Oh well I get 16/24 but then again I’m late in giving comments in this forum. Am I still allowed to get the 3 months subscription?
RENAULT: I honestly don’t think those films are all that great, with the exception of White Ribbon, and maybe ’Pan’s Labyrinth’, that’s why. Has nothing to do with popularity. I like most of the Palme winners of the last 15 years actually, even if they weren’t necessarily my favourites of the year. e.g Taste Of Cherry, Eternity and a Day, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days.
Hmm, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days seemed like another film most cinephiles seem to hate, which surprises me, considering a conventional American film would never have a dinner table scene go on for that long.
I still need to see Taste of Cherry.
16/24. What now?
Blue and Dimitris, what’s wrong with Social Network?
@ Patapon, well, I would just as turn the question on its head and ask the fans of that film what’s so good about it.
The way I see it, the film provides absolutely nothing noteworthy—in fact its topical subject matter was the only thing thatmakes it stand out over the countless typical fodder than Hollywood churns out. The Time magazine profile on Zuckerberg as its Man of the Year was far more interesting than the film.
Did anyone learn anything interesting about Zuckerberg? The film starts and ends on the most trite linear narrative. The impetus for Facebook, we learn, is that he was dumped on a date. By a rather really attractive girl, at that. And are we supposed to believe that the guy had the social skills to land such a girl? That very establishing event of the film itself is a contradiction. I realize that this is a fictionalized account of what supposedly happened. But still, where’s the credibility?
And then events are presented with the most expository filmmaking conventions. There are no scenes where the audience is given a moment to ponder. You have the lightening-fast take after take. There is no psychological insight into the character at all. Who is he? Where was he headed in life? What did he want to be? Only that he was dumped on a date, and then he began a project out of spite which spawned off this neat order of events that led to the omnipresence of Facebook.
Talk about taking a possibly interesting topic and turning it into shapeless digestible mush for the masses. It’s the cinematic equivalent of Chicken McNuggets.
^^^People that like the film argue that’s its strength. i.e the lack of psychologising, if you will.
I think Fincher tried to make an observant kind of film, but i don’t think he has the insight into human behaviour to pull it off. I also hated the look of the film. it was flat and two dimensional. FIncher’s style is generally quite cinematic. It’s not a particularly ‘refined’ style or anything, but he can make a film look impressive. He didn’t bother this time. I guess that’s the point, but i didn’t appreciate it either way.
@ Joks, yeah, I totally get what you said about how the fans of the film would argue that the lack of some dime store psychoanalyzing is its very strength. And I can see that line of argument to a degree, but like you said the fact that the film didn’t come across as cinematic otherwise doesn’t help matters. He did try to make an observant film, that much is clear. But based on Benjamin Button and this film, it’s also crystal clear that Fincher simply doesn’t have that very insight into human behavior you mentioned. And without that insight, a film like this ends up being something like a watchable cable TV production.
Looks like Ebert did get 14, and I won’t be getting that subscription after all.
Why is it that Mubi people tend to be cynical towards any recent foreign film that’s received attention
because there has been a dumbing down of the Oscars over the last 10-15 years, longer really, as it tries to appeal to an ever larger viewing audience. God forbid it should have lesser ratings than the Golden Globes!
Anyway, I was glad to see Social Network struck out. Haven’t seen The King’s Speech so can’t say if it really was a better film,but SN was a waste of time and money.
Hey, I accurately predicted the big 8! Although I got 17/24. 3- month subscription, here I come.
But like Michael Nordine has stated, WHAT NOW??
The only award I cared about was Best Editing and Black Swan should have won, a brilliant editing job by Andrew Weisblum
I agree with Ebert that the show was the worst i’ve seen. Anne Hathaway was a bit of a train wreck and Franco seemed to be a bit distracted by something… As far as winners go, I was glad to see some things like Sorkin and Reznor win. Also I believe King’s Speech deserved Screenplay and Actor. Christian Bale winning was the best part of the night. I was very disappointed that Social Network lost out though, especially Fincher. I loved King’s Speech, but Social Network has grown on me so much. The other biggest disappointment was for Exit Through the Gift Shop. I was so pumped about that being up there.
Yeah, it was a horrendous show. Where’s Rob Lowe dancing with Snow White? I can’t stand this whole forced awkwardness. It’s a multi-million dollar show yet it was utter amateur hour. Hell, even Letterman was better. Why the hell do I still even watch these things?
I generally like the tribute to the dead and they destroyed it with the Celine Dion crap. And where the fuck was Eric Rohmer?
They should have let Kirk Douglas host the entire event.
I agree it was the worst I’ve see, there were some bloody awkward moments and the two presenters were very ordinary…ok it’s a big job but it has to be one central person with the pizzaz to pull it off. Celine Dion…. ugh & hated that number in the tux. But hey I still had a good time seeing everyone & all.
Thank God CB finally got an Oscar before he killed himself through extreme effort. Jennifer Lawrence looked gorgeous, didn’t recognise her at all and Natalie Portman was my pick for best looking woman there
Rohmer was last year Ari ….
Oh, you’re right, Megg. He died at the start of 2010 so they included him then. Why the hell did they pick Phil Alden Robinson to speak about Godard’s influence during the honorary Oscar segment? I can think of a few Hollywood filmmakers more appropriate than Mr. Field of Dreams.
I wonder if anyone got them all correct. Just animated short alone knocked out more than 91% of the entrants.
I generally like the tribute to the dead and they destroyed it with the Celine Dion crap.
Oh, man, the Oscars just can’t seem to get that right. They used to do it without the music, but people would clap and it looked awkward, because it would be like “Joe Blow, cinematographer” (silence) “John Doe” (Wild applause). Then, one year, they introduced the music and the focus became the music (the people were shown on a screen in the corner, as opposed to putting it on the screen). This year, I thought, was an improvement, until it got to the end and Halle Berry came out to give a special tribute to one person who was definitely more important than all those others. Why not just go back to clapping?
Just animated short alone knocked out more than 91% of the entrants.
Funny thing is I actually got that one right and I only got it right, because I didn’t know any of them and clicked on one that sounded Oscary. My rule with animated short is usually to vote NFB, but that wasn’t applicable this year.
Also, where’s my fucking subscription?
When will we be getting our subscription to the streaming service?
16/24. Just made it. Looking forward to the subscription. Thanks, MUBI.
I got a personal best of 20 out of 24, missing on Score and Song, Cinematography and Short Subject Documentary.
Will there be an announcement on who got the top prize and how many people got the three month subscription bonus? I’d like to know how well I did.
I think anyone is a glutton for punishment to sit through three hours or more of this self-serving crap. I suppose making the Oscars into a “pick ’em” encourages more persons to follow along if not actually watch it. Disappointed MUBI felt the need to get in on the Oscars sweepstakes, but Efe being a businessman will look for every angle to promote his site.
I got 18/24
The way Dzimas sounds in his rant, you’d think he got 2 out 24. ;)
Seriously, there is some legit beef against the Awards. George C. Scott boycotted all award ceremonies even if he won for the later half of his life because he felt the whole process was like a meat market and cheapened the art of acting and film-making. Can’t say I don’t blame him for that. At least he stood for his principles, which is more than I can say for most of the industry. Yes, the Oscars shouldn’t be playing the field to get ratings, especially since some of the past hosts haven’t been up to snuff and some of the stage performances came off like third-rate high school musicals. If I had my way, the ten film candidates for Best Picture would go back to five with the option of adding a sixth if there was an especially good movie that couldn’t be passed up under any circumstance. I’d merge Sound Mixing and Editing into one category. I would also consider either scrapping altogether Best Song or have it be an occasional category like how the Academy had suggested Best Animated Feature would be if the field wasn’t as good. (Course, I would insist on strengthening that category by insisting it be like the Best Foreign Film: one animated picture per country. It’s depressing to see great animation from Japan and other places getting stiffed out because Disney is hogging the field. Swear if GHOST IN THE SHELL had been released around the time Best Animated Feature was introduced, it might’ve gotten an Oscar. That’s my opinion, though.) The Shorts I would leave alone for the moment. I would split the Best Visual Effects into two sub-categories, one involving Special Effects including CGI and one dealing exclusively with stuntwork since this particular field has been sadly neglected. Finally, I’d press for a Best Comedy category on the same lines as Best Animated Feature, three Comedies to be judged. I’m sure I’m not the only one here who thinks that genre been overlooked for far too long by the Academy.
As for the presentation, I’d just get rid of the writers entirely and have the hosts wing it. Some of the jokes from this ceremony were flatter than day-old soda. Also, the musical performances should be restricted to the Best Song and Score candidates and none of this comedic tribute junk. I know performers like Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway have the chops to pull it off, but I usually put the mute on and wait for the damned thing to finish. I’d keep the ‘In Memoriam’ segment, but no more singing. A simple overture from the band would suffice. I would bring back the Special Oscars on a case by case basis. Some tributes should be live, especially if they’re for someone of exceptional talent who should get their due like Peter O’Toole. I’d ditch the Red Carpet pre-show entirely! It makes no sense at all. If people want to watch that stuff, they should just go to the webcast.
That’s all I can think of. Anyone have a problem with my suggestions?
I would bring back the Special Oscars on a case by case basis.
I’ll only add to this that it would particularly refreshing to see them honoring deceased cine-legends like Alfred Hitchcock because we’ll never see them rewarding Agnes Varda while she’s still alive. It won’t fix the mainstream bias but it would have been a worthwhile addition.