As I recall, I don’t think it was so much the vampires were defeated by El Kabong as they just ran out the clock and the sun came up. I guess that’s the one thing that kind of didn’t make sense about Sinners to me.
Other than that, I thought Sinners was one of the better historical drama action vampire musicals I’ve seen.
The guitar had silver in it which is relevant to bonking a vampire on the head.
Ah, that rings a bell. Thank you.
Its.
Yes, of course it’s relevant to awards that a movie contains elements that the Academy (or other award-granting body) traditionally likes to grace with their seal of approval. Past experience shows that movies celebrating characters from sub-groups that are marginalized in American culture, have a great chance to see a pay-off in the form of votes (which doesn’t mean the works don’t have actual merit. Generally they do). Characters with physical or mental disabilities, characters facing bigotry due to their ethnic or religious heritage, characters struggling with limitations society foists on them due to the gender or orientation-----all these are frequent award recipients. (For good and honorable reasons.)
If you weren’t aware of this, a look at the history of awards will provide useful information.
A pithy, if not very politically correct, analysis of this statement.
I think I voiced my complaints earlier in the thread, but while I very much enjoyed Sinners it does kinda fall apart when it goes actiony. That tends to happen a lot in horror movies though.
I would, add, however, that movies actually created by racially marginalized groups, like Sinners, are less likely to win than movies white people make about racially marginalized groups, like One Battle After Another.
See: Driving Miss Daisy/Do the Right Thing
See: Green Book/Black KKKlansman
While I do not make predictions, I would not be surprised if OBAA takes Best Picture over Sinners. It’s really the difference between feeling racially uncomfortable and feeling affirmed in what a great white ally you are. The Oscars eats that white ally shit up. They are much less enthused about films that confront them.
Yesterday I broached the difference between OBAA and Sinners with my husband and we spent a short time enumerating the faults of OBAA and then talked for a straight hour about how great Sinners is. I did not get much sleep last night because we couldn’t shut up about it. It’s not great because it’s a movie about racism, it’s great because of the way it’s about racism, and because of its execution of that theme on every level.
Sure, I’ll take a crack at it. I know nothing about cinematography. But this shallow focus thing is a pretty commonly used camera technique, and it’s often done to signal interiority. I watch cinemastix (which is amazing and on YouTube, you should watch it if you love movies) and they were talking about the way Ridley Scott used this technique in Alien (one of my all-time favorite movies) to great effect. So while I didn’t notice it at all while I was watching the film, I’m not terribly surprised this technique was used in another film that centered the interior lives of its characters. Given the obvious attention to detail that was put into every other aspect of this film, it’s hard for be to believe Coogler did it on accident. Maybe his point was that the focus of the movie should be the relationships of the people in it?
I really don’t care if other people love the movie as much as I do, I won’t lose any sleep over it. But that’s my best and most sincere take.
That’s all well and good. So explain what you meant by “a diversity entry.”
I mean, I think I get what @Sherrerd was trying to say (disclaimer: IAN @Sherrerd and do not speak for him blah blah blah), but it could have been better expressed.
Yes, many people do prefer it when awards and other achievements are distributed among competitors in a way that isn’t overwhelmingly slanted towards traditionally privileged groups. But it’s somewhat insulting to imply that a particular competitor representing disprivileged groups is being undeservedly elevated due to being a “diversity entry”.
If you’re saying “Sinners is a highly regarded movie that may edge out its Oscar competitors partly because it provides more diverse representation”, that’s one thing. But if you’re saying “Sinners is a mediocre movie that many people pretend to (or imagine they) regard highly just because it’s a diversity entry”, that’s different.
That is definitely a classic. (And good professional advice, judging from Oscar results.)
The former–very well put, and of course I wish I had put it that way!
Extremely well-expressed. I’m reminded of the 2012 win for The Artist—which notoriously massaged the feelings of middle-aged white men, who loved seeing their angst represented on-screen. In the years since it came out, its reputation has gone down and down, largely because of that ‘comfort with being affirmed’ aspect.
People are moved by movies that bring out strong feelings of outrage, compassion, injustice, etc. That’s not pandering to diversity, any more than Spotlight was pandering to people who don’t like child abuse coverups.
I haven’t read this diversity tangent very closely but I will just say this: It’s important that people see people that look like themselves in media. When everyone looks like you it isn’t something you even notice but when you are in an outer group it feels isolating.
And it’s important that this diversity is created by the people it is representing because when it is not, at best it feels fake and at worse it creates more or perpetuates stereotypes.
And even if you didn’t care about any of that, you should but even if you didn’t, having things created by people with different viewpoints and backgrounds just leads to more and better stories which is good for everyone.
Make a prediction for the winners in all the Oscars categories (yes, all of the categories) and we’ll see how well you do.
Incidentally, I don’t call the movie I talk about each year my “prediction”. I know perfectly well I can’t predict the winner well. I call it my “favorite”. I don’t claim to be able to talk about anything except what I like.
This seems like a very pragmatic and gamist approach to moviemaking, and would have annihilated the metaphor.
“Piercing the veil” isn’t about winning. It’s about sacredness. The movie’s most amazing scene wasn’t the battle, it wasn’t the victory over the vampires. It was the scene in which the veil was pierced, in which community formed over centuries and was all in one place and time. It didn’t show how the fight was won: it showed why we fight. And it did so in a way that took my breath away.
If they’d won the battle by piercing the veil, it would have failed as a metaphor for the divine community and become a MacGuffin.
They I thought they were going to defeat the vamps, and I still think it would be better than how they did it, is to bless the water of the pond where they have the final confrontation when the vamps were in it.
Are you saying you don’t believe he can predict 3/4 of the winners? I usually do pretty well in the pool at the annual Oscar party I attend, sometimes getting more than 20 right.
I go to an annual Oscar party too. They have a contest. Everybody has to pick the winners of five categories at random. About 40 people turn in their choices. Maybe one person will correctly choose four of those five categories right.
Thanks. I’m guessing that in order to be successful in the pool, you try as much as possible to take your personal bias out of your choices and instead project what the voters will likely do.
I’m not going to take the challenge, mainly because it requires some research (mostly reading reviews and getting some background understanding) but also because I haven’t done it in a long time and I’m not inclined to do it anymore (the 1-5 in all categories should have been a clue).
I’m guessing if there are 40 people entering it’s mostly not those who are really into it, but just casual movie watchers who choose at random. I am always in the top three in my pool because I do research. What won the guilds, what is being talked about, what names are involved, etc. It always ends up being a race between myself and the host to see who wins, with other people just picking titles they’ve heard of and getting like 6-7.
I’m mostly objecting to your seeming disbelief that someone can accurately predict a majority of wins.