# 2020 Academy Awards



## Tchaikov6

Nominees are out! I’ll post the Best Picture Noms:

1917
Ford vs. Ferrari
The Irishman
Jojo Rabbit
Joker
Little Women
Marriage Story
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Parasite

I’m hoping to see all of them by February 9, the awards date.
As for now, I’d rank what I’ve seen as such:
1. Parasite (9/10)
2. Marriage Story (8/10)
3. The Irishman (8/10)
4. Little Women (8/10)
5. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (6/10)
6. Joker (4/10)

any thoughts?


----------



## pianozach

I've seen none of the Best Picture nominees.

I've seen none of the nominees in ANY of the categories.

I think I may have played the sheet music for the song from *FROZEN II*. One of my choir folk wants to use it as a solo.

I guess I don't get out much


----------



## Rogerx

pianozach said:


> I've seen none of the Best Picture nominees.
> 
> I've seen none of the nominees in ANY of the categories.
> 
> I think I may have played the sheet music for the song from *FROZEN II*. One of my choir folk wants to use it as a solo.
> 
> I guess I don't get out much


Me too, without the #


----------



## Guest

Tchaikov6 said:


> Nominees are out! I'll post the Best Picture Noms:
> 
> 1917
> Ford vs. Ferrari
> *The Irishman (9/10)*
> *Jojo Rabbit (7/10)*
> Joker
> *Little Women (9/10)
> Marriage Story (8/10)*
> Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
> Parasite
> 
> I'm hoping to see all of them by February 9, the awards date.
> As for now, I'd rank what I've seen as such:
> 1. Parasite (9/10)
> 2. Marriage Story (8/10)
> 3. The Irishman (8/10)
> 4. Little Women (8/10)
> 5. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (6/10)
> 6. Joker (4/10)
> 
> any thoughts?


I've already seen the ones in bold, with a score for 'enjoyment' and am going to see 1917 this afternoon. I won't want to see _Joker _or _Once Upon A Time, _but I expect the latter to win on the grounds that Hollywood loves films about itself. I might watch _Parasite _and _Ford V Ferrari _when they get to TV - I've seen previous movies by their directors and enjoyed them.

Watched _Marriage Story _just the other night on Netflix. It didn't seem remarkable, though the two leads were very good. (Don't know why Laura Dern has got a nod). Their big set piece row - not sure it wasn't a little contrived. I was reminded of _Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf_, which I saw a long time ago and maybe completely misremembering, but marriage break-up movies are hardly new - so what was special about this?

I really liked _Little Women _- the most comforting of films to watch, but it won't win. If _1917 _is as 'cinematic' as trailed, it might turnover _OUATIH_


----------



## Tchaikov6

MacLeod said:


> I've already seen the ones in bold, with a score for 'enjoyment' and am going to see 1917 this afternoon. I won't want to see _Joker _or _Once Upon A Time, _but I expect the latter to win on the grounds that Hollywood loves films about itself. I might watch _Parasite _and _Ford V Ferrari _when they get to TV - I've seen previous movies by their directors and enjoyed them.
> 
> Watched _Marriage Story _just the other night on Netflix. It didn't seem remarkable, though the two leads were very good. (Don't know why Laura Dern has got a nod). Their big set piece row - not sure it wasn't a little contrived. I was reminded of _Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf_, which I saw a long time ago and maybe completely misremembering, but marriage break-up movies are hardly new - so what was special about this?
> 
> I really liked _Little Women _- the most comforting of films to watch, but it won't win. If _1917 _is as 'cinematic' as trailed, it might turnover _OUATIH_


Joker was extremely disappointing. 
Marriage Story just really connected to me on a personal level. It's not a perfect movie, but it's one that's totally unique in its vision, in my opinion. It's not just about marriage, but how we cope with loss in life, and how that loss can also help us. It's cliche, but Baumbach brings it to a new light.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> I've already seen the ones in bold, with a score for 'enjoyment' and am going to see 1917 this afternoon. _[etc]_


_1917 _- 10/10. I don't share the views of those critics who describe it as a "war movie", nor even a "war is hell movie". Nor do I think the so-called single take was a gimmick. It enabled the telling of a story in a particular way from a particular perspective and it worked - for me, at any rate.

This was mundane, daily life turned horribly upside down in a place where courage, luck and friendship are no guarantee of survival, but necessary all the same. The film begins and ends with handshakes in the natural world. The ghastly visions between make the handshakes all the more poignant, offering a substantial physical and emotional lifeline when life is at its most precious and valueless: the mates watchign your back, but also the wasted corpses everywhere.

This I would want to see again. So too _The Irishman _and _Little Women_. I won't mind if I don't see _Marriage Story _again.


----------



## pianozach

Tchaikov6 said:


> *Joker* was extremely disappointing.
> Marriage Story just really connected to me on a personal level. It's not a perfect movie, but it's one that's totally unique in its vision, in my opinion. It's not just about marriage, but how we cope with loss in life, and how that loss can also help us. It's cliche, but Baumbach brings it to a new light.


Most folks are raving about *Joker*. I haven't seen it, but the way it's praised you'd think it was the 2nd coming of Jesus.


----------



## bz3

Saw Joker due to circumstances out of my hands and hated it. Don't really understand who it appeals to since nothing exploded and the frenetic action was no where to be seen. Just a drab, mopey, plotless, soulless mess whose primary theme seemed to be ugliness.

Saw Once Upon a Time... despite not liking any of Tarantino's works and my opinion did not change on him. The movie was not very interesting or entertaining but it was noteworthy because I thought DiCaprio and Pitt, neither of whom do I particularly like or dislike, carried an otherwise uninteresting movie. Maybe Tarantino fans would like it, I'm not sure, but it lacked his films' characteristic violence.

Didn't see any of the others and probably won't see any except for 1917. Maybe Ford v. Ferrari but I'm not big on cars or racing or biopics.


----------



## Rogerx

MacLeod said:


> _1917 _- 10/10. I don't share the views of those critics who describe it as a "war movie", nor even a "war is hell movie". Nor do I think the so-called single take was a gimmick. It enabled the telling of a story in a particular way from a particular perspective and it worked - for me, at any rate.
> 
> This was mundane, daily life turned horribly upside down in a place where courage, luck and friendship are no guarantee of survival, but necessary all the same. The film begins and ends with handshakes in the natural world. The ghastly visions between make the handshakes all the more poignant, offering a substantial physical and emotional lifeline when life is at its most precious and valueless: the mates watchign your back, but also the wasted corpses everywhere.
> 
> This I would want to see again. So too _The Irishman _and _Little Women_. I won't mind if I don't see _Marriage Story _again.


Health and weather permitted, we going on Sunday to see 1917.


----------



## Tchaikov6

pianozach said:


> Most folks are raving about *Joker*. I haven't seen it, but the way it's praised you'd think it was the 2nd coming of Jesus.


Indeed. It's insane, actually. The movie was a 4/10.



bz3 said:


> Saw Joker due to circumstances out of my hands and hated it. Don't really understand who it appeals to since nothing exploded and the frenetic action was no where to be seen. Just a drab, mopey, plotless, soulless mess whose primary theme seemed to be ugliness.
> 
> Saw Once Upon a Time... despite not liking any of Tarantino's works and my opinion did not change on him. The movie was not very interesting or entertaining but it was noteworthy because I thought DiCaprio and Pitt, neither of whom do I particularly like or dislike, carried an otherwise uninteresting movie. Maybe Tarantino fans would like it, I'm not sure, but it lacked his films' characteristic violence.
> 
> Didn't see any of the others and probably won't see any except for 1917. Maybe Ford v. Ferrari but I'm not big on cars or racing or biopics.


Totally agree about Joker, what a dull and pointless film. People should just see Taxi Driver or the King of Comedy instead. 
I do like Tarantino but didn't love OUATIH.

I've now seen all but one (1917) of the nominees.
My new ranking is:
1. Parasite (9/10)
2. Marriage Story (8/10)
3. The Irishman (8/10)
4. Little Women (8/10)
5. Jojo Rabbit (8/10)
6. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (6/10)
7. Ford v. Ferrari (6/10)
8. Joker (4/10)


----------



## Tchaikov6

Rogerx said:


> Health and weather permitted, we going on Sunday to see 1917.


I think I'll be going quite soon to see 1917 as well!


----------



## Room2201974

I've seen _1917_ and I thought it was great. The scenes when they are moving through the trenches remind me so much of _Paths Of Glory_.


----------



## Manxfeeder

The only one I want to see is 1917. Maybe Little Women when it comes out on Netflix.


----------



## pianozach

Nowadays I find the SCORE nominations to be just as interesting as the 'big' categories.

This year:

Randy Newman: Marriage Story
John Williams: Star Wars IX: The Rise of Skywalker
Alexandre Desplat: Little Women
Thomas Newman: 1917
Hildur Guðnadóttir: Joker

Desplat has won two Academy Awards, for his musical scores to the films The Grand Budapest Hotel and The Shape of Water.
Hildur Guðnadóttir is the first solo woman composer to win a Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score. She's a cellist. I think she may win the Oscar.


----------



## Trout

Based on all the awards it already won, _1917_ has to be the heavy favorite for best picture. The movie to me was an impressive technical feat but I don't see the pick aging very well. It will lose a lot of its immersive viewing power once it becomes stream-able and people watch it on small TVs, laptops, phones, etc.

The nominations were honestly not that bad on the whole this year. Normally the academy nominates at least one flat-out terrible or dull movie for some giant slate of awards, but I don't think that's the case this year. In fact, I'd say most of the movies nominated are actually good.

For my money, _Little Women_, _Parasite_, and _Waves_ were the 3 best films of the year and to see 2 of them receiving several nominations is great. The only winning chances I see for any of them are _Little Women_ for Adapted Screenplay, and _Parasite_ for Foreign Language, Editing, and (if lucky) Director.


----------



## Bulldog

My wife and I watched Marriage Story last night. I lasted through the movie; Ellen Jane moved on to other activities after an hour or so. We both thought the movie was poor. The two leads were really boring/dour people; nobody would want to live with either of them. Also, the male lead's acting ability is questionable. 

I've seen plenty of movies about crumbling marriages including Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives where he makes each character an interesting personality. Thumbs down for Marriage Story.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Bulldog said:


> My wife and I watched Marriage Story last night. I lasted through the movie; Ellen Jane moved on to other activities after an hour or so. We both thought the movie was poor. The two leads were really boring/dour people; nobody would want to live with either of them. Also, the male lead's acting ability is questionable.
> 
> I've seen plenty of movies about crumbling marriages including Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives where he makes each character an interesting personality. Thumbs down for Marriage Story.


Oof. It was my second favorite of 2019 and I think Adam Driver gave the best performance of the year, but obviously you are entitled to your opinion and I know a lot of people disliked it. I just think it hit really hard for me and was very realistic.

Have you seen anything else of Noah Baumbach? He's one of my top ten directors, and although I love Marriage Story that's not even my favorite of his, that would be Frances Ha (which stars the director of Little Women, which is now going up against MS for Best Picture).


----------



## Bulldog

Tchaikov6 said:


> Have you seen anything else of Noah Baumbach? He's one of my top ten directors, and although I love Marriage Story that's not even my favorite of his, that would be Frances Ha (which stars the director of Little Women, which is now going up against MS for Best Picture).


I never heard of him; I don't pay much attention to directors.


----------



## Rogerx

*2020 EE British Academy Film Awards: The Winners |*

http://www.bafta.org/film/awards/ee-british-academy-film-awards-nominees-winners-2020


----------



## mikeh375

I really wanted Zellweger to win. Hopefully she'll bag the Oscar and buck the trend.


----------



## Tchaikov6

So I watched 1917 yesterday and DAMN it’s so good! That means I’ve seen every nominee and I’d rank them as such:
1. Parasite (9/10)
2. Marriage Story (8/10)
3. The Irishman (8/10)
4. Little Women (8/10)
5. 1917 (8/10)
6. Jojo Rabbit (8/10)
7. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (6/10)
8. Ford v Ferrari (6/10)
9. Joker (4/10)


----------



## pianozach

Rogerx said:


> http://www.bafta.org/film/awards/ee-british-academy-film-awards-nominees-winners-2020


*ORIGINAL SCORE*

1917 Thomas Newman
JOJO RABBIT Michael Giacchino
JOKER Hildur Guðnadóttir
LITTLE WOMEN Alexandre Desplat
STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER John Williams

I predict it will be either JOKER or 1917, but STAR WARS being the LAST film in the 9-part franchise may garner it many heartstrings votes.


----------



## Rogerx

pianozach said:


> *ORIGINAL SCORE*
> 
> 1917 Thomas Newman
> JOJO RABBIT Michael Giacchino
> JOKER Hildur Guðnadóttir
> LITTLE WOMEN Alexandre Desplat
> STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER John Williams
> 
> I predict it will be either JOKER or 1917, but STAR WARS being the LAST film in the 9-part franchise may garner it many heartstrings votes.


The Joker is going to win at some point .


----------



## Guest

Tchaikov6 said:


> So I watched 1917 yesterday and DAMN it's so good! That means I've seen every nominee and I'd rank them as such:
> 1. Parasite (9/10)
> 2. Marriage Story (8/10)
> 3. The Irishman (8/10)
> 4. Little Women (8/10)
> 5. 1917 (8/10)
> 6. Jojo Rabbit (8/10)
> 7. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (6/10)
> 8. Ford v Ferrari (6/10)
> 9. Joker (4/10)


Almost every generation (or two) has had its version of "Little Women". I've seen the George Cukor version from 1933 with Katherine Hepburn as a somewhat combative Jo; Mervyn Le Roy's version from 1949 with June Allyson as Jo and Elizabeth Taylor as Meg; Gillian Armstrong's 1994 version with Winona Ryder as Jo, but I haven't seen this latest nor the 1918 silent version. Each production reflects the time in which it was made. Winona Ryder is more May Welland from "Age of Innocence" than Jo from Alcott's book (which I read when I was 12).

Please tell us about the 2019 version.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Christabel said:


> Almost every generation (or two) has had its version of "Little Women". I've seen the George Cukor version from 1933 with Katherine Hepburn as a somewhat combative Jo; Mervyn Le Roy's version from 1949 with June Allyson as Jo and Elizabeth Taylor as Meg; Gillian Armstrong's 1994 version with Winona Ryder as Jo, but I haven't seen this latest nor the 1918 silent version. Each production reflects the time in which it was made. Winona Ryder is more May Welland from "Age of Innocence" than Jo from Alcott's book (which I read when I was 12).
> 
> Please tell us about the 2019 version.


So, I have no comparison, since this is the only version I've seen (I haven't even read the book). I can say that it's one of my favorite movies of the decade, wonderfully acted, with beautiful cinematography.

One interesting thing about it is that it tells it's story in a nonlinear fashion. Is that true of the other versions (as in, it jumps back and forth between the girls in adulthood and childhood. It uses some classical music excerpts (they're cliche I.e Beethoven Pathetique second movement), but the score by Desplat is beautiful. Jo is definitely a product of Greta Gerwig's life and experiences, and she almost reminds me of Lady Bird by the same director (and actress, Saoirse Ronan). It's overall heartwarming, funny, sad and maybe the most profound movie made all year despite being the only PG nominee (Joker BS blablabla it tries to be deep and just fails).


----------



## Guest

Tchaikov6 said:


> So, I have no comparison, since this is the only version I've seen (I haven't even read the book). I can say that it's one of my favorite movies of the decade, wonderfully acted, with beautiful cinematography.
> 
> One interesting thing about it is that it tells it's story in a nonlinear fashion. Is that true of the other versions (as in, it jumps back and forth between the girls in adulthood and childhood. It uses some classical music excerpts (they're cliche I.e Beethoven Pathetique second movement), but the score by Desplat is beautiful. Jo is definitely a product of Greta Gerwig's life and experiences, and she almost reminds me of Lady Bird by the same director (and actress, Saoirse Ronan). It's overall heartwarming, funny, sad and maybe the most profound movie made all year despite being the only PG nominee (Joker BS blablabla it tries to be deep and just fails).


The other versions of "Little Women" that I've mentioned do unfold in linear fashion; there is scant, if any, reference to the earlier years and, of course, the father is only 'present' in the form of letters he sends home from the Civil War. It's a film entirely about women, despite the few male characters in it. Do try and have a look at the version by Gillian Armstrong (Aussie director) from 1994. There was also a TV mini-series from 1978: ah, no.

The representations of the most dominant female, Jo, vary from the hardness of Hepburn, the softness, vulnerability yet determination of June Allyson, right through to the confidence of Winona Ryder which, as I said, reminds me too much of her May Welland from "Age of Innocence". She's a bit too 'knowing' for the context of the film, IMO. Overall the Mervyn Le Roy production from 1949 (the era of "_It's a Wonderful Life_") best represents, for me, the zeitgeist of post-war America. My one criticism of it is the over-use of music, a hangover from the 1930s and early 1940s, and rather saccharine at that. The Steiner/Deutsch score I would equate more with "Gone With the Wind".

Le Roy was a fine director who made important films which shaped American culture. Here's a scene from his version of "Little Women" where Beth is gifted a piano from the old man across the road. Margaret O'Brien gives a moving account of it (and before people respond cynically to the closing shot, I can say that I had an older family friend who was a wonderful mentor to me just like that in my earliest years and he remained so until he died childless in 2002.)


----------



## Tchaikov6

Christabel said:


> The other versions of "Little Women" that I've mentioned do unfold in linear fashion; there is scant, if any, reference to the earlier years and, of course, the father is only 'present' in the form of letters he sends home from the Civil War. It's a film entirely about women, despite the few male characters in it. Do try and have a look at the version by Gillian Armstrong (Aussie director) from 1994. There was also a TV mini-series from 1978: ah, no.
> 
> The representations of the most dominant female, Jo, vary from the hardness of Hepburn, the softness, vulnerability yet determination of June Allyson, right through to the confidence of Winona Ryder which, as I said, reminds me too much of her May Welland from "Age of Innocence". She's a bit too 'knowing' for the context of the film, IMO. Overall the Mervyn Le Roy production from 1949 (the era of "_It's a Wonderful Life_") best represents, for me, the zeitgeist of post-war America. My one criticism of it is the over-use of music, a hangover from the 1930s and early 1940s, and rather saccharine at that. The Steiner/Deutsch score I would equate more with "Gone With the Wind".
> 
> Le Roy was a fine director who made important films which shaped American culture. Here's a scene from his version of "Little Women" where Beth is gifted a piano from the old man across the road. Margaret O'Brien gives a moving account of it (and before people respond cynically to the closing shot, I can say that I had an older family friend who was a wonderful mentor to me just like that in my earliest years and he remained so until he died childless in 2002.)


Thanks, I'll be sure to check these out and go on a little Little Women binge (maybe even the book too). Are you planning on seeing the 2019 one?


----------



## Guest

Yes, I'll most certainly be watching out for the 2019 "*Little Women*". Thanks for your comments.


----------



## Rogerx

mikeh375 said:


> I really wanted Zellweger to win. Hopefully she'll bag the Oscar and buck the trend.


I am also fine with this, she'great.


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> My wife and I watched Marriage Story last night. I lasted through the movie; Ellen Jane moved on to other activities after an hour or so. We both thought the movie was poor. The two leads were really boring/dour people; nobody would want to live with either of them. Also, the male lead's acting ability is questionable.
> 
> I've seen plenty of movies about crumbling marriages including Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives where he makes each character an interesting personality. Thumbs down for Marriage Story.


May I recommend the ultimate film about marriage problems; "Hannah and Her Sisters" (1987). It is Allen's masterpiece and full of wonderful humour, but also very touching as well. You'll see Carrie Fisher too, and she's very much missed. Allen loves classical music and jazz and the film is full of this. Most of you will have already have seen the film, but just in case some haven't....it's for really grown up people!! And the hilarious scenes when the Woody Allen character goes through a health crisis and tries to convert from Judiasm to Christianity - pure gold. He's a remarkable film-maker (despite the flops).


----------



## Rogerx

1917 seems to be the loser of the evening.


----------



## Tchaikov6

*PARASITE WINS BEST PICTURE*

guys, i'm so excited! This was my favorite movie of the year, and my second favorite of the decade. Bong Joon-hoooooo


----------



## Rogerx

Tchaikov6 said:


> *PARASITE WINS BEST PICTURE*
> 
> guys, i'm so excited! This was my favorite movie of the year, and my second favorite of the decade. Bong Joon-hoooooo


I am not criticizing the movie but, personally I think this is political correctness from the highest order .
Keep all the minorities quiet for a year.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Rogerx said:


> I am not criticizing the movie but, personally I think this is political correctness from the highest order .
> Keep all the minorities quiet for a year.


Hmmm, maybe you are right, and that is the reason it won, but that did not affect my enjoyment of it. I sincerely do believe it deserved the win for best picture, even if the Academy voters chose it for a political reason instead of the actual quality of the movie.


----------



## Trout

Rogerx said:


> I am not criticizing the movie but, personally I think this is political correctness from the highest order .
> Keep all the minorities quiet for a year.


Completely wrong take. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you really don't see any foreign films.


----------



## Rogerx

Trout said:


> Completely wrong take. I'm going to take a wild guess and say you really don't see any foreign films.


Wrong assumption.
I live on the border with Belgium and we do have France channels and satellite dish, so I can see enough..


----------



## Trout

Rogerx said:


> Wrong assumption.


Why is it that you say when the first ever foreign-language film wins best picture that it is just to "appease minorities"? That is incredibly demeaning to all of world cinema that I cannot even begin to describe how wrong it is. If you think that only the U.S. can produce great films, then I really do not want to waste time discussing this any further.

Parasite is a simply a masterpiece and no one thinks that just because it is Korean.


----------



## Rogerx

Trout said:


> Why is it that you say when the first ever foreign-language film wins best picture that it is just to "appease minorities"? That is incredibly demeaning to all of world cinema that I cannot even begin to describe how wrong it is. If you think that only the U.S. can produce great films, then I really do not want to waste time discussing this any further.
> 
> Parasite is a simply a masterpiece and no one thinks that just because it is Korean.


Last year nomination won only 3 and was i.m .h.o the best of the year so stop judging please.


----------



## Trout

Rogerx said:


> Last year nomination won only 3 and was i.m .h.o the best of the year so stop judging please.


That is completely irrelevant to your original post.

What you said implies the following:
1. Parasite is not deserving enough on its own merits to win BP. It only won because of "minorities."
2. Somehow celebrating a Korean film means that all minorities are "appeased"? You are implying as if all minorities are somehow a monolith.
3. Awarding this film is somehow "political correctness of the highest order." This film is in no way politically correct so I can only assume you're just referring to the fact it is Korean and haven't watched it.


----------



## Rogerx

You can assume as much as you want.


----------



## Trout

No need. Your words speak for themselves. I hope everyone here reads them.


----------



## Jacck

Trout said:


> Why is it that you say when the first ever foreign-language film wins best picture that it is just to "appease minorities"? That is incredibly demeaning to all of world cinema that I cannot even begin to describe how wrong it is. If you think that only the U.S. can produce great films, then I really do not want to waste time discussing this any further.
> Parasite is a simply a masterpiece and no one thinks that just because it is Korean.


I am not sure if the Parasite won to appease minorities or because the domestic US competition was so weak this years. It does not really matter. But the minorities did indeed complain about the awards.

Stop Blaming History for Your All-White, All-Male Movie
_Movies like "1917," "The Irishman," and "Ford v Ferrari" have all used their historical settings as a shield to deflect diversity critiques. But the past had people of color and women, too._

anyway, in the intersectionalist hierarchy, the asians occupy a pretty low rank, so it was likely the second option


----------



## DavidA

Rogerx said:


> 1917 seems to be the loser of the evening.


Not surprised. Just a remake of 'Two Little Boys'. Two hours of boredom


----------



## DavidA

Christabel said:


> Yes, I'll most certainly be watching out for the 2019 "*Little Women*". Thanks for your comments.


It is a very entertaining movie and that's what movies are supposed to be about. Why it will not do well at the brain dead Oscars.


----------



## Jacck

Trout said:


> That is completely irrelevant to your original post.
> 
> What you said implies the following:
> 1. Parasite is not deserving enough on its own merits to win BP. It only won because of "minorities."
> 2. Somehow celebrating a Korean film means that all minorities are "appeased"? You are implying as if all minorities are somehow a monolith.
> 3. Awarding this film is somehow "political correctness of the highest order." This film is in no way politically correct so I can only assume you're just referring to the fact it is Korean and haven't watched it.


BTW, I watched the movie, but do not understand what is so special about it. Yes, is an 8/10-9/10 movie, but I would not give it a 10/10. Is it a comedy? Yes, slightly funny. Is it a social commentary? Possibly, though not a very good one. I could name 20 Asian movies which are much better than this and did not get an award.


----------



## Trout

Jacck said:


> I am not sure if the Parasite won to appease minorities or because the domestic US competition was so weak this years. It does not really matter. But the minorities did indeed complain about the awards.
> 
> Stop Blaming History for Your All-White, All-Male Movie
> _Movies like "1917," "The Irishman," and "Ford v Ferrari" have all used their historical settings as a shield to deflect diversity critiques. But the past had people of color and women, too._
> 
> anyway, in the intersectionalist hierarchy, the asians occupy a pretty low rank, so it was likely the second option


Actually neither. By all accounts this was one of the best years for domestic film in a long while. Maybe, just maybe, it could be because Parasite was a completely deserving film on its own merits?? Is that too crazy to understand here?


----------



## Jacck

Trout said:


> Actually neither. By all accounts this was one of the best years for domestic film in a long while. Maybe, just maybe, it could be because Parasite was a completely deserving film on its own merits?? Is that too crazy to understand here?


No, I can accept it. I just see a little misalignment between my own perception of the movie, and the accolades it gets, so I search for reasons. But a fully valid reason might be my lack of ability to appreciate it. I can accept that I am in a minority. By all means it is a good movie, it is just not a 10/10 for me. Personally I find many Asian movies which would deserve the accolades more, for example
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0244316/


----------



## Trout

Jacck said:


> No, I can accept it. I just see a little misalignment between my own perception of the movie, and the accolades it gets, so I search for reasons. But a fully valid reason might be my lack of ability to appreciate it. I can accept that I am in a minority. By all means it is a good movie, it is just not a 10/10 for me. Personally I find many Asian movies which would deserve the accolades more, for example
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0244316/


I respect your opinion. It's just that comparing any film to Yi Yi, or Seven Samurai, or In the Mood for Love, etc. is setting such a high bar that you will find almost no film as "deserving." The fact is that those films never stood a chance to win at the Oscars for reasons other than their quality, but Parasite's win and the much-improved distribution of foreign films in the U.S. signal the possibility that more such films can do well in the future.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Jacck said:


> No, I can accept it. I just see a little misalignment between my own perception of the movie, and the accolades it gets, so I search for reasons. But a fully valid reason might be my lack of ability to appreciate it. I can accept that I am in a minority. By all means it is a good movie, it is just not a 10/10 for me. Personally I find many Asian movies which would deserve the accolades more, for example
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0244316/


Well, to me, it Isn't a 10/10 movie either, it's a 9/10. However, I would consider it in my top 20 of all time. My point is, even if you give it a 9/10 that can still mean it's a masterpiece, correct?


----------



## Jacck

Tchaikov6 said:


> Well, to me, it Isn't a 10/10 movie either, it's a 9/10. However, I would consider it in my top 20 of all time. My point is, even if you give it a 9/10 that can still mean it's a masterpiece, correct?


I would give 10/10 to a movie I consider a masterpiece and I have maybe 100 movies in my personal database of masterpieces. This movie was good, but was not a masterpiece for me, more like a second-tier. The pacing of the movie was not ideal and the ending did not fit good for the movie imho. I understand the social message of the movie, though I did not find it particularly deep, and it did not affect me much. I was much more powerfully affected by Capharnaüm


----------



## pianozach

Is ANY film worthy of being called 10/10 - a masterpiece, perfect in every way?

Maybe. A lot of credible sources have made lists (IMDb, AFI, BFI, Hollywood Reporter, Roger Ebert, RottenTomatoes, the NYTimes, etc.). Here's some Top Three lists

*BFI* https://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time 
1. Vertigo (1958)
2. Citizen Kane - (1941)
3. Tokyo Story - (Japan 1953)

*Hollywood Reporter* https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/100-best-films-ever-hollywood-favorites-818512
1. The Godfather (1972)
2. The Wizard of Oz (1939)
3. Citizen Kane (1941)

*IMDb* https://www.imdb.com/list/ls055592025/ 
1. The Godfather (1972)
2. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
3. Schindler's List (1993)

*Roger Ebert* https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/ten-greatest-films-of-all-time
Roger lists his 10 best alphabetically. That makes sense.

*AFI* https://www.afi.com/afis-100-years-100-movies/
1. Citizen Kane (1941)
2. Casablanca (1943)
The Godfather (1972)

*Business Insider* https://www.businessinsider.com/50-best-movies-all-time-critics-2016-10#1-citizen-kane-1941-50
1. Citizen Kane (1941)
2. The Godfather (1972)
3. Rear Window (1954)

*Open Culture* http://www.openculture.com/2019/04/...-of-all-time-according-to-358-filmmakers.html
1. Tokyo Story (Japan 1953)
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
2. Citizen Kane (1941)

Are all these 10/10?

Well, here's something better: *The 50 Greatest Film Scores Of All Time* 
https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/the-50-best-film-scores-of-all-time/


----------



## eljr

pianozach said:


> Well, here's something better: *The 50 Greatest Film Scores Of All Time*
> https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/the-50-best-film-scores-of-all-time/


What an absolutely awful list.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I saw 7/9 that were nominated for Best Picture. I thought Parasite was as good as any of them. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the others won. It's just a matter of taste. Was the win due to racial equality or just quality? It could be a bit of both, but it shouldn't be surprising for it winning or not. It was definitely less predictable than average Hollywood fare.


----------



## eljr

Trout said:


> Actually neither. By all accounts this was one of the best years for domestic film in a long while. Maybe, just maybe, it could be because Parasite was a completely deserving film on its own merits?? Is that too crazy to understand here?


I am thinking it was more a strategic decision by the Academy.

There is a category Best Foreign Film, now called, Academy Award for Best International Feature Film.


----------



## ManateeFL

Phil loves classical said:


> I saw 7/9 that were nominated for Best Picture. I thought Parasite was as good as any of them. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the others won. It's just a matter of taste. Was the win due to racial equality or just quality? It could be a bit of both, but it shouldn't be surprising for it winning or not. It was definitely less predictable than average Hollywood fare.


My thoughts exactly. Parasite may not have been my absolute _favorite_ movie of the year, but it was certainly one of the best. I'm not sure if I saw any flim this year I would categorize as a "masterpiece" per say. The film may very well have won because Oscar voters wanted to push the film for diversity's sake, and if so, I'm just happy they happened to do so for a truly excellent movie. I don't often agree with the Academy's best picture choice, but this year I have no complaint.


----------



## Jacck

pianozach said:


> Is ANY film worthy of being called 10/10 - a masterpiece, perfect in every way?
> 
> Maybe. A lot of credible sources have made lists (IMDb, AFI, BFI, Hollywood Reporter, Roger Ebert, RottenTomatoes, the NYTimes, etc.). Here's some Top Three lists
> 
> *BFI* https://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time
> 1. Vertigo (1958)
> 2. Citizen Kane - (1941)
> 3. Tokyo Story - (Japan 1953)
> 
> *Hollywood Reporter* https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/100-best-films-ever-hollywood-favorites-818512
> 1. The Godfather (1972)
> 2. The Wizard of Oz (1939)
> 3. Citizen Kane (1941)
> 
> *IMDb* https://www.imdb.com/list/ls055592025/
> 1. The Godfather (1972)
> 2. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
> 3. Schindler's List (1993)
> 
> *Roger Ebert* https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/ten-greatest-films-of-all-time
> Roger lists his 10 best alphabetically. That makes sense.
> 
> *AFI* https://www.afi.com/afis-100-years-100-movies/
> 1. Citizen Kane (1941)
> 2. Casablanca (1943)
> The Godfather (1972)
> 
> *Business Insider* https://www.businessinsider.com/50-best-movies-all-time-critics-2016-10#1-citizen-kane-1941-50
> 1. Citizen Kane (1941)
> 2. The Godfather (1972)
> 3. Rear Window (1954)
> 
> *Open Culture* http://www.openculture.com/2019/04/...-of-all-time-according-to-358-filmmakers.html
> 1. Tokyo Story (Japan 1953)
> 2. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
> 2. Citizen Kane (1941)
> 
> Are all these 10/10?
> 
> Well, here's something better: *The 50 Greatest Film Scores Of All Time*
> https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/the-50-best-film-scores-of-all-time/


I have seen all the movies except 2 (Read Window, The Wizard of Oz) and I would rate them all 10/10
The list of film scores does not have a single Jerry Goldsmith score. It is worhless.


----------



## bz3

Jacck said:


> I have seen all the movies except 2 (Read Window, The Wizard of Oz) and I would rate them all 10/10
> The list of film scores does not have a single Jerry Goldsmith score. It is worhless.


Rear Window is the only movie listed in that post I'd call a flawless masterpiece. I'd go out of my way to watch it if I were you. Vertigo doesn't come quite as close in terms of tightness and dramatic tension.


----------



## Tchaikov6

bz3 said:


> Rear Window is the only movie listed in that post I'd call a flawless masterpiece. I'd go out of my way to watch it if I were you. Vertigo doesn't come quite as close in terms of tightness and dramatic tension.


I like Rear Window but I'd say Psycho>Vertigo>Rear Window, they're all masterpieces.


----------



## pianozach

Jacck said:


> I have seen all the movies except 2 (Read Window, The Wizard of Oz) and I would rate them all 10/10
> The list of film scores does not have a single Jerry Goldsmith score. It is worhless.


There are, of course, other *Best Film Score* lists.

I regret posting a lousy one. It was simply the first that came up.

You might enjoy the *Oscar* _nominees_ for *Best Score* list (on Wikipedia), although it, too, has some anomalies and glaring omissions. The strangest part is that from 1937 through 1945 EVERY studio could submit a nominee in this category. The second strangest is that until 1938 the Studio Music Department Head would receive the award rather than the actual composer.

Of course, it's the Oscars, so for every 'winner' there was often a nominee more worthy, and ofttimes a more worthy score that failed to even get a nomination.

Despite that, it's a good place to start (except for 1937-1945; for that you may want to be more selective)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Original_Score

The *AFI* (American Film Institute) has a very nice *100 Years of Film Scores* list, although it is a bit more 'populist' than the others. It's a list of 25 scores (including 2 *Goldsmith* scores, *Planet of the Apes* and *Chinatown*) that were narrowed down from a list of 250.

That list of 250 'nominees' is a far better list than the dinky list of 25 finalists. (Unfortuately, it's in pdf format, so cannot be sorted without manually retyping it into a sortable format. It's in alphabetical order by film title.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20110313150632/http://www.afi.com/Docs/100Years/scores250.pdf

*ClassicFM* has a list of 25 as well, written rather subjectively by broadcaster, writer and film-lover Andrew Collins. His list does not include any from Goldsmith.

However, *American Music Preservation* website (I can't verify just how authoritative a source they may be) has a list of *100 Essential Film Scores of the 20th Century* (except for the Top 10, they are unranked), which include *7* *Jerry Goldsmith* scores:

Chinatown
Islands in the Stream
The Omen
Patton
Planet of the Apes
The Russia House
The Sand Pebbles

http://www.americanmusicpreservation.com/100filmscores.htm


----------



## Phil loves classical

pianozach said:


> Is ANY film worthy of being called 10/10 - a masterpiece, perfect in every way?
> 
> Maybe. A lot of credible sources have made lists (IMDb, AFI, BFI, Hollywood Reporter, Roger Ebert, RottenTomatoes, the NYTimes, etc.). Here's some Top Three lists
> 
> *BFI* https://www.bfi.org.uk/news/50-greatest-films-all-time
> 1. Vertigo (1958)
> 2. Citizen Kane - (1941)
> 3. Tokyo Story - (Japan 1953)
> 
> *Hollywood Reporter* https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/100-best-films-ever-hollywood-favorites-818512
> 1. The Godfather (1972)
> 2. The Wizard of Oz (1939)
> 3. Citizen Kane (1941)
> 
> *IMDb* https://www.imdb.com/list/ls055592025/
> 1. The Godfather (1972)
> 2. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
> 3. Schindler's List (1993)
> 
> *Roger Ebert* https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/ten-greatest-films-of-all-time
> Roger lists his 10 best alphabetically. That makes sense.
> 
> *AFI* https://www.afi.com/afis-100-years-100-movies/
> 1. Citizen Kane (1941)
> 2. Casablanca (1943)
> The Godfather (1972)
> 
> *Business Insider* https://www.businessinsider.com/50-best-movies-all-time-critics-2016-10#1-citizen-kane-1941-50
> 1. Citizen Kane (1941)
> 2. The Godfather (1972)
> 3. Rear Window (1954)
> 
> *Open Culture* http://www.openculture.com/2019/04/...-of-all-time-according-to-358-filmmakers.html
> 1. Tokyo Story (Japan 1953)
> 2. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
> 2. Citizen Kane (1941)
> 
> Are all these 10/10?
> 
> Well, here's something better: *The 50 Greatest Film Scores Of All Time*
> https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/the-50-best-film-scores-of-all-time/


I watched all of these. Shawshank Redemption shouldn't be in any top 50 list IMO. Not very subtle and not very notable cinematography. IMDB is more a fan based site.


----------



## pianozach

Phil loves classical said:


> I watched all of these. Shawshank Redemption shouldn't be in any top 50 list IMO. Not very subtle and not very notable cinematography. IMDB is more a fan based site.


Quite understandable that anyone might find issue with just these top three of these site's Top 10 or 20 or50 or whatever they are.

Very rare when you can get TWO people to agree on films or symphonies or songs or art. I've seen all of these except for *Tokyo Story*.

I enjoyed *Shawshank Redemption*, probably more for the redemption aspect, and the unfolding story narrative style.

I've seen *Citizen Kane*, and its storytelling is firmly rooted in the decade it was made; it's slow and deliberate, and demands constant attention for the time spent to have the maximum payoff.


----------

