Oscars 2007

[chatolandia]

Re: OMG!!! The REAL Queen at the oscars afther party!

Does anyone else think she looks like she did in the Pepsi "Like A Prayer" commercial from 1989 -- but with blond hair and without the stupid streak?

yeah! everything comes back! (I hope not the true blue look, wasn't a fan of that)

 

[steampunk]

Re: Oscars

Acting truely is a matter of opinion (clearly as we can see in this discussion). The academy is very politicaly driven in terms of who is "worthy" of the award. I thought Helen Mirren and Martin Scorcesse was long overdue for an oscar. Whether or not the winners deserved their awards is arguable but having watched the oscars for years I found this years award show very predictable.

Acting is a skill which can be quantified (there are technically good actors and there are technically bad actors). Monkeys can do many jobs, but they cannot act well. I hate it when people throw subjectivity around like it justifies everything. The idea is to separate in your mind the idea of goodness/badness and like/dislike.

For instance, Jenny Lewis is a skilled musician. That doesn't mean everyone is going to like her music.

OR

Jennifer Hudson is a terrible actress. That doesn't mean everyone is going to hate her.

HOWEVER

You can tend to like all good things, which would technically put you into the category of appreciating "the finer things in life".

Just sayin'

 

[xyboyms]

Re: OMG!!! The REAL Queen at the oscars afther party!

well, it's mutch better to be fake british people, then real (fat & stupid) american.

Oh my gosh I'm, like, totally crying and stuff.......

 

[lickster]

Re: OMG!!! The REAL Queen at the oscars afther party!

Love Madonna, wanna nother cd that is "like a prayer" substance over fluff.

 

[chatolandia]

Re: OMG!!! The REAL Queen at the oscars afther party!

Ray of light was great too!

 

[DryIce]

Re: OMG!!! The REAL Queen at the oscars afther party!

Love Madonna, wanna nother cd that is "like a prayer" substance over fluff.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Madonna is that she is just a superficial dance music artist. True -- she is responsible for creating the greatest dance music of the 20th and now 21st centuries, but every album she's done from "Like A Prayer" on has been infused with substance. That is part of what makes her music so brilliant -- it can put you in a hi-energy dance groove, but beneath the "froth" are some very insightful and poignant kernels of truth.

Take her most recent album, "Confessions on a Dance Floor," for example. Taken at surface value, it is stylistically brilliant as a high concept dance album that pays homage to the disco era with samples from classic artists such as ABBA, Donna Summer and Rockefeller, and Madonna even gives a self-referential wink to her own catalogue (because, after all, an album that pays tribute to the greatest dance music of all time would be incomplete without giving a nod to Madonna herself).

But strip away the infectious electro-groove soundscape, and lyrically we have an album which features two of Madonna's most self-critical songs ever ("Let It Will Be" and "How High"), which meditate on the trappings and superficiality of fame. You also have songs with inspiring messages of tenacity and determination in the face of life's adversities ("Jump" and "Like It Or Not"), a not-so-subtle evisceration of our illustrious president ("Sorry"), and a higher-consciousness epiphany on the eternal and transformative power of love ("Future Lovers"). And then, of course, she throws us a few silly pop songs like "Hung Up" and "I Love New York" for when you just wanna fucking dance without having to think.

What has always set Madonna apart from other dance music artists is that there is more substance to her work than the meaningless, "Ooh, baby, shake your body" mentality of most dance music. She inarguably owes much of her unparalleled success to her ability to speak to people's hearts and minds via the universal language of music.

 

[just_mills]

Re: OMG!!! The REAL Queen at the oscars afther party!

She looks good.

 

[gaz1978]

Re: Oscars

Eddie Murphy deserved to win, especially since Alan Arkin was only in HALF of Little Miss Sunshine.

Thats why its called "supporting actor".

 

[gaz1978]

Re: Oscars

Remember the award is for the year's best PERFORMANCE in each category. The Lifetime Achievement Award honors a body of work. (Well, it's really sort of a consolation prize after the honoree's been passed over several times, as was the case this year with Morricone--or has become a legend little or no Academy recognition, eg, Cary Grant.)

The much-discussed Supporting Actress Oscar has always been a one-off prize. Jennifer Hudson joins 27 others who won on their only nomination, many of whom never produced a voluminous body of work, let alone one worth honoring. (Mira Sorvino? Donna Reed? Miyoshi Umecki?)

On the other other hand, in the past 25 years or so, the Supporting Actor prize has often doubled for the Lifetime Achievement Award. On merit alone, the award belonged to Jackie Earle Haley, then perhaps Murphy, followed by Hounsou. (Wahlberg's nod still puzzles me.) But, given the category, Arkin was bound to win. Ask Gielgud, Ameche, Palance, Landau, and Coburn: if you hang around long enough and give a solid performance in a decent movie, you get the bling. It started with George Burns in 1975, actually. But around here we didn't start calling it the "Dead Man Walking" award until Ameche won 10 years later.

The best post in this thread.

 

[shagall]

Re: Oscars

Remember the award is for the year's best PERFORMANCE in each category. The Lifetime Achievement Award honors a body of work.

I was not referring to honoring people for their body of work....and I thought the award was best actor/actress of the year or is it best performance by an actor/actress of the year? which then in both cases could still be arguable, the argument just changes.

 

[shagall]

Re: Oscars

Acting is a skill which can be quantified (there are technically good actors and there are technically bad actors). Monkeys can do many jobs, but they cannot act well. I hate it when people throw subjectivity around like it justifies everything. The idea is to separate in your mind the idea of goodness/badness and like/dislike.

For instance, Jenny Lewis is a skilled musician. That doesn't mean everyone is going to like her music.

OR

Jennifer Hudson is a terrible actress. That doesn't mean everyone is going to hate her.

HOWEVER

You can tend to like all good things, which would technically put you into the category of appreciating "the finer things in life".

Just sayin'

I honestly have no idea what your talking about considering my opinion was objective. I did not bash anyone or say whoever won was not worthy of their accalades. As you can see I put "worthy" in quotes.

 

[guajero]

Re: Oscars

the clothes also sucked

 

[steampunk]

Re: Oscars

I honestly have no idea what your talking about considering my opinion was objective. I did not bash anyone or say whoever won was not worthy of their accalades. As you can see I put "worthy" in quotes.

You said that acting was a matter of opinion. I argued that acting is a skill which can be quantified. Opinions have little to do with your correct thinking, as it is possible for someone to like bad acting.

 

[steampunk]

Re: Oscars

Film is an art. It's subjective. Oscars are a way for the industry to congratulate, acknowledge, and promote itself. It's also a money making television show.

There are ways to quantify art which allow us the ability to distinguish the good from the bad. Our OPINIONS of art are subjective.

It's all about Quality. "Quality is the event at which awareness of both subject and object is made possible." That is a quote from Robert Pirsig's Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (yes, I'm aware it's a funny name). The book is an inquiry into value systems and I recommend that all of you read it. It will demystify your preconceived notions of art. TRUST ME.

Hell, read Plato and Socrates and Aristotle. They all had interesting things to say about Quality.

Please don't belittle the productive achievements of our artists by calling what they do "subjective".

 

[shagall]

Re: Oscars

You said that acting was a matter of opinion. I argued that acting is a skill which can be quantified. Opinions have little to do with your correct thinking, as it is possible for someone to like bad acting.

But the point is nobody likes bad acting for to them it is good acting, lol. There is no correct thinking in terms of acting. There is no one method of building a character nor do all people do the same things. We have different viewpoints on life, different cultural backgrounds and just different upbringings in general whether your from another country or living in the next town.

Even if we compare two "great" actors. Ex. - One brushes their teeth on film differently then the other. A person may believe the way so and so brushed her teeth is non-realistic (by the way this is an actual argument I got into with my acting teacher). My teacher said how can someone brush their teeth that long without ever spitting? It doesn't make sense was his response. Considering the actor was Asian and I just so happen to have grown up in an Asian country I know that many Koreans brush their teeth while doing other chores and do not go bac into the bathroom nor spit until they are done brushing their teeth. To me it WAS realistic, that's how I see people brush their teeth all the time considering my background.

As an actor (and all my friends do it as well) we watch movies and critically judge the actors realism (that is if the style asks for realism). What is acting? acting is reacting and actions vary depending on perceptions. I hear people say all the time "well that was non-realistic because I wouldn't have done it that way nor can I see anyone else doing it either". I mean we put ourselves in the shoes of the character and see if we would react "That" way (not all of us do this but very many do).

What I am trying to say is nobody likes bad acting. No one sits down and says "I like Will Farrell because I think he's a bad actor". Nor can an actor completely shed ALL of their own traits while building a character. I think Meryl Streep is a fantastic actor but I see many of her own characteristics in every single one of her films. It doesn't make me think of her any less but I do have friends who dislike her for that reason alone and they dont consider her a bad actress but they dont consider her one of the best.

 

[steampunk]

Re: Oscars

But the point is nobody likes bad acting for to them it is good acting, lol. There is no correct thinking in terms of acting. There is no one method of building a character nor do all people do the same things. We have different viewpoints on life, different cultural backgrounds and just different upbringings in general whether your from another country or living in the next town.

Even if we compare two "great" actors. Ex. - One brushes their teeth on film differently then the other. A person may believe the way so and so brushed her teeth is non-realistic (by the way this is an actual argument I got into with my acting teacher). My teacher said how can someone brush their teeth that long without ever spitting? It doesn't make sense was his response. Considering the actor was Asian and I just so happen to have grown up in an Asian country I know that many Koreans brush their teeth while doing other chores and do not go bac into the bathroom nor spit until they are done brushing their teeth. To me it WAS realistic, that's how I see people brush their teeth all the time considering my background.

As an actor (and all my friends do it as well) we watch movies and critically judge the actors realism (that is if the style asks for realism). What is acting? acting is reacting and actions vary depending on perceptions. I hear people say all the time "well that was non-realistic because I wouldn't have done it that way nor can I see anyone else doing it either". I mean we put ourselves in the shoes of the character and see if we would react "That" way (not all of us do this but very many do).

What I am trying to say is nobody likes bad acting. No one sits down and says "I like Will Farrell because I think he's a bad actor". Nor can an actor completely shed ALL of their own traits while building a character. I think Meryl Streep is a fantastic actor but I see many of her own characteristics in every single one of her films. It doesn't make me think of her any less but I do have friends who dislike her for that reason alone and they dont consider her a bad actress but they dont consider her one of the best.

Plenty of people like bad actors. B-Film connoisseurs rate movies based on how terribly they were produced. They like the idea of bad film-making because it is possible to be good at it.

The argument that you had with your acting teacher is superfluous. You were both splitting hairs. Just because a lot of people in Asia brush their teeth one way doesn't mean that everyone does it that way. Relating to characters is just a perceptive quality of someone's acting. It doesn't make them good or bad.

"that is if the style asks for realism" "What is acting? acting is reacting."

Acting comes from the Latin word agĕre meaning "to do". In acting, an actor suppresses or augments aspects of their personality in order to reveal the actions and motivations of the character for particular moments in time.

Realism sounds like the name of the game to me.

 

[chanio]

Re: Oscars

hahaha. the oscars is nothing to argue about. like any awards show, it has winners and losers. why can't we accept that? the oscars is basically an election. the members vote on who or what they believe are the best (presumably) of the year. why can't we live with that?

ellen degeneres was delightful and she never bored me. the show was okey and i enjoyed it. i didn't realize it was 4 hours long, really. hehehe.

as to the winners, the academy had spoken and i respected that. ;-)