MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > OT: Oscar Weekend, 2023

OT: Oscar Weekend, 2023


Hey, they say the Oscars are a show nobody watches to celebrate movies that nobody's seen but...last year around this time, I announced I was going to watch the show and....look what a spectacle they delivered!

So...let's do it again. Some of us.

As I post this, they are tomorrow. Two movies that EVERYBODY has seen -- Top Gun 2 and Avatar 2 -- are nominated but they can't win the big awards. I would suppose that Avatar 2 will beat Top Gun on any technicals.

And those two being in the mix beg the question: all of the other nominated Oscar movies PUT TOGETHER barely earned what...5% ..of Top Gun OR Avatar 2. But neither of those two can win. Its not allowed.

---

Will Jamie Lee Curtis win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for Everything, Everywhere All At Once(EEAAO) that her mother did not, for Psycho(on topic) in 1960?

Well, EEAAO is the favorite in several categories so...maybe. In fact, didn't JLC actually WIN one of those early awards?

---

Chris Rock cannily waits a year until the Oscars roll around again to FINALLY lay the verbal smackdown on some people. Netflix pays him 20 million for the honor. That was one lucrative slap!

--

There's a fairly long commercial for the Oscars that's actually pretty funny. Jon Hamm and some other guy recreate their roles from Top Gun 2 and give host Jimmy Kimmel (framed like Tom Cruise) a briefing on all the other folks who turned them DOWN to host. ("We BEGGED Steve Harvey.") Kimmel makes embarrassed references not only to the slap, but to that OTHER debacle where the wrong movie was announced as Best Picture.

Billy Crystal -- now old, but still with the funny timing -- comes on as a Navy admiral to remind Kimmel that he hosted the Oscars NINE times. (NINE times! I forgot it was that many.)

Hell, I've lived to see Bob Hope as the main host, Johnny Carson(best) as the main host; Crystal as the main host(never hotter -- and he knew it -- than the night he made Jack Palance ad lib jokes all night long after the latter accepted his Oscar by doing one-armed pushups)...I've seen a lot in my years. Still feel young though.

I tell ya, this "Top Gun spoof" commercial is so funny that it almost makes one think the Oscars mighvt mean something this year. And the commercial begs the question: all these unknown movies nominated but we ALL know Top Gun 2....

--

The Academy continues with its "fixes." All the categories NOT given live last year WILL be given live this year. But no honors given to stars and crew past.

Also no red carpet...it will be "champagne" this year.

The Oscar show still gives a lot of funding to the Motion Picture Academy, so THEY need that show to go on.

I guess the risk is: will the Oscars ever leave network broadcast and follow the other awards shows to...broadcast cable? streaming...YOUTUBE? (That's right, I think that more than one minor awards show will go to YouTube!)

reply

While neither Top Gun 2 nor Avatar 2 seems likely to win any *big awards*, the fact that the two biggest movies of 2022 are legit Best Picture noms (and The Batman could easily have been a third - 2022 really was a good year for Blockbusters) *has* livened up these Awards and the whole season considerably.

As for who and what will win the big awards, it does seem like the wind is blowing in EEAAO's direction. It swept at the SAG awards recently and with the Actor's branch of the Acad being by far the largest that's almost certainly that. Blanchett looked a shoe-in for Tar (notwithstanding Tar's truly awful box office) until that happened but now Michele Yeoh is favored. Maybe people are just sick of giving awards to Blanchett (and even Blanchett seemed to let on a little bit through the long awards season that she doesn't really *need* any more awards) but people also really do *love* Yeoh for her whole career from starting off doing her own stunts in Hong Kong martial arts films through to being in a whole variety of big hits in recent years. So it looks like it's her - the representational and PR value of giving the award to a (beloved) Asian woman is just too much to pass up. Not sure that Jamie Lee is going to get in too (representational factors that help Yeoh, hurt *her* chances against, say, Angela Bassett) but *probably yes* again given her SAG win. If they present Best Supporting Actress at the very beginning of the evening as they usually do then a Jamie Lee win will be a big early tell that EEAAO is going to have a huge night.

If you want to feel good about movies right now (as well as to get psyched about a bunch of movies many of which you won't have had an opportunity to see yet) I'd like to recommend watching the main critic for Indiewire, David Ehrlich's video ranking his top 25 films of 2022:
https://vimeo.com/786806921
Amazing what people (or at least people with a couple of interns) can put together on their laptops these days!

reply

I haven't watched SNL much in the last few years but i made a point recently of tracking down (Game of Thrones, Last of Us, The Mandalorian) Pedro Pascal's ep from back in February. Its first skit, The Big Hollywood Quiz show hosted by Bowen Yang hit pretty hard. It's up on youtube if you're in the US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q2G9QePGoI
If you're outside the US then:
https://www.metatube.com/en/videos/521798/SNL-The-Big-Hollywood-Quiz/
should get it for you.

The skit makes a whole bunch of related points but one of its final ones scored with me I have to admit: Movies over the last few years, and at least since 2019 and Parasite/Portrait of a Lady on Fire/Once Upon a Time in Hollywood haven't stuck with people, even with people who diligently watch a lot of crticially acclaimed stuff. Something about the fragmentated/isolated viewership now means I'm not remembering stuff the way I once would have.

reply

And... Jamie Lee Curtis wins. She thanks all the usual + all the 'hundreds of thousands of people who went to see all the genre movies she made over the years" + "her parents who never won any of the Oscars for which they were nominated" (quotes aren't exact but capture meaning) – the other nominees. Nice, JLC comes across as well aware that there's no rhyme or reason to who does or does not win one of these awards (Hell, she could have won one for Fish Called Wanda but wasn't even nominated), and just thrilled that circumstances - EEAAO's momentum in the last month or so - have swept one her way now.

Big night ahead for EEAAO unless there's a further twist.

reply

All Quiet On The Western Front picks up Score, Production Design, Cinematography so far... Might not be much left for Tar, Banshees, Elvis, Fabelmans if EEAAO sweeps its expected and All Quiet gets everything technical.

But here come the Screenplay Awards...

reply

The Whale picked up Makeup/Hair and Brendan Fraser for Actor. Top Gun 2 got Sound and Avatar 2 got FX and Black Panther 2 got Costume and Women Talking got Adapted Screenplay for Sarah Polley. But what we might call the establishment awards-season-bait films got *nothing*: Tar 0/6, Fabelmans 0/7, Banshees 0/9, Elvis 0/8, Cannes-winning Triangle of Sadness 0/3. That's a lotta goose-eggs...

EEAAO and All Quiet got all the (non-Doc, non-short film) rest (7 and 4 wins respectively).

reply

The In Memoriam segment omitted numerous seemingly obvious people (including some we've extensively RIP-ed on this board): Stella Stevens, Paul Sorvino, Philip Baker Hall, Fred Ward, Cindy Williams, Melinda Dillon, David Warner, Anne Heche, Robert Morse, Henry Silva, Catherine Spaak, director Mike Hodges and lots more including Charlbi Dean (who made a huge impact in triple-nominee Triangle of Sadness this very year).

Every year the exclusions seems to get more glaring, and this time only the barest handful of those included got clips or photos from their most notable films and roles inserted. In short, it was embarrassing and unprofessional.

TCM's In memoriam which we discussed here:
https://moviechat.org/tt0054215/Psycho/63a3c2d80fc3c241e94f75ea/OT-TCMs-In-memoriam-for-2022
was a lot better. Truly the Academy is hopeless on this front.

reply

These omissions are so flagrant and nonsensical they can't be mere oversights.

reply

can't be mere oversights
Only a couple of the obvious omissions - Robert Blake, Anne Heche - seem likely to me to have been excluded completely deliberately (i.e., for reason of their notoriety). But what have Stella Stevens or David Warner or Paul Sorvino or (twice Oscar-nom'd, with one of her oscar-nom directors, Spielberg, in the audience as a nominee again!) Melinda Dillon, etc. done to hurt or offend anyone? No, their exclusions have to be down to stupid procedures and maybe stupid rationalizations of various kinds, e.g.,

Nobody really cares about the In Memoriam section and everyone knows that we can't cover *everyone who died* so, hey, so long as we get essentially all names and photos up on our web-site we've done our job. It's just arbitrary, at least after the first 10 or so absolute megastar deaths each year, who gets into the live show montage. For that reason we don't bother running our select list (and underlying complete list) by Scorsese or QT & Avary or Karina Longworth or TCM or whomever, we just let the interns do it.

reply

And... Jamie Lee Curtis wins. She thanks all the usual + all the 'hundreds of thousands of people who went to see all the genre movies she made over the years" + "her parents who never won any of the Oscars for which they were nominated" (quotes aren't exact but capture meaning) – the other nominees.

---

She saved "my parents" for the end, I think, noting that they were both nominated -- but not in the same categories(nice specificity; Best Actor for Tony; Best Supporting Actress for Janet) . Thus did Psycho make it into the 2023 ceremony for 2022 films -- without being named at all.

One wonders -- does Jamie Lee Curtis read Moviechat? Those parental Oscar noms WERE discussed here. Oh, I suppose she already KNEW that about her parents. Hah.

---


Nice, JLC comes across as well aware that there's no rhyme or reason to who does or does not win one of these awards (Hell, she could have won one for Fish Called Wanda but wasn't even nominated), and just thrilled that circumstances - EEAAO's momentum in the last month or so - have swept one her way now.

---

Truly one of those Oscar success stories -- I'd like to hope that along with the EEAAO momentum, there were SOME voters out there who knew the Tony/Janet Oscar stories and realized the generational achievement this would be.
CONT

reply

Not a side note at all: I was elated to see her long-time husband, Christopher Guest, by her side. I don't believe his series of comedy documentaries ever got Oscar recognition (from Waiting for Guffman on; Spinal Tap wasn't really his)...and I felt it was HIS night, too.

Back when Jamie Lee was young and sexy and hot in movies like Trading Places(as a hooker), Perfect(as an aerobics instructor) and True Lies(pole dancing for Arnold; I'm talking a decade worth of work) -- somewhere in there -- she saw Chris Guest on TV(SNL, I think) and fell in love without even meeting him. So she called him -- celebrities get to do that with one another, they all KNOW each other from the big screen -- met him, courted him(it was her "va va voom" period), won him. And here they are, married with kids and white haired on the Oscar show.

CONT

reply

Another nicely set up "Oscar history moment."

Somebody convinced Harrison Ford to give the Best Picture Award. (a) he's a very big star, history wise(and a very big star HAS to give out Best Picture) and (b) they knew that the kid who played Short Round in Indy Jones and the Temple of Doom was now a grown man and likely in the Best Picture winner(and favored for Best Supporting Actor, to boot.)

Ford may have been a little worried. In 1999, he was called upon to give Best Picture of 1998. His mentor Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan was favored, but you could almost see the disappointment as Ford had to announce "Shakespeare in Love."

Not this time. They got their "Indy hugs Short Round" photos.

Ford has a new Indy Jones movie coming this summer which looks pretty fun. But boy did the 80-something guy look and sound frail at the Oscars. Still, he's in a Yellowstone spin off and another streaming show and working, working working. I LOVE it. Makes me feel not so old.

CONT

reply

EEAAO and All Quiet got all the (non-Doc, non-short film) rest (7 and 4 wins respectively).

--
I was at a dinner party a couple of nights after the Oscars(aka, last night) and I was surprised to hear some people around me who I had no IDEA knew or cared about movies at all, talking about how "Everything Everywhere All at Once" had won the Best Picture Oscar. One of them said "its a great title!" and it is my belief (from conversations with others as well) that it IS a great title, that people like and remember it for the TITLE alone, just exciting in the concept of life in general and perhaps that will keep the movie memorable. Its grosses were respectable and -- rather like Silence of the Lambs years ago -- it opened almost a YEAR before the Oscars, not in fall or Christmas or even summer.

Still, from what I've read, the movie is so "multi-verse" (isn't that a Marvel conceit) that there are no real stakes to the drama...except I hear its very emotional, too. I'll see it.

CONT

reply

TCM's In memoriam which we discussed here:
https://moviechat.org/tt0054215/Psycho/63a3c2d80fc3c241e94f75ea/OT-TCMs-In-memoriam-for-2022
was a lot better. Truly the Academy is hopeless on this front

--

Well, TCM has more latitude and "cheap airtime" to go for broke, I guess.

I realize that if EVERY one of those omitted names was given screen time at the "overlong Oscars" the In Memoriam sequence might have lasted ten minutes or so, impossible on that show.

I'm not defending it, I'm just explaining it(to myself, no proof) Still, I would have much rather gotten ten minutes (with movie music, these singers never quite get the tone) to say goodbye to all of them, than what we got.

Two points:

Jimmy Kimmel had a joke about "laying odds on if Robert Blake would make the In Memoriam segment"(an actual joke ABOUT the In Memoriam segment -- if I was capable of being offended that MIGHT have done it)....

...and John Travolta came out and movingly broke down for real -- in Introducing the In Memorium segment -- when he brushed against the memory of Olivia Newton John, his "immortal screen partner." Travolta's rich and famous , but he's had some sad losses: beautiful wife Kelly Preston, a son...and a friend like ONJ.

The Oscar ceremonies rather famously don't have a lot of real or historic STARS as presenters any more. If they aren't nominated, they don't come. And many are gettin' too old(Nicholson will never be seen again, evidently -- Pacino and DeNiro only come out sometimes; Hoffman remains Youtooed -- but for how long?"

Still, John Travolta has "hung in there" as an Oscar presenter even as his many comebacks finally ended. He's not a very big star NOW, but he will always be the guy in Saturday Night Fever and Grease(blockbusters 7 months apart); and the Comeback Kid of Pulp Fiction(which made him a superstar again for 10 years at least.)

CONT

reply

His hairpieces were always bad(looked like BLACK RUBBER) but I'm not sure I like him with a shaved head and beard -- he still doesn't look right, his stardom (unlike Bruce Willis's) was based on a full head of hair. Find a better hairpiece, John!

Speaking of Bruce Willis...what a sad and shocking development. He won't age into roles in his 70's and 80's...he's effectively over as a working star. Oh, well, Cary Grant quit at 62, and Willis is 67 and...I just hope the rest of his life is workable. Like all movie stars, I don't know him at all. Like some movie stars...I know who he is enough to feel bad about it.

PS. Cate Blanchett -- they had an Oscar show comedy clips segment way back in 2008 about how Cate Blanchett was in EVERY MOVIE(even as an attack dog in No Country for Old Men) ---and here it is 15 years later and its still true. Well, our "old time" movie stars lasted a long time, too -- Kate Hepburn for one. Whom Cate Blanchett is kind of like -- hell, she PLAYED Hepburn in "The Aviator." Though Parker Posey was more like Young Kate. (Hang in there, Meryl -- you're not forgotten -- I see you are guesting on that Steve Martin/Martin Short show this season.)

reply



North by Northwest was the only Hitchcock movie to be cited -- twice - during the Oscar ceremony.

The first time was very odd:

They ran a quick clip from the crop duster chasing Cary Grant -- in a collection of clips honoring Warner Brothers 100th Anniversary. Problem is -- Hitchcock made NXNW for MGM!(The movie opens with a green special effects version of Leo the Lion roaring which is the greatest use of that Lion in movie history -- he's in black and white against a green map of latitude and longitude...courtesy of Saul Bass.)

Anyway, Warners is claiming NXNW for its own now(they own it, the DVD is a Warner Brothers DVD) and eventually NXNW won't be remembered as an MGM movie at all.

Just as long as they NEVER cut that opening Leo the Lion green shot...its one of the best parts of the movie(especially with Bernard Herrmann's music) and the entire sequence stands as my favorite credits sequence of all time (1978's Superman came close...but runs too long.)

Meanwhile: NXNW -- that SAME clip of Cary running and ducking the crop duster -- turned up in a clips package as part of a wrist watch commercial.

I suppose the NXNW crop duster shot will last as long as Janet screaming in the shower. you DO get a two-fer with the crop duster: Hitchcock....and Cary Grant, arguably the Compleat Movie star of his generation (cuter than Bogie and Spencer Tracy, able to take his shirt off when Jimmy Stewart could not -- and ALSO a great movie star actor.)

CONT

reply

Speaking of North by Northwest and Warner Brothers:

https://moviechat.org/tt0053125/North-by-Northwest/640cece36cd1714ae243cfd5/North-by-Northwest-Disappears-from-the-TCM-Hub-on-HBO-Max

reply

Still, John Travolta has "hung in there" as an Oscar presenter even as his many comebacks finally ended. He's not a very big star NOW, but he will always be the guy in Saturday Night Fever and Grease(blockbusters 7 months apart); and the Comeback Kid of Pulp Fiction(which made him a superstar again for 10 years at least.)

--

My point here is that it seems when other stars of now and then WON'T turn up at the Oscars...John Travolta always will, and always does. He's done a LOT of these Oscar shows in recent years.

My other point is to point out to a guy I found -- in reviewing many Oscar opening clips from the 60s, 70s and 80s -- who always showed up at the Oscars "back then":

My Man Walter Matthau!

Matthau was always well reviewed as an actor, and "hung on" as a star from the second half of the sixties, all through the seventies, and at the front end of the 80s.

And there he is, as one of the "group hosts" in certain years (all movie stars, no comedian like Hope or Carson or Crystal) and giving out certain awards in others(he gave out Best Actress for 1971 because the 1970 Best Actor nominee, George C. Scott, was unavailable.)

I found Matthau hosting an 80's show and that was his "Travolta period" -- no longer REALLY a star, but the Academy was grateful for his service.

And in 1998 for 1997 films, Matthau and his partner Jack Lemmon gave out Best Adapted Screenplay. The winner was LA Confidential and its writer-director ex-film critic Curtis Hanson said from the stage, "How great to get this from Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, who worked for one of the greatest writer-directors of all time, Billy Wilder."

reply

swanstep wrote:

If you want to feel good about movies right now (as well as to get psyched about a bunch of movies many of which you won't have had an opportunity to see yet) I'd like to recommend watching the main critic for Indiewire, David Ehrlich's video ranking his top 25 films of 2022:
https://vimeo.com/786806921

--

I've been meaning to return to this comment from swanstep because it is a reminder that for those who really KNOW all movies, and "dig in" TO movies, its not quite the "Marvel world" nightmare that others have conjured.

I have not even looked at the Ehrlich video but I figure if he found TWENTY-FIVE movies worth ranking as the best (in a year in which I don't really even have ONE personal favorite -- Top Gun 2 is holding the slot until I watch something better from 2022 on streaming), well -- there is still an audience out there(including swanstep) for this kind of filmmaking.

I was channel surfing one night -- I don't even remember the show I landed on -- but they had an obnoxious nerd-like teen buy character bemoaning "all the sequels and remakes, Hollywood can't make movies anymore" and while I could KIND of respond to his sentiment, the character presented as "real, nerdly, and human" reminded me: oh, what a cliché statement. There are LOTS of great movies now, if you are willing to commit and maybe not be much of a larger crowd.

CONT

reply

I was at a dinner party a couple of nights after the Oscars(aka, last night) and... [o]ne of them said "its a great title!" and it is my belief (from conversations with others as well) that it IS a great title, that people like and remember it for the TITLE alone, just exciting in the concept of life in general and perhaps that will keep the movie memorable.

EEAAO *is* zeitgeisty in virtue of its title. One of the biggest pop-cultural hits of the Covid-period was Bo Burnham's Netflix special 'Inside'. The biggest song hit from that was 'Welcome to the Internet':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1BneeJTDcU
which climaxes with the madness-inducing and -expressing:
Could I interest you in everything all of the time?
A bit of everything all of the time
Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime
Anything and everything all of the time
Could I interest you in everything all of the time?
A little bit of everything all of the time
Apathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime
Anything and everything and anything and everything
And anything and everything and
All of the time

EEAAO probably owes Bo Burnham .01 of a point or something.

reply



Ford may have been a little worried. In 1999, he was called upon to give Best Picture of 1998. His mentor Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan was favored, but you could almost see the disappointment as Ford had to announce "Shakespeare in Love."

---

Mr. Ford and Mr. Spielberg were at the Oscars in the same room in 2023 as in 1999, but Mr. Spielberg came up bupkis for The Fabelmans(still, it got lots of noms).

I had no real dog in the fight to root for. Last year, that dog was "Licorice Pizza" but the dog got assassinated before it could get in the fight(bad press.)

So this year, I guess I kind of rooted AGAINST The Fabelmans.

Certainly it is important that an aged Spielberg was in competition at the Oscars the other night (no wins; which was satisfying to me, I was especially rooting AGAINST Judd Hirsch; glad he's lived this long, didn't like the character)....but is he all THAT major anymore in terms of "the future?" Mr. Spielberg seems to be proving Mr. Tarantino's case about older directors...even WITH Oscar nominations galore. I think there is a story there -- the lack of success but all the Oscar noms. What gives?

reply

Truly one of those Oscar success stories -- I'd like to hope that along with the EEAAO momentum, there were SOME voters out there who knew the Tony/Janet Oscar stories and realized the generational achievement this would be.
JLC's award (like Michele Yeoh's and Short Round's) was also satisfying because it affirmed what I'd call the unity of movies.... JLC did her time in the genre trenches (and referred to this in her acceptance speech). She even found early immortality that way as a 'scream queen' with Halloween, Terror Train, Road Games, The Fog (with her Mom), etc. (just as Yeoh in genre movie terms becomes immortal with her Hong Kong martial arts flicks where she was 'the super pretty chick who did her own stunts' - the female Jackie Chan) and has been a game, hard-working pro through the years appearing in a variety of Halloween reboots and sequels. That stuff will have paid a lot of mortgages around Hollywood over the years. JLC's gone on to have a nice career in mainstream comedies and now EEAAO has performed the miracle of becoming a zeitgeisty, maybe-sorta-important critical and Oscar Goliath with all sorts of physical comedy and martial-artsy action that *needed* some seasoned troopers with physical and comedy chops like JLC and Michelle Yeoh to pull it off. They did it, and they both handled the whole Awards season graciously and with style, and the movie gods were happy for them.

reply

Truly one of those Oscar success stories -- I'd like to hope that along with the EEAAO momentum, there were SOME voters out there who knew the Tony/Janet Oscar stories and realized the generational achievement this would be.

---
JLC's award (like Michele Yeoh's and Short Round's) was also satisfying because it affirmed what I'd call the unity of movies.... JLC did her time in the genre trenches (and referred to this in her acceptance speech).

---

Yes, she did. I'd like to add here that this was a very "overproduced and pre-prepared" Oscar speech and I'm still not sure about those. Its a better speech that the ones where they reel off all their agents and managers but honestly...go back and look at clips of a different generation of 50s movie stars(less well paid, frankly, and more servile to the studios) simply saying "Thank you very much, this is a real honor" and then walking off the stage, and then COMPARE that to something like JLC's "we won an Oscar!" speech(maybe husband Christopher Guest wrote it -- I just remembered that his final and not terribly funny movie "For Your Consideration" spoofed the Oscars and here he was LIVING it.)

CONT

reply

he even found early immortality that way as a 'scream queen' with Halloween, Terror Train, Road Games, The Fog (with her Mom),

---

The Fog ..I believe the billing was "...and Janet Leigh as..." but not Marion Crane.

I'm reminded that while Janet Leigh really only made ONE horror genre movie (Psycho) -- oh, she also made the Giant Bunny movie Night of the Lepus(a truly sad career comedown for Leigh, JLC will always avoid that kind of 70's schlock) -- JLC made MANY such movies....

...and then locked in on something like 10 Halloween sequels that I can only imagine have made her very, very rich.

---

---

etc. (just as Yeoh in genre movie terms becomes immortal with her Hong Kong martial arts flicks where she was 'the super pretty chick who did her own stunts' - the female Jackie Chan)

---

Yep. Plus that one James Bond movie. I sure wish I could remember the title. It was one of those interchangeable Brosnans -- EXCEPT for Jackie Yeoh.

--

and has been a game, hard-working pro through the years appearing in a variety of Halloween reboots and sequels. That stuff will have paid a lot of mortgages around Hollywood over the years.

--

Yep. I suppose one reason Christopher Guest doesn't work much anymore is that he lives in the House of Halloween.

---

JLC's gone on to have a nice career in mainstream comedies

---

She was good in the first "Knives Out" and seems to have settled in to sharp-tongued matron roles(outside of her schlumpy EEAAO role.)

But hey..AGAIN...a bow to JLC in Trading Places, Perfect, and True Lies (and OH...A Fish Called Wanda.) She had her sexpot period, and breasts sent down from Mama Leigh helped.

CONT

reply

and now EEAAO has performed the miracle of becoming a zeitgeisty, maybe-sorta-important critical and Oscar Goliath with all sorts of physical comedy and martial-artsy action that *needed* some seasoned troopers with physical and comedy chops like JLC and Michelle Yeoh to pull it off.

---

Yes, sounds like JLC and Yeoh were very important.

---

They did it, and they both handled the whole Awards season graciously and with style, and the movie gods were happy for them.

--

Yes, they did. Its a real marathon anymore, and they knew how to do it right.

I haven't seen EEOAO yet. I'm "wary" of the multiverse -- I saw the final Avengers movie and doesn't this go back to the "two tracks only" multi-verse of 'Sliding Doors" with Gwyneth Paltrow(in one plot she lives happily ever after, in another she dies a tearjerker death.)

If you take my fave thrillers and action movies out of the mix, I find my favorites had "realistic human stories with dramatic conclusions" -- Cuckoo's Nest, Terms of Endearment, Licorice Pizza. EEOAO still has me worried about its fantasy life...but I hear it gets emotional at the end.

We shall see.

reply

I was reading all your replies about Oscar in memoriam omissions that appear to happen every year. I think they are deliberate. You speak of Stella Stevens. Back in 2010, they excluded Farrah Fawcett.

Here’s what they said. “While the Academy has apologized for omitting Farrah Fawcett from the Oscar "In Memoriam" sequence, the decision was intentional. The Academy's Bruce Davis, responsible for the tribute, said, ‘There's nothing you can say to people, particularly to family members, within a day or two of the show that helps at all.’”

reply

@Letess. In my view the Academy made a mistake by omitting Fawcett back in 2010. That said, I can imagine them being persuaded to omit by the following sort of reasoning: "Fawcett was mostly a TV (and broader Pop Culture/Poster) star - she didn't do many films and certain no great ones - so the Emmys can remember her."

I therefore do regard Fawcett's case as more arguable than Stevens' or Warner's or Dillon's or Sorvino's or.... that have freaked people out this year. That said if *I* was directing the Oscars I'd always err on the side of inclusion and if that means the In Memoriam segment goes for 8-10 minutes rather than 3-4 minutes then so be it. I do think it's proper for stars like Fawcett who were principally stars in another medium (Michael Jackson was around the same time right?) to get just the basic Oscars In Memoriam (i.e., just a photo no clip).

reply

Oh, I agree with you with everything, especially with Fawcett’s case as being justified more than this year’s omissions, i.e., Stevens, Philip Baker Hall, Charlbi Dean, et al. Actually, Michael Jackson was included in the In Memoriam for that year. Apparently, he did a documentary. Yes, err on the side of inclusion regardless of time. It’s not like they can do it later.

I just remember this was glaring at the time. Most likely due to her fame which I don’t think people realize just how famous she was in the ‘70s. But, for some reason, including my own naïveté, I didn’t realize that these omissions are blatantly deliberate. And, this happens every year. With the long list of others not honored at this year’s Oscars - are Fred Ward and Tom Sizemore - to me, these are inexcusable.

reply

I didn’t realize that these omissions are blatantly deliberate.
God,I hope they're not *all* deliberate (I'd kinda prefer it if my own hypothesis were true that clueless 20-something interns are putting together these montages a lot of the time) - what sort of putrid BS reasoning could be used to exclude Stevens or Dillon or Baker Hall or Warner?

I'm starting to think that some big organization like the Actors Guild is going to have to start kicking up a stink if things are going to change with the Oscars In Memoriam. Actors who are now near their peaks in their 30s and 40s, say people at the level of a Jeremy Renner or Christina Ricci or Lisa Kudrow. On reasonable assumptions they won't die for another 40 years and, while they'll do more good work they'll probably never make any more really big splashes in their careers. Avengers and Hurt Locker and Addams Family and Buffalo 66 and Romy and Michele and Opposite of Sex will be long gone by the time they'll be up to be memorialized. They should be very personally interested in the idea that it should be essentially automatic that anyone who ever did *anything* pretty great, made anything notable gets recognized at the big show, and that part of the Academy and the Oscars just is preserving the inheritance and history of Film. People like them and the Actors Guild (and the other guilds) need to start working on mandating that the Oscars show does better than it's currently doing. The current situation is simply unbearable.

reply

That’s why I mentioned the quote from Bruce Davis, Academy Director at the time (2010). It wasn’t because of the Fawcett omission. I think it’s telling when he says it’s intentional, and that he stood by the decision despite complaints from the family.

And that happens every year. For me, this is where I believe names are compiled in a comprehensive list where it is then hacked down into rankings. They are probably instructed to follow some kind of criteria. The Academy Director reviews and approves the list. It’s too big of deal to trust to clueless 20-something interns. But your point is a very good one as far as relevance and timing and that would affect the criteria. I agree with ecarle - These omissions are so flagrant and nonsensical they can't be mere oversights.

It is interesting to note, that Sorvino’s wife and daughter made their feelings known, but I don’t think we heard from Andrew Stevens. Kirk Douglas passed away right before the Academy Awards, and he was included in the In Memoriam tribute. Actually, they probably wanted to do more. But, the timing was the same as for Sizemore. This proves timing isn’t an issue.

As I said, this seems to happen every year. Maybe this year is the year that they will revise the process and figure it out for future In Memoriams because of all the complaints. But here is an idea of the past few years:

2022
Monica Vitti
Ed Asner
Robert Downey Sr.
Gaspard Ulliel

2021
Michael Lonsdale
Jessica Walter
Ben Cross
Ann Reinking

2020
Michael J. Pollard
Luke Perry
Jan-Michael Vincent
Carol Lynley
Sue Lyon

2019
Stanley Donen - Singin’ in the Rain director
Gary Kurtz - Star Wars and American Graffiti producer
Carol Channing
Sondra Locke

reply

These omissions are so flagrant and nonsensical they can't be mere oversights.

---

I'll add one more possibility that could be controversial, but might make sense given the Academy's current priorities:

Race.

It looks to me like most of the "skipped overs" were ...white people(?...how do we define that.)

AND: given that for the first 70 years of the 20th Century most movies almost ONLY had white actors in major roles(lead and supporting -- consider the entire cast of Psycho)....as all those people start dying these years...that's a lot of dead white people.

And "quota wise," if you need some "racial balance" in the In Memoriams(and why wouldn't you? Its the Oscars)...all those excess white people deaths have to go.

I don't like thinking in racial terms -- my real life is pretty multi-racial in the workplace -- but (a) the Academy does think in racial terms and (b) movie actors WERE mainly white for decades.

Its just a thought.

reply

Stella Stevens was absence particularly stupid ommission. She died about the same time as Welch and not long before the Oscars. No way anyone paying attention (whose job it is to pay attention) should miss it. Especially since so many fairly obscure technical people weren't forgotten.

Maybe we'll find out someday why The Guess Who STILL aren't in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Just saying "oops, they forgot again" stopped being believable a few decades ago. I think being a Canadian band and coming up with a little song called "American Woman" might have something to do with it. Never forget the film and music industries are run by large corporations and powerful people with agendas beyond " art for arts sake".Those agendas can be liberal or conservative agendas, but being corporate agendas one common factor is they're usually stupid, petty and/or vindictive ones.

Tangentially, Lenny Kravitz (who did a remake of American Woman) performed the In Memoriam song at this year's Oscars. I wonder if his entry to the R&R HoF will take 60 years

reply

Stella Stevens was absence particularly stupid ommission. She died about the same time as Welch and not long before the Oscars. No way anyone paying attention (whose job it is to pay attention) should miss it.

---

I suppose Welch was a more "iconic sex symbol" than Stella Stevens (who ended up doing a lot of TV movies and even some Blaxploitation villainy)...but Stevens had HER fame:

The Poseidon Adventure(1972) which -- incredibly to me -- seems to have outpaced The Godfather as the highest grossing movie of 1972. (But I had to wait on line for two hours to see The Godfather; I walked right in to The Poseidon Adventure.)

The Nutty Professor(1963) Arguably Jerry Lewis' masterpiece both as a director and an actor(yes, he seems to have had one) and Stella Stevens innocent sexuality certainly drove his character -- the klutzy professor who doesn't have a chance with her and the oily macho stud(when "Hyde") who tries to dominate her (she picks the nice klutz, of course.)

The Ballad of Cable Hogue: A romantic Western(with Stevens' Hooker in Love) with a tragic end, directed by a great director(Sam Peckinpah) before drink and drugs brought him down. Peckinpah wanted Stevens to play opposite Steve McQueen in the action heist movie "The Getaway." Stevens says McQueen told her after her audition "I don't want any competition with me on the screen" and went for the vapid (but box office) Ali MacGraw. And married her.

So that's three noteable films right there for Stella Stevens. And I'd throw in The Silencers(a silly Dean Martin Bond spoof with a LOT of sexy babes in it) for showcasing SS as both a sexy woman(what a cute face! what a curvaceous body in lingerie and swimsuit!) and a pretty good comedienne.

CONT

reply

Especially since so many fairly obscure technical people weren't forgotten.

---

Well, as I noted "up-thread," perhaps the Academy and TV guys had to ensure "balance" in a short period of screen time -- actors and directors AND technical people AND composers." To make room for more technical people, some actors had to go. Evidently. I say: let the piece run five more minutes.

---

Maybe we'll find out someday why The Guess Who STILL aren't in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Just saying "oops, they forgot again" stopped being believable a few decades ago. ...

Tangentially, Lenny Kravitz (who did a remake of American Woman) performed the In Memoriam song at this year's Oscars. I wonder if his entry to the R&R HoF will take 60 years

---

I like the crossover to the Rock and Roll Hall of fame. Same "issues," different medium, different venue.

I've been reading Jann Wenner's autobio. He got rich creating and running Rolling Stone in its peak boomer years(and, to my amusement, spent as much time with Jackie O and Senator John Kerry as with rockers.) Anyway, Wenner helped form the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and pushed for its Cleveland location ("They wanted it and needed it") and found the whole thing got corrupted as record moguls got inducted.

Noteable: I can't remember if it was Credence Clearwater Revival or just its leader John Fogerty who went into the Hall of Fame but Fogerty would only attend the ceremony if he did NOT have to play with his original bandmates(including a brother?) because "they betrayed me and sided with the bad guys on a business lawsuit." So some other famous guys played the CCR songs with Fogerty.

Noteable: Jann Wenner had a mutual hate thing going on with SF rock promoter Bill Graham (who you can "see" ably playing real life gangster Charlie Lucky Luciano in Beatty's "Bugsy") and notes in his book that Graham died in a helicopter crash in a rainstorm near power lines..."a typically arrogant and stupid move." RIP, Bill!

reply

Speaking of the Godfather brings Mr Woltz to mind. A powerful executive making arbitrary decisions not based on art but personal grievances or some other agenda.

"Johnny is perfect for the part. Johnny doesn't get that part..." (or Oscar, or In Memoriam) or DOES get it for capricious, inconsistent, and/or petty reasons.

reply

So that's three notable films right there for Stella Stevens.
Absolutely, there's no question that all of the big omissions were *well* over whatever (everybody should be able to agree) is the cut-off for appearance in the main montage. I say err on the side of inclusiveness: if you had a memorable scene in even one memorable film you should be in. So, for example, I moaned when Maxine Cooper didn't make the cut when she died back in 2009. Who's Maxine Cooper you say? Well, she had small roles in a bunch of Aldrich films in the '50s then mostly did TV. But one of her roles for Aldrich is as Mike Hammer's secretary Velma in Kiss Me Deadly (1955) and she ends up on the Malibu beach with Mike (Ralph Meeker) at the end of the film as the world ends - one of the greatest scenes and movie endings in Movie History. That scene went immediately into the great movie unconscious and became part of the basic scaffolding of movies ever after. And Maxine Cooper is in that great unconscious as the stunned brunette as The Bomb goes off on the beach. Put her in the damn montage with a few seconds from her big scene! You're welcome Academy.

And for a +ve example, in 2021 Linda Manz made the Oscars In Memoriam segment. Who's Linda Manz you say? She was the young girl/narrator in Malick's masterpiece, Days of Heaven (1978). She was also in a cult Dennis Hopper film Out of the Blue (1980) but it's the DOH part that makes her immortal. Good call Academy. One memorable role in a good film let alone a great one should be sufficient.

Anyhow, 99.9% of actors in the biz would kill to have the career of a Stella Stevens or (twice Oscar nom'd for Close Enc and Absence of Malice) Melinda Dillon (also important in Bound for Glory) or Paul Sorvino (Goodfellas, Romeo+Juliet) or David freaking Warner (Straw Dogs, lead in Morgan! - a big it-film that got two osc noms as part of 1966's beloved Blow Up/Puzzle-film wave-, The Omen, Cable Hogue, Time After Time, Time Bandits, Tron, Titanic) or... I mean if David Warner can't get in then I've got bad news for most of the people who were sitting in the audience at the Kodak Theater last weekend.

reply

I mean if David Warner can't get in then I've got bad news for most of the people who were sitting in the audience at the Kodak Theater last weekend.

---

I think this might be an interesting "behind the scenes test" for the Academy:

Make sure that someone is assigned to read obituaries EVERY DAY between the most recent Oscar telecast and the next Oscar telecast. I would expect that the Hollywood trade papers cover all actors, all technicians, all directors, all craftspeople..likely the Motion Picture Home (a retirement community in Hollywood) keeps a list of annual deaths, too.

But read the New York Times. And the Los Angeles Times. And the London Times. And the China times(or shall we stick to English language, Hollywood-based people? NYC?)

Then create a long, long, LONG list. Put EVERYBODY on it, but just for the dates between Oscar broadcasts (somebody who dies a day or two before might miss the deadline.)

Then SOMEBODY take the time to make the film -- how many seconds per dead person? 10 seconds? Maybe 20 for the "big ones"?

Then somebody "time" this film with a stopwatch. How long is it? If EVERYBODY, and I mean EVERYBODY is included?

It could be 10 minutes long. Or 20. Maybe 30.

But whatever it is....run the ENTIRE film during the Oscar broadcast.

The more I think about it, the more impossible it seems. "Time is money on network television."

But wouldn't it be cool...and MEANINGFUL, for the Oscar telecast to essentially shut down its modern day shenanigans for a full half hour just to look at EVERYONE who passed?

"Mission: Impossible."

reply

The Screenplay Oscars.

This year's Original Screenplay went to the (sweeping all before it) EEAAO (beating out pretty stiff competition I'd say from Tar, Banshees, Triangle of Sadness, The Fabelmans - all teachable, thoughtful, clever scripts with interesting dialogue). In all these cases the divisions between script/direction/judgements-about-the-film-as-a-whole are slippery since in all but one case the writer is the director. And the one exception is Spielberg working with Tony Kushner, but, of course, it's Spielberg's underlying story through and through so even in that case it's hard to separate writing/direction/film. So... it's easy to project why EEAA0 swept these categories: more people overall liked or got more out of EEAAO and that meant liking it's direction and writing better too.

This year's Adapted Screenplay went to Sarah Polley for Women Talking (over a mixed bag of competitors: Top Gun Maverick weirdly considered an adaptation of the first Top Gun - What?; Living, an inferior English language remake of a Kurosawa masterpiece, Ikiru - no thank you; All Quiet - an OK 3rd attempt to film the underlying novel that provoked controversy in Germany and elsewhere for changing and leaving out crucial parts of the novel while inventing silliness - that's a 'No'; and Rian Johnson's Netflix Knives Out sequel that I haven't seen for no particularly good reason - Netflix fatigue is a 'No').

reply

In sum, Acad. voters definitely in my view felt free to in part indulge their love for Sarah Polley's overall career, giving her the gong.

Polley first drew attention as the young actress who was the blind-siding key to Atom Egoyan's two '90s masterpieces of hauntingness, Exotica (1994) and The Sweet Hereafter (1997). Polley has fairly small roles in both but you come out of each thinking about and haunted by her character. Polley had large parts in a bunch of good not great films after that including Go (1999) and The Claim (2000). I remember thinking that The Claim might have been a harsh turning point for her. Polley is a pretty blonde but when cast as Natassia Kinski's daughter and contrasted with Milla Jovovich throughout the film she stuck out. She looked like (as my girlfriend at the time noted) 'a Plain Jane', and not a movie star. She was a smart cookie tho' and started making well-received short films around this time. In 2006 she wrote (adapted) and directed her debut feature, Away From Her w/ Julie Christie in heartbreaking decline with Alzheimers. It was excellent and got an Actress nom for Christie and a screenplay nom for Polley. Her subsequent films Take This Waltz and Stories We Tell were also critical faves. In sum, leading up to Women Talking, whose name alone tells you might be a statement/Testament film, Polley had become an important figure especially for women, one who, like, say, Allen or Wes Anderson or PTA, can attract top flight actors to work for cheap on her deep, broadly women-centric projects.

reply

Having finally seen Women Talking I can report that it is indeed a Testament film. While the story is based on a real horrific incident in Bolivia in 2009, the film's goals are abstract. Polley (following the novel she adapts) relocates the case to North America and leaves most of the details of the actual crimes (and the criminals themselves) offstage and quite hazy... the better to make claims that the plights and choices of the women in the film are structurally similar to the plights and choices of women everywhere. It's a hard watch in a number of different ways - not least because all the characters are radically information-poor Mennonite refugees from the modern world who are mostly given to bristling, quasi-Biblical speechifying rather than ordinary dialogue. Women Talking may in fact be the most radical, polemical, anti-entertaining film to ever win a Screenplay Oscar. (It's a bit like if Medium Cool or Herzog's Heart of Glass or Jeanne Dielman or maybe one of Godard's more mysteriously political films, say Two or Three things I Know About Her or Tout va bien had won a s/play Oscar.)

In some ways, Sarah Polley winning an Oscar for Women Talking feels of a piece with Jeanne Dielman (1975) winning the Sight and Sound Poll last year. Women Talking is similarly a film most people are never going to see, and a significant proportion of those who try to watch it are going to give up early on it. Women Talking is also inevitably going to be a film that more people are going to *want* to have seen then actually want to see it (cf. Twain's definition of a 'classic' as a book that no one wants to read but everyone wants to have read!)

reply

This year's Original Screenplay went to the (sweeping all before it) EEAAO
This year's Adapted Screenplay went to Sarah Polley for Women Talking

---

By all accounts, worthy winners(I've seen neither, but I'm working on it) ..but I still think these are haunted (Women Talking more than EEAAO) by the issue of how "major" the movies were that came from them. Widely seen?(Evidently yes with EEAA0.) Deserving of being considered with the screenplay winners of other decades?

Well, it depends.

Like...Pillow Talk won Best Original Screenplay for 1959. Big hit, clever comedy with a gimmick to pull off. But -- BEST Original Screenplay? Of course, since THAT screenplay beat the screenplay for North by Northwest, I'm a little biased againt the winner. (My go-to guy for quotes on Hollywood, screenwriter William Goldman, wrote of the choice of Pillow Talk over NXNW: "Barf." Well, Ok...Bill won his famous TWO screenplay Oscars -- one Original(Butch Cassidy) one Adapted(All the President's Men.)

This is a GIVEN: The competition is fewer for Best Original Screenplay ...because so few original screenplays get made(by the studios; perhaps this is where indies REALLY flourish.)

Famous story: writer Peter Stone could never sell the script for "Charade" as an original -- studios said "try to publish it as a novel first." He got it as a "serialized novel" in Redbook (under another name) and THEN the script sold to movies.

But that was "a long time ago." Again, indies may be making for more original screenplays getting made and up for awards.

CONT

reply

Another thought:

I've always found the Best Screenplay winners to be where some of our "alternative Best Picture winners" can be found. The screenplay award win is a "consolation prize" for not winning Picture. And the winners KNOW that. QT said when he won Best Original Screenplay for Pulp Fiction in the Forrest Gump year of 1994, from the stage: "I think this is the last time I'll be on this stage tonight, so I just want to thank you." He KNEW.

Other Best Screenplay winners that SHOULD have won Best Picture include: Chinatown(Original, 1974) , Network(Original, 1976), Fargo(Original 1996 -- or was it? "Based on a true story" that didn't happen") LA Confidential (Adapted 1997.)

The one time I thought the "usual thing happening" was unfair was when "Unforgiven" won Best Picture but LOST Best Original Screenplay to The Crying Game. That was the "right thing" (the consolation prize) to give screenplay to The Crying Game, but I am convinced that Unforgiven saved Clint's career BECAUSE of the script -- he had sat on that script for years, waiting to "use it" not only when he was old enough to be in it(which was years earlier) but when his career was finally in trouble. "Unforgiven" has a great script, with great famous dialogue ("We've ALL got it comin.' ") and The Crying Game's "gimmick" script just wasn't as good. IMHO.

As I recall Sideways won Best Adapted Screenplay when Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" won Best Picture -- I would have voted Sideways for Best Picture, but that's just me.

Etc

reply

QT said when he won Best Original Screenplay for Pulp Fiction in the Forrest Gump year of 1994, from the stage: "I think this is the last time I'll be on this stage tonight, so I just want to thank you." He KNEW.

---

MORE: I recently read an interview with QT in which he said sometime in 1995, when the 1994 Oscar noms were out but before the awards, Veteran Steven Spielberg elected to take two directors out to quail hunt with him -- just the three of them. The two directors were Robert Zemeckis(director of Forrest Gump) and QT(director of Pulp Fiction.)

QT said that at a certain point in the day, Spielberg took him aside and said "Here's what's going to happen: Bob is going to win Best Picture and Best Director, and you are going to win Best Original Screenplay. But that's not that bad is it ?-- to get one of those little Golden Men for your second movie?"

It took Spielberg a lot longer (plus remember: Zemickis was a Spielberg protégé.)

CONT

reply

This year's Adapted Screenplay went to Sarah Polley for Women Talking (over a mixed bag of competitors: Top Gun Maverick weirdly considered an adpatation of the first Top Gun - What?;

---

WHAT? How about an "original screenplay based on an original screenplay?"

BTW, back in 1998 BEFORE Van Sant's Psycho came out, some film magazine wrote an article with the title (paraphrased) "Can Van Sant's Psycho win all the Oscars that Alfred Hitchcock's original did not?". The idea -- again with the movie not being seen yet, is that since it was being filmed from Joe Stefano's original ADAPTED 1960 screenplay of Robert Bloch's 1959 novel, and had BERNARD HERRMANN's orginal score, and even would be using most of ALFRED HITCHCOCK's directorial shot selections and compositions -- why not get some nominations and wins for Screenplay, Score, and Director...maybe even Picture? (Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche were unknown quanities for the acting awards.)

Well, of course, Van Sant's Psycho came out and NO...no nominations, let alone wins. But it COULD have been fun- and justifiable -- for Stefano and Herrman to win outright(Herrmann posthumosly) and quite an homage if Van Sant could win FOR Hitchcock the Oscar Hitchcock never won -- for directing Psycho.

---

Living, an inferior English language remake of a Kurosawa masterpiece, Ikiru - no thank you;

---

I like Bill Nighy the star, but that's another "unassailable classic." That said, I think Nighy beat Tom Hanks to a remake of that .

--

All Quiet - an OK 3rd attempt to film the underlying novel that provoked controversy in Germany and elsewhere for changing and leaving out crucial parts of the noble while inventing silliness - that's a 'No';

---

Yeah with that one I was "why?" ....AGAIN? And yet it won a few.

---
CONT

reply

and Rian Johnson's Netflix Knives Out sequel that I haven't seen for no particularly good reason - Netflix fatigue is a 'No').

---

With the exception of The Irishman(which I saw at a theater first), and The Ballad of Buster Scruggs(which I saw on Netflix first) and Roma(which I did not see, but I've read about), I can't say that I've seen or heard about a Netflix movie yet that felt like a REAL movie -- and I saw The Irishman at my local Cineplex first(just MONTHS ahead of COVID, lucky me.)

That goes for Knives Out 2, too. I saw Knives Out 1 at a theater, and Knives Out 2 seemed like a bit of a comedown in its "Netflixery."

Meanwhile: while Scorseses' "Killers of the Flower Moon" WILL play theaters this fall before going to Apple TV, I've read a little "early screening gossip" that its not very good. Probably just gossip (its got Leo and DeNiro for Scorsese) but...I've read the book and I must admit trying to shoehorn THOSE guys into THAT story is a little hard to do. (Leo demanded to be taken out of the FBI hero role and put into a conflicted villain role -- this evidently led Paramount to move the movie to Apple.)

Still, my hopes are high. "The Irishman" got both very good reviews(include me IN) and very bad reviews. It happens with these late in life movies...

CONT

reply

All Quiet - an OK 3rd attempt to film the underlying novel that provoked controversy in Germany and elsewhere for changing and leaving out crucial parts of the noble while inventing silliness - that's a 'No';
---
Yeah with that one I was "why?" ....AGAIN? And yet it won a few.
I want to be clear that I did *like* All Quiet (2022) and do think it's worth watching especially if you've got Netflix. AQ-22 just has a few big problems that were adaptational choices - huge unnecessary/silly variations from the novel; points that the previous two adaptations had kept faith with and prospered with. Those decisions meant that the film set itself a kind of 8/10 ceiling for me and many others (particularly in Germany). The British Academy completely fell for AQ-22, however, giving it Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted S-play, and 4 other awards. I think the US Academy showed better judgement mainly just nominating it.

reply