Z

Awards Archive for February, 2009

The Weekend That Was

Things have changed a lot over the years

4 Comments »

More Slumavation

ACE Awards…
BEST EDITED FEATURE FILM (DRAMATIC):
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
Chris Dickens
BEST EDITED FEATURE FILM (COMEDY OR MUSICAL):
WALL-E
Stephen Schaffer
BEST EDITED DOCUMENTARY:
Man on Wire
Jinx Godfrey
STUDENT EDITING COMPETITION
Junna Xiao

1 Comment »

Slumdog Wins Another Award… Shocker, Huh?

Los Angeles 14 February 2009

33 Comments »

BAFTA As Predictor

I don’t want to spend too much time on this, but…
All four acting slots that won BAFTA the last two years won Oscars.
In both of those last two years, only one of the four slots was really a surprise of any kind… Tilda last year and Alan Arkin the year before. Huzzah – even though guessing the Oscars is not really the point – for them.
Before that, they were about .500 predicting acting wins.
No other categories are reliable in any way.
Thank you for your momentary attention.

4 Comments »

Images From A Season

fincherbafta.jpg
I was really struck by a quick reaction shot of David Fincher at BAFTA yesterday… his face seemed to say it all… “how did we become an also-ran?”…
Thing is, Fincher and everyone at Paramount has been nothing but gracious as the year that was supposed to be theirs became the Year of the ‘Dog. In the end, there is nothing more (or less) that they could have done. In the end, in this year as in almost every other one, it is the movies that guide the awards’ final destination. And for all the magnificent craft of BB, it seems the awards world’s heart belongs to Danny.
Sigh…

12 Comments »

BAFTA Has Spoken…

Okay… here is a list of winners
I will comment – 100% SPOLIERS – after the jump…

Read the full article »

27 Comments »

BAFTA Rolls Along…

The Guardian is live-blogging the event from inside the theater.
Oh, how I hate live-blogging.
It’s funny… when I talk to people about Blu-ray BD-Live features, like IMing during a synced movie, they almost always get a vomitty look on their face. But for me, I consider that in that case, kids have almost invariably seen the film over and over again on the Blu-ray or regular DVD and that the interaction is, indeed, of some value. Like a director

2 Comments »

Gus van Sant Shoots Dustin Lance Black For Vogue Paris pour Hommes

milkvogue2.jpg
The awards season brings out the weird in many people.
How I came to end up with a copy of what purports to be the Fall/Winter edition of Vogue Hommes International with a photo shoot that Gus van Sant shot and Dustin Lance Black posed for in various states of dress and undress is really not the point.
But to the studio that feels slammed and endangered by the images in this profile, written by Bruce Benderson and Philippe Garnier, it is a low blow meant to derail their movie

11 Comments »
Z

Quote Unquotesee all »

“The core fear is what can happen to you, personally. Your body. That’s what horror films deal with, precisely. We are a very thin skin wrapped around a pumping heart and guts. At any given moment it can come down to that, be it diseases, or somebody’s assault, or war, or a car wreck. You could be reduced to the simple laws of physics and your body’s vulnerability. The edged weapon is the penultimate weapon to disclose that reality to you.”
~ Wes Craven, 1996, promoting Scream

MAMET
Well, that, to me, is always the trick of dramaturgy; theoretically, perfectly, what one wants to do is put the protagonist and the audience in exactly the same position. The main question in drama, the way I was taught, is always what does the protagonist want. That’s what drama is. It comes down to that. It’s not about theme, it’s not about ideas, it’s not about setting, but what the protagonist wants. What gives rise to the drama, what is the precipitating event, and how, at the end of the play, do we see that event culminated? Do we see the protagonist’s wishes fulfilled or absolutely frustrated? That’s the structure of drama. You break it down into three acts.

INTERVIEWER
Does this explain why your plays have so little exposition?

MAMET
Yes. People only speak to get something. If I say, Let me tell you a few things about myself, already your defenses go up; you go, Look, I wonder what he wants from me, because no one ever speaks except to obtain an objective. That’s the only reason anyone ever opens their mouth, onstage or offstage. They may use a language that seems revealing, but if so, it’s just coincidence, because what they’re trying to do is accomplish an objective… The question is where does the dramatist have to lead you? Answer: the place where he or she thinks the audience needs to be led. But what does the character think? Does the character need to convey that information? If the answer is no, then you’d better cut it out, because you aren’t putting the audience in the same position with the protagonist. You’re saying, in effect, Let’s stop the play. That’s what the narration is doing—stopping the play… It’s action, as Aristotle said. That’s all that it is—exactly what the person does. It’s not what they “think,” because we don’t know what they think. It’s not what they say. It’s what they do, what they’re physically trying to accomplish on the stage. Which is exactly the same way we understand a person’s character in life—not by what they say, but by what they do. Say someone came up to you and said, I’m glad to be your neighbor because I’m a very honest man. That’s my character. I’m honest, I like to do things, I’m forthright, I like to be clear about everything, I like to be concise. Well, you really don’t know anything about that guy’s character. Or the person is onstage, and the playwright has him or her make those same claims in several subtle or not-so-subtle ways, the audience will say, Oh yes, I understand their character now; now I understand that they are a character. But in fact you don’t understand anything. You just understand that they’re jabbering to try to convince you of something.
~ David Mamet

Z Z