Didn’t realize the Globes were tonight lol

Rock wrote:

Didn’t realize the Globes were tonight lol

Eh, not missing much.  I'm just home fighting a light cold, so what am I going to do?

I can't believe that bullshit tepid puddle of a soundtrack for Oppenheimer actually won anything.  I dare anyone, after watching that film, to hum two fucking bars of that shit.  They can't.  No one remembers it after five minutes.

Again, no hate on Barbie, but it's so sad to see that place explode to life for that corrupt new category for "box office achievement".  What is this bullshit, "this award is about movie fans....it's about you."  Yeah, ya slobs with your unsophisticated taste that can't compete. 

On the other hand, my god, Margot, what kind of sparkly latex dress are you wearing, girl?  I'm watching - and enjoying - this show for all of the wrong reasons all around.
 

Jinnistan wrote:

I think it would be good to write up some kind of contrast between these films.  Even the complicated, irrational love of Maestro and Flower Moon is worth comparing.  I also want to dip into some of these reviews of Maestro which crumbs mentioned elsewhere, "All the critics complaining they forgot about this part of his life, or needed to include this particular character, should quit their jobs inmediately and start bagging groceries."  I think some of them deserve some scrutiny.  This Richard Brody in particular.  But I'll probably go further into that tomorrow.

It was just a quick look at some of the detractors of the film, and this was pretty much 100 percent consistent among all of them. Whether this is an overwhelming trend I don't know, but considering the friend I have who recommended I watched it, did so simply because he was reading the same things and wanted to know if I thought it was equally bullshit, makes me think it's the general criticism.

Which actually makes sense. They are clearly making these horrible biopics for somebody, right? The sentiment that keeps coming up with those who 'wanted more' from Maestro, seems to be that the film wasn't 'informative' enough. Now put aside the fact that a film can be 'informative' well beyond the margins of what it shows us specifically, which Maestro certainly does, it seems that people are feeling cheated if what they are getting isn't basically a moving picture version of the Wikipedia page.

Again, makes sense, considering everyone's views on fucking anything these days can be quickly scanned by whatever comes up first from their googling. Information!
 

The comparison between Leonard Bernstein and Robert Oppenheimer is somewhat facil but not difficult to draw in broad strokes.  Two Jewish geniuses in their fields, roughly a generation apart, ambitious to the point of obsessive, social liberals with some radical dalliances which threatened to undermine their careers.  But more centrally, both men with "grand inner lives", in Bernstein's words, with a "schizophrenic" compulsion to exert a public veneer of cool aloofness.  Their differences, as well, seem similarly cosmetic.  Bernstein is gay (or at least bi-sexual), Oppenheimer is straight.  Oppenheimer is also, arguably, far more adept at sustaining his aloof, disaffected exterior, with Bernstein more conspicuously affectionate in his interactions.  Both men however share the habit of chain-smoking as a metaphorical crutch for their cool veneers, a device which also ultimately becomes a semaphore for their insecurities.

But the contrast between the men themselves is less telling than between the films about them this year.  I found Cooper's Maestro more effective at specifically portraying the above qualities, these more intimate questions of the man's creative passions.  It's easy to say that, as a portrait of an artist, this focus is more apt than a parallel focus in a film about a scientist with more explicit political/martial/historical connotations.  Beyond the strained presumption of STEM/Liberal Arts segregation though, such distinctions fall moot on a personal level.  Since Nolan's Oppenheimer spends at least half of his film exploring Oppenheimer's private life, apart from his scientific and government work, it's fair game to then take a view on Nolan's comparative shortcomings in how he portrayed and presented Oppenheimer's "grand inner life".  Essentially, this is done pretty succinctly in a brief montage sequence at the beginning, less as an overture than a gesture of getting it out of the way, which shows Oppenheimer's cosmic awe of spiritual mystery and his love for the fine arts, music and literature which shares a reverence for that truth and beauty which eludes simple, mundane examination.  Oppenheimer's art is one of discovery rather than raw creativity, but it isn't difficult to see the mutually enriching and reinforcing power respecting the arts and sciences, far from seeing them as opposing or competing interest sets.  After flashing the avatars of Oppenheimer's artistic/spiritual fascinations - Baghavad Gita, Eliot's Wasteland, Picasso's post-impressionaism - Oppenheimer largely sets these passions of his inner life aside (except for that one questionable Gita citation - no, the other one).  This sits in tandem with the film's rather stunted attempt at portraying his other personal passion: women.  The problem is that the film never really convincingly shows Oppenheimer as a romantic person.  His sexual allure, charm and magnetism is not evident.  Note that none of this is the fault of Cillian Murphy's performance, and note as well how weakly developed any of Nolan's male protagonists have typically been as sexually interested/interesting creatures.  By contrast, Cooper is at ease in effortlessly demonstrating Bernstein natural emotional charisma, in distinctly both public and private contexts.  Even given Oppenheimer's tightly controlled public exterior, when the opportunity of intimate scenes arise, his chill remains unperturbed.  Maybe Nolan sees this sexual disaffection as a form of sophistication - he is a Bond fanboy, after all.

Finally, the issue with the music.  The most generous offer I can give is to say that Ludwig Goransson simply lacks the depth and vision to complement the depths of Oppenheimer's sensibilities.  But this doesn't let Nolan off the hook for his choice to saturate his films with constant, monotonous scoring.  He similarly abused his previous scores from Hans Zimmer and David Julyan.  This ubiquitous use of this static (undynamic) sheen of incidental tinkling only uncuts the ambience and natural rhythms of individual scenes, casting every setting with the same oppressive tone.  A more judicious application of the score, using it where it works (the Trinity test), and eschewing it where it doesn't (most domestic interiors), could do wonders.  How illustrative to this problem that Cooper's film, more overtly dedicated to a deeply and immersively musical man, chose not to structure his score in such a faux-operatic fashion, instead using appropriately selected pieces for appropriately dramatic moments, intuitively understanding these dynamics and respecting the musical contrast of silence and ambient space.

Oppenheimer may be the runaway award winner this year, and its technically accomplished professionalism may arguably justify its elevation.  But I think that these contrasts between how the respective filmmakers approached and appreciated their subjects is sufficient context to reconsider the hierarchy.  And I haven't even entered Flower Moon into this equation and comparison, in terms of its intimacy, dynamism and frankly a soundtrack which trumps them all.  Anyway, don't let my bias spoil the fun.
 

Here come the Oscars, and very few surprises.  One surprise is the inclusion of El Conde in the cinematography category.  I'm glad the film got some recognition, somewhere, although as good as its B&W photography is, it's still undermined by being so obviously shot on digital cameras, which can never capture the lush luminosity of celluloid B&W.  And, lest the horse still breathe, what a wasted opportunity to throw a bone to Wes Anderson's Asteroid City, the most neglected film of the year, but one where I would think its brilliant visual scheme would be universally appreciated.

But no.  The Academy is still only dirt-deep, and so instead Wes only gets a short film nom for his Harry Sugar, an impressive confection to be sure, but not on the level of substance of Asteroid City.  (Which Wes knew, which is why he abandoned the planned Dahl anthology film.)  In a way, it is the very type of Wes Anderson film that people who don't really like Wes Anderson films will superficially claim as definitive.  Hey, if Wes walks away with a statue for anything, it'll be worth it.

I guess the May December backlash has taken its toll.  I would maybe be more sympathetic, although I felt that the film was pretty obviously a scathing comment on the exact type of exploitation that it's now being accused of being.  But what do I know?  I couldn't figure out why so many people thought it was a comedy or "camp".  Turns out, a lot of people apparently found it a lot more mean-spirited than I did, but I still think that these same critics are now taking it out on the film for their own bad readings.  Regardless, I think the film would have been a long-shot in any category it would have been nominated for.

Was Greta Gerwig snubbed?  Maybe, but the director category is pretty stacked, and although I haven't seen Anatomy of a Fall or Zone of Interest (or Barbie either, come to think of it), I don't mind the former two sneaking in.  And Triet especially, since some folks are already using Barbie snubs as some excuse to claim misogyny.  And, seriously though, I honestly didn't even know anyone was considering Margot Robbie as a contender for Actress anyway.  Ryan Gosling can afford to complain, because he ain't winning nothing either.

Everyone seems to be putting their bets on Oppenheimer.  I'm already starting to think I was being too kind in my review of that occasionally thrilling lumbering turd.  Outside of Downey, and maybe Murphy, I don't think it deserves a single award it'll undoubtedly win.
 

I run the sex scenes in Oppenheimer should win the Oscars Cheer Moment. Or maybe the scene in Killer of the Flower Moon where De Niro spanks Leo.

Rock wrote:

I run the sex scenes in Oppenheimer should win the Oscars Cheer Moment.

Florence Pugh should present in the nude, and introduce a montage called "The Rebirth of the Flesh", showing all of this year's nude scene renaissance, from J-Law to Scar-Jo full frontal.  And then spank Leo for not liking bush.

edit: This year will mark the 50th Anniversary of "The Streak", so it will be very opportune. 

Last edited by Jinnistan (1/23/2024 10:44 pm)

Jinnistan wrote:

crumbsroom wrote:

What exactly was the issue people had with May/December, again?

The recent backlash has come about mostly because, since the scenario in the film is more-or-less openly based on the Mary Kay Letourneau scandal, the victim of that case, Vili Fualaau, has come out and condemned the film for exploiting his story without either consulting him or compensating him.  This has put a palpable chill on its award momentum this year.

I think this is more of an ethical issue than a legal one, but ultimately, I think the character, played by Charles Melton, is clearly the most sympathetic in the film, and Fualaau himself has signaled that he may have some unresolved issues about his relationship which he probably found disturbing from the film.  As a filmmaker, I personally would want to avoid any possible influence that might soften what the film was aiming for.  But, it's a controversy that's drawn some ire.

At least I can understand that. It's not an illegitimate complaint, at least coming from his perspective.

But just on the face of what the movie is or isn't...it isn't camp.