BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » BAFTA's 2015

Lilith · February 9, 2015 6:56 pm

Btw, SolarSystem, have just seen Ralph Fiennes reading Wes Anderson's letter and laughed out loud.

Oh boy, the photo of Benedict and Sophie with her wearing his jacket is really wonderful!!

nakahara · February 9, 2015 9:21 pm

JenHart wrote:
Fascinating comment on TIG here
http://freewomenxgrape.tumblr.com/post/108537770262/we-have-to-entertain-the-idea-of-imitation-game.

Very interesting.
To be honest, something like this flashed through my mind too...

REReader · February 9, 2015 9:33 pm

JenHart wrote:
Fascinating comment on TIG here
http://freewomenxgrape.tumblr.com/post/108537770262/we-have-to-entertain-the-idea-of-imitation-game.

I have to say that I honestly don't think that has anything whatsoever to do with it. TIG actually fits the profile of the sort of story most of these award institutions love to reward--it's just had the bad luck to come out in the same year as several films of the sort they love to reward even more. Michael Keaton's comeback is just the sort of thing actors adore, and Birdman used unusual filming techniques; Eddie Redmayne's role was very physical and the film is about a still-living genius undergoing great trials (and so one "better" than TIG's dead genius who underwent great--but not as prolonged--trials, if you take my meaning); and Boyhood was a one-of-a-kind project. I think all those things have far more to do with any homophobia (which tends, I'd say, in Hollywood, to be aimed more at actors than subject matter, and to not matter at all in the UK theater industry).

JenHart · February 10, 2015 8:21 am

The thing about Boyhood is that everyone does that. I mean my Husband has movies of all our kids from practically the day they were born. If they were edited together, they'd make, actually, a movie. It's not a revolutionary idea at all. Everyone does it, it's just no-one before thought it would make an interesting movie, and, judging by comments of people I know who've seen it, it doesn't make an interesting movie, it's a bore.

Anyhow, we don't know what influences come to play in award ceremonies. I only know, based on being in some movies as a child in Germany, that filming can be very boring indeed.

As for TIG, it was being applauded and praised before the main awards started and everyone I know that has seen it thinks it's fantastic and talks about how badly Turing was treated, which means it's achieved all it could have achieved even it it gets ignored at the Oscars, which it probably will be.

SolarSystem · February 10, 2015 8:38 am

JenHart wrote:
The thing about Boyhood is that everyone does that. I mean my Husband has movies of all our kids from practically the day they were born. If they were edited together, they'd make, actually, a movie. It's not a revolutionary idea at all. Everyone does it, it's just no-one before thought it would make an interesting movie, and, judging by comments of people I know who've seen it, it doesn't make an interesting movie, it's a bore.

That's actually an interesting way of looking at it, I hadn't thought about that before. Because it's true, thousands of people are doing it. Of course it is a somewhat new idea when it comes to movies, but just because a movie has been filmed over the course of 12 years doesn't automatically make it a good movie. I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it's indeed boring or not. But it seems to me that a lot of people praise it because of its idea and not because of the actual story.

miriel68 · February 10, 2015 11:06 am

Oh, I agree about Boyhood: it is enough to read reviews, even the most enthusiastic ones to see that there is nothing to be said about the film other that it was an astonishing achievement to film ti over 12 years. Cannot understand Linkater winning over Inarritu or Anderson for it, unless for his patience not to getting bored doing the same film for this long.

I've only seen Eddie Redmayne in "My week with Marylin" and he was very good in it. He is very good in TTOE as well and his physical performance is impressive. Still, the way Hawking is written in the movie, he is not a character with any psychological depth in it, therefore the only thing critics can rave about is how uncannily like Hawking Redmayne is and how perfectly his imitates his mischeavious grin.
Still, Hawking is a kind of national pride and the physical side of the role was demanding and showy, so it doesn't surprise me that someone could value it about the understated performance of Benedict (or other nominees, if we talk about it).

What I do mind, however, is the frankly scandalous decision to award TTOE as the British film of the year and even more the screenplay as the best screenplay. This is not simply an average film with a very good performance (like, say "Still Alice"). This is a film as bad as "Diana" or "Grace of Monaco": cheesy, superficial, cliched and based on a HORRIBLE script, full of dialogues that make you roll your eyes ("he will never speak again" "yes he will", "I love him and he loves me, this is all that matters" etc.) and waste all the potential dramatic tension of the story.

nakahara · February 10, 2015 12:13 pm

miriel68 wrote:
What I do mind, however, is the frankly scandalous decision to award TTOE as the British film of the year and even more the screenplay as the best screenplay. This is not simply an average film with a very good performance (like, say "Still Alice"). This is a film as bad as "Diana" or "Grace of Monaco": cheesy, superficial, cliched and based on a HORRIBLE script, full of dialogues that make you roll your eyes ("he will never speak again" "yes he will", "I love him and he loves me, this is all that matters" etc.) and waste all the potential dramatic tension of the story.

Yes, the screenplay was quite bad in this. resembled Mexican telenovella at times.

REReader · February 10, 2015 12:38 pm

JenHart wrote:
The thing about Boyhood is that everyone does that. I mean my Husband has movies of all our kids from practically the day they were born. If they were edited together, they'd make, actually, a movie. It's not a revolutionary idea at all. Everyone does it, it's just no-one before thought it would make an interesting movie, and, judging by comments of people I know who've seen it, it doesn't make an interesting movie, it's a bore..

You don't have to like Boyhood, of course--no film is everyone's cup of tea--but that comment is not at all a fair representation. It is, after all, a scripted movie, not a collection of random scenes. And it was a logistical feat to put together, requiring a lot of faith and commitment from its cast and director, which is why it has a fair shot at best direction and best movie at the Oscars--the voters are the exact people who know how hard it was to do. "Best" to industry insiders doesn't necessarily translate as "best" to audiences!

JenHart · February 10, 2015 1:55 pm

REReader wrote:
JenHart wrote:
The thing about Boyhood is that everyone does that. I mean my Husband has movies of all our kids from practically the day they were born. If they were edited together, they'd make, actually, a movie. It's not a revolutionary idea at all. Everyone does it, it's just no-one before thought it would make an interesting movie, and, judging by comments of people I know who've seen it, it doesn't make an interesting movie, it's a bore..
You don't have to like Boyhood, of course--no film is everyone's cup of tea--but that comment is not at all a fair representation. It is, after all, a scripted movie, not a collection of random scenes. And it was a logistical feat to put together, requiring a lot of faith and commitment from its cast and director, which is why it has a fair shot at best direction and best movie at the Oscars--the voters are the exact people who know how hard it was to do. "Best" to industry insiders doesn't necessarily translate as "best" to audiences!

OK. It was hard to do and was a fantasic feat. However, I know quite a lot of people who've seen it and none of them liked it. If I was was making a movie I'd rather it was popular than artie. Although a lot of people will go to see it if it wins awards. They wont neccessarily enjoy it though, but that applies to everything.

Last edited by JenHart (February 10, 2015 1:57 pm)

REReader · February 10, 2015 3:08 pm

JenHart wrote:
OK. It was hard to do and was a fantasic feat. However, I know quite a lot of people who've seen it and none of them liked it. If I was was making a movie I'd rather it was popular than artie. Although a lot of people will go to see it if it wins awards. They wont neccessarily enjoy it though, but that applies to everything.

So would I! But that was kind of my point--what audiences enjoy isn't usually what award committees want to give awards to.

JenHart · February 10, 2015 3:38 pm

REReader wrote:
JenHart wrote:
OK. It was hard to do and was a fantasic feat. However, I know quite a lot of people who've seen it and none of them liked it. If I was was making a movie I'd rather it was popular than artie. Although a lot of people will go to see it if it wins awards. They wont neccessarily enjoy it though, but that applies to everything.

So would I! But that was kind of my point--what audiences enjoy isn't usually what award committees want to give awards to.

My first language isn't English and although I speak and write it well I still sometimes misunderstand what people mean. I get it now. Thanks.

Addition. I've just read the above that I've written and it doesn't sound quite right. If it sounds wrong I appologise.

Last edited by JenHart (February 10, 2015 3:41 pm)

REReader · February 10, 2015 4:32 pm

No problem here--it sounds fine to me.

JenHart · February 10, 2015 4:42 pm

REReader wrote:
No problem here--it sounds fine to me.

Oh good. I have run into this problem before where I have responded to someone and made a mess of it somehow and not understood what I've done wrong and no-one will explain because they think I understand sarcasm and jokes and I often don't, not in English anyhow.

REReader · February 10, 2015 4:50 pm

It's your own fault for writing such good English! ;)

SolarSystem · February 10, 2015 4:58 pm

REReader wrote:
JenHart wrote:
The thing about Boyhood is that everyone does that. I mean my Husband has movies of all our kids from practically the day they were born. If they were edited together, they'd make, actually, a movie. It's not a revolutionary idea at all. Everyone does it, it's just no-one before thought it would make an interesting movie, and, judging by comments of people I know who've seen it, it doesn't make an interesting movie, it's a bore..
You don't have to like Boyhood, of course--no film is everyone's cup of tea--but that comment is not at all a fair representation. It is, after all, a scripted movie, not a collection of random scenes. And it was a logistical feat to put together, requiring a lot of faith and commitment from its cast and director,

I might be wrong, but I suppose this goes for almost any movie project. Directors and actors always have a lot of faith in their project and are commited to it. I'm not sure that being commited to something for 12 years resembles quality. It certainly means they have been determined and persistent though. But in this case, I understand that Ethan Hawke and Linklater have been close friends for a very long time, so it might haven been even easier for them to collaborate on this and commit to it for such a long time.

REReader · February 10, 2015 5:32 pm

It meant that the entire cast had to stay interested and otherwise uncommitted for those months for 12 years, and it meant they had to put in extra time reacquainting themselves with what they had done and where the plot was going for twelve-plus years. No matter how you figure it, it was a much harder thing to do than a single regular movie shoot.

ETA: I'm not saying that it made it a better movie than a regular movie shoot--I haven't seen it yet, I can only afford to see films once they make it to DVD and are circulated by the library. But I can recognize that it's the sort of unusual film-making, with unusual challenges, that people within the industry might recognize with awards.

Last edited by REReader (February 10, 2015 5:35 pm)

SolarSystem · February 10, 2015 5:36 pm

Yes. And it seems to me that a lot of praise for the film has its origin in the fact that it's been a "much harder thing to do than a single regular movie shoot".
But I haven't seen the film yet, so I'll shut up now.

edit: Sorry, I sent my answer before you did your editing, Rereader, but I'll just leave it like that now.

Last edited by SolarSystem (February 10, 2015 5:36 pm)

miriel68 · February 10, 2015 9:06 pm

If they were special awards for tenacity, determination and patience in making a movie, Boyhood should win them all. But I have the feeling that a lot of critics/ reviews are confounding experiment with artistic value. Does an usual way of filming automatically nobilitates the movie? What if we were to watch Boyhood not knowing it and were to judge it just as a film?

REReader · February 10, 2015 11:26 pm

The question here is not whether TIG is a better film than the others but why other films are getting awards and TIG isn't. The voters for these awards are mostly industry insiders, and they have their own criteria for which films they vote for. As we can see when we look at the winners over the years, "best viewing experience" isn't usually how they vote. Frustrating, but true.

stoertebeker · February 11, 2015 8:05 am

I saw Boyhood last weekend and already expressed my opinion in the 'recently watched movies' thread. I think it was a nice movie. Yeah, that's basicly it, nice. The idea behind the project and the determination which with it was done was very ambitious and I think that's what's been rewarded now. From an art point of view I understand the awards for best directing and I don't begrudge Linklater for winning them. I don't agree with Boyhood winning all the awards for best movie though because IMO the story should be taking into account here as well. And that was indeed not really convincing for my taste. But yeah, it is all a matter of taste after all.