 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.105.107.176
In Reply to: RE: Congrats to Joel and Ethan Coen posted by Jazz Inmate on February 24, 2008 at 23:29:21
As an editor my feeling is that No Country deserved the editing Oscar more than The Bourne Ultimatum.
Sure the Bourne Ultimatum took a lot of work and wasn't easy and it was very well done for what it was but it's actually harder to create so much atmosphere and tension at the much slower pace of No Country.
If I were voting my 1, 2 & 3 would have been There Will Be Blood, No Country and The Diving Bell & The Butterfly (and I'd have been satisfied if any of them had won)."You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
The academy just liked it because it demonized US intelligence agencies and had the obligatory Cheney look-alike as the devil incarnate. The best thing about it was the action sequences and even those were fairly crappy. A general rule of thumb--when the camera is in too tight and choppy during hand-to-hand combat, it's because the martial arts is not being properly choreographed or performed. The first Bourne film was pretty good but it was all downhill after that. Still, I can live with the Coens getting three out of four. Editing was less prestigious than the awards they took.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
"The academy just liked it because it demonized US intelligence agencies and had the obligatory Cheney look-alike as the devil incarnate."
You should see This Film is Not yet Rated. That film made a pretty compelling case that the MPAA is really a tool of the major studios, and is designed to promote major Hollywood releases at the expense of smaller, independent films. They showed, rather convingly, I think, that the MPAA, and, by extension, the Hollywood studios, treats films which depict positive images of the U.S. Military and Government much more charitably than those, generally independent films, that do not.
I think what you're saying applies to big budget blockbusters overall. Certainly there are films that glorify the US military and romanticize war, and they are certainly awarded on occasion. But I think Hollywood's heart lies in demonizing US leadership and military, and that's why films like Farenheit 911 and Dr Strangelove are so revered.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
And those hand held cameras drive me nuts.
anti-Americanism and evil Cheney look-alikes are the primary criteria for Academy Award editorial nominations.
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
Give me a break.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
though, based on the editing I understand why it was nominated. Or at least I thought I understood, professionally, you know... that is until you set me straight on the real reason.
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
If you care to stop your sarcasm, maybe you could share your opinion about why the academy liked it so much. I have my theory. Let's hear yours.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
it's that (and this is just about the nominations)....
the sound and editing were, craft wise... actually... well done....
Phew, there, I said it!!
;-)
"You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when he hates all the same people you do."
Thank you, agreed.
I would have preferred it if NCFOM or DB&TB had won editing.
But they didn't, and at least Bourne was well crafted. I think the complexity and speed probably impressed the non-editors in AMPAS. Greengrass is the real deal, and his editors are superb. May he return to a personal film soon.
Although I hear there is now going to be a 4th Bourne movie.
The first one was far better than the others. How many academy awards did it win? Not a one, did it?
So are you guys really telling me that not only was Bourne Ultimatum more deserving than any other movie this year, it was better than the other Bournes that didn't win squat?
You guys really don't think Hollywood is more likely to award an anti-US themed movie? Cannes certainly is.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
...and girl...are just trying to tell you that Bourne was well crafted and well edited.
There are conservatives in Hollyweird, but the town is fairly liberal and has been for quite some time. But I don't think that had a darned thing to do with Bourne winning for editing. The zealous G-man bad guy has been a stock figure in movies for a long time.
The editing branch of AMPAS (actual film editors) selects the finalists in this category, then everyone who is a member votes on the final awards winner. I just think most actors (who comprise the largest mebership of the Academy) were simply impressed by the speed & complexity of the intecutting. No more, no less. The movie was a kinetic, non-stop action ride for some folks, who loved it. I like Bourne II the best, personally.
A lot of people just like the movie, and like Greengrass.
Would I have voted for it? Naw, I already told which two who I would have voted for.
Cannes, whose jury is international, is located in a completely different political climate from southern California aka USA movieland. I don't see any connection between voting at Cannes and voting for the Oscars - in fact, there ain't much connection even between Oscar and Sundance. If any festival has an inkling of influence on AMPAS, it's probably September's Toronto fest, since many high profile films make their NA debut there. To be well received at Toronto is to get recognition and maybe a little boost or buzz going into the awards season. But even it's too early to have a major impact.
So who's seeing conspiracies?
Besides, I don't think Bourne is anti-US.
The entire film is not much more than an advertisement for young men to stay away from serving their country. There isn't a whole heck of a lot of room to see it any other way.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Cheney IS evil, so any interpretation of him wouldn't be very accurate if it showed him to be a moral person who isn't out for profit and gain. You can't blame an entire industry for reflecting the reality of the world. It would be un-American to depict otherwise.
Baba-Booey to you all!
a
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
