So now I am happy if either, or better still all 3 of Gyllenhall (who I thought completely owned Nightcrawler), Keaton or J K Simmons get recognised in the awards ceremony.
Although I enjoyed the film, I don't think overall its deserving of an Oscar...but I would be happy to see Keaton win best actor.
But you know its never going to happen...the film is too quirky and off the wall for Hollywood.
Agree to a Keaton win. Wholeheartedly.
Disagree with Hollywood not getting a film about actors, acting and leaving a mark in the profession. They are the target audience as opposed to BuFu, Idaho...
I hope it does, but suspect that the glorified soap that took twelve years to make will end up winning.
Ironically, one can make a rather stronger argument for Birdman being a glorified soap than Boyhood.
The key themes of a soap are a) the core location b) melodrama and c) telling the stories of characters on a day to day basis.
Location - Boyhood is kind of sprawling in location, not confined to any core place. Birdman however is set in a theatre in New York and it's immediate surrounding area. So comparable to, say, Cross Roads (motel) or Neighbours (the lassisters complex).
Melodrama - Upthread someone mentioned that Boyhood was boring, while I disagree with this, it is fair to say that the very naturalised nature of both the performance and the story telling are not going to be dramatic enough for some peoples tastes. However, this equally means it fails the melodrama test because at no point is it exaggerated or overemotional in nature.
The closest it veers to this is in the scene where they leave the abuse step father. However, it still maintains a naturalistic approach to this. There are no great denouncements. No one is seriously harmed. It happens and life moves forward.
On the other hand, Birman is quite knowingly and deliberately melodramatic at times, it's done with a sense of irony, but it's still there.
Day-to-day narrative- Love it or hate it, Boyhood is not trying to tell a day-to-day narrative of it's key characters, it's instead presenting a series of snap shots in to the lives of a family over the course of many years. The events of Birdman, however, do fit this criteria pretty well. It's following these charaters lives in a pretty detailed way in the run up to the opening night of a play.
And as for glorified, well we have Boyhood which relies on naturalism vs Birman which uses an array of snazzy production techniques. I know which of these seems more glorified to me.
So while I wouldn't call either of them glorified soaps, I'd say Birdman actually fits the bill much better if you want to use that label. ;-)
It's not my choice for best movie of the year (that would be The Grand Budapest Hotel) but I'd be happy enough if Birdman won it ... anything to stop the drearily dull Boyhood from getting it.
I don't care who wins. I expect Birdman to win though. As Gellymiss pointed out, it's "a film about actors, acting and leaving a mark in the profession". Hollywood loves that kind of thing; I personally don't care for it.
I thought Birdman was a boring film and certainly wouldn't want to watch it again, but the only good thing about it was (apart form the cinematography) Michael Keaton. I wouln't mind if he got Best Actor but I can't see Birdman getting Best Picture.
Birdman certainly seems like it has momentum behind it, more so than his villain's the night dwelling Foxcather and the nerve wrecking Whiplash.
But I don't think Birdman is as great as its made out to be, and although its deemed by most to be inferior Wormman is far more interesting with its dirt sensibility.
I don't expect it to but i'd be happy if Birdman won. I liked it more the 2nd time i watched. Can you imagine such a crazy, weird, off the wall, trippy film like Birdman winning Best Picture? That would be amazing!
I expect Boyhood to win and seeing as it's such great film too i wouldn't mind.
FusionFury
Posts: 14,121
Comments
I wouldn't mind if Foxcatcher won .
Really?
But you know its never going to happen...the film is too quirky and off the wall for Hollywood.
I bought the US DVD of that movie in December last year...but have never watched it.
Because I know its almost 3 hours, I am waiting for the right kind of mood/opportunity.
It's an odd one...some people rate it as a masterpiece, others say its the worst ever...
I also have the Jake Gyllenhall movie The Enemy, probably for at least 2 months now...just not got round to it...
Whiplash should.
Boyhood's "12 years in the making of" thing is more of an accomplishment than the film itself, which I just found ok.
With honourable mentions to Whiplash and The Imitation Game.
Foxcatcher was an awful film by the way.
So now I am happy if either, or better still all 3 of Gyllenhall (who I thought completely owned Nightcrawler), Keaton or J K Simmons get recognised in the awards ceremony.
Agree to a Keaton win. Wholeheartedly.
Disagree with Hollywood not getting a film about actors, acting and leaving a mark in the profession. They are the target audience as opposed to BuFu, Idaho...
Ironically, one can make a rather stronger argument for Birdman being a glorified soap than Boyhood.
The key themes of a soap are a) the core location b) melodrama and c) telling the stories of characters on a day to day basis.
Location - Boyhood is kind of sprawling in location, not confined to any core place. Birdman however is set in a theatre in New York and it's immediate surrounding area. So comparable to, say, Cross Roads (motel) or Neighbours (the lassisters complex).
Melodrama - Upthread someone mentioned that Boyhood was boring, while I disagree with this, it is fair to say that the very naturalised nature of both the performance and the story telling are not going to be dramatic enough for some peoples tastes. However, this equally means it fails the melodrama test because at no point is it exaggerated or overemotional in nature.
Day-to-day narrative- Love it or hate it, Boyhood is not trying to tell a day-to-day narrative of it's key characters, it's instead presenting a series of snap shots in to the lives of a family over the course of many years. The events of Birdman, however, do fit this criteria pretty well. It's following these charaters lives in a pretty detailed way in the run up to the opening night of a play.
And as for glorified, well we have Boyhood which relies on naturalism vs Birman which uses an array of snazzy production techniques. I know which of these seems more glorified to me.
So while I wouldn't call either of them glorified soaps, I'd say Birdman actually fits the bill much better if you want to use that label. ;-)
Nice spin. Kudos.
Whiplash on the other hand was amazing. J K Simmons was scarily frightening to watch. I think I'd have peed my pants if he was my orchestra leader.
Special mention must got to Miles Teller who I've only seen in comedy/rom com films before and didn't realise what a great actor he is.
But I don't think Birdman is as great as its made out to be, and although its deemed by most to be inferior Wormman is far more interesting with its dirt sensibility.
I expect Boyhood to win and seeing as it's such great film too i wouldn't mind.