Podcast: Play in new window | Download (0.0KB) | Embed
The Awards Circuit Editor and Staff is joined by the great Scott Feinberg this week in our Awards Circuit Power Hour! Keeping track and discussing all the possible contenders, we also get into some in-depth discussion along with some segments.
- Reports from NYFF! What are some of the standouts thus far and what can we expect from high-profile films like Ang Lee’s Life of Pi.
- Taking Reader Question! An brilliant one I might add, asking about who is the Best Director working today!
- We are joined by Scott Feinberg to discuss the prospects of Tom Hooper’s Les Miserables and the reaction of the new featurette that was released.
- We talk changes to the nomination and announcement period. What are the problems with it? Why are they doing it? What does this mean for late entries and the final films being released in December.
- Sache Gervasi’s Hitchcock enters the Oscar race. Is Fox Searchlight doing because The Sessions or Beasts of the Southern Wild doesn’t stand a chance or is Helen Mirren the new frontrunner for Best Actress?
- We play a new segment titled: Lock vs. Hope - Which films are locks and which are just hopes for the season?
Comment and discuss!
Related Stories:
Awards Circuit Power Hour Episode 15: Great Gatsby Push Back and Oscar Talk w/ Sasha Stone
Flight (***½)
Incredible Looking Posters for the BAFTA Nominated Films
Categories: Podcasts
Tags: AMPAS, Anthony Hopkins, Awards Circuit Editor, Awards Circuit Power Hour, Entertainment/Culture, Helen Mirren, hitchcock, Human Interest, Les Miserables, oscar predictions 2013, Podcast, Podcasts, Scott Feinberg
Tags: AMPAS, Anthony Hopkins, Awards Circuit Editor, Awards Circuit Power Hour, Entertainment/Culture, Helen Mirren, hitchcock, Human Interest, Les Miserables, oscar predictions 2013, Podcast, Podcasts, Scott Feinberg
Comments: 9 Comments |
9 Comments
HELL NO. Pedro Almodovar cannot be above Scorsese and Spielberg when we talk about the greatest directors. His films all deal with the same themes and are way too similar. How is he inventive??
Squasher88(Quote) (Reply)
LOL I’m glad to see my opinion went over well with you. Why do you think Spielberg and Scorsese are the best? I picked Pedro because I’m constantly fascinated with his work. Scorsese hasn’t thrilled me since The Departed and Spielberg, while showing glimpses of brilliance (that 2 min Morocan chase sequence in Tintin is phenomenal), hasn’t really brought it for an entire movie and is stuck in a sentimental rut.
If I had to choose between the two I’d prob go Scorsese, even though I like more of Spielberg’s films. I’d love to see both use their respected status to make some more daring films though.
Terence Johnson(Quote) (Reply)
Terrence, I don’t necessarily think Scorsese and Spielberg are the definitive best. I just can’t fathom them being below Almodovar based on the “daring” and “inventive” argument.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Pedro. But your comment about him being more inventive and daring than Spielberg is crazy to me. Spielberg has contributed some iconic films in various genres and themes (Saving Private Ryan, E.T., Jaws, Schindler’s List, The Color Purple etc.). On the other hand, every time I watch a Pedro film I come out of it feeling almost exactly the same. They all feel like the same base concept, just tweaked a bit. You know you are going to see some raging sexual desire involving some transgender/gay person and a tragic death.
You spoke about a few of Spielberg’s failures, but that’s because he IS daring. With Pedro, it’s pretty hard to fail badly if you use the same general idea and mostly the same actors etc.
Pedro’s inventive use of color and music is commendable, but I’ve seen it for a while now. It’s nothing new and challenging any more. I would be more impressed if he tried something in black and white.
Squasher88(Quote) (Reply)
I don’t think it matters what they have done recently, I think it matters what they have done over their entire career. And with Hitchcock, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Fellini, and Wilder all deceased, that leaves Spielberg and Scorsese as my top two greatest living directors.
Pedro hasn’t made a single film as good as Spielberg’s 6th best (Saving Private Ryan) IMO. But I appreciate your appreciation of him.
Mark Johnson(Quote) (Reply)
Thanks again to Scott for joining us!
Joey Magidson(Quote) (Reply)
Great podcast, and it’s nice to hear Feinberg back some of my early assertions, i.e. watch out for Quvenzhane Wallis (Terence, remember that phone conversation we had where I vehemently defended her chances?) and my belief from the beginning that The Sessions was going to be a huge non-factor in the race. Joey, I really REALLY hope your theory is right about The Dark Knight Rises finding its way in. The only thing I really am in disagreement with you guys is on “The Master.” I do think it’s a lock, especially with the new percentage ruling. If you think about all the possible things “The Master” could be nominated for, and deserves to, you’ll be astounded at how high that number truly is. The directors branch and actors branch especially will rally behind PTA’s unique film — I am nearly convinced of that. I hope that if “Argo” does get the win, it’s because it truly is the best film of the year according to The Academy, and not the one the majority of them all were able to see. Crossing my fingers for Zero Dark Thirty, Les Mis, and Django Unchained AKA the big three I’m predicting from December.
Joseph Braverman(Quote) (Reply)
I only agree about Marion Cotillard being a lock at this point. The truth about Lawrence is that she has less screen-time in “Silver Linings Playbook” than Berenice Bejo in “The Artist”. That’s a pretty big issue. When you really compare both performances, it’s undeniable that Marion’s acting is at her pic. She delivers a masterful performance which honestly literally still haunt me five month after having seen it at the Cannes film festival. Is Jennifer good enough to get a nom? Ok yes, she’s very good. Is her performance brilliant and memorable enough for an OSCAR in a leading role? Certainly not.
Amanda(Quote) (Reply)
Those are some interesting points Amanda. Is she better off in supporting?
Clayton Davis(Quote) (Reply)
I think a nomination for a supporting role would be fair for Jennifer Lawrence. She is very talented, but also very young. (Maryl Streep got nominated for the first time when she was 28) she has all the time in the world to fall on a real big role like the past winners ( Charlize Theron in “Monster”, Marion “La vie en rose”, Maryl “Sophie’s choice” or “Iron Lady). Those are REAL challenging role . I think people forget the true meanings of an Oscar : Excellence, challenge and achievement in acting. Jennifer shouldn’t win for a movie where her role is not the principal protagonist. That would make her the weakest female winner for a leading role ever and in a few years her win would be fairly questioned. (Did she win because of the “Hunger games” success? Because we were too pride to give it to a foreign actress for the second time?)
If Marion Cotillard’s role in “R&B” was in english, that would make her role a dreamed one for any actress in Hollywood. I think anyone who’ve seen both “R&B” and “SLP” understand that. You should ask yourself; Honestly, how would have been Marion in Jennifer’s role? At least as good as Jennifer.
But How would’ve been Jennifer in “Rust & Bone”? Certainly not as good as Marion. I don’t think it’s because she is less talented than Marion, but the skills used by Marion are simply much more developed and reflect maturity. Plus, it’s a no makeup/ no legs / Nudity performance for at least an hour and a half. Jennifer appears on screen less than an hour so…
Amanda(Quote) (Reply)