The Golden Globes has two categories -- Drama and "Musical or Comedy" -- and this allows (a) movies and actors two chances to win (Leo won Best Comedy actor for Wolf of Wall Street, Travolta won that for Get Shorty) , and (b) a showdown at the Oscars, usually between the Best Comedy or Musical(OATIH at the Globes this year) and the best drama(1917 at the Globes.)
And so...OATIH versus 1917 and I'm picking...OATIH.
Like The Departed in 2006, OATIH is a "star package"(Leo, Brad, Big Al, Margot) from a director who is "owed one"(QT now, Scorsese then.)
Unless the Academy wants to "pull a Hitchcock" and just flip QT off, I think this is his year.
The "locks" from OATIH are Brad Pitt(Best Supporting Actor, joining such big stars as Sean Connery and George Clooney in that category) and QT for WRITING(original screenplay -- less competish than in Adapted Screenplay.). That said, it was a surprise when Django Unchained won QT the writing Oscar a few years back, maybe the surprise this time is that QT DOESN'T win for writing.
Or directing. There have been "splits" these years. I can see OATIH winning for Picture, and somebody else(that Parasite guy?) for directing.
Not too long to wait...the Oscars are earlier this year. And likely a ratings winner, what with Joker and OAITH and The Irishman in "popular" competition.
..and what of the possibility that Joaquin Phoenix wins Best Actor for "Joker"? I thought the character was overdone and too "drippy" for the "real Joker." But he could win.
Which means the Joker has delivered for the three key actors who played him:
Nicholson(not even an Oscar nomination, but a $60 million payday and a rejuvenated career with the young).
Ledger(a posthumous Supporting Oscar and...immortality.)
Phoenix(a Best Actor nom that COULD become a win...but Banderas is waiting in the wings to spoil it, like that guy who beat Michael Keaton a few years back.)
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
4 years ago
I checked Psycho and it's going to play for one night in a better classic cinema theater except they want $22 for best seats (also pay for downtown parking). This is the bigger downtown theater. It's variable priced from $10 to $22.
---
Its a pricey proposition but c'mon...its Psycho. Its a very different big screen experience, and I think that some critic noted that its "Tbw/TV imagery" blown up to giant size makes for a movie that LOOKS like no other. Arbogast's fall, for instance, is much more dizzying.
I think they will be showing a 35 mm print film since they showcase ability to show 35 mm film, so that's a version I haven't seen. I saw a regular HD version and now they have 4K versions of newer films. The sound system has been upgraded as they show concert films, too. Usually, the top theaters such as the Castro theater in San Francisco can have a special event screening and get around $30 for seats.
reply
share
jasonbourne (1027)
4 years ago
It's not variable pricing for this showing as I misread the ad. It's $10 or $22 for two and popcorn. I'm still not sure whether it's 35 mm as it's not advertised as such. 35 mm is warmer, but you're going to get some grain and pop. The 35 mm version is usually advertised.
Here's one of the trailer in 35 mm, but not very good -- https://youtu.be/zZr0G9_h4GE
Some better examples of 35 mm trailers -- https://youtu.be/z4fQ_KsQutw
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
4 years ago
I'm still not sure whether it's 35 mm as it's not advertised as such. 35 mm is warmer, but you're going to get some grain and pop. The 35 mm version is usually advertised.
---
It would be interesting to find out which version. As for "grain and pop" well -- amazingly when you think about it -- Psycho IS now 60 years old. I can personally look back now over those years and -- well, I lived a lot of life.
Old Psycho is, and yet the DVD version has a very rich sound track(voices and music) and is so 'cleaned up" that it looks like these "50s people" made this movie last week.
reply
share
jasonbourne (1027)
4 years ago
>>It would be interesting to find out which version. As for "grain and pop" well -- amazingly when you think about it -- Psycho IS now 60 years old. I can personally look back now over those years and -- well, I lived a lot of life.
Old Psycho is, and yet the DVD version has a very rich sound track(voices and music) and is so 'cleaned up" that it looks like these "50s people" made this movie last week.<<
Just be grateful that you saw the original in a theater that wouldn't let you in once it started. This showing doesn't even advertise that while the one I saw in Hitchoctober 2019 did. It was an HD version tho.
"Psycho (1960) 35 mm"
Just to be clear, I think if they advertise a 35 mm print as above, then it is the film projection. Also, the film would wear out through repeated showings or time. I think some of the digital only theaters could run a HD version of a 35 mm print, but what would be the point? The audience probably would not know the difference unless the projector froze in mid-showing. The big thing would be that it was false advertising. I don't think today's audience cares enough for 35 mm to that point, but it is watching a different film just like watching the German unedited (workprint?) version.
You bring up an interesting point about the digital version and sound. For home showings, the audio version of DVD, Blu-ray, and 4K should be more crisp as the technology advanced. This would be the most noticeable rather than picture quality. I think a new or even very good 35 mm film print would have the "very rich sound track (voices and music)" in a theater setting, other things being equal. The picture would be better, too. Like I said, you would get a warmer picture "and richer sound track" with 35 mm in a theater.
reply
share
ecarle (14979)
4 years ago
...speaking of the Golden Globes...Hitchcock and his people did better by the Globes than by the Oscars, on at least these occasions:
1960
Janet Leigh WON the Best Supporting Actress Golden Globe, over Shirley Jones "abrupt about-face as a trollop"(Stephen Rebello's immortal phrase) in Elmer Gantry. At the Oscars, the roles were reversed.
As I recall, Leigh got the only GG nomination from Psycho. Picture, Director, Actor...all snubbed. I may be wrong. I hope I am.
1972
The triumphant(but sexually violent) comeback of Frenzy got these nominations:
Best Picture (Drama)
Best Director (Drama)
Best Screenplay
Best Score
...and Merv Griffin read these nominations aloud to Hitch on his show. Alas Hitch lost in all GG categories and no Oscar noms followed. (Cabaret, a winner in the Musical or Comedy category at the Globes, was one of the movies that pushed Frenzy out of contention at the Oscars -- plus Frenzy's very sick look at rape and murder(not that Hitchcock was FOR it, but he showed it, however stylishly) I think bothered feminists.
1976
Family Plot: Barbara Harris manages a Best Actress nomination -- in the Muscial Comedy category. No Oscar nom was waiting.
reply
share