Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-13-2016, 11:49 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 38,504
Watching "Spotlight" After it won the Oscar

Well that was underwhelming.

A good story, well told and well acted. An important story. There was nothing remarkable about it. Nothing innovative. Nothing about the cinematography, mise en scene, or the like was of particular note. As enraging as the subject matter should be, it didn't enrage that much, perhaps because we spend so little time looking at the events directly.

Gosh, I'm not sure it should even have been nominated.

I guess I missed something.
  #2  
Old 03-14-2016, 01:05 AM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 9,069
Haven't seen it yet; however, that's how I felt about "Chicago" winning for Best Picture.
  #3  
Old 03-15-2016, 04:59 PM
Enright3 Enright3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 6,319
I've probably posted this too often over the years, but I'm of the opinion that Best Picture Oscar should not be awarded until at X number of years after the movie is made. Let some of the emotion die down first.

I think Pulp Fiction was a better choice than Forrest Gump. Saving Private Ryan lost to Shakespeare In Love. I think Fargo was a better movie than The English Patient. Goodfellas should have won over Dances with Wolves. Not that I expect everyone to agree with me on the above examples, I think everyone would agree that sometimes the Best Picture seems to go to the emotional favorite. I actually think that might be a good idea for best actor/actress etc. I look at it like being inducted into the baseball or rock & roll hall of fame. Give it a few years, and see which ones still have a buzz around them.
  #4  
Old 03-15-2016, 05:22 PM
astorian astorian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: austin tx usa
Posts: 34,454
Important subject matter doesn't always make for a good movie. Stanley Kramer proved that dozens of times.
  #5  
Old 03-15-2016, 05:22 PM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 27,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
Haven't seen it yet; however, that's how I felt about "Chicago" winning for Best Picture.
I have yet to see Spotlight. I have not seen Crash, either.

However, Chicago is the worst Best Picture I've seen, at least off the top of my head. I actually hated it. Or was massively bored by it. Maybe that is the same thing sometimes.
  #6  
Old 03-15-2016, 05:36 PM
Richard John Marcej Richard John Marcej is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Well that was underwhelming.

A good story, well told and well acted. An important story. There was nothing remarkable about it. Nothing innovative. Nothing about the cinematography, mise en scene, or the like was of particular note.
Where is it written that a Best Picture Winner has to have something remarkable or innovative about it? Sure, some winners do, but shouldn't the Best Picture simply be a solid film of story, acting, directing? A solid story?

Three of my favorite Best Picture winners are "Casablanca", "Marty" and "The Apartment". None had any innovative or remarkable about them. They were solid examples of storytelling that just happened to be considered better than all the other releases that year.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
As enraging as the subject matter should be, it didn't enrage that much, perhaps because we spend so little time looking at the events directly.

Gosh, I'm not sure it should even have been nominated.

I guess I missed something.
You weren't enraged? Really??? Wow, you must have a more cynical outlook than I'd ever have. This film pisses me off for TWO reasons.

The abuses that were passed over, the lives that were devastated, maybe even destroyed by a group of people who's sole purpose is to enrich it's followers and to aide in their faith. These victims were abused not only bodily, but mentally as well. And for the powers to be, rather than take actions so that practice wouldn't continue, merely brushed aside.... how can that not anger anyone.

The death of REAL reporting. The kind of journalistic reporting that's needed in a free society, to make sure abuses of power are being uncovered by a free and open press. With the disappearance of newspapers and news outlets, with clicks on news internet sites considered more important than uncovering stories, that should enrage everyone who lives in America.
  #7  
Old 03-15-2016, 05:40 PM
Richard John Marcej Richard John Marcej is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth View Post
I have yet to see Spotlight. I have not seen Crash, either.

However, Chicago is the worst Best Picture I've seen, at least off the top of my head. I actually hated it. Or was massively bored by it. Maybe that is the same thing sometimes.
Worts Best Picture Winner?
The Greatest Show On Earth"

A snoozefest to be sure.
  #8  
Old 03-15-2016, 05:51 PM
Cayuga Cayuga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,003
I saw Spotlight before the Oscars. I thought it was a very good, but unexceptional, movie. I assumed the fact that it was nominated spoke to a lack of exceptional films last year. And I can't for the life of me understand why Rachel McAdams was nominated. She's a professional actress, she read her lines competently and reacted when her castmates spoke, nothing more.

On the other hand, I loved Chicago. And I thought Shakespeare in Love deserved to win over Saving Private Ryan. So go figure.
  #9  
Old 03-15-2016, 05:58 PM
obfusciatrist obfusciatrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 5,623
The innovative thing it did was tell the story without making it about the reporters.
  #10  
Old 03-15-2016, 06:00 PM
SpoilerVirgin SpoilerVirgin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Obama Country
Posts: 6,538
For me, Spotlight was not just the best picture of the year, but probably the best picture of the decade. I walked out of the theater thinking that it deserved to win the Best Picture Oscar, although given the inconsistency of the Oscars, I didn't know if it would win.

I think that it was the script that elevated Spotlight above other films, and of course the way the script was brought to life. The movie was as real as a documentary, without sacrificing the pacing that gave it the emotional beats of a drama. It was a thing of beauty, like looking at an extraordinary painting, or hearing a sublime piece of music. Just my opinion, but clearly one that is shared by Oscar voters.

I don't think the subject matter itself was what made the movie great, although it certainly gave it emotional depth. I saw other movies this year that dealt with similarly meaningful issues but didn't have the artistry of Spotlight. I was thrilled to see it win, and looking over the long list of winners, it's one of the ones that will always make me think, "That year, they got it right."
  #11  
Old 03-15-2016, 06:30 PM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 13,684
I'm not remotely surprised that Spotlight, a film that I didn't consider the best of the year, won the Oscar for Best Picture. I've been watching the Oscars nearly every year for the past three decades or so, and I've seen a lot of older films too. Nearly always the film that I consider the best doesn't win. Other times, although I don't have a single favorite, the winner isn't among the movies that I consider to be pretty good that year. I'm actually surprised when the film I consider to be best wins the Oscar. There's nothing special about the Oscars. Every year there are dozens of polls, shows, and widely publicized personal lists about best films (and people working on movies that year). The choices of the Oscars aren't terrible, but they're no better than passible compared to other polls, shows, and lists.
  #12  
Old 03-15-2016, 06:31 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 14,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
A good story, well told and well acted. An important story. There was nothing remarkable about it. Nothing innovative. Nothing about the cinematography, mise en scene, or the like was of particular note. As enraging as the subject matter should be, it didn't enrage that much, perhaps because we spend so little time looking at the events directly.
I think you'd make a stronger point if you compared it to the movie you figure should've won the Oscar instead; even if we grant for the sake of argument that SPOTLIGHT was weak compared to previous Best Picture winners, that's kind of irrelevant if "good story, well told and well acted" is also all you can say about BROOKLYN and BRIDGE OF SPIES and et cetera.
  #13  
Old 03-15-2016, 07:56 PM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 27,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard John Marcej View Post
Worts Best Picture Winner?
The Greatest Show On Earth"

A snoozefest to be sure.
Never seen it.
  #14  
Old 03-15-2016, 08:19 PM
MovieMogul MovieMogul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 15,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth View Post
Never seen it.
It's not really worth the trouble, but it is the last Best Picture winner to win only 2 Oscars total until Spotlight, 63 years later.
  #15  
Old 03-15-2016, 08:22 PM
Count Blucher Count Blucher is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Near Baroni&Kelly's Jail.
Posts: 13,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
Haven't seen it yet; however, that's how I felt about "Chicago" winning for Best Picture.
That bad...!?
  #16  
Old 03-15-2016, 08:53 PM
Siam Sam Siam Sam is offline
Elephant Whisperer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 38,428
I would have given the Oscar to Bridge of Spies myself, but Spotlight would have been a very close second.
  #17  
Old 03-15-2016, 09:41 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard John Marcej View Post
Where is it written that a Best Picture Winner has to have something remarkable or innovative about it? Sure, some winners do, but shouldn't the Best Picture simply be a solid film of story, acting, directing? A solid story?
The name of the organization which gives out the Oscars is the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and, from that name, one might presume that they do have a vested interested in advancing the science of film making.

But, that said, the best that they can do is nominate the best film of the year. If it was a year of dud films, they can't nominate anything other than duds, nor can they do anything but award a dud. If there were good but no innovative films, all they can elect best is a good film. From the list of films that were up for the award, I'd say that it was a year of good but non-innovative films.
  #18  
Old 03-15-2016, 09:43 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
A good story, well told and well acted. An important story. There was nothing remarkable about it. Nothing innovative. Nothing about the cinematography, mise en scene, or the like was of particular note.
Other than the main topic, the movie did suggest that people are blind to the things around them and that it takes an outsider to notice. So it wasn't completely one note. Though, largely it was.
  #19  
Old 03-15-2016, 10:08 PM
hogarth hogarth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Well that was underwhelming.

A good story, well told and well acted. An important story. There was nothing remarkable about it. Nothing innovative. Nothing about the cinematography, mise en scene, or the like was of particular note. As enraging as the subject matter should be, it didn't enrage that much, perhaps because we spend so little time looking at the events directly.
That was pretty much my reaction to All the President's Men.
  #20  
Old 03-16-2016, 12:12 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 38,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard John Marcej View Post
You weren't enraged? Really??? Wow, you must have a more cynical outlook than I'd ever have. This film pisses me off for TWO reasons.
I was enraged years and years ago when it happened. Catholic rape rings were old news when the events of the film took place, much less today. I can't believe a well read person doesn't alresdy know about this stuff or would not have known in 2001.

The movie seemed very detached from the victims and the coverup. It largely centred on the heroic journalists; a few victims were shown but largely as props for the heroes.

As to another point made I was even more amazed "Brooklyn" was nominated.
  #21  
Old 03-16-2016, 12:19 AM
SpoilerVirgin SpoilerVirgin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Obama Country
Posts: 6,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
As to another point made I ws even more amazed "Brooklyn" was nominated.
Just out of curiosity, of the 10 films that were nominated this year, was there one that you felt was worthy of being best picture? What about it made you feel that way?
  #22  
Old 03-16-2016, 02:50 AM
Moonchild Moonchild is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: La-la land
Posts: 1,140
I felt pretty much the same way, although I did feel it was worthy of its nom. (I also saw it after the Oscars, but did see it on a big screen.)

It was a well done movie that worked with excellent editing. But I, too, was disappointed; I expected it to be near brilliant because I thought The Big Short was fantastic, which didn't win, of course.

(FTR: have not sees The Revenant, Brooklyn, nor all of Bridge of Spies, which was a "sneak-in" after another movie and I had other efforts in procrastination to attend to.)
  #23  
Old 03-16-2016, 06:58 AM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 13,684
SpoilerVirgin, there were 8 nominees. The current rule is that there must be between 5 and 10 nominees. Each nominee must received at least 5% of the nominations. If this would bring the total below 5 nominees, the top 5 are included among the nominees:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academ...r_Best_Picture
  #24  
Old 03-16-2016, 10:33 AM
astorian astorian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: austin tx usa
Posts: 34,454
Two cents from a still devout Catholic:

Of COURSE I was outraged by the actual scandal. I have stated numerous times on these boards that, if there are any plausible cases to be made, I want some bishops to do jail time for obstruction of justice or acting as accessories after the fact. I wouldn't even mind seeing RICO invoked (if the Church hierarchy doesn't want to be treated like the Mafia, they shouldn't ACT like the goddamn Mafia).

It doesn't follow that Spotlight was a great movie. Just like the aforementioned Stanley Kramer, Spotlight took an important issue and made a rather forgettable movie about it.

There's another angle to the sex abuse in Boston that the movie doesn't dwell on: Father Paul Shanley was the Boston Globe's favorite Catholic priest. Don't take my word for it, do some Googling. Shanley got away with murder in PART because the liberal reporters of the Boston Globe adored him. They glorified him as a gay, liberal hippie "street priest." It's inexcusable that his bishops looked the other way when he screwed teenage boys, but the truth is, the Boston Globe looked the other way for decades too, because they liked Shanley.

Ross Douthat put it best: the sex scandals in Boston displayed the worst parts of BOTH Vatican II Catholicism AND old school, conservative Catholicism. You had liberal gay priests like Shanley and Geoghan who thought the old rules didn't apply to them, and you had conservative bishops like Bernard Law, who thought the best thing was to "treat the faithful like mushrooms- keep them in the dark and feed them some bullshit now and then."

Neither side gave a damn about the actual flesh-and-blood victims of these crimes. And for the most part, neither did the Boston Globe.

Last edited by astorian; 03-16-2016 at 10:35 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017