f*** it, I'll share my personal diatribe. Not comparative suffering by any means, but as someone who fought crippling depression most of my life and found a way to overcome it, coupled with the fact that Brendan Fraser was basically my first favorite actor after George of the Jungle and the Mummy, his return to Hollywood has been well more than a treat to see and he has shown nothing but humility and kindness for the whole run. You could make arguments for the other actors but this is as good as a feel-good story gets. Happy for Brendan and hope this second act continues strong as a result of this win.
Cate Blanchett gave one of the all time great performances and walked away empty handed.
Sometimes it is all about timing. Hollywood sincerely wants to give minorities their dues in the last couple of years, and Yeoh gave a career best too. It is what it is.
Plus, Blanchett will likely be back in the future, but I cannot say the same for Yeoh. She went 1 for 1, and her record will likely remain there, so I am especially happy for her.
In 1975, Art Carney won Best Actor for Harry & Tonto over Al Pacino in The Godfather Part II.
It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
They've never done that.I must have missed it. They already presented the best director oscar? Wonder why they changed it from being presented right before the best picture oscar?
Yeah in all fairness The Whale was a bit of a...I don't want to say bad movie but it was flawed for a bunch of reasons. Excellent performance in a bit of a turd.Everything Everywhere & All Quiet were by far my two favorite movies this year so very pleased with the results tonight.
Happy for Fraser and all but my god what a horribly stupid movie
Carney gave a hell of a performance in Harry and Tonto. Pacino basically repeated what he did in The Godfather, part I, No quibble from me.In 1975, Art Carney won Best Actor for Harry & Tonto over Al Pacino in The Godfather Part II.
It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
I was thinking about this yesterday and how the film really is a feat of editing, but then I was reminded of an opinion that the goal of editing should be that you don't even notice it. I think that I agree with that opinion. It's not that hard to make a lot of noticeable cuts. What takes more skill is making cuts less noticeable. Cuts, after all, are immersion breaking. Titanic is an example that was brought up because you likely don't think about the editing while you're watching it. When I was watching EEAAO, I was constantly thinking of the editing, which was a big distraction.If ever a movie deserved an editing award, it sure is Everything Everywhere All at Once.
Each movie needs editing that is appropriate to its content. There was no way unintrusive editing ccould have worked in this film--it would have compromised the vision of the directors. I guess the question is does the editing suit what the movie is portraying, and, in this case, I think it does brilliantly.I was thinking about this yesterday and how the film really is a feat of editing, but then I was reminded of an opinion that the goal of editing should be that you don't even notice it. I think that I agree with that opinion. It's not that hard to make a lot of noticeable cuts. What takes more skill is making cuts less noticeable. Cuts, after all, are immersion breaking. Titanic is an example that was brought up because you likely don't think about the editing while you're watching it. When I was watching EEAAO, I was constantly thinking of the editing, which was a big distraction.
Cate Blanchett gave one of the all time great performances and walked away empty handed.
I was thinking about this yesterday and how the film really is a feat of editing, but then I was reminded of an opinion that the goal of editing should be that you don't even notice it. I think that I agree with that opinion. It's not that hard to make a lot of noticeable cuts. What takes more skill is making cuts less noticeable. Cuts, after all, are immersion breaking. Titanic is an example that was brought up because you likely don't think about the editing while you're watching it. When I was watching EEAAO, I was constantly thinking of the editing, which was a big distraction.
So bland is better? Cuts are unnoticeable when they conform to common film language - they are part of an assimilated system. Editing is great when creative, or works through scenes that are tough to put together, or create a peculiar pace to a film that needs it. Editing is amazing when it becomes part of the discourse, but not everybody is Godard. I haven't seen half of the films nominated this year, but I was under the impression that Editing was the only award EEAAO might really have deserved.I was thinking about this yesterday and how the film really is a feat of editing, but then I was reminded of an opinion that the goal of editing should be that you don't even notice it. I think that I agree with that opinion. It's not that hard to make a lot of noticeable cuts. What takes more skill is making cuts less noticeable. Cuts, after all, are immersion breaking. Titanic is an example that was brought up because you likely don't think about the editing while you're watching it. When I was watching EEAAO, I was constantly thinking of the editing, which was a big distraction.
I think that it could've been scaled back without affecting the directors' vision. The style got in the way of the substance for me, and even in some of the positive reviews that I've read, people have criticized the pacing and length. You thought that it could've used some "judicious trimming." A few others here and elsewhere have argued that the final fight and/or the film could've been shorter. Those seem like criticisms of the editing.Each movie needs editing that is appropriate to its content. There was no way unintrusive editing ccould have worked in this film--it would have compromised the vision of the directors. I guess the question is does the editing suit what the movie is portraying, and, in this case, I think it does brilliantly.
No, when a film is well edited, it's the opposite of bland. I just don't think that the reverse is necessarily true.So bland is better?
I think that it could've been scaled back without affecting the directors' vision. The style got in the way of the substance for me, and even in some of the positive reviews that I've read, people have criticized the pacing and length. You thought that it could've used some "judicious trimming." A few others here and elsewhere have argued that the final fight and/or the film could've been shorter. Those seem like criticisms of the editing.
No, when a film is well edited, it's the opposite of bland. I just don't think that the reverse is necessarily true.