This material is not about who will win. And we won’t guess the winners. We’ll make predictions next month, just before the film awards, in a stream with one fashionable translator and the king of Galperia.
Yesterday I posted a short note on my VK wall. While I was writing it, I realized that I still don’t understand the specifics of some nominations (technical ones), and I need to look into it more seriously. In addition, a local fight flared up, and it turned out that some points require explanations, proofs and historical information.
I usually avoid such language, but let’s be honest: film academics are ghouls. Anyone who has ever sat down to watch an Oscar-winning film has probably been seriously disappointed. The Internet is full of comments from random people who glance over the list of nominees, watch a film and a half at random, and then write: “You shouldn’t listen to film snobs, you need to trust your friends’ reviews,” “They choose some kind of dregs, the Oscar doesn’t mean anything at all,” and, my favorite: “I take into account the presence of an Oscar.”! If it exists, then the movie is crap!».
Let’s admit an objective fact: for the average person, an Oscar is not a guarantee of quality.
But, on the other hand, it cannot be that just anyone is nominated! They can’t select only dull shit – that’s what Cannes is for (joke, joke). There are still good films at the “main film awards of the world”. And now I’ll tell you how to look for it: you just need to correctly understand the essence of the nominations, know a little specificity and imagine your inner kitchen.
1. Best film of the year.
What to watch: we don’t watch anything.
We put a bolt on this nomination right away. If you are looking for a good movie, then there is no point in looking for it here. Until 2010, the winners really meant something: “No Country for Old Men,” “The Departed,” “Million Dollar Baby” were much cooler than their competitors in all respects. If you see the old “Best Movie of the Year”, then you should watch it.
But lately this nomination has been determined by anything but the quality of the film. A prize can be given for the correct ideology. For the social significance of the film, for its experimentalism. In addition, film studios put a lot of pressure on them: “The best films of the year” are especially carefully advertised and subtly positioned. The winner in this category brings in a lot of money from DVD sales and cinema screenings – so often even the release is timed so that after the award viewers can rush to cinemas.
Since 2010, the nomination has been a mess. A very average "The Hurt Locker" won simply because it is socially significant, shows the plight of the American soldier. And he allows James Cameron to be poked once again, because his ex-wife will beat him up.
Further – even more controversial. “Black Swan” loses to “The King’s Speech”, “Operation Argo” is better than “Life of Pi” and “Django Unchained”, and last year they won “12 Years a Slave”, which, it seems, no one liked at all. The winner is "Drama against the backdrop of historical events", "The Story of a Big Man" or "Political Relevant Film". Okay, I’m not saying that they deliberately choose something bad. I say winning in recent years means nothing. And don’t be afraid that you’ll miss something: worthy ones will still catch our eye in other nominations.
2. Best Director.
Let’s look: winner.
In fact, the best movie of the year may be hiding here. An award for directing means that the film has a coherent, clear idea. That it is kept in an even rhythm, that it is harmonious. The worse the “Film of the Year” is chosen, the better the “Best Director” will be. Cuaron for "Gravity", Lee for "Life of Pi". You can watch all the nominees, but there’s no particular reason to.
From a historical perspective, this is more or less normal. Old "Best Directors" are always fire. There’s a lot of Eastwood, Zemeckis with Forrest Gump, Foreman and Amadeus and so on.
There is, however, one stupid trend: Oscar loves to become a fan of one film and give it all the awards. Unlike the Golden Globes, where everyone gets a carrot, here they win in one gulp. 5, 7, sometimes 12 nominations at once. And the best film can drag its director along with it. For the same reasons. The same "Artist", "Storm Locker", "The King’s Speech"!».
“Lack of stylistic integrity” is to https://slots-amigo.co.uk/ blame. Tarantino is a very bright, perky director who grew up on trash and is often guided by the principle “It will be more fun.”!!». He was nominated twice: for “Pulp Fiction” and “Inglourious Basterds,” but in both cases, a cool episode is more important to Tarantino than harmony, a smooth narrative and a single idea.
3. Best Actor.
Let’s look: winner and nominees if you like them.
A very good nomination, but it’s not without pitfalls. Winning means that this is a very interesting character and therefore the film has a good script. It will be interesting to watch, and the character played is really cool. The winners are often awesome: Sean Penn in Mystic River, McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club, Spacey in American Beauty and even the rather boring Lincoln Day-Lewis looked interesting.
The winner is always good, but sometimes there are better nominees. For example, I feel very sorry for Bardem in “Beautiful”, Bale in “American Hustle”, Depp in “Fairyland”. This happens because many awards are given for previous merits and contributions to the industry, if they have not previously been recognized. Therefore, any actor you are interested in, even if not a winner, is worth watching.
Someday he will definitely receive his statuette for the reasons stated above. He always puffs up, tries, screams loudly and makes an impression on the viewer, but, in fact, this is not enough. Leo always remains himself: in many ways he does not control his facial expressions and does not always change his movements. I once watched a video dedicated to Robin Williams, and this man even did a facepalm in each film differently, depending on the character. Another thing that is very important is that Leo strictly obeys the will of the director, as they say. That is, he rarely brings his own to the image, but perfectly follows instructions. And he hasn’t lost 40 kilograms yet, that’s important.
4. Best Actress.
Let’s look: we don’t look.
We guys are missing this nomination. Unlike a man, “Best Actress” will either play an old woman or will suffer mournfully for most of the film. This is, of course, cool, but it’s very much for everyone. I would not recommend Cate Blanchett in Jasmine or Cotillard as Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose to anyone. (Let me remind you that we tailor the guide to the average film buff. I’m not saying the movie is bad).
If someone cool sneaks in, like Portman in Black Swan… (She was given the award not for suffering, but for a gorgeous lesbian scene with Mila Kunis, I’m SURE) … then we will see this movie somewhere in other categories.
With minor roles it’s about the same bullshit.
5. Best Original Screenplay.
Let’s look: the entire nomination.
"The best films always win the prize for best screenplay". Said Quentin Tarantino, receiving his second Oscar as a screenwriter. And he’s right. The script is the best space for actors to perform well; the best story you can’t put down; the wittiest dialogues.
You need to watch the entire nomination in reinforced concrete. Even when Django Unchained wins, there’s Moonrise Kingdom, and next to The King’s Speech!"Fighter" hiding. And even some obscure movie, for example, “Bridesmaids in Vegas” or “Love” by Haneke can become pleasant discoveries.
6. Best Adapted Screenplay
Let’s look: we don’t look.
Fuck you. Seriously. An adapted script is “we made a script based on a book. Or biographies. Or letters from grandmother". The success of the adaptation and competent transcription are noted, but even the winner can be unbearably boring, because, tritely, “the book is better”. These are the not very memorable “The Descendants” by Clooney, “Precious”, “12 Years a Slave” and well-okay-so-be “Operation Argo”. It’s not bad yet, but it’s also inferior to most of the original scripts.
7. Best Animated Feature Film.
Let’s look: everything you haven’t seen at the cinema yet.
Here’s the layout. There are always 2-3 nominees from Pixar and DreamWorks. Most likely they will win. Exclusively political and classically academic production. Cartoons, of course, are good, but they are unlikely to be able to surprise you with anything.
The secret of the nomination lies in the strange Mexican nonames. They definitely exist: academics adjust their glasses and say: “Yes, we look at animation from all over the world.”. And they really select the most adult and interesting cartoons of the year. The nominees were “The Illusionist”, “Trio from Belleville”, “The Wind Rises”, “The Fantastic Mr. Fox”. These are always amazing, visually unconventional, well-directed works. The main thing is to gather your courage and force yourself to watch this, at first glance very strange, dregs.
8. Best Foreign Language Film.
Let’s look: the entire nomination.
Similar situation. Get the point right first. These are the best films in the world. Technically, the nomination is absolutely equivalent to the main prize and is separated simply due to the language barrier. Sometimes politics leaks out, but not much of it.
Russian cinemas simply don’t show European or Asian films. That doesn’t make him bad. The stupidity of our viewer is to blame. So the list of nominees is a must-see in its entirety; it greatly broadens your horizons and practically guarantees excellent viewing. There were “The Hunt” and “Beautiful” and “Love” and “The Life of Others” and “Pan’s Labyrinth”.
9. Best Visual Effects.
Come on, you’ve already gone to the movies to see all this.
10. Technical categories: sound, cameraman, artists, editing.
You don’t understand shit about this. Dot. You don’t know the rules of installation, and the best installation generally goes unnoticed. Artists generally drew concepts, not made a film. The sound and its editing on dubbing will spoil. AND NO, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT CAMERA WORK. That’s for sure. If the director is not Cuarón, then don’t even bother, you’ll only end up wondering where the cool cameramen are.
11. Best Song.
Well, put it on the player, okay.
12. Short film.
Let’s look: Yes.
Yes, this is a must watch. It’s much easier to make a short form more interesting than an hour and a half film. Cartoons are generally amazing, such a visual extravaganza unfolds there. And if you see black humor on the list of nominees, run and watch it immediately! This will definitely be super funny.
Of course, all of the above is a very simplified picture. At some points it may not even coincide with my own opinion. But if you really want to somehow study the list of the best films of the year, then you should highlight them in this way. One way or another, whoever gets there doesn’t get there. Whoever wins, yes, it happens. 😀