know him and like him, and maybe thought he was great in the stage version. There are a few paths where I could plausibly see Denzel spoiling. Affleck is definitely the heavy, heavy favorite but I dunno if I'd go 100% quite yet, but definitely like upper 80s at least lol

 

The average Academy voter has typically been most likely to vote for the heavy favorite/most buzzed-about actor in each category, rather than just absent-mindedly check off someone they know already or liked in previous films. Oscar buzz can become almost a self-fulfilling prophecy in that way. And as seriously troubling as the allegations against Affleck are, I don't think the Academy cares all that much, to be honest. I mean, Mel Gibson just got nominated for Best Director and had his film nominated for Best Picture, and his personal resume of awfulness is far more extensive and highly-publicized. I doubt it affects his chances, even though it probably should. I don't see Denzel spoiling his night, even though I thought Denzel gave one of the best, if not the best, performances of his career in Fences, on top of also directing it.

 

Yeah I don't think it's likely for Denzel to spoil, and definitely would put strong faith in Affleck prevailing, my point overall is that I wouldn't really be SHOCKED if Casey came up short with Denzel ended up winning so I wouldn't go full on 100%. Maybe a big part of me just doesn't want Affleck to win too despite my love for the film and admiration for his tremendous performance. And maybe I'm just trying to make the race seem more interesting than a foregone conclusion in my head haha

 

Yeah the locks really do suck the fun out of everything. At least this year we have a real race in Best Director, even if Best Picture already seems like a foregone conclusion. Birdman is the only film since 2011 to win both Best Picture and Best Director, so they could very well split again and give Director to Barry Jenkins. Once the DGA gives their award we'll know who the true frontrunner is. The screenplay categories also could turn out to be competitive, although I think Moonlight and La La Land will ultimately win Adapted and Original Screenplay, respectively. Although it would be awesome for Lonergan or Mills to steal Original Screenplay from Chazelle instead.

 

Personal Preferred Picks (Actual Picks on Oscar Sunday)

Best Picture: Moonlight
Best Director: Barry Jenkins, Moonlight
Best Actress: Isabelle Huppert, Elle
Best Actor: Denzel Washington, Fences
Best Supporting Actress: Viola Davis, Fences
Best Supporting Actor: Mahershala Ali, Moonlight
Best Original Screenplay: Manchester By The Sea
Best Adapted Screenplay: Moonlight
Best Animated Feature: Kubo & The Two Strings
Best Cinematography: Silence
Best Documentary Feature: 13th
Best Foreign Language Film: Toni Erdmann
Best Film Editing: Moonlight
Best Sound Editing: Arrival
Best Sound Mixing: Arrival
Best Visual Effects: Doctor Strange
Best Costume Design: Jackie
Best Makeup & Hairstyling: Star Trek Beyond
Best Original Score: Moonlight
Best Original Song: "How Far I'll Go," Moana
Best Production Design: Hail, Caesar!

Haven't all or even most of the shorts yet, so I don't have preferences yet regarding those. I liked Piper before Finding Dory, though.

 

I mean, wasn't the story behind La La Land that the only way anyone was going to make it was if Chazelle changed the ending and replaced his college roommate with a different composer?

I love how pieces like that Spin article try to pretend that movie musicals are a sure bet because Hamilton is popular and film adaptations of musicals like Les Mis and Chicago (massive Broadway hits with endless popularity and profitability as touring productions) do well. An original musical in the song and dance style is a whole different breed. How many of those have there even been in theaters in the past 10-15 years? The biggest "original movie musical" of our time before this was probably High School Musical and that was TV.

 

The characters mostly, they were so well written and funny.

I can see that, since I didn't even know it was Aaron until halfway through the movie. He did do a good job.

Well its an award show in America, so I would never expect a flood of foreign films, esp when there is a best foreign film category. What I mean by that is its not all indie dramas or bio pics like most of the time. There's an Alien film, a musical and a war film mixed in.

 

Without derailing the thread too much, anyone who's seen a lot more stuff this year wanna rec like 5 movies that would be up for best picture in a perfect world? I wanna watch some big snubs - not the 'woah, I expected that oscar bait to get some oscar love' snubs, but the amazing stuff that a bunch of you say gets routinely ignored year in and year out. I'm a casual serious film fan and it's a reasonable time to dive in deeper.