The Oscars came and went last Monday. Being the movie buff that I am, I do keep track of nominees for the major categories - Best Movie, Best Director, Best Actor/Actress and Best Supporting Actor/Actress.
Kinda expected Aviator to win the Best Movie and Best Director part. Coz I do seem to notice, normally films of 'epic' portions win these two categories. LOTR readily comes to mind. There is this theory that such films require a huge cast and lots of extras, this generates jobs and lubricates the economy. Therefore, the panel will have to 'thank' them for this good deed and give them the award. Coincidence? I don't know. I would believe that truly good films get rewarded.
Have watched the shows that won awards in the above mentioned categories. I would say that the panels got most of the awards right. (Not like my opinions matter much anyway!) Jamie Foxx truly deserved his award. He played the part of Ray Charles well, right down to the piano skills. This includes the portrayal of the emotions and the bearing of Ray Charles. Looking at the Best Actress Nominees, it would seem that Hillary Swank is the shoo-in for her boxer role in Million Dollar Baby.
Best Supporting Roles by definition, you don't see much of the actors/actress. Kinda hard to figure whether they deserve it. But, you do see a lot of Cate Blanchett in the Aviator and she does remind you straight away of Katherine Hepburn. I suppose that helps a lot if people look at your work and it reminds them of the real (reel?) person that you're doing. For Morgan Freeman's role in Million Dollar Baby, you could say that he did a good job in adding value and depth to the film. I am neutral on that, it could go to anyone.
Now for the Best Movie: 4 out of the 5 nominees are films based on real life events. Significant? Perhaps. After all, movies about people are meaningful, assuming you pull it off. Gives viewers a context to relate to and better appreciate the message in the film. Downside? Perhaps it can get predictable? Given that you know what's going happen. After all, it's history isn't?
Million Dollar Baby won I think because it does not merely narrate history like Aviator. It is commendable in its attempt to breathe life into the book that it was based on. Of course, this is what I think and I'm not always right. :-) But for the best director, I think they got it way off. Clint Eastwood? Hey, he has won a lot and while Million Dollar Baby is a good show, I thought that it was time Martin Scorsese got something. Looking at his history of nominations gives a new meaning to the phrase 'If at first you don't succeed, try and try again'. You would that the award panel has something against him. And it is not like Aviator is a bad attempt at directing.
Having said all that, I must say that the movies this year were quite good. To think that prior to the Incredibles (refer to my earlier blog), I had almost given up on Tinseltown.
"Now that we're here, it's so far away, all the struggle we thought was in vain"
Kinda expected Aviator to win the Best Movie and Best Director part. Coz I do seem to notice, normally films of 'epic' portions win these two categories. LOTR readily comes to mind. There is this theory that such films require a huge cast and lots of extras, this generates jobs and lubricates the economy. Therefore, the panel will have to 'thank' them for this good deed and give them the award. Coincidence? I don't know. I would believe that truly good films get rewarded.
Have watched the shows that won awards in the above mentioned categories. I would say that the panels got most of the awards right. (Not like my opinions matter much anyway!) Jamie Foxx truly deserved his award. He played the part of Ray Charles well, right down to the piano skills. This includes the portrayal of the emotions and the bearing of Ray Charles. Looking at the Best Actress Nominees, it would seem that Hillary Swank is the shoo-in for her boxer role in Million Dollar Baby.
Best Supporting Roles by definition, you don't see much of the actors/actress. Kinda hard to figure whether they deserve it. But, you do see a lot of Cate Blanchett in the Aviator and she does remind you straight away of Katherine Hepburn. I suppose that helps a lot if people look at your work and it reminds them of the real (reel?) person that you're doing. For Morgan Freeman's role in Million Dollar Baby, you could say that he did a good job in adding value and depth to the film. I am neutral on that, it could go to anyone.
Now for the Best Movie: 4 out of the 5 nominees are films based on real life events. Significant? Perhaps. After all, movies about people are meaningful, assuming you pull it off. Gives viewers a context to relate to and better appreciate the message in the film. Downside? Perhaps it can get predictable? Given that you know what's going happen. After all, it's history isn't?
Million Dollar Baby won I think because it does not merely narrate history like Aviator. It is commendable in its attempt to breathe life into the book that it was based on. Of course, this is what I think and I'm not always right. :-) But for the best director, I think they got it way off. Clint Eastwood? Hey, he has won a lot and while Million Dollar Baby is a good show, I thought that it was time Martin Scorsese got something. Looking at his history of nominations gives a new meaning to the phrase 'If at first you don't succeed, try and try again'. You would that the award panel has something against him. And it is not like Aviator is a bad attempt at directing.
Having said all that, I must say that the movies this year were quite good. To think that prior to the Incredibles (refer to my earlier blog), I had almost given up on Tinseltown.
"Now that we're here, it's so far away, all the struggle we thought was in vain"
No comments:
Post a Comment