Movie/TV recommendations

[Roderick]

So did Taika! Grrrr

 

You're right, sorry! I had to choose what to focus on and since I have a thing for Jemaine I chose him and skipped Taika because it would've made the text too much of an info-dump.

[melmer]

Anyone seen the first few episodes of Wolf Hall yet? I'm enchanted so far. Even if the themes are slightly different, it preserves the guarded and meditative feel of the books, which is great.

Just watched the second episode. It's really good I eagerly anticipate Anne's beheading

[Bjorn]

Bates Motel Season 2 is out on Netflix, and Season 3 starts next month.  I love this show, bunches.  And I don't say that about many TV shows. 

[Merus]

So I saw Selma, which has come out at the traditional time in Australia for Oscar bait that soberly reflects on American history - mid February.

 

It's well acted and the script is great (using FBI logs as scene setters is a stroke of genius), but the directing... the directing's not that great. Scenes that could, and should, be electric, are poorly staged, and it often overplays its big scenes, ones that were working just fine before the production designer went nuts with the smoke machine. I can kind of understand why this wasn't nominated for Best Director, although it was still robbed on Best Actor and Best Adapted Screenplay.

 

I didn't spot Oprah, although I should have because she of course bought herself a pivotal role. And here's Brad Pitt as producer, although thankfully he doesn't take the White Man Who Thinks The Whole System Is Morally Wrong role again.

[Gormongous]

This fucking show...

 

 

Thank goodness for my medieval history degrees, else I never would have spotted the match, right? It's a five-second shot in altogether brief scene, given no fanfare whatsoever, but is indicative of the dizzying care put into the adaptation, even down to shot composition.

[BadHat]

Just watched the first episode of that and yes, yes I do believe I will be following it.

 

I also watched Over the Garden Wall on you wonderful people's advice. What a terrifically enchanting show, holy crap.

[Roderick]

What the hell, Birdman, how did you get to be so good? And when is Michael Keaton ever not going to be fun to see?

 

http://www.filmadeus.com/2015/02/birdman-or-unexpected-virtue-of.html

 

[Merus]

I was expecting that part of the film to be much more along the path to mental breakdown than it was: he got locked outside and his dressing gown is stuck in the door, and he's got a show to do. In that situation, I'd probably do the same thing. I probably wouldn't sign autographs though.

[Roderick]

I wanted to say that was a favorite part of the film, but it's all so good. What I like about that specific scene is how getting trapped with his robe seems such a physically comical thing to happen in a movie largely about the deconstruction of Riggan's psyche. Suddenly, it centers on this farcical element, lovely.

[melmer]

This fucking show...

Ah wow, that's so good. I only watched this about an hour ago and during that scene I was thinking about looking up an image of Cromwell, see how good the likeness was I wonder if that's the same room the original was painted in? Can wallpaper last 500 years

Of course not

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873336/Wolf-Hall-sets-prepare-tourist-invasion-filming-new-BBC-Henry-VIII-drama-starring-Damian-Lewis.html

[Professor Video Games]

I didn't like Birdman. Am I a bad person?

[Patrick R]

No. It's a fine movie but, for all it's sound and fury, it's not ultimately about much.

 

Q: The Winged Serpent, on the other hand...man. Michael Moriarty in that movie is a full-blown Nicholas Cage-style point of chaos, where he's totally unpredictable.

, but Moriarty's energy takes it to another level.

[Ben X]

What's it about?

[Patrick R]

It's a killer quetzalcoatl flick. It's about the triumph of the human spirit over ancient Aztec gods. 

[Ben X]

Hmmm, is that more than what Birdman is about?

[Patrick R]

I only compared the two as a segue, because Q was the movie I originally came into this thread to talk about but...

 

Q has a better grasp of what it is (monster movie), what it is about (seeing neat special effects and people getting destroyed) and what that means (light entertainment). It does not feign profundity.

 

Birdman launches into fevered earnest monologues every 5 minutes as a way of distracting you from the fact that it's ultimately just another movie about show business, and doesn't even focus on that very well. It's very energetic and has some wonderful performances, but the fact that it's an Oscar front-runner is more about how flattering it is to the show-biz people in the Academy than it being a very meaningful movie. It has about as much to say as a comedy like Noises Off, but does so with far less wit or skill.

 

Thus, Q: The Winged Serpent deserves to be this year's Oscar front-runner.

[Mawd]

Honestly I saw a similarity with Birdman to the 1995 film Living In Oblivion although it wasn't until mentions of dwarves and dream sequences that it really clicked. I think you could call both films shallow But I don't think their relationship with each other is.

Has anyone else seen both? Am I just seeing things? Edit: Actually to me they are essentially the same take with a different context. Still I don't think that's something to fault either movie on. I enjoy both immensely.
I think despite being considered shallow both films were rewarding experiences even if they weren't in the end meant to make a statement and be 'about' something 'bigger'.

I read Roderick's review the other day and thinking about it both have beat ish soundtracks (though I don't remember if that Dominate's Living in Oblivion's soundscape in the same way) and both are likely the products of people in the film industry who are frustrated with the process and writing and decided to produce films highlighting absurdity. I think I'm drawing a very rough parallel but I don't really have the energy to articulate it. Or the certainty to judge where what I'm saying needs more words.

I wanted to say that was a favorite part of the film, but it's all so good. What I like about that specific scene is how getting trapped with his robe seems such a physically comical thing to happen in a movie largely about the deconstruction of Riggan's psyche. Suddenly, it centers on this farcical element, lovely.

 

My favourite part of that section besides the drummer is how he tries to seamlessly reintegrate himself into the scene onstage. I thought it was really cool how he went from an almost nude stroll in front of a real life audience to acting as the torn alcoholic in front of the crowd pointing his finger gun at the lovers and talking about love.

 

Yes that scene

 

Wow so this article on Killscreen is interesting.

TORRENT CULTURE REALIZED AS A TERRIFYING CINEMATIC MASHUP

[melmer]

[Professor Video Games]

That's fantastic.

[Henroid]

I didn't like Birdman. Am I a bad person?

I've heard some criticism that the movie was specifically made to cater to actors and the academy (Oscars), as a "Isn't our life just like this as actors?!" deal. I haven't seen the film but I'm inclined to trust where I heard this from.

[Roderick]

"They just made it for the Oscars."

 

If there's one single piece of garbage criticism around, it's that. I loathe it and it's nonsense for a variety of reasons.

 

1. Why would that be a bad thing? It implies that the movie is somehow less good, but why? Because it's easy to win an Oscar? Because it appeals to certain ideas and themes, and somehow they're unworthy? Because Oscar films are somehow less good? Because they pander to an audience? Have I got news for you: so does every film.

 

2. Saying things like this is such a gross underestimation of the effort it takes to make anything, let alone a film. The majority of movies, most of all the ones that actually turn out well enough to be considered for an Oscar, are the product of passionate people sacrificing years of their lives to create something. Brushing off their creative choices as some ploy is condescending.

 

3. By all means, criticize a film for what's there, but don't give in to this. It's a lazy shorthand for disagreeing with the film's theme and/or considering it pretentious (in itself one of the more worthless critiques possible) or saccharine. Instead of elucidating those points with a thorough critique, the Oscar line is sneaky, it's a nasty little snipe at the film, something that sounds like you've 'uncovered' a secret motivation that dispels the whole thing. It's ratty and mean-spirited: "Ooh, it's just Oscar-bait."

[Patrick R]

When the same broad criticisms apply to a wide swath of movies, sometimes shorthand is helpful. I think "Oscar Bait" is a perfectly acceptable term. When someone says that Crash was Oscar bait it doesn't tell the whole story, but it gives you a good idea of what to expect in it's tone and approach.

 

That said, Birdman isn't Oscar bait. Birdman is way too idiosyncratic and singular to fall under that umbrella. If you want to explain why it won best picture, the fact that it panders to the egos of actors and artists is a reasonable explanation. But even if I'm not a big fan of it, it's hard for me to believe anyone got involved because they thought they'd win Oscars. It's not like Crash or The Kings Speech, movies that fall into familiar and well-defined territory when it comes to Oscar voters. 

 

Birdman is closer to The Artist, a weird formal experiment that's a paean to show business and art (which helps it's Oscar chances) and with enough energy and humor to sell to mainstream audiences as a minor hit (which also helps it's Oscar chances). But it was by no means a shoe-in way back in 2013 when they started filming. 

[Roderick]

Your post illustrates exactly why the term if so poisonous: all you can do with it is paint the movie in a deprecating light. Saying 'Oscar bait' isn't classifying a film, it's implying there's something wrong with it. It's dismissive, entirely negative. And yes, I think that's bad criticism, because you're not actually engaging the film for what it is, you're generalizing and, to paraphrase Birdman, which is ironic in this context, it's all just labels.

 

On another note, I think Birdman won because it was good.

[BusbyBerkeley]

I have yet to see birdman but I will contribute anyway! I've no doubt the movie is good, but hoo boy is it naive to assume that that's why it won. You should read this piece on the Hollywood reporter about an academy voter.

[Patrick R]

Your post illustrates exactly why the term if so poisonous: all you can do with it is paint the movie in a deprecating light. Saying 'Oscar bait' isn't classifying a film, it's implying there's something wrong with it. It's dismissive, entirely negative. And yes, I think that's bad criticism, because you're not actually engaging the film for what it is, you're generalizing and, to paraphrase Birdman, which is ironic in this context, it's all just labels.

 

On another note, I think Birdman won because it was good.

 

It is a dismissive term. That's not an accident. The intent is to dismiss. I am dismissive of Crash so I use that term to dismiss it. It's not criticism, it's shorthand. It's conversational. If I ever read a piece of criticism on a movie that didn't elaborate beyond the phrase "Oscar bait" that'd be a lousy piece of writing, but when you're talking about 2 to 4 sentence posts in a forum, shorthand is totally acceptable.

 

And all Oscars are bought. A big part of why Selma got screwed this year is because Paramount totally botched it's release/campaign. There's never been a movie that won best picture (at least not since the 80's, when the scheming behind these races began to escalate) that didn't have a lot of marketing dollars and strategy behind it. It's comparable to saying "I think Barack Obama won because he was the best candidate" and ignoring all the tactics and money that go into a presidential election campaign.

 

EDIT: Not that Birdman's quality is incidental. It's not like the same amount of money and campaigning behind Transformers 4 would have gotten that best picture. But it's only a single factor.