He is hailed as a God...dare I say this is just because he is a man? He's not that great, so samey, the same schtick over and over. He makes the effort, sure, but it shows...where are the the women worshipped in the same way?
Armie3 said: "where are the the women worshipped in the same way?"
Meryl Streep?
I think what's interesting about Oscar winners is you have to look at the context of the year they won. It's easy to see a list of winners and think, "so and so has an Oscar and such and such doesn't?!" Jennifer Lawrence, for example, won in a pretty weak year for female performances (Riva didn't have too much of a chance being in a foreign film) and she was the ultimate media darling at the time. It was impossible to avoid seeing her on television, talk shows, in magazines or trending on the internet. So, to me, it makes sense she won that year despite finding her performance, and the film especially, underwhelming. Perhaps in another, stronger year for females, she wouldn't even have been nominated. This is just speculation, of course, but it's something I find interesting when examining Oscar winners.
Right, but Meryl Streep is way more talented than Robert De Niro. She has her bag of tricks too, but has showed way more range and a bigger variety of roles over her long career. Bob has been running on empty for a long time now, but is still hailed. Meryl had to wait decades to get the same respect and work 10x as hard (arguably)...and still she is not worshipped in the same way that hetero male film buffs and aspiring young male actors bow down to Robert De Niro. They still see her as the girlfriend in The Deer Hunter, lesser than, there but not equal. It's still a man's world. Tangent alert, I guess.
I don't think range and variety is the only measure one can use to determine the skill of an actor. There are actors who are lauded for their versatility whose performances I find quite shallow. I think some actors are limited in range but do what they do very well with a lot of depth. The problem with the latter is that if they become a superstar then they do a lot of projects and we feel like we've seen too much of the same "face". Then people get tired of it and then there are some performances where it starts becoming like a parody. I think Jack Nicholson fell into that trap for a while which why his performance in About Schmidt was so lauded because it was "against type".
I also would not call 2012 that weak when you have performances from Riva and Chastain in the mix (before her performances became variations of "Maya" from Zero Dark Thirty). The only issue I have is that Marion Cotillard and Rachel Weisz were not nominated for their superior performances in Rust & Bone and The Deep Blue Sea respectively. I would have easily replaced two of Wallis, Lawrence, and Watts (in that order) in favor of Cotillard and Weisz, and it would have been one of the strongest Best Actress line-ups in terms of acting if not hype.
He is hailed as a God...dare I say this is just because he is a man? He's not that great, so samey, the same schtick over and over. He makes the effort, sure, but it shows...where are the the women worshipped in the same way?"
Anyone ever tell you your critique of actors you don't like is not that great, so samey?
Here's an idea. For your 15th birthday, have mommy and daddy buy you DVDs of Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, The Godfather Part II, The Deerhunter, The King of Comedy, Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale, Heat, Ronin,The Score and Being Flynn. Watch them. Watch them a second time. Then, you might be prepared to have a conversation with adults about DeNiro's talent and resume.
"and still she is not worshipped in the same way that hetero male film buffs and aspiring young male actors bow down to Robert De Niro. They still see her as the girlfriend in The Deer Hunter, lesser than, there but not equal. It's still a man's world. "
And in this man's world. she's won 3 Oscars and been nominated 18 other times, more than any other actor in history along with winning 8 Golden Globes. Are you just punking us, making as silly and provocative comments as possible just to get a reaction? You wouldn't be the first.
Sigh. You again. No, I am not punking you - I mean everything I say, though I dare say you are taking this thread more seriously than I am. Lighten up. Go drink some prune juice or something. What are you, Mr. De Niro's agent ?
UncleCharlie said "I have to admit, your continued assertion that Oscar voters who've spent entire careers in the film industry are so easily fooled..."
Quevenzhane Wallis (previously mentioned), aged 14, is a voting member of the Academy, the same one you shamed me for supposedly disrespecting...so your obnoxious ageism has somewhat backfired on you...perhaps you could forward on your patronizing list to A.M.P.A.S.? I'm sure they will be happy to pass it on to Ms. Wallis.
Let's suppose for a second that I am indeed a 14 year old girl/boy - is this really how you would speak to me? Since I started this thread, you and the rest of the welcoming committee have slammed me as "idiotic", "butthurt", "childish", "mindless", "pointless", "horrible taste"...
I would encourage you to show a little more decency, you have no idea who I am or what problems I face, you can not know who is at the other end of the screen, so be careful.
Also, thank you, but I have no interest in those man-centric, macho, non-diverse movies made for man-centric, macho, non-diverse people. Martin Scorsese can suck it. Would it kill him to cast a woman as lead for once in his career?
"let's start talking about actors that deserve Oscars but haven't won (for example: Jessica Chastain, Michelle Williams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Jonah Hill, Patrick Stewart, etc.)"
I know Tom Cruise is a jerk but he deserved Oscar for "Born On 4th Of July" .
Now you know exactly how I felt when I saw you had revived this idiotic thread after it had been peacefully quiet for the past two weeks. I wouldn't mind as much if you had some intelligent, thoughtful points to make about the actors you seem to have such an issue with but all you ever seem to be able to say is they're "not that good" and "so samey". Not exactly Siskel and Ebert are you? And don't you feel it's a little disingenuous to come on here to start a thread specifically to bash and trash talk actors and then play the "your comments are so mean. You should show decency and be more careful" card? Have you any self-awareness? And what does Quevenzhane Wallis have to do with anything? You never even mentioned her. Someone else brought her up in passing in a post. How could I have shamed you for disrespecting her when you never even brought her up? But go ahead and totally make up stuff and act like none of us can look back at what was posted to check. You started this thread specifically to provoke responses, did you not? Well, you got them. Maybe in the future, be more careful what you wish for.
Armie3 said: "Also, thank you, but I have no interest in those man-centric, macho, non-diverse movies made for man-centric, macho, non-diverse people. Martin Scorsese can suck it. Would it kill him to cast a woman as lead for once in his career?
I'm off to watch Yentl, sorry 'bout that."
Scorsese has done some great work with female leads. I think you're dismissing incredible pieces of work for pretty shallow reasons disguised as some sort of social justice statement. I mean I get the need for better female roles and for different perspectives, but it's not as if "macho" stories or stories about men suffocating in their masculinity and expectations cannot be worthy stories either. If you only dismiss Scorcese's work as being macho and men-centric and focus on non-diverse people which is a problem that is way beyond Scorcese and is not any criticism on the actual merits of his films, then you either have not seen his films to make a valid judgment (and the way the critique is worded makes me think it is based on some blog post you may have read on Tumblr once) or you really do not understand his films. It's sort of like how Pauline Kael was once described as somebody who really had everything it took to be a great film critic...passion, drive, knowledge and a want to keep reading and understanding. great writing ability, the ability to put films in context of art in general that raised film into a respect art form...except for one crucial thing...which was good judgment.
Guys, Armie3 is a young, idiotic child who couldn't give two sh*ts about movie performances that span decades. Honestly, if the dude really cared that much about how the Academy votes and who wins those coveted awards, he would join the thousands of others that boycott the ceremony every single year due to their overcommercializtion and unrealistic views of movie-going and adulation of a person's performance/screenplay/cinematography, etc. The facts are the facts, Armie3; you blindly started a thread into which you tried to force your opinions on other people who tried to correct you, and then got the bitter end of the spoon in the process. Grow some b@lls and take intitative, sweetheart, and give up the fight, for it was lost the minute you started this thread!
Whoopi Goldberg wins for Ghost but not The Color Purple? If that's not proof of how subjective the award can be, then what is?
I'd also like to call attention to the OP's initial post: "Okay so I guess I don't take the Oscars too seriously, so this is just for fun (no offence, guys!)"
yankeefan7 said: ""let's start talking about actors that deserve Oscars but haven't won (for example: Jessica Chastain, Michelle Williams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Jonah Hill, Patrick Stewart, etc.)"
I know Tom Cruise is a jerk but he deserved Oscar for "Born On 4th Of July" .
"
I just watched Molly's Game with Jessica Chastain. Thought she was terrific in it. Sadly, she couldn't even get a nomination for it.
UncleCharlie said "... what does Quevenzhane Wallis have to do with anything?" ...
I'll try to be clearer, reading comprehension isn't your thing, that's okay.
In post # 22 ,you lambasted me for daring to question the decisions of the all-powerful Academy - "I don't mean that in a good way though I have to admit, your continued assertion that Oscar voters who've spent entire careers in the film industry are so easily fooled but you are way too smart to fall for it and you alone see the truth, is really quite entertaining...".
You then attempted to humiliate me by treating me as if I was a fourteen-year-old, the implication being that fourteen -year-olds are dumb and couldn't possibly know a thing about movies. I was pointing out that actually a fourteen-year-old is a voting member of the Academy, so there is a flaw in your logic somewhere along the line.
UncleCharlie said "Have you any self-awareness?"...
You might like to examine your hypocrisy. In addition, I would like to advise that blind faith in institutions has not served us well in the past ( the church, politics, the banks), so please try to learn this lesson and apply it going forward. If you are still having trouble following me, I will try to explain again...maybe bullet-points or PowerPoint presentation might be easier for you to understand. Just let me know.
ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said "I think you're dismissing incredible pieces of work for pretty shallow reasons disguised as some sort of social justice statement".
Okay, sure, there's no doubt that at least some of those movies mentioned have a lot of merit in isolation...I may have been a little harsh. However the problem is that that whole list was put forward as representative of the total body of work of Mr. DeNiro.
If I can get back on track to the original topic, I have two more names. UncleCharlie, look away now.
Both of these people have two Oscars each despite being "not so great, so samey".
Michael Caine : He is a jobbing actor, not an artist. He turns up, cashes his check, and gives the same performace over and over. He is basically playing himself every time. Two Oscars? What gives?
Kevin Spacey : Okay, maybe a less contentious choice, hopefully nobody has any residual goodwill left for this man. Again, he relies on his natural ability (which is limited) to play the same character over and over, the same bag of tired tricks repeated ad nauseum. Sometimes it is effective, but more often than not it is beyond grating. Two thumbs down.
Armie3 said: "ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said "I think you're dismissing incredible pieces of work for pretty shallow reasons disguised as some sort of social justice statement".
Okay, sure, there's no doubt that at least some of those movies mentioned have a lot of merit in isolation...I may have been a little harsh. However the problem is that that whole list was put forward as representative of the total body of work of Mr. DeNiro.
Two words : Bechdel test."
Again, I don't think you watched enough of Scorsese's work to make a real value judgment. Also, I don't think even Alison Bechdel meant for the Bechdel-Wallace test to be the ultimate measurement of anything. It was just a funny, and insightful quip that rings true. But many films with prominent female characters would not pass the Bechdel-Wallace test and others that you would not think of works that celebrate female characters may pass it. Alison Bechdel herself is happy that the test has taken a life on its own after forgetting about it for 30 years, but even with her happiness she seems reluctant to take fully embrace it or to take charge of the idea of using it as a measurement of feminism (which I don't think it was ever meant to be) because evaluating works based on that test, that again was just a quip she "stole" from Liz Wallace (Bechdel's words not mine) who Bechdel thinks Wallace got from Virginia Woolf is complicated and misses things. She's more than happy taking the backseat and letting others try to figure it out.
Here's one criticism, of a few, of using it as some sort of authority:
"But although the test is useful, I worry when it is the only thing used to measure the feminism of a film or a play (a use Bechdel never intended). The ridiculously retrograde Twilight, for example, passes (doormat heroine, Bella, talks briefly to her mother about moving to a new town) while Gravity, which has a fierce, clever and interesting heroine, fails. Sometimes women’s conversations about men are feminist. Two women discussing being bullied at work by a man would make for a feminist drama – certainly preferable to a play in which two women briefly compared shoes but spent the rest of the time serving the narrative arcs of the men."
For Bechdel it was never a test, but the trigger for a pessimistic punchline: even in films that meet these seemingly foolproof criteria, the female characters are always delimited by something.
That’s borne out with startling obviousness when you actually put the test into practice. A recent blog post by Sonny Bunch at the Washington Free Beacon (freebeacon.com/blog/five-feminist-triumphs-that-pass-the-bechdel-test/) identified five ?feminist triumphs’ that pass, including Showgirls and Kick-Ass 2. To that list, you could add The Hottie and the Nottie, Bride Wars, Bratz: The Movie, Burlesque, Sex and the City 2 and any number of other stereotype-peddling car wrecks in which two or more of the leads happen to be female.
Not fair, say the test’s supporters: it’s easy to find the odd icky counterexample, but broadly the results are good. So let’s instead apply it to the last five films I watched. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire passes with flying colours and Don Jon fails, and both of those verdicts are pretty inarguable. But Gravity fails too, despite centring on one of the most fascinating and vitally female characters in Hollywood cinema this year – and The Counsellor passes, even though its two named women fall boringly into the usual virgin/whore dichotomy."
Armie3 said: "If I can get back on track to the original topic, I have two more names. UncleCharlie, look away now.
Both of these people have two Oscars each despite being "not so great, so samey".
Michael Caine : He is a jobbing actor, not an artist. He turns up, cashes his check, and gives the same performace over and over. He is basically playing himself every time. Two Oscars? What gives?
Kevin Spacey : Okay, maybe a less contentious choice, hopefully nobody has any residual goodwill left for this man. Again, he relies on his natural ability (which is limited) to play the same character over and over, the same bag of tired tricks repeated ad nauseum. Sometimes it is effective, but more often than not it is beyond grating. Two thumbs down.
"
Oh my God, BEGONE, child! You had your time, girl, now get out of our faces!
Also, I guess you don't know what misogyny is. That's fine; didn't think an idiotic young person like you actually had a full grasp of what being a misogynist means (in which I certainly am not!)
joined:6/18/18
joined:
6/18/18
Posted: 7/2/18 at 7:54am