Film Awards Season 2013-2014

[kokobombon]

The story and direction are completely independent from one another

yeah, I tried to commend their ability to tell the story. Im not familiar with Cuaron's work (other than Tu Mama...) to say if his style is more singular or distictive than Cameron's though.

 

[pixiedust1603]

I think oddly enough, Prisoner of Azkaban is a good example in showing how distinctive his vision is. It's the only Harry Potter film in which the director's style is explicit. He loves his long takes and his director style is quite natural, I feel anyway. James Cameron is very Michael Bay but with prestige, in my opinion anyway but perhaps that is because he's informed and influenced the way that directors in action movies do direct.

 

[kokobombon]

^I´ll take your word for it, all HP movies blend together for me

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Yes; I agree with Pixie re: keeping story and direction separate. Cuaron's other work - even if you don't love Gravity, which I don't (thought it was just good, not great) - shows his directorial qualities. I am sure bringing this story to life required a lot of extra input from him. He does capture some poignant and intense moments.

 

[Label Basher]

James Cameron is very Michael Bay but with prestige,

LO burn. Love it

I lost the office poll by 1. I'm so sad and outraged

 

[Not Plain Jane]

If it's any consolation Label Basher, I heard on the radio this morning that most people "won" or came very close to "winning" their office pools because the Oscars were so predictable this year! LOL - some truth in that for sure.

 

[Not Plain Jane]

Have you guys seen this?

It's a fix! Oscar nominee Julie Delpy slams Academy voters as '90 per cent white men over 70 who need money' and claims if you give them a present or two 'they're in your pocket'

I know it's the Daily Fail, but it's still interesting:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-ballots-cast-wont-ruin-chances-winning.html

 

[wild roses]

I agree with you. They really need to reconsider their rules to make sure they reflect independent cinema. They won't, because they like to be able to nominate/honor stars and cater to big studios. I don't mind some overlap between these awards and Academy awards, but this is getting ridiculous. It used to be that a win here was almost considered a "kiss of death" for one's Oscar hopes, now it's just another stop in the awards season. 5/6 of the top winners here, went on to win at the Oscars. And that is not bad in itself, but I don't think it's a matter of Academy liking "indie" films more, I think it's the Spirit awards that have a really loose definition of what "independent" is.

This is all such good points. You might be intrigued by the Indie Spirit Awards Guidelines for constitutes an independent film. (Scroll about halfway down the page for the rules of what can be submitted.)

My biggest quibble is with the $20 million budget limit. It needs to be lower. Yeah, we live in an era of exceedingly over-budget films, but back in the 1990s, a film with a $20 mill budget was more typical for a smaller Hollywood films like a romcom or drama. And, what's getting awards at the indies would have been considered in the 1990s, the quiet mainstream film stars made for prestige or the odd film to put on their resume between jobs. (I think the budget limit should be up to $10 million max.)

Although I also think the Academy is the blame. Harvey Weinstein tainted the concept of the indie, and the Academy ran with it. The problem is studios divest so much time and money into big budget franchises (which all aren't bad but most are), that the Weinstein-concept indie is their quick, fast way to gather up the quality dramas without actually having to ~make~ them. (And the stars themselves: rather than demand quality scripts from the studios instead make the blockbusters, form their own production companies to make quality stuff, which they tend peddle back to the studio for certain deals.)

 

[MulletProof]

Finally got a computer to write my thoughts here : I saw Leonardo DiCaprio's movie some weeks ago and oh my oh my, awful acting... tedious, over the top and falsely tormented.. as usual. I hate all the 'it's about time for Leo! he was snubbed! just give him an Oscar already' chants.. why? for playing the same character all the time and having no creativity whatsoever on how he interprets one from the other?. People like Scorsese (and certainly DiCaprio- and most Hollywood actors anyway) need to stop thinking that throwing a movie of over 2 hours long that comprehends the rise and fall of the American dream of someone constitutes art and therefore performances of a lifetime that should be awarded. I find them a scam myself..

Moving on, I was happy to read Cate got the Oscar... she's just too good and, unlike DiCaprio, a good example of how you can evolve your craft and continue to experiment and expand as an actor... she delivered a flawless performance of tragedy and comedy and at least to me, a good lesson of modesty, because she's so aware she's playing someone like herself and didn't have a problem in having a good laugh at it. I thought it was brilliant.

Also thought Cuaron's Oscar was well-deserved even though I haven't seen Gravity , I think he's wonderful and he should've gotten one since Great Expectations, which is still my favorite Cuaron movie... so visually rich, sensual.. and beautifully executed. In my biased mind they're giving him the award for Great Expectations.