katha

I must say, I quite like the Team Event now. It's an opportunity for the skaters to win more Olympic medals and participate in more Olympic events and the strategies are interesting to watch. The talk about Russia not being able to have Davis/Smolkin in the team event that I'm seeing everywhere is confusing to me, though. How could that ever have been a good idea in the first place? Russia is shaky in the mens' section, their pairs are not guaranteed a win when the Chinese pairs skate cleanly. Ladies is strong, but you can't win it just with ladies. D/S would have been somewhere midfield had they started. Even Stepanova/Bukin are a bad idea for the team event because on a bad day they might end in fourth behind the Italians and Canadians. SinKats were always needed to skate both events since they will place highest, second or first most likely. The Russian team badly needs those placements. So I'm not seeing the Russian Fed taking such a massive risk and potentially losing gold because of it just to stroke Tutberidze's ego. Don't know if four starts are good or bad for SinKats. With his back injury, it's a huge risk. OTOH, the team event might be an opportunity to work out more kinks in their programs as they lost so much training time due to his injury.

I recently watched Sofia Coppola's "Somewhere" and it's really carried by the affecting performances of Elle Fanning and Stephen Dorff. Dorff is such an interesting case IMO. His ill-judged potshot at ScarJo notwithstanding, he's made a pretty decent career for himself in the last few years. It looked like he's bound for some sort of stardom after "Backbeat", where he is very good as Stuart Sutcliffe. Then "Blade" seemed to do not much for him either. But in recent years he was very strong in "True Detective" and he's supposed to do good work in "Old Henry". It seemed for a few years like he was fading into obscurity and bad straight-to-video fare and now he's climbed back to a place where he is getting shots at good scripts/projects again. Can't have been easy.

Yeah, I thought the film created distance towards all the characters through some of Scott's choices, which made it a bit alienating. But the structure made sense, her story needed to be last also to undercut any narrative about Carrouges being a hero for "winning" that brutal, senseless duel. And he totally was a hero in his own mind. Comer showed quite well that while Marguerite was relieved she wouldn't be burned at the stake, she also resigned herself to her continued life with a man who saw and treated her as property. And the way he was so triumphant afterwards becomes off-putting because you see that she knows and is disheartened by the fact that he still does not understand her, has no empathy towards her and does not see her as a person. It's all about his ego and personal victory. But it's a grim subject with a downer of an end. I don't quite get how Scott doesn't understand why this didn't become a hit LOL. These are pretty troubled times anyway, perhaps there's limited willingness to also be depressed at the movies. Which is not to say that it shouldn't have been made. It's a good film with strong acting all around, I'm glad I watched it. It's just not really blockbuster fare.

Stewart is in the classic critic's darling movie that doesn't really translate to industry love, we've seen it before. And since critics live in their own bubble, a narrative got underway that she was a sure thing. Perhaps she's able to regain momentum, though. I thought HoG was patchy, with only Gaga warranting awards attention, but even with her the script/pacing really undercuts the performance IMO. But it's the sort of crowd friendly, easily accessible stuff the academy likes. I also thought Bardem and Kidman were miscast, doing the best they could with roles all wrong for them. I could name plenty better performances than the ones that were nominated in some cases, but not in "awards fare". It's the yearly reminder that the campaign trail is very, very limited in its scope and consideration of movies IMO.

I like awards season for its glamour and the pretty dresses etc, but overall it has accumulated a very sketchy record of awarding and recognizing the best/most influential work throughout the years. Mega blind spots when it comes to genre movies, blind spots when it comes to any kind of acting performance that isn't in the "look Ma, no hands!!!" vein. And the endless consolation prizes they give out for inferior work because they missed out an the actual worthy pieces. Also, they are violently in love with middle-brow prestige work while not knowing what to do with cutting edge innovative material. Oh, and stuff about artsy types and people in showbiz and how super special they are. So yeah, I take a look at the nominees and winners, but mostly it says nothing about nothing and is no reflection whatsoever on what will stand the test of time. In addition, while I don't begrudge people who are campaigning, I do sideeye the awards bodies who expect artists to pander to them and wine and dine them for their votes. Which also makes the prizes basically worthless, since those who either don't have the budget or the willingness to do campaigns have no chance to start with.

I think "House of Gucci" is dragged down by the fact that the movie and its tone are so uneven. It doesn't know what it wants to be and so the performers seem stuck in different genres. I also thought Leto was atrocious, almost a parody of the selfish "look at me ack-ting!" awards bait that pays no attention to scene or co-stars, but that's my personal take, of course. ;-) I actually thought "The Last Duel" was the stronger Scott movie, but that has such a grim subject matter, was a total flop and doesn't offer its performers the showy displays that are usually needed to garner acting noms (I thought all of them were very good, the men in roles that just had them play assholes and not of the "charismatic cartoon villain" kind, that takes a certain willingness to leave your ego at the door). I thought the Ricardo movie totally misguided and a waste of everyone's talent. It shouldn't be in any kind of awards contention just because of past portfolios. MacBeth might be seen as too conventional to garner much awards momentum. Sometimes I also think great movies wrongly sweep in nods for everyone associated with it. My UO is that I thought Smit-McPhee not particularly convincing in the "Power of the Dog", Cumberbatch, Dunst and Plemons were much better IMO. Yet he's getting all these noms, while for me he was the weak link in the movie.

I think the problem is that the movie doesn't know what it wants to be and what story it wants to focus on. So you get the different performance styles because all these characters are basically operating in different film genres. Scott should have committed to one decision and that he didn't probably really hurt the quality of the movie. The other thing is that it's designed as a star vehicle for Gaga and she is very charismatic, but tbh Patrizia Reggiani was no Lady MacBeth. She was a greedy sociopath who had her husband murdered because he dared leave her, as sociopaths are wont to do. It's violent and tragic for the victim and the family he left behind, but not all that interesting from a storytelling perspective. She did it ouf of greed and is still smug about it, there's not even the emotional conflict that the movie tries to establish. The movie also had to significantly pad her involvement in the running of the company, her role in truth wasn't that big. Maurizio is the more interesting figure when you look at business dealings or psychological thriller: He cycled from an overly controlling father to a manipulative and emotionally abusive wife until he turned tables on her, froze her out and broke free. Not always very nice about it, but he had good reason to come to resent both his dysfunctional family and Patrizia, who married him for his money and he probably got more clear-eyed about her motives and character the longer the marriage went on. But that's a whole nother movie that Driver could have carried no problem, just much more serious and not the soap opera romp they wanted.

As with many Ridley Scott movies, I thought the characters sort of appeared as if seeing them underwater/muted, because he is so focused on staging/spectacle. For me, it usually creates a distance, here as well. Nevertheless, it is a good, well-acted movie. And it is a shame that it looks like a flop at the box office, since that will only reinforce to studios that high-end ambitous productions are not worth it and they should only do superhero and/or franchise movies. Comer does the most with what she's given, both Damon and Driver leave their ego at the door and delve into the true unpleasantness of both these men. And not in an OTT scenery-chewing way, but just everyday cruelty and selfishness. I gotta say, I knew about the rape (and IMO it went on too long and became gratitious, the poor actors having to play that out), but Marguerite's husband basically treating her like damaged goods and then raping her some more to stake his "claim" made me so sad for her. She was truly trapped by all the men around her. On a not-so-pleasant note, I wonder why there's been barely any mention of the role Affleck and Damon played during Casey Affleck's campaign and how they dealt with the assault allegations against him. Producing such a script given their own actions there, it could either read as penance or as very self-serving. It's curious that barely any media have touched on this. But then, Damon and Affleck seem very powerful in the industry.

I don't think they were the worst parents ever or anything, but the movie tried to depict them as trying their best during the divorce and IMO they really didn't, so: Nicole and Charlie in "Marriage Story". They are so wrapped up in their own egos and trying to tear each other down, they don't put the kid's best interest first at all while at the same time being super performative about how much they supposedly love him. Charlie can be controlling and has trouble putting his son before his career, Nicole weaponizes the kid in the divorce to the point of flirting with parental alienation. Yet the movie tries to downplay that and portray them as super dedicated parents. They clearly love Henry, but he's a victim of the divorce and they both are bad parents in different ways during the divorce. It would have been a better movie had the script acknowledged that IMO.

Yeah, Phoenix' win was the traditional screwed up "we're making it up to you" Oscar, because the Academy thought that they "owed" him for superior work (personally, I think he should have gotten it for "Her"). And the idiotic thing is, I think the majority of the people who voted for him knew that he didn't deserve it for "Joker", they're just trapped in that stupid "logic" of the Oscars. And they set another one of those mechanisms in motion because IMO it seemed as if sentiment in the industry was that Driver deserved it on the actual performance. So now some members of the Academy think they "owe" it to him and in a few years' time the whole cycle might repeat itself. Eyeroll.

IMO Tony Leung is one of the greatest living actors, so it's cool that he is getting wider recognition for this and the film is decent in general. 😀 A Marvel movie having a strong villain also isn't all that usual, so that's good to hear as well. I hope he cut a nice paycheck for this. 😉

Yeah, Costner is charismatic in the right kind of role, just not in everything (coughRobinHoodcough). But sometime at the start of the 90ies he thought he could do about anything and really crashed and burned a few times with projects. He's doing decently for himself now. Channing can have a certain appeal, but I don't know how much it is tied/not tied to his looks. Agree that he doesn't have much range, though he does have decent comic timing. Things like "Magic Mike" or "Logan Lucky", IMO people like McConnaughey or Daniel Craig, Adam Driver created more memorable characters.

Most of Hollywood's attempts at girlboss! movies are super tiresome. Which is tied to the fact that there's often no real reflection on the role capitalism plays in these sorts of narratives and that a tale of economic and corporate success is in many cases strongly tied to exploiting and undermining others. So most of the time they are tales of white, privileged women getting even more privileged with no examination of the cost. This can be an interesting story, but it's very seldom done with a critical lense and just sold as wholesome feminist empowerment.

I fundamentally disagree that Kylo was ever supposed to be the big bad. IMO his redemption arc is set up from TFA. It's Abrams' best bit of characterization: He kills Han and immediately regrets it. It's played beautifully by Driver: He thought killing Han would be a relief, but he's more conflicted than ever. I also think that TLJ and Johnson built on that redemption arc. I read Kylo as totally sincere in his interactions with Rey, if wrongheaded to a ridiculous degree. It's also played as sincere and Johnson has since confirmed that. Carrie dying really made all of that more difficult for them, since Leia was probably supposed to play a central role in Kylo/Ben's ultimate return to the light. So they stitched together as best as they could. That last scene with Han is a highlight in TROS, though. I think Kylo/Ben's story holds together the best from all the cast, even though it's rushed and chopped. Which is because even though you can disagree with it, it has thourough-line that is recognizable in all three movies. He doesn't have much screentime, but what is there counts. Which is also why I think people perceive his presence as much more dominant than it is in the movies: A mix of AD's strong acting and writing that is better than for almost all the other characters. The problem isn't Kylo IMO. The problem is everyone else. They get screentime, but they often don't get meaningful writing, which diminishes their presence. They just didn't have a plan. The only plan they could vaguely agree on is Kylo, so he's the only one that has a recognizable narrative in all three movies. ETA: I also suspect that the Kylo issue was one of the reasons Trevorrow was let go. It's the one firm plan they had throughout.

I like most of Metallica's controversial 90ies stuff. Yeah, the try-hard aesthetic was hit or miss, "Re-Load" has too much useless filler and Ulrich started talking way too much. But they did loads of interesting things and expanded their stylistic repertoire in a way that felt organic and secured their survival past the die-hard 80ies Metal scene. Hetfield also really grew as both a songwriter and performer during that time IMO, even though he wasn't all that comfortable with many of the more streamlined altrock aspects of that era. And "S&M" really holds up as an album and a reimagining of the band's catalog in a different musical context, no matter how uncool people thought it was at the time. "Outlaw Torn" on that is just insane. And their version of "Turn the Page" is a stone-cold classic. Again, Hetfield really showing his qualities as frontman and interpreter of songs.

Close absolutely should have won an Oscar by now. But I think her last two nominations show the drawbacks of this guilt/you are owed principle. In my opinion, The Wife was an incredibly weak movie that couldn't be lifted by Glenn's performance either. There are moments in it that basically scream "Look here, her big Oscar scene coming up" because the premise is so unbelievable and disjointed. I was incredibly disappointed by it all and am glad that she didn't win for it. It would have been like Winslet or Moore winning for inferior work. Zendaya is incredibly promising, to stay on topic. Though how the campaign for Malcolm and Marie fizzled out was interesting, again material that showed itself too weak to sustain awards hype. Not her fault, but the director's, of course.

I actually think that the stuff that has been nominated is pretty decent in quality on the whole. To me it seems like there have been way worse years when it comes to the overall standard of films. But as was already said, since nothing can be released properly, a lot of it is on offer in some form on streaming services etc., but nothing really made an impression. So it's all very muted, as if we're all under water or something.

Sociopathic jerk as main character and/or narrator is so difficult to pull off and I don't think movie makers that attempt it always realize how much careful decision-making it needs. "American Psycho", "Fight Club" or "Gone Girl" were some that worked, but you're walking a fine line. And even if it's done right, sometimes you have some misguided audience members taking it at face value anyway, like with "Fight Club". You're also in for a very alienating, cold movie usually, or you need to set up some counter narrative that contrasts with the focus on the sociopath, and making any of that work also needs a lot of skill.

I've not been convinced by anything she's done outside of Star Wars so far, unfortunately. She becomes strangely bland/forgettable IMO. SW is a very specific blank slate/self-insert action movie character and I'm not sure that the skillset that had her do well in that setting necessarily translates well into roles where she needs to be more distinct. It might also be a case of bad judgement from her/her management, where they don't know what suits her and chose projects for her that don't really have here stand out and don't do well in general. Boyega has shown much better judgement so far IMO. Though I'm also coming to suspect that he is also just a better actor.

"Chaos Walking" being dumped and buried by the studio last week made me sad for Tom Holland and Daisy Ridley. Both haven't had much luck with picking projects outside their franchises so far. Holland will probably get more chances, given the sexist nature of the industry. Ridley is in that dangerous moment where she needs something notable not tied to Star Wars. Getting your big break in a franchise can be a blessing and a curse..

Pleasantly surprised that Mikkelsen made the cut for Best Actor at the BAFTAs. He's been getting some of the best notices of his career, but since the performance is not in English, it's flown under the radar. I don't think it will get him an Oscar nomination or anything, but at least it's been acknowledged somewhere... He was sensational in "The Hunt" and "After the Wedding" as well, but again the performances weren't in English.

I always wondered how exactly the politics with Zellweger played out last year tbh. On paper, it should have been a slam dunk for Johansson: Praised performance in a praised movie. Big movie star finally getting her due. Yet she garnered no momentum whatsoever it seemed to me. Her history of controversial statements working against her? Overshadowed by Dern and Driver? I mean, she shouldn't be judged against the co-stars in her film, but compared to the other actors in her category. But perhaps unconsciously some voters fought "Driver and/or Dern gave a better performance, so I won't go with ScarJo." A mix of these factors? Something totally different? Yeah, Zellweger is beloved, the performance was great and the Academy has lapped up tons of mediocre biopics in the past. But she came a bit out of nowhere and already had one Oscar. The politics of it all are sometimes fascinating stuff. I could see Mulligan getting it this year, McDormand has an uphill battle with her two Oscars already IMO. But someone like Day might pull off an upset. It should be about the single performance, not life's work or reputation.

Awards season in times of Corona has been very quiet and without much impact IMO. Red carpets and campaigning have their own drawbacks and often put attention on the wrong things. But this sort of muted underwater feel is really weird as well. As if it wasn't really happening. McDormand might have trouble walking through due to this already being her third big award in her career. DDL pulled it off, but he also delivered one of the best awards campaigns ever LOL. Mulligan and Pike seem like classic they're due candidates. But they might go by performance alone and Day certainly has the biography angle working for her. Boseman might be a lock in the male category.

I liked "Lady Bird" and the acting was outstanding, but yeah, the cringe factor for the character's actions was sometimes very high, sometimes in situations where I think the audience was supposed to feel for her. The core selfishness rang very true for a teenager. I did think her perceiving herself as "poor" was somewhat alienating, when they lived in a pretty nice house and she went to a good school and her parents sprung for an expensive college education in the end. I'm never sure if that was the character not understanding money or Gerwig not understanding money, heh. The quaint way she portrayed "poverty" in "Little Women" was also a bit weird after going on about how authentic the movie is supposed to be. Noah Baumbauch, on the other hand, really, really doesn't understand money and it often creates really jarring moments in otherwise good movies. Like the young couple in "While We're Young" living in this absurd big loft in NYC when he's a film student and she makes ice cream, giving them a room mate doesn't make it "relatable." Or in "Frances Ha", when the title character lives in various nice appartments in NYC even though she is a failed dancer and then works as a part-time clerk and the main storyline is how "poor" she is. Or in "Marriage Story", when Nicole's family has a big house in the LA suburbs and she can buy herself a big house in the LA suburbs. Is she a millionaire? Or Charlie who can keep an appartment in both NYC and LA. And they both can burn ridiculous money on obscenely greedy lawyers. Yet we're supposed to have sympathy for their "problems" LOL. I mean, you can have sympathy for Baumbach characters, but need to totally ignore the magical financial set-up in all his films.