|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 25, 2020 17:34:19 GMT
I give it a 7/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 7, 2021 18:49:22 GMT
8/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Apr 7, 2021 19:55:11 GMT
8/10. The movie doesn't hide its stage artifices, and it's very dialogue-driven with a very simple plot about recording a single. Nevertheless, the performances of Chadwick Boseman and Viola Davis and the inner turmoil as expressed from the former is compelling to watch.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 22, 2021 22:49:48 GMT
Boseman has been sweeping the awards wins, while Davis has gotten lots of nominations but few wins so far. I actually think Davis' performance was the more impressive, although she had far less screen time. Of course awards depend on who else is competing in a given category, and maybe the voters just preferred whoever is in the best actress category more than Davis. But I wonder how much of the adulation for Boseman is an emotional reaction to his untimely death, whereas Davis was playing a character who was very unsympathetic for most of the film. The character doesn't get a chance to explain why she is such a hardnosed businesswoman until 2/3 into the film. Up until that point, she just seems like a PITA diva.
8.5/10
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 22, 2021 22:50:48 GMT
(If you hide votes until someone casts a vote, it encourages people to cast votes who haven't necessarily even watched the film yet.)  |
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Apr 23, 2021 7:15:25 GMT
I wonder how much of the adulation for Boseman is an emotional reaction to his untimely death Nah, plenty of "final" performances throughout history have been praised and still didn't win an Oscar. Davis was playing a character who was very unsympathetic for most of the film. The character doesn't get a chance to explain why she is such a hardnosed businesswoman until 2/3 into the film. Up until that point, she just seems like a PITA diva. Wait, why would that be a factor? (If you hide votes until someone casts a vote, it encourages people to cast votes who haven't necessarily even watched the film yet.) Oh... Are you sure?
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 24, 2021 0:59:55 GMT
I wonder how much of the adulation for Boseman is an emotional reaction to his untimely death Nah, plenty of "final" performances throughout history have been praised and still didn't win an Oscar. How many of those final performances were for actors who died younger than 45? Regardless, the fact that in other cases the actors didn't win best actor awards doesn't necessarily mean that in this case people aren't reacting emotionally. I'm sure how people feel about actors as people affects a lot of how they vote. If someone has a strong dislike for an actor, they are probably not going to be as likely to vote for them to win an award even if they thought the performance was a decent performance, especially in cases in which the competitor(s) also did exceptional work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Apr 24, 2021 6:02:44 GMT
How many of those final performances were for actors who died younger than 45?. Huh? Why does that matter? the fact that in other cases the actors didn't win best actor awards doesn't necessarily mean that in this case people aren't reacting emotionally. It means that there aren't many precedents to serve as evidence. If there's no other evidence, then... If someone has a strong dislike for an actor, they are probably not going to be as likely to vote for them to win an award even if they thought the performance was a decent performance, especially in cases in which the competitor(s) also did exceptional work. This does have precedents. Some past winners have had notoriously unappealing personalities. Hell, even criminals have won.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 24, 2021 23:19:44 GMT
How many of those final performances were for actors who died younger than 45?. Huh? Why does that matter? the fact that in other cases the actors didn't win best actor awards doesn't necessarily mean that in this case people aren't reacting emotionally. It means that there aren't many precedents to serve as evidence. If there's no other evidence, then... You just undermined your own argument.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 24, 2021 23:22:48 GMT
If someone has a strong dislike for an actor, they are probably not going to be as likely to vote for them to win an award even if they thought the performance was a decent performance, especially in cases in which the competitor(s) also did exceptional work. This does have precedents. Some past winners have had notoriously unappealing personalities. Hell, even criminals have won. Are you talking about Oscars? I am not just talking about the Academy Awards. Boseman has been winning lots of different awards for this performance. I think it would be very unusual for an actor who is widely disliked to win lots of awards, especially in years where the competition is considered very close. That doesn't mean it never happens, just that it would be very unusual.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Apr 25, 2021 7:57:40 GMT
You just undermined your own argument. What do you mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Apr 25, 2021 7:57:58 GMT
Are you talking about Oscars? I am not just talking about the Academy Awards. Boseman has been winning lots of different awards for this performance. I think it would be very unusual for an actor who is widely disliked to win lots of awards, especially in years where the competition is considered very close. That doesn't mean it never happens, just that it would be very unusual. Of course I'm talking about the Oscars. That's how this conversation started. Anyway, each organization has a different body of voters. It's highly unlikely that they would all vote based on how much they like each nominee on a personal level, especially in ceremonies outside of L.A.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 25, 2021 9:45:12 GMT
You just undermined your own argument. What do you mean? I suggested that how people have been judging his performance might partially be a response to the emotional reaction to him being a beloved actor who died unexpectedly at a young age. You argued that "plenty of 'final' performances throughout history have been praised and still didn't win an Oscar." I asked if the cases you are citing are actually similar - have those many cases of final performances involved actors who died at a young age? A final performance of a 90-year-old is not equivalent to a final performance of someone who died at 43. You then said that if there aren't many precedents to provide evidence for an argument, the argument is weak.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 25, 2021 9:51:50 GMT
Are you talking about Oscars? I am not just talking about the Academy Awards. Boseman has been winning lots of different awards for this performance. I think it would be very unusual for an actor who is widely disliked to win lots of awards, especially in years where the competition is considered very close. That doesn't mean it never happens, just that it would be very unusual. Of course I'm talking about the Oscars. That's how this conversation started. Anyway, each organization has a different body of voters. It's highly unlikely that they would all vote based on how much they like each nominee on a personal level, especially in ceremonies outside of L.A. My original remark was about Boseman sweeping awards with wins. The Oscars wins haven't yet been announced, so obviously I was not talking about the Oscars. You brought up the Oscars. I disagree that 'it's highly unlikely that they would all vote based on how much they like each nominee on a personal level.' I wouldn't say "all" or "each," but I think a lot of voters probably do have personal feelings about prominent actors (or other kinds of filmmakers, eg producers/directors) and that probably affects how they vote to some degree. In many, perhaps even most cases, their personal feelings are 'neutral' and don't make that much difference. But in occasional cases - such as in the case of an exceptionally gifted actor who died prematurely - it probably has an effect. Or in the case of an actor who might be a decent enough actor but who has been in the news for beating his wife or his kids or saying racist stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Apr 25, 2021 10:47:25 GMT
A final performance of a 90-year-old is not equivalent to a final performance of someone who died at 43. It is, if the 90-year-old had never won. You then said that if there aren't many precedents to provide evidence for an argument, the argument is weak. Exactly. I'm saying that, since there haven't been that many posthumous winners (even though there were plenty of opportunities to do so), your argument is weak. in occasional cases - such as in the case of an exceptionally gifted actor who died prematurely - it probably has an effect. Even if that's true, I wouldn't compare it to voting for someone just for liking their personality. Or in the case of an actor who might be a decent enough actor but who has been in the news for beating his wife or his kids or saying racist stuff. Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Mel Gibson, Sean Penn, Casey Affleck, Eminem, Nick Vallelonga, etc...
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Apr 25, 2021 21:40:02 GMT
A final performance of a 90-year-old is not equivalent to a final performance of someone who died at 43. It is, if the 90-year-old had never won. You then said that if there aren't many precedents to provide evidence for an argument, the argument is weak. Exactly. I'm saying that, since there haven't been that many posthumous winners (even though there were plenty of opportunities to do so), your argument is weak. Again, you are claiming there were "plenty" of comparable cases, and I am asking you to show that there were plenty of cases of actors being nominated for best actor awards who had just died at an age younger than 45. If the denominator is closer to zero than to "plenty," then your argument falls apart. And an actor who has had a lifetime of opportunities to be nominated before dying at 90 is in no way comparable to an actor who has been nominated after dying at just 43. Can we mutually agree that this is a silly argument and move on?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Apr 25, 2021 22:11:48 GMT
an actor who has had a lifetime of opportunities to be nominated before dying at 90 is in no way comparable to an actor who has been nominated after dying at just 43. I already counter-argumented that, though. Can we mutually agree that this is a silly argument and move on? Sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by sjg on Jan 1, 2024 10:22:21 GMT
5/10
|
|
