Awards

"Choke," not just a novel by Chuck Palahniuk anymore

By February 27, 2012No Comments

No Comments

  • Nort says:

    At what point can we just merge Best Director into Best Picture?

  • Betttencourt says:

    In all the dis­cus­sion of THE ARTIST, did any­one notice that 21 years ago, its (now) Oscar-winning pro­du­cer Thomas Langmann starred in Chantal Akerman’s NIGHT AND DAY? (I know, prob­ably no one cares, but I found it inter­est­ing, and this seems like one of the few sites where people would dis­cuss both THE ARTIST and Akerman).

  • Matt Blankman says:

    We all know how much Billy Wilder loved moves with cute little dogs who save the day.

  • LondonLee says:

    I know com­plain­ing about self-congratulatory back-slapping at the Oscars is a bit redund­ant but they seemed to really lay it on with a trow­el last night. It really needed a Stewart or Letterman or Gervais to cut through the thick smug.
    I thought Natalie Portman wanted Gary Oldman to win.

  • Joel says:

    Anyone else stop watch­ing after Richardson won for cine­ma­to­graphy? I loved everything about HUGO… except for the gar­ish pho­to­graphy. I don’t know enough about the craft to decide who is respons­ible for mak­ing every­one’s skin orange–in fact, for drain­ing all col­or except for orange and blue out of the movie–but my guess is that the DP has some say in the mat­ter. This one should have gone to TREE OF LIFE.

  • Chris O. says:

    There was one award win­ner when the cut­away to Jolie’s reac­tion was a near-perfect “I approve … CONDITIONALLY” sort of deal.”
    Which one?

  • A.O. Scott says:

    My own inform­al sur­vey of oth­er crit­ics on Twitter showed a diversity of opin­ion, although I’m still not sure about the New York Times crit­ic who, to my mind, used the word “nailed” in a too-ambiguous context.”
    You may want to cor­rect this. The word I used in that too-ambiguous con­text was was “killed,” which might be prob­lem­at­ic in a dif­fer­ent way, I guess. http://twitter.com/#!/aoscott. Unless you mean anoth­er New York Times critic.

  • Miriam Reed says:

    Mr. Kenny, I read your review of the Oscar Awards show on MSN.com, and I was dis­ap­poin­ted to see yet anoth­er step down in qual­ity of ver­nacu­lar used in the print media. In an oth­er­wise reas­on­ably writ­ten piece, the use of “what-the-eff” seems to trash out the story from the very start. I’d sug­gest “sur­pris­ing,” “unpre­dict­able,” or “aston­ish­ing” in place of the engin­eered, hyphen­ated attempt to con­nect to the low­est com­mon denom­in­at­or in readership.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    @ A.O. Scott: Ooops! Correction under way! Also: indeed!
    @ Miriam Reed: As Mr. Scott can tell you, I’m actu­ally a fairly trashy guy.
    But seriously…I grappled, for not a huge amount of time but at least a little while, with that for­mu­la­tion myself and I have to admit that for the sake of what I con­sidered AT THE TIME to be idio­syn­crat­ic prose flow, I settled. Perhaps not my best choice.

  • AeC says:

    Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot” has always been my ver­nacu­lar of choice.

  • jbryant says:

    Mr. Kenny, dude, I tried to read your review of the Oscars on MSN.com, but I could­n’t fol­low it. In the very first para­graph, you used a bunch of words I did­n’t know – brev­ity, inex­tric­able, fleetest, dint. WTF, dude? Who do think reads these things – English nerds? It’s MSN, not some snobby magazine like, um, Newsweek or something.

  • Brian P says:

    The audio was atrocious.

  • Donald says:

    @Bettencourt: I did­n’t know that Thomas Langmann was in Akerman’s “Night and Day” though he did look awfully famil­i­ar – thanks for point­ing it out!
    I saw “Night and Day” many years ago on VHS and haven’t seen it since. I think it and “Window Shopping” are under­rated (def­in­itely not widely avail­able) in Akerman’s oeuvre.
    Anyway, thanks again for the heads up.

  • Helena says:

    Mr Kenny, is Ms Reed your old English teach­er or sum­mink? I mean, what the blazes?

  • Claire K. says:

    Chin up, darling!! The piece was “OTHERWISE REASONABLY WRITTEN.” Take that, enemies of reason!!

  • LondonLee says:

    We train our young men to drop fire on people but we won’t let them write FUCK in their Oscar roundups”

  • bill says:

    I did not like the “in memori­am” piece at all. It felt like they believed some people deserved clips more than oth­ers, and besides that, it seemed as though the hope was that the design would be noticed, more than the deceased.

  • Matt says:

    Anyone else stop watch­ing after Richardson won for cinematography?”
    Yes, but for the oppos­ite reas­on – I finally caught HUGO at a mat­inée on Saturday and was floored by the 3D, which seemed to me to be expo­nen­tially bet­ter than any oth­er 3D film I’ve seen (though I admit­tedly tend to avoid the format). I thought Scorcese and Richardson did a phe­nom­en­al job with the depth of field, and I was glad to see it recognized.
    Glenn, in the unlikely event you’re still keep­ing score: the theat­er was about 2/3 full, mostly fam­il­ies with young kids, and they were silent and (assumedly) engaged the whole time.

  • Joel says:

    @Matt: I did not see it in 3D. That may have been why I was under­whelmed by the pho­to­graphy. Otherwise, I loved everything else about the film.

  • partisan says:

    As it hap­pens I saw HARRY AND TONTO on Oscar eve. As egre­giously undeserving oscar win­ners go, they cer­tainly made them bet­ter back in 1974.

  • Jim Gabriel says:

    Second-tier Mazursky is high­er than most people’s top shelf.

  • Russ H says:

    Chris. Rock.

  • Jim Gabriel says:

    Siren from the corner for three… AND IT’S GOOD!

  • Betttencourt says:

    If we’re going to dis­cuss injustice from the 1974 Oscars, I’d say that The Towering Inferno win­ning Best Cinematography over Chinatown, Lenny and Murder on the Orient Express (I’ll ignore the fact that Earthquake was also nom­in­ated), as well as such non-nominated cine­ma­to­graphy as The Godfather Part II, The Sugarland Express and Young Frankenstein, far sur­passes Art Carney’s Best Actor win (great as Finney, Nicholson and Pacino were in Orient Express, Chinatown and Godfather 2, not to men­tion the non-nominated Hackman in The Conversation).

  • Partisan says:

    You have a point Betterncourt, though I’d add that Carney also beat an unnom­in­ated Peter Falk in A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE, while Erland Josephson was also locked out when SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE was declared ineligible.

  • jbryant says:

    These were nev­er gonna hap­pen, but I’ll throw ’em in the mix: Philippe Noiret for The Clockmaker, Warren Oates for Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia and Jason Miller for The Nickel Ride.

  • Michael Dempsey says:

    James Coburn as Sgt. Steiner in Sam Peckinpah’s unsung but finest film, “Cross of Iron” – one of the truly top-tier per­form­ances ever put onto the screen.

  • Russ Queen says:

    Wow, ’74 was a great year for act­ors. Sung and unsung. But Carney was really good in that cat movie. Not say­ing he deserved the big prize, but not a com­plete trav­esty, like Sean Penn for Mystic River.

  • Josh Z says:

    If you’re going to cite an act­ing trav­esty, cite Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. Yes, Sean Penn went over-the-top in his big cry­ing scene, but he was actu­ally pretty good in the rest of Mystic River. Maybe not Oscar good, but that was cer­tainly not the worst mis­take that Oscar ever made. Pacino, though…
    Hoo-haa!!

  • Matt Blankman says:

    @The Siren Touché, Siren! I’ve actu­ally had that film sit­ting on my DVR for about a year and still haven’t watched it. I recall Wilder say­ing he did­n’t like it, so I keep avoid­ing it.